At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Why is it that Christians judge people that are different from themselves? If you are an Atheist, so to speak, you are viewed as a devil worshipper, or an outcast. But in the Bible, Matthew 7:1-3 it says "Judge not or thou shall be judged the same way on Judgement Day".
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.
I have pointed this out before, but you seemed to ignore it. YOUR premise is faulty. 2 quotes from guys who don't deal in biology that they don't believe in abiogenesis is an argument from authority, and is useless. I would be more pursuaded by quotes from the bible. And that's saying a lot.
If I said that I believed that the tooth fairy was real, would you quote me as HARD EVIDENCE that the tooth fairy was real? Of course not. Some people believe in creation. No sh*t Sherlock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
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.
Argument from incredulity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
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.
But your belief surely IS based on statements by the authors of the bible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
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?
This is becuase hoaxes in other areas don't get labelled as hoaxes. They get labelled as having "poor scientific practice". There are plenty of occasions where some unscrupulous scientists have made up data to fit their ideas. One that springs to mind is cold fusion, which has not been replicated despite many people trying the exact same experiment many times. This isn't labelled a hoax because it wasn't a glued together skull, but it amounts to the same thing. I assure you that this happens in all walks of life just as much as it does in evolutionary science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
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.
And the bible right? Another argument from incredulity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
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.
What are you talking about? There's very few hoxes in abiogenesis.. you haven't pointed a single one out.
Back on post 83 , some research was referred to:
If ambiogenesis explains life form non-life:
How do you get from "self replicating peptides" to dna or rna?
Note that the research is done in a lab controlled by humans that vary temperatures, concentrations, solutions etc.. very far from random.
Now a car is less complex than a single cell that can reproduce, but it took intelligence to build it.
Even if you knew how a car is made and put together and you had tools, imagine
somebody took apart your car down to each individual piece, what is the likelihood that you could put that car together intact and functioning?
Is there a living model of and organism that reproduces solely by " replicating its proteins?"
How do self replicating peptides organize themselves into cells, into tissue, into organs, into complex organisms - how long would this take ?
This is just biology / biochemistry.
If we humans are a product of random chance, on a planet billions of years old in a universe with billions of stars and other planets, how come we have not found life in elsewhere or been contacted by life elsewhere in the universe? Afterall there are billions [time] x billions [other planets and stars] of random chances for this to happen.
inthebox, I don't know if you realised, but we're only close enough to one planet to ascertain if there is life or not - Earth. The reason why life hasn't been found elsewhere is because we only have a catalog of a few thousand planets, and we don't have the technology to say for certain whether there is life on Mars (the closest planet) or not, let alone the other ones.
"How do you get from "self replicating peptides" to dna or rna? "
I don't know, I haven't had time to study this deep, there are models for how this would happen.
As for getting to complex organisms from there, that is a place where science has no specific model yet, only the outlines.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the car.. ?
As for the controlled environment. The early Earth would have been far from "random" too. Knowing what the conditions were in the early Earth is one of the bigger hurdles for science.
I have pointed this out before, but you seemed to ignore it. YOUR premise is faulty. 2 quotes from guys who don't deal in biology that they don't believe in abiogenesis is an argument from authority, and is useless. I would be more pursuaded by quotes from the bible. And that's saying a lot.
If I said that I believed that the tooth fairy was real, would you quote me as HARD EVIDENCE that the tooth fairy was real? Of course not. Some people believe in creation. No sh*t Sherlock.
I wrote a better response but it was unceremoniously erased. So the brief one below will have to suffice.
First, if my arguments are annoying you and are finicky then don't respond to them and the process will finish. It was YOU who began complaining about my response to a legitimate question on a Christian forum--not me. My quotations were in response to your accusation that people wgho reject your ideas are inteelectually deficient.
there is one huge intelligence out there, and hey, god or not, i dont think itd be a good idea to say to this huge, all powerful intelligence "i dont believe in you! you are nothing! i disagree with you!"
and capuchin, this reminds me of our previous debate, in which you refuted my claim that there is lots of evidence against evolution
well, starman just presented this evidence.
tho, i do not need any evidence to believe. i have faith, in god, and in humanity, i have faith that something as amazing and wonderful as humanity is not a meaningless acident. i have faith that man can know god!
Your very sensible words bring an air of logical refreshment to this forum. It is a real pity that there are those who dismiss legitimate scientists who are also believers in God as being unscientific or lesser scientists due to their belief. Actually, Capuchin provides NOTHING to prove his pet idea. All he does is complain whenever he is shown any evidence of a scientist's opinion to the contrary. Then he either begins attacking the source where the statement appears or begins digging up irrelevant data about the scientist. He doesn't even take time to provide the sources to his statements and expects us to believe them simply because he says so. Whether this is due to sheer academic laziness or sheer haughtiness mixed in with blind faith in his pet ideas is beyond me. But one thing is for sure, it definitely isn't good scholarship.
He also seems to miss the entire point of my response which is that to believe in God one need not be a moron as he seems to insinuate. The people I quoted have impressive credentials in science. They have been thoroughly trained in the scientific method and it is the misapplication of the scientific method by the evolutionists that they find error in. So Capuchin's claim that these scientists' opinions are irrelevant is not valid.
Neither is his claim that because Flew might have changed his mind the reasons he gave for his original rejection of atheism are wrong. Not at all. The reasons remain untouched even if he did recant. Notice also that Copernicus seemingly recanted in order to be left alone. Scientists who recant often do so due to peer pressure and not because they really agree with their persecutors. So with this in mind there if Capuchin's claim is true, it really proves very little.
Also, Capuchin has provided absolutely no reason, either scientific or logical why I or anyone else should place his claims above the opinions of theses noted scientists who do believe in God. Presented with evidence to the contrary he merely sits back and claims not to understand or see. Which proves only that he claims to neither understand or see--nothing more.
In any case, thanks for the positive feedback.
BTW
A well prepared response to his most recent post was erased. Perhaps my most recent response was considered tiresome?
unfortunately many christians dont know anything abbout christianity further than the name, the true ones wont do that, because a christian is a representative of Christ
Starman, in response to your reddie, nothing in science is uncontested fact, where did you get the idea that it was?
You have faith, I have belief, I have no problems in admitting that evolution is wrong if real evidence shows that it is the case, but you will always continue to believe in Creation, because you have faith. That's the difference between faith and belief.
All you have done is decidedly cloud the matter, sadly a familiar creationist "tactic". The extent to which you have twisted my words it testament to the lengths you will go to protect your faith.
I certainly have not insinuated that anyone who believes in God is a moron. That is not even my belief.
"Neither is his claim that because Flew might have changed his mind the reasons he gave for his original rejection of atheism are wrong."
And what of his initial rejection of religion?
"Capuchin has provided absolutely no reason, either scientific or logical why I or anyone else should place his claims above the opinions of theses noted scientists who do believe in God."
But there's plenty of reason to place the claims of noted scientists who do believe in God above noted scientists who do not believe in God, right? This is why I cannot "understand or see". You hold some humans in higher regard than others, just because they agree with yout belief system. It is not I who is doing this.
"He doesn't even take time to provide the sources to his statements"
Many times I have said "I can provide sources if you wish", you never ask though.
"Capuchin provides NOTHING to prove his pet idea"
My pet idea? While I would have been honoured to have come up with evolution, the honor you give me here is unfounded, it is not my idea. I haven't had a chance to provide evidence, I'm too busy refuting misrepresentation of scientific understanding.
I can't carry on "discussing" this with you, because you don't seem to be able to make a logical argument. Please take a leaf out of inthebox's book. I'm here to learn and to teach, you are not here to learn, you're here to "win".
Linear Mode
