Philosophy, ooooo la la
Ok, so I have to do this research paper on one of the philosophical isms (Romanticism, Idealism, Realism, Naturalism, Existentialism) in English class. We had to do an abstract on each one before we could decide which one to do, and yesterday in class we compared our abstracts with others in our small group.
Of course we got into some good discussions about some of these philosophies; and I thought I would blog on some of this stuff and see what all of you had to say. Well, here we go.
We'll start with naturalism.
Naturalism defined: Naturalism is the philosophy that holds that all phenomena can be studied and proven naturally. It does not claim the supernatural does not happen, but claims it can be studied by natural methods and investigation and therefore has a natural explanation.
I'll be honest with you all, I think naturalism is a load of rubbish. Not everything does have a natural explanation; take for example the resurrection of Christ. Here are some of the natural explanations:
1. Jesus survived the cross. Ok, let's say that hypothetically that did happen. After surviving the cross He would have been in a condition where you could practically see His internal organs; He lives in a tomb that way with no food or water for three days, rolls a several hundred pound stone uphill and defeats an entire Roman guard. He then inspires His disciples to preach His rising again with the promise they shall receive bodies like His. That explanation just doesn't stand to reason.
2. The disciples stole His body from the tomb. His 11 disciples (Judas Iscariot is no longer with them) armed with at most two swords for the 11 of them defeat an entire Roman guard, and then preach Jesus rose again, and die preaching that they saw Him rise again. That explanation doesn't make sense, they would not have died for what they knew was a lie, nor could they have defeated a Roman guard (the traditional two soldiers is not a accurate depiction, scholars believe it was many more then that).
The only probable explanation (and the only one with real historical merit) is that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. There are four eyewitness accounts of it in the Bible in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul also testifies to it and cites in I Corinthians a list of eyewitnesses who saw Jesus risen again (over 500, most of which were alive when Paul wrote this). Given that most of the eyewitnesses were still around had Paul or the Gospel authors distorted the truth they would have been battered down with objections by eyewitnesses. There is also secular citations of the Christ's rising again, take Josephus for one. The evidence for the Bible is more then I can cover in a single post, this is just a brief summery.
Now I want to move on to Naturalism in the origin debate. Many hold that because of natural explanation there is no longer any need for a Creator. Let me make this clear, putting aside the literal six day creation/day age debate, evolution does not eliminate the need for a Creator. Even if we are to assume the Earth is billions of years old, and macro-evolution has taken place that still wouldn't eliminate the need for a Creator.
I think most of you know I'm a literal six day Creationist. Let me explain why evolution does not eliminate a Creator.
There are many Creationists who are not six day literalists like myself; I'll leave that debate up to a later post. What I want to establish now is that modern science does not eliminate God.
Nothing comes from nothing. The universe (regardless of its age) could not have possibly come from nothing, it had to originate from something at some point in time. Many atheists try to claim the age of the universe is infinite, but that just doesn't make sense.
For example, let us say I have an infinite amount of marbles, and I want to give you an infinite amount of marbles; I could just give you all my marbles. You have infinity I have none. Or I could give you the odd numbered marbles, you have infinity, I have infinity. Or I could give you all the marbles from 4 up, I have 3 marbles, you have infinity. The problem is those equations contradict themselves: in the 1st infinity-infinity=0, in the 2nd infinity-infinity=infinity, in the 3rd infinity-infinity=3. That argument could be applied to God if that was the classical idea of God; that is if God didn't transcend time. But God does transend time, He is eternal.
Another theory atheists try to use as science to discredit Creation is the big bang. Well the big band actually supports Creation more then evolution; in that right after the big bang there are thousands of advanced lifeforms appearing with no ancestors, which completely is opposed to what evolution says should've happened. This corresponds with what the Bible records as having happened, God creates the earth very fast and life appears very fast. Aside from that even if the big bang supported evolution where did the rocks come from? The vacuum? Where did the vacuum come from? These arguments come to the conclusion that there must be a Creator.
There are many other arguments that could be made, but maybe I'll make some of those replying to comments. I think I've given you all enough to argue or agree with, so let it begin.
God bless!
posted by JosiahBatten at
10:56 AM
11 Comments:
These atheists you're citing are being a bit extravagant; the age of this universe is about 14 to 17 billion years old, according to the available data.
It's not just atheists that accept the evidence, scientists from every NAS around the world accept the big bang, the condensation of matter and the evolution of life on Earth.
The technology we are using to communicate is a product of naturalism. Your car is a product of naturalism. The fuel you are using to run your car is itself millions of years old and refined by methods made possible by naturalism.
You cannot just dismiss science as rubbish and continue to enjoy the products of it.
My question for you is, how do you deny mountains of scientific evidence that plainly tells us that the world is profoundly older than 5,000 years and that human beings share a common ancestor with all life? Have you ever taken the time to really review the data available?
This is a sincere question, not a point of debate. I cannot understand how anyone can deny evidence, once it is presented.
Thanks for considering.
Nowhere did I say I dismiss science as rubbish. I do not dismiss it as rubbish, and I never said I did.
I will answer your question now to the best of my ability.
Everything that science teaches us is just one fallen mind instructing another fallen mind. I will always take God's Word over man's. If you looked at all the evidence I believe you would too.
However, since you claim I haven't looked at all the data I want to answer you here; and I'll even do it on scientific turf.
First things first I'll tackle the age of the earth. Scientific dating methods have time and time again proving to be innacurate. An example is C-14 dating. This method of dating has shown living snail shells died 27,000 years ago, (Science, vol. 224, 1984, pp.58-61). That's just one innacuracy of many. Another argument is that if the world were as old as say, moderately by evolutionary scales, a few billion years, then we would have a population bigger then the universe can hold. If we start about 4,500 years ago (right after the Biblical flood) with 8 people as the Bible records then we have a population of about 6 billion, and as you should know Earth's population is about 6.5 billion. As a third argument (and there are many, many more) there are trees that should live for millions of years, but the oldest tree on Earth is a few thousand years old (actually close to right after the Biblical flood). And even if you ignore all the evidence I've presented here when God made the earth He created it with age, He didn't create trees that were 1 year old, He created trees that would appear to be several hundred years old at least.
Now as far as evidence that we all evolved from a common ancestor, what evidence sir? Haeckel's embryos that have been proven to be false (they are not from the early stages of embryonic life, at least not all of them, he took embryos from the middle and other stages, whichever ones would look the most alike). He also chose animals that would look alike, intentionally excluding animals that didn't look similiar, by the way, Dr. Jonathan Wells, (from Harvard) uses that argument, it's not some crazy conspiracy theory.
What next, Java man? Who if I recall correctly was the one based on a pigs tooth. A pigs tooth. Real scientific.
Maybe the Miller experiment, that didn't even have close to the same elements needed for life. True you can get organic materials from his mixture, but organic materials such as Cyanide and Fermaldhyde; not the precursors to life.
How about Darwin's tree of life? Evolutionist cite just a few examples of what should have happened, when there are millions of species that don't have the stages Darwin thought they should.
Aside from all this, similiarity does not prove common ancestor anymore then it proves common design. If one sees two cars that look alike then one assumes they have a common designer, but since that not the result evolutionists want they change it.
In conclusion I want to say that I have looked at the evidence for evolution, and along with an increasing number of doctors of science I find evolution is not a sufficient answer. Why don't you try reading something by a creationist? He doesn't even have to be a six day creationist, there are many creationists who believe the earth is older then 6,000 years. The point I've been trying to make is even if evolution were true, it still doesn't eliminate the need for a Creator.
Naturalism is the methodology of science. If you call naturalism rubbish, you are calling the methods of science rubbish (i.e. trash, worthless) which the very fact that we are discussing these issues electronically proves your impression of naturalism (and therefore science) biased at best.
All of your arguments above are based on an incomplete knowledge of the scientific method and the available data, and furthermore have been professionally refuted a number of times over the past century or so.
Scientific dating methods have time and time again proving to be innacurate. An example is C-14 dating.
This is the one every creationist cites as an example. The dating of isotopes is very accurate, geologically speaking, and can easily reach back billions of years (the decay of strontium or potassium for example).
if the world were as old as say, moderately by evolutionary scales, a few billion years, then we would have a population bigger then the universe can hold
Homo sapiens has only been on this planet for about 200,000 years or so, not billions. Life has progressed through 5 major extinctions throughout history, and until the industrial revolution, the human population went through similar ups and down seen in animal populations. Breakthroughs in energy and medicine have allowed us the exponential growth we are used to seeing now. Your calculations are terribly inaccurate and rife with assumption.
Also, if the world's population started with eight people, Homo sapiens would not have made it. That low of a genetic diversity would have collapsed in on itself (massive inbreeding, duplication of bad genes, disease, deformations, etc.).
Java man and Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" have been rejected for decades now.
Our common ancestry is apparent in our DNA. We share a portion of our genome (which can be physically tested and correlated) with all other life on this planet, including bacteria. Look up some research on molecular homology.
Wells is a known creationist (IDer), and has produced no research of his own. His ideas have been refuted by the scientific community time and again.
Your car analogy is inadequate. Cars are a human creation. We build from intelligence and therefore assume that everything else is built by intelligence. The argument from design is not a logical one and certainly outside the bounds of study. Design is not inherent in the progression of life. Assumption is the fatal flaw of the researcher. Science does not have the luxury of assumption.
I never refuted your claim of the need for a creator; this is a personal choice outside the bounds of science that we all make, to believe or not. My original question pertains to your denial of hard evidence.
You avoided my original question with your outdated arguments. All available scientific evidence points to common ancestry and an ancient Earth. As a reasonable human being, how can you persist in denying the very real, concrete evidence available?
I will answer that in part: I think that you and I have a fundamental difference in defining evidence. Decades of peer reviewed data all pointing toward one central idea is evidence to me; I remain skeptical about considering the writings of anonymous men 2,000+ years old as sufficient evidence to explain anything about our natural world.
It seems to me that religion provides an outlined path of brotherhood at its very core, and those values should be emphasized, not literal interpretations of accounts from tribal peoples who lacked a falsifiable method for examining the physical world.
I still would like you to answer the question without rehashing old arguments, if you can.
The similiarity you cited in DNA is no better explained by common ancestry as it is common design. Similiarity doesn't point one way or the other in itself is the point I made.
I'll try and answer your question as basically as I can; I'm not denying or refusing to believe mountains of evidence pointing straight at evolution. There is a growing group of doctorate level scientists who are consistently saying Creation is the better theory. I don't have the time to present all their arguments and all their evidence; you'd have to look at that yourself. I'll grant many of them do not believe in a literal six day Creation, but like I said; I'll always take God's Word over mans. And even if credible dating methods do say the earth is millions or billions of years old God created the earth with age.
We could go on arguing all of this for days on end; but I really don't think it's necessary because the one point I really wanted to make (not that I necessarily agree with you on other points) is that evolution does not eliminate the need (or possibility) for a Creator.
I think we both know that there are two sides to every argument. Like I said, we could argue this on and on. But in support of myself and my beliefs you might want to look at some of these resources:
A good website for young earth evidence is http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
For creation science in general is
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Lee Strobels The Case for a Creator has some compelling evidence for Creation (not necessarily literal six days).
And I'm sure you've probably heard about Dr. Kent Hovind; I won't say I agree with everything he says, but he does make some good points.
That's the thing. There are not two sides to this issue. There's evidence gleaned by the scientific method, and then there's myth supported by nods and truisms. You and other creationists claim that there is an unseen, unproductive group of scientists turning to Creation as science. Where are they? Why aren't they being published in peer-reviewed science publications? Where is their research? If they have the answers, why aren't they sharing them with the rest of the scientific community?
Because they have no research, only mottos and faulty logic problems like your infinity argument or the universe filling population or violations of thermodynamics, all fueled by a profound misunderstanding of how science is done, and the core of the very principles they criticize. Hovind and Wells are politically motivated charlatans, trying to dupe Americans into moralizing everything, including the dinosaurs, to gain political headway and power. No more.
The sites you recommend are filled with nothing but old arguments, dating back one hundred years or so. As I said, look up molecular homology. Read about genetics. Look into the research of Peter and Rosemary Grant. Your evidence for ancestry and the reality of natural selection and evolution is within those concepts (as well as every scientific paper published since Darwin's time; there is no peer reviewed, published data contradicting natural selection).
Believe what you want to believe; I have no qualm with your feelings of spirit. Let me remind you that your argument was one against naturalism, and therefore against science; that was the origin of our discussion.
I'll repeat myself: there is no evidence for creationism and there never has been. You can play all the logic games that you want, but neither concepts will ever be falsifiable, and therefore no hard scientific evidence can support your claims.
Well if you really want a list of Creationists here's a start:
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. Andr? Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlstr?m, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
I really can't agree with anything you say. Anyone who is so narrow-minded as to think there are not two sides to this issue really deserves to have their comments deleted; however, being that if I were to do that you would probably begin personal attacks on me I won't do that.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Matthew effect. Being that the science as a whole has closed its mind as you have, evolutionists automatically get more recognition.
As far as not being published I'll give you a couple examples of some Creation scientists who get published in peer reviewed magazines/journals:
Dr. William Lane Craig; Astrophysics and Space Science, Nature, The British Journal for The Philosophy of Science, The Journal of Philosophy, and International Studies in the Philosophy of Science.
Dr. Jonathan Wells (who you have nothing against but personal attacks, as I believe being a doctor at Harvard is slightly better then a "charlatan"); Origins & Design, The Scientist, Touchstone, and The American Biology Teacher.
They are sharing their theories and discoveries with the scientific community, if you didn't notice there are many creation/evolution debates held every year. And Newsweek reported that Creationists do much better in debates then do Evolutionists.
There are also arguments that Darwinian natural selection cannot explain. One example is molecular machines, they are irreducibly complex, natural selection could not build such a system but would only preserve one once it has been built. (Strobel, The Case for A Creator; Page 79, interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer).
I honestly don't believe either of us is going to convince the other. I still do not believe everything has a natural explanation, I'm a very religious person and I've seen things that do not have natural explanations. As Voltaire is credited with saying "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Nice cut and paste job. The Darwin Papers is a creationist propaganda site and has no credibility whatsoever in the scientific community. Additionally, what is 100 creationist scientists out of millions? Not statistically significant, that's for sure.
The end part is all you needed to say in the first place. I didn't start the point by point debate, if you remember, you did. All you really had to say was, "I'm very religious and these are the things I believe about the world." That's what it comes down to anyway.
And it's always nice to stoop to name calling in a debate, by the way. Very nice. I will never take the liberty of a personal attack as you have done, as I do not know you as a person. I respect people's opinions enough that I will hear them out even if I do not agree. I have never deleted a non-spam comment on my blog just because it conflicts with my feelings or opinions.
It is sad that you threaten to do so. When you publish something on the web that you know will spark debate, prepare for it, and accept it when it comes. That's a blogger's (and any writer's, for that matter) responsibility.
I am not arguing to convince you; I know that is not possible. I am arguing to provide the real evidence and resources for others that may read your opinions and feelings and construe them as evidence.
Back to your points:
Wells published two peer-reviewed articles in scientific publications, neither of which conflicts with natural selection:
Larabell CA, Rowning BA, Wells, J, Wu M, Gerhart JC. Confocal microscopy analysis of living Xenopus eggs and the mechanism of cortical rotation. Development. 1996 Apr; 122(4):1281-9.
Rowning BA, Wells J, Wu M, Gerhart JC, Moon RT, Larabell CA. Microtubule-mediated transport of organelles and localization of beta-catenin to the future dorsal side of Xenopus eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997 Feb 18;94(4):1224-9.
The other publications you listed are either not peer-reviewed publications or from proceedings of/philosophy of mags, which contain no hard research.
The media wants there to be a controversy to sell mags or get ratings, and therefore shows two sides to everything. There is no conflict within the scientific community, no "two sides." Evolution has happened and is happening. Every NAS on the planet agrees.
Science is not a democracy. If your evidence is not sufficient, you don't get published. Simple fact.
Irreducible complexity (in molecular machines, the eye, etc.) has been shown time and again to be false in every case.
The Matthew effect does not apply, as much as creationists and IDers would like people to believe. Anyone can share ideas with the scientific community, but those ideas need to be backed by real evidence.
I respect your religious feelings, truly, but this is not about your religion or your faith. Your beliefs about the natural world and how it works are successively incorrect.
Bottom line: Intelligent Design and Creationism are not falsifiable and therefore not science. Period. The scientific community is open and will always be open to any peer reviewed research that follows the methods of naturalism and the scientific method, no matter one's religious beliefs. Don't forget that Gregor Mendel and Lemaitre were clergymen and scientists, and respectively responsible for the understanding of mechanism of heredity (leading to a greater understanding of evolution) and the big bang theory.
Well, we can both agree on one thing; "I am not arguing to convince you; I know that is not possible."
If you consider narrow-minded name calling then yes, I'm guilty as charged. If you were really deeply offended I'm tremendously sorry.
Please pardon me for stereotyping, but there have been too many occasions were people in debates have resorted to personal attacks on me; having read your last comment I realize you are a better person then that, and apologize for threatening to delete comments.
Now, the website you cited is not where I got my list; but that's fairly irrelevent.
I won't deny evolution happens, a simple look at how AIDs has something like 18 or 19 different stages/forms shows that in the modern definition of the term evolution does happen. I still very much doubt that it is sufficient to have created this world and universe.
You know much more about science then I do, from what I read you're a biology student; I do credit you that you actually have a reason for your beliefs as I've met many so-called "evolutionists" who did not.
I'm still convinced there are two sides to the theory, as I've said, you're more qualified in this argument then I am. But I do know I've read several articles and books and other things that make me skeptical of evolution, and supportive of Creation.
I honestly am not too bothered by evolution as long as people do not use it as an excuse to eliminate God (my brother believes evolution, and is a worship leader at a prominent community church). I know that several scientists (such as the ones you listed) are religious people. Darwin, if I recall correctly had a degree as an M-Div (Master of Divinity). The thing is when he came up with his theories he abandoned God, came to the conclusion that evolution made God a ridiculous idea.
I don't know if you've ever heard of it but CRS Quarterly is a peer-reviewed publication meant to present research supporting Creation.
I'm still a six day Creationist. I still feel there is logical scientific evidence for it. If you are still interested in hearing about it then let me know, I'll do a post about it. However as long as we can agree that science does not by any means eliminate the need for God then I'm happy. Many Creation scientists are not literal six day Creationists such as myself; I don't agree with everything they say, but I agree with them on the major things.
God bless you!
No need for an apology. The blogosphere is filled with trolls and spammers; you have a right to be cautious.
We can definitely agree on your last point, Sweet. Science is not interested one way or another. :-)
Enjoyed the exchange. Take care.
Well what can I say. It was fun.
You remind me of a friend I have though, we can hardly agree on anything. I'm conservative he's liberal, I say Merry Christmas he says happy holidays, I'm a Creationist, he's an Evolutionist. Real good friends with him, don't agree on anything (except eminant domain).
Anyway, you sure can keep one on their toes.
God bless!
What next, Java man? Who if I recall correctly was the one based on a pigs tooth. A pigs tooth. Real scientific.”
Oh it's nebraska man. Of course you can't even part right. I guess that other scientists peer reviewing your work and find out that it's false is just what science is suppose to be. Not that your grasp that!
Here's the real story. Oh hp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
Wow creationists just lie and lie!
"ow as far as evidence that we all evolved from a common ancestor, what evidence sir? Haeckel's embryos that have been proven to be false"
And aren't used as evidence of common ancestry.
Here's the evidence of common ancestry
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
In conclusion I want to say that I have looked at the evidence for evolution, and along with an increasing number of doctors of science I find evolution is not a sufficient answer.
You did nothing of the sort. You looked for things you BELIEVED discredited evolution and believed them without any real examination or even honesty!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home