Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists are coming to town
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 36 (99756)
04-13-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Kodiak
04-13-2004 8:00 PM


Too much at once
Welcome to the community Kodiak.
May I offer a few bits of advice? Your post could use a few more paragraphs. Not just the extra line breaks but also grouping your thoughts. Then you might consider going to topics that are already open to discuss some of what you have mentioned.
Now for a specific issue you say:
Atheist or not, any evidence that supports the existence of a Creator is significantly dangerous to an evolutionist. It threatens to undermine the very foundations of their worldview.
This has also been discussed elsewhere but you might note that a significant fraction of all practising scientists (about 40%) are believers. That fraction already accepts the existance of a Creator and just under 100% of practising scientists accept the theory of evolution, physics and geology. There is clearly no threat at all to their world view.
For the rest, it might surprise you that the existance or not of a Creator isn't threatening in anyway. It isn't any kind of issue.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Kodiak, posted 04-13-2004 8:00 PM Kodiak has not replied

Kodiak
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 36 (99800)
04-13-2004 10:19 PM


nosyned
thanks for the advice. as for the statement i made i admit i made it without any qualifications, and that was wrong.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 04-13-2004 10:34 PM Kodiak has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 36 (99806)
04-13-2004 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Kodiak
04-13-2004 10:19 PM


Re: nosyned
There may well be a few who are threatened. I would be very surprised if this has anything to do with being an "evolutionist" (whatever that is).
In my limited experience the atheists who sound most "threatened" (not a word I would use) fall into a couple of camps. There are those who were, in some way, religious at some point and had some very bad experiences from it. They react rather stongly in the other direction.
The other group may be best exemplified by Dawkins. They are simply fed up with the nonsense promulgated in the name of religion. They too might be described as over-reacting but that is in the eye of the beholder. They are not 'theatened' by God. They feel that there is real danger to irrational ignorance. With that I agree. Fortunately, in most of the world, that sort of thing is in a laughable minority. (The USA, of course, has a significant problem to deal with )
I am honestly completely unaware of anyone who is agnostic or atheist and feels threatened by the idea of a God. Are you concerned about Zeus smitting you with a bolt of lightening? To say that someone who doesn't have any belief acts out of any idea of a threat is just as silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Kodiak, posted 04-13-2004 10:19 PM Kodiak has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 19 of 36 (99809)
04-13-2004 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Kodiak
04-13-2004 8:00 PM


Welcome aboard, Kodiak! I hope you hang around a while!
As far as the herbivorous T-Rex I am not familiar with this theory. I do know, however, that it is entirely realistic. You are assuming that some evolutionary process was required to allow the T-Rex to change its diet. You are also assuming that it became entirely carnivorous which cannot be substantiated. Dogs eat dog food that has no meat in it. Bears can survive on nuts and berries. Omnivorous humans can flourish on an entirely vegetarian diet.
This isn't really the forum for a discussion of this, but I think that a look at the teeth of T. rex, a bear, a tiger, a cow, a rabbit, and a human would quickly disabuse you of notions about tyrannosaurs and tigers being vegetarians. They don't have the equipment. Cows and rabbits don't have the equipment to eat meat (except in Monty Python movies, and then only necks); humans and bears are dentally set up to be omnivores.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Kodiak, posted 04-13-2004 8:00 PM Kodiak has not replied

Kodiak
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 36 (99823)
04-13-2004 11:55 PM


To NosyNed,
Thank you for the warm welcome. I apologize for posting off topic. My main intent was to address fliesonly.
I, however, believe I may have been misunderstood. When I say Creator I do not just mean a deity. I mean the God who created the everything from nothing (aka 6 days). Proof of his existence would be particularly threatening to evolutionary theory and evolutionists in turn. My only point there is that noone likes to have their worldview crushed (myself included).
While I have no reason to disagree with your statement about the number of scientists who proclaim Christ I have to question the number of scientists who hold to evolutionary theory. I know that creationsists are vastly outnumbered. I happened to read a book in high school which I still have. "in six days" was edited by john f. ashton PhD. It consists of essays from 50 scientists who believe in a literal 6 day creation. They span the gambit from physicists to biologists and everything in between all with PhD's in their fields. To this list I can add my biology professor, chemistry professor, anatomy professor, and ecology professor. While I realize that there are more than 54000 scientists in the world I suggest that creationists compose more than 1% of the serious scientific community.
In response to Coragyps thank you for the welcome as well. On the subject of the T-Rex I am currently under the impression that there are now theories that suggest T-Rex was more of a scavenger because of the nature of his teeth. Your comment about the bears interested me so I looked around. From what I have found the teeth of bears reflect those of an animal that would be strictly carnivorous. The only distinction is that made between brown bears (mostly vegetarian) and polar bears (mostly carnivorous). The polar bears have slightly bigger and sharper teeth. It is still maintained however that the brown bear's teeth are carnivorous. I think the teeth of domesticated cats and dogs also show that a creature with carnivorous teeth can flourish on a vegetartian diet. BTW what does the rabbit survive on when there are no humans to eat?
[This message has been edited by Kodiak, 04-13-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2004 3:41 AM Kodiak has not replied
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 04-14-2004 2:16 PM Kodiak has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 36 (99850)
04-14-2004 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Kodiak
04-13-2004 11:55 PM


Proof of his existence would be particularly threatening to evolutionary theory and evolutionists in turn.
That would be indeed surprising considering that some 20-40% (or so) of evolutionary biologists already believe that God exists.
Or maybe the theory of evolution says nothing about God at all, and it's only creationists who set the theory in opposition to religious belief?
My only point there is that noone likes to have their worldview crushed (myself included).
It's better not to have a worldview at all, but merely to view the world, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Kodiak, posted 04-13-2004 11:55 PM Kodiak has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by DNAunion, posted 04-14-2004 1:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

Kodiak
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 36 (99865)
04-14-2004 4:21 AM


Dear crashfrog
First of all, someone correct me if I am posting this in the wrong place.
I have no idea how many evolutionary biologists believe in a god, but I assure you it is not the God which I am trying to describe. There is something ultimately less about a god who relies on evolution to produce man imago dei. When I say that His existence would be threatening I am talking about the God who created the universe and everything in it in 6 days. I honestly believe that evolutionary theory is a reaction to God. I am certain, however, that you have other threads where I should debate this specific issue, so I will stop here.
On the issue of worldview I think it would be wonderful if we could all just view the world. Unfortunately thats an impossibility. We are finite creatures and must have a basic set of presuppositions from which to operate. Just as a computer requires a language we require preconceived notions about our universe. To say that we should just view the world proceeds proceeds from a worldview that says objectivity is inherently better. For me worldview is a worldview. hahhahhah. somethings wrong with that. So in conclusion I wish we could be entirely unbiased but men cannot function that way.
For those who ascribe to theistic evolution I lovingly encourage you to fully consider the ramifications of this belief. What are the results of believing in this demi-god? I assure you he is not the loving all-powerful God spoken of in Genesis.
I want to repeat an honest question. If you happen to be an atheist reading this, what would it take for you to change your mind? What would you require of God to believe in his existence.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that [we] are without excuse. (Romans 1:20 NASB)
BTW If I offended someone by calling them an evolutionist I am sorry, it was not my intention to use it in a derogatory way.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2004 4:38 AM Kodiak has not replied
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 04-14-2004 1:59 PM Kodiak has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 36 (99868)
04-14-2004 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Kodiak
04-14-2004 4:21 AM


but I assure you it is not the God which I am trying to describe.
According to them, they believe in the God of the Bible. According to them it's your God that isn't Biblical.
There is something ultimately less about a god who relies on evolution to produce man imago dei.
No, there's something ultimately more.
Who's the better pool player, in your opinion? The one who takes the time to set up a trick shot so that, on one break, all the balls go into the pockets with no further interaction?
Or the one who grabs the balls in his hands and drops them into the pockets manually?
The God of subtle creation is significantly more impressive, mighty, and moreover, consistent with what we see today than a God who can't keep his fingers out of the pie and has to either do it all at once or constantly mess about with it. You diminish your God by presuming a lack of subtlety.
I honestly believe that evolutionary theory is a reaction to God.
That would be difficult to support given that primary research into evolution never mentions or involves God. Scientific theories do not, as a rule, make statements about God.
Evolutionary theory is a reaction to evidence, not to the Bible.
We are finite creatures and must have a basic set of presuppositions from which to operate.
Here's a pretty useful presupposition - "events in the natural world should be explained by natural phenomena rather than immediate recourse to a supernatural entity that no one has ever observed."
It's a pretty useful presupposition. As a result of employing it we enjoy longer, easier lives, greater technology, less disease, greater access to information and knowledge, less crime, helpful medicines, and plentiful food.
Note that there was a time when the opposite presupposition held sway. We call that time period "The Dark Ages." Why do you suppose that is?
If you happen to be an atheist reading this, what would it take for you to change your mind? What would you require of God to believe in his existence.
The same thing it takes to substantiate your existence.
Now, to believe in the God you're taking about, I might require a little more. If it's your God that exists, and he's everything you claim he is, he's got some explaining to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Kodiak, posted 04-14-2004 4:21 AM Kodiak has not replied

Kodiak
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 36 (99885)
04-14-2004 6:32 AM


Dear crashfrog
wow, it's late and i should be finishing my paper. I realize you are only an hour behind me so you are probably feeling it too. This debate, however, is much more fascinating and ultimately more important I believe.
You started out by saying that theistic evos (thats what I assume were talking about here) believe my God is not biblical. I would not go that far. Most likely they just believe that he doesnt jive with the scientific evidence as well.
You made the analogy of a pool player. You're right, I believe that the player who gets them all in in one shot is pretty impressive. I don't, however, believe this analogy is appropriate. A God who uses evolution is not a pretty pool player. He makes alot of mistakes, alot of scratches, and puts the other guy’s balls in the pocket alot. As a matter of fact his game is pretty painful and I think he barely gets by. On the other hand the omnipotent Creator whom I speak of requires no set up. He supplies the balls from nothing, he racks them, and he gets them all in off the break.
I'll have to admit your pie analogy has me stumped. My God has to either make the pie all at once or keep messing with it. I dont think it can be both. Which one is it? Which one is better? And how would you propose that this other god does it?
As far as subtlety I will agree that it is a trait which God chooses to manifest from time to time. It is a trait he chooses to manifest to Elijah on the mountainside, and I believe it is also one he commonly uses to win his children to him. I do not, however, believe that it is inherently better. This depends upon the situation. As for the creation of the world I would like him not to be so subtle. I want clear and demonstrative evidence that he exists, which I believe creation is. "The message of God's creation has gone out to everyone, and its words to all the world" (Romans 10:18 NLT). I say all this humbly acknowledging that his plan goes before my desires. I think a football analogy is in order. Suppose you are a QB. When a 250lb Defensive End crushes you in one blow you will remember him. You will never doubt his power and you will never question his existence.
I will agree with you about your next statement. You say that scientific theories do not as a rule make statements about God. I would like to limit this to secular science. I fancy myself a fledgling scientist and the theories to which I ascribe relate directly to God. It does not, I believe, limit me in any way. When I seek to understand laws I go to the legislators for understanding. Similarly when I seek to understand the natural laws I go to the Supreme Legislator. I would like to honestly say that evolutionary theory is nothing short of amazing. When you will not allow God into your theories about the world and the universe you immediately remove Creationism as a viable alternative. If I had good reason to doubt the existence of God evolutionary theory would be my basis of understanding as well. I cannot discredit the fact that many brilliant men have poured out their lives in the pursuit of understanding. I am, however, saddened that they did not and could not consider creationism as an alternative. You made the statement that "Evolutionary theory is a reaction to evidence, not the Bible." I would edit that to say evolutionary theory is a reaction to evidence minus the bible and minus God.
I think that what I just said also serves as suitable response to your next comment as well. I would also say that you are rash in claiming that no one has ever observed God. I have never been to Detroit to see the Ford plant, but I drive a Ford so I assume they exist nonetheless. The Israelites also claim to have seen God visibly, Moses especially, not to mention the prophets. The disciples died because they demanded that they had seen God in the flesh. Once again, all of creation testifies to his existence. I believe he is rather visible.
You then made the statement that holding a materialistic worldview somehow makes the world a better place. I resent the implication that believers are too foolish to ever make any scientific advancements. I would also note that I think the world is not a better place overall than it has been in the past.
About the dark ages: I think it was called the dark ages because Thomas Edison had yet to invent the light bulb. Seriously though I wont defend the Church here except to say that the true Bride of Christ has never been powerful by worldly standards. You cannot look at a church that governed the world and say, "look! here is the church, look at what the church is doing." The church has seen good and bad days but I believe it has always consisted of a relatively small remnant of true believers. A culture based on abusing the power of religion does not make the church. Even now the heart of the church is not based in America or Western Europe (I wish I could say otherwise), but truly it exists where it is persecuted most violently, where people daily sacrifice their lives to proclaim the love of Christ. All this to agree, religion is bad, true christianity is not religion.
Finally, what then does it take to substantiate my existence? Is this conversation sufficient? If it is, then the Word of God, the Bible, should be sufficient. What if I suffered and died a bloody death for you only to return from the dead? Would that be enough? He's already done that too. Does it take more? Must you see me face to face? I would submit that if you ever saw God's face it would more than take away doubt. It would take away your ability to doubt or think or do anything but bow your knee and confess his name. I submit that believing would no longer be a choice. I believe that he wants you to make this choice. This is why you do not look upon him. If you truly require an explanation then you can find it in his Word.
I say all this humbly (or at least should). I realize this post may irritate you but I really want to communicate what I believe while angering as few people as possible.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger (Proverbs 15:1).

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2004 7:42 AM Kodiak has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 36 (99897)
04-14-2004 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Kodiak
04-14-2004 6:32 AM


I realize you are only an hour behind me so you are probably feeling it too.
Actually I work all night. I'll be hitting the sack sometime after I get home at about 7:30 am.
You started out by saying that theistic evos (thats what I assume were talking about here) believe my God is not biblical. I would not go that far.
Why not? That's what I believed when I was a Christian. In addition to the scientific evidence, what convinced me of evolution was the Bible - it describes a God of subtlety, a God who works through natural mechanisms, not in spite of them.
He makes alot of mistakes, alot of scratches, and puts the other guy’s balls in the pocket alot.
Intelligent people know that making mistakes is part of the design process, and I assume God is smart enough to take the good with the bad in terms of his designs.
He supplies the balls from nothing, he racks them, and he gets them all in off the break.
No. The God you worship creates the pool table with the balls already in the pockets. He never even plays the game, and how impressive is that? Not really.
And how would you propose that this other god does it?
He creates a universe that inevitably, gives rise to wheat, grindstones, egg-laying chickens, fire for the ovens, and bakers to put it all together. To me that's much more impressive feat for an omnipotent entity than snapping cosmic fingers for a hot slice of apple pie.
As for the creation of the world I would like him not to be so subtle. I want clear and demonstrative evidence that he exists, which I believe creation is.
And I don't believe that such a desire is Biblical. You're supposed to take God on faith. Evidence of God wouldn't allow that. What free will would we have to come to God if the evidence was so overwhelming that only crazy people could doubt it?
When a 250lb Defensive End crushes you in one blow you will remember him. You will never doubt his power and you will never question his existence.
And you'll certainly never be his friend with that threat of violence always between you. Maybe it's just me but I would assume God has other plans for us besides crushing tackles?
If God exists then I don't believe that mandating faith is his game, and everything I observe in the world seems to attest to that. You, on the other hand, put a 2000-year-old book written by who-knows-who above the evidence God has left for you in his living work - the universe. Me, assuming God exists I'm not about to put a book of uncertain authorship and origin over the testimony of his work itself.
I fancy myself a fledgling scientist and the theories to which I ascribe relate directly to God.
The problem is that no theory about God can be falsifiable, and without falsifiability, it's not science.
For instance, I believe that God has three beards. How could you possibly prove me wrong? Statements about God can't ever be scientific because they can't ever be tested - there's no way you could tell the difference between the statement being true or false.
Similarly when I seek to understand the natural laws I go to the Supreme Legislator.
So what does God tell you about the relationship between light and time? What does God tell you about the nature of matter at the atomic level? What does God tell you about gravity?
The Bible isn't a science textbook. If you want to know about the physical world you have to start by looking at the physical world. When biologists - believing or not - look at the natural world they see ample evidence that natural causes suffice to explain the diversity of species on Earth. Their faith in God isn't changed as a result so I don't see why yours has to be - they are, after all, smarter than both of us.
I am, however, saddened that they did not and could not consider creationism as an alternative.
Since there's no way that creationism can be falsified, it can't ever be science. If there's no way to know that it's wrong, there's no way to ever know if it's right.
I would also say that you are rash in claiming that no one has ever observed God.
How many beards does he have, then?
I have never been to Detroit to see the Ford plant, but I drive a Ford so I assume they exist nonetheless.
Did a human build your car, or a robot? Unless you have direct knowledge about the creator of your car, you'll never know. You can't infer the qualities, or even existence, of a designer simply because you have something that looks designed.
I resent the implication that believers are too foolish to ever make any scientific advancements.
That certainly wasn't I implied, and you'd have reason to be resentful - Christians, like anybody else, have contributed much to the field of science. But they do so by assuming that natural events have natural causes, because anything else leads to unfalsifiable theories.
Would we have electricity and electronics if we adopted your "science"? "What causes lightning?" "God, so we'll never be able to do the same thing." Thanks to the assumption that natural events have natural causes, we harness lightning and send it across the world to talk to each other.
But if you assume that God is behind everything you don't yet understand, you never have any reason to try to understand it.
You cannot look at a church that governed the world and say, "look! here is the church, look at what the church is doing."
This is just the "True Scotsman" fallacy. Since your argument is that Christians are automatically better than everybody else, any time that they're not you claim it's because they aren't "real" Christians. It's circular reasoning of the most pernicious sort.
Finally, what then does it take to substantiate my existence? Is this conversation sufficient? If it is, then the Word of God, the Bible, should be sufficient.
The Bible isn't the word of God. Oh, I know you believe it is, but that's a position you take on faith. Me, I don't believe it. You can put "By God" on any book you like and claim it to be the words of God. As it turns out, the Bible is no better at describing the world than any other collection of a culture's myths.
What if I suffered and died a bloody death for you only to return from the dead?
Sure. You would, of course, have to prove that you had done that. Offering the Bible as proof is a fallacious appeal to anonymous authority.
I submit that believing would no longer be a choice. I believe that he wants you to make this choice.
Do you? You don't seem to sure. A minute ago you told me that the proof of God's existence was, by design, like a linebacker tackling you to the ground. Now you apparently believe God is a little more subtle.
Which is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Kodiak, posted 04-14-2004 6:32 AM Kodiak has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 36 (99954)
04-14-2004 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
04-14-2004 3:41 AM


quote:
Crashfrog: That would be indeed surprising considering that some 20-40% (or so) of evolutionary biologists already believe that God exists.
I doubt that. A poll in the late 1990s showed that only 5% of NAS biologists were believers.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2004 3:41 AM crashfrog has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 27 of 36 (99966)
04-14-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Kodiak
04-13-2004 8:00 PM


Hello Kodiak:
Welcome to the forum and thanks for the reply. I do have a few questions for you and a few comments I want to address and perhaps clear up.
First off, I’m sorry that this reply is a little slow in coming. I was not aware that you had responded to my post and I now see that the discussion has gone in other directions. However, in this post I will reply to your original thread and avoid the issues of worldview, which God is the real God, who’s the best pool player, and how to make a pie. Crashfrog is doing a wonderful job (as usual) and he certainly doesn’t need me to come along and try help him out, cuz he’s much better at this than I am.
Having said that, let me now say this: I never said that Dr. Fryling referred to evolutionary biologists as atheist baby killers (and as for your statement that he would never say thatwellneither you nor I can make that claim). Rather, I said he made the assertion that evolutionists are such. It was, I might add, no subtle implication and it was repeated at least three times during the presentation.
You go on to say:
Kodiak writes:
The closest thing to a moral law that you can develop from evolution is survival of the fittest.
Please understand that the ToE is a scientific theory, not a device from which any sort of moral law should be derived. If others corrupt or bend it for political purposes, that is not the fault of evolutionary theory.
Kodiak writes:
In order to discuss this topic openly and fairly you must concede that evolutionists have more to lose than just their pride.
Not true. No scientist would stick with a theory that has been shown to be false, be it the ToE or any other. Not for pride and certainly not for fear of having their scientific world cumple down around them. We STRIVE for new ideas, without a bias for the conclusions. We do not worship evoution. It is not a way of life. These sorts of arguments are just silly, unfounded claims put forth by creationsists to somehow justify putting their beliefs on the same plane as the theory of evolution.
As for the supposed vapor canopy to help explain the flood you say:
Kodiak writes:
If it did exist the answer is simple. It was most likely part of the original creation.
Nice scientific expanation.
Kodiak writes:
You mentioned problems about the rate at which water needed to arrive. I don’t know what those specific problems might be. You’ll have to elaborate. Otherwise the Genesis account specifically states that in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
The problems with the global flood are addressed in numerous places on this forum and I will not repeat then all here, except to say that enough water to flood the Earth in 40 days to a depth that would cover Mt Everest is an accomplishment that I want you to SCIENTIFICALLY explain and justify.
Let me ask you a simple question. What is a science? Back in my college days, in simple terms, I learned that science was a discipline that strictly adheres to the scientific method. So let me ask you a related question. What is the scientific method? I am truly interested to read how the students at Cornerstone University get around the scientific method when it comes to considering creationism as a valid scientific idea.
In science, sometimes data can be interpreted in a few different ways. Usually what happens is addition experimentation is performed and the various interpretations of the data are narrowed and/or the data show that the underlying hypothesis is false. That’s how science works for most of us. For Dr Fryling, Dr. Crompton, and Mr Meyer however, it seems a bit different. They apparently can simply pick and choose which data are true and which are false. For example, to say that radiometric dating, tree ring data, ice core dating, fossil stratification, coral formation, light years and the speed of light (and probably a few others that I have forgotten) are all wrong, because they disagree with a literal interpretation of The Book of Genesis, is a bit ridiculous. I would dearly love to read their scientific explanation for making the claim that these are all, indeed, incorrect. Do you understand what I’m asking for Kodiak? I want scientifically supported data that show all of these methods of dating are wrong. By the way, citing the Bible as a scientific source is not allowed.
Kodiak writes:
I have tremendous respect for them and I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of them.
How, exactly, did I misrepresent them? Tell me, I want to know what I said that falsely represented what their views were. It was not my intent then, nor is it now, to make any untrue statements in regards to their presentation, so if I made any false statements please point them out to me and I will gladly apologize.
Kodiak writes:
Your response was a bit childish and it revealed that you never approached the subject objectively.
Childish? My response was childish? Really? How so? Was it childish of me to mention that some of the things they said are scientifically impossible....that they would violate the physical laws of the Universe? Was it childish to ask for proof that T-Rex was an herbivore? Was it childish to point out that no tough questions could be asked? Was it childish to mention that 1500 pairs of animals giving rise to the millions of different animals we see now, all in about 2000 years is a claim that has no scientific validity? (talk about childish). Was I childish when I said that it is close minded to ignore mountains of scientific of evidence because you don't like what it says?
Kodiak writes:
Because I do not believe that you approached the subject objectively I would like to respond and end with two questions for you.
Despite your belief, I did approach the subject objectively. However, when the presenter himself says that he agrees with most science until it conflicts with is own personal interpretation of the Bible, then his objectivity goes out the window, not mine.
Kodiak writes:
How much time would you have liked the professor to spend covering every point that could possibly come up in this type of debate?
Hmmm, that’s a real good question. I guess I would have liked to have heard some scientifically valid reasons for a few of the statements that they made. For example, they could have justified the statement that the decay rates of radioisotopes are not constant, or that the speed of light has changed dramatically in the last couple thousand years. I, for one, would have appreciated scientific justification for herbivorous snakes. If the flood was 4000 years ago, I would have like to have heard their explanation on why no other civilization bothers to mention it in their writings. You know what thoughthere is one area I would like to have explained to me more than any other...speciation. One cannot simple make the statement that four-thousand years ago, one herbivorous cat kind pair got off a boat, mated and produced offspring ("that ate what", I might ask. If the were still herbivorous, what plants did the consume, seeing as how the Earth was very recently covered in water? And if they magicaly became carnivors in just one generation, what then did they eat?). These offspring then began to crossbreed, somehow avoided inbreeding depression, somehow switching to a carnivorous diet (Do you have any idea of the physiological ramifications of this? And don’t give me that nonsense about how some cats can eat some vegetation some of the time. That won’t cut it as a valid explanation for ALL members of the Family Felidae) and that this somehow led to the variety of extant species (as well as the extinct species) of cats we see today dispersed over the entire planet Earth. That is, to say the least, a very, very bold assertion to make and I would like to have you support it with sound scientific research. Good luck.
Kodiak writes:
And what would be sufficient evidence to prove to you a Creator exists?
As for what would be sufficient proof of the existence of a creator, I will ask you this in return. Do you want me to give you scientific proof, or would faith be enough?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Kodiak, posted 04-13-2004 8:00 PM Kodiak has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 28 of 36 (99968)
04-14-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Kodiak
04-14-2004 4:21 AM


Re: Dear crashfrog
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that [we] are without excuse. (Romans 1:20 NASB)
I sure see creationists quote this a lot. It doesn't appear to mention any books, like Genesis, at all: only "what has been made." Doesn't that suggest that creation fans should look at the world around them instead of believing some Bronze Age story of origins?

El sueo de la razn produce monstruos. - Francisco Goya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Kodiak, posted 04-14-2004 4:21 AM Kodiak has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 29 of 36 (99975)
04-14-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Kodiak
04-13-2004 11:55 PM


From what I have found the teeth of bears reflect those of an animal that would be strictly carnivorous. The only distinction is that made between brown bears (mostly vegetarian) and polar bears (mostly carnivorous). The polar bears have slightly bigger and sharper teeth. It is still maintained however that the brown bear's teeth are carnivorous. I think the teeth of domesticated cats and dogs also show that a creature with carnivorous teeth can flourish on a vegetartian diet.
Walker's Mammals of the World says of the order Carnivora:
The canine teeth are strong, recurved, pointed, elongate, and round to oval in section. The premolars are usually adapted for cutting, and the molars usually have four or more sharp, pointed cusps. The last upper premolar and the first lower molar, called the carnassials, often work together as a specialized shearing mechanism. The carnassials are most highly developed in the Felidae, which have a diet consisting almost entirely of meat, and are least developed in the omnivorous Ursidae and Procyonidae.
And I very seriously doubt that dogs and cats can "can flourish on a vegetartian diet." I'm not a veterinary dietitian, but I would be astonished if they are able to get all their required vitamins from strictly plant sources.
Added in edit:
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
says, "Don't try to make Fluffy a vegan. She might die."
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Kodiak, posted 04-13-2004 11:55 PM Kodiak has not replied

Kodiak
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 36 (100134)
04-15-2004 1:08 AM


Everything in one post
To Crashfrog:
I once was a theistic evo. Its really the only option to a believer who grows up in the public school system in the US and is flooded with evo propoganda. No offense meant there, but it really is enforced in schools like nothing else. From my personal experience I did not believe that the Creationist God was inferior I just couldnt reconcile him with an ancient earth. When I came to realize that old earth was theory and not fact I suddenly God came alive to me. He was not some mystic anology that may or not have been neccesary, he was the very real, very powerful Creator. From the past tense I assume you don't believe anymore. I submit that this is because this evo god was to weak to capture your heart. He was in a sense emasculated. If you made a pool table from nothing I'd be pretty impressed. You could make a lot of money.
I am not saying that God does not work through men. I believe, however, that creation was a means by which God demonstrated to us his power and autonomy. I did say that I would not like my God to be subtle. I did, however, qualify that by saying that my desires do not come before his plan. I agree with your next statement. I believe I actually said the same thing in my previous post. While asking for a sign is probably a bad idea, asking for evidence is entirely reasonable. Without any evidence we would be considering foolishness not faith. I believe that the laws of nature and the beautiful way that biological systems work almost seamlessy are evidence enough.
I like the football analogy because I played football and wrestled in high school and from my experience my greatest adversaries often became close friends. You are right to say that God has more than crushing tackles planned, but they are often necessary to wake us up.
Your reaction to the Bible is where we part ways. I am very certain about the authorship of the Bible. If you choose you may ignore the evidence quite well, but it stands nonetheless as the most historically reliable collection of books ever written. The faithful transmission of the Massoritic Scribes is testament enough. The fact that the authors of the Gospels and Epistles all (excepting John) eventually died horrible deaths in the defense of their stories is also overwhelming. As a matter of fact I do believe that creation is a powerful revelation, but it is general revelation and can only reveal so much. The scriptures are specific revelation and God through our languages conveys much more specific ideas about himself. It is therefore significantly important, especially considering it contains the plan of salvation.
You said that no theory about God can be falsifiable. I think you misunderstood me. My theories relate to God, but they are not about God, at least directly anyway. You make the claim that anything that is not falsifiable is not scientific. In truth evolution falls into this category because it cannot be categorically disproven. Since noone would have been there to witness the first amoeba we cannot say in fact that it didnt happen. For this reason Origins is and always will be a pseudoscience (I am not, however, saying we should give it up. It is still very useful.).
God tells me that the things of this universe are knowable. There is order in light, time, matter, and gravity. I can study these things reasonably because I have reason to believe that I will find function. When you study an atom you can only hope that the next one bear any semblance. On biologists I still maintain that there are many brilliant scientists who believe in creation.
"Since there's no way that creationism can be falsified, it can't ever be science. If there's no way to know that it's wrong, there's no way to ever know if it's right."
Again you may be correct here, but if you are this also applies to evolutionary theory. For the same reasons it can never be fully disproven.
"How many beards does he have, then?"
You're absurd response does not detract from the fact entire races have claimed to view him in the dead of day. It only distracts from the point.
In response to the statement about natural laws: I believe that natural events have natural causes. Where we differ is that I believe that natural causes flow from God. I am in no way less interested in science because of this. I am all the more spurred onward. My love for Christ and my Creator cause me too seek him through this laws. When I do science i seek person behind it. The things of science are even more enticing to me because they were made by my God.
I am not saying that Christians are better than everyone else. Two reasons: 1)It seems to be a rule of thumb that God prefers to work through some of the more pathetic people in the world because it more clearly glorifies him 2)I know plenty of nonbelievers, I will take Mormons for example, that are wonderful people. They often make better citizens than Christians. The important thing is that being a good citizen will not save them. My whole point was that the church of the "Dark Ages" was not representative of the church. It was more of a Machiavelian powerplay by a few, an extreme abuse of power at the very least.
Offering the Bible is not a fallacious appeal and it is hardly anonymous. It claims to be the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter) through around 50 men over 1500 years. Quite the conspiracy, eh?
What I said was that I would prefer the God of Creation to an evo god. From time to time God is like a DE, or possibly DT or LB, depending on the defensive set.
To FliesOnly: Address away
I will continue to vouch for the moral integrity of my professors.
I would not encourage you to develop a moral theory form ToE either. If you will not concede that you hold no biases on ToE I will respectfully diagree and not push the point any further. I would hope that you would defend your theory to the best of your ability. I would expect nothing less.
I am still not sure if i ascribe to the vapor canopy theory, i do not know enough about it, and it is after all just a theory. as to its origins i never claimed they would be scientific, but then again I dont think ToE theories into things we cannot observe are empirical either. About Mt. Everest I have my own theories. After looking around I see that this theory is proposed by others as well. As you know the flood would have been accompanied by a massive upheaval in the Earth's geology. The bible only describes hills before the Flood and it is plausible to believe that there were no mountains. If we could theoretically take a giant bulldozer and smooth out the Earth's crust, that would be sufficient to cover all the land with water. It is therefore a plausible theory that there were no mountains before the Flood and they were in fact a result of this massive change in the world's topography.
You later state that no other culture speaks of a worldwide flood. This is the beautiful thing about he Flood account. It is substantiated by other cultures worldwide. While it has taken many forms they all obviously point to a worldwide flood. I remember a particular story that I read once "The Epic of Gilgamesh." In this Sumerian tradition Gilgamesh visits Ziusudra (he has many other names in other traditions such as Ut-napishtim and Uta-Napishtim). He is known for being the only man, his family aside, to survive a worldwide catastrophic flood. In case you might think that the story of Noah is just a copy you must also consider the fact that there are over two hundred other stories of worldwide floods that came as punishment to mankind. This also includes the Arawak of Guyana of South America who believed that the wise and pious chief Marerewana was warned of the flood. He built a canoe and survived with his family. There are as a matter of fact several accounts from every continent.
Bah! I haven't slept since tuesday morn. I will try to get back to all of you tommorow.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by 1.61803, posted 04-15-2004 1:29 AM Kodiak has not replied
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 04-15-2004 1:42 AM Kodiak has not replied
 Message 33 by FliesOnly, posted 04-15-2004 12:53 PM Kodiak has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024