[Starman]

excon agrees: Wow, I'm convinced. Which church shall I report to?

Well, OK, this is a good place to get started,

Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Society Official Web Site

Assuming of course that you aren't kidding around. : )

[Canada_Sweety]

W0W! Never seen anyone convert on this site... Yay!!!:D

[NeedKarma]

So help me if I see excon show up at my door...


:D

[Canada_Sweety]

L0L!

[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?

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?

"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.

"Irrelevant sources? I could have sworn you were pro abiogenesis. But if not, cool!" 9 of the sources dealt with what I understood to be the beginning of the universe, and not with the beginning of life. If you wish to contort what they said to fit your ideas, that's not my problem.

"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.

[cal823]

Did excon actually convert?
What did he convert to exactly?

[Tessy777]

I'm not angry about it either. I never said I was.

I understand there are jerks amongst any belief group, but Christians believe in the Bible, and the Bible considers it to be wrong to be judgemental. Where I come from is a small town, everybody there is a pronounced Christian, but yet could write for a New York City tabloid.

The argument i'm trying to make is, if Christians believe in the Bible and what it says, why are they so judgemental when the Bible considers it to be wrong?

That is a easy question to answer... the reasons Christians can be judgemental is because they are still sinners. In other words, I haven't arrived (hard to imagine, I know) but sometimes I too can start to judge... because I am human and that is what WE do. However, if you are a spiritually mature Christian (many are not) you recognize, admit and repent when you screw up and then you go on. What I don't understand is why that is hard to understand? I mess up all the time because I am a flawed human being and so is everyone else.

[Starman]

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.

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.

"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.

"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

[cal823]

There is one huge intelligence out there, and hey, god or not, I don't 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.
Though, 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 accident. I have faith that man can know god!

[Capuchin]

Cal, starman has not presented any evidence against evolution.

Starman, Flew retracted his beliefs about creation in 2004, right? I certainly did not ridicule him, just stated that his beliefs were unclear.

[Capuchin]

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 persuaded 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.

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.

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?

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 because 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 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.

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.

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.

[inthebox]

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? After all there are billions [time] x billions [other planets and stars] of random chances for this to happen.




Grace and peace

[Capuchin]

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.

[Starman]

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.

[Starman]

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?

[excon]

Hello:

I don't know. I don't leave my teeth under my pillow just in case there's a tooth fairy.

excon

[SnaveLeber]

Unfortunately many christians don't know anything about christianity further than the name, the true ones won't do that, because a christian is a representative of Christ

[Capuchin]

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".

[mikezapwnzor]

I was just wondering what judgment day is?

[Capuchin]

Last Judgment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia