The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 30, 31, 32  Next

Reply to topic
agnosticatheist
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:32 pm  Two potential creation scenarios Reply with quote

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum. Think
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 51: Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:43 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 46 by Danmark]

Quote:
Using Carbon 14 dating to measure objects millions of years old is like timing hair growth with a stopwatch.


That's your assumption. And your opinion. You are assuming hundreds of millions of years. Where's your evidence? "Radiometric dating..." with conclusions drawn from the a priori assumption of millions of years.

Completely circular... "reasoning". Cool

Too funny (and please note the use of italics, whoever became upset over that issue -- H. Sapiens?)

Why, then, IS there C-14 in those items cited, including "billion year old" (give or take) diamonds, if every trace of C-14 should be gone after 50K years?

These tests were conducted independently, by a reputable lab, using third-party go-betweens to disguise who was submitting the samples.

If you say "trace contamination" -- why should we accept ANY radiometric dating, since they are all subject to that?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 52: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:21 pm
Reply

Like this post (2): DanieltheDragon, H.sapiens
Volbrigade wrote:

[Replying to post 46 by Danmark]

Quote:
Using Carbon 14 dating to measure objects millions of years old is like timing hair growth with a stopwatch.


That's your assumption. And your opinion.

No, it is a fact. And I supplied you with the evidence, the facts and the reasoning.

You respond with blather.

You failed to respond at all to the evidence I gave that you totally misrepresented what Dr. Mary Schweitzer wrote. You cited her and her findings to support this dopey YEC theory. She says just the opposite. YOUR witness repudiates you and says there is "tons" of scientific evidence the Earth is billions of years old.

Ignoring how you and your creationist website got caught out on this does not make the refutation of your claim go away.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 53: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:37 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 39 by Volbrigade]

Moderator Comment

If you quote a website, please provide a link to it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 54: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:38 pm
Reply

Like this post
Volbrigade wrote:

That, sir, is a statement of 100%, pure, unadulterated bovine scatology.


Warning Moderator Warning


Euphemistic swearing is not allowed here.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 55: Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:30 pm
Reply

Like this post
otseng wrote:

Volbrigade wrote:

That, sir, is a statement of 100%, pure, unadulterated bovine scatology.


Warning Moderator Warning


Euphemistic swearing is not allowed here.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.


Which is worse --

describing it, or providing it? Cool

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 56: Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:00 am
Reply

Like this post
Volbrigade wrote:

Which is worse --

describing it, or providing it? Cool


Warning Moderator Final Warning

The worst is not abiding by the rules. We've given you plenty of warnings, this is your final warning.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 57: Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:00 pm
Reply

Like this post
This is to provide compliance in regard to the website that I pasted the text of, without providing a link.

It is one that will be rejected out of hand by many posters on here -- which is why I posted only the evidence itself, not the attribution from which it came.

Whether anyone chooses to review the evidence posited is their own affair. It is, however, not "opinion", as was mischaracterized by Danmark -- but over a 100 observable scientific facts that are the same for evolutionists and creationist alike, and which present problems for those holding the view that microbes somehow morphed into men.

That Dr. Schweitzer herself disputes the claim that her discovery of soft tissue in a T. Rex fossil is an indication of "recent" fossilization, does not change the fact or the evidence. THAT is merely an opinion (hers), which indicates how deeply ingrained the m2m evolutionary bias is, within the secular scientific community (the objection that Dr. S. herself claims to be a "Christian" is irrelevant in that regard. Many Christians are compromisers on this issue).

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation." -- Herbert Spencer

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 58: Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:18 pm
Reply

Like this post (2): Clownboat, H.sapiens
Volbrigade wrote:

This is to provide compliance in regard to the website that I pasted the text of, without providing a link.

It is one that will be rejected out of hand by many posters on here -- which is why I posted only the evidence itself, not the attribution from which it came.

Whether anyone chooses to review the evidence posited is their own affair. It is, however, not "opinion", as was mischaracterized by Danmark -- but over a 100 observable scientific facts that are the same for evolutionists and creationist alike, and which present problems for those holding the view that microbes somehow morphed into men.

That Dr. Schweitzer herself disputes the claim that her discovery of soft tissue in a T. Rex fossil is an indication of "recent" fossilization, does not change the fact or the evidence. THAT is merely an opinion (hers), which indicates how deeply ingrained the m2m evolutionary bias is, within the secular scientific community (the objection that Dr. S. herself claims to be a "Christian" is irrelevant in that regard. Many Christians are compromisers on this issue).

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation." -- Herbert Spencer

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

This silliness of Batten's is the same nonsense peddled by Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, who is now in Federal prison for lying and fraud. All the 'reasons' listed have been refuted on this forum and other websites by real scientists.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_... for example. But it is not enough to simply paste in a URL and call it a day.
The scatter gun approach of people like Batten simply masks the fact that none of his poor logic and misstated facts are valid.

The better approach is to stick to one issue at a time and debate it:

For example, Dr. Schweitzer did not find viable soft tissue in dinosaur bones millions of years old. Essentially what she and her team discovered after taking samples of the fossilized tissue, grinding it up, applying acid and analyzing the powder they made was evidence in of heme structures from what millions of years ago was soft tissue. You can read the actual study here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full

This story got 'dumbed down' for inclusion in popular articles for the layman and were completely misunderstood and misused by creationists like Carl Wieland.

'Carl Wieland is the major creationist "dino-blood" source and has presented his distorted interpretations of dinosaur biomolecule research through the Answers in Genesis Ministry: Creation Ex Nihilo (Wieland 1997) Creation (Wieland 1999) and the Answers in Genesis Ministry Webpages (Wieland 2002). His first article we will consider in detail, Sensational dinosaur blood report, opens with the following:

"ACTUAL red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.

It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousands of years old."

And he ends with

"Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation." [Wieland 1997]

These sentences are quite revealing. In barely two text pages, Wieland has shifted from "fossil bones" to "unfossilized dinosaur bone" and claims that a popularized account of one paleontological study is reason enough to abandon the sciences. What possible basis for these wild claims could Wieland have had? His entire claim of cellular preservation in dinosaur age fossils originated from a selective misrepresentation of a popular magazine account of research by Mary Schweitzer titled "The Real Jurassic Park" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997). This article was published in 1997 by a magazine called Earth, a for-profit magazine focused on geology and paleontology for the general public. The magazine folded after three volumes. The former Editor, Josh Flishman, has personally acknowledged to me that Earth was a popularization, and not a scientific journal. But in 1997, the popularity of Steven Speilberg's film "Jurassic Park" prompted a tie-in theme at Earth magazine featuring Mary Schweitzer's preliminary analysis of an exceptionallywell preserved portion of a bone from a remarkably well preserved skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex. There were no red blood cells present, and this speaks volumes for the respect for truth shown at Answers in Genesis Ministry.'

“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html#Schweitzeretal1997a

To summarize, what Wieland and other creationists have done is spread a lie.

'The basic lie that red blood cells had been observed in the bone of a T. rex now spread through the creationist literature, with the major vector coming within the Answers in Genesis publications. Jonathan Sarfati, a former chemist employed by Answers in Genesis, wrote in his 1999 book Refuting Evolution -

"Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think that the last dinosaur lived." [pg. 112, citing Wieland 1997]

This bizarre claim was presented as one of six evidences that the Earth was young. Three significant scientific publications in 1997 and one in 1999 by real scientists are ignored by Sarfati, who not only misrepresented this primary research, but incompetently paraphrased Wieland 1997 to boot. More interesting, the position is hardened that somehow the Schweitzer and Staedter 1997 publication now demonstrated that this fossil was less than a few thousand years old, and this was support for the YEC position. The illogic of this assertion is entirely contained in Sarfati's statement implying that he and his associates know how long organic molecules can survive. This is of course absurd.'
ibid

As the Smithsonian article put it:

'Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”'
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/#ioVVma0...

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 59: Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:50 pm
Reply

Like this post
For reference:

Creation.com About Us wrote:

...The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
...
Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
...

At least in science, corrections can be made.

(tag edit, and how 'bout that icon_wave )

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 60: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:39 pm
Reply

Like this post
NOVA interviewed Mary Schweitzer, an evangelical Christian, the paleontologist whose team found well preserved T. Rex fossils and has been distorted and used by non scientist creationists to promote the idea the Earth is only 10,000 years old or less. She gives a great summary of the various sciences that support a very old Earth:

"Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field?
Carl Baker, Billings, Montana

Schweitzer: Actually, my work doesn't say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/schweitzer-qa.html

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 30, 31, 32  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version