Creation vs Evolution Debate on Major Secular Newspaper website

Discussion in 'Science' started by Gup20, Jun 16, 2005.

  1. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    I saw this on AiG (as they are one of the participants).

    http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001149.html - opening statements
    http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001165.html - rebuttals


    Australian Skeptics vs AiG–Australia
    Australia’s largest metropolitan newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, is hosting this debate on its website

    15 June 2005

    AiG–Australia has accepted an invitation for a written ‘mini-debate’ with the Australian Skeptics on the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) weblog of Margo Kingston (a well-known Australian journalist) which began earlier this week. This is an exciting opportunity to get the message out to many thousands of secular folk.

    Topic: Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?
    The format includes three essays each up to 1500 words:

    13 June—Opening essay
    16 June—Second essay (rebuttal and/or new material)
    19 June—Final essay (rebuttal, summary, etc.)
    The link to see the debate text on those days is http://webdiary.smh.com.au/index.html. We will post direct links on this webpage to the essays as they are posted. In between the essay postings, Margo Kingston’s weblog will discuss some of the issues and visitors will also be able to post comments.

    Please pray for this opportunity and for wisdom for our team (Don Batten, Jonathan Sarfati, Tasman Walker, Carl Wieland), that the debate might be God-honouring and might assist in ‘demolish[ing] arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God’ (2 Cor. 10:5).
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    What a great quote! Thanks Gup20!!

    Why is it that Christians are free to be objective and cogent - stating the "obvious" over and over and evolutionists are confined to misdirection and half-truths?

    Could it be that truth is just "easier to state" than the many-varied lies of evolutionism?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Just follow the evidence folks. Don't turn your brains off. That's all anyone can ask.
     
  4. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    AIG starts out with the same accusations that have been addressed over and over again.

    First they don't even present the philosophical or doctrinal underpinnings of their admittedly "different set of assumptions". Is there a relationship between the Gospel of salvation and the specifics of God's creative works? Come on, out with it! Aren't you missionaries appointed by God to spread the tuth of His Word?

    Of course they also take plenty of time to beat the atheist dead horse. Hello, there are many many people, scientists included who have no problem reconciling the Biblical creation Account with evidence from nature - and honestly that means whatever the evidence may show. AIG and the beast it represents have made an issue out of something which poses no problem to the Christian faith. It's one of the most obvious signs of false teaching.

    I'll have to read further tomorrow.
     
  5. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's startlingly obvious that both sides use the same science, and the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions. Why? Because their assumptions are different.

    I also think it's funny that the aussie skeptics basically said "there are absolutely no absolutes in science".

    The first essay by the skeptics was ripe with errors and strawman arguments. They tried to define creationists with completely false framework of what creationists believe. For example, they claimed that creationists contend that not only all animals, but all plants that were not on the ark perished. That's the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. No creationist believes this - moreover it doesn't say that in the Bible. It just demonstrates the complete lack of critical thinking - they don't even know what creationism is!!

    The 2nd essay response by the skeptics was pretty weak. The whole first half of the essay was ad hominem and strawman arguments. They were doing their best to equate creation science with religion. They have failed miserably to cast science and creation as opposites. They made the hypocritical absolute claim that there was no evidence for creation. That's funny, because AiG's post was chalk full of evidences - anyone reading can see that.

    It was quite clear that AiG was successful in delivering the argument that science and evidence means nothing outside one's paradigms and presuppositions.

    What I have come to notice is that creationists and evolutionists use the same science on the same evidence - then apply their own assumptions and come to their own conclusions. Science and evidence is the same for both sides... but the assumptions they start with lead to completely opposite conclusions.

    BobRyan is exactly right to highlight that line -

    We have pointed out that evolution is a deduction from the philosophy of materialism. So the correct contrast is ‘creationist v materialist’ not ‘creationist v scientific’.

    It takes just as much faith to be an evolutionist as it does to be a Christian.
     
  6. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    YE "science" has but one agenda: Poke holes in commonly accepted theories. It does not even attempt to demonstrate how the evidence fits a young earth model. It's assertions are untestable and unfalsifiable. In short, It isn't science.

    This debate has made that abundantly clear to even you.
     
  7. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    This man is a candidate for the kingdom of heaven. I wonder where he might have a stumbling block?
     
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    What a great quote! Thanks Gup20!!

    Why is it that Christians are free to be objective and cogent - stating the "obvious" over and over and evolutionists are confined to misdirection and half-truths?

    Could it be that truth is just "easier to state" than the many-varied lies of evolutionism?

    In Christ,

    Bob
    </font>[/QUOTE]Probably an even better phrase would be “materialistic naturalism”.
    Materialistic naturalism fully covers ideas expressed in the atheistic evolutionary doctrine that attempts to give an explanation for why the universe exists.

    Materialism is the belief that matter is the only reality.
    Naturalism expresses the idea that everything can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.

    The late Carl Sagan’s expressed it eloquently during the opening statements of his PBS special “Cosmos”; “The Cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be”

    Of course once you believe in a sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent God, then any theory that includes evolution really isn’t materialistic or naturalistic.

    Rob
     
  9. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would like the evolutionists here to take a close look at the arguments for evolution:


    Frankly, I have seen better points made on this message board than the ones offered by the Skeptics in this debate. The Skeptics got thoroughly trounced by AiG in that debate. At the end here, they realize it and simply lash out at Christianity - demonstrating their real inentions. That, my freinds, is the heart and core of evolution. It is a philisophical idea meant to compete with the Bible, not support or coincide with it. It is the lie that contradicts the Word of God.

    Indeed hath God said? Surely God hath not said! - Satan said that, and evolution is the same exact message.
     
  10. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    So that evidence for a young earth was......

    Still waiting..........

    and waiting....
     
  11. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    You wanted the YE evidence presented in the debate by AiG?

    Well just looking through the first post by AiG here are the scientific evidences they provided. These all went entirely un-refuted by the Skeptics. They claimed, instead, that AiG had not provided any evidences.

    They provided pages and pages of links to their website where they discuss these evidences in detail with fully footnoted articles.

    To this, the Skeptics apparently conceded all points as they stated:

    Instead, what we get from creationists is obfuscation, misrepresentation and logically fallacious arguments which purport to prove that an alternative theory is worthless because it is not perfect. That there are flaws in the evidence for a very old Earth and universe does not in any way validate the theory that the ages must be very short. Still, when you have no evidence you have to do the best with what you’ve got..

    AiG listed off a list of evidences - not one of which was refuted by the Skeptics. No evidence was presented to refute AiG's evidence. Clearly AiG presented evidence. If you look at the debate it was the Skeptics who's arguments lacked evidence.

    They were spending too much time calling an atheistic jihad on the Bible and Christians to even bother with cognoscente responses.
     
  12. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    You know... the schemes of evil should be revealed.

    Here we have evolutionists claiming that creationism isn't science because the science isn't falsifiable. Then they claim that creation has been examined and falsified.

    The reason these evolutionists are putting the blinders on to the fact that AiG listed evidence is because to refute creationist evidence would give legitimacy to creationism as science - it would make it falsifiable, which they are desparate to claim it is not.

     
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]"such as the decay of the earth's magnetic field, including rapid paleomagnetic reversals"

    Nonsense. The earth's magnetic field remains as strong as ever, it merely reverses directions over geological ages; its total energy remains fairly constant.

    "fragile organic molecules in fossils supposedly many millions of years old"

    Nonsense. The "fragile" organic molecules are found only after CHEMICALLY REMOVING THE SOLID MATRIX THAT PROTECTED THEM.

    "too much helium in deep zircons"

    Ignores the ability of helium to be created by radioactive decay and migrate

    "not enough salt in the sea"

    Ignores the known processes of removing salt (think - where DID all those salt mines come from?)

    "carbon-14 in coal and oil supposedly many millions of years old"

    Ignores the tiny amounts specified and known means of producing them (radiation events, for example, could have done that - )

    "polystrate fossils that extend through strata supposedly representing many millions of years"

    misrepresents and ignores the known history of these fossils.

    "inter-tonguing of non-sequential geological strata"

    ignores simple explanations such as gullys eroded that get filled in later

    "the small number of supernova remnants"

    astronomers don't agree its a problem. Supernova remnants are often white dwarves or invisible black holes.

    "magnetic fields on 'cold' planets"

    This is a problem for an iron core body?

    "see WHAT ABOUT CARBON DATING" . . .

    Ignores the calibration of carbon dating from ice core annual layers and lake bottom sediment annual layers and tree rings - These all agree together and show a SMALL (note, small) correction to the theoretical model based on constant carbon 14 creation BECAUSE

    a) Just another one of those astonishing coincidences that were allowed to come along and confuse the faithful

    or

    b) They are all valid means of tracking a true target and converge because they are finding the truth
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    What a great quote! Thanks Gup20!!

    Why is it that Christians are free to be objective and cogent - stating the "obvious" over and over and evolutionists are confined to misdirection and half-truths?
    ...
    </font>[/QUOTE]
    Ok so - "Humanism" vs "Creationism" when having the discussion "among Christians" that DO believe in an all-powerful Creator-God?

    The problem with the "Materialistic Naturalism" gift to devotees of evolutionism's doctrines is that it "pretends to believe" that they have been honest with science and nature, science and what is actually "observed".

    The horse series disproves that.

    The classic "smooth transition" arguments they made disproves that.

    The "inherit the wind" falsehood and hype disproves that.

    Their "fall-on-our-sword over speculation" when it comes to abiogenesis disproves that.

    The "deny all entropy and obfuscate for evolutionism" approach they use disproves that.

    And their own atheist icons making "confessions" about the blunders and foibles of evolutionisms "faithful" disproves that!

    Why pretend it is true. Just call it a denomination of humanism's "faithful" expressing their "beliefs" and bending science as "needed" to their usages?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...