(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...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Picture given by who? Or make it up as you go along? 
Out Great(x1000) Grandad's were Africans !??? (CH)
So Theory of Evolution must be false (Interested )
Clarification (Seeker)
Hi Seeker.... (edmund)
Hi Edmund (Seeker)
Hi Seeker more... (edmund)
Believing and seeing (Seeker)
Websites of the articles? (edmund)
Links (Seeker)
How about reptile to mammal evolution? (Seeker)
Much ado about nothing? (Benjamin)
Maybe, but it's another piece of the jigsaw (Seeker)
Picture Perfect? (Benjamin)
Not perfect, but at least a picture (Seeker)
|
Hi Seeker: Seeker: >>>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. Benjamin: You just need a few serious frauds to question the whole thing! No doubt science does check itself, but it only points towards one thing, it disproves the common arguments for evolution and continue to provide evidence for creation. That ought to light a bulb in anyone’s mind! Many times evolutionists tout the often repeated slogan that science corrects itself but forget what are the things being corrected. Seeker: As I said, if somebody can prove Darwin wrong, that would happen. But for 150 years, it is still holding up. Benjamin: Many have already written to prove Darwin wrong. A visit to the library or book store and a search on the Internet will clearly show that to be happening. The reason why evolution seems to be holding up is not because of the evidence, but because of some powerful authorities at work. There is a video titled “Deep Waters of Evolution” that exposes some of these things. For example, people know that communism is a failed ideology but it still exists in China and a few other countries, why? I believe the reasons are not too different. Seeker: 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. Benjamin: I do not agree with your definition of infallibility. Can you give an example of truth being suppressed in order to maintain the infallibility and inspiration of the Bible? I do not refer to dubious personal interpretations of the Bible that some have held to which flies in the face of reason and evidence. Seeker: >>>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. Benjamin: Keeping an open mind is good, but beware of the generic fallacy. I believe evolutionists have resorted to another game plan to avoid dealing with the truth. Rather than spend time dealing with what is being said, they go on a quest to evaluate the universities from which some of these creationists come from, hoping that if they can discredit the source they can ignore the person or the subject. I wonder what criteria they use to decide whether some credentials should be suspect or not. Do all evolutionists come from reputed universities? Even if it is granted that some creationists credentials are indeed questioned and of course the burden of proof is on you to prove that their qualifications were gotten through fraud or other illegal means, you still have to contend with those whose credentials are equal to or above those of the evolutionists. Ultimately, I believe that truth is truth, no matter who utters it. Truth can come from the least expected sources. Seeker: 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. Benjamin: What reading have you done on Creationism? Whose books have you read? I can recommend some very good books for you. I can assure you that poking holes is not what creationists do, perhaps you should meet some of the people from AiG when they come up here once in a while. You might just change your perspective on what kind of work creationists do. On the other hand, back to the evil problem, would you then buy your own idea of poking holes at the Christian solution to the problem of evil rather than spend time finding a better solution? Seeker: >>>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. Benjamin: First, infallibility is claimed by the Bible itself, it is not attributed to it by theologians. Secondly, this assumption can be checked by examining the areas where it can be tested, be it prophecies, archaeology or the natural sciences. Josh McDowell has written a few information-packed books on this subject, I urge you to buy them. They are available in cheap paperbacks. Seeker: >>>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. Benjamin: But where is the evidence for evolution and what is it? It’s not there. Rather macro-evolution is simply extrapolated from micro-evolution. Statistics reveal the impossibility for so many “lucky” mutations and the impossibility of life arising from chance. The origin of life is still an unopened black box for evolution. And the mechanics of evolutionary chance is still hotly debated but asserted as fact! On the other hand, there are ample evidence for creation, proofs to show that evolution at the marco-evolution never took place. Seeker: Creationists may choose to ignore or brush away the evidence but to me, the evidence is there. Benjamin: What evidence specifically have creationists ignored or brushed away? Seeker: 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. Benjamin: We termed it differently to avoid confusion as evolutionists are apt to confuse micro-evolution with macro-evolution. That’s not evolution in the sense of the molecules to man theory. Seeker: 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. Benjamin: Basically creation is a thing of the past, you won’t get to see it even if you prayed hard for it. It is by faith we believe that everything God created took place in the past. But it is reasonable to ask evolutionists to provide observable evidence for macro-evolution since they are adamant that it is science. Transformed lives are supporting evidence for the existence of God. Evidence is always cumulative, and seldom do one piece of evidence settle the whole issue. By intellectually honest is meant that it does not go against human reason and logic to believe in God. I do not believe scientists are deceitful, though I must say that science is done under a philosophy of naturalism that puts a limit to science’s explanatory power of natural phenomena. Seeker: 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. Benjamin: Like I said, you can’t put God in a laboratory and run lab tests on Him. But He has left His mark on everything! And it is self-contradictory for you to declare a priori on one hand that there is no evidence for good and insist that Christians produce such evidence. You have already predisposed yourself to reject whatever the Christian submits without giving it due consideration. Seeker: >>But are their assessments any different from today?<<< Oh yes, very different alright, based on the statements of the science community. Benjamin: Like? Seeker: >>>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. Benjamin: Like I have also said, truth is not confined to the majority. If we do learn from history though, we find that truth often is discovered by the minority group. I would like to know your sources concerning Michael Denton and Behe’s arguments being dismissed. Seeker: >>>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. Benjamin: It would indeed be big news, except for the powers of those whose tenures and careers be threatened! We are all familiar with cigarette companies that withheld information or suppress information to protect their trade. Or maybe even political cover-ups to prevent chaos. Truth can and has been set aside on more than one occasion to retain the status quo. Again I refer you to the video mentioned above and also Robert Gentry’s “Creation’s Tiny Mystery” for a one man’s documented account of such truth-censuring practices. On a closing note, tonight I have been graciously given an opportunity to address some youths in a church retreat at Sentosa’s NTUC chalet. I hope that I can play a part in equipping believers with the information necessary to combat “science falsely so-called” and I will truly covet the prayers of everyone in this forum! Regards, Benjamin |
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page