Politcal Science Chapter

order now!

Politcal Science Chapter

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:14 am

I don't know where to begin on this. Bernie has missed the whole point and seems to have not done much reasearch on this issue. To call creationism and Intelligent design psuedo science is not only wrong, but an insult to alot of scientists past and present.

People like Francis Bacon{discovered the scientific method}, Galileo Galilei , Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal , Robert Boyle{turned chemistry into a science}, John Ray{founder of biology}, Nicolas Steno{ founder of modern geology}, Issac Newton, Cotton Mather, William Herschel, Sir david brewster, Michael faraday, Matthew Maury, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister{Father of modern surgery}, James clerk maxwell, George Washington Carver ,dr. john Mann. Were all of these creationists into psuedo science?

Creationism is real science, and uses actual science. Its biblicaly based ofcourse, but it is real science. And it is elitist snobbery to say it is not.
Places like Answersingenesis.org use real science with real scientists to fight evolutional claims. Its not crack pot, its logical, thought out science.

As far as intelligent design. Bernie makes the claim its religious. It infact is not at all. There are many believers in ID, including muslims, christians, atheists, other religions. It does not use the bible for its base, and it could just as easily be an alien lifeform that is the intelligent creator. It doesn't even go agaisnt all of evolution completely. Bernie was wrong again when he claimed in Dover Pa they were trying to teach ID. that is false, they simply wanted a statement read that said Id was an option, evolution was a theory and it has gaps in it, and that they could further look into ID if they wanted. How is that teaching ID?

I like Bernie, but he just dropped the ball on this one with regards to research. To many assumptions, and not enough true evaluation.
"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

Politcal Science Chapter

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Unread postby StrongBadJinzo » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:41 pm

I thought the same thing. I'm a Christian and find it offensive that he said those things. Otherwise, it was an excellent book.
StrongBadJinzo
Media observer
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:43 pm

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:36 pm

Yeah i just get tired of the nonsense told about ID or creationism. Bernie talks about global warming and how the libs assume you are ignorant if you don't believe it is manmade. But then turns around and basically says the same type of thing about people against evolution.

Even Ben Stein is coming out with a movie about this. Evolution is the state religion and no one is allowed to challenge it.
"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 Bernie » Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:29 pm

One question: Is the Earth 6000 years old as many people of faith believe? The answer to that will tell a lot. Thanks. Bernie
User avatar
Bernie
Site Owner
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:20 pm

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:40 pm

Yes, i believe the earth to be around 6000 years old.
"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 JKersting » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:22 pm

CWNelson79 wrote:Yes, i believe the earth to be around 6000 years old.


Explain the fossil record. Explain petroleum deposits.
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 Bernie » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:29 pm

This is not a matter of opinion. This is not about what I think vs. what you think. One of us is just plain right and the other just plain wrong. And I'm afraid you're the one who's wrong. This planet is NOT 6000 years old -- no matter what the Bible says.

Be assured that I respect people of faith. But the Bible is not a science book.

God bless you.

Bernie
User avatar
Bernie
Site Owner
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:20 pm

Unread postby JKersting » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:53 pm

Yeah, what he (Bernie) said.

8)

8)
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 » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:17 pm

you are right bernie one of us is completely wrong. You tell me that i am. But you don't tell me why i am. Have you glanced at the website answersingenesis.org to see what they might say? What do you base your assumption on? Yes i use the bible, but I also use science to come to my conclusion.

The bible is not a science book, this is absolutely true. But when it does speak of science it is absolutely correct. The bible has never been inaccurate in science.

As far as you Jkersting. What would you like explained about the fossils or petro deposits? They do not point to an old earth or evolution. I would be happy to help you with any question about them you might have.
"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 Bernie » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:37 pm

Feel free to believe whatever you want: that the Earth is 6000 years old, that God created heaven and Earth in seven days. If it makes you feel better to believe the Earth is flat, that's fine with me too. But please understand that I will not take part in any more discussions about nonsense. This is just plain ignorant (though I suspect in other facets of your life you are not). I'm done!
User avatar
Bernie
Site Owner
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:20 pm

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:06 pm

okie dokie bernie. Don't let that angry ex- liberal side come out too much tho.


And why would I think the world was flat? Neither the bible or honest science says such a thing. The bible actually talks about a spherical planet.
I just simply know that evolution is false, and is full of holes. Thats not arrogance, i am just being honest. I feel like i am talking to a lib about global warming. But to be honest, you know what I think it is. If the bible was accurate, if evolution is false, and God means what he says in his word then that would shake up alot of people. They would be held accountable, not be able to practice false religions, and might not like what they see in this truth. So they fight tooth and nail to keep the state religion of evolution going, no matter what.


I understand you being done. But Bernie i don't see how using science to proclaim God's truth is being ignorant. Anything an evolutionist claims as a fact i can dispute with real science and show them to be wrong. The big bang like you talked about in your book is not even good science. The belief that we went from goo to you is not good science. Nothingness to humans is not good science. Just think about it logicaly. Gaileo fought bad science that the catholic church was accepting at the time using the word of God to guide him to the proper science. And atleast just glance at some of the issues in answersingenesis.org to just think about the situation. Don't forget how the global warming people act.

But if i can't convince you then i can't convince you. Just don't let assumptions, and presuppositions, and accepted beliefs force you into a corner.

Thanks anway, still like the book.
"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 JKersting » Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:33 am

Wow. You want to believe the world is 6000 years old. Fine. I asked you to explain a fossil record that indicates, through HARD SCIENCE that it is over 4 BILLION YEARS OLD.

Last I checked, petroleum was created from organic material that died at least 65 million years ago. How did that get here?

Magic?

And if you want to believe that God created the world LITERALLY in six days, think about this my homosapien friend, how long is a Day to God?

Remember, man was created in God's IMAGE. Not as a God himself. Therefore, the Day to God cannot be the same as a Day to man.

Think about THAT the next time you read the Torah, Bible or Quran literally.
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 Topher » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:54 pm

CW, you miss the point of science.

Creation "science" selectively applies data to confirm what they already believe. Mainstream science takes all of the applicable data and uses it to develop a theory to explain why the data is what it is. One starts with an answer and tries to develop the question to match, while the other asks questions and tries to find answers that make sense.

I've read volumes of material on both sides of the argument. From the ID side I see people who find gaps in the current research and use that to proclaim the existence of a designer. When an evolutionary biologist finally gathers the data and does the research, he usually shows that the gaps are either much smaller than the ID side claims or that they don't really exist at all. The human eye example that the ID side loves to trot out is a wonderful example of this. Wikipedia had a nice explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

If you want to debate this issue, give me your best shot, but my world has a few billion years more experience with the issue than yours does.

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

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:34 pm

Creationism science has its presupposition, just as evolutional science has its presupposition. Evolution starts with a particular presupposition of humanism, atheism,materialism, and ignores anything that might point somehwere else.

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30,1999

Creationism starts with the presupposition that science comes from God, and his word is accurate. And then uses science to show this. even though naturalistic science claims to be neutral and unbiased, it starts with a bias.It is important to recognize that people’s presuppositions influence the way they interpret evidence. Evolution is based on a reasoning process that rejects God. Creation starts from the authority of God’s Word. Your presuppositions are like a pair of glasses that you wear to look at the world around you.


I am not much into ID because i don't think it goes far enough. I prefer creationism since it is based on Gods word. As far as the eye, Had Darwin had the knowledge about the eye and its associated systems that man has today (which is a great deal more than what it was in his time), he may have given up his naturalistic theory on the origin of living things. Think of how challenging it would be for a human to create the genetic code needed to produce the fine-tuned nervous system that makes precise, coordinated muscular movements (like tremors, drifts and saccades) possible. When Darwin made his assumptions about the origin of organs, he had nothing like the knowledge we have today. Had he been aware of the need for the tiny precision humming. Hopping eyeball motions that are going on all the time while we are awake, he may have abandoned his theory of evolution as foolish and impracticable speculation.There is indeed abundant evidence of the Creator's handiwork in all we see around us, and what we see with.

As far as fossils, they don't actually show a date of 4 billion anything. There is not a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another. Infact fossil sare a big problem for evolutionists. Darwin said there should be thousands of transitional forms. Charles Darwin said :Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.Gould said: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.

As far as petroleum:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil


And explaing a day in the bible. explaining yôm, yamim (plural of yôm)qedem , olam, dor , tamid, things like that.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/days.asp
"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 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:57 pm

Evolution most certainly does not start with any presuppositions outside of raw scientific facts. It starts with experimental data taken from living creatures (such as DNA), the fossil record, radioactive dating, and scientific experiments. The existence or non-existence of a higher intelligence doesn't enter into the equation because it only complicates what is the simplest explanation for life. Likewise, the philosophies of humanism and materialism have nothing to do with it.

Dr. Todd's statement is interesting, but irrelevant, since all the data don't point to an intelligent designer.

Evolution does have a bias: a bias toward measurable and verifiable facts and away from mythological beings. Adding a being to the equation doesn't clarify it, it complicates it by adding an unnecessary variable. In actual (non-Creationism) science, the goal is to find the simplest explanation to a problem. The problem with adding a designer to the equation is that it just raises another question: where did this designer originate? If you choose to say that he just "is" then you really don't explain anything at all, you just raise the level of complexity of the problem.

I'm assuming that you didn't bother to read the Wikipedia article on the evolution of the eye, since you completely missed the point when you say that Darwin might have given up his theory if he had the data.

You can find a nice list of transitional fossils here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

One problem with fossils is that it takes an extraordinary series of events for a fossil to form: 99.999%+ of creatures don't form fossils when they die. As a result, you won't find an example of every creature that ever lived in the fossil record. You will agree that missing data does not, however, invalidate a theory, as your God hasn't provided any reliable evidence of his existence for at least a couple of thousand years.

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

The oil article boils down to one unsubstantiated statement: "All the available evidence points to a recent catastrophic origin for the world’s vast oil deposits, from plant and other organic debris, consistent with the biblical account of earth history." Dr. Snelling does not provide any of this evidence for how he dates a "recent" catastrophe. Radioactive dating clearly shows that petroleum reserves were formed at least 65 million years ago. Oils can be formed quickly, as the article says, even oils with characteristics "like" petroleum. What can't be formed quickly and naturally is actual petroleum. What he says, for the most part, is that "We can form oils quickly, so it must be possible for pre-Flood forests to be made into petroleum quickly." Sorry, but no.

The length of days article is interesting as a literary study, but it really just proves that for creation science to work, half-lives of atoms would have to have been infinitely shorter to explain the results we get today. I suppose it is possible that the laws of physics have changed dramatically in the past 6,000 years, but the simplest explanation required by science is that the laws of physics are constants.

One other thing: Much of modern medical research is based on the assumption that animals such as rats and chimpanzees developed in a manner similarly to humans. Without this assumption, animal testing is a futile exercise, as there would be no reason to think that the effect of a given treatment on a rat might have a similar effect on a human. Therefore, if creation science becomes mainstream, people die. Evolution saves lives.

It's that simple.

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

Next

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: No registered users and 1 guest

cron