Creation vs. Evolution

[Bryan]

What if atheists don't exist?

 

[Marvel]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/cover.story/index.html

While I am not about to become (heavily) involved in this debate***, This link was posted earlier & ignored. I sort of suspect because it speaks of a highly respected scientist who converted from atheist to Christian- sort of refutes the idea that scientists have all found all the answers in their research, doesn't it? A brief excerpt:

Dawkins and his peers have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science, and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table doesn't get anyone very far.

Most Americans occupy the middle ground: We want it all. We want to cheer on science's strides and still humble ourselves on the Sabbath. We want access to both MRIs and miracles. We want debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless.

Informed conciliators have recently become more vocal, and foremost among them is Francis Collins. Collins' devotion to genetics is, if possible, greater than Dawkins'.

Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint, a milestone that then-President Bill Clinton honored in a 2000 White House ceremony, comparing the genome chart to Meriwether Lewis' map of his fateful continental exploration. Collins continues to lead his institute in studying the genome and mining it for medical breakthroughs.

He is also a forthright Christian who converted from atheism at age 27 and now finds time to advise young evangelical scientists on how to declare their faith in science's largely agnostic upper reaches.

His summer best seller, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" (Free Press), laid out some of the arguments he brought to bear in the 90-minute debate Time arranged between Dawkins and Collins in our offices at the Time & Life Building on September 30. Some excerpts from their spirited exchange are featured in this week's Time cover story.

Perhaps, just perhaps some of you who believe in science & cannot reconcile that believe with a simultaneous & harmonious believe in God might get something out of a book written by a scientist on the subject....

****Andy, we went over the dating of Scriptures many, many months ago by PM. While there are scholars that date the New Testament as you present them, there are many, many more who date the NT much closer to Christ's lifetime. There is much scholarly debate- backed by archaeological evidence on the subject if you would only be willing to read them.

Mike F basically described what happened to me to convert me from agnostic to Christian 5+ years ago- I was called & I finally answered. Some notable exceptions- I was raised in an agnostic home- my mother was just as vehement in her disbelief as some of you are & I grew up hearing & believing that message. But I always had a hole in the middle of my soul that cried out for answers. Unlike Mike, my path initially led me to explore other avenues first- mostly in Eastern religions, not the Western Judeo-Christian God of my society. The answers were not there & eventually, I came to the Lord- kicking & screaming the entire way. Now, my signature line says it all.

One last thought. The most recognized verse (by name & number) in the Bible is the oft-quoted John 3:16- you can't watch a football game on TV without seeing someone holding up that sign. It speaks of God's Love as evidenced in the sending of His Son to earth. But, 3:17 is often overlooked & expands on His reason much more clearly:

16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

G'night all...

 

[H2Andy]

sort of refutes the idea that scientists have all found all the answers in their research, doesn't it?

who on earth would claim that scientists have found all the answers?

it's just that "God made it happen" is not an acceptable scientific answer. certainly a spiritual one.

the debate is whether Creationism is science. it can't be proven or disproven, and it therefore isn't science.

****Andy, we went over the dating of Scriptures many, many months ago by PM. While there are scholars that date the New Testament as you present them, there are many, many more who date the NT much closer to Christ's lifetime. There is much scholarly debate- backed by archaeological evidence on the subject if you would only be willing to read them.

i have read them.

they are not good scholarship, in my opinion. the better arguments and evidence lie with the "late writers" supporters.

of course, we can disagree as to that. just don't accuse me of not considering your evidence, which i have

 

[Bryan]

the debate is whether Creationism is science. it can't be proven or disproven,

Can't it? Ever? Maybe not now, but perhaps in the forseeable future?

Humans have a long history of not understanding things, drawing the wrong conclusions, becoming dogmatic about accepted science, only to be enlightened by better facts later.

Flat earth, earth at center of universe, flies spontaneously arising from rotten meat, medical bloodletting, just as low-hanging examples.

 

[H2Andy]

Can't it? Ever? Maybe not now, but perhaps in the forseeable future?

when it becomes capable of being proved or disproved, then it is science

note that this doesn't mean it has to be proven or disproven today. just capable of being proven or disproven.

how on earth do you prove or disprove the Christian God created the universe?

the very proposition is unprovable/disprovable/provable

 

[Green_Manelishi]

who on earth would claim that scientists have found all the answers?

it's just that "God made it happen" is not an acceptable scientific answer. certainly a spiritual one.

the debate is whether Creationism is science. it can't be proven or disproven, and it therefore isn't science.

i have read them.

they are not good scholarship, in my opinion. the better arguments and evidence lie with the "late writers" supporters.

of course, we can disagree as to that. just don't accuse me of not considering your evidence, which i have

God did make it happen. Humans can study the end result and order (at least what's left of the order) which is exactly what scientists did for years.

Yet, macro-evolution which can't be proven (or disproven) is science. ROFLMGAO.

In your opinion? The better arguments? Is that a professional legal opinion? In my experience, lawyers are not interested in truth, only "facts".

And many non-Christian scientists have examined the 'evidence' for evolution and called it exactly what is is ... The Emperors New Clothes.

 

[H2Andy]

Yet, macro-evolution which can't be proven (or disproven) is science. ROFLMGAO.

ah ... yeah it can be disproven ... and also, it's been proven over and over.

what are you talking about?

In your opinion? The better arguments? Is that a professional legal opinion? In my experience, lawyers are not interested in truth, only "facts".

i can't prove that my interpretation of the facts regarding New Testament scholarship is better than yours. it just makes more sense to me.

hence, it's my opinion that the "late writer" theory is a better explanation. it will probably never be proven (and note that it is not science; it's Bible scholarship).

And many non-Christian scientists have examined the 'evidence' for evolution and called it exactly what is is ... The Emperors New Clothes.

a tremendously small minority. 95% of all scientists in the field understand how evolution works and realize how it fits in with everything we know.

this "myth" that scientists don't support evolution is just that, a myth

holy cow... we're starting at page one of this thread again

 

[adza]

Bryan,

I've enjoyed my discussions with you. Harvest has hit our area, and I'm not going to get much free time for the next month or so. I just waned to touch base, because I told you I'd get you some names of scientists that have converted from Atheiism to Christianity. Here are some names I came up with:

Dr David Catchpoole
John M. Cimbala
Francis Collins
Dr. Arlton C. Murray
John Dobson
Dr AJ White

It's been interesting - and I do appreciate your time. If this thread's still going after harvest, I'll drop back in.

As for some of the misunderstandings I have about evolution - you guys are probably correct. If evolution doesn't state that creatures grew gills from lungs etc, then we have a problem with the education departments - as this is what I was taught in school! Obviously wrong. (Whether your a creationist or an evolutionist )

Anyway - once again, thanks. I'll check up on this thread again after harvest.

Cheers

 

[Thalassamania]

Bryan,

I've enjoyed my discussions with you. Harvest has hit our area, and I'm not going to get much free time for the next month or so. I just waned to touch base, because I told you I'd get you some names of scientists that have converted from Atheiism to Christianity. Here are some names I came up with:

Dr David Catchpoole
John M. Cimbala
Francis Collins
Dr. Arlton C. Murray
John Dobson
Dr AJ White

It's been interesting - and I do appreciate your time. If this thread's still going after harvest, I'll drop back in.

As for some of the misunderstandings I have about evolution - you guys are probably correct. If evolution doesn't state that creatures grew gills from lungs etc, then we have a problem with the education departments - as this is what I was taught in school! Obviously wrong. (Whether your a creationist or an evolutionist )

Anyway - once again, thanks. I'll check up on this thread again after harvest.

Cheers

The usual clap-trap:

Dr David Catchpoole has worked as a plant physiologist and science educator, specializing in tropical agriculture and horticulture. No data on the web concerning source of degrees or scientific publications.

John M. Cimbala – Engineer, no biological or geological expertise.

Francis Collins – Hardly a Christian Fundamentalist, he said: “There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge or the universe’s age or of how living organisms are related to each other.” Also said: "I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard (Dawkins) in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn’t able to provide about the natural world – the questions about why instead of the questions about how. He believes in God, but also supports evolution and old earth.

Dr. Arlton C. Murray – No data on web as to degrees or scientific publications. Claims to have worked as a fossil collector and preparer for the Smithsonian, hardly a PhD position.

John Dobson – there’s an popularizer of astronomy by this name, but he’s not a Christian . The Christian is a “Focus on Family” contributor with no record of scientific contribution or training.

Dr A J Monty White - converted from atheism to Christianity in 1964 when he was an undergraduate student at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.. He is a graduate of the University of Wales, obtaining his BSc in Chemistry in 1967, and his PhD for his research in the field of Gas Kinetics in 1970. Monty spent two years investigating the optical and electrical properties of organic semi-conductors before moving to Cardiff where he joined the administration at the University there. During this time he held a number of senior positions including Academic Registrar and Director of the International Office. He is also a Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. No expertise in biology or geology.

 

[Soggy]

Yet, macro-evolution which can't be proven (or disproven) is science. ROFLMGAO.

Please explain that statement, since it is 100% incorrect. Evolution has been proven over and over and over again, both at the macro and micro levels. It also has criteria that can be disproven. This has been stated, cited, stated, cited, stated cited, over and over and over and over and over and over again in this thread. Either you can't read, choose not to read, don't understand the theory, or all of the above.

And many non-Christian scientists have examined the 'evidence' for evolution and called it exactly what is is ... The Emperors New Clothes.

Please cite these many non-Christian scientists along with their credentials and relevent papers. It shouldn't be difficult if there are "many."