Anyone want $250,000.00??

Great Debates
41

Ok, I will freely admit, I am not a scientist. I have a very limited knowledge of science, BUT for proof supporing my contention is out there. I know that there are a number of scientists that DO believe that the earth was created by a Creator. They do have a scientific basis for this as do those that believe that it was just magically here one day.

What I don’t understand and where this is getting off the path for me is. I believe based on what I have read and what I know that the earth was created by a Creator. I believe their is overwhelming proof of that as most of you believe their is overwhelming proof it isn’t, BUT I freely admit my belief is based on FAITH, because I can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was. Why can’t everyone else admit the same, since you can not beyond a shadow of a doubt prove evolution?

Sorry for sounding like I don’t have a clue, but I believe I am making sense. I am an educated person (at least through college) and am not totally ignorant, so I hope everyone understands, I am not debating this without ANY education.

(NOTE - The above is not ment to sound like bragging, I just want to give a reference point for anyone that is trying to figure out where the heck I am coming from.)

Thank you for your patience. :slight_smile:

Barak bow` shem Yahshua!!

Maranatha!!!

42

Ok, Lib, you may have me on that one. But I still say any decent deity could make it look like it was entirely natural, without any appeal to the supernatural necessary.

43

Now we’re talking! Where is that overwhelming proof? I want it!

44

David,

I have not said my position on Dr. Hovind. I still find his offer interesting. As for him being a liar, I did not see proof of that.

If total acceptance of Dr. Hovind’s position is what you are asking about, I do not totally agree with some of the things he talks about, but that does not make him worthless or without merit.

Still though, I do not accept evolution and find it has many faults that you are not willing to see, and I don’t have the technical knowledge to prove here.

Barak bow` shem Yahshua!!

Maranatha!!!

45

Archangel said:

Um, since you admit that you really don’t know that much about the topic, instead of just taking their word for it, why don’t you go out and look for yourself? Read up on biology and cosmology. Check out some books and articles from “the other side.”

You’re right – you don’t understand. :slight_smile: We do not believe based on faith. We accept evolution based on the scientific evidence.

Let me try an analogy. If my boss comes into my office, hands me an assignment, and says, “Do this by 3:00 tomorrow,” I will do so. Why? Because the evidence indicates that what I should do. I saw him come in. He presented me with the assignment. He gave me a due date. But what if I just find some piece of paper lying on the floor outside my office? I could take it on faith that it’s supposed to be an assignment for me, but it just as well could have been dropped out of the trash by the janitor. There is no evidence (presuming, for my analogy’s sake, that nobody’s name is on the paper). If I decide to do the assignment, I’m going completely based on faith without evidence.

That’s the difference (in a very general sense). We accept evolution because of the evidence. Creationism is based completely on faith without evidence.

Incidentally, you say there is overwhelming proof for your claim. Ok, what is it? Where may we find it?

46

Archangel,

Would you please post your overwhelming evidence for Creationism as well as the faults of evolution? I’m sure that many in this forum would be glad to evaluate the information at hand.

47

Archangel said:

Yes, I know. That’s why I asked. :wink:

Interesting? Maybe. But do you recognize how it is invalid and unwinnable?

Maybe not proof, but how about evidence? < smirk > Did you read my message where he outright lied about his alleged debate with Gould?

Maybe not, but it sure puts him squarely in the “not believable” category.

So you’re just going to claim it has technical faults and that I am not willing to see them, but you’re not going to explain what those faults are or how you are so sure that I am unwilling to accept them? That’s not exactly in the spirit of a polite atmosphere of discussion, is it?

48

Your education… Would this be from a Bible school? I ask this not out of malice or to slight your opinions, but you claim to not know of science, and it amazes me that you would have a college degree and be so ignorant of science. So I ask, where did you go and what science classes did you take?

No matter what your answer is, the fact is that your debate is not hindered by your lack of “education,” but your lack of education on science.

You have been explain to several different ways why science works. Instead of saying, “Oh, well, since that’s not how science works, I guess Hovind is manipulating people with an unattainable contest,” you come back with “I believe what I believe.”

That is not debate. That is dogma.

Yer pal,
Satan

First Place
Most Popular Poster of the 20th Century Competition
As overseen by Coldfire

49

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Archangel, how many times do I have to say this?

The theory of evolution, and the theory of the Big Bang, in no way imply or assert that G-d does not exist.

The fact that both of these theories do not specifically say, “And here is where G-d did such-and-such” does not imply that G-d does not exist. Science does not, did not, and is unlikely ever to make a claim as to the existence of G-d, either to say “Yes, He does exist” or “No, He does not exist”.

I do not take the Theory of Evolution upon faith. No credible scientist does. We accept the Theory of Evolution because it is, of all of the theories posited, the one that best fits the evidence accumulated.

If new evidence comes out that proves that aliens planted the fossiled remains of dinosaurs, the Theory of Evolution will change, or be dropped. But no temples will fall, no scientists will rent their shirts and cry heresy. The Theory is that- just a theory. But to claim that because it’s just a theory, because we can’t really absolutely prove it, and therefore we should abandon it or give it the same value as The Bible, which includes specific disproven claims (you’d think, if Joshua had commanded the sun to stay still, that would mean the sun revolves around the earth; you’d also think that the Chinese, who were keeping very detailed astronomical data at that point, might have noticed that one night lasted 48 hours), is fallacy.

JMCJ

Not Even Mentioned
Most Popular Poster of the 20th Century Competition
As overseen by Coldfire

50

Here are a few things I have found:

Evolution is Supported by the Fossil Record
By David N. Menton Ph.D.
© copyright 1991

THE FACT OF EVOLUTION IS SUPPORTED BY A RATHER WELL FORMED SEQUENCE OF INTERMEDIATE STAGES IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

This comment by the famous Harvard evolutionist Steven J. Gould when he testified before Judge Overton in the Arkansas Creation-Evolution trial suggests that the countless intermediate stages in the evolution of one organism into another, really are visible in the fossil record as indeed they should be IF evolution has occurred. This same Dr. Gould, however, in one of his regular columns in Natural History magazine (May 1977) said: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils) – In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.” The paleontologist Dr. David B. Kitts agrees: “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them”(Evolution 28:476). Dr. David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, recently pointed out that Darwin himself was: “embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would – different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated – we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much – We have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins’ time. By this I mean that some some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information” (Field Museum Natural History Bulletin 50:22- 29). The evolutionist Dr. Steven M. Stanley put it bluntly: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition - "(Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, p.39). No wonder G.K. Chesterton quipped that folks “seem to know everything about the missing link except that it IS MISSING.”

Barak bow` shem Yahshua!!

Maranatha!!!

51

David:

[Fainting…]

I agree, and that falls right in line with the deliberate ambiguity I mentioned in the Atheist Religion.

“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

52

Oy. Can someone email Gould and ask him if he ever would have put forth Punk Eke if he knew how badly it would be misquoted?

I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

53

First of all, there is no transitional fossils because EVERYTHING is transitional!

Evolution is a continuing process, constantly in motion. It is working now, and has always worked, and will never stop.

Microevolution has even been observed, which directly correlates to macroevolution. In fact, my own statement is silly because the two distinctions were only brought up by Creationists who had trouble recinciling their views with even more overwhelming evidence.

Second of all, Darwin never recanted anything. That is lies, nothing more.

Others here can elaborate and correct me where needed.

Yer pal,
Satan

First Place
Most Popular Poster of the 20th Century Competition
As overseen by Coldfire

54

Lib- to further answer your question: two people can agree on what constitutes a “miracle”. For instance, James Randi’s challenge stipulates that there must be prior agreement as to what would constitute a pasranormal event, and implicit in that agreement would be the further agreement that said event can not be explained by standard science. In Hovind’s challenge, however, he gives no examples of events that he would consider proof of evolution, nor does he suggest that he will ever do so.

55

I don’t have any more time for this today. Sorry everyone. I will try and make it here tomorrow.

Thanks for the discussion!!

:slight_smile:

Barak bow` shem Yahshua!!

Maranatha!!!

56

BTW, as long as we’re on the issue of challenges:

I’ve noticed that many people have been promoting the blasphemous idea that Apollo’s Chariot is in fact something called “the sun”, thus denying the authority of Olympus. “Scientists” deride those that have faith in the almighty gods, yet their belief in this “sun” is based upon nothing but faith. So I challenge all you “scientists” to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this “sun” in fact exists. Can’t do it, can you?

57

I’ll believe the “sun” isn’t Apollo’s Chariot as soon as these “scientists” whip up a “sun” in the laboratory. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go sacrifice some goats to Apollo so he doesn’t plunge us all into eternal darkness.

58

David won’t like it if you go making sacrifices to false gods, Gaudere! :slight_smile:

59

The Ryan:

Just for clarification, are you saying that Randi’s challenge, in stipulating a prior agreement, precludes a miracle that has already happened? I can understand that stipulation for a paranormal event, like bending spoons with your brain waves, but miracles occur at God’s whim. How does the prior agreement work in that case?

“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

60

I don’t have time but to answer the question about my educational background. My education includes bible college, BUT also I have a Bachelor of Science in Accounting, 1990 from David N. Myers college. I have also completed about 3/4th of my Master’s of Business Administration Degree. I also have taken in excess of 20 educational courses from many different places in the computer programming and support fields.

I have not mostly involved in business and computer related studies and not much on the sciences, because of my degree being a Bacheolor of Science, I did very little with the humanities and non-business related courses.

Just an FYI.

:slight_smile:

Barak bow` shem Yahshua!!

Maranatha!!!