C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:07 pm

Dave1050 wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:
The idea that all life came from a single source which itself came from non-life, let's define that as 'evolution' for this discussion, is the product of an atheistic worldview and is profoundly anti-Christian.

If you are wanting to be a Christian and still hold to the 'evolutionary' philosophy outlined above, you are going to struggle to say the least.


Utter nonsense.

The elements that make up the human body have only one source, irrispective of anyone's religious belief.


And what source is that Peter?

And where do the non material things that humans value so highly originate from? Things like love, appreciation of beauty, kindness, self sacrifice and so on?


Nah. You tell us when and how you think they originated.

While you are at it, why don't you tell everyone here why you thnk you are more authoritative about religion and science than they are. An important point as you have entirely failed to demonstrate that you are.

Or are we to conclude that you are another ideologue who thinks that his ideology i never wrong, only people who let it down.

Before you do, it's worth pointing out that everyone here is well capable of making up heir own mind about religion, opting for whatever view hey feel comfortable with.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:49 am

Brian Jordan wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Now I am having serious problems accessing the CMI website. I get the following message: "Database connection error (2): Could not connect to MySQL".
Maybe the same attack, maybe not but Nativespace did say it was. Best to scan your machine though, as I said on the Blockage thread.


I got back onto CMI shortly after.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8502
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:40 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Brian Jordan wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Now I am having serious problems accessing the CMI website. I get the following message: "Database connection error (2): Could not connect to MySQL".
Maybe the same attack, maybe not but Nativespace did say it was.


I got back onto CMI shortly after.
Oops - I meant to say "Nativespace did say it was global". Sorry. Anyway, maybe they suffered the same as in the recent "Truth in Science" outage and fell into a credibility gap.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4208
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Dave1050 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:04 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
And what source is that Peter?


It's explained here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfEcf_ssSFA

And where do the non material things that humans value so highly originate from? Things like love, appreciation of beauty, kindness, self sacrifice and so on?


These are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.


The video clip is all about pulsars. Are you suggesting we are all made from stardust? Burnell doesn't even mention first life or even evolution for that matter.

You assume that evolution only has to answer scientific questions, but evolution is all about how we got from the first life to the life we have today. And humans today have (at least the illusion of, or understanding of) love, beauty, self sacrifice and morality. You seem to be forgetting that there are branches of evolutionary ‘science’ called sociobiology, human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology, which attempt to explain these things.
Dave1050
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Dave1050 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:11 pm

The same things that make any other person good.


But without any ultimate standard by which to judge 'goodness' your goodness and anyone else's is just a matter of opinion so why should I listen to your definition?
Dave1050
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Dave1050 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:17 pm

I am not a christian I am merely pointing out that I think your statements are offensive to those that are.


I dont think you should speak on behalf of other Christians, we can speak for ourselves. :D
Dave1050
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Dave1050 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:27 pm

Why not have a look at some science websites rather than a missionary organsisation ?


Missionary organisation? These are articles written by ph.D scientists who believe that the world we see around us demands a Creator just as Newton and Bacon did. And many living scientists do as well.
Dave1050
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:31 pm

Dave1050 wrote:
Why not have a look at some science websites rather than a missionary organsisation ?


Missionary organisation? These are articles written by ph.D scientists who believe that the world we see around us demands a Creator just as Newton and Bacon did. And many living scientists do as well.


Neither Newton nor Bacon had a statement of of faith:

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record
.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Dave1050 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:35 pm

Or are we to conclude that you are another ideologue who thinks that his ideology i never wrong, only people who let it down.

It's not my ideology.

Before you do, it's worth pointing out that everyone here is well capable of making up heir own mind about religion, opting for whatever view hey feel comfortable with.

Of course eveyone can make up their own mind and I would encourage them to do so, BUT many views on religion are conflicting and they can't ALL be right or equally valid can they? So you have to decide which one is correct.
Dave1050
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Dave1050 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:46 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
Dave1050 wrote:
Why not have a look at some science websites rather than a missionary organsisation ?


Missionary organisation? These are articles written by ph.D scientists who believe that the world we see around us demands a Creator just as Newton and Bacon did. And many living scientists do as well.


Neither Newton nor Bacon had a statement of of faith:

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record
.

It's clear what Newton and Bacon believed about a Creator from what they wrote. CMI are being up front and honest about what they believe and why they believe it. After all, they are simply stating what they believe to be true. It is for others to demonstrate and prove what they believe is NOT true.
Dave1050
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:14 pm

Dave

Is Newton a hero for YECs? He ISN'T for me (nor was he for Robert Hooke).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/progin ... on-pi.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8502
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:25 am

Dave1050 wrote:
It's clear what Newton and Bacon believed about a Creator from what they wrote. CMI are being up front and honest about what they believe and why they believe it. After all, they are simply stating what they believe to be true. It is for others to demonstrate and prove what they believe is NOT true.


No.

Neither Newton nor Bacon practised science in this way. Both could be forgiven for believing in a 6,000 year old Earth since the concept of geological time was unknown, in the same way that the periodic table had less than a dozen elements.

CMI's position is simply an interpretation of scripture, nothing more, since many Christians accept science and yet still believe in a creator, much like Newton and Bacon.

Don't forget that Newton also practised alchemy and rejected the trinity.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby cathy » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:58 am

You assume that evolution only has to answer scientific questions, but evolution is all about how we got from the first life to the life we have today. And humans today have (at least the illusion of, or understanding of) love, beauty, self sacrifice and morality. You seem to be forgetting that there are branches of evolutionary ‘science’ called sociobiology, human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology, which attempt to explain these things.

Evolution does only have to answer the scientific questions of how we got from first life to what we have today. That is what it studies and it doesn't claim to study anything else. Thats like saying accountancy doesn't answer marketing questions. Within that remit there is some understanding of how behaviours are linked to biology, like hunting in packs or alone say.

The understanding of things like love, self sacrifice etc, are the remit of other areas - like evolutionary psychology/sociobiology or religion and philosophy. They do not impinge on the fact we evolved. And they are often the subjects of disciplines in their relative infancy compared with evolutionary biology. We have yet to develop a full understanding of human behaviour yet alone where it came from.

But evolutionary biology and the other sciences are way ahead of that so I'm not sure what your point is here - it doesn't add anything to the debate of evolution v creationism, it moves some parts to a philosophical level. There are no doubts about biological evolution AT ALL - it happened whatever you believe about the rest.

I dont think you should speak on behalf of other Christians, we can speak for ourselves.

Neither should you - the vast majority aren't creationists and you don't come remotely close to speaking for them! And most certainly aren't fans of CMI. CMI is always choc full of articles speaking authoratively on behalf of other christians by telling them CMI is right and they are tools of satan. Why not let the non creationists speak for themselves on the website?

But without any ultimate standard by which to judge 'goodness' your goodness and anyone else's is just a matter of opinion so why should I listen to your definition?
The same things that make any other person good.


But without any ultimate standard by which to judge 'goodness' your goodness and anyone else's is just a matter of opinion so why should I listen to your definition?
Why should I listen to yours when you praise CMI? If CMI represent your ultimate standard than it is way short of what anyone elses opinion would judge good.

If you're a christian than may I point out that the ultimate standards of CMI and their peers, fall well below anything at all in your New Testament which seemed to be based on love, forgiveness, humility and tolerance rather than arrogant rants about being right above every other theologian and scientist in the world - alongside blatant dishonesty to back up that veiw. Just read their language about compromising christians, atheists, anyone accepting evolution - the sort of hate filled bile worthy of any radical Islamist or extremist. If you don't understand the science, than surely that contempt for others should ring alarm bells for you.

Any thinking person will see creationism as idiotic and many will assume, because of groups like CMI, that that is christianity. If your ultimate goodness is to make sure people believe in God/Jesus and go to heaven, how do you reconcile that fact with your constant pushing of creationism? In your belief system you are pushing people away, making it impossible for them to believe in anything and condemning them to eternal damnation aren't you? And you are adding nothing to those who already believe.

Very few (if any) people start to believe in God because of creationism, it presents a far bigger barrier to believing than you can imagine. And a huge reason to stop believing. How do you reconcile that with your NT - out of interest. I know CMI frequently rant about the numbers of people saved by them - but lets face it there are far more blogs/surveys about people leaving because of creationism and most people who do accept it do so because they are bullied into thinking they have to long after converting, and would be just as happy without it. It adds nothing and takes away a hell of a lot.


I'm a fairly reluctant atheist, but creationists did make it impossible to believe. The only thing that could change that now would be an honest one. That would be a miracle.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby cathy » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:19 am

It's clear what Newton and Bacon believed about a Creator from what they wrote.

Newton and Bacon predated Darwin by many years! Calling them creationists is just nonsensical and this is a non argument from CMI. They also believed in astrology, magick and alchemy as per the limited knowledge of their time. Newton didn't seem to believe in the holy trinity either. What has survived into modern science from Newton is his science that worked. His alchemy which didn't. like all since disproved science, just disappeared as chemistry proved it incorrect.

And many scientists today, working in fields like evolution, believe in a creating God. They aren't creationists by any stretch of the imagination - otherwise they wouldn't be scientists. So the fact Newton believed in a creator is irrelevant. So do many who accept fully the real science.

CMI are being up front and honest about what they believe and why they believe it.


Up front and honest are NOT words that can ever be attributed to CMI
After all, they are simply stating what they believe to be true. It is for others to demonstrate and prove what they believe is NOT

UP front and honest would involve pointing out that Newton didn't know about genes, DNA, evolution etc. It would involve including debate about his lack of belief in the holy trinity which I think is part of CMIs beliefs. It would involve pointing out his other weird beliefs and understanding that if you're going to use his belief in God you also have to include and explain why you also aren't going to use his beliefs in astrology, magick and alchemy (there are really only six colours in the rainbow - Newton fudged indigo and violet into two because he believed in the magical properties of the number seven). Unless of course CMI do use his beliefs in astrology and magic as well? I very much doubt it as that would be up front and honest.

It would also involve pointing out that many scientists who are believers today also accept fully the notion of a creating God without it impacting on their science or acceptance of the evidence for evolution and an ancient universe at all. You'd also have to explain how you know that Newton would be a creationist if he'd been alive today and in possession of the geological and biological evidence we have today. Or even if he'd be a believer. It would also perhaps involve pointing out that many of todays evolutionists, believers and non believers, would probably have been sort of creationists 300/400 years ago with our limited knowledge.

And lastly, if they were being totally up front and honest, they'd point to the fact that creationism has really been hijacked in the last 50 years or so to mean a denial of current science. In Newtons day it would have had a different meaning, so would he be a science denying modern creationist? I doubt it.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:04 am

Dave1050 wrote:The video clip is all about pulsars. Are you suggesting we are all made from stardust? Burnell doesn't even mention first life or even evolution for that matter.
Of course we are all made of stardust. Where do you think all the elements come from?
I haven't seen the video, but it would seem to be pointing out the above. Whether you accept abiogenesis or just biogenesis, life - and everything - needs elements. What's wrong with a video concentrating on just one part of the hydrogen to heavier elements to life to modern creatures sequence?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4208
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron