Debating scriptures with non-believers

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby cathy » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:51 pm

Start with why you think life could just happen as the scientists say. I say it was creation.A cell needs to be complete to function, and the scientists say there was no 'evolution' in the origins of life.
Mr Dunday I posted the answer to this on the other thread sorry. So I've just copied it over. For the research on origins of life - go look for yourself. There is too much for anyone here to go through it all with you. But it is incredibly easy to find yet you don't seem to have bothered. Anyway here was my original answer to your points.

Cathy wrote:Mr Dunday you are looking at this the wrong way, in a way that does show a lack of understanding of science.

On several ocassions you were asked to define what you meant by life. When you were saying life comes from life and the same question is pertinent now you are talking about the cell.

The reason you were asked to define life is that life has many different features. For example reproduction, excretion some kind of metabolism. Children here learn that very early on in a simplified from using the mneumonic MRS GREN to help them. Obviously learning a more sophisticated version later on should they consider taking biology further.

Now no scientist thinks living cells just appeared. Because that would be highly improbable. What they look at is the many features that make up the simplest living things and look to see which are most likely to have appeared first (current research is most interested in metabolism or SIMPLE replication - not of cells). Some scientists look at that. Now in this search for the first features of early life, there are many interesting hypothesis.

They are not 'designing' life in that research as you've suggested earlier when trying unsuccessfully to defend the religious view that is ID. They are trying instead to repllicate the early conditions of life and the chemicals that would be present. I suggest you read some of that research.

Others scientists look at how a new feature could have arisen once some features are in place or how very simple things could have evolved - adding to the features that would eventually lead to life. Others look at how single cells could become groups of cells or how smaller simpler cells could join together to form more complex eukaryotic cells via something called endosymbiosis. I'm trying to simplify this as much as possible for you cos if you've been on creationist sites your understanding of biology will have been warped and mangled.

Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? For all stages to happen simultaneously to give a cell is unlikely. But each step is far more likely and did happen as we do have life. It is a slow building bit by bit process not a magic wand shove it all together and there you go one. It does not preclude a God, merely makes him clever enough to understand chemistry. Though creationists on the websites you frequent do preclude a God by making him dependent on their simplistic understanding of the world and too stupid to understand chemistry.

And not knowing is not an issue. 200 years ago we didn't know how the blood circulated or what the pancreas did. That wasn't a reason to stop looking and say blood must towed around by magic fairies. We kept looking till we found it. And 300 years ago we didn't even know the cell existed let alone what it did. That doesn't mean it didn't.

Not knowing is what science thrives on. That is science. If creationists had been around 300 years ago they'd have been saying 'cells - impossible and cos you don't know they exist yet thats a real problem for evolution'. That is the argument you are using now. Sounds stupid doesn't it.

Secondly your Harley example is not very good. Firstly cos machines are very different to living things. However leaving that aside, I understand the analogy you are trying to make. But it doesn't work I'm afraid.

For it to work as you want it to ie to support the notion that only a designer can come up with something complex like life, someone at the very start of human innovation, hundreds of thousands of years ago should have designed and built the Harley or something equally technically complex from scratch without calling on prior technologies, science and inventions. That did not happen.

The Harley is the culmination of years of innovation, invention, scientific discovery, earlier models and so on. The Harley in its current form couldn't be built till someone had developed ways of extracting and working metals, refining and improving them. That process has been 'evolving' for thousands of years.

It couldn't be built till someone had understood how to use power to turn wheels and then developed that power from steam to petrol - again over hundreds of years. The steam engine is just someone co opting a kettle to turn wheels rather than make tea after all.

In short the Harley is something that slowly evolved over time from tiny improvements to simpler things like carts and from using simpler pieces of knowledge like steam to petrol that gradually came together stretching back to the wheel. The Harley is just an improvement or change or adaptation (or not) on something, which was in itself an improvement. A little bit like the bacterial flagellum which can be traced back to a simple pore or blood clotting or a myriad other things that desperate IDers lie about.

Now sorry if this has sounded over simplistic and patronising, but spending any time at all on creationist sites (and your arguments are straight from them Mr Dunday - including the Harley one) does rot critical faculties so I've gone back to very, very basic


I say it was creation.A cell needs to be complete to function, and the scientists say there was no 'evolution' in the origins of life. Then there is a problem because, RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. This is a catch 22 situation.
Not really if you're looking for origins of life - it doesn't have to be as it is now! That is an argument ripped straight from the ID websites and is stupid.
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:55 pm

MrDunday wrote:Well there is one answer. And everything points to that one answer.
Many have come at this from different directions, when they what about this, or what about that. The answer is the same, creation.
The whole idea of man searching for a God or making one up, all supports creation, it was built in us to have that need. The scientist have just put themselves up in place of God. But as I mentioned in my last post that Satan is the ruler of the earth, and the spirit of the 'air' so that means everything is based on a lie. As Satan is called the father of the lie.
Science is just a small part of this. If you look at the whole picture,think of it as a large puzzle, science would be a few pieces in the sky and a few in the ground, but you don't need them to see what the whole picture is. But at the same time the science also has to fit.
So it is the same answer.


This is just utter drivel. "Satan is behind science he doesn't have a clue about."

Congratulations MrDunday. You are the stupidest creationist ever on the BCSE Forum.

Does anyone want to start posting his crapola up to Fundies Say the Darndest Things?

If so, how do we get him to keep foaming at the mouth?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby cathy » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:14 pm

They don't know God and what he is capable of,
And you do?

The scientist have just put themselves up in place of God.
Have they? Does that mean they are going to drown us all for being a bit bad? Or boss us around? Or sit on clouds judging people? What on Earth are you talking about.

But as I mentioned in my last post that Satan is the ruler of the earth, and the spirit of the 'air' so that means everything is based on a lie. As Satan is called the father of the lie.
Interesting cos every single thing I've ever found on a creationist website has been a lie. I've yet to find a totally honest creationist. Does that mean that creationists are the real agents of satan? Now that would be interesting.

As Satan is called the father of the lie.
The best and most skilful liars I've come across are creationists. Does this mean that creationists are satanic?

“the man of lawlessness” came out into the open with his religious hypocrisy and false teachings.
Religious hypocrisy and false teachings? Again that sounds more like creationism and ID than non creationist christians who accept all science or even science accepting atheism.

Creationists seem to provide just the right combination of huge dollops of religious hypocrisy with false teachings about everything. Rare to find one trait without the other. Are you sure you've backed the right horse Mr Dunday?

they make up their own ideas, like 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis'.
Except they are not made up Mr Dunday, they are based on evidence, research and data. Creation 'science' is made up on the other hand.

Where God is very clear on this,
Well actually the bible is not very clear on creation. There are two stories that directly contradict each other, no mention of how the creating was done and a lot of confusion about trees and death later on that I've asked about before and our resident creationist has ignored me.

One other very important understanding is that Satan is the ruler of the world. That means all false religions , governments, financial, scientists and entertainment etc.


Everything about creationism/ID is false so I guess that must be what you mean by false religions.

As for the rest that is rather a long list. Lets see, how many times has my life been saved by science, from clean water to vaccinations to delivering my kids safely to dealing with illness. Makes satan sound rather nice in the great scheme of things. And earlier I watched Countdown and now Waterloo Road on TV (entertainment) and later on some other stuff. Struggling to see any satanic refs yet.
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby cathy » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:22 pm

Congratulations MrDunday. You are the stupidest creationist every on the BCSE Forum.


Deliberately misunderstood science, nonsence repititions about abiogenesis and ID and looking for design. And now accusing everyone of being agents of satan. In what way is Mr Dunday significantly different to any other creationist on the planet.
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:45 pm

cathy wrote:
Congratulations MrDunday. You are the stupidest creationist ever on the BCSE Forum.


Deliberately misunderstood science, nonsence repititions about abiogenesis and ID and looking for design. And now accusing everyone of being agents of satan. In what way is Mr Dunday significantly different to any other creationist on the planet.


He's pushed stupidity beyond its extreme. It's a long time since I've come across one who is so utterly dense and opinionated.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby jon_12091 » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:58 pm

MrDunday wrote:jon,.. many churches and religions, say different things about the understanding of the bible and science. Many of things the churches have said and done, have misrepresented God and science, have given Christianity a bad name.
This is not just me saying that, the bible says that.

Those passages could equally apply to you, however I don't accuse fellow Christians of being in the thrall of, or deluded by the Devil, just because I don't agree with them or when they say stupid things. Are you aware of just how many scientists out there are actually Christian's - I'm guessing you have no clue?
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:22 am

cathy wrote:
Start with why you think life could just happen as the scientists say. I say it was creation.A cell needs to be complete to function, and the scientists say there was no 'evolution' in the origins of life.
Mr Dunday I posted the answer to this on the other thread sorry. So I've just copied it over. For the research on origins of life - go look for yourself. There is too much for anyone here to go through it all with you. But it is incredibly easy to find yet you don't seem to have bothered. Anyway here was my original answer to your points.

Cathy wrote:Mr Dunday you are looking at this the wrong way, in a way that does show a lack of understanding of science.

On several ocassions you were asked to define what you meant by life. When you were saying life comes from life and the same question is pertinent now you are talking about the cell.

The reason you were asked to define life is that life has many different features. For example reproduction, excretion some kind of metabolism. Children here learn that very early on in a simplified from using the mneumonic MRS GREN to help them. Obviously learning a more sophisticated version later on should they consider taking biology further.

Now no scientist thinks living cells just appeared. Because that would be highly improbable. What they look at is the many features that make up the simplest living things and look to see which are most likely to have appeared first (current research is most interested in metabolism or SIMPLE replication - not of cells). Some scientists look at that. Now in this search for the first features of early life, there are many interesting hypothesis.


They are not 'designing' life in that research as you've suggested earlier when trying unsuccessfully to defend the religious view that is ID. They are trying instead to repllicate the early conditions of life and the chemicals that would be present. I suggest you read some of that research.

Others scientists look at how a new feature could have arisen once some features are in place or how very simple things could have evolved - adding to the features that would eventually lead to life. Others look at how single cells could become groups of cells or how smaller simpler cells could join together to form more complex eukaryotic cells via something called endosymbiosis. I'm trying to simplify this as much as possible for you cos if you've been on creationist sites your understanding of biology will have been warped and mangled.

Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? For all stages to happen simultaneously to give a cell is unlikely. But each step is far more likely and did happen as we do have life. It is a slow building bit by bit process not a magic wand shove it all together and there you go one. It does not preclude a God, merely makes him clever enough to understand chemistry. Though creationists on the websites you frequent do preclude a God by making him dependent on their simplistic understanding of the world and too stupid to understand chemistry.

And not knowing is not an issue. 200 years ago we didn't know how the blood circulated or what the pancreas did. That wasn't a reason to stop looking and say blood must towed around by magic fairies. We kept looking till we found it. And 300 years ago we didn't even know the cell existed let alone what it did. That doesn't mean it didn't.

Not knowing is what science thrives on. That is science. If creationists had been around 300 years ago they'd have been saying 'cells - impossible and cos you don't know they exist yet thats a real problem for evolution'. That is the argument you are using now. Sounds stupid doesn't it.

Secondly your Harley example is not very good. Firstly cos machines are very different to living things. However leaving that aside, I understand the analogy you are trying to make. But it doesn't work I'm afraid.

For it to work as you want it to ie to support the notion that only a designer can come up with something complex like life, someone at the very start of human innovation, hundreds of thousands of years ago should have designed and built the Harley or something equally technically complex from scratch without calling on prior technologies, science and inventions. That did not happen.

The Harley is the culmination of years of innovation, invention, scientific discovery, earlier models and so on. The Harley in its current form couldn't be built till someone had developed ways of extracting and working metals, refining and improving them. That process has been 'evolving' for thousands of years.

It couldn't be built till someone had understood how to use power to turn wheels and then developed that power from steam to petrol - again over hundreds of years. The steam engine is just someone co opting a kettle to turn wheels rather than make tea after all.

In short the Harley is something that slowly evolved over time from tiny improvements to simpler things like carts and from using simpler pieces of knowledge like steam to petrol that gradually came together stretching back to the wheel. The Harley is just an improvement or change or adaptation (or not) on something, which was in itself an improvement. A little bit like the bacterial flagellum which can be traced back to a simple pore or blood clotting or a myriad other things that desperate IDers lie about.

Now sorry if this has sounded over simplistic and patronising, but spending any time at all on creationist sites (and your arguments are straight from them Mr Dunday - including the Harley one) does rot critical faculties so I've gone back to very, very basic


I say it was creation.A cell needs to be complete to function, and the scientists say there was no 'evolution' in the origins of life. Then there is a problem because, RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. This is a catch 22 situation.
Not really if you're looking for origins of life - it doesn't have to be as it is now! That is an argument ripped straight from the ID websites and is stupid.


Hi Cathy I have researched this.
That is why I call what the scientists have done as 'The Greatest Snow Job on Earth'. A blizzard of bits of info that tries to bury the truth.

Cathy wrote:The Harley is the culmination of years of innovation, invention, scientific discovery, earlier models and so on. The Harley in its current form couldn't be built till someone had developed ways of extracting and working metals, refining and improving them. That process has been 'evolving' for thousands of years.

Cathy this is exactly the point. A Harley was designed and has been improved over the years. This is as you say. but do you realize that all of this is creation. An intelligence designed and built it. That is creation. They improved it over the years, this is also creation, it is ID. So do you think this is improvement by natural means or by ID?

When you say a cell is unlikely in one shot, but over many processes. But do you realize that , the scientists say there was no 'evolution' in the first life. That is why they have 2 hypotheses. 'Abiogenesis and 'evolution'. That means for the scientists they have to say it just happened, in one shot. Their own hypothesis demands that. Also all of these processes would have too happen in the same place at the same time.

There are many catch 22 situation in a cell. For example RNA is needed in the production of proteins, yet proteins are needed in the production of RNA. For a cell to work it has to be complete to be alive, so it can not 'evolve' to be complete, as it is not alive. And where did the coding of DNA come from?

The scientists say conditions back then maybe been different that is true. The purpose of plants were to slowly change the atmosphere and to build soil. But the scientist cannot find them just happening either.

The bacterial flagellum is driven by a rotary engine (the Mot complex) made up of protein, located at the flagellum's anchor point on the inner cell membrane. The engine is powered by proton motive force, i.e., by the flow of protons (hydrogen ions) across the bacterial cell membrane due to a concentration gradient set up by the cell's metabolism (in Vibrio species there are two kinds of flagella, lateral and polar, and some are driven by a sodium ion pump rather than a proton pump[19]). The rotor transports protons across the membrane, and is turned in the process. The rotor alone can operate at 6,000 to 17,000 rpm, but with the flagellar filament attached usually only reaches 200 to 1000 rpm. The direction of rotation can be switched almost instantaneously, caused by a slight change in the position of a protein, FliG, in the rotor...

Flagellar rotation can move bacteria through liquid media at speeds of up to 60 cell lengths/second (sec). Although this is only about 0.00017 km/h (0.00011 mph), when comparing this speed with that of higher organisms in terms of number of lengths moved per second, it is extremely fast. By comparison, the cheetah, the fastest land animal, can sprint at 110 km/h (68 mph), which is approximately 25 body lengths/sec.[22]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum




Wouldn't the scientist like to build a engine like that. So how did this bacteria do this?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton writes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 250: “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than [one trillionth of a gram], each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world"

I highlighted some interesting points about bacteria.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:23 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:
cathy wrote:
Congratulations MrDunday. You are the stupidest creationist ever on the BCSE Forum.


Deliberately misunderstood science, nonsence repititions about abiogenesis and ID and looking for design. And now accusing everyone of being agents of satan. In what way is Mr Dunday significantly different to any other creationist on the planet.


He's pushed stupidity beyond its extreme. It's a long time since I've come across one who is so utterly dense and opinionated.

Yet I back up what I say, with evidence.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:32 am

jon_12091 wrote:
MrDunday wrote:jon,.. many churches and religions, say different things about the understanding of the bible and science. Many of things the churches have said and done, have misrepresented God and science, have given Christianity a bad name.
This is not just me saying that, the bible says that.

Those passages could equally apply to you, however I don't accuse fellow Christians of being in the thrall of, or deluded by the Devil, just because I don't agree with them or when they say stupid things. Are you aware of just how many scientists out there are actually Christian's - I'm guessing you have no clue?

I did not make that up it is in the bible. Of course I also have to make sure what I am saying is correct. But the bible say God created the universe and all life according to their kinds. So to go along with the scientists, for the origins of life and 'evolution', means that some are against what the bible says. The science and creation are the same thing. You just have watch out for the interpretations, on both sides. That goes for many scientists that maybe Christian.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:50 am

MrDunday wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:He's pushed stupidity beyond its extreme. It's a long time since I've come across one who is so utterly dense and opinionated.

Yet I back up what I say, with evidence.


Endless repetition of empty rhetoric and assertions more like.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:45 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
MrDunday wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:He's pushed stupidity beyond its extreme. It's a long time since I've come across one who is so utterly dense and opinionated.

Yet I back up what I say, with evidence.


Endless repetition of empty rhetoric and assertions more like.

But the scientists could not tell if they are assertions or not. They can't detect intelligence.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby cathy » Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:05 pm

They can't detect intelligence..
I Know how they feel!
cathy
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:24 pm

Natman wrote:The Book of Natman, chapter 2 verse 13:

Evolution is true, lo, because it's in a holy book. I don't give a damn if you don't believe in it, it's written, therefore my followers will use it and claim it's good evidence. Amen

That means you have faith that the scientists will prove it one day. How is that different than many religions?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:48 pm

MrDunday wrote:
Natman wrote:The Book of Natman, chapter 2 verse 13:

Evolution is true, lo, because it's in a holy book. I don't give a damn if you don't believe in it, it's written, therefore my followers will use it and claim it's good evidence. Amen

That means you have faith that the scientists will prove it one day. How is that different than many religions?


Evolution is both an observed fact (even the creationists accept that) and an explanation. No explanations are "proofs" and no scientist believes otherwise.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:51 pm

MrDunday wrote:
Natman wrote:The Book of Natman, chapter 2 verse 13:

Evolution is true, lo, because it's in a holy book. I don't give a damn if you don't believe in it, it's written, therefore my followers will use it and claim it's good evidence. Amen

That means you have faith that the scientists will prove it one day. How is that different than many religions?


I was taking the piss. Seriously, you can't even get that right....
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

PreviousNext

Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron