...and remember that one of the world's most prominent atheists just renounced Atheism based on scientific evidence. He said his thorough investigation of the facts that are now known and accepted about our world and universe make it illogical to continue to deny the existence of an intelligent Creator.
I know this thread isn't about atheism, but I think that's relevant.
Peace
JerryB
Nice try Jerry, but he didn't exactly 'renounce' atheism. (And I know who you're talking about too, and I followed up further on his account) He just shifted into agnosticism. That's a far cry from 'renouncing' atheism.
Gotta come up with a more solid example than that, my friend. ;)-->
Besides, the argument from complexity sets an arbitrary threshold. One that has no basis for determining the design side from the non-design side of the level of complexity.
Kind of interesting. A couple of things I observe in a lot of this..
On one hand, I have a physics instructor, real smart guy, his take on it is that anybody that does no fully suscribe to the theory of evolution is plain not educated, primitive, or really ignorant.
On the other hand, I see INTELLIGENT christian folk say if you believe in it you're possessed, mislead or worse..
There seems to be very little meeting in the middle of the road. "Atheists" not willing to admit of the possibility that somehow, we are not as alone in all of this as we think, and "Christians" not willing to admit that just possibly, God has designed life to adapt- sometimes in striking ways.
I have heard some valid arguments, in my opinion, from both sides.. just wish it wasn't colored with somebody's "believe it or else" agenda..
I've never heard a creationist (not that I'm acquainted with all of them) deny evolution as adaptation within species. They just deny evolution as an explanation for the origin of the species. Seems middle of the road enough to me.
I don't really consider myself an atheist, so maybe I don't qualify. But I'm more than willing to admit there may be an unbelievably extraordinary being or intelligence that is responsible for all of creation. I just don't see any evidence of one. Of course, something as superior to human beings as a creator of the entire universe would have to be, could certainly keep himself from being found out, if that was his intention.
It does seem to me, though, that the most denial is in the believers camp (Ken Hovind's site is a good example). They spend so much time trying to prop up ridiculous notions like how the ark was made, or how there really were dinosaurs around just a few years ago, and utterly ignore entire fields of research, like biology, paleontology, archaeology, and geology. That is, of course, unless they can get fundie member of their lunatic fringe to prostitute himself and try to lend credence to their dopey contentions (Noah and the flood really happened, there really was an Adam and Eve, and the earth is only 6,000 years old, etc.). And of course then, there's that pesky fossil record to dance around...
There is nothing about the scientific theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) that excludes the possibility of a creator, including the Christian God. Many (most?) scientists and other people who accept (not the same as “believe in”) the theory of evolution are theists. Many are fervent Christians, who believe that the God of the Bible is the Creator of all things and all life.
Science is “atheistic” only in the sense that it does not assume the existence or action of a deity. Neither does it assume the non-existence or inaction of a deity. Those assumptions are outside the province of science and irrelevant to scientific pursuit.
As far as the "theory" of evolution goes, well, at least it can be used for something. By understanding the basics of how species change due to environmental forces and whatever, we can make accurate predictions as to what's going to happen. Lawns that are consistantly mowed to a certain height will eventually generate dandelions that grow to just less than that height to blossom. Harmful genes can be plotted and the probability of offspring receiving that gene can be calculated. Deadly diseases (bird flu, anyone?) can be understood in light of what can happen if certain mutations occur, and proper safeguards can be prepared for (well, they should be, anyway).
But what do you get with a creationist mindset? Does it open up any avenues for investigation that can then lead to further understanding? Boy, I sure don't see that. It's simply, "Well, God did it, ain't He great!". And there you are, dead end. Praise the Lord and wait for His judgement to come to pass.
Actually George, what you get is a more accurate understanding of the universe God created; in short, better science. If the theory of evolution is incorrect, holding to it will lead to false assumptions that impede scientific progress. To someone with your mindset this sounds like a far-fetched notion, but it is not. I read an article in Science magazine that offered one example. I tried to find it online last night, but Science Magazine's archives are not available for public view. If I can find it at the library this weekend, I'll post the exact month, author, etc.
The gist of the article is that gene therapy has been a disappointment and that part of the reason is the human genome project is based on a false assumption.
The people who worked on trying to decode human DNA assumed that there must be "junk DNA" in the human genetic code leftover from man's evolution from lower primates. Based on that assumption, they automatically discounted vast amounts of information. If any of you are familiar with how polymers work, you know that the bonds between molecules are only one layer of the chemical information. The way the polymer twists and bends is another layer of information that affects how that polymer bonds with other polymers. According to the article, DNA is an extraordinarily complex polymer that has three different levels of encoded information. (Again this is from memory so forgive me if I miss a detail or two). The two lower levels of information were discounted as "junk DNA" and ignored. The remaining information was never actually decoded in detail, but supercomputers were used to analyze massive sections of DNA looking for certain groups of chromosomes. The information is still too complex to sort out one gene at a time.
But one researcher questioned the wisdome of that junk DNA assumption and began looking at the other levels of information that might be encoded in the ways the DNA molecule folds back upon itself. She found through testing that there is genetically coded information hidden in these secondary and tertiary structures that relates to human sicknesses and birth defects.
Gene therapy has not lived up to its promise because the doctors and researchers were not looking at all the relevent information... because they assumed it was worthless info left over from evolution.
Finally, the author said that these other levels of encoded genetic information are so complex that not even our best computers can begin to unravel all of it. So, from the perspective of a believer, I'd say that's an example of the value of a Creationist mindset and the cost of basing scientific research on an invalid theory.
I'll try to find the article and see if there's a link to it
Haven't found the article I originally read, but I've found some related information. The noncoded information is in introns and extrons, which, until recently scientists declared had no known function. As has been the case for too long, when scientists find something in the human body that they don't understand, they arrogantly declare that it's useless.
There is now a growing consensus among biochemists that these aspects of DNA are not useless, but critical in understanding human health and pathology. Here's a link to one such article.
Here's a snippet; emphasis added.
quote:
The New View of Introns
It is now recognized that introns are "a complex mix of different DNA, much of which are vital to the life of the cell."28 As their functions are being determined, the relationship of introns to cancer and their use as tumor markers is also being explored. Several functions for introns have already been identified, and evidence for a role for them is indicated by the finding that some intron alterations are directly related to the development of cancer.
Early insight in intron function was a result of the finding that many noncoding DNA sequences are not random base pairs, but have certain features in common with human language.29 The finding that introns manifest the same complex patterns of communication found in human speech supports the supposition that they carry functional information. Of course, the existence of a pattern does not in itself provide direct evidence for a function, but it does indicate a potential systematic cause exists which produces the pattern found.
God creates us. We die. He dies.(some script about about how we all die together) Or His Only begotten dies and we are all saved according to believing waterever John... and we all live again kicking devil spirit a s s holy fallen angels~~~ if you who ever get a clue let me really know~~~ been a long time since THE ROCK N ROLL
must of been a hellulavaheaven experience 2000 thousand years ago, ya know those sneakers into the cloud out of their sight type of thingie
Haven't found the article I originally read, but I've found some related information. The noncoded information is in introns and extrons, which, until recently scientists declared had no known function. As has been the case for too long, when scientists find something in the human body that they don't understand, they arrogantly declare that it's useless.
To say that something has "no known function" is not to "arrogantly declare that it is useless."
Haven't found the article I originally read, but I've found some related information. The noncoded information is in introns and extrons, which, until recently scientists declared had no known function. As has been the case for too long, when scientists find something in the human body that they don't understand, they arrogantly declare that it's useless.
To say that something has "no known function" is not to "arrogantly declare that it is useless."
Perhaps I'm responding to things I've been taught. I remember that in high school cellular biology, I was taught that golgi bodies didn't have any function. The textbook didn't say, "golgi bodies have no known function", it said they don't do anything. That's arrogance, in my opinion. How many of us had their tonsils yanked when we were growing up because doctors told us they were useless? My point-poorly made it seems--was that scientists have a habit of doing this.
The reason I even mentioned the Answers in Genesis website is that their foundational approach is NOT religious.
Religion, generally speaking, says, "Take it by faith." with no proof. Answers in Genesis takes the Bible from this point of view.
"If the Bible IS true there MUST be proof." Their presentations are hours and hours of them presenting the proof. Its not just read this scripture and believe it. Its more like, "Here, look at this. Now look at this scripture. This scripture describes this. You can believe it if you want to."
They do stuff like this, that I've seen them do.
The show a photograph of a skull that evolutionists say is a (well, they show photos of ALL of them) lets just say "Neanderthal man" from the evolutionary chart. Then they show side by side a photo of a living person, "today." They will even say, "Excuse me sir. Would you stand up please?"
I've seen them do this and show that EVERY skull type on the evolutionary chart can be found on a person living TODAY. They get a nice chuckle when they say, 'You sir, are a Neanderthal...."
The Answers in Genesis site has thousands of articles, studies, etc and BOTH sides of the issues. This noted persons says this, that one that. It is hardly about blind acceptance.
I would bet that you, George, did a search and found your alternative site just BECAUSE of the link to the AiG site.
Why do I say that? Blind acceptance? Blind attack? No. Evidence. You act like that. SOmebody else above said it, I don't need to repeat it.
AND... your alternative site... says,
quote:
And believe it or not, there is not ONE link on the AiG site to a reputable scientific site - no museums, no universities or other sites devoted to scientific learning.
Oh, yes there is.... right here it is. Not only do they link to this website, they even went so far as to download the article from the site AND archive it ON their server as a PDF file. I would saym just in cae the OTHER site pulled it down. AND they give you this message,
quote:
As a courtesy, we would like to inform you that the link you just clicked on is not a part of the Answers in Genesis website.
Would you like to continue?
I found that link to Rutgers University on AiG in less than 30 seconds by going to AiG's questions & answer section and randomly choosing a topic I thought was interesting. If I'm to believe your guy, I must believe that Rutgers University is either not a university, nor are they reputable, nor are they devoted to scientific learning.
Hmmm. I have evidence to the contrary. Rutgers University sent my daughter information trying to get her to do her college work there; in their dept of SCIENCE. I think I'll listen to YOU and your guy from his website and refuse to allow my little girl to go there. Perhaps I can sue them for fraud?
Would you testify?
Huh George?
WOULD you?
I don't think you even read the website you listed the URL to. He's obviously LYING about AiG, wheter you believe in God or not, or believe a single word AiG says; I don't think one should LIE about them.
Your guy's website also speaks of an "arch idiot Kent Hovind. If Hovind is such an idiot, why doesn't your guy take him down and collect the $250 THOUSand DOOLlars he offers "to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution."
If he doesn't wanna do it, tell your guy to give me a call & email his evidence to me. I'll go get the bucks.
'm wondering if life can exist independant of death anyway. How can our biological systems function if cells never died? Even the food we eat has to be a product of something that died.
Just taking this to its logical conclusion if we are going to accept that there was a time when death was not present due to no sin.
Cellular "death" and the whole person or animal dying MUST be two different things, else when one cell died the whole person would die.
If your're gonna be logical...??
Cellular death thas nothing to do with sin. Also, whatever LIFE actually is inhabits the entire being, not just the cells. Nobody would argue that when a body dies the cells remain, otherwise we'd disappear when we die.
Plus. The degredation in human beings over the past six thousand years is not all that much seeing as some people live to be over 100 years old and God said in Genesis that man would live 120 years.
Why would a subject that affects all of us not get more "face time"? Seems like a pretty simple question - When did death enter the world? Is the Bible silent on such simple questions?
Actually, no it isn't; "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Romans 5:12
How much more clear does it need to be than that? Death entered into the world by the sin of one man, Adam, and death passed on to all other men, because we all sin.
That link you say is to a reputable scientific site is not. It’s to the Rutgers School of Law and the document has nothing to do with science, but is about Nazi religious persecution.
Kent Hovind is a fraud. His offer you referenced is bogus. For one thing, he either doesn’t know what the theory of evolution is or he is lying about it. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Also, it is flat-out impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt how (the processes by which) the universe or life came into being. No reasonable person would take such an offer seriously, any more than any reasonable person would take seriously a million dollar offer for proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a god or gods brought the universe into being. But apparently bogus “offers” like that impress credulous people.
It never ceases to amaze me, the things that people choose to point out & discuss.
Do you actually think I DIDN'T know the link I mentioned was from the Rutgers School of Law? I can't speak difinitively for the creator of the universe at times but I certainly can read.
Sometimes I post stuff "fishing" to see what will get a bite. I'm finding there is a VERY consistent pattern of what people bite on here at GS Cafe.
I just KNEW someone might bite on the Law School thing. I guess it ISN'T a direct link to Rutgers University website, at least the part of the University devoted to science. The link goes to the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion.
Therefore, the guy ranting on the alternative site George so graciously provided us with WASN'T techinically lying when he said AiG's site didn't have even "ONE link on the AiG site to a reputable scientific site - no museums, no universities or other sites devoted to scientific learning."
Or... was the ranting guy spinning his point into propaganda to keep someone from even looking at the AiG site? I chose to pick up on the adjective he used, "reputable." How "reputable"
However, there ARE thousands of links to articles, books, lectures, and PEOPLE who are SCIENTISTS and their works and comments on every topic one could think of around the ENTIRE subject. Said subject being the Bible IS true and it can be upheld, from the very FIRST verse and throughout.
I could have picked a subject from the AiG site that was more purely scientific. I stuck with that one because I was absolutely AMAZED to find out from Answers in Genesis how Hitler's Nazi thinking relates to Darwin and his evolutionary hypotheses, which do not even qualify as THEORY.
I was hoping people might also be intrigued by how much info AiG actually covers and read some of it.
Instead, rather than point out something positive, rather than discuss the topical stuff, you say, "That link you say is to a reputable scientific site is not... Kent Hovind is a fraud. His offer is bogus."
Oh well, even if he IS a fraud, he's right about
"the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief." Seeing as you KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt that Hovind IS a fraud, lets say WE get together and expose him? I'll split the bucks with you "fitty-fitty." We can sue him for fraud.
All religion doesn't involve the God & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I'm not saying I support Kent Hovind, but how fraudulent is this?
"People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my (Hovind's) contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense."
Here's a couple of links fer ya... Creation Compromises This one includes the "Gap Theory" which IS the scientifically accepted name for part of TWI's view on life/death before Adam. ... AND this link about the guy who was ranting about Aig's lack of links to reputable science sites, etc.
Fot those of you who don't want to link out of here, the ranting guy is "John Stear. His beloved Australian Skeptic journal describes him as a “retired public servant” or “retired bureaucrat.”... although he pontificates about science, he is not a scientist himself?"
I suppose all the sites offered have the answer eh?
Its an ancient quest ion and no one has any proof except some one who loves you buries your body in a coffin or burned and scattered ashes
Wether deathe before or after adam and "the ways" view or the all other views of every people from all ages 'pon this earth who has been called out since before TIME into eternity
Jeesh who is correct and who is correct their experiencs and especially "cyber space"???
Many an expieriance a dance colliding galaxies heading in some direction that we know they do but do not know why~~~ a hubble Telescope any one
just a
Song and the out reach into those minds that can put a telescope into SPACE!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
39
27
33
Popular Days
Apr 11
31
Apr 8
24
Apr 9
19
Apr 13
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 22 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 39 posts
LG 27 posts
HCW 33 posts
Popular Days
Apr 11 2005
31 posts
Apr 8 2005
24 posts
Apr 9 2005
19 posts
Apr 13 2005
18 posts
GarthP2000
Nice try Jerry, but he didn't exactly 'renounce' atheism. (And I know who you're talking about too, and I followed up further on his account) He just shifted into agnosticism. That's a far cry from 'renouncing' atheism.
Gotta come up with a more solid example than that, my friend.
;)-->
Besides, the argument from complexity sets an arbitrary threshold. One that has no basis for determining the design side from the non-design side of the level of complexity.
Another oopsie!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Kind of interesting. A couple of things I observe in a lot of this..
On one hand, I have a physics instructor, real smart guy, his take on it is that anybody that does no fully suscribe to the theory of evolution is plain not educated, primitive, or really ignorant.
On the other hand, I see INTELLIGENT christian folk say if you believe in it you're possessed, mislead or worse..
There seems to be very little meeting in the middle of the road. "Atheists" not willing to admit of the possibility that somehow, we are not as alone in all of this as we think, and "Christians" not willing to admit that just possibly, God has designed life to adapt- sometimes in striking ways.
I have heard some valid arguments, in my opinion, from both sides.. just wish it wasn't colored with somebody's "believe it or else" agenda..
I still don't know where I am at in all of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I've never heard a creationist (not that I'm acquainted with all of them) deny evolution as adaptation within species. They just deny evolution as an explanation for the origin of the species. Seems middle of the road enough to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Hammeroni,
I don't really consider myself an atheist, so maybe I don't qualify. But I'm more than willing to admit there may be an unbelievably extraordinary being or intelligence that is responsible for all of creation. I just don't see any evidence of one. Of course, something as superior to human beings as a creator of the entire universe would have to be, could certainly keep himself from being found out, if that was his intention.
It does seem to me, though, that the most denial is in the believers camp (Ken Hovind's site is a good example). They spend so much time trying to prop up ridiculous notions like how the ark was made, or how there really were dinosaurs around just a few years ago, and utterly ignore entire fields of research, like biology, paleontology, archaeology, and geology. That is, of course, unless they can get fundie member of their lunatic fringe to prostitute himself and try to lend credence to their dopey contentions (Noah and the flood really happened, there really was an Adam and Eve, and the earth is only 6,000 years old, etc.). And of course then, there's that pesky fossil record to dance around...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Not only were there dinosaurs back before Noah's flood, George, but according to the good Dr. Hovind, there were dragons as well.
Serious as a heart attack!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
There is nothing about the scientific theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) that excludes the possibility of a creator, including the Christian God. Many (most?) scientists and other people who accept (not the same as “believe in”) the theory of evolution are theists. Many are fervent Christians, who believe that the God of the Bible is the Creator of all things and all life.
Science is “atheistic” only in the sense that it does not assume the existence or action of a deity. Neither does it assume the non-existence or inaction of a deity. Those assumptions are outside the province of science and irrelevant to scientific pursuit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Actually George, what you get is a more accurate understanding of the universe God created; in short, better science. If the theory of evolution is incorrect, holding to it will lead to false assumptions that impede scientific progress. To someone with your mindset this sounds like a far-fetched notion, but it is not. I read an article in Science magazine that offered one example. I tried to find it online last night, but Science Magazine's archives are not available for public view. If I can find it at the library this weekend, I'll post the exact month, author, etc.
The gist of the article is that gene therapy has been a disappointment and that part of the reason is the human genome project is based on a false assumption.
The people who worked on trying to decode human DNA assumed that there must be "junk DNA" in the human genetic code leftover from man's evolution from lower primates. Based on that assumption, they automatically discounted vast amounts of information. If any of you are familiar with how polymers work, you know that the bonds between molecules are only one layer of the chemical information. The way the polymer twists and bends is another layer of information that affects how that polymer bonds with other polymers. According to the article, DNA is an extraordinarily complex polymer that has three different levels of encoded information. (Again this is from memory so forgive me if I miss a detail or two). The two lower levels of information were discounted as "junk DNA" and ignored. The remaining information was never actually decoded in detail, but supercomputers were used to analyze massive sections of DNA looking for certain groups of chromosomes. The information is still too complex to sort out one gene at a time.
But one researcher questioned the wisdome of that junk DNA assumption and began looking at the other levels of information that might be encoded in the ways the DNA molecule folds back upon itself. She found through testing that there is genetically coded information hidden in these secondary and tertiary structures that relates to human sicknesses and birth defects.
Gene therapy has not lived up to its promise because the doctors and researchers were not looking at all the relevent information... because they assumed it was worthless info left over from evolution.
Finally, the author said that these other levels of encoded genetic information are so complex that not even our best computers can begin to unravel all of it. So, from the perspective of a believer, I'd say that's an example of the value of a Creationist mindset and the cost of basing scientific research on an invalid theory.
I'll try to find the article and see if there's a link to it
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Haven't found the article I originally read, but I've found some related information. The noncoded information is in introns and extrons, which, until recently scientists declared had no known function. As has been the case for too long, when scientists find something in the human body that they don't understand, they arrogantly declare that it's useless.
There is now a growing consensus among biochemists that these aspects of DNA are not useless, but critical in understanding human health and pathology. Here's a link to one such article.
Here's a snippet; emphasis added.
Enjoy.
Introns and Extrons
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
created in the image of God~~~
or is it made
where do we go from t/here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
hmmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
God creates us. We die. He dies.(some script about about how we all die together) Or His Only begotten dies and we are all saved according to believing waterever John... and we all live again kicking devil spirit a s s holy fallen angels~~~ if you who ever get a clue let me really know~~~ been a long time since THE ROCK N ROLL
must of been a hellulavaheaven experience 2000 thousand years ago, ya know those sneakers into the cloud out of their sight type of thingie
Edited by oneyedjackswild1 psLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Some body here needs to go WOW or Way Corps here~~~ believe me it can be done again
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
welcome to the show
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
must of been a hellulavaheaven experience 2000 thousand years ago, ya know those sneakers into the cloud out of their sight type of thingie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Perhaps I'm responding to things I've been taught. I remember that in high school cellular biology, I was taught that golgi bodies didn't have any function. The textbook didn't say, "golgi bodies have no known function", it said they don't do anything. That's arrogance, in my opinion. How many of us had their tonsils yanked when we were growing up because doctors told us they were useless? My point-poorly made it seems--was that scientists have a habit of doing this.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
The reason I even mentioned the Answers in Genesis website is that their foundational approach is NOT religious.
Religion, generally speaking, says, "Take it by faith." with no proof. Answers in Genesis takes the Bible from this point of view.
"If the Bible IS true there MUST be proof." Their presentations are hours and hours of them presenting the proof. Its not just read this scripture and believe it. Its more like, "Here, look at this. Now look at this scripture. This scripture describes this. You can believe it if you want to."
They do stuff like this, that I've seen them do.
The show a photograph of a skull that evolutionists say is a (well, they show photos of ALL of them) lets just say "Neanderthal man" from the evolutionary chart. Then they show side by side a photo of a living person, "today." They will even say, "Excuse me sir. Would you stand up please?"
I've seen them do this and show that EVERY skull type on the evolutionary chart can be found on a person living TODAY. They get a nice chuckle when they say, 'You sir, are a Neanderthal...."
The Answers in Genesis site has thousands of articles, studies, etc and BOTH sides of the issues. This noted persons says this, that one that. It is hardly about blind acceptance.
I would bet that you, George, did a search and found your alternative site just BECAUSE of the link to the AiG site.
Why do I say that? Blind acceptance? Blind attack? No. Evidence. You act like that. SOmebody else above said it, I don't need to repeat it.
AND... your alternative site... says,
Oh, yes there is.... right here it is. Not only do they link to this website, they even went so far as to download the article from the site AND archive it ON their server as a PDF file. I would saym just in cae the OTHER site pulled it down. AND they give you this message,
I found that link to Rutgers University on AiG in less than 30 seconds by going to AiG's questions & answer section and randomly choosing a topic I thought was interesting. If I'm to believe your guy, I must believe that Rutgers University is either not a university, nor are they reputable, nor are they devoted to scientific learning.
Hmmm. I have evidence to the contrary. Rutgers University sent my daughter information trying to get her to do her college work there; in their dept of SCIENCE. I think I'll listen to YOU and your guy from his website and refuse to allow my little girl to go there. Perhaps I can sue them for fraud?
Would you testify?
Huh George?
WOULD you?
I don't think you even read the website you listed the URL to. He's obviously LYING about AiG, wheter you believe in God or not, or believe a single word AiG says; I don't think one should LIE about them.
Your guy's website also speaks of an "arch idiot Kent Hovind. If Hovind is such an idiot, why doesn't your guy take him down and collect the $250 THOUSand DOOLlars
he offers "to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution."
If he doesn't wanna do it, tell your guy to give me a call & email his evidence to me. I'll go get the bucks.
This one was low, even for YOU, George.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Cellular "death" and the whole person or animal dying MUST be two different things, else when one cell died the whole person would die.
If your're gonna be logical...??
Cellular death thas nothing to do with sin. Also, whatever LIFE actually is inhabits the entire being, not just the cells. Nobody would argue that when a body dies the cells remain, otherwise we'd disappear when we die.
Plus. The degredation in human beings over the past six thousand years is not all that much seeing as some people live to be over 100 years old and God said in Genesis that man would live 120 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Actually, no it isn't; "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Romans 5:12
How much more clear does it need to be than that? Death entered into the world by the sin of one man, Adam, and death passed on to all other men, because we all sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
HCW,
That link you say is to a reputable scientific site is not. It’s to the Rutgers School of Law and the document has nothing to do with science, but is about Nazi religious persecution.
Kent Hovind is a fraud. His offer you referenced is bogus. For one thing, he either doesn’t know what the theory of evolution is or he is lying about it. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Also, it is flat-out impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt how (the processes by which) the universe or life came into being. No reasonable person would take such an offer seriously, any more than any reasonable person would take seriously a million dollar offer for proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a god or gods brought the universe into being. But apparently bogus “offers” like that impress credulous people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
It never ceases to amaze me, the things that people choose to point out & discuss.
Do you actually think I DIDN'T know the link I mentioned was from the Rutgers School of Law? I can't speak difinitively for the creator of the universe at times but I certainly can read.
Sometimes I post stuff "fishing" to see what will get a bite. I'm finding there is a VERY consistent pattern of what people bite on here at GS Cafe.
I just KNEW someone might bite on the Law School thing. I guess it ISN'T a direct link to Rutgers University website, at least the part of the University devoted to science. The link goes to the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion.
Therefore, the guy ranting on the alternative site George so graciously provided us with WASN'T techinically lying when he said AiG's site didn't have even "ONE link on the AiG site to a reputable scientific site - no museums, no universities or other sites devoted to scientific learning."
Or... was the ranting guy spinning his point into propaganda to keep someone from even looking at the AiG site? I chose to pick up on the adjective he used, "reputable." How "reputable"
However, there ARE thousands of links to articles, books, lectures, and PEOPLE who are SCIENTISTS and their works and comments on every topic one could think of around the ENTIRE subject. Said subject being the Bible IS true and it can be upheld, from the very FIRST verse and throughout.
I could have picked a subject from the AiG site that was more purely scientific. I stuck with that one because I was absolutely AMAZED to find out from Answers in Genesis how Hitler's Nazi thinking relates to Darwin and his evolutionary hypotheses, which do not even qualify as THEORY.
I was hoping people might also be intrigued by how much info AiG actually covers and read some of it.
Instead, rather than point out something positive, rather than discuss the topical stuff, you say, "That link you say is to a reputable scientific site is not... Kent Hovind is a fraud. His offer is bogus."
Oh well, even if he IS a fraud, he's right about
"the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief." Seeing as you KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt that Hovind IS a fraud, lets say WE get together and expose him? I'll split the bucks with you "fitty-fitty." We can sue him for fraud.
All religion doesn't involve the God & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I'm not saying I support Kent Hovind, but how fraudulent is this?
"People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my (Hovind's) contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense."
Here's a couple of links fer ya... Creation Compromises This one includes the "Gap Theory" which IS the scientifically accepted name for part of TWI's view on life/death before Adam. ... AND this link about the guy who was ranting about Aig's lack of links to reputable science sites, etc.
Fot those of you who don't want to link out of here, the ranting guy is "John Stear. His beloved Australian Skeptic journal describes him as a “retired public servant” or “retired bureaucrat.”... although he pontificates about science, he is not a scientist himself?"
Pick a link, decide for yourself.
Sheesh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
You really should read this link or at least skim it Before you allow George's new hero to debunk ANYTHING.
If you're Chistian, this guy is out to debunk YOU, as in literally...as in get rid of you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
DEATH
SEED after its own kind.
WHY it happens?
I suppose all the sites offered have the answer eh?
Its an ancient quest ion and no one has any proof except some one who loves you buries your body in a coffin or burned and scattered ashes
Wether deathe before or after adam and "the ways" view or the all other views of every people from all ages 'pon this earth who has been called out since before TIME into eternity
Jeesh who is correct and who is correct their experiencs and especially "cyber space"???
Many an expieriance a dance colliding galaxies heading in some direction that we know they do but do not know why~~~ a hubble Telescope any one
just a
Song and the out reach into those minds that can put a telescope into SPACE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
ONE or two or many an warning eh~~~ head to the mountains and purple robes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.