Analog_Kid

Analog_Kid

66p

41 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 0 replies · +1 points

“Anyone can take a statement out of context and call it a lie.”

You mean to tell me that Patterson, a man with a legitimate biology degree from an accredited university like Montana State, really just made an honest mistake by inferring that science really began in Christian Europe?
“This is commonly what atheist’s do when faced with statements they don’t like, and then they build upon it until it is all lies.”

Of course that’s what atheists and agnostics do, because we don’t like when creationists make false claims, like the Universe is only 6,000 years old, in spite of the mountains upon mountains of evidence that prove otherwise.
There is a video on Youtube by Chuck Missler, a young earth creationist, about how the stars supposedly tell the message of the gospel. In this video he uses distant galaxies in an attempt to convince you that the universe is young (<10,000 years old). One of those galaxies, M52 in Canes Venatici, is 25 million light years away.

The obvious flaw in Missler’s reasoning is he’s using distant galaxies many millions of light years away to prove the earth is young.
I brought this up as an example of the faulty logic used by creationists.

I have to be honest; I forgot what the original topic was. It was something about leaving or entering the faith based on evidence, then it got into science, somehow.

Where were we?

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 0 replies · +1 points

Hi John,

You're making the assertion again that evolution and abiogenesis are one in the same; they are not. While we are still trying to understand abiogenesis, and it is still the best natural explanation that science provides with regard to the origin of life, macroevolution is a fact.

The definition for macroevolution is change at or above the species level. The result of which leads to a new species. Macroevolution is indeed observed, and is therefore fact. A good example are alligators and crocodiles.

Alligators and crocodiles are found in the taxonomic order of crocodilia, and therefore are related. However, in spite of their close relationship to each other, their genetic make-up has become so divergent that they can no longer mate and produce viable offspring. Not even a hybrid.

So the next question that I have for you, is what is, in spite of the mountains of empirical, observed evidence that states macroevolution is an established fact, what is your proof that it is not?

Further, what is your proof for biblical creation? Can the Bible be trusted as 100% compatible with known modern science?

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 2 replies · +2 points

John,

I took the time and liberty of reviewing some of your most recent statements. And though I am enjoying our conversation, I’m now a bit disappointed. I copied just one of your sentences and pasted it into Google and realized you're getting all, if not most, of your information from Answers in Genesis, which is laden with logical fallacies, inconsistencies, and outright lies.

For example, let's take the very first sentence of "Chapter 1: What is science?" at AiG which states, "Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe."

From the very first sentence, I can already tell that this whole article reeks of logical fallacies and lies. Scientific discoveries have been made well before the birth of Christ and beyond Israel’s borders. One of the most famous pre-Christian scientists was Archimedes. He was a Greek mathematician and astronomer among others. Most of all, Archimedes was pagan, about 280 years before the dawn of Christianity.

Other examples of pre-Christian scientists are Eratosthenes, Anaximander, Hipparchus, and Aristotle. All of these are at least 100 years before Christianity, and I didn’t even get to ancient Chinese, Sumerian, Babylonian, or Egyptian scientists yet.

The obvious conclusion is that Patterson’s statement that science began with European Christians is absolute crap. I haven’t even gotten past the very first sentence of the very first paragraph in what AiG is passing off as a science lesson, and I’ve already falsified it without even trying.

True science stands on its own and should never be forced to fit into any holy book, especially the Koran or the Bible. Science interprets itself and can also interpret claims of holy books such as the Bible, and as a result, has proven its claims about science as patently false.

AiG has been consistently and thoroughly eviscerated by science on an almost daily basis for decades, and it is for this reason that no one should ever take these charlatans seriously. So, if AiG is known for such tactics, why would you even use them as a source of information?

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 2 replies · +2 points

You and I agree on what science is. However, there is something that I need to take exception to.

When I was a creationist, I believed that abiogenesis and evolution were inseparable and a complete waste of time. So, to an extent, I can see how creationists infer that they are one in the same. That said, scientifically, they are two distinct fields of study.

I can understand how a creationist might have trouble accepting abiogenesis, but evolutionary biology is indeed a well-established fact, based on observable, testable evidence. The fact that it's stood for about 150 years proves that evolutionary theory has a pretty good track record, and hasn't been replaced by a better theory yet.

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 1 reply · +2 points

Hi John,

If the theory of evolution is an absolute impossibility, why is modern medicine and food production based on it?

If you provide me with the information, I will review it.

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 0 replies · +1 points

Urgh.

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 0 replies · +1 points

I'm actually thinking of taking this to Youtube...

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 2 replies · +1 points

Do I have to?

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 12 replies · +2 points

Hi John,

Just a few quick points I'd like to address.

You say that true science and the Bible are in complete harmony, which begs two questions:

1. What is "true" science?
2. What is the little or no solid evidence that you speak of?

Regarding your statement about my philsophizing about God, please remember that I was a fundamentalist baptist for nearly 20 years. As I said, I believed everything the Bible said, even when I was forced to suspend my logic and intelligence for the sake of faith.

Gotta go!

10 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - A Study in Job · 0 replies · +6 points

Let's see here. In the previous message, God is mentioned seven times but not capitalized, Jesus name is mentioned twice but not capitalized, Jehovah is misspelled and not capitalized, and it's dripping with blasphemy and foul language.

So unlike you to allow such things to be posted, Ray. Are you alive over there?