Politcal Science Chapter

order now!

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:00 am

No, evolution is not an unbiased science by any means. Humanism, atheism, materialism all play their role. Evolution is based on assumptions that are not there. Evolution has never been observed and has never happened. According to evolutionist, Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, ancient enough for all species to have been formed through evolution.The primary dating method scientists use for determining the age of the earth is radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.


We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove




Now as far as transitional fossils:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-invertebrates.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/tiktaalik-fishy-fish


http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/tetrapod.asp


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/frogs.asp


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/missinglink.asp


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/textbooks.asp


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp


http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/birds.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/apemen.asp


I think that covers most or alot of it.




Wow you sure refuted the oil aritcle, when you said sorry, but no. you sure told them. That definately proved them wrong.



The length article was just explaining the bible and days.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible



Evolution does not save anybody. You think testing rats proves evolution? They test pigs because they have similar skin to humans. Testing animals because they have similar responses to humans is not evolution. no more then all living things needing water or food means evolution. Give me a break.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16
User avatar
CWNelson79
Media pundit
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:51 am

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Unread postby Topher » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:40 am

Evolution has been observed. Microevolution is observable even in human populations, such as the feet of women in China becoming smaller over time since women with small feet were seen as being more attractive, so they were "selected" to reproduce more frequently. Evolution in bacterial cultures can be observed in laboratory settings quite easily--change a condition in the petri dish and bacteria better able to reproduce in the new conditions soon become dominant.

Radioisotope dating does have problems, certainly. This is why multiple methods are used to date each sample, but even then they often don't arrive at the same answers because each method has a different margin of error. Rubidium-Strontium dating, with a half-life much longer than the age of the Earth, has a much greater margin of error than carbon dating with a half-life in the 6000 year range. It's well known, for example, that when using Potassium-Argon dating it is vital to use Argon-Argon dating as a check, as a heterogeneous sample will cause the Potassium-Argon date to be inaccurate. If Austin and his team failed to do this check, then the date obtained for the Mount St. Helens rocks would be inaccurate. It is quite easy to pick radioisotope dating methods that are inappropriate for the ages of the rocks being studied because of the margins of errors involved.

(Austin's work on the Grand Canyon is criticized here:
http://www.usd.edu/esci/creation/grandcyn.html)

The transitional fossil arguments seem to focus on two points:
1. There's a greater variety of species in the fossil record than are currently alive.
2. This particular transitional fossil really isn't a transitional species.

On the first point, duh. The whole point of evolution is that those species best adapted to a particular environment will flourish, while those less well adapted will decline and in most cases become extinct. There's no conflict between this and evolution.

The problem with transitional species (and fossils) is that they aren't "neat." What might seem to be a transitional species might actually be a spur leading to a dead end. This is why evolutionary biologists try not to rely on a single example of a transitional species to demonstrate a link, but rather try to put numerous samples in each gap. For example, the Wikipedia article I referenced showed six different dinosaur-bird transitional species. The article "disproving" the archaeopteryx link is particularly illustrative, as the link was "disproved" by comparing the microscopic structure of modern scales to modern feathers. Of course there will be a significant difference--there's a minimum of 65 million years of evolution between the species tested (a boa and a bird--probably closer to 300 million years back to a common ancestor).

The oil article didn't need refutation: it didn't give any evidence that petroleum (as opposed to easily created animal- and vegetable-based oils) could be created in 4000 to 6000 years through natural means.

I thought the Bible said humans were a special case, that they were created after all of the other animals on the sixth day (Genesis 1:25-27). Or was it before the other animals (Genesis 2:18-19)? I get so confused reading the Bible sometimes....

In either case, the standard interpretation of the Bible is that humans were created separately from the animals, so there should be a large gulf between human characteristics and animal characteristics. For some reason, there isn't, so animal experimentation works. I guess God must have created all of the animals in his image too, just not quite as perfectly.

No one says that there aren't problems with evolution: If there were no problems there would be no need for evolutionary biologists. It wasn't until three years ago that we learned that the differences between human DNA and chimpanzee DNA amounted to between 0.01% and 0.02% of the genes that affect human abilities (that makes a difference in only 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 genes). I'll save you the time: I've already read the AiG article that "refutes" this. The AiG article uses the full dataset, which contains all of the "noise" present in the DNA as well as the genes that affect human abilities, which only shows about a 96% correlation. In the genes that actually matter, the correlation is 99.98% plus.

Studies of evolution in DNA have contributed to understanding of how genetic disorders affect humans--if evolution doesn't happen, then this research shouldn't work. But strangely enough, it does.

Parts of evolutionary theory change regularly. The DNA differences between chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans show deviations in DNA before there are differences in species, which shows a gradual change rather than a "flipping of a switch" from one to another. About half of the differences between chimpanzees and humans happened after "humans became human."

(Sorry I couldn't address the trueorigin.org article. Their site was apparently offline.)

In any case, the biggest problem with creation science is that it is all based on the 750-odd words of Genesis 1, which don't even make sense in obvious ways (for example, plants growing before the sun was formed). All research done by creation scientists is done with the sole purpose of proving that account correct. This is just bad science. Evolution, in contrast, has been attacked continuously since Darwin in repeated attempts to disprove it. What these attacks have done is modified the theory and made it stronger, rather than disproving any of it. When some research shows that something in Genesis 1 might be incorrect, creation scientists attack the research rather than reviewing their own theories.

One simple question: Can you give me any example of how the scientific method used by creation scientists has contributed something useful to society (besides your obvious answer of confirming the "truth" of the Bible)?

Topher
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:59 pm

If when you say microevolution you are talking about mutation-selection then yes. But if you are talking about evolution then no. evolution demands an increase in the quantity and quality of genetic information, and mutation-selection, no matter how long you wait, cannot provide it. But, both mutation and selection are very real, observable processes going on around us every day. Natural selection and mutations do happen, but not actual evolution. The women with small feet sounds like natural selection. In other words, no new information, just using the information that already there.


That is the whole point. Dating is not accurate, and has been shown to be notoriously inaccurate. And since you don't observe the past you cannot prove the actual date and if the dating is actually correct, its assumptions and biases. You start out thinking the world is billions of years old so ofcourse the dating must match or you throw it out. If it doesn't fit, you make it fit. No evolutional scientist says i am not sure what the age of the planet is, a few thousand or a few million, lets check. They already assume that it is millions. The same thing creationists are accussed of. There base belief is already there.


With transitional fossils its one of those he said she said things. Natural selection does accure, and so do mutations, but animals do not change from one animal to another. With the bird you mentioned and its feathers, you assume the date of the creature and changes, which again shows the assumption of an old earth by evolutionists. Assume there was not a vast amount of time difference. Or lets say there was even, the evidence points to a bird with bird features.



Plants growing before the sun would make sense with a creator. what would stop him from doing that? This is not plants growing on their own, but being created. Research done by creationists is done to prove the bible, but also to point out holes in evolution and its claims. Evolution is full of holes, so how is it stronger? It is stronger as far as its grip on society, but not scientifically. I think in the past people neither had the technology or know how to question evolution, and now they do. Some did, but technology helps.

And humans and land animals were made on the same day, day 6. The sea and flying creatures on day 5.

modern biology was founded by a creationist. John ray,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/ray.asp

As far as DNA evolution, i don't see what you are talking about. Do you mean mutations? With apes and humans the 96 percent pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins. It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms.But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as “junk DNA.” Within this “junk DNA” there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called “rearrangements”) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).

The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.

Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.

In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.


Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).

Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA.


It was a creationist who came up with the scientific method, Francis bacon.

Galileo was a scientist who believed in the trustworthiness of the Bible and sought to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was compatible with it. He was fighting against the contemporary principles of Bible interpretation which, blinded by Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical text.

Robert boyle who turned chemistry into a science, a creationist.


nicholas steno founder of modern geology.


michael faraday
Faraday became the first person to liquefy chlorine. He discovered a new substance which was later called benzene. Benzene was subsequently found to be important in the manufacture of many useful organic compounds such as dyes, nylon and plastics. Faraday also produced some new types of glass in an attempt to improve telescope lenses.Faraday extended Oersted’s work by showing that the current could be made to make a magnet move around the wire or make the wire move around the magnet. This electromagnetic rotation was the forerunner of the electric motor.his religious belief in a single Creator encouraged his scientific belief in the “unity of forces”, the idea that magnetism, electricity and the other forces have a common origin.’Faraday went on to show that the electricity produced was the same regardless of how it was produced—by a magnetic field, by a chemical battery or as static electricity.

Matthew Maury and his belief in the bible helping him to make great discoveries in oceanography.

James Joule
The great experimenter who was guided by God

Louis Pasteur
Outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution

Joseph Lister: father of modern surgery

Yeah creationists have not done anything believing in the bible and its accuracy. please.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16
User avatar
CWNelson79
Media pundit
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:51 am

Unread postby Topher » Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:30 pm

You completely misunderstood the question. Yes, creationists have contributed to human scientific knowledge. My question was something completely different:

"Can you give me any example of how the scientific method used by creation scientists has contributed something useful to society (besides your obvious answer of confirming the 'truth' of the Bible)?"

Even AiG doesn't believe Bacon was a creationist: "Near the end of the list of ‘idols’ which Bacon said must be ‘abjured and renounced’ were any systems of natural philosophy which were built on Genesis 1, Job, or any other part of the Bible." But Bacon's scientific method has little to do with the way creation scientists perform their research--Bacon's method called for facts to be assembled to create theories, while creation scientists look for facts to support the "truths" they already know.

We don't know what Galileo believed, as many of his later writings were written under threat of death for blasphemy.

As there is very little chemistry in the Bible, Boyle's research and use of the scientific method would not have brought him into conflict with his creationist beliefs.

Pasteur opposed Darwin's theory not because he felt it was incorrect, but because it was not developed via experimentation but only through observation (if you have somewhere reliable that says he was a young Earth creationist, please enlighten me).

Steno was certainly a religious man, but it is unlikely that he was a young Earth creationist, as his life was based on the concept of not accepting anything just because it was written in a book.

Faraday's work was certainly influenced by a strong belief in a creator, but he used the proper scientific method as well. Likewise, Joule's work in thermodynamics also wouldn't conflict with Genesis 1, so he could do things properly. Lister also did experiments properly, and I'm pretty sure his medical knowledge went a bit farther than Leviticus.

Yes, creationists have done valuable research--but, like I said, that wasn't the question.

Topher
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby JKersting » Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:36 pm

I have other questions.

Again, how long is a day to God?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Do you like to hang out around a gymnasium?

T-

I doubt any of the questions posed to him will be answered. No matter how reasonable and thought provoking your questions are, and ridiculous all but ONE of my are, it isn't happening.

But, I wish you well.

6000....6 Billion. I think closer to 6 Billion, but I base that on the fossil record and astronomy. I'm just crazy like that.
Jay Kersting
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. " Reagan
"Now more than ever before,the people are responsible for the character of their Congress.If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption."Garfield
JKersting
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:14 pm
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:12 pm

Bacon was an inconsistent creationist. he wrote explicitly of his belief in a recent literal 6-day creation. However, Bacon made a tragic error that had baneful consequences. Not only did he oppose building science on Greek philosophies, but he also rejected the Bible itself as a basis of scientific knowledge.



Whatever galileo wrote under threat. We do know what he believed. He fought the faulty science of the day which the catholic church embraced. He used the bible as his bases for doing this. Catholicism and true christianity have always been at odds. The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. The result was that Church leaders were using the knowledge of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day. They clung to the ‘majority opinion’ about the universe and rejected the ‘minority view’ of Copernicus and Galileo, even after Galileo had presented indisputable evidence based on repeatable scientific observations that the majority was wrong.

They picked out a few verses from the Bible which they thought said that the sun moved around the earth, but they failed to realize that Bible texts must be understood in terms of what the author intended to convey. Thus, when Moses wrote of the ‘risen’ sun (Genesis 19:23) and sun ‘set’ (Genesis 28:4), his purpose was not to formulate an astronomical dictum. Rather he, by God’s spirit, was using the language of appearance so that his readers would easily understand what time of day he was talking about.3 And it is perfectly valid in physics to describe motion relative to the most convenient reference frame, which in this case is the earth.


This plain meaning (the time of day) is perfectly satisfied by the language of appearance and does not demand the secondary deduction that it is the sun itself which moves. Indeed, this is exactly the same thing that scientists do today in weather reports when they give the times of ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’. They are using the language of appearance, and using the earth as the reference frame. A convenient figure of speech does not invalidate science; nor does it invalidate the Bible.

Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."

He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.

"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there



as for boyle, Ofcourse chemistry does not contradict the bible. The bible is not a science book, but when it does talk about science it is always correct.Boyle published an important work he called The Christian Virtuoso. In this book he explained that the study and dominion of nature is a duty given to man by God. His basis for this was the command given in Genesis 1:28, where God the Creator blessed the first man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the Earth and subdue it, and to rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the Earth.In his lectures and many writings, Robert Boyle showed that science and faith in God can exist side by side. He praised his Creator for all the scientific discoveries he had made, and urged others to do likewise. He recognized that the universe works in accordance with the laws of nature which God established for its order and control. As a powerful Christian apologist, he established in his will provision for the Boyle Lectures for the defence of Christianity. He strongly supported missionary work, and gave great support to societies which promoted the Gospel.Modern chemistry owes enormous gratitude to the work and writings of Robert Boyle—a creation scientist whose love of God’s truth led him to overcome the chief errors of alchemical theory which were hindering the development of truly scientific chemistry.


Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution. Despite all the efforts of evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found. Pasteur’s findings conflicted with the idea of spontaneous generation (as do all scientific results since).Pasteur is generally recognized today as having made ‘the greatest contribution of any one man to the saving of human lives’Pasteur’s findings helped established a new branch of science—microbiology.Pasteur saw no conflict between science and Christianity. In fact, he believed that ‘science brings men nearer to God’.Pasteur stated that: ‘The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator’.He firmly believed in creation, and strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution because it did not fit well with scientific evidence.


Nicolaus Steno has been recognized as making some of the first 'truly great discoveries' in geology.1 His fundamental principles of geology are still routinely used to interpret sedimentary rock layers. Although he is called a founder of modern geology, most geologists do not realize that it was Steno's belief in the Bible, especially Genesis, that led him to make those discoveries. Steno recognized that fossils are the petrified remains of real plants and animals. He therefore rejected the idea, taught by some geologists at the time, that fossils were mere replicas of plants and animals, directly created by God within the rock layers.6 He also rejected the equally un-Biblical idea that fossils were the remains of real living organisms produced during '"practice creations" of God before He buckled down to the real business of creation'. The shark teeth naturally led Steno to consider how such fossils came to be embedded deeply in the rocks. He reasoned that since the remains were of sea creatures, the sea must have once covered the area.9 Turning to the Bible for help, he found that 'we learn from Holy Scripture that all things, both when Creation began and at the time of the Flood, have been covered with waters.'Thus, using the 6,000-year Biblical framework, Steno developed one of the earliest directional geological accounts of Earth and life history. This work was of considerable influence in the 17th and 18th centuries.Steno believed in a literal global Flood and other aspects of Genesis 1-11, such as the 6,000-year timeframe. He also used the Bible to interpret his geological findings, which he found were totally consistent with Noah's Flood. As a physician Steno travelled widely in the Tuscany region of northern Italy and used this opportunity to make a detailed geological study of the rocks of the area. He found that many rocks were formed by sedimentation. From these observations and his Biblical understanding, he 'established some of the fundamental principles of stratigraphy: deposition of each bed upon a solid substratum, superposition of younger strata over older ones, and the occurrence of all beds except the basal one between two essentially horizontal planes.'Steno considered his investigations of the wonders of God's creation to be a Christian responsibility: 'One sins against the majesty of God by being unwilling to look into nature's own works.'16 He also recognized the sinfulness of man and our dependency on God: 'Let us at God's feet lay aside the soiled clothes of our sins'.Steno was a Biblical geologist. His achievements were nurtured by his belief that the Bible records the true history—including geological history—of the world.


Faraday joule and lister would ofcourse not of been against the bible in their research. Science is not against the bible. And its not about just genesis. When the bible speaks of science it is accurate.



To Jkersting: Ask God


Yes the tree would make sound.


i never been in a turkish prison, but i saw that movie.


I don't hang around a gymnasium.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16
User avatar
CWNelson79
Media pundit
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:51 am

Unread postby Topher » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:41 am

Walk away from Answers In Genesis for a moment and look back at my previous two posts at the question I actually asked:

"Can you give me any example of how the scientific method used by creation scientists has contributed something useful to society (besides your obvious answer of confirming the 'truth' of the Bible)?"

All of the scientists you listed used proper scientific method (basing their theories on experimental and observed data) rather than the creation science method of selecting data to fit the theory they already know to be true.

Spontaneous generation is an interesting way to put the theory for the initial creation of life. Pasteur did kill the theory of spontaneous generation for every case except one: the initial creation of life. The Miller-Urey experiment and its successors have shown that this could have happened, although it is very, very improbable. With billions of worlds in the universe, it only needs to happen one in billions times though.

Topher
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:36 pm

The problems, as I see it, are twofold:

First, little hard experimentation is done to 'prove' ID and/or Creationism. Darwiniacs then point to the lack of experimentation as proof that ID/Creationism does not even rise to the level of a 'theory'. Makes for a very nice example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" or circular argument, don't you think?

Second, the more Darwinian Evolution is put to the test, the more it fails the test. If I handed in a Doctoral thesis that contained all the we know about Darwinist Evolution, I'd expect to be given very low marks because the theory has not just a few inconsequential holes in it but indeed huge, gaping chasms. This being the case, there is little wonder that Darwinist scientists would rather tell you what is wrong with ID or Creationism than what is right with Darwinian Evolution.

Whenever this argument crops up, I always reiterate my position on it: I do not consider Evolution and God to be mutually exclusive. However, I do consider Darwinism and God to be mutually exclusive, as Darwinism seeks to replace the Hand of God with sheer happenstance and fortuitous accidents.

Darwinism has been adopted by secular humanists due in large part to that one fact: it removes God from the equation- which is their ultimate goal. Only if such 'backwardness' as belief in a Supreme Being is accomplished can the primacy of man be established. Only if God is eliminated from discourse can all manner of reprehensible, immoral and unethical behaviors become acceptable. That is why Darwinism is- you'll pardon the term- sacrosanct to the humanists and must be defended no matter what the facts might say.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby Topher » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:09 pm

Well, we've had this argument before. You say that "little hard experimentation is done to 'prove' ID and/or Creationism." My counter was that this is because developing experiments to prove the existence of a creator or the nebulous Theory of Irreducible Complexity is impossible.

I haven't seen these "huge, gaping chasms" to which you refer. There are probably fewer gaps in Darwinian evolution than there are in gravitational theory, yet most people readily accept the conclusions of the latter. 10 years ago we knew much less about Darwinian evolution than we do today, but with DNA research, we can actually "connect the dots" between species and see what changes happened to change one into another. There are certainly gaps--but given the available evidence Darwinian evolution still fits the best.

I'd argue that Darwinism and God aren't mutually exclusive, if you argue (like some have) that all God needed to do was give the initial push. Personally, I don't think this push is required, but it isn't impossible (just very, very improbable).

I'd love to meet some of these secular humanists who want to use the primacy of man as an excuse to rape, pillage, and plunder. From my reading of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, modeling my behavior after the Christian God would result in far worse behavior than if I simply decided that man is supreme and therefore I should respect other people.

Topher
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby JKersting » Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:55 pm

Been away for a few days. Had to work on an event that is only in its second year, but that has its roots going back millions of years to the cave man days.

The Capital City Cookoff - KCBS BBQ Contest!!!

So, while enjoying myself, following all of my hard work, in this ever evolving artform, what did I miss?

http://www.kcbs.us

Join today!!
Jay Kersting
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. " Reagan
"Now more than ever before,the people are responsible for the character of their Congress.If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption."Garfield
JKersting
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:14 pm
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri

Re: Politcal Science Chapter

Unread postby andersgt » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:46 pm

As much as Answers in Genesis turns my stomach, I'll peruse the articles you linked, as I have an open mind...


This statement is self-refuting. I can't for a moment believe that after looking at Answers in Genesis you will say something like: "Answers in Genesis makes some good points I haven't considered..." or "After reading the article on oil you may be right about..." Having an open mind means not examining another opinion holding your nose.
andersgt
New Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:29 pm

Re: Politcal Science Chapter

Unread postby Topher » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:06 pm

andersgt wrote:
As much as Answers in Genesis turns my stomach, I'll peruse the articles you linked, as I have an open mind...


This statement is self-refuting. I can't for a moment believe that after looking at Answers in Genesis you will say something like: "Answers in Genesis makes some good points I haven't considered..." or "After reading the article on oil you may be right about..." Having an open mind means not examining another opinion holding your nose.


I strongly disagree. As an international relations student, I spent most nights listening to the world news on my shortwave radio. Depending on the day of the week and the big stories of the day, I'd listen to different broadcasts. For example, if there was an issue with South Korea, I'd listen to Radio Korea (South Korea) and Radio Pyongyang (North Korea). By listening to both stations I'd know what parts of the story were opinion and what was likely fact--and sometimes the bias in Radio Korea was actually worse than that of Radio Pyongyang. Obviously, given my bias toward democracies and against totalitarian regimes, I almost always would presume that Radio Korea would be more accurate, but by listening to both broadcasts I can minimize the bias in my listening.

Everyone educated on an issue has a bias on that issue; if you think you don't, you're lying to yourself. I know I am biased toward evolution and against creationism and intelligent design. I have quite often read an article on AiG and thought that a point raised some interesting questions. As a result, I went looking for the sources of the articles and I also looked for opposing views in an attempt to see if the point was, in fact, valid. To date, I have yet to find an article that didn't have numerous holes.

However, I also do much the same thing with articles on evolutionary research, and I have found significant holes in articles on that side of the argument as well. (Unlike the united front ID proponents portray, there is significant dissent between evolutionary biologists on the way some mechanisms of evolution work.)

I'll admit that I may not give a 100% fair analysis to arguments on either side of the issue, but because I know I'm biased, I do my best to make an extra effort to compensate for this. So, while my mind isn't 100% open, it is open enough to be willing to accept new ideas. Can you say the same?

Topher
Topher Kersting
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Re: Politcal Science Chapter

Unread postby terrylynn » Mon May 18, 2009 6:07 pm

The truth is something no one really wants to talk about and that is our beliefs dont define us, we define our beliefs to display our personalities in what we think is the best possible light! Our ideals are simply messages to others about who we are and worn like clothing upon which others make judgements.

Discussions are not suppose to be clubs with which to bash others on the head, but to expand our thinking and allow us the opportunity to see into the lives of others, to teach us we can disagree without being harmful. Why so much hatred????????? Because what we have chosen to display is who we are and when others reply negatively about those ideas, we interpret that as a personal attack.

Wake up people and know that we are all human and fallable. If you dont like the feedback to information you have chosen to display, either dont display it or change it. Until then, state your case with civility and realize anything else is simply an argument about two people and furthers your agenda in no way!

One thing I can tell you is, particularly with religion, the final answer only comes upon death. Short of that not one single person has the facts. So please stop pretending you do and appreciate that we are all different. Anger is the only key to true failure.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter". MLK
terrylynn
Media observer
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: Politcal Science Chapter

Unread postby ph16 » Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:05 pm

Christianity and science don't necessarily conflict and this doesn't mean creationism sites like answersingenesis.org are right, take a look at the following link for anyone who is interested:

http://answersincreation.org/
ph16
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:02 pm

Previous

Return to Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

cron