Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Capuchin Scientists who were thought to be wrong turned out to be right? Sounds like science to me. That's how breakthroughs are made, when new evidence arises. Note that these people all championed something which was measurable.
"Flew is a bad example for you to put forth since he still believes in God." No idea what you're saying here. You put him forth as an example?? |
His stated reasons for doubting evolution are very logical:
Excerpt:
"As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)
The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.
The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.
"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (1)
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (2)
"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (3)
8- Antony Flew, "Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology," Philosophy Now;
Philosophy Now
9- "Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew;"
Biola > Page 1 : Biola News & Communications
- Antony Flew, "Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology," Philosophy Now;
Philosophy Now Harun Yahya - Articles - The Scientific World Is Turning to God
In any case, whether it was measurable or not is irrelevant. The relevance is that you chose to put forth ridicule and bandwagon as a reason not to take this scientist seriously. So I replied according to your faulty premise by giving examples to the contrary. Now of course you attempt to alter your previous clearly stated premise
As for Flew, his scientific credentials are there. That you want to discredit his ability to reason on abiogenesis based on his other ideas is illogical. Furthermore, he clearly states that he still believes in God though not the God of Christianity. Since we aren't talking about any specific God, and the subject is abiogenesis. His continued belief proves he rejects it.
Quote:
|
I gave 2 examples where Tipler had either lied or been incorrect in his books. I have no reason to disbelieve that he believes in god, but... seriously... have you read his books?
|
Your premise is faulty. Errors in one area don't prove that he cannot be trusted in other areas. If you apply that rule then you would have to discard EVERYTHING that Darwin said since evolutionists today have found serious errors in his concepts. Many other notable scientists have erred in their concepts and yet all their statements aren't summarily said to be untrustworthy based on that. You either apply your rule fairly or don't apply it at all.
Quote:
|
"Primary sources were provided but you seem to require secondary sources?" From a quote that was made after the death of someone, by someone else? Yes I require the source that was used originally. Chinese whispers and all that.
|
By all means. Then what you need to do is simply accept the ones which you find acceptable and reject the others. Me? I find ALL sources claiming evolution to be unacceptable based on one very important factor--illogical reasoning.
Quote:
|
"Fallacious reasoning and scientific dishonesty in unashamed support of the abiogenesis and evolutionary theory as well as academic harassment of creationists scientists identify evolutionists as a rather untrustworthy lot." Fallacious reasoning and scientific dishonesty in unashamed support of the creation and creationist theory as well as academic harassment of evolutionist scientists identify creationists as a rather untrustworthy lot. Your point? Some people made hoaxes, a couple of them being eminent scientists, is that really why you distrust the scientific community? Do we all know that creation is real, but just won't admit it because we're "fanatical" about evolution? What a strange contortion of reality you live in. The same can be said about creationists, with numerous hoaxes of Noah's ark. Unlike you, I won't hold these hoaxes against you. I don't really see the point of your entire argument. Scientists are human too.
|
False analogy! My belief in a creator isn't based on research or statements made by any religious organization-or religious person. In contrast, YOUR belief is totally based on what these so-called scientists have said. So your attempted comparison is irrelevant in this particular case.
Also, your accusation is strawman since I don't distrust any other branch of the scientific community. Just the branch that has repeatedly tried to hoax its way to credibility by falsification of data, ignoring of any data which seems to contradict its assumptions, and by application of scientific method to its own pet ideas while refusing to apply the same scientific principle if it goes contrary to their chosen belief. If you examine other branches of science you won't find so many inconsistencies and unabashed efforts at trickery. Since that is so, why should I trust them?
As for my belief in a creator, it doesn't depend on scientific testimony. It is firmly based on logic. Another area where your particular branch of "science" is ridiculously lacking.
BTW
It isn't just a couple. The whole history of your cherished abiogenesis "science " is full of efforts to deceive via unscrupulous misapplication of the scientific method.
Harun Yahya - The Evolution Deceit - Chapter 13
(5)
Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project,
"What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." (6)
5- John Whitfield, "Physicists plunder life's tool chest", 24 April 2003;
news@nature
6- San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001
Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (7) 7- Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79
The Evolution Deceit
Linear Mode
