Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I gave you lists of people.
Whatever.
You must have skipped the fathers of science, too.
Except all those suprising new finds...
You are so hip to talk about children before, why are you keeping this a secret? Either you know what it's like to have your own child or you don't. Which is it?
So you are saying it's possible that you could be a child rapist based on circumstance?
And you should read more daily news.
Is that why it's "ok" to abort chilldren, then? Because other animals eat their young?
aharvey
New member
I don't know how many or where they originated (well, actually, I guess it's a lock that life came from nonliving material, isn't it?), but I do know the answers are utterly irrelevant to the robustness of evolutionary theory. Remember, supernatural and natural, no reason they can't coexist. So whether or not God got the ball rolling has no bearing on whether birds evolved from dinosaurs. Unless you're going to change your mind and claim that a supernatural origin of the universe, or of life, automatically means that natural processes cannot subsequently have been involved in the diversification of that original life form.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Oh yeah, that company run by a former Baptist preacher... :doh:
Iraq, in case you noticed isn't part of the U.S. and has a different society... :doh:
Doesn't the U.S. currently have the lowest murder rate in decades (especially if you don't count the annual rises since Bush took office)?... :doh:
That was actually changed in 1868, only 136 years ago... :doh:
Why? You're doing so well... :chuckle:
Nineveh
Merely Christian
The question is then, did nature by chance make living matter out of non living matter, or did an Intelligent Entity do it?
And...
Where did the matter come from?
mmhm.
I am asking what you believe. Let others answer the question for themselves.
Do you believe an entity "got the ball rolling"?
Along with what God said about His creation, He said they take after their own kind.
cur_deus_homo
New member
:crackup:
I am sorry. Because science is about ideas, I assumed that you were pointing to these people because they have ideas that you think is of merit that you want to discuss.
Since you are only interested in numbers of scientists, in this case, who believe in the flood, I would point
out that according to the National Science Foundation, there are more than 125,000 geoscientists in the United States, alone. Of those, only a handful are believers in the flood.
If you read the writings of the "fathers" of science---Isaac Newton is a good example, you will not find God invoked as a mechanism for any scientific theory or process. You may find acknowledgments of God, but you will not find any science that depends on God. We play the game as they did, invoking no supernatual explanations or arguements for our understanding of the world.
....like UV radiation solving the chirality problem...
You have not earned the right to learn anything personal about me. (Your attempt to slur me by putting words in my mouth in next question is an example of why you have not earned that right.)
As I said before, an average person raised in the environment of ancient Greek society would likely engage in practises that we would consider today to be "child rape". That includes you.
So should you. Exchange your life today for that of a person in a similar socio-economic bracket or place in society in the past, and you would likely be trading down.
Thanks for admitting by saying "other animals" that you accept the notion that humans are animals, and by doing so tacitly accepting evolution.
Basically, *protecting* our children is what we inherit from our mammalian ancestors, and what we share with other mammals. Mammals killing their young happens. Humans also, have practised some form of infanticide throughout history. We continue the practice to this day through abortion.
The big difference is that today we have effecive birth control technologies, that if practiced properly and universally , combined with comprehensive education, would allow us to substantially reduce the number of abortions. Ironically, it is the antiquated notions of the hyper-religious that have prevented this.
Greetings "cur". The fact that the crime was identified and the guilty tried and punished, and that new laws were enacted to prevent future societies, shows that our society is doing something right. The former employees of Enron will survive. They lost their jobs, and their pensions.
You mean the people who didn't get raped, tortured, or murdered by Saddam, because the US intervened?
These are truly unfortunate events. However, this is not the work of the United States, but of people who fail to follow the system of the US.
The average African American has it far better today than in the past. You are ignoring the fact that the US went to war with itself over slavery, and the fact that the majority has worked to bring parity to all citizens. More needs to be done, but the US is a better place today than it was in the past.
So, now it is my turn. One significant problem in modern society, as I see it, is the failure of the modern fundamentalist Christian movement.
This is a movement which seeks to denigrate everything that humans do. What happened to Christians seeking to better themselves, and in doing so, make better life for their children? (And maybe even glorifying God in the process?)
I will tell you what has happened. The modern Christian has decided that it's all over. They want Jesus to come back and fix everything. They want to be "raptured". In holding these views, particularly the detrimental view that "faith" counts for somehting, the modern fundie throws it all away, choosing to believe in ridiculous notions of Biblical literalism, the flood, and other silly "alternate science" nonsense.
You throw away your future in the hopes that, what? you can be the willing lackey of a Middle Eastern dictator for eternity? What kind of aspiration is that for an American?
o. It will be no "Christ the King" or Kingdom o. It will be no "Christ the King" or Kingdom
Nineveh
Merely Christian
No, not really, I'm just tired of hearing the same ol' lame repeatedly debunked myth no scientists believe creation.
Kinda like Dr. Brewer's research papers, huh. Those who fear God don't have to keep taking creation onto their work like it might be forgotten about like evos feel the need to do. Scientists who fear God are into learning how things work, instead of trying to "prove darwin right". Newton, along with scores of others believe/d in God.
Like the 60,000+ differences in one gene study.
I'll just take that as you have no clue about being a parent. Perhaps you should think twice before traveling down that "line of reason" again.
So your answer is yes, then. The reason you aren't a child rapist is circumstance. Pretty gross.
I have, a TX mom gets life for murdering her 7 children. Prom mom gets 6 months for murdering her infant. We have a big sign at both ends of the highway going through town to report missing children. I seriously doubt things were worse for kids in America's past than they have been over the last 40 years. We can start with the '73 SCotUS ruling allowing the murder of the unborn "animal". I guess you are fee to see things as you like, but it's funny how "chemical process" has lead you to argue for morality in the US. I dare ask what you find "moral" in our society today...
Your terms to make my point, don't go too far out in left field there...
Yet, the US is "more moral" by murdering children in a "clinic" I suppose. PS animals don't have morals.
mmhm.
Abortion became one of your "effective birth control technologies". Do you have any idea how many unborn American citizens have died do far? Do you have any idea how many of your "effective birth control technologies" are actually abortificants?
Try to stay on context. Belief in God is not the same as being a young-earth global-flood believer. Many scientists believe in God. Few scientists with expertise in earthscience believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old or that there was a global flood. Few scientists in biology (religious or otherwise) doubt the basic notion of common descent.
Anybody who is doing science, irrespective of religious persuasion, is finding out how things work. Absolutely none of them, including Dr. Brewer is invoking God as part of the mechanism for the science they do.
Certainly an interesting result. One which shoots down all of those creationist arguments about there not having been enough time for the necessary mutations to get from the ape-human common ancestor to humans and modern apes.
You can think anything you want. You would be wrong, though.
...religious fundamentalist mom....she thought they were the devil or something. Hey, you believe in supernatural stuff, maybe she was right, and you are giving her a bad rap! Afterall, she might be telling the truth! Heck, if even
Sure they were. You could get away with all manner of incest, child abuse, and child murder years ago, because polite society didn't ask the questions they ask today. After all, the child abusing parents of today were likely the abused children of the child abusers of the previous generation, and so forth, back generations....
Abortions happened before Roe v. Wade. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't get one. The choice is between the woman and her doctor.
Denial, no doubt.
It's more moral because the mothers are not being murdered too, as they were before. Desperate women would risk death to get an abortion. Not pretty, but then again, life is not perfect.
I am sure that you would ban all forms of birth control if you were turned loose on society, Mrs. Taliban. Yet effective birth control is a need in society.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
"Few" must be a relative term for you.
Dr. Brewer can simply state what he finds without invoking God. God is his foundation, just as darwin is for evos, only evos feel the need to do a lot of evoking.
Well... they seemed suprised by the numbers in that one comparison.
I feel pity for any child whose father thinks him nothing more than random chance and chemicals.
And this proves America is more moral, how?
mmhm.
The "choice" to murder an "animal"?
Riiiight, couldn't possibly be you misunderstanding, again, could it.
So it's more moral to murder an innocent baby than to murder the innocent baby and the murderous mother. mmhm. I guess this is what happens when "animals" make the laws.
"You can think anything you want. You would be wrong, though."
Really, if you don't know the answer, you could try looking for one. It's ok to be ignorant, but it's not ok to want to stay that way.
aharvey
New member
Interesting statement. I don't know if you're referring to his "real" science, which probably does not invoke God, or to the stuff you first brought our attention to, which certainly does invoke God. I hope you realize that these are two fundamentally different kinds of writings, the former scientific, the latter not.
This reminds me, Nin, I'm a bit surprised (yes, scientists can be surprised; more on that in a second) that you haven't contributed your assessment of my critique of Dr. Brewer's methods, given that your'e the one who introduced us to the man and to this particular paper in the first place. Are you invoking what appears to be a standard YEC ploy of ignoring any critiques of a favored paper while continuing to trot it out as a stellar example of how evolutionary theory is fatally flawed?
This is a variation on another popular YEC theme that I just don't get: Evolutionary theory is bad because it keeps changing as new data comes in. Scientists do an experiment and are surprised at what they find. Therefore, evolutionary theory is fatally flawed. Believe it or not, this is how science operates. We inherit an incomplete set of theories, data, and techniques, and we work to make them more complete. If science already knew all the answers, we'd all be out of a job. If there was no chance that I could be surprised at what I find, I doubt I'd be too interested in continuing on as a research scientist.
I do see that this is in stark contrast to the YEC perspective, though. You guys already know the truth. No evidence could be a surprise to you, because if it contradicts what you already know, it must be flawed.
That's why the ongoing discussion between CDH and OEJ in the Cain built a city thread is so interesting. OEJ seems to be in the process of articulating a philosophy towards reconciling apparent contradictions within Scripture, which, because it is always right, can never really be self-contradictory. Thus, if I'm understanding OEJ correctly, in any case of apparent contradiction, the obvious thing to do is assume that one of the contradictory elements was meant to be a metaphor. At the moment, though, it's not clear how one decides which one is the metaphor and which is a literal historical record (and if you're allowed to claim one to be a metaphor, why not both?)...
And no matter how loudly you yell that scientists do exactly the same thing, that evolution is our God, that all seemingly contradictory evidence is interpreted as fatally flawed, you're just plain wrong. And self-contradictory (otherwise you wouldn't be able to gloat about surprised scientists, would you?). Theories have fallen before. Evolutionary theory may fall, if enough evidence points another direction. What YECs utterly fail to realize is that simply asserting that there's no evidence for evolution is not nearly the same thing as demonstrating this, and it's even further from providing evidence that points in another direction. And, I'm sorry to report, the smattering of papers that claim to provide any such evidence (such as those by Brewer and Snelling) represent both cutting edge creationist efforts and embarrassingly poor scientific efforts. You can't even define your terms properly.
aharvey
New member
Yeah, but that post doesn't have thing 1 to do with, well, anything, but in particular anything in my most recent post to you. Bottom line: my personal beliefs about the origin of the universe are utterly irrelevant to the evidential basis of evolutionary theory. Here's a more detalied reply, but really, this should be a deadend subthread. Don't forget about my previous post!
I don't know. Why is that unacceptable to you? It's not my area of expertise, and I'm pretty sure that those who would be considered experts in the field aren't exactly sure either. Is it that hard to accept that there's more inherent uncertainty in working out something that happened 15 billion years ago compared to something that happened 15 million years ago compared to something that happened 15 thousand years ago compared to something that happened 15 years ago? You don't know how gravity originated, but that doesn't give you pause about gravitational theory, does it? So why is it sooo important to you that the credibility of our theory about the diversification of life requires a complete understanding of how the universe originated? Well, actually, you've been asked this many times, so no reason to expect that you'll be any more forthcoming this time. This is one of those "shifting ground" moments, isn't it?
As you might deduce from the above, I don't have a clear belief on how the universe originated. Every mechanism I've heard seems pretty improbable, but here we are, so one mechanism, supernatural or otherwise, is certain to have been correct. No clue what the rest of this post means.
It's possible; see above. I don't view Genesis as a literal historical / scientific guide, though. Not that it couldn't be so, but I just don't assume it to be so. And I've seen precious little evidence that actively supports this notion.
Which could mean just about anything. Did you know that depending on the creationists you ask, "kind" can approximate anything from species to domain (domains are a step more inclusive than kingdoms, in case you were wondering)?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
But I asked, didn't I?
I accept you don't know.
Neither is most of the things most of the people on this thread talk about.
Yet, "it happened".
Well, a coheasive story is always better, and more intellectually satisfying.
?
I asked you, "what you believe". If you don't want to answer, just say so.
Even though you don't really know, but even all those "improbable" things are here anyway.
I don't know anyone who thinks the Bible is a "science" guide. Except evos who think creationists think so.
Have you looked for any?
And the idea that "kinds" can reproduce.
cur_deus_homo
New member
Really?
From ICR's Tenets of Scientific Creationism
The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity. [Genesis 1:1]
The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator. [Genesis 1]
Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism... [Genesis 1]
The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start... [Adam & Eve]
The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes... sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm. [Noah's Flood]
The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order. [The Fall]
Certainly sounds like ICR, at least, is using the Bible as a "science guide."
aharvey
New member
You're joking, right? Take a look here, for starters. I know you've heard of this organization!
I'm getting to the point where I can answer "Intensively so," though I'm probably not quite there yet. There are a couple of aspects of 'evidence" that you need to be aware of. First, 'hypothesis' is not the same thing as 'evidence.' A large fraction of the sites that claim to show 'evidence' for creation at best merely present a hypothesis. Saying, for example, that the 1,400 meters fossil coral reef base upon which the current coral reef at Enewetak occurs could have been thrown together during a violent storm is a hypothesis; it is not evidence that that's what actually happened!
Second, data can be misused, in which case it isn't really evidence for a particular hypothesis. See my analysis of Brewer's paper. He claims his data provides evidence for ID and against evolution, but he made some very basic blunders that mean his data aren't evidence for much of anything.
So when I say I've seen precious little evidence that supports a YEC's literal interpretation of Genesis as scientific explanation for biodiversity, I mean evidence, not hypothesis, and I mean evidence based on a legitimate analysis of data. And in case you want to challenge my interpretation of "legitimate," I've got two such assessments currently floating in the Origins forum (Brewer and Snelling). Feel free to demonstrate that I didn't assess their evidence properly.
Reproducing "after one's own kind" has multiple interpretations among creationists, too! "They can only produce like copies of themselves," leading to the kind is more like species view, all the way to "They can only reproduce in the same manner," leading to the broader view of kinds as genera to domain.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I didn't see where they said the Bible explains how God did things on the scientific front. I see them explaining where they start from, evos start with darwin.
The claim of Scriptures being used as a scientific text book only come from evos.
Me: Do you believe an entity "got the ball rolling"?
You: It's possible; see above. I don't view Genesis as a literal historical / scientific guide, though. Not that it couldn't be so, but I just don't assume it to be so. And I've seen precious little evidence that actively supports this notion.
You: I'm getting to the point where I can answer "Intensively so," though I'm probably not quite there yet.
Let me know
Kinds reproducing seems simple enough. Dogs and cats can't so they are different kinds. Birds and fish can't, so they are different kinds. Mules and deer can, therefore they are the same kind.