|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Jan 9, 2005 21:56:49 GMT -5
(cont.)
"but I really am bothered when I read writing like this, knowing that uneducated and bias “scientists” produce so much of it’s base. Not that there AREN'T intelligent Christian scientists, but many of them do not bother with such quibbling things as evolution."
Okay I've already talked about coming up with things to support your belief now here you are stereotyping people. Since my dad is a Chemistry professor I know quite a few "uneducated and bias scientists" as you call them. Now sure I only know like 20, but I think you are totally wrong. Let me re-state that. I KNOW you are wrong. Do you know what Christian scientists go through? They get made fun of, they get ignored, I mean who are you to go and say that they don't bother with "such quibbling things as evolution." I mean that is most of their life. To keep up with everyone else, to reply to those making fun of them they have to know tons of things about evolution. For example: My dad and 7 others got together this summer every sunday to discuss Evolution. I can't even begin to explain how in depth they got. I was able to join them every once and a while and I learned a lot about Evolution and where it comes from. So now do you think that "many of them do not bother with such quibbling things as evolution?"
Titanian
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Jan 9, 2005 22:38:59 GMT -5
Don't have time to respond now will get back later.
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Jan 10, 2005 21:11:59 GMT -5
My first gripe with your comments about me and my arguments being biased are totally baseless, if you look at the list of sources from which I derive my information. My sources include: -Francis Crick, a scientist who worked on unravelloing the code of DNA and is self-admittedly a spiritual skeptic, yet had the biased nerve to state that the origin of life, at the present, was "... almost a miracle."
-Lee Strobel, a formerly atheistic and evolutionary journalist who somehow didn't see any bias in the case scientists presented to him for creation, eventually convincing even himself and leading him to write a book on the subject.
-Stephen C. Meyer, who holds a doctorate on origin of life matters from Cambridge and a masters for molecular biology. He is also an ardent defender of Intelligent Design, and a source upon whom I derive the majority of my arguments.
-Michael Denton, a geneticist renowned in the battlefield between evolution and creationism and somehow "biased" enough to state that there were no intermediate fossils in the quote below: "The intermediates have remined as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record."
There are a host of others that I could quote as well, but I think that the ones I have provided are sufficent to back up my case. If you have the nerve to call them "biased" and, as you inferred, unintelligent because they bother themselves with such "quibbling matters such as evolution" that real Christian scientists avoid, then be my guest. I would like to see you refute the findings of such men that were daring enough to state their beliefs in an extremely hostile, naturalistic world of science.
In fact, it is from these same sources that I derive my comments that getting from inorganic matter to living material is nearly impossible. In fact, as Stephen Meyer, listed above, said, there is a "minimal complexity threshold that proteins must obtain in order to be formed." This minimal complexity requires that at least 75 proteins in a very specific formation, lined up and of the same type. To do this, Meyer said , through random chance, you would have one chance in a "hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion." And after that, it is supposedly "quite easy to form life." Hmmm.
I haven't even tackled many of the issues that you accused me of being of error in, but that's a start. I AM NOT MAKING BASELESS AND ERRATIC CLAIMS. AND FURTHERMORE, THE SOURCES THAT I RELY ON ARE NOT "UNITELLIGENT." I believe that it may in fact be that you have a bias against scientists who support Intelligent Design, the same bias that many naturalists have whenever they laugh Christians away as people following their beliefs with a blind faith, a faith that you try to present as indeed without evidence. There are indeed millions of people who believe that God created the universe, and moreover that they have evidence to support it. I find it quite disturbing that you are so quick to affirm evolution and its validity, and in the same breath decry any evidence that creationists propose as being that from some wild-eyed religious bigots! From, Armany (P.S.- You seem to be more than just a teen. I believe that you have been through college from your arguments, and if that is supposed as a fact, I can answer your allegations of our supposed ignorance on these issues: you are simply older! You say that you have worked for 14 years in the area of molecular biology, and that is impossible if you were simply a teen. Your doctrines presuppose that evolution is a fact, not something up for debate.I hope that you will take no excessive offense to my comments, but it tends to make someone not feel so swell whenever they are accused of being a biased bigot that argues out of the position of ignorance.)
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Jan 11, 2005 17:59:38 GMT -5
Hey Armany,
Calm down a bit. I would get a little pissed off too, but this is a debate so try not to get too mad. I'm sure Apologetic Christ didn't mean to call you names or anything.
But on the fact that Apologetic Christ is older then a teen I agree with you. He has to be at least 25. But that's alright I mean you have some just as good explanations for things.
Titanian
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Jan 11, 2005 18:43:22 GMT -5
I'm not too mad. Titanian. I just spent a few days screaming at my computer (just kidding)
I am prepared to defend my position, though. However, nothing here is personal; it's all in the fun of debating.
Armany
|
|
ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Jan 11, 2005 18:45:45 GMT -5
Give me a day or two to reply. However, I must say that I am really really sorry for anyone who I've offended. I tend to get personal in a debate and forget that there is a person behind the words they say. That's a lot easier to forget in a forum. I appologise and hope that you can forgive me for my rudeness and continue to remind me when I'm getting out of hand in the future.
-R. S. of UC
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Jan 11, 2005 19:26:45 GMT -5
Apologetic Christ:
I thank you for responding in the nice fashion that you did. Also, your comments were not rude, per se, but I did take offense to the thing about bias. However, you have the right to state whatever you want, and trust me, my feelings won't be hurt too much. I am interested in a good debate however, and that is what I believe we have been engaged in all along. I do respectfully disagree with some of the things you state, but I'm sure the feeling is mutual. The whole point of this is to make us think, right. I believe that when this debate ends, we will all come out of it with a stronger belief in God and His Creation of the universe. I also look forward to your response.
Armany
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Jan 11, 2005 23:42:52 GMT -5
Good I'm glad you guys stopped fighting I was afraid it would ruin the debate.
But I can't wait for Apologetic's reply to Armany and my points.
|
|
ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Jan 12, 2005 0:17:24 GMT -5
I’ve apparently been rather brutal here. Please read my responses with patience and understanding. If that’s possible mind…<br> “KNOW that Creationism is correct we do add things to make it fit with our belief.”<br> I totally agree with you, but what bugs me is that if we are to debate about the subject, we really out to familiarize ourselves with the other side. We can’t talk about evolution, biology, geology and carbon dating without having an understanding of what the other side will say. I’m sure we’ve all had an experience where we are very familiar with a subject, and someone says something we know is wrong or very shaky based on our knowledge. You want to correct them, right? And that is what I want to do here so you don’t go around with false or weak information to support your side. Alright, that’s probably hugely arrogant of me, but it’s what I feel.
“The next thing you have to have to truly believe in your belief or "religion" is FAITH. We all have faith that what we believe is really true. Then after we have the faith then we try to figure out ideas from (going back to Christians) the Bible.”<br> Exactly what I feel. God has never lied to man, only with-held what we cannot understand at the time. What would have the presence of Jesus have had on Adam and Eve? No prophesy, no history, nothing they could associate with miracles. Jesus would not be anything special to them and no one would have remarked on Him, condemning the future generations to sin. God, in His infinite wisdom, has worked the world the way it is, and has foreseen much of it. Either by metaphor or literal translation, all is true in the Bible.
“Let me point out that we are not God in case you haven't noticed. We don't know what he is thinking or what he has planned. So we trust that what we have read is true and then share our info with the world.”<br> Very well put, and I agree. Please keep in mind I am arguing a point (evolutionism being correct) that I do not actually believe. I am familiar with it, and I do not wish to see anyone giving out false or shaky information to others as sound truth. Perhaps I’m also hoping that I won’t be able to knock down something you say and be able to use it myself in a future debate. “Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good.”<br> “For you to say that we assume that Creationism is correct and so we come up with things to base our belief on is totally correct. It's because it helps us with our faith. But for you to say that we completely made it up because it sounds good is wrong. We or at least most of us read the Bible, we know our faith so we put out our opinions. Is there anything wrong with that? You obviously love to share your opinions, why can't we?”<br> You can friend, and I encourage everyone to, but you must be able to defend it. Paul in Athens rued this kind of thing. Debate is one of the greatest killers of people of faith. God has seen that we have need of this, and I have yet to find an answer to a question posed by an atheist that was not answered in the Bible. I want to find truth for myself and to test that of others. It’s why I personally love to debate to see if my beliefs and ideas can hold up to those of others to make sure that I have not been learning falsehood without sufficient proof.
“Okay I've already talked about coming up with things to support your belief now here you are stereotyping people. Since my dad is a Chemistry professor I know quite a few "uneducated and bias scientists" as you call them. Now sure I only know like 20, but I think you are totally wrong. Let me re-state that. I KNOW you are wrong. Do you know what Christian scientists go through? They get made fun of, they get ignored, I mean who are you to go and say that they don't bother with "such quibbling things as evolution." I mean that is most of their life. To keep up with everyone else, to reply to those making fun of them they have to know tons of things about evolution. For example: My dad and 7 others got together this summer every sunday to discuss Evolution. I can't even begin to explain how in depth they got. I was able to join them every once and a while and I learned a lot about Evolution and where it comes from. So now do you think that "many of them do not bother with such quibbling things as evolution?"”<br> I’ve obviously angered you, and I apologize for that. I meant no offense to your family, your father or his co-workers. I respect the work that people like him do to keep a Christian mindset inside of science. My statement was made because I have never read a single publication or heard anyone deliver any kind of sound geological, biological or peleontological explanation of why evolutionism is false. I lost respect for several Christian authors in the process. Pamphlets, books, documentaries and whole sermons from my pastor have been devoted to the subject, and never once have I heard anything that I could take to a scientist with a gallant smile on my face and display to him proof that evolutionism was a farce. When I do, I will gladly retract my statement with the full humility of knowing that such ventures into evolutionism were for something, and not only something but the glory of the living God. Sir, I beg you with true pleading, show me that. I have my faith, and that shall not be shaken, but what can I show to someone who has no faith?
Hope you like it
|
|
ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Jan 12, 2005 0:20:46 GMT -5
To respond to the next posts:
“Francis Crick, a scientist who worked on unravelloing the code of DNA and is self-admittedly a spiritual skeptic, yet had the biased nerve to state that the origin of life, at the present, was "... almost a miracle."”<br> I kinda figured in my calculations that 10,000,000,000 to one odds were pretty unlikely. This may have been the reasoning behind his statement as the chances of it happening are nearly nothing. I would say if asked, he would gladly repeat it and still be firm in his belief that evolutionism is on the right track. Keep in mind that the nearly impossible feat described had hundreds of millions of years with which to accomplish itself.
”Lee Strobel, a formerly atheistic and evolutionary journalist who somehow didn't see any bias in the case scientists presented to him for creation, eventually convincing even himself and leading him to write a book on the subject.”<br> Which book? Maybe I’ll get some good info.
”Stephen C. Meyer, who holds a doctorate on origin of life matters from Cambridge and a masters for molecular biology. He is also an ardent defender of Intelligent Design, and a source upon whom I derive the majority of my arguments.”<br> Book?
”Michael Denton, a geneticist renowned in the battlefield between evolution and creationism and somehow "biased" enough to state that there were no intermediate fossils in the quote below: "The intermediates have remined as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record."”<br> Very true, but I think you are taking his statement a bit far. Transition fossils have ALWAYS been the hardest things to find. If you subscribe to Stephen J. Gould, evolution into new species happens very fast, only a million years or less because the population is small and the most change can occur. It probably means they would also have reasoning to evolve, such as being hunted a lot to catalyze the extremely fast growth. This would explain the lack of fossils as there weren’t many animals to start with and they didn’t stick around long. However, Michael Denton does not seem to be aware that there are huge numbers of intermediates that have been found. If you will refer to the website I made reference to earlier, many of them are described in some detail.
”There are a host of others that I could quote as well, but I think that the ones I have provided are sufficent to back up my case. If you have the nerve to call them "biased" and, as you inferred, unintelligent because they bother themselves with such "quibbling matters such as evolution" that real Christian scientists avoid, then be my guest. I would like to see you refute the findings of such men that were daring enough to state their beliefs in an extremely hostile, naturalistic world of science.”<br> Give me their book titles, I’ll buy them and read them and hopefully become very enlightened. Trust me friend, something concrete would be great, but I don’t see it right now. I see a very curious puzzle that God has made for us and I don’t quite see why He did. I probably will never see. I have my guesses, but that’s about it. No one knows the thoughts of God.
I will however say what I do know. Just because you’ve written a book does not make you brilliant. Hitler wrote a book, and a decently composed one at that. Actually very intelligently written if you know nothing about Jews, syphilis or the Aryan “race.” Granted, that’s a rather strong example, but one rather detailed book I read that was meant to totally crush the idea of evolution was so pathetically that I laughed out loud at whole sections of the book. If you want to disprove science, you must use science. Pot shots at Darwin, random quotes and the obvious weaknesses in parts of the fossil record are no way to do it. That was what many of the readings and speeches I have heard consist of, and until I see something better, I’m going to be pretty adamant that such writings do not exist. Can’t blame me really, I have relatives from Missouri; you’ve just got to show me. So until I see that, I will continue on in thinking that these people are looking for something that perhaps God does not intend for them to find. If your faith is broken or made because of an interpretation of bones, then your faith is not very strong.
This minimal complexity requires that at least 75 proteins in a very specific formation, lined up and of the same type. To do this, Meyer said , through random chance, you would have one chance in a "hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion." And after that, it is supposedly "quite easy to form life."”<br> According to how it has been explained to me, the original planet face was covered with pools of proteins floating in water. Basic amino acids, proteins and molecules float in the water are often struck by lightning strike, which happens to the earth around 100 times per second and is speculated that it would have happened much more in the dense atmosphere of early Earth. That’s a lot of energy coursing into the earth all the time. I wouldn’t find it at all strange that 75 chemical reactions could happen at random over a period of hundreds of millions of years, somewhere on earth. I’d be interested to see how he got that calculation, as scientists in everything are notorious for hyperbolizing their results.
”I haven't even tackled many of the issues that you accused me of being of error in, but that's a start.”<br> I look forward to the rest.
“I believe that it may in fact be that you have a bias against scientists who support Intelligent Design, the same bias that many naturalists have whenever they laugh Christians away as people following their beliefs with a blind faith, a faith that you try to present as indeed without evidence.”<br> Some bias, yes, as I haven’t seen anything good yet. I will admit, I am not as well read as I should be, but I really would like to see a good book on it if you can provide one.
“There are indeed millions of people who believe that God created the universe”<br> I am one of them.
“and moreover that they have evidence to support it. I find it quite disturbing that you are so quick to affirm evolution and its validity, and in the same breath decry any evidence that creationists propose as being that from some wild-eyed religious bigots!”<br> I kind of wish that this were an in person discussion so I could more affirm that I AM a Creationist. I do not need evidence to support that belief, only that over time and in History, what God says, goes. I do not know or understand why God put those bones and layers of rock in the earth to lead a scientist to believe that the universe is actually several billion years old. That’s His plan, and I don’t want to question it, despite the fact that I do often without thinking. When I see evidence, I will question it, prod at it and do everything I can to break it down. If I can’t, I know it’s good. I’ll take it myself and use it. I am reluctant to change like anyone and want something that the scientists have found that can’t be refuted by simple statistics, geology, biology or common sense.
You are not a bias bigot, you are not fool. You are trying to back up what you believe, and when I debate with you, my hope is that you can sit back and consistently prove me wrong. I hate being wrong in a debate, but it means that I have been challenged by a superior point of view, and I can go forth smarter and better armed for the next debate. That was how my mind was changed about God, fornication, homosexuality, drug legalization, economics, abortion and really my whole outlook on existence. I’m also unusually educated on this specific subject, so I make a tough nut to crack. In reality, I’m already won over, but to disprove evolutionism is a really, really difficult task. I wonder if any of us would ever be up to it even if we did have the knowledge of people like Titian’s dad.
I’m not going to disclose my age as it would be rather an embarrassment to us all. Thank you for your compliments on my writing though. You are both very well versed in this, and I’m happy to have such good competitors in a debate. It’s kinda pointless to be debating against an idea that I subscribe to, but sometimes that’s what you need in order to show that it’s wrong.
-R. S. of UC
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Jan 12, 2005 10:34:23 GMT -5
"Keep in mind that the nearly impossible feat described had hundreds of millions of years with which to accomplish itself."
ApologeticChrist,
You brought up an interesting question that I wish to ask.
How old is the Earth? I think it is a lot younger than people think.
|
|
ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Jan 12, 2005 18:15:07 GMT -5
"How old is the Earth? I think it is a lot younger than people think."
Well, some guy calculated it to be around 6000 years old using the ages provided in the Old Testament, though I've heard Biblical references to about 8,000, however I believe that is the limit for us.
According to geological evidence and astrological experiments, the earth has been "dated" to about 4.8 billion years of age, that being the time that most of earth squished together. The universe itself is dated to around 6.2 billion years, though some researchers have recently said there is evidence pointing to as much as between 11.2 and 20 billion.
Regardless, we only have One Dude who was alive long enough to see it. Hrm, that would be an interesting debate question...
-R. S. of UC
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Jan 12, 2005 18:35:27 GMT -5
Indeed, the age of the Earth would be an interesting debate topic.
Also, Apologetic Christ, don't take my rebuttal to your statements as an assault on your faith. I do not doubt that you are a Christian, and I do respect most of your points. They are very valid. However, I too can get a little bit too mad when I debate as well, so everyone, please keep me in check as well.
Now, for the response:
In response to your question about any books to read abou the topics that I have discussed, one book is The Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel. if you couple this with the popular textbooks, it makes for an interesting subject.
Also, I do agree with you on the fact that if someone writes a book, it doesn't mean they're right. This is a good point that I thought about a little before my rather "spirited" response.
My case is simply this: that if what the writer says is true, then you can trust him. This writer, Strobel, was formerly an atheist before he was convinced by what he saw from the debate over evolution to become a Christian. I don't believe that he would knowingly distort the facts to serve a purpose that he himself was formerly against. However, I like your point and have to say that we have to regard any author, any book, any theory with a critical mind, so we don't rush into things blindly.
Sorry I can't get back on the more hard issues in the debate, because I feel I don't have enough info yet. I'll get back though, in due time.
Armany
P.S. Titanian also brought up a book that you may be interested in. I believe it was Defeating Darwinism. Right, Titanian?
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Jan 12, 2005 18:35:41 GMT -5
Yeah I was thinking about 7,000 years old.
I read some article saying that most scientists say that it would take millions of years for the Continents to split as they have, but this author of this article has done research and he thinks that the plates could move a lot faster and not disturb anything other than moving the continents.
Titanian
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Jan 12, 2005 18:38:58 GMT -5
Yes Armany,
I did mention Defeating Darwinism. The book was written by Phillip Johnson. It's a really great book that puts some great ideas out there.
|
|
ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Jan 13, 2005 0:03:51 GMT -5
I will make my best efforts to get and read both books. Both seem to have decent authors and have certainly impressed you both. I look forward to it.
Plate tectonics is a little funky, but you have the right idea that the only thing that plate movement would effect would be the other plates.
Something that some peleontologists try to do is see which plates got connected where by finding what animals are found in two different places. If it's only birds or insects being found similar in two places, they probably were not connected. Land critters would indicate that they were, etc.
-R. S. of UC
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Jan 13, 2005 10:17:30 GMT -5
Since we are on the topic of plate tectonics have anyone read The Journey to the Centre of the Earth? It is a fictional book, but if you read closely you can realy tell the author is trying to say something about the age of the Earth. Plus it is a great spare time reading book.
I don't remember the author right now, but I will look it up and get back to you.
Titanian
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Jan 13, 2005 16:23:10 GMT -5
The author might be Jules Verne. Not sure, though.
I also did some checking out on the web on such issues as the fossil record, etc. I'm not ready to make a response yet, though.
Armany
|
|
ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Jan 13, 2005 17:59:02 GMT -5
I have read it, it is Jules Verne and it is a great fictional novel. He is trying to say something, however according to him, the earth has no molten magma underneith the very thin and delicate crust. That's either wholy false or pretty close. Neat idea, but just that.
-R. S. of UC
PS Good book though
|
|
Ed
New Member
One Nation Under God!
Posts: 19
|
Post by Ed on Jan 14, 2005 0:15:04 GMT -5
Wow apologetic.... you know a lot!
|
|
Ed
New Member
One Nation Under God!
Posts: 19
|
Post by Ed on Jan 14, 2005 11:30:07 GMT -5
In a recent issue of Discover magazine, there was an article on this one computer program that claims it proves evolution. It says that it can have DNA mutations and natural selection and everything. A quote from the article said,
"Countless Creationists download Avidia (the comp program) to try and find a fatal flaw"
Found it! And i didn't even have to download it! It's so simple! If it was a snake it'd have bit them in the face!!! The fatal flaw is.....
[glow=red,2,300]It's a computer program!!!!!!!!!!![/glow]
No computer program can simulate real life with 100% accuracy!!!! What idiots!!!! And they say this PROVES evolution!!! Come on! Gimme a break!!! Stuff like that belongs in the Edge (my newspaper's silly column), not a science magazine!!! Hahahahahaha!
|
|
|
Post by New Titania (TD) on Jan 14, 2005 20:15:23 GMT -5
Well, today a space probe landed on Saturn's biggest moon, Titan. Yeah, that's great, but they said they are doing it to find out what the origins of life are.
I'm sitting there, watching the Fox News Channel and thinking: Genesis 1:1 In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.
"I know the origins of life!" I thought to myself. "Yet, scientists who are 20x smarter than I are stupid enough to spend money to find evidence that we were once slime, and now we're intelligent beigns."
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Jan 14, 2005 22:26:34 GMT -5
You are definitely right Prime Minister. Unfortunately a lot of people think computers are perfect and are going to take over the world. So we might as well face it people are going to love this program
In respondance to TD,
How do you know that God didn't create life on other planets? just because it doesn't say it in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. and there is more to the Titan then to find life. They are also doing experiments to find if the moon is habitable and to learn more about it.
Also check out my new debate about the edge of the World and heaven!
|
|
|
Post by New Titania (TD) on Jan 14, 2005 22:58:27 GMT -5
Good point, Titanian. I'll read up on it.
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Jan 14, 2005 23:00:11 GMT -5
Also I found that there is a creationism website where they state their beliefs. It is www.creationism.org I haven't checked their credentials but it looks pretty good.
|
|