The group trying to organize a presidential science and techology debate (see my column in support of the idea) got a big boost this week with an endorsement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the world’s most prestigious science organizations.
Here’s hoping more support will follow to make the debate a reality.
122 Comments
pssst, Randy Scholfield is cosmos…maybe
Sure, let’s have the candidates discuss electron microscopy techniques for cancer, the advantage of kinetic emplacement engines, the placement of inversed non-reciprocating centrifuges and a long discussion on simple notochords and how their symbiotic relationship with hosts balance the eco-systems of hierarchical lake fauna.
Maybe some light questioning on Plankt versus Newton.
Keep on keepin’ on Randy.
But the GOP they don’t do science. Any science debate will look like your picture there. The dems will show but not the GOP.
We also need to teach citizens more about science.
JimmyMac posted April 16, 2007 at 12:01 pm
“By the way, the Consensus Scientists don’t use the early Flask Data available because it is inconvenient. The CO2 levels have not reached 400 ppm yet, but in the 1940s it was above 400ppm with lower temperatures.
…
That means by looking at the Flask Data prior to 1970, there were 13 occasions were CO2 was as high or higher than it is today with lower temperatures.”
Poor JimmyMac did not understand that much of the “early Flask Data” does not represent global CO2 levels.
‘Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Isotope Records’
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
‘Hissink, CO2 and conspiracy theories’
http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/
cosmos has stated that the computer climate models are not accurate and that the climate is too complex to make accurate predictions.
cosmos is not a scientist.
JimmyMac also does not understand that his ad hominems do not correct his huge ignorance re climate science.
“cosmos has stated that the computer climate models are not accurate and that the climate is too complex to make accurate predictions.
“cosmos is not a scientist.”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
Too bad really. Regular has had some nice, non-trollish posts lately.
But this is not one of them.
…checks watch…
Nope, cosmos is still not a scientist.
Regular,
The debate isn’t supposed to be a science TEST, just a mechanism for voters to learn where the candidates stand on science policy issues. You seem to be highly scientifically literate (or you just grabbed a bunch of science topics from the web - which I kind of doubt); don’t you want to know the candidates’ positions on issues of science and technology? After eight years of an administration with a 16th-century Inquisition view of science, I know I do.
ksagnostic,
But it is fun to play with fools who insist that Earth’s global CO2 levels varied wildly in the 1940’s…
TC,
I don’t think sound byte Debates are well suited for debates on science. It would be a colossal waste of time.
Also, the hidden agenda factor. You know the evolution question will be asked of Huckabee and perhaps Romney.
Lastly, if they want to have a debate on one or two scientific topics where candidates could prepare, then that would be acceptable.
I don’t recall of any President in recent memory to be qualified to speak about science.
Now if the topic were about vision for scientific achievement or scientific support by the government, that’s fine.
But you know, the debate controllers won’t do that, they want to pop in those agenda questions.
Reg,
I’m sure you’re right that the debate would be a sound-bite fest, but all the debates are like that, and it would be better than nothing. Also, it’s not about being qualified to speak about science; Bush is clearly not qualified to speak about science, but the larger issue is his HOSTILITY to science. Also, how is evolution an “agenda” question? It should be fair game, like any other issue - it has Constitutional, educational, and financial implications. Your second-to-last sentence is exactly what I was trying to convey - not a science exam, but a POLICY debate (sorry for the all-caps - no italics).
Evolution is not a national issue, it’s a state’s issue. Decisions on Evolution are sought out, voted on and carried for by States, not the Federal government nor the President.
Evolution might be an interesting issue to discuss national, but not in a Presidential campaign. The jurisdiction for doing something about what is taught where and when is on the state level.
should have read:
Evolution might be an interesting issue to discuss
nationalnationallyJimmyMac posted January 24, 2008 at 8:20 am
“I don’t recall of any President in recent memory to be qualified to speak about science.”
George H.W. Bush understood the importance of science — the current president does not.
‘Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking’
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientists-signon-statement.html
Evolution is a local “issue” only with regard to whether it is taught in the schools; there are broader implications, not least of which is giving a general sense of a candidate’s views on science. A candidate who, just as an example, vehemently rejects evolution is probably much less likely to see scientific research as a priority.
That said, evolution is not really at the top of my list, but (respectfully) I still don’t see how it is a “hidden agenda” topic.
If education is a state issue I guess that takes care of that stupid NCLB legislation. It’s outta here since it is at the federal level. I feel much better now that it’s gone!
I too want to know the next leader of the United States won’t hamper scientists. Scientific reports should come from scientists without revisions from politicians.
Just make sure that when we debate “Science”, we don’t offend Global Warming supporters by presenting any facts that dispute MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Also, let’s make sure that whatever we do, we DO NOT OFFEND MUSLIMS!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325109,00.html
Three Pigs Story Judged ‘Offensive to Muslims’
Politics ALWAYS supersedes Science or anything else.
Can we also have a debate where Science debates Government?
Also, I’d like our Government to debate Medicine, in particular Cancer and Heart disease.
Then we can have Medicine debate Government.
Our next President should be an Expert in everything.
Other topics of cross-debates:
Marine Biology
Agriculture
Automotive Engineering
Genetics and Microbiology
Banking
Sanitation Engineering
Orthodontics
Architectural Design
Home Economics & Cooking
Sex Therapy
Solar Exploration
Physics
Neuroendocrinological and Molecular Aspects of Insect Reproduction
English
Math
Economics 101
Budgeting for Dummies
Oh forgot two:
Political Science and Government
History
Good topics for the next Leader of the Free (soon to be unfree) World to know.
Max posted January 24, 2008 at 10:05 am
“Just make sure that when we debate “Science”, we don’t offend Global Warming supporters by presenting any facts that dispute MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!”
There’s no need to worry about that, Max. There aren’t any facts that refute the scientific consensus on AGW.
Heil!!!
Max,
If that “heil” was for me, I suggest you learn three names.
1) Naomi Oreskes.
‘The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686
“Thus, despite claims sometimes made by some groups that there is not good evidence that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that such evidence is clear and persuasive.”
2) Benny Peiser. He tried to refute Oreskes’ study, but admitted that he had failed.
3) Klaus-Martin Schulte. He also tried to refute Oreskes’ study. His paper was so flawed, your denier’s journal(sic) ‘E&E’ refused to publish it.
‘Schulte’s Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be’
http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be
There goes cosmos referencing blogs and paper rags.
cosmos does not understand that science is not done in blogs and magazine rags.
cosmos is not a scientist.
Regular, you are out of line.
Fall-In!!! Now!!!
Goose Step!!!
Hold those knees up higher!
Ein! Zwei! Drei! Feir!
Do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT go against the Party Line!
Regular, you are out of line.
Fall-In!!! Now!!!
Goose Step!!!
Hold those knees up higher!
Ein! Zwei! Drei! Feir!
Do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT go against the Party Line!
Make sure you NEVER, EVER, Question WHY again!
It doesn’t make sense to try to assess a candidate’s own scientific knowledge through a debate.
What does make sense is to get a feel for the candidate’s willingness to heed the advice of the experts in the relevant fields.
If a candidate’s ideology conflicts with the findings of 99.9% of the world’s scientists, why should voters have any confidence in the candidate’s ability to make reality-based decisions?
10,000 Frenchmen cannot possibly be wrong.
The next president needs to be a person who understands s/he isn’t an expert in every field and is willing to heed the advice of those who are experts in their individual fields.
bush sets the bar low so someone better / samarter won’t be difficult to find.
I’m sorry Max, I cannot march.
Marching loosens the soil and causes erosion. Erosion releases co2, methane and other climate changes gases.
In order to march properly I would need boots with solid bases. These bases are made from petroleum products and I cannot contribute to petrol induced carbon contributions to the atmosphere.
Excessive movement during marching would cause me to further expel co2 at a rapid rate and increase the rate of global warming.
Max, I will stand here rigid, barefooted and with controlled, shallow breathing.
Well
It was only sleepy Fred who wouldn’t address global warming.
ALL of the rest of the candidates on BOTH sides acknowledge and have said they will address global warming.
So, none of them should fear this topic coming up in a science and technology debate. They would just have a chance to explain what they would do.
I do admit though that in general, science is not a debate the right wants to do. Accounting is more their thing.
Until they get elected.
Max,
Okay, you prefer to believe climate nonscience, aka nonsense. You’re responsible for your knowledge, and your opinions.
http://www.sciencemag.org/help/about/about.dtl
Specifically, what should the President who believes in the consensus do to correct the situation? For example should the next POTUS ratify Kyoto mandating emissions to return to 1990 levels? That would mean weekly mileage limits on the amount we drive. Strict laws on where we set our thermostat, Etc….
I would like for a President to follow the scientific consensus verbatim. I would like it because there are no clear actions that have to be taken even if one believed the consensus completely. Such a president would reveal how ridiculous it would be to follow scientists who are making far reaching predictions about a immensely complex climate system based on a inconclusive data points. The consensus is and has been in constant flux since it first reached front page status 20 years ago.
If you disagree, what exactly should the President do? How will those actions prevent global warming?
Cosmos and J R and others,
Are you bloggers on record for defining how exactly you think the next POTUS should address global warming?
The next president needs to be a person who understands s/he isn’t an expert in every field and is willing to heed the advice of those who are experts in their individual fields
-lindainks55
What advice are we talking about? How can we figure out a candidate’s efficacy on addressing global warming when we can not even be specific on what it is we think he/she should do?
What is Hillary on record for proposing to do about AGW? What about Obama?, Edwards, McCain, Romney?
What specifically have they said they are going to do?
Yeah, lets “address the issue”. Now I can check the box saying that I believe in science.
From the website:
rfl, why wouldn’t you want voters to know whether their candidate would base decisions on the best prevailing science?
I am not well informed enough to even “blog” about global climate change, so must let others address that subject. I am well-informed enough to know no administration should edit any scientific reports; that should be left to the scientific community.
On the subject of embryonic stem cell research I am better informed. I know that federal funds for this research has to do with THIS PRESIDENT. As soon as this president is gone (361 days, 10 hours, 47 minutes) we won’t have that roadblock in place, thus cures and treatments will be closer for all.
On the subject of evolution and ID / creationism (or whatever they’re calling it today) only science should be taught in science classes and ID is not science.
nunyer,
Voters should know what specific decisions candidates would make based on what it is they feel is prevailing science. So far, in this discussion, simply “addressing” global warming is all that is required by a candidate. I have no problem with those decisions being disclossed in fact that is exactly what I am advocating. I would think Cosmos and JR who strongly believe the current President should act upon the wishes of the consensus would have a lot more to say about what the next President should do about GW.
lindainks55,
You forget that science is only beneficial if it is used the improve the QUALITY of human life.
Not all science improves that level of quality of life. For example, In Manchuria during the WWII era, The Japanese used the Chinese citizens as guinea pigs to determine what effects different types of chemicals would have on the human body. That is science! Are the Japs justified in collecting that knowledge simply because science should be pursued no matter the ethical issues are?
Does treating embryos (or humans) as despensible for the sake of increasing scientific knowledge something we should encourage in this society?
If you devalue human life for the sake of improving a body of knowledge, you create a society where life is dispensible for the cause of science. That does not improve the quality of human life.
On the subject of evolution and ID / creationism (or whatever they’re calling it today) only science should be taught in science classes and ID is not science
-lindainks55
ID is not science? Neither is natural selection, common descent macro-evolution.
I would love for the “science” supporting evolution to be debated in the open.
I do not think that any of the candidates are that smart.
rfl,
I don’t argue or even discuss topics when minds are made up and two opposing opinions are held. It seems to be an exercise in futility and a waste of my time. My mind is completely made up and nothing you say will ever change my opinion that ID is not science. Nor is there any reason for me to speak to you about whether I do or not “devalue human life.” Again, there is nothing you would say that I am willing to listen to.
I know how much study and information have gone into my opinions. I know how far-reaching my research has been and I didn’t come to my conclusions lightly or easily. Since you are an anonymous blogger I see no reason to think your opinions would be more credible than my research. I see no reason for you to think my opinions would be credible, for the same reason.
So, I’ve stated my opinion as you have yours. I don’t feel a need to restate mine.
lindainks55,
I completely accept that ID is not science. But what I would really like for you to do is to share with me how evolution is science. Please share some of the research that you have done.
1. What is the biggest proof of evolution?
2. What evidence caused you to believe in evolution?
Remember, you believe that evolution is based on science (ie supported by evidence) and you claim that you have done far-reaching research to obtain this conclusion. You should be able to answer these two questions very easily.
rfl, you said
Isn’t it important to know how the candidate arrived at that “feeling?” Whether the candidate was getting his/her science information from the experts in relevant fields?
It only makes sense that a candidate who ignores the evidence is more likely make disastrous decisions. Like “there are WMDs in Iraq so we must invade.” Or “the levees in New Orleans aren’t a concern.”
Since this thread is a rerun of last Friday, a rerun of my post.
“Not a bad idea, but a lot of issues are important. I don’t see a single topic debate happening, be it on science, or technology, or the economy, or Iraq, or education, or unions, or taxes, or foreign policy, or national defense, or race relations, or what ever hot button issue raises it head.
But wouldn’t it be fun to see some of the logic used here used by presidential candidates?
“I’m sorry Mr Huckabee, but how can you pretend to understand anything about health care technology when you don’t believe in in Darwinian evolution theory? Hmmmmm…?”
Or, “Mrs. Clinton, that comment was not bad considering that even you think you are just a step or two removed from a she ape.”
Outlander,
The problem with a science debate is the motives of those who want to have one.
Take for instance most of the posters here who are pushing for it.
To them, a science debate will be a gotcha game on 2 issues: Global Warming and Evolution.
I have this feeling that all a science debate would be is an opportunity to try to mock those candidates who would say they don’t believe in Evolution or man made Global Warming.
Presidents are not scientists and probably don’t have a huge background in science.
So, you would have very pointed questions on select topics designed to do what?
I am all for science and a discussion of it. However, I have this feeling it will be little more than the same gotch questions that we went on and on about when the Republican candidates were asked if they believed in Evolution.
You’re right about that Nathan. Another good reason why I don’t see a so-called “science” debate happening.
Nunyer,
What does a feeling tell you? Do you enjoy hearing rhetoric or do you want to know what a candidate plans to do?
You are a terrific monday morning QB.
How can rely on evidence when there was it was the “evidence” that prompted the “experts” to claim that there were WMD in Iraq? Which evidence would you have believed? How does a candidates “feeling” about evidence impact which evidence he is going to believe?
How many people in New Orleans ignored the evidence that the levies were faulty? All of them who lived there. It was widely publicised the weakness of those levies. I lived there up until April of 2005. However, it takes a hurricane to get people to start pointing fingers at everyone else.
Evolution is still taking place. Asking for “proof” is a trap I avoid. I am not a scientist. However, if you want scientific evidence it is available. Have you not heard of “the google”? It’s all there. No real need to rephrase it or copy & paste it here. Hasn’t this topic been cussed and discussed often right here on this little blog? If “the google” isn’t to your liking the front page has a list of topics and evolution is one of them. I don’t have any desire to attempt answers to your two questions. I suspect any answer I would give would bring new questions. I do remember what futility is.
Nathan,
One could make the same argument that those who are opposed to a science debate don’t want the candidates to have to reveal their positions on evolution or global warming because it will reveal an anti-science philosophy. It’s not about mocking anyone; it’s about finding out what the candidates’ positions are on science issues.
Also, why do so many folks on this thread keep arguing that the candidates are not scientists and thus shouldn’t have to answer specific scientific questions. That is not the issue here at all - the debate should be about the candidates’ stances on POLICY issues related to science, not whether they can recite Bernoulli’s Law or know the mass of an electron. Of course they wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be expected to know those kinds of things. They should, however, be able to articulate their positions on policy issues; for example, endangered species protection, NASA funding and direction, science education, and, yes, global warming and evolution. If a candidate believes the world is only 6,000 years old, or refuses to accept the scientific consensus on global warming, we have the right to know that because it potentially has broad implications for a whole host of reasons. None of the candidates are trained economists, either, but we expect them to articulate their positions on economic issues.
Asking for “proof” is a trap I avoid
-lindainks55
What if your democratic candidate said that.
So much for a debate on “science”. We can debate scientific evidence as long as we don’t make the requirement that that evidence prove anything. You just have to believe the mob (scientific consensus right)? Is that the kind of presidential debate you had in mind?
I’m not running for any office.
Give the candidates a hypothetical:
“The best science indicates action X. Your particular flavor of religion indicates action Y. How would you decide, and why?”
rfl, regarding scientific proof and evidence . . . no theory can ever be ‘proven.’ 99.99% of the evidence can support it, but it’s not ever considered ‘proven’ in the absolute sense. Were you meaning to ask lindainks to supply evidence?
TC: you nailed it! We’re not asking candidates about what they know, we’re trying to find out how they’d find out what they don’t know.
rfl asked,
What does a feeling tell you? Do you enjoy hearing rhetoric or do you want to know what a candidate plans to do?
How can we possibly know all of the situations a president might face during their 4-8 years in office? I and many others would like to know how a candidate will make the decisions. On what basis will he/she pass judgment? Rather than asking for specific actions, find out the process by which they’d make those decisions.
Why wouldn’t voters want to know whether a candidate accepts reality?
rfl asked,
How can we possibly know all of the situations a president might face during their 4-8 years in office? I and many others would like to know how a candidate will make the decisions. On what basis will he/she pass judgment? Rather than asking for specific actions, find out the process by which they’d make those decisions.
Why wouldn’t voters want to know whether a candidate accepts reality?
“The best science indicates action X. Your particular flavor of religion indicates action Y. How would you decide, and why?”
At that point, it is no longer a science debate.
outlander said
At that point, it’s a science policy debate . . . how will the candidate decide policies which require scientific expertise to evaluate?
Again, why would any intelligent, curious, patriotic American not want to know these answers?
Evolution = Atheism
Creation = Belief in God
It should not be s/he but he/she.
What proof is there that evolution exists?
Which came first?
Sin or death?
American, of the USA
Posted January 24, 2008 at 6:20 pm | Permalink
What proof is there that evolution exists?
What proof is there that your “god” exisits?
lindainks55
Posted January 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm
So, I’ve stated my opinion as you have yours. I don’t feel a need to restate mine.
—————
The John Wayne Courage in Brevity and to the Point award goes to lindainks55.
Nathan posted January 24, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“I have this feeling that all a science debate would be is an opportunity to try to mock those candidates who would say they don’t believe in Evolution or man made Global Warming.”
Nathan, you do not seem to understand the difference between scientific methodology, and mere opinions.
Apophis
What proof is there that evolution exists?
The burden is upon you to prove that.
The prepoderance of scientific data shows evolution exists.
But……..you have NOTHING to prove your “god” exisits.
cosmos
Posted January 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
Nathan posted January 24, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“I have this feeling that all a science debate would be is an opportunity to try to mock those candidates who would say they don’t believe in Evolution or man made Global Warming.”
Nathan, you do not seem to understand the difference between scientific methodology, and mere opinions
——————
cosmos is not a scientist.
Maybe you can prove evolution.
Can you proved the primal cause for evolution?
You got nuthin.
Apophis, you have proof for what caused Evolution?
No prime mover?
You got nuthin.
American, of the USA
Posted January 24, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
It should not be s/he but he/she.
——————-
The whole reason behind s/he is to type the two choices succinctly.
Nathan,
Do you want to debate climate science?
Then offer a reasonable hypothesis that explains JimmyMac’s claim that global CO2 was above 400 ppm in the 1940’s.
Was there a massive release of CO2 then? Or were those elevated readings just taken in polluted, urban areas?
See my post at 7:45 am upthread, with his April 16, 2007 at 12:01 pm quotes.
BTW: Ben posted April 16, 2007 at 1:13 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/is_there_a_carb/#comment-253684
“Beck - that explains a lot. I have read his stuff - very bogus. Taking samples downwind from power plants etc.”
(Note my post, 2 posts earlier than Ben’s.)
Once again the “P” word rears its ignorant head. Nunyer has it exactly right: science doesn’t PROVE anything; it’s the Creationists who want proof. Also, the burden of “proof” is on the Creationists: there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and NO evidence for Creationism (or ID, if you want to dress it up differently), so in order to claim the correctness of creationism, the Creationists are the ones who must provide enough evidence to counter the scientific evidence for evolution. So far they have not provided any at all.
Also, “Evolution = atheism” = absolutely not true.
(using the song ‘Puff the Magic Dragon’)
Spark, the Magic Creator
Spark, the magic creator, lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Little jackie paper loved that rascal Spark,
And brought him strings and primordial ooze and pinched him in the dark. oh
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee.
Together they would travel on soupy seas with
with crude gills and lizardy scale,
Jackie kept a lookout perched on Spark’s gigantic tail,
Noble bugs and crawlies would bow wheneer they came,
Fish would lose their fins when Spark roared out their name. oh!
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee.
A creator lives forever but not so little boys
Painted wings and giant things make way for other toys.
One grey night it happened, dinosaurs came no more
And Spark that mighty creator, he ceased his fearless roar.
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee.
Spark starting walking upright, by adaptation lost his tail,
Spark no longer went to play along the dinosaur trail.
Without his life-long friends, Spark could not be brave,
So Spark that mighty creator sadly slipped into his cave. oh!
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee.
Spark’s family starting changing, by evolution they lost their tail,
Spark no longer went to play along the dinosaur trail.
Without his life-long friends, Spark could not be same,
So Spark’s former primate friends, changed their species name,
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Spark, the magic creator lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee.
Max, the truth is that have “nuthin’”!
You bible thumpers have just stories.
We have science.
Case closed.
Right Aphophis.
What started your science?
No one “started” science.
Who wrote your “bible”?
Adophis,
Creatism is based upon faith not proof and believing in the Word of God.
The Word of God as written history is the most accurate history ever written and it is accredited and authenticated with being that even from sources outside of the Bible and outside of the church.
Again, if evolution is based upon true science, what is the proof of it?
The burden is upon you!
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had
come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”
God listened very patiently to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a man-making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “Okay, great!” But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.” The scientist said, “Sure, no problem”
and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, “No, no — you go get your own dirt.”
American, of the USA
Posted January 24, 2008 at 8:24 pm | Permalink
Adophis,
Creatism is based upon faith not proof and believing in the Word of God.
The Word of God as written history is the most accurate history ever written and it is accredited and authenticated with being that even from sources outside of the Bible and outside of the church.
Again, if evolution is based upon true science, what is the proof of it?
The burden is upon you!
KEEP DELUDING YOURSELF!
“The Word of God as written history is the most accurate history ever written and it is accredited and authenticated with being that even from sources outside of the Bible and outside of the church.”
Are you serious? If it is so accurate, which did Noah take on the Ark - pairs of each “kind” or seven of each kind? And which creation story is correct, Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? And why is there even a Genesis 2 at all when the first line of Genesis 2 says “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” Creation is already created, then it is created again? Your “accurate” history contradicts itself on the first page!
As I said earlier, science is not concerned with “proof,” in fact, one does not “prove” anything in science. Can you “prove” that a rock will fall to the ground if you drop it from a height? No. However, you can PREDICT that it will - with an extremely high probability. The evidence in support of evolution is VAST, way too much to list here, but it is available to anyone who cares to look at it. Sorry, but the burden of “proof” is on the Creationists. Good luck.
Adophis,
Check this out:
http://static.scribd.com/docs/63ivls9i89thj.swf?INITIAL_VIEW=width
American, of the USA ……………..what exactly is THAT link supposed to PROVE?
It’s just more rhetoric from the reichwing.
Here’s an idea……………try smething original!
What you posted is just G-A-R-B-A-G-E !
American: Apophis doesn’t want to read anything that messes with his belief system. In the absence of evidence, it is actually quite inspirational to see the pure faith he has in evolution.
Adophis,
So how did this creation come into being?
Adophis and TC,
Check this out:
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/HistoricalAccuracyOfTheBible.htm
cosmos and lindainks55,
Check this out too:
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/HistoricalAccuracyOfTheBible.htm
The Big Bang Theory puts forward the idea that the entire universe began with a huge “singularity” (break down of physical laws) about 15 billion years ago.
The creation myth of the Old Hebrew Bible is that God created the universe in seven day at an unspecified time in the past.
They are exactly the same.
Long story short. Problem solved.
The Big Bang Theory puts forward the idea that the entire universe began with a huge “singularity” (break down of physical laws) about 15 billion years ago.
The creation myth of the Old Hebrew Bible is that God created the universe in seven day at an unspecified time in the past.
They are exactly the same.
Long story short. Problem solved.
American,
The last paragraph of the document that you linked to says that “the Bible never contradicts itself. Never.” Except I just pointed out TWO contradictions in Genesis alone. I’d love to hear the explanation for that. Also, using the Bible to “prove” that the Bible is accurate (Isiah 53) is not “proof” of anything. That’s like me saying, “I am really smart and handsome. Want proof? Just ask me, I’ll tell you.” Of course, I AM really smart and handsome, so there’s your proof.
Hmmm . . .
The Big Bang Theory puts forward the idea that the entire universe began with a huge “singularity” (break down of physical laws) about 15 billion years ago.
The creation myth of the Old Hebrew Bible is that God created the universe in seven day at an unspecified time in the past.
They are exactly the same.
Long story short. Problem solved.
TC,
The point here was to show that sources outside of the Bible show it to be true.
American, of the USA
Posted January 24, 2008 at 9:17 pm | Permalink
Adophis and TC,
Check this out:
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/HistoricalAccuracyOfTheBible
Sorry, but the geological evidence absolutely does NOT support a global flood event. In fact, it completely contradicts the notion of a global flood.
TC,
What “geological evidence absolutely does NOT support a global flood event”?
“The point here was to show that sources outside of the Bible show it to be true.”
Well, it fails miserably to demonstrate anything of the kind. In fact, it makes assertions that are completely false. Just one example (of many): your document states that the only errors in the Bible are errors of translation. This is simply not true. The story of Jesus coming across the crowd in the road surrounding an “adultress” (or prostitute, if you like), where Jesus famously instructs those without sin to cast the first stone was added to the Bible by a monk scribe centuries after the fact - the story does not appear at all in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament. Also, you still haven’t resolved the contradiction problem.
“What “geological evidence absolutely does NOT support a global flood event”?”
All of it! The formation of rock by slow deposition of minerals in slow-moving water, for starters. Also, if there was a global flood, large rocks and boulders would be found exclusively at the bottom of geological strata (which itself is comprised of many layers of different types of rock - inconsistent with flood patterns). I’m sure that the Noah story has its origins in a catastrophic flood, but there is no way that the flood was anything but a regional event.
TC,
Check this out:
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/biblical-archaeology.htm
That’s probably correct TC. Back then, the term “world” meant what the occupants thought the world was. In those times, it was their immediate area.
They had no concept of egg-shaped sphere rotating on its own axis, revolving around the sun.
Regular, and TC
Check this out:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/the-flood.htm
American,
I’m not sure I understand what this (http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/biblical-archaeology.htm) is supposed to “prove.” Archaeological evidence (ancient texts, clay tablets, etc.) only demonstrates that there are older texts that form the basis for biblical stories; it does nothing to demonstrate geological evidence for a global flood.
Regular,
Agreed. My argument then would be that if the Bible were “authored” by an all-knowing Creator, then “He” should have known that the Earth is indeed a sphere and its limits went (go) far beyond what the early peoples understood as the “world.”
Or this,
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/noahs-flood.htm
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/the-great-flood-faq.htm
American,
Check this out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
TC,
Well, I believe in an all-knowing, omnipotent Creator, I just have my own assessment on what happened.
One thing I’ve learned, that it is impossible to know the mind of God.
Perhaps the flood story is to be literally taken or perhaps not. I think the message of the story is more important than events.
The message being that God destroyed the wicked ways of men by water. The next time, according to prophesy, will be by fire.
How old is the earth?:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/how-old-is-the-earth.htm
Ya TC, I’ve taken Geology and we briefly discussed the flood scenario. It’s curious to find sea cow vertebrae and sharks teeth in the Rhine River Valley all in the same dig. One, a mammal, lived millions of years after the Devonian Age of Fishes, yet both were found in the same dig and on the same level of strata.
I have provided my indications and links.
Where is the proof that evolution is true?
Which occured first?
Sin or death?
I think a little of both are true, evolution and creation. That is, both can occur exclusively and mutually.
Sin or Death?
It depends on what you interpret Sin as and what death is.
If you count Lucifer’s expulsion from Heaven as a sin, then that was first. If only Humans can sin and spiritual beings such as Angels (Lucifer) are evil, then Spiritual Death occurred first.
It’s a no-win philosophical argument.
American,
You can post all the links you want, but they still don’t agree with the scientific evidence. If you want to trade links, I would point you to http://www.talkorigins.org, where you can find point-by-point refutations of the Creationist arguments.
Also, respectfully, you are still missing the main point about science (which I have stated several times already) which is that science doesn’t “prove” anything. Scientific investigations only provide evidence; the evidence either supports a hypothesis or it doesn’t. In the case of evolution, the vast preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution - and the evidence comes from a variety of sources: biological, geological, archaeological, chemical, physical, etc. Taken together, they all support evolution. I can’t possibly list all the evidence here. Personally, I think the Bible is fascinating and often beautiful, wonderful and inspiring. BUT, it does not constitute evidence for anything, let alone Creationism. A literal reading of the Bible is completely absurd.
Regular,
Which occured first in the Word of God?
Sin or death?
Sin must to have occured first, because sin is the cause of death (first earthly, then spiritually).
Sin only applies to man.
Evolution theorizes that death occured before man was created, based upon their theory of the age of the earth (millions and millions of years old).
Regular,
You might be on to something. Here is something else to consider (which you probably have already, I certainly don’t mean to be patronizing or insult your intelligence): science seeks to “explain” mechanisms. “Creation” per se is not a scientific question because there is no way to test it. Many scientists will say that science is concerned with “how” questions and religion is concerned with “why” questions. I think there is some truth to that. My objection comes when religion tries to answer the “how” questions without any evidence in support of those answers.
American,
Sin is not the cause of physical death. If you want to claim that it is the cause of spiritual death, then you are certainly welcome to do that, but physical death certainly existed long before human notions of spirituality and the soul.
Definition of evidence:
“Something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion”
TC
Posted January 24, 2008 at 10:28 pm
My objection comes when religion tries to answer the “how” questions without any evidence in support of those answers.
———————-
Well, you’ll never hear from me how the Bible defines creation for all things, because it doesn’t say anything specific enough. The Bible is my guide and Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
I don’t carry a Jesus calculator into class when I learn secular things.
They are two different philosophical math number sets.
Well, you’ll never hear from me how the Bible defines creation for all things, because it doesn’t say anything specific enough. The Bible is my guide and Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
I don’t carry a Jesus calculator into class when I learn secular things.
They are two different philosophical math number sets.
Nice! I like that.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in [Or through] Christ Jesus our Lord.
Good night all. Thank you for the discussion!
More websites to check out:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/home/contact/
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_caic/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
American (and Regular),
Indeed - this is one of the most civil discussions I’ve had on this board. No name calling - how refreshing!
TC
Proof of Evolution I.
The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:
1. If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common.
2. All organisms have one or more traits in common.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity
Response:
Consider how evolutionists would react if there were in fact multiple codes in nature. What if plants, animals, and bacteria all had different codes? Such a finding would not falsify evolution; rather, it would be incorporated into the theory. For if the code is arbitrary, why should there be just one? The blind process of evolution would explain why there are multiple codes. In fact, in 1979 certain minor variations in the code were found, and evolutionists believe, not surprisingly, that the variations were caused by the continuing evolution of the universal genetic code. Of course, it would not be a problem for such an explanation to be extended if it were the case that there were multiple codes. There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory. When it comes to the genetic code, evolution can accommodate a range of findings, but it cannot then use one of those findings as supporting evidence.
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp#pred1
rfl,
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to argue with your last post - can you elaborate?
TC, it looks like rfl is very comfortable sharing his opinions about science with us . . . but he doesn’t think that presidential candidates should do so.
Why is that?
Don’t know - my guess is that he/she knows deep down that Creationism is bunk and doesn’t want Romney and Huckabee to have to reveal that they have the same hostility toward science that Bush & Co. does.