Not perfect, but at least a picture

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Not perfect, but at least a picture

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

Out Great(x1000) Grandad's were Africans !??? (CH)
Re:

So Theory of Evolution must be false (Interested )
Re:

Clarification (Seeker)
Re:

Hi Seeker.... (edmund)
Re:

Hi Edmund (Seeker)
Re:

Hi Seeker more... (edmund)
Re:

Believing and seeing (Seeker)
Re:

Websites of the articles? (edmund)
Re:

Links (Seeker)
Re:

How about reptile to mammal evolution? (Seeker)
Re:

Much ado about nothing? (Benjamin)
Re:

Maybe, but it's another piece of the jigsaw (Seeker)
Re:

Picture Perfect? (Benjamin)
Date: 2001, Jun 01
From: Seeker

Hi Benjamin:
>>>The history of evolution science is dotted with “facts” that were “nothing, or half-baked, or erroneous, or even fraudulent”.<<<
Maybe, but they are few and far between. Truthful evidence are more by comparison. Actually, it is such exposes of errors and frauds that give me confidence in the self-checking mechanism of science. As I said, if somebody can prove Darwin wrong, that would happen. But for 150 years, it is still holding up.
Religion on the other hand emphasizes infallibility, either of the bible or the pope. Infallibility. That means certain doctrines must be upheld at whatever cost, even to the point of suppressing the truth. You may not think so, but I find that highly suspicious.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>On the other hand, seeing that there are many Creation Scientists whose credentials are no where less prestigious than the scientists you named...<<<
I have read a few articles about suspicious creationists credentials, so I would keep an open mind on that.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>....these creation scientists will risk their reputations on something (i.e. evidence for creation) that is “nothing, or half-baked, or erroneous, or even fraudulent?”<<<
Actually, I have not really read about evidence for creation from these scientists. Most (if not all) of their efforts are directed at poking holes in the evolution theories rather than supporting their own claims for creation. As you mentioned previously, nobody is actually doing any work to uncover evidence for the existence of god. They are working on the premise that if they can poke enough holes in evolution theories, that would prove creation is true. I don't buy that. I rather they spend their time trying to find evidence for god.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>However the problem is that the peer review system is itself committed to propping up evolutionary thinking!<<<
Yes, this is an interesting and good point. I'll have to explore the Lewontin quote further. I have read about him being quoted out of context by some creationist proponent before. Not that I am saying this one is, but it is interesting enough for more investigations.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Creation is based on revelation from an authority no less than God.<<<
This is an assumption. There is no proof or evidence. To use your criteria, how do they know? What tests were conducted? How reliable are those tests? Etc etc etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Evolution ,however, is based not on revelation but human reason (ignorance might be a better word to use) that is dismally flawed and limited.<<<
But the human reason for evolution is backed up by evidence, versus none for creation. Creationists may choose to ignore or brush away the evidence but to me, the evidence is there. As someone else noted, creationists accepts micro-evolution (ie. within species) but choose to call it variation or adaptation within species. To me, it doesn't matter what it's called. It's still evidence for evolution, not creation.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>So what was Edmund’s answer? For me I will answer “yes” if the evidence can be subjected to testing.<<<
Edmund said he doesn't need to see the Creator creating anything all over again, although he wants to see a macro-speciation event happening again. He also believed that transformed lives is good enough evidence for the existence of god, although transformed species is not good enough for evolution. He found god more intellectually honest, although god's never around to testify for himself, but found real-life scientists deceitful although they are subject to the scrutiny of the scientific community.
So what evidence for god is available for testing? I would say none. Unfalsifiable. So I see that christians have double standards when it comes to testing and proof.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>But are their assessments any different from today?<<<
Oh yes, very different alright, based on the statements of the science community.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Judging from recent works from Michael Behe and Michael Denton, among many others, the situation seems the same now as it was then.<<<
I tend to think that they are in the minority. Moreover, I have read that their arguments were effectively dismissed by the other scientists. Okay, you will say that there is a conspiracy to suppress creationist ideas, but I don't think so.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>In fact, with the jump into the DNA world, all the more it solidifies the judgements of these gentlemen. Indeed more evidence have been uncovered since Darwin, but they are evidence for creation, not evolution.<<<
Again, not from what I have read. If it is so as you said, there would have been a huge shakeout of the scientific community. Imagine, Darwin, after 150 years is debunked as a fraud. What big news that would be. But I have not read of the slightest hint of this happening. Okay, conspiracy theory again, but I have no reason to think so.
Regards.