|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:04:44 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Starman |
| No you did not. You gave us claims of eyewitness accounts. That is definitely not the same thing. |
But what you refuse to acknowledge is that I did give evidence for those claims. I gave evidence for the reliability of the texts. And I gave independent corroborations:
From the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)
And so just as we read in the text so the historians confirm that the early Christians were convinced beyond all doubt of the resurrection, to the point that they would die a hideous death rather then deny the risen King. Yet these are the sample peoples that denied Christ with oaths and cursing on the day of his cruexafiction. Now some men might be willing to die for what they believe to be true, but no man will die for what he knows to be a lie. What other then the eyewitness account of the risen Savior could change the mind of some many so quickly? Surly if they were not convinced that Jesus had risen or that it was somehow faked then they would not be willing to give there life now, for a lie, when they were so willing to deny Jesus Christ earlier to save their own skin. Yes, only the actual eyewitness account could cause so many to now believe to the point where they would burn at the stake or face the lions rather then to deny the risen Lord.
| No, there are Roman and Jewish historians reporting the presence of a christian sect around AD 100. Thats all. |
Well that's not entirely all. They are reporting that in fact the Christians are promoting the claim of Christ's resurrection and that the Roman authorities are executing all who refuse to deny the risen King In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:
"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do." (Bettenson, p. 3)
| The only thing that you have shown evidence of is your inability to understand the difference between a claim and evidence supporting a claim. |
And the only thing that you have shown is your inability to provide evidence supporting a claim other then a simple hand wave.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:22:58 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, and on what basis do you accept claims of ancient history? |
Documentation from various sources, including the writings and art of the time as well as archeolocical studies, all carried out by independent scholars.
On the other hand, to accept the ressurection of a cadaver some three days dead and starting to get a little fly-blown, I would have to believe in magic whatever the scholarship. I have yet to see any evidence in support of any sort of supernatural happenings nor even the possibility of such, Harry Potter & Batboy not withstanding.
The guy was dead and stayed that way, and 2,000 & some-odd years of churchy blather hasn't changed that a single iota.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:23:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
On the contrary, I think they are. When have they ever asked a biologist to come to the church to teach the members of the congregation about what science teaches about evolution? Can you name anyone of the Pastors or teachers of the church calling a biologist to educate themselves about biology before they start preaching anti-evolution propaganda to their members? I think it's too naive to to think that they don't realise that their sources are more than a little biased. |
The only time I ever heard a biologist in church is when I was in college. He was a biologist that was doing genetic research into pest resistant plants. He was from Texas A&M University and he taught a class about God and biology. He was a Christian so he did have that bias. But you are right I have never heard of a church calling in an expert in evolution to teach and ask questions. I do not know if they consult any non Christian experts before any lessons. The only time evolution is brought up at my church officially is when the preacher says things like we came from pond scum but never really gets into it.
I will write an e-mail to some elders and see what they say about the idea. I am sure there are experts in the Ft Worth/Dallas area. I will let you know what they say.
| It was intended to be. However, you didn't answer the question. Ok, don't worry. If I was in your position, I wouldn't. And I'm very confident that Bill scott would absolutely say I couldn't be trusted. If I'm not mistaken, he thinks that I am immoral since I'm agnostic/atheist because the only source of morality is God which I deny. |
I would like to meet you first before I make a determination but from your postings on SFN I would trust you as long as you only taught evolution and did not bring up the “there is no God thing”.
| I try to not be condescending. However, it's a two-way street. I don't like being condescended either when I'm trying to explain my position. This is also something that many creationists I've talked with does. One of the most offensive things they have done was tell me to my face "I'm going to pray for you...". It's insulting on many levels. |
That reminds me of the debate between Kirk Cameron and the atheist guy from the blasphemy challenge. Kirk told the atheist he would pray for him; the atheist responded that he would think for Kirk.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
One of the most offensive things they have done was tell me to my face "I'm going to pray for you...". It's insulting on many levels |
Can you explain why it is insulting to you?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:37:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
The only time I ever heard a biologist in church is when I was in college. He was a biologist that was doing genetic research into pest resistant plants. He was from Texas A&M University and he taught a class about God and biology. He was a Christian so he did have that bias. But you are right I have never heard of a church calling in an expert in evolution to teach and ask questions. I do not know if they consult any non Christian experts before any lessons. The only time evolution is brought up at my church officially is when the preacher says things like we came from pond scum but never really gets into it.
I will write an e-mail to some elders and see what they say about the idea. I am sure there are experts in the Ft Worth/Dallas area. I will let you know what they say. |
Be sure to check out the brand-new Scientists in Support of Clergy project. Here's the guy to talk to in Dallas:Name: John G. Wise, Ph.D.
Title: Lecturer
Address: Department of Biological Sciences
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275
Areas of Expertise: biochemistry, evolutionary biology, genetics
e-mail address: jwise@mail.smu.edu |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:38:31 [Permalink]
|
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Nero[1] Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (December 15, 37 – June 9, 68)[2], born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, also called Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus, was the fifth and last Roman Emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Nero was adopted by his grand-uncle Claudius to become heir to the throne. As Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus, he succeeded to the throne on October 13, 54, following Claudius' death.
Nero ruled from 54 to 68 CE, focusing much of his attention on diplomacy, trade, and increasing the cultural capital of the empire. He ordered the building of theatres and promoted athletic games. His reign included a successful war and negotiated peace with the Parthian Empire (58–63), the suppression of the British revolt (60–61) and improving diplomatic ties with Greece. In 68 CE a military coup drove Nero into hiding. Facing execution at the hands of the Roman Senate, he reportedly committed forced suicide with the help of his scribe Epaphroditos.
Popular history remembers Nero as a libertine and a tyrant; he is known as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned"[3] and an early persecutor of Christians. These accounts follow the histories of Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio along with a number of early Christian writers. However, some ancient sources also indicate that Nero was quite popular with the common people during and after his reign.[4] Some modern historians question the reliability of ancient sources when reporting on Nero's alleged tyranical acts.[5] It may be impossible to completely separate fact from fiction concerning Nero's reign.
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:40:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And so just as we read in the text so the historians confirm that the early Christians were convinced beyond all doubt of the resurrection
|
Simple beliefs/testimonials do not constitute evidence.
Originally posted by Bill scott
, to the point that they would die a hideous death rather then deny the risen King.
|
By that, then all of the suicide bombers of today must hold beliefs that are equally true.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yet these are the sample peoples that denied Christ with oaths and cursing on the day of his cruexafiction. Now some men might be willing to die for what they believe to be true, but no man will die for what he knows to be a lie.
|
If you believe it, then it must be true. Nice argument.
Originally posted by Bill scott
What other then the eyewitness account of the risen Savior could change the mind of some many so quickly?
|
Rising savior gods did not originate with the bible.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Surly if they were not convinced that Jesus had risen or that it was somehow faked then they would not be willing to give there life now, for a lie, when they were so willing to deny Jesus Christ earlier to save their own skin. Yes, only the actual eyewitness account could cause so many to now believe to the point where they would burn at the stake or face the lions rather then to deny the risen Lord.
|
Or that it did not occur at all and this was part of the human author's attempt to satisfy prophesy.
You have your Goddidit conclusion and are blind to simpler explanations. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:49:06 [Permalink]
|
| A few questions for Bill. |
| If it could be shown beyond any reasonable doubt to you that what you call macroevolution happens, would that somehow change the faith you have in a creator? And if so, why? |
If it is established beyond doubt that a common ancestry is responsible for all living creatures then I would say that that would definitely conflict with the Genesis account, yes. I am not so sure it would introduce doubt into a creator for me, but rather maybe who the creator is?
| If science could somehow find acceptable verification that JC did indeed resurrect, supporting the cornerstone belief of Christianity, and it could also be shown to you beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, would those two views really be in conflict with one another? And if so, why? |
Yes. Because Darwinian evolution states that death was introduced into the creation millions of years before man was even on the scene. Genesis, which Christ quotes from, states that man was fully formed and placed on this Earth before death was introduced into the creation and also states that death was a result of sin and disobedience to the creator by the creation. Thus fracturing the relationship between creator and creation which was only reestablished by the work of atonement on the cross. They are diametrically opposed, Darwinian evolution and Genesis that is.
| Can you dismiss out of hand, convincing evidence for natural processes if God can direct his creation any way he wants to without detection if he so chooses? |
I can except that natural process occur throughout the creation. Wind causing rippling designs on sand or snow etc... etc....
| Did God create antibiotic resistant strains of tuberculosis, or was that a natural process? |
I don't know. Both are a possibility.
| Where does God leave off, if anywhere? |
Wherever he decides. And who can challenge his reasoning? Can the creation successfully challenge the creator and prevail?
You know, it never really is addressed in scripture, that I recall anyway. God interacts with his creation and God sets process in motion. At this point I don't see that we were given the ability to decipher which one applies for each individual situation. Since I am not the creator I am not going to speak for the creator nor could I even pretend to. Can the finite truly and fully comprehend the infinite? I say no.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:55:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb
The only time I ever heard a biologist in church is when I was in college. He was a biologist that was doing genetic research into pest resistant plants. He was from Texas A&M University and he taught a class about God and biology. He was a Christian so he did have that bias. But you are right I have never heard of a church calling in an expert in evolution to teach and ask questions. I do not know if they consult any non Christian experts before any lessons. The only time evolution is brought up at my church officially is when the preacher says things like we came from pond scum but never really gets into it.
I will write an e-mail to some elders and see what they say about the idea. I am sure there are experts in the Ft Worth/Dallas area. I will let you know what they say. |
Be sure to check out the brand-new Scientists in Support of Clergy project. Here's the guy to talk to in Dallas:Name: John G. Wise, Ph.D.
Title: Lecturer
Address: Department of Biological Sciences
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275
Areas of Expertise: biochemistry, evolutionary biology, genetics
e-mail address: jwise@mail.smu.edu |
|
Thanks for the information. I will contact Mr. Wise. I am cationed by the open letter that states:
| the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. |
And:
| We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth. |
I hope that he would only teach about evoltion as an expert in the field and not promote any of these ideas as stated on their website. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 11:25:14 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by moakley |
| Simple beliefs/testimonials do not constitute evidence. |
But independent corroboration does constitute evidence and much more then hand waving discredits evidence.
| By that, then all of the suicide bombers of today must hold beliefs that are equally true. |
You failed to comprehend my point.
| If you believe it, then it must be true. Nice argument. |
You failed to comprehend my point. No one doubts that the suicide bombers fully believe in their cause. And that is why I said, "Some men will be willing to die for what they believe to be true." But would suicide bombers be so willing if they believed that paradise and all the virgins was just a lie? I say no. And that brings me to my point. At the cruxefiction the apostles denied Christ to save their own hide. Obviously they were not entirely convinced Christ was who he said he was. Yet after the resurrection they were all of a sudden willing to die a hideous death rather then to deny the risen King. Now if they never truly witnessed the risen King then what changed their minds to now all of a sudden be willing to die rather then to deny the risen King? In other words, if Christ is still buried and dead why would so many be ready to die rather then deny when previously they were more then willing to deny rather then die? What changed the mind of so many to now face death rather then to deny?
| Rising savior gods did not originate with the bible. |
The evidence for one did.
Yes, only the actual eyewitness account could cause so many to now believe to the point where they would burn at the stake or face the lions rather then to deny the risen Lord.
| Or that it did not occur at all and this was part of the human author's attempt to satisfy prophesy. |
|
So now your denying the historical evidence for roman persecution of Christians with nothing more then a hand wave of "it did not happen"?
| You have your Goddidit conclusion and are blind to simpler explanations. |
And simply stating "it did not happen" is about as simple of an explanation as it gets.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 08/01/2007 11:27:27 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 12:27:34 [Permalink]
|
| Obviously they were not entirely convinced Christ was who he said he was. Yet after the resurrection they were all of a sudden willing to die a hideous death rather then to deny the risen King. |
Or so the story goes. So they witnessed all these miracles and JC restoring life to 2 other people, not to mention that Jesus said he would be crucified and still they did not beleive.
How in christs name are we suppose to believe this drivel if they didn't????
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 12:35:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Genesis, which Christ quotes from, states that man was fully formed and placed on this Earth before death was introduced into the creation and also states that death was a result of sin and disobedience to the creator by the creation. |
So you're saying that Adam and Eve did not eat anything before Eve took a bite of apple. Is that correct?| They are diametrically opposed, Darwinian evolution and Genesis that is. |
Only if you think that there was no death before the Fall. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 12:44:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Thanks for the information. I will contact Mr. Wise. I am cationed by the open letter that states:
| the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. |
And:
| We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth. |
I hope that he would only teach about evoltion as an expert in the field and not promote any of these ideas as stated on their website. |
Actually, that web site is a bit confusing. The quotes you posted are from the "Clergy Letter Project," and are from the actual letter that over 10,000 clergy have signed. That project, and the clergy in it, appear to be independent of the "Scientists in Support of Clergy" project (which was started by the same guy who did the Clergy Letter Project). Mr. Wise is a part of the second project, and need not have signed the letter from which you quoted (especially since he's not clergy). But, please do whatever vetting of whatever speaker that makes you feel comfortable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 13:44:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Bill wrote;| How about you surprise me first and fill me in on your requirements for events throughout history to be reported on as actual. What makes you think, or convinces you, that people and events in history actually happened? |
Always a sucker for the scent of herring, I'll sniff a little ways down this trail.
Historians (at least the good ones) rely on what they call "primary sources." Rather than parroting other peoples' histories or earlier compilations of rumor and legend, they look for letters written by contemporaries, journals by witnesses, public records of the time, and sometimes archaeological evidence. In other words, they look for independent evidence from the time in question. The kind of primary source evidence that's so lacking with some legends.
|
And then so you reject the resurrection of Jesus Christ because why??????
|
It's my understanding that these religious aspects are off-limits here, and have wisely been diverted to another thread, "Evidence for Jesus." That's why I removed direct reference to religion before posting my reply, and kept it to the matter of how historians work. Though I would think my answer would be obvious, just ask me there, and I will reply.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/01/2007 13:46:49 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 14:55:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, that web site is a bit confusing. The quotes you posted are from the "Clergy Letter Project," and are from the actual letter that over 10,000 clergy have signed. That project, and the clergy in it, appear to be independent of the "Scientists in Support of Clergy" project (which was started by the same guy who did the Clergy Letter Project). Mr. Wise is a part of the second project, and need not have signed the letter from which you quoted (especially since he's not clergy). But, please do whatever vetting of whatever speaker that makes you feel comfortable.
|
I see now. I was confused. I wrote him an e-mail asking him some questions. I am not 100% confident that our church will agree to it though. I will be disappointed if they say no. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 15:38:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Does it matter? |
Obviously not to some.
And that is my problem. Somehow this imaginary separation line between cosmology/evolution has established itself in the minds of these scientists. bio evolution 101 can not be mingled with cosmology 101, these are two separate topics, they say. |
And there is a good reason for that. While both subjects deal with energy and matter, in the atomic and molecular sense, there is a huge difference in the organization of energy and matter, and huge difference in how chemical reactions occur, that separates the two.
| They create this facade so that they may protect their delicate prize while attempting to save face: |
Are you a mind-reader? How do you know this is (in your mind) the motivation behind scientists decision to keep the two subjects separate? I think you are dishonest when you say stuff like this. I want to keep the two sciences separate, because even if they are linked, there are very different principles and environments at work. I don't need to know how oil is drilled and pumped from beneath the ocean floor in order to understand how an Otto principle combustion engine work. These are two different disciplines, just as biological evolution and cosmology are different disciplines.
Darwinian Evolutionist: Once up on a time back in the primordial haze of ancient earth there may have existed a warm little pond. And in this pond all of the diversity of life that we see before us may have originated here...
Evolution Skeptic: Where did this warm little pond come from? What about the life inside the pond that we are told is in there?
Darwinian Evolutionist: My silly little delusional creationist friend that is a cosmology question, not a bio evolution question.
Evolution Skeptic: O.K. then what does cosmology say about the origin of this warm little pond and the life inside it?
Darwinian Evolutionist: Well, not much. |
Ok, this is yet another example of how you have failed to understand what you have studied about evolution and cosmology. This is also a caricature of science.
How about I rewrite this little conversation of yours to more accurately show what it would sound like? Additions in blue:
Darwinian Evolutionist: Once up on a time back in the primordial haze of ancient earth, one of a few competing theories state that, there may have existed a many warm little pond, grossly simplified of course. There were many ponds... And in this pond self-replicating macro-molecules developed into the first archaeobacteria from which all of the diversity of life that we see before us may have originated here...
Evolution Skeptic: Where did this warm little pond come from? What about the life inside the pond that we are told is in there?
Darwinian Evolutionist: My silly little delusional creationist friend that The first question is a cosmology an astronomy question, not a bio evolution question. The reason why it's astronomy is because the different chemicals in the pond came from the formation of the solar system. Formation of solar system from cosmic dust-and-hydrogen clouds is research in the field of astronomy.
The second question is an abiogenesis question. The reason it is abiogenesis and not biological evolution is that biology deals with living organisms where development and changes in DNA is responsible for differences between them. Before the first "really functional" bacteria there wasn't any DNA present. Therefore, the scientific theories about (for example) speciation doesn't work: The key element for biological evolution isn't there.
Evolution Skeptic: O.K. then what does cosmology say about the origin of this warm little pond and the life inside it?
Darwinian Evolutionist: Well, not much. like I said, that's more astronomy rather than cosmology. And astronomy doesn't deal with life. However, planetary formation theory explains the presence of a combination of chemicals in those ponds, the atmosphere, and the soil and rocks. However, since I'm a Darwinian Evolutionist, I only do research on living organisms that have DNA. I don't know much about neither Astronomy nor Cosmology. And most of the Chemistry I deal with is organic chemistry. Why don't you ask someone studying those fields?
You see, Bill scott... the answers are much more complicated than your caricature.
Is it possible to scientifically find out who was the Law Maker? No, given our current understanding of the Laws of Nature, we will never be able to find out. This is a question of the Anthropic Principle. |
In light of the case that I put forth on what basis do you reject the resurrection of Christ? |
Anecdotal "evidence" have very little if any relevance at all in science. Repeatability and falsification are key elements when scientifically evaluating evidence, as are physical evidence.
Maybe in a court of law, anecdotal evidence and testimony counts for something, but without physical evidence you'll be hard pressed to win a case.
You seem to be satisfied with anecdotal testimony without physical evidence.
| I say that you can come to a scientific understudying of who the creator is. |
(Emphasis mine: It looks like you made a misspelling there, so I'll guess you meant to type "understanding", and answer as such)
I disagree. At least for now. But if you can present a convincing scientific case for who the creator is, I'm open enough to change my mind.
| What do I think? Maybe there is a Law Maker, maybe there isn't. We don't have any scientific evidence that points to there being one, |
Well we do have the creation itself. |
Not really. You have taken The Universe and labelled it "creation". By doing so, you have now defined The Universe in a term that presumes a creator.
I'm not sure what kind of logical fallacy this kind of action is, but I hope someone more knowledgeable in that department can enlighten us. It looks like circular reasoning though.
| I would say that would be evidence for a creator and therefore a Law Maker. |
I disagree for the reason above.
Surly you do not believe that the Earth was just here, do you? |
No, Big Bang seems the most reasonable explanation, and about 13-14 billion years of cosmic development.
| at least no evidence left after the Big Bang. |
Yes, can you tell me more about this BB as well when you give me your summarized version of bio evolution? And please try and tie the two togather. |
I'm not the only one of us here at SFN, I believe most members are as qualified as me or even more so.
And the link between the two is Abiogenesis which is still a young science so there's not much data compiled.
| So if I assume that there was a Law Maker that created the Laws of Nature, |
So are you assuming there is one? |
No, I said if... as in a hypothetical situation.
| Just so I understand right, you believe that the creator, who ever he/she may be, set the creation in motion and then has been absent from the daily goings on ever since? |
No, I'm afraid you understood wrong. I see no evidence that there is a creator. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So I cannot discount the possibility of a creator. But if there is one, the lack of evidence of the creator's presence suggests to me that the creator has been absent from the daily goings since Big Bang. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com part 2
