Comments on: Science debate takes step forward

By: TC

TC — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:58:33 +0000

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.

By: nunyer

nunyer — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:13:51 +0000

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?

By: TC

TC — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:08:08 +0000

rfl,
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to argue with your last post – can you elaborate?

By: rfl

rfl — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:31:45 +0000

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

By: TC

TC — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:44:14 +0000

American (and Regular),
Indeed – this is one of the most civil discussions I’ve had on this board. No name calling – how refreshing!
TC

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:17:25 +0000

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_caic/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:51:25 +0000

More websites to check out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.icr.org/home/contact/

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:42:47 +0000

Good night all. Thank you for the discussion!

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:39:31 +0000

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.

By: TC

TC — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:37:33 +0000

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.

By: Regular

Regular — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:34:20 +0000

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. :)

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:32:10 +0000

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”

By: TC

TC — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:30:04 +0000

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.

By: TC

TC — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:28:14 +0000

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.

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:26:47 +0000

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).

By: TC

TC — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:24:15 +0000

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.

By: Regular

Regular — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:20:50 +0000

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.

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:15:20 +0000

Which occured first?

Sin or death?

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:13:12 +0000

I have provided my indications and links.

Where is the proof that evolution is true?

By: Regular

Regular — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:11:27 +0000

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.

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:10:58 +0000

How old is the earth?:

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/how-old-is-the-earth.htm

By: Regular

Regular — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:07:21 +0000

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.

By: TC

TC — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:04:44 +0000

American,
Check this out:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

By: American, of the USA

American, of the USA — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:03:44 +0000

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

By: TC

TC — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:02:14 +0000

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.”