10 Questions Intelligent Christians MUST Answer - Page 31

cactusman · 07-10-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hot dragon

Grace;

1. what we observe is speculation too.
2. does this apply to christian doctrines ? we did not observe the miracles or the ressurection, so it is speculation. all we have is ancient eye witness accounts but then again we have eye witness accounts of UFOs and bigfoot.

This conversation has nothing to do with matters of faith. Matters of faith are not taught to our children as fact in a public school setting. The fact that you continue to turn this into a religous argument is very telling.

Quote:

why the obsession with witnesses ? we cannot witness the passage of xrays either, or the force of gravity. can i argue that they do not exist ?

Im not, Science is
THEORY
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

Quote:

evolution is the centrepiece of biology. to not teach it in science is like not teaching counting in math.

I never said to not teach evolution, just stop teaching every part of it as though its fact. It isnt.

Quote:

exactly what law do you refer to here ?

See above

Quote:

chemicals that can replicate themselves. in the same way life replicates itself.

In the same way?? Come on now.

Quote:

i guess it is also impossible to land a woman on the moon. and it was impossible for anyone to make a flying machine in 1700. until someone did the impossible.

And it was OBSERVED

Quote:

rubbish

This is just one small list.

Quote:

but they have good and testable scientific theories.

Rubbish

Quote:

um, my scientific training is excellent. and i do not claim to know everything. but i do make the claim that it is definitively possible, that there is evidence that it could happen (laboratory and field evidence) and that it is a testable scientific proposition. it is consistent with everything else we know about life, throughout its long history and consistent with what we know about the creation of the planet, solar system and the universe.

I know you do, but you have no proof, so its nothing more than faith.

Quote:

none of this applies to any version of creationism. it is the quintessential non-science.

Again, why are you bring matters of faith into a scientific discussion?

Quote:

likewise. i believe you are being honest in that you believe what you say. but you are talking about topics on which you are not well informed.

Im more informed than the average person, and have spent much time studying these matters. You only say that cause I dont agree with you.

Quote:

untrue. they are often claimed to have been refuted.

Untrue my ass. They have been refuted by men/women who are just as educated as the people making the claims to begin with.

Quote:

our individual lives and actions are nothing to do with evolution. that is the silliest straw man you could have possibly come up with.

This is how you respond? do you even know what I said????

Quote:

1. like hell it would silence any critic. it would just me more ammunition for the "see, it needs intelligence to make it" crowd.
2. it would probably not be of much use except academically and philosophically (and not much even then). it would be enormously expensive and time consuming and most research these days is industry sponsored. until it is commercially viable, nobody with the capacity to do it will have a reason to.

But they are still trying to prove it.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hot dragon · 07-10-2008, 11:54 PM

Grace;

Quote:

This conversation has nothing to do with matters of faith. Matters of faith are not taught to our children as fact in a public school setting. The fact that you continue to turn this into a religous argument is very telling.

1.denying evolution IS a religious argument. science does not deny evolution. it teaches it. intelligent design, however, is a matter of faith. to cite it is to cite religion.
2. you say that unless we have seen it, it is unproven (a corrollary might be that if it has been witnessed, it is true). i am just asking if this standard applies to your arguments too, or only to mine ?

Quote:

Im not, Science is
THEORY
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

and you think intelligent design/ creationism achieves this ?

Quote:

I never said to not teach evolution, just stop teaching every part of it as though its fact. It isnt.

nor should it be taught as such. education should include the vast body of evidence from fossils, genetics, observation, morphology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, biology, and the theorey that unites this evidence completely and consistently. this is what they do.

Quote:

In the same way?? Come on now.

the chemistry occuring within your body is no different to the chemistry occuring outside it. whether a protien is synthesised by one of your living cells or in a test tube or in the walls of a volcanic vent is irrelevant. the principles are identical.

Quote:

And it was OBSERVED

impossible means not ever possible under any circumstances regardless of our technological development. it does not mean unachieveable with todays technology. you cannot say something is impossible just because we have not done it yet.

Quote:

This is just one small list.

list of who ? scientists who deny abiogenesis as a possibility ? scientists who say we cannot be sure how abiogenesis occured ? scientists who doubt evolution ? scientists who support intelligent design ?

Religion & Science Collaboration

Quote:

Rubbish

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative
Suspicious Creationist Credentials
just in case you want to clarify the standards of some of your experts. BTW, anyone who cites Duane Gish in defense of their argument is getting desperate.

Quote:

I know you do, but you have no proof, so its nothing more than faith.

are you saying that until it is PROVEN TO BE TRUE, it is only faith ?

Quote:

Again, why are you bring matters of faith into a scientific discussion?

i am not. you are the one trying to force intelligent design (under a different name) into evolutionary theories.
CI001.2: Intelligent Design as creationism

Quote:

Im more informed than the average person, and have spent much time studying these matters. You only say that cause I dont agree with you.

no, i say that because your arguments are inherently unscientific.

Quote:

Untrue my ass. They have been refuted by men/women who are just as educated as the people making the claims to begin with.

they have been claimed to have been refuted. when you actually read the refutations, they are non scientific arguments and do not address the issue of evolution and the origin of life in a scientific way.

Quote:

This is how you respond? do you even know what I said????

yes, you said that we have done lots of clever things to life in laboratories, using our intelligence and capacity to design. you then parallel this with evolution and abiogenesis, which is a straw man comparison.

Quote:

But they are still trying to prove it.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/quote]

sure. i have never said abiogenesis was an established fact. it is a well explored phenomena with theories and predictions and perfectly consistent with the rest of the observed facts of the universe. what i have said is that to simply claim it is impossible is non science.

BTW, are we discussing abiogenesis or evolution here ? the two are different and have a different level of evidence. we really should stick to one topic at a time, or it will get more confusing.

07-11-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hot dragon

Grace;

1.denying evolution IS a religious argument. science does not deny evolution. it teaches it. intelligent design, however, is a matter of faith. to cite it is to cite religion.
2. you say that unless we have seen it, it is unproven (a corrollary might be that if it has been witnessed, it is true). i am just asking if this standard applies to your arguments too, or only to mine ?

1.Its only becoming one, because you insist apon it. We can go all day, and I dont have to meantion anything about religion. I dont have to, the theories fall apart all on there own.
2. Again, I dont say it, the standards for science says it, as I have already clearly shown you.
and you think intelligent design/ creationism achieves this ?

Quote:

nor should it be taught as such. education should include the vast body of evidence from fossils, genetics, observation, morphology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, biology, and the theorey that unites this evidence completely and consistently. this is what they do.

BS, much of what has been claimed over the years has been proven incorrect by evolutionists themselfs, yet you still find this crap taught to children.

Quote:

the chemistry occuring within your body is no different to the chemistry occuring outside it. whether a protien is synthesised by one of your living cells or in a test tube or in the walls of a volcanic vent is irrelevant. the principles are identical.

There is one major difference, LIFE.

Quote:

impossible means not ever possible under any circumstances regardless of our technological development. it does not mean unachieveable with todays technology. you cannot say something is impossible just because we have not done it yet.

Sure I can, and till proven other wise, Im right.

Quote:

[

[/url][/list]list of who ? scientists who deny abiogenesis as a possibility ? scientists who say we cannot be sure how abiogenesis occured ? scientists who doubt evolution ? scientists who support intelligent design ?

WOW talk about being dishonest for example this is what your site says about John Grebe John Grebe, "an old-earth creationist and a founding member of the Creation Research Society, was a physical chemist and inventor. His Sc.D. degree from Case School of Applied Science was merely honorary"

But why would they leave out the rest of his resume? Such as

John Grebe

Creationist
Chemist
D.Sc. from Case Institute of Technology (1935) (Case is now part of Western Reserve University)
Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Hillsdale College (1967)
M.S. from Case Institute of Technology
Former researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reactor School and Engineering Team (1946-1947)
Former Director of the Dow Chemical Company Physical Chemistry Research Laboratories in Midland, Michigan
Served as Chief Scientist to the Army Chemical Corps at Edgewood Arsenal New Baltimore (1948-1949)
In 1943 became the youngest recipient ever to receive the Chemical Industry Medal
Certificate of Merit from The Franklin Institute (1942)
A founder of the Creation Research Society

Hmmm.

Quote:

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative
Suspicious Creationist Credentials
just in case you want to clarify the standards of some of your experts. BTW, anyone who cites Duane Gish in defense of their argument is getting desperate.

We can do this all day long, your site is dishonest representing these men and women, and it is really no surprise, its what happens to every scientist who dare color outside the lines of the dogma of evolution, and origin.

Quote:

are you saying that until it is PROVEN TO BE TRUE, it is only faith ?

Yes

Quote:

i am not. you are the one trying to force intelligent design (under a different name) into evolutionary theories.
CI001.2: Intelligent Design as creationism

I am doing nothing more than shooting holes in the theories you believe in. Show me in any part of this conversation where I brough religion into this, Good luck.

Quote:

no, i say that because your arguments are inherently unscientific.

Yea ok

Quote:

they have been claimed to have been refuted. when you actually read the refutations, they are non scientific arguments and do not address the issue of evolution and the origin of life in a scientific way.

BS

Quote:

yes, you said that we have done lots of clever things to life in laboratories, using our intelligence and capacity to design. you then parallel this with evolution and abiogenesis, which is a straw man comparison.

Again, BS

Quote:

sure. i have never said abiogenesis was an established fact. it is a well explored phenomena with theories and predictions and perfectly consistent with the rest of the observed facts of the universe. what i have said is that to simply claim it is impossible is non science.

What observations? what facts of the universe?

Quote:

BTW, are we discussing abiogenesis or evolution here ? the two are different and have a different level of evidence. we really should stick to one topic at a time, or it will get more confusing.

Seems we have thrown alittle of both in there. They maybe different, but they go hand in hand.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode