Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   rational people only (no yecs)
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 32 of 46 (11997)
06-23-2002 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by TrueCreation
06-22-2002 10:48 PM


I'm also going to be breathing compressed air for the next few days and getting my annual N2 saturation, except in the Florida panhandle. Should be back Thursday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 06-22-2002 10:48 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 33 of 46 (11998)
06-23-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jennacreationist
06-22-2002 8:49 PM


[QUOTE][b]I don't understand why no one would believe me if I said that my computer came from a matter that randomly and over time created itself and evolved from a tic tac[/QUOTE]
[/b]
That would be feasible if tic tacs were made of silicon and copper and were capable of reproduction and had a system of transmitting genetic information across generations.
[QUOTE][b]yet people of such great and wonderfully God given intelligence truly want to believe that any living matter even a microbe came from a non-living non source[/QUOTE]
[/b]
No, the ToA is positing that early life came from non-living chemical processes. What life function is not reducible to chemistry and physics? Unless you can find one it, the theory is completely plausible. What is a cell but millions of chemical reactions occuring at once?
[QUOTE][b]The Bible is full of Science and I know that it can be proven that their is a heavenly Father by using the scientific method. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
No, that is impossible because you would have a religion without faith. What would be the point of that? Hmm, perhaps you want to "prove" (somehow) that the Christian God is real so that all souls will have to join the faith and thus, in theory, be saved from hellfire. But you would only destroy free will.
That is something you really should leave alone. You will not succeed: (1) Because thousands of people before you have tried it already (2) if God wanted his existance proven He would just show up one day and tell us He was real (3) there is no religion without faith (4) you cannot mix science and religion, they are mutually exclusive (5) God already has the Holy Ghost to witness for Him (6) you are attempting to interfere with a divine plan which existed in the beginning, eons before you were born (7) no matter how good your 'proof' will always be the work of man and therefore unworthy to truly fulfill what you want it to (8) all the 'science' of the Bible is contingent upon the flawed interpretation of man which was done in hindsight anyway (9) such a proof contradicts the Christian doctrine of Free Will (10) Muslims have already tried finding science in the Qur'an and Christians don't take them seriously for the same reasons most of us don't take you seriously.
By the way, my thumbs-down is to the title of this thread.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jennacreationist, posted 06-22-2002 8:49 PM jennacreationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jennacreationist, posted 06-24-2002 9:59 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 36 of 46 (12363)
06-28-2002 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jennacreationist
06-24-2002 9:59 PM


[QUOTE][b]Be honest, even if God Himself approached you wouldn't you somehow rationalize him away?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
No but you probably would. I am a member of a well-known but poorly understood Christian congregation that believes in modern-day revelation. I believe that God Himself descended to the Earth in the earlier part of the 19th century and continued to do so for some time thereafter to restore His Church and may do so again anytime he pleases, to anyone he pleases. But most other churches reject modern-day prophecy and revelation. No more prophets, God doesn't talk to people anymore.
Sooo...as far as accusing each other of being stiffnecked goes I think I have the higher ground.
However, as I doubt you are a member of the same Church I am, that means that you have either not been exposed to our doctrine, or rejected it outright, or both. That means you must have "rationalized" it away.
[QUOTE][b]Rationalize His creation into chemicals and matter[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Actually you seem to be talking about ToA and the Big Bang.
[QUOTE][b]Science and religion are almost one AND the same![/QUOTE]
[/b]
Religion depends on faith. Normally, to receive a divine manifestation to confirm your belief, you have to already have a high level of faith. You pay for it upfront in what you already believe and God pays you back with a little interest.
Science is the opposite, it is opposed to faith and instead tries to find what works, with the assumption that some better idea might come along to replace what works right now.
[QUOTE][b](you do have to have faith in evolution don't you?)[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Nope. It's always being tested. To the extent we rely upon is the same extent to which it has worked in the past. I don't have 'faith' in it any more than I have 'faith' in gravity or faith in the Heisenberg model of the hydrogen atom. It works. It is parsimonious with evidence. But it is incomplete and there may be exceptions to the current rules of how it works. Plus there might be other factors we don't know about yet. All of these will be dealt with in due time, but what I can say, at least now, is that it works and I don't see you putting anything better or more useful on the table.
Results first, acceptance later.
[QUOTE][b]But why should science discount theories that can't be disproved
and why do I as a "fellow scientific beleiver and enjoyer" have to be discounted in the scientific community because "I'm not an evolutionist"
[QUOTE][B]That is boxing science in and I don't know if you are aware that quite a few respected scientists are in fact Creationists and Christians.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I know of people who claim degrees (some degrees are real and some are fake) in science that claim to be 'doing' Creationist science but I don't know I would go so far to call them "respected". Creationist articles almost never appear in the journals and most Creationists (like recently-retired Duane Gish, who has a real degree in biochem from an ivy-league school) don't publish in the journals and have generally done nothing that even resembles science since getting their Ph.Ds. To make things worse, many Creationists lie repeatedly even after being corrected (Gish) or fudge other people's data beyond recognition (Setterfield). Then of course you have the pretenders
(Hovind) that confuse everything and even get censured by other Creationists. Dr. Robert Gentry made the best effort in getting Creationism into the mainstream with Po haloes in minerals. The problem is that he is a physicist and short-sided geology in his papers, and his arguments (carefully edited to show no references to a young Earth, only "instant formation" of a mineral) did not survive long. AiG keeps a list of "Creationist scientists" they are affiliated with. Interesting enough the list includes a plastic surgeon and several psychologists. Very few geologists and biologists are present in the list. In fact, these two fields are the least sympathetic to Creationism. Most highly educated creationists are engineers and there are comparatively very few natural scientists amongst their ranks. (We might mention Behe but he's not a young-Earther to my knowledge and I'm not aware of him publishing his work in the journals).
[QUOTE][b]Even the man who made up the genius phylum etc. chart was a Christian...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
A lot of scientists are Christians. That does not mean a lot of scientists are Creationists. [/QUOTE]
[b]Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not comming off offended(completely)LOL and my heart is in the right place, it's just you can't disprove Creation, at least not all together and therefore it should be fully looked at and treated with the utmost respect.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
But can it be disproven?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jennacreationist, posted 06-24-2002 9:59 PM jennacreationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jennacreationist, posted 06-29-2002 5:45 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 42 of 46 (12403)
06-30-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jennacreationist
06-29-2002 5:45 PM


[QUOTE][b]And it's not even neccessarily because I am biased by my faith it's because of certain fullfiments that the Big bang and all of the theories used to explain how it all came to be, are not met . [/QUOTE]
[/b]
But some of them are, like Cosmic Background Radiation. There are a few variables in the theory that still need to be better defined so there is not a perfect match. But so far as I know the model works very well. Maybe you can better inform me if I'm wrong.
[QUOTE][b]But I don't agree with your usage of an egg and seed as comparisons to evolution. They have the same genetic makeup in the seed and egg stages as they will in their adult stages. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
That is true but I don't see how it looks more like instant creation through divine fiat. At best it looks like theistic evolution.
[QUOTE][b]Where is the interspecie mating?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
This is a very interesting question. One definition of species is that individuals of that species cannot mate with similar species and produce fertile offspring. So as long as that definition of species is used, interspecies mating should be impossible. But there are exceptions in closely related species. Natural hybrids of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria are fairly common, especially where the water is clouded by sediment, making it difficult for the fish to determine the species of a perspective mate. According to a field guide I have, it is also common to see hybrids of two species of marine angelfish, and I remember reading a news segment in a journal this spring about mating across two species of bird in the Galapagos. The article was talking about gene flow between the species, so we know for sure that the offspring are fertile.
So while it is usually an accident, interspecies mating is quite common...in similar/closely related species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jennacreationist, posted 06-29-2002 5:45 PM jennacreationist 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