 |
 HOME Articles Books Debates Editorials Fiction Music Q & A |
 |
 |
Debate 005: Adam and Blair debate spirituality & biblical inerrancy. (last entry 03/00)This is an exceptionally long debate and lasted for almost an entire year. The debate used to be split up on three different pages because of its size, but since most Internet surfers no longer use dial-up, I give it to you here in its entirety. Adam Rebuttal #001:Do you really think you can argue atheism successfully without relying on the same thing we Christians are accused (unfairly, I think) of relying on: namely, blind faith? For example, the secular humanist view cannot explain what happened before the supposed Big Bang. Because the second law of thermodynamics rules out an infinite chain of big bangs and universes. Atheists cannot explain the Big Bang. Many have tried. Nor can they prove anything that happened so far in the past using the scientific methodbecause the scientific method is only valid when experiments done with it can be reproduced. The Big Bang can't. It can only be theorized about. Secular Humanists cannot support the existence thoughts -- they are not tangible or measurable. Secular Humanists cannot rely on their brains for truth -- after all, thoughts are mere by-products of a blob of chemicals called the brain. And if you cannot rely on thoughts... go figure. Nor has anyone gotten near to producing anything near life in a lab so far: The lab environments used to 'prove' evolution so far have been very far removed from the 'real deal'. Only pure chemicals were used and amino acids were quickly removed from their hostile environment as soon as they appeared, where in real life they would quickly have been destroyed by the same energy that created them. Anyway, I'd like to hear your answers to these problems atheism has. If you respond, I promise to argue them all rationally and calmly. Response to Adam #001:Thank you for your comments. In order to ensure that I address your issues - I will take them on one at a time.
Yes.
What do secular humanists have to do with the Big Bang? Creationists often claim mistakenly something to the effect of what you said. It generally goes, "The second law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. The second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. To do so would violate the universal tendency of matter to decay or disintegrate." The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.
What do atheists have to do with the Big Bang? I think you are making a common mistake of attributing a belief system with atheism. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all there is to it. There are even atheistic religions. One out of three religions in the world do not believe in a god - making them atheistic religions. The only think atheists have in common is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Other than that... anything goes. Each of us is as unique as our fingerprints. I often debate fellow atheists more than I debate theists - because we are so diverse and have different views on everything from apricots to zebras. Scientists can explain the Big Bang. Based on the current evidence we have - that is the most logical theory available. The difference between scientists and creationists is that a scientists will question his theory. The scientists will look for holes and problems. Will continue to answer questions. Just recently scientists began poking at the Big Bang theory again at the discovery of gas clouds underneath distant galaxies. The discovery of these clouds adds a new dimension to the singularity. It will be interesting to see the new data when it comes out. Creationists on the other hand do not look for holes because they insist they are 100% correct because a book full of errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies "said so".
Do you know what a theory in the scientific community is? Do you know what the "scientific method" is?
Huh? What "existence thoughts" are you referring to exactly?
Huh? Why can't you rely on thoughts? And what do thoughts have to do with secular humanism and existence?
How can you say the lab environments are far removed from the real deal? Do you know what the real deal was? Scientists are not upset nor are they perplexed by our inability to re-create the beginnings of life in the lab. We know we will probably never accomplish it - but instead of giving up - they keep trying. More out of curiosity than to try to prove anything. Evolution has overwhelming evidence to support it - Creationism has none. There is not a single bit of evidence to support Creationism. The creationists web sites offer a lot of rhetoric and "scientific" evaluation - but no evidence. So we have a choice: Behind door number 1 is Creationism. No evidence whatsoever to back up that claim. Behind door number 2 is evolutions. Tons of evidence to back up that theory with new evidence being found on a daily basis - especially in genetics. So which one are you going to choose? I'll take door number 2, thank you.
Atheism has no problems at all. Remember... atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. No problems there. What is your denomination or faith? Do you believe in the biblical account of creation? Adam Rebuttal #002:First off I will answer your last question: I am a Christian. However, my belief is grounded just as deeply in fact as in faith. I will take on your objections and questions one at a time:
When a person removes God or gods from their worldview, they also remove everything connected with the supernatural. They cannot believe in a creation, or anything that is not composed of the atoms they are made of. Therefore, their belief system must of necessity be naturalism. The only explanation, then, for where we come from (and that is a question every belief system must answer), is evolution, and before that the great explosion called the big bang.
ICR chapter? You mean the Institute for Creation Research? Or the Institute for Consciousness Research? Either way, what the ICR chapter says doesn't change the fact that the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy must increase and useful energy decrease. There is no exception. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area increases (while the part of the system that is cooling down does settle into an orderly state): the amount of useful energy decreases. Encyclopedia Britannica says this:
As I said earlier, when you remove the gods you must replace them with something. Atheists therefore must believe in Naturalism (they have removed everything unnatural, after all): They must believe that we have evolved from lower life forms and that earth and its life systems are accidental occurrences. Anything else implies the supernatural.
1. If you think that creationists rely on blind faith, you are off the mark. The fact is that creation is (to use a purely secular measurement) statistically many (many, many) times more likely to occur. More on that later. 2. Based on the current evidence scientists have, the Big Bang is the most logical theory. So far so good. However, that does not make it an ounce more correct. It just means that it is the least unbelievable theory you can find without involving the supernatural. 3. You seem to separate religions from science. This is unfounded. Modern science was founded by men who viewed the world from a Christian perspective. Neither the Marxist nor the Humanist is to, with their corresponding beliefs that the universe was brought about by a series of accidents, could serve as a fitting base for modern science. Early scientists believed a reasonable God created the world, and therefore they were not surprised to discover that people could find out something true about nature and the universe on the basis of reason. I've listed some of these scientists here: Johannes Kepler, Pascal, Robert Boyle, Nicolaus Steno, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, Louis Agassiz, James Simpson, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), Joseph Lister, James C. Maxwell and William Ramsay. Science and Christianity go hand in hand. In fact, the only places where they seem to grate are those where scientists have no evidence to truly support their claims.
In the scientific community, theory is the term used for a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (think, wave theory of light). When scientists hit a theory that either sounds reasonable to them, or else is the only reasonable one they find, they promote it to a scientific law. This is what happened to the Big Bang theory. Scientific method drawn from Science Fair Project:
Science, operating within the framework of the scientific method including observation, hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, predictability, and law, can only describe reality that is observable and measurable. It is limited with regard to the past, since it cannot measure and observe anything that does not exist in the present. Since all history, for example, is a one-time event, history is outside the scientific method. If the mind, for example, is only a brain process, then the scientist will be able to explain it. But if the mind exists in the supernatural realm, science, by definition, cannot know anything about it. No brain surgeon has yet seen an idea, much less dissected one.
Sorry. I meant that "science cannot prove the existence of thoughts." See above.
I'll answer this question in two parts. First, about evolution: The fact that each major group of organisms appears abruptly in the fossil record without any transitions is grudgingly recognized by leading evolutionists! Raup, a geologist (and evolutionist) wrote this:
Stephen Jay Gould, an ardent evolutionist, also recognized this problem and candidly admits that evolutionists are often afraid to confront it:
This lack of transitional phases in the fossil record also exists in living forms: There are many single-cell forms of life, but there are no forms of animal life with 2, 3, and 4 . . . even 20 cells. If organic evolution happened, one would expect to find these forms of life in great abundance. Actually, none have been found. So, in response to this evidence, humanists have switched to the theory of punctuated equilibrium - that evolutionary changes happened in a very short time, so we have no fossil record of them. The problem is 1) this disagrees very strongly with Darwin's theory (he wrote, "As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps."), and 2) is repulsive to science, since there has been nothing whatsoever that has ever even suggested the possibility of such rapid changes. Scientists know that there is no actual mechanism that would explain large rapid jumps from one species to another. The lack of evidence for one theory does not necessarily prove the likelihood of another theory. Patterson, an evolutionist, writes this:
One more quote:
So much for evolution being backed up by tons of data. Now, for the evidence for creation: I'm sure you've heard this reason given for creation: the patterns and designs built into the universe don't just suggest - they require a designer. According to the anthropic principle, evidence for design is found throughout the physical universe. Let me get a little deeper into the details here: The list of preconditions necessary for life are nearly endless, and earth is the only planet that fulfills any of them to the extent required. The orbit of the earth controls its distance to the sun. If the earth were even slightly closer to the sun, its water would boil away - any farther and its water would freeze, making life impossible. The orbit also has to be close enough to circular to maintain this favorable climate. Earth is the only planet with such an circular orbit around the sun. Not only the landscape is affected by the position of our planet. The chemical reactions necessary or life to function occur within a narrow temperature range, and Earth is exactly the right distance from the sun to fall within that range. Consider the properties of water. Water has a host of unique properties that are absolutely indispensable for life. For example, it is the only known substance whose solid phase (ice) is less dense than its liquid phase. That's why ice forms on the top of oceans and lakes instead of the bottom, allowing fish and other marine life to survive in the winter. On the microscopic level, water molecules exhibit something called the hydrophobic effect, which gives water the unique ability to shape proteins and nucleic acids in DNA. From a molecular standpoint, the various properties of water are nothing short of miraculous. Consider the many other physical properties the cosmos has that are indispensable to life. For example, the big bang had to have exploded with just the right degree of vigor for our present universe to have formed. If it had occurred with too little velocity, the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang because of gravitational forces; if it had occurred with too much velocity, the matter would have streaked away so fast that it would have been impossible for galaxies and solar systems to subsequently form. The fact that the force of gravity just happens to be the right number with "such stunning accuracy," writes physicist Paul Davies, "is surely one of the greatest mysteries of cosmology." Take another example: the structure of the atom. Everything in the universe is made of atoms, from the stars in the farthest heavens to the cells in the human body - and the atom itself is a bundle of fortuitous "coincidences". Within the atom, the neutron is just slightly more massive than the proton, which means that free neutrons (those not trapped within an atom) can decay and turn into protons. If things were reversed - if it were the proton that was larger and had a tendency to decay - the very structure of the universe would be impossible. Why? Because a free proton is simply a hydrogen atom, and if free protons had a tendency to decay, then everything made of hydrogen would decay. The sun, which is made of hydrogen, would melt away. Water, a liquid oxide of hydrogen, would be impossible. In fact, the universe itself would decay since about 74 percent of the observed universe consists of hydrogen. And why is the neutron larger than the proton? No one knows. There is *no* physical cause to explain why the neutron is larger. Not only to atomic particles have a size, but they also have an electrical charge. Electrons have a negative charge, and protons have a positive charge. Yet, aside from socks that stick together in the dryer, most of the objects we encounter in daily life have no electrical charge. Why not? Because the charge of the proton exactly balances that of the neutron. *If the electron carried more charge than the proton, all atoms would be negatively charged. In that case - since identical charges repel - all the atoms composing all the objects in the universe would fly apart in a catastrophic explosion. On the other hand, if the proton carried more charge than the electron, all atoms would be positively charged - with the same disastrous consequences. There is no known physical reason, no natural explanation, for the precise balance in the electrical charges of the proton and the electron - especially when you consider that the two particles differ from one another in all other respects: in size, weight, magnetic properties, and so on. And since there is no natural explanation, no natural law to account for this extraordinarily precise adjustment, is it not reasonable to conclude that this intrinsic arrangement is the product of a choice, a plan, or a design? The list of "coincidences" goes on and on. It turns out that the slightest tinkering with the values of the fundamental forces of physics - gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces - would have resulted in a universe where life was utterly impossible. So what do scientists who have been trained to believe that the concept of a creator has no place in science do about these obvious marks of design and purpose in the universe? They scramble to explain them away, searching for ways to account for design in the universe without having to acknowledge a designer. All attempts to explain away the design turn out to be far less scientific than a straightforward acknowledgment of a creator. It seems to me (and to many Christian scientists) that the commitment of the modern scientific community to atheism is in many cases stronger than the commitment to the scientific method. Christianity is backed up not by scientific proofs but by legal proofs. Manuscript evidence rules out the possibility of manuscripts having been changed since they were written. In fact, the gospels and the book of acts were written around 50 A.D., within years of the events they describe. You must remember that the Jewish culture was one where the reliable method of transmitting events and stories was not on paper - they considered that to easy to change and fake (one mistake on paper would affect people who read it for the lifespan of the paper). All Jewish children were trained with an amazing memory - they would be able to memorize everything they heard the first time by the time their schooling was over. So considering that we have 5300 Greek manuscripts, 8000 Latin manuscripts and 9300 other early versions of the texts, all of which say the exact same thing (ignoring spelling and grammar mistakes and discrepancies which are the result of translation from between Latin, Greek, Aaramaic and all the other languages it was produced in), the evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that these accounts are as accurate (or more so) than the newspaper articles we read every day. Thanks for your patience in reading through all this. I really did appreciate your quick and rational response. And I do see where atheists have a point - after all, if they have no god, no concept of a creator, they must have something else. And evolution and the big bang theories are the best explanations they can come up with. For atheists, these theories are not - cannot - be something easily dropped or ignored because they form the whole basis of whom they see themselves as. Response to Adam #002:
This does not explain the non-theistic religions. One out of three religions are non-theistic. Buddhism and New Age are good examples. The followers of Buddhism and New Age are atheists but they believe in supernatural events. Astrology is a major supernatural and pseudoscience belief - but the followers of Astrology are atheists. As I said before - atheism is nothing more or less than the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it - nothing more. Naturalism has several meanings, by the way. In the philosophical world Naturalism is means, "The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws without attributing moral, spiritual, or supernatural significance to them." In the theological world Naturalism means "The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation." In the Art world Naturalism means "The theory that art or literature should conform to nature; realism; also, the quality, rendering, or expression of art or literature executed according to this theory." Not all atheists are naturalists and not all naturalists are atheists. You have attempted to throw a bucket of paint over the canvas instead of taking fine brush strokes. There are many Christians that do not believe in the miracles of the Bible, the global flood, creation, and other such nonsense - but still believe in and worship Christ and God. And yes, there are even scientists that are religious. And yes, there are religionists that are scientific. Each of us is as unique as our own fingerprints. Atheists are only bound together by the lack of belief in a god and nothing else. Just the other day I was debating a fellow atheist on Astrology. He was a devout follower and believer in Astrology. A few weeks ago I was debating an atheist that believed in Ghosts. A couple of months ago I was debating an atheist that believed he had been visited by aliens. Atheism does not necessarily mean the discount of supernatural phenomenon. Personally - I do discount the supernatural or find the natural causes of said phenomenon.
Institute for Creation Research.
As I said before the overall entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease. However, the entropy of parts within the system can spontaneously decrease. They do so at the expense of a greater part of the overall system. In other words, if heat flows spontaneously from a hot part to a cold part, the entropy of the hot area decreases. To say the entropy cannot decrease is in direct conflict with the fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature. Entropy is simply a measure of the amount of disorder in a system. The entropy of a system is more likely to increase than decrease (but decreased entropy is not ruled out) because there is more disorder than order (but not all disorder - there is some order). The disorder in a system increases because at every stage some of the energy is wasted. This is the second law of thermodynamics.
So while the second law supports entropy the first law insists that while that heat energy may decrease or increase the total energy balance is maintained.
So statistically speaking a God is more likely than no God? And where did you come across said statistics?
You are somewhat correct. The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. That means we do not know 100% what happened. We look at the evidence around us and we develop a theory that explains that evidence. What is amazing is the Christian resistance to the Big Bang Theory. It was a monk that first came up with the Big Bang Theory. His theory was considered a victory among Christian scholars. The scientific community up to that time believed that the universe was infinite. The monk's theory showed that the universe could be finite. After a while the scientists realized the monk was right. His theory was scientifically sound and worked for the evidence. Science embraced the new theory and suddenly Christian scholars turned on it. Why did the Christian scholars embrace the theory until the scientists agreed with them? To this day the creationists refuse to acknowledge the origins of the Big Bang Theory. The refuse to acknowledge that creationists accepted the Big Bang Theory because it showed the universe was finite and that God could have been the cause of the Big Bang. Then there's the Big Crunch Theory. We know the universe is expanding at a million miles per hour. When will inertia give and gravity take over? Estimates show that the universe will come to a "stand still" in about five billions years. So what happens then? The universe starts to pull back on itself and closes back to its starting point. The result, after many billions of years, is an implosion that starts the Big Bang all over again. This fluctuation, or oscillation, if you will, has no way of being proven 100%.
So what you are saying is that because the earliest scientists were Christians I should not separate religion and science? Should we not separate alchemy and chemistry since the first chemists were alchemists? Should we not separate Astronomers from Astrologists since the first astronomers were astrologists?
Why is that?
So because a few scientists felt a need to be spiritual or religious - we all should? But to humor you, let's look at your scientists one at a time, shall we? Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Astronomer/Astrologist, Optician, and Mathematician. Kepler was a Lutheran who mathematics in Germany. On the side for extra money Kepler created astrological calendars and made astrological charts for customers. Kepler's mother was accused of being a witch in 1615 during the Protestant witch-hunts of the time. After the trial (he defended her and saved her) he joined the Counter Reformation (1618) to put pressure on the Protestants (which he was at the time). He was persecuted for his scientific beliefs and ultimately left his home under garrison guard in 1627. He died three years later. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Mathematician, Physicist, and inventor. Pascal is best known for his religious argument called "Pascal's Wager". Pascal was looking for a way to convert his friends to his sect of Roman Catholicism called Jansenism. He devised an argument that he felt was foolproof and would cause instant conversion to his religious beliefs. Amazingly, many theists today still think his argument is foolproof. At the age of fourteen Pascal began meeting with a man named Mersenne (who was imprisoned at the time) who belonged to a religious order of the Minims. But after he suffered an injury and was cared for by Jansenist priests, which converted him. He held strong religions beliefs and after his Jansenism conversion wrote more religions books than anything else. He quickly turned from his scientific ventures in mathematics and physics and concentrated on his religion. He had the capacity to be a great scientific mind beyond the age of 20. He had formulated many theories (some of which still hold today) about mathematics before he encountered religion. While he still studied mathematics and physics after his religious encounters - he never put the same enthusiasm into it. Religion smothered a great scientific mind that turned to writing token arguments such as the likes of "Pascal's Wager". Robert Boyle (1627-1691) Natural Philosopher and Chemist. Boyle was a founder and an influential fellow of the Royal Society, was continuously active in scientific affairs, and wrote prolifically on science, philosophy, and theology. In 1644 Boyle returned to England and became an experimentalist. He became aligned with a group of scientists, which called themselves The Invisible College, because they held to the new, radical mechanistic approach to experimental science. Robert Boyle was born into a Protestant family. Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686) Anatomist and Geologist. While in Florence working at the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova he began to doubt his Lutheranism. In 1667 he became a Catholic. In 1677 he was consecrated as a bishop. Like Pascal he wrote mostly theological works after his conversion and consecration. He strayed from his science. Steno was a forgotten scientists and it wasn't until recently that his discoveries were properly attributed. He had the capacity to become a great Geologists beyond his contributions already made - and Catholicism smothered him. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Mathematician. In 1696 Isaac moved to London to accept a government job and left his sciences behind. Before 1696 Isaac studied at Trinity College in Cambridge, and became a professor there later. Isaac did not believe in the Biblical god - he was a deist. Isaac believed in creation - but not Creationism as told in the Bible. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Physicist and Chemist. Despite his achievements, Faraday remained a modest and humble person. He declined to be knighted or to receive honorary degrees and only reluctantly accepted a small pension on his retirement in 1858. On 2 June 1821 he married Sarah Barnard who was a member of one of the leading Sandemanian families in London and on 15 July 1821 Faraday made his Confession of Faith in the Sandemanian Church. In the early 1840's Faraday became an elder of the Sandemanian Church, which caused a drastic decline in his scientific works. Again we see the role of the church smothering the science. Charles Babbage (1791-1871) Mathematician and Engineer. Babbage attended the Trinity College in Cambridge. In 1830 Babbage published Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, a controversial work that resulted in the formation, one year later, of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Babbage was an aesthete. 1837 he published his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, to reconcile his scientific beliefs with Christian dogma. Babbage argued that miracles were not, as Hume write, violations of laws of nature, but could exist in a mechanistic world. As Babbage could program long series on his calculating machines, God could program similar irregularities in nature. Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) Systematics, Glaciologists, and Paleontologist. He was also a lifelong opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet even his most critical attacks on evolution have provided evolutionary biologists with insights. Agassiz himself stated that, "It chanced to be a result that was found to apply to other groups and has led to other conclusions of a like nature." Agassiz was a son of a minister. Agassiz studied and followed Naturphilosophie, a German Romantic philosophy that sought for metaphysical correspondences and interconnections within the world of living things. Although he later renounced this view he was never able to completely free himself from its influence. It was Agassiz himself that first surmised that a global flood did not happen but that the marks attributed to global flooding were in fact from previous glaciations and an Ice Age. Agassiz stayed loyal to Cuvier's classification, which divided the animal kingdom into four branches: Vertebrata, Insecta, Vermes (worms) and Radiata (radially symmetrical animals). The cornerstone of Agassiz' biological thought was his belief that the gradation from low to high forms, in any taxon, paralleled the order of appearance in the fossil record, the order of stages in the organisms' development, and the distribution and ecology of the taxon. In other words - he felt that evolution didn't cut it - but his theory did. He was not a creationist regarding the Biblical account of creation. James Young Simpson (1811-70) Obstetrician. Pioneer in the use of anesthetics, particularly chloroform and its use in surgery and childbirth. Simpson diverted attention from medical issues when he published a pamphlet, "Answer to the Religious Objections Advanced Against the Employment of Anesthetic Agents in Midwifery and Surgery." Simpson was infuriated with the religious organization that refused to allow the administration of anesthetics during childbirth. He insisted that pain during childbirth was unnecessary and dangerous. It wasn't until he delivered a baby for the Queen that the religious right of the time relented and his ideas about childbirth anesthesiology took hold. Although he was a professed Christian - his resentment toward the church at their stubbornness persisted to his death. Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884) Biology and early Genetics. He entered the Augustinian Monastery of St. Thomas at Brünn at the age of twenty-two and was ordained to the priesthood in 1847. The Augustinians at the monastery included philosophers, a musicologist, mathematicians, mineralogists and botanists who were heavily engaged in scientific research and teaching. After his ordination Mendel was assigned to pastoral duties but it soon became apparent that he was more suited to teaching. His research was done on the side and he never received his certification. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) Chemist. First, he championed changes in hospital practices to minimize the spread of disease by microbes. Second, he discovered that weakened forms of a microbe could be used as an immunization against more virulent forms of the microbe. Third, Pasteur found that agents so small they could not be seen under a microscope, thus revealing the world of viruses, transmitted rabies. As a result he developed techniques to vaccinate dogs against rabies, and to treat humans bitten by rabid dogs. And fourth, Pasteur developed "pasteurization," a process by which harmful microbes in perishable food products are destroyed using heat, without destroying the food. While he worshiped science, Pasteur maintained that there were spiritual values that transcended it. Pasteur was a deist. William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1824-1907) Physicist, Mathematician, and Engineer. One of the first people to state the second law of thermodynamics. He also estimated the age of the Earth from its temperature (although he was wrong because he did not know about the production of heat through radioactivity in the Earth). And of course he developed the absolute temperature scale. Kelvin was extremely interested in the age of the sun and in 1853 he calculated a value of 50 million years. That is hardly in conjunction with the account of Genesis that would place the age of the sun and Earth around 8500-years-old. His calculation for the age of the earth was (a maximum of) 400 million years. Lord Kelvin was not a Biblical creationists - he was a deist who believed in a creator - but not necessarily the biblical creator. Joseph Lister (1827-1912) Surgeon. Known for his discovery of antiseptics. Initially Lister's discoveries were met with resistance, but by the 1880s they had become widely accepted. In 1897 Queen Victoria, who had at one time been his patient, made him baron. Lister was a Quaker. Now everyone knows where Listerine came from! James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) Theoretical Physicist. First to write down the laws of electricity and magnetism. In 1864 he put Faraday's ideas into mathematical form and predicted the existence of electromagnetic radiation. Maxwell also attended the Trinity College in Cambridge where he graduated in 1854. He showed that stability of Saturn's rings could be achieved only if the rings consisted of numerous small solid particles, an explanation now confirmed by the Voyager spacecraft. In 1860 Maxwell was appointed to the vacant chair of Natural Philosophy at King's College in London. His major discovery of "the ether," the vast sea of space that made possible the transmission of light, heat and radio waves, was nothing more than a poetic metaphor. He was elected one of the 12 Apostles, a group of the university's most outstanding young men. He wrote poetry and studied theology. His mother, a dedicated Christian, whom included studying the Bible, provided James' early education. Maxwell had an extensive knowledge of the Bible, and was an elder of the church, which he helped establish near his home at Glenlair. William Ramsay (1852-1916) Chemist. Ramsay discovered neon in 1898. Ramsay's earliest works were in the field of organic chemistry. He published work on picoline and, in conjunction with Dobbie, on the decomposition products of the quinine alkaloids (1878-1879). Yet another discovery of Ramsay (in conjunction with Soddy), the importance of which it was impossible to foresee, was the detection of helium in the emanations of radium (1903). Ramsay was a man of Christian faith. So what have you shown us here by listing these scientists? You have shown us that some scientists who have made great contributions to the scientific community were religions or spiritual in some manner. The label of Christian is irrelevant since most of them were professed deists and not Christians. But what does this say? Does it say that science is based in Christianity or does it say that some scientists are Christians? Nowhere does it mention that these men used their religious beliefs to further their scientific endeavors. In fact several of them left the scientific communities when they were converted or became active in their churches. Bottom line is that these men (and others) do not signify that science is based on religion. You are pulling straws in order to justify Christian Science. Can you honestly say that science is rooted in Christianity or even religion? Was it not religion, specifically Christianity, which persecuted scientists and made every attempt to keep the flock in the dark and hidden from science? Was it not religion, specifically Christianity, which denounced all things scientific because they conflicted with "god's image of the universe"? The answer to both questions is yes.
The Big Bang Theory is not scientific law. Scientists don't "hit a theory", either. Scientists look at the evidence at hand and formulate a hypothesis. Then they begin to test it. If that hypothesis is proven time and again or is shown to be true - then a theory is formulated. But it is not a "scientific theory", yet. It has to be independently tested and verified to be true under all circumstances. Once that is done - a scientific theory is born. Scientists constantly question and probe their theories looking for holes and problems. Scientists are not afraid to admit when they are wrong or that a theory is flawed and has to be reformulated. That is what separates religion from science. Religion is not science and science is not religion. Some scientists can be religions. Some religionists can be scientists - but one's personal regards to spirituality and religion should never come between their objective searches into the realm of science. While each of the men above were religious to one degree or the other they were able to separate work from play, if you will. Would Thomson have evaluated the age of the Earth around 400 million years if he had let his religious ideologies control his scientific objectivism?
Incorrect. The presence of atoms was theorized long before their discovery. The presence of black holes, background radiation, other planets, nebulas, hemoglobin, and others were theorized long before their actual discovery and verification. These things were theorized on based on evidence at hand and current natural laws. That is what the Big Bang and Crunch Theories are all about.
Incorrect. Sciences like anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, and others do a wonderful job of looking at the past. We can reconstruct the past based on the evidence it has left behind. Often we can duplicate the past.
You are assuming that the supernatural realm is above the natural. Why is there no reason to believe that the supernatural is nothing more than natural events that have not been explained as of yet? Thoughts have been measured and seen traveling through the brain by use of nuclear medicine and other recent medical advances. Does the fact that science cannot currently explain something justify classifying that something as supernatural? That idea is completely absurd and has no merit whatsoever. It is that very ideology that created gods in the first place. Man didn't understand lightning and thunder so he assigned gods to them. It is the fear of what we don't understand and our absurd nature to assign that lack of understanding to the supernatural that perpetuates theistic views.
Yes they can and they have. Through advances in nuclear medicine and other medical sciences we have been able to track thoughts as they process through the brain. However, let's grant for a second that we can't "see" thoughts. Does that mean they are not proven to occur? We can still evaluate thoughts. We know we have thoughts. We can hear people make their thoughts vocal. We know thoughts exist because they are expressed in ways other than visually.
What transitional fossils are you looking for? Are you looking for the elusive fish-lizard or the cat-dog, perhaps? There are KNOWN gaps in the fossil record. That is not in debate. Each year more and more extinct species are identified (which of course wouldn't be a problem if Noah had brought 2 of each species aboard… like the dinosaur, mastodon, saber tooth tiger, etc.) and added to the transitional fossil list. The term transitional fossil is used two different ways. They are often referred to as General Lineage and Species To Species Transition. GENERAL LINEAGE: This is a sequence of similar genera or families linking an older group to a very different younger group. The steps from one to the other consist of fossils that represent a certain genus or family. The whole sequence ranges over tens of millions of y ears. A lineage like this has apparent morphological intermediates for EVERY major structural change. There may still be gaps between each of the groups as few or none of the speciation events are preserved. General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates. SPECIES TO SPECIES TRANSITION: This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It is a very fine sequence documenting the actual speciation event that usually spans a time frame of less than a million years. These types of transitions are unmistakable when they are found. You can see the changes in teeth, feet, spines, etc., changing from what is typically the first species to what is typically the next species. Normally these changes are geographically specific. The speciation is identifiable in that geographical region only. Everywhere else the change is "abrupt". This abrupt change outside the geographic region is often cited when asking, "where are the transitional fossils". What creationists fail to understand is that the speciation took place in a geographical area and the new species spread out from there. For evolution to occur across an entire species globally at the same time would not be evidence for evolution - it would be evidence for a creator. For a fish to suddenly turn into a lizard would not be evidence for evolution - it would be evidence for a creator. Of course every evolutionists and scientist would love to know each lineage down to the species level AND have a detailed species to species transition. In reality there is an uneven mix of the two transitions with occasional long breaks in the lineage. Many creationists have the incorrect impression that the gaps are worse than they actually are or they think there are no transitional fossils at all. Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are? So why do gaps occur in the first place? Evolutionists have to deal with stratigraphic discontinuities. This basically means that the fossil bearing strata are not all continuous. There are large time breaks and sometimes there are not fossil strata at all. The Aalenian shows no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world and other strata states in the carboniferous, Jurassic, and cretaceous periods have only produces a few mangled tetrapods. That means the vertebrate family is only about 75% complete. To further complicate the issue is animals that tend not to fossilize such as small animals, fragile animals, soft-bodied animals, and forest dwelling animals. Of course animals that fossilized eons ago and actually survive for discovery are incredible marvels of endurance and preservation. Because of these - there will always be breaks in the fossil record. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. Another reason for gaps is that most fossils have not been found. Only two continents, Europe and North America, have been adequately surveyed for fossil-bearing strata. As the other continents are slowly surveyed, many formerly mysterious gaps are being filled. Another reason that gaps are over-exaggerated is that when gaps are solved they are not published very well or popularized. Most transitional fossils are only mentioned in the primary literature, often buried in incredibly dense and tedious "skull & bones" papers utterly inaccessible to the general public. Most paleontologists don't popularize their findings because it is not necessary for two reasons. First, the scientific community knows that evolution is a fact and the mechanism of evolution is a theory (yes - evolution is theory and a fact at the same time). Another reason is the time consuming labor involved. Just to document the species to species lineage of the horse would take volumes. MacFadden undertook a partial documentation and it comprised an entire volume. He never wrote the next volume because it was too tedious and arduous of a task. Evolutionists recognize this and do not discount it. So quoting evolutionists as saying things like "there are breaks in the record", et al does not strengthen the creationist's case against evolution. You can't accuse someone of not tying their shoes if they tell you first that they don't tie their shoes. Creationists often misquote evolutionists when discussing gaps because of the debate among evolutionists themselves about punctuated equilibrium. You even quoted Patterson from England - that quote from Patterson is misquoted and taken out of context from his letter. I fail to understand where creationists get the idea that evolutionists are "afraid" of the transitional gaps. We KNOW they are there and do not deny them.
Why would one expect to find 2, 3, and 4-celled organisms in the evolutionary cycle? If the 2, 3, and 4 celled organisms were not suited to survive over periods of time they would have died out. Next time you want to see a 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, and so on organism - watch a developing human fetus. As you watch that developing human fetus watch the many stages it goes through before it takes on human form. Fish (with gills), amphibian, bird, and lower mammal characteristics are all observable during the development to human form. One could just as easily ask you, if God created single celled organism then one would surely expect to find an abundance of 2, 3, and 4-celled organisms.
Punctuated equilibrium is still widely debated among evolutionists. To say they have "switched" to it is foul play. There has been no mass biblical exodus from long term to short term. It is the very debate over punctuated equilibrium that often causes evolutionists to be misquoted by creationists.
Many things now disagree to one level or another with Darwin's original theory. Remember how science is constantly looking for holes and problems with its theories and constantly expands on them as new evidence is found or evidence is discounted? The fact that any part of modern evolutionary theory disagrees with Darwin's original theory has no account whatsoever on its validity or lack thereof.
You have touched on something often overlooked by creationists. That evolution is a fact and a theory at the same time. Evolution is a FACT. Speciation and evolution have been observed in my lifetime alone. The mechanism of evolution is a THEORY. We have a theory as to why it happens and how and that is as far as it goes. Punctuated equilibrium is just another hypothesis thrown at the grand theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is not an actual theory, yet - it is still in the middle of a large debate.
Intelligent design, huh? Sounds more blasé than Creation Science. It's less abrasive and easier to sell to the general public. Especially in light of articles like Newsweek who proudly declare "Science Finds God". The Creation Scientists get together and realize that biblical creation will never make it into the public school curriculum so they have to come up with something less harsh - less religious sounding. And intelligent design was… designed. Science has not indicated in any way that design is necessary in the cosmos. Astronomical observations continue to demonstrate that the earth is no more significant than a single grain of sand on a vast beach. Proponents of Intelligent Design often quote the so-called "anthropic coincidences" (which you did) as evidence for a universe that was created with humans in mind. Christian philosopher William Craig said in a debate that the age of the universe, which dwarfs human history, is in fact a sign of God's plan for humanity because billions of years were needed to allow life to evolve. Apparently Mr. Craig accepts evolution as scientifically sound but still needs to grasp that thread of faith and believe in an ultimate creator. One would think that a creator god would be more efficient than that… Given the egocentrism that seems to characterize the human race, convincing people that the universe was designed with them in mind is as easy as convincing a child that candy is good for him. The most common argument given by believers when they are asked to present scientific evidence for a creator is, "How can all of this have happened by chance?"
Are you sure Earth is the only planet that fulfills them? Creationists tend to think in human terms of Earth's conditions and the ability to sustain life on a terrestrial level. What of creatures in the ocean at levels so deep that the atmosphere is a hundred times what you feel at sea level? Animals that live at that level could also survive on a planet where the atmosphere was ninety times greater than ours in fifty feet of water. What of animals that live off of nitrogen or carbon dioxide that could survive on a planet with no oxygen? You are assuming, as most creationists do, that the Earth's solar system is the center of the universe and that there can be no life elsewhere. Can you even fathom the size of the universe and the number of planets? Had our solar system formed in another way - we wouldn't be here. Had the moon forming impact not occurred - we wouldn't be here. Had a comet impacted the earth and destroyed the dinosaurs - we wouldn't be here. This isn't creation - this is chance and, yes, luck. Had one thing gone awry during the formation of our solar system - perhaps it could have been enough to change things. If the moon forming impact had not occurred perhaps the dominant species on this planet would be the octopus. Do you know the difference between correlation and causation? Creationists and proponents of intelligent design are correlating incredible odds to a creator without proof of creation - other than "How can all of this have happened by chance?" But the point of the question is the words "ALL OF THIS". What do you consider all of this to be - the planet, solar system galaxy, nebula, or universe? In the great expanse of the universe to assume that life only started on this planet and no others is so egocentric it's laughable. Often creationist say that orbits and distances to and from other celestial objects are aligned so perfectly that if they were off by a little bit we would not exist. This of course, is hogwash. Take the moon for example. The moon gets farther away from us by a quarter of an inch each year. Not many creationists are aware of that. That means in my lifetime alone the moon has moved seven feet farther away from the Earth. Now if the creationists' idea of instability through chance and stability through creation were true - the Earth would be wobbling on its axis and life as we know it would be coming to an end. The universe is expanding at a million miles per hour - and yet life continues on this planet. The galaxy rotates and yet life continues on this planet. The sun is slowly dying and yet life continues on this planet. Asteroids and comets zing in and out of our solar system (where is the intelligent design in that random act?) causing massive collisions on planets. Sometimes the collisions are enough to knock a planet off orbit or turn it from rock into molten. Based on the creationists instability through chance the universe should collapse on itself every time an asteroid or comet impacts a planet or the chemical make-up of a planet or atmosphere changes. Intelligent design is a last ditch effort for theism to save itself from decay. Many gods have been buried during the scientific and technological advance up the recent rungs of the evolutionary ladder. We've actually discovered that we are advancing technologically too fast and that as a species we are not keeping up evolutionarily speaking. Our bodies were not designed to last a hundred years. Menopause was not widely known about until technology increased the lifespan of women. Many things about the human body are being discovered as we increase our lifespan on Earth and find out new things that our bodies were not designed to do when evolution "created" them.
The reason ice is less dense is because air is trapped inside of ice making it "lighter". That is why if you fill a glass with ice then water and let the ice melt - the volume of the water decreases as the ice melts - because trapped air is released (without evaporation coming into play, of course). If you condense ice (such as it is at the bottom of large glaciers) the crystalline structure of ice changes and the air is compressed out of the ice. The ice turns an aquamarine blue as it is compressed. It is this very same process that helps icebergs float upright. If the entire iceberg had the same density it would wobble around on the top of the water. The denser ice underneath has a propensity to sink - keeping the lighter ice on top and maintaining buoyancy. The fact that you consider the properties of water to be "miraculous" does not indicate intelligent design. It indicates that you think the properties of water are miraculous.
And had it exploded differently - a different universe would be in existence and another planet and another superior species with tentacles for arms would be arguing about intelligent design rather than us. Creationists are grasping straws attempting to hold on to their last vestiges of faith - and it isn't working. Claiming that just because we are here and that because A equals A is a sign of a creator is ludicrous. Stop giving us coincidence and "how can this all be by chance" and present some scientific evidence. You and the rest of the creation scientists can't do it.
Yes, it does. I'm glad you put the word coincidence in parenthesis. It insinuates exactly what it should - that the word coincidence is being used incorrectly in the intelligent design fallacy.
Our laws of physics, etc. are based on what is here today. Had anything been different - then our current laws would be different. You are assuming that our current scientific laws would be the same if the universe had formed any differently. Do you think gravity would be the same if the Big Bang had been 100 times more powerful or 10 times less powerful? Do you think the speed of light would be the same if the universe were only expanding at 1 mile per day instead of a million miles per hour? To say that these values being any different would cause a different universe is not correct. It would be correct to say that a different universe may cause these values to be different.
Are you sure about that? Are you absolutely positive? Can you or any other biblical scholar produce an original manuscript? And what of the Apocrypha? The history of the Bible itself and how it was "formed" questions the very statement you attempt to make. Even the most hardened fundamentalists admit that what you claim is impossible and has no merit whatsoever. In the book The Light of Reason, Schmuel Golding states,
Imagine what the Bible would look like today if voting had gone differently? In the year 325, Constantine (a non-baptized Pagan) convened the Council of Nicea to settle disputes in the Church. The council changed Jesus from man to God in the flesh, they changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and the Passover was changed to Easter. So what does this say about the Bible? It says that MEN, not god, composed the Bible. Apologist Richard Sisson, in his book, Answering Christianity's Most Puzzling Questions (Volume 1), states,
568 to 563? If 5 people had voted differently the Bible would be nothing like it is today. You would be reading books that you had never heard of - or perhaps there wouldn't even be a Bible. What happened to the books that are mentioned in the Old Testament? The Book of the Wars of the Lord is mentioned in Number 21. Joshua 10:13 mentions the Book of Jasher. First Chronicles mentions the Book of Nathan and Gad while Second Chronicles mentions the Book of Acts of Solomon. Where did they go? Why were they not chosen? Were they deemed by vote to not be the word of God? If that is so - then why do books they deemed the word of God mention those books? What happened to the extra books from the New Testament era? Books like the Gospels according to Hebrews, Judas Iscariot, Peter, Marcion, Matthias, Eve, and Philip. The Acts of Peter, Book of Judgment by Peter, Hymn of Christ, Magical Book by Christ, and the Letter to Peter and Paul by Christ. If a letter BY Christ didn't make the cut one has to wonder what criteria these men were using to influence votes. These books have become collectively known as the Apocrypha. Fundamentalist and apologist Josh McDowell has an answer in his book Evidence That Demands A Verdict,
Apologist E. M. Blaiklock in his book Jesus Christ, Man or Myth says,
Bottom line is these books were kept out because they did not have the political alliance behind them that the others did. And the others only had a five-point edge. How different the Bible would be today if the Apocryphal gospels had been included. I am often asked to look at the original Bible to verify accuracy and errors (blaming translations on errors). What original Bible? There was/is no original Bible. Even today NO original writings exist. So the next time you pick up the Bible think to yourself, "this is a book of writings that was put together by a group of men who read some ancient manuscripts that purportedly are accurate representation of the originals, which no longer exist." The Fundamentalist book Biblical Criticism states,
And the kicker? Not a single two are 100% alike. There are over 200,000 variants in some 5,000 manuscripts. Then come the versions that are derivative of these variants. Fundamentalists often like to say that the variants do not affect the material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. But is that true? Perhaps an example would be pertinent here. Let's take Second Timothy 3:16:
Talk about variations and versions! On to other things...
Does this mean you have never done the experiment called Pass The Secret? Start at the beginning of a chain of people and tell the first person a secret. Then that person passes it along to another. When the secret arrives at the other end it is nothing like the original secret you told the first person. Word of mouth is by far worse than by writing something down. How can you say the Jewish culture relied more on word of mouth than writing? The Jewish culture is emphatic about their writings. The Torah and the Old Testament are Jewish writings. Most of the Apocrypha are Jewish writings.
False. There is not a single text that is 100% exact. Nowhere can you find a manuscript that corresponds to another manuscript 100%. They are all different and no two are alike - just like snowflakes. The book of Isaiah that you have in your Bible is nothing like the book of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls - they don't even come close to matching. Now one of them is obviously either a forgery or a fake. So which one is the false book? The Biblical Isaiah or the Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Whenever you are ready to start discussing contradictions in the Bible… let me know.
A Christian monk, not a scientists or atheist, was the first to bring The Big Bang Theory into "existence". It was theism that turned to the Big Bang Theory to prove a finite universe and show that a God could have been responsible for that "bang." Theism rejected the theory when science declared the theory scientifically sound. How's that for backfiring on the theist?
You insist on confusing atheism with more than what it is. Remember that there are atheistic religions out there that embrace spirituality and the supernatural without ever including a deity. Adam Rebuttal #003:Thanks for your comments. I've tried to answer all your questions. Please excuse any spelling errors that probably resulted from my typing too fast.
Good point. There are many non-theistic religions that do have room for the supernatural. I should have been more specific -- the humanist religion does not have room for the supernatural. Actually, Naturalism in terms of worldviews includes both the philosophical and theological definitions. The philosophical definition includes the theological definition by default - if there is no supernatural force, there can be no revelation from a supernatural force.
Thanks for that fact. I never knew that.
Not all atheists are naturalists, but all naturalists are atheists. I may have attempted to throw a bucket of paint over the canvas. Encyclopedia Britannica admits that per se Naturalism has no ontological preferences. However, it also holds that according to Naturalism, all of reality must be natural. I don't see where this leaves room for truly supernatural beings.
And what fundamental law of thermodynamics would that be? Evolutionists have pointed at the example of a seed growing into a tree as an example of entropy decreasing. The problem is that entropy is the measures of 'disorder' - the lack of kinetic energy - not 'disorder' - the lack of mechanical order. For example, a crystal may be in less of a state of 'disorder' than the chemical solution it originated from, but it is much less kinetic energy. The solution of energy-laden molecules that could drive powerful reactions if combined with the right chemicals, we get a crystal - with no more energy than a pebble on the road. It is true that the total amount of energy in the cosmos remains constant. However, it is also true that in all spontaneous reactions, some energy turns into a unusable form and is lost, so to speak.
You're right. The Big Bang theory in itself might fit in quite well with Christianity. Christians rejected the Big Bang theory once secular science removed God from the theory. God could have been the cause of the Big Bang. In fact, the well-known physicist Paul Davies admits that the more physicists find, the less likely it is that there could have been any other cause of such a Big Bang. BLAIR: "Why is that?" It was the Arabs and Christians who were the first scientists, because they both believed that since an orderly God creates the earth, the earth must also be orderly and reasonable. Marxists and Humanists don't believe that a God who also set down the laws of nature creates the earth. They believe the earth must have happened by chance. And why should the earth behave according to strict laws if everything is a result of chance - if there is no order behind anything.
No, I'm not asking you to feel a need to be spiritual or religious (though it wouldn't do you any harm)
Yes. Read this bit from the history of science, Encyclopedia Britannica:
Please give me some examples. State WHO persecuted the scientists, which scientists they persecuted and why.
You admit that the big bang theory isn't even a theory. After all, it is impossible to prove it even once, let alone "time and time again". You are reasoning that because God cannot be proven through standard scientific procedures he doesn't exist, and that therefore all theists must be suppressing their knowledge that they are wrong. This is an irrational assumption.
First, May I add the fact that the Bible tells nothing of how old the earth is? Nor, for that matter, how long plants and animals have been around? What religious ideologies would have gotten in his way? All the Bible says is that all plants and animals were created. Secondly, in 1862 Thomson calculated that the age of the earth is 20 to 40 million, not 400 million. Thirdly, In your last letter you stated that Thomson was a deist, but not of the Biblical variety. If that is so, how can you assume what his religious ideologies were?
Even if these theories are correct, until scientific evidence supports them they are (and belong) in the realm of philosophy. Science deals with things that happen now, or of which there are records. Anthropology is scientific. It deals with fossils, which can be seen, measured, touched, analyzed and dated (to a certain degree). Theorizing about the origins of the earth is NOT scientific. There is no 'scientifically acceptable' account of what happened: No human was around at that point. Nor is there any evidence of what happened. Geologists can theorize to a certain point about why the core of the earth is hotter than the mantle, and why minerals are arranged in layers the way they are, and many other such questions. Yet that is all they can do, and no more. They have not observed a planet come into existence. They cannot prove why rocks are arranged the way they are, or why the earth is spinning the direction it does. They can only theorize, and that is called philosophy.
Read my answer again. I wrote that "Science cannot measure or observe anything that does not exist in the present." Anthropology, archaeology and paleontology measure and observe things that are existing right now - fossils, pottery remains, and the like. They can only construe what these fossils were like in real life as far as they resemble animals the scientists have observed alive.
Please let me know where you found that fact. The latest I heard, scientists were able to pinpoint active areas of the brain, but not actual thoughts.
Hold on a moment . . . First of all, why are you appealing to the Bible (according to you, a flawed invention of the human mind) to support Darwinism, and secondly, where did you find the list which tells you that there weren't any saber tooth tigers, mastodons and the like on the ark?
Scientists have, many times throughout the last, experimented with the concept of natural selection (more precisely, species to species transition), and have invariably come to the conclusion that there is a natural barrier, which prevents more than a limited amount of change in a species. One such scientists was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem to evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long. He found you could breed some super layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached. In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be increased by relaxing selection - by breeding from `lower than maximum' producers. Notice also that in All cases the specialized breeds produced by scientists possess reduced viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals do not compete with the original, or wild type. They survive only because they are maintained in an environment, which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated.
Wrong. If God created single celled organisms, then surely they would stay single-celled organisms.
All I wrote was that as Darwin's theories continue to be disproved (yes, proven wrong), most reasonable scientists have looked for a different theory - hence, punctuated equilibrium.
Evolution is not a fact. Scientists have proven exactly the opposite; speciation cannot occur because of limitations built into the way DNA works. There are only so many individual genes that control any one attribute of an organism. This means that there are a limited number of variations that can occur in that characteristic. For example, if I take five die, roll them and line them up, there are 7776 different number-sequences I can achieve. If I write down the number generated by the lined-up dice, I will get a number between 11111 and 66666. I cannot get eighty thousand, twenty-three or three million. There is definitely a limit to the amount of change one can produce in an animal by fiddling with its DNA.
What does intelligent design theory have to do with religion, except that it calls for a creator? Nothing. The design theory's critique of Darwinism is that it is not a sound scientific theory, not that Darwinism disagrees with some religious beliefs. Michael Denton's critique of Darwinism is a case in point. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton argues at length that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a failed scientific paradigm. It bears noting that Denton is an agnostic in matters of religious faith, thus in criticizing Darwinism he has no religious ax to grind. The problems facing Darwinism are there, and they are glaring: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multi-cellular life, the origin of sexuality, the gaps in the fossil record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems, and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines are just a few of the more serious difficulties that confront every theory of evolution that posits only purposeless, material processes. In fact, the design theory advocates pose an several questions: Why, since Darwinism obviously has so many holes, and glaring faults, do all the major educational and research establishments stick with it in the way they do? Who determines the rules of science? And why are all alternative paradigms, like teleology and design theories ruled out of court by fiat? Why must we explain everything in materialistic, naturalistic and purposeless processes? It seems to me that most scientists have an assumption that there is no supernatural, and stay away from any part of science that throws a block into their assumption. The only reason that so many people accept Darwinism is because the 9% of the population who are true hardcore Darwinists happen to control our educational institutions. These Darwinists then teach their students that Darwinism is science, and that intelligent design theory is religion. Intelligent design scientists use the same scientific principles used by forensic scientists. Forensic specialists look for patterns and evidence that a certain person was somewhere or did something. If they find muddy tracks on a floor, they will assume that someone walked there. They will not assume that the floor came like that. Would you say that the FBIs most valuable men are idiots to put their faith into the methods they use? How about archaeologists? Are they dumb for recognizing carvings in rocks as created by humans? You might say that this is a completely different issue from intelligent design theorists. There you are wrong. The archaeologists never saw any one carve the rocks, did they? They simply recognize that nature's random forces don't create carvings in rocks. Intelligent design theorists simply recognize that there is no way nature's random processes could have created the order we have.
You just supported my point. If there is life on other planets, there must have been so many more factors met in the creation of the universe for that life to exist at the same time ours does, which lowers the possibility of all this happening even more.
In 1960, computer scientists in France and at MIT simulated the trial-and-error processes of neo-Darwinian evolution over the equivalent of billions of years. Their computers showed that the probability of evolution by chance processes is essentially zero, no matter how long the time scale. (Stanley Miller, "From the Primitive Atmosphere to the Prebiotic Soup to the Pre-RNA World", NASA, 1996 ). When they presented their results to the nation's top biologists, biologists were angry. However, they couldn't deny the numbers. Soon after, chance theories began to be quietly buried. As a result, today it is common to hear prominent scientists scoff at the idea that life arose by chance. The astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle compares the probability of evolution happening to lining up 10_50 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.
Creationists talk about specific measurements: The distance of the earth to the sun (a result of the earth's speed), the nearly perfectly circular orbit, the perfect speed at which are universe is expanding. Also, the creationists are not saying that changing these distances by a few miles will create disaster. After all, distances in space are so huge as to make even 100 miles a minute distance. However, were the earth to move 10% closer to the sun, we really would have a catastrophe.
Once more, what does theism have to do with Intelligent design, except that it requires the supernatural? How do you explain the scientists who have turned to Intelligent Design after years of supporting, teaching, even writing about Darwinism?
Wrong. Ice is less dense than water when it freezes. See what happens if you put a sealed glass bottle of wine or juice in the freezer. The liquid will expand as it freezes and your bottle will break.
Please explain why intelligent design is a fallacy. While you're at it, explain why similar sciences, mainly the investigative sciences, use the same techniques.
Gravity is independent from the speed of the universe's expansion. After all, we are not pulled toward the center of the universe, but toward the center of whatever celestial body we happen to be closest to. And light also travels toward the center of the universe, not just away from it. You are confusing matter with energy. They may be related, but they act completely differently.
There are three tests that need to be applied to all historical documents in order to assess their reliability, says military historian C. Sanders. These tests are, 1) the bibliographical test, 2) the internal evidence test, 3) the external evidence test. Bibliographical test: Since we don't have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and existing copies? There are more than 5300 Greek manuscripts of the NT. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9300 other early versions and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence. Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian of the British Museum, and second to none in authority for issuing statements about MSS, says "Besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors, and this time the difference is clear gain. In no other case is the interval of time between composition of the book and the date of the earliest existing manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century - say from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound like a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet's death." Consider these facts: Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are questioned. There is an ambiguity in saying there are some 200000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the NT, since these represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament. If one single word is misspelled in 3000 different manuscripts, this is counted as 3000 variants or readings. Sir Kenyon also writes "One word of warning already referred to must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading..." Gleason Archer shows that variants or errors in transmission of the text do not affect God's revelation: "A careful study of the variants of the various earliest manuscripts reveals that none of them affects a single doctrine of Scripture." Another strong support for textual evidence and accuracy is the ancient versions. For the most part, ancient literature was rarely translated into another language. Christianity from its inception has been a missionary faith. The earliest versions of the NT were prepared by missionaries to assist in the propagation of the Christian faith among peoples whose native tongue was Syriac, Latin, or Coptic. Syriac and Latin versions of the NT were made around A.D. 150. This brings us back very near to the time of the originals. Internal Evidence Test: The NT accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had been either eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events or teachings of Jesus. Luke (a Greek doctor): Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus. (1:1-3) Luke: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abiline... (3:1). Don't forget that those who wrote these accounts were going strong against public opinion. Their opponents were trying to do their best to disqualify them, but couldn't. Their teachings and accounts were in all cases true; in some cases the writers of these books even appealed to the knowledge of the hearers: "as you yourselves know", and "we are witnesses of these things". The possibility of hostile witnesses in the audience was too great for them to depart from the truth. External evidence test: The historian Eusebius preserves writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 130): The Elder [apostle John] used to say this also: "Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he heard, nor to include any false statement among them." Archaeology also backs up the facts presented in the Bible. Archaeologist Joseph Free writes: "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts." Evidently, the Bible is not among them.
The New Testament as a compiled book may not have existed until 397, however the manuscripts it's composed of were written much earlier. Dr. William F. Albright, recognized as one of the world's outstanding biblical archaeologists, wrote : "We can say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." Eight years later (1963) he stated in an interview that the completion date for all the books in the New Testament was "probably sometime between circa A.D. 50 and 75." Dr. John A. T. Robinson, lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge has been for years one of England's more distinguished critics. Robinson accepted the consensus typified by German criticism that the New Testament was written years after the time of Christ, at the end of the first century. But, as "little more than a theological joke," he decided to investigate the arguments on the late dating of all the New Testament books, a field largely dormant since the turn of the century. The results stunned him. He said that owing to scholarly "sloth", the "tyranny of unexami |