I admired your patience

David Mills
High Level Donor
David Mills's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
I admired your patience

To Brian, Kelly & Rook,

I really admired your patience tonight with the Liberty President. I thought all three of you did a great job questioning him. Frankly, however, I personally didn't follow much of his "logic." I'm wondering whether it was just me or whether he made as little sense to the rest of you as well. To those in the chatroom, I apologize for bad-mouthing this man of God as he was speaking. But I felt his answers to the Squad's questions were very evasive.

David


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
David Mills wrote:To

David Mills wrote:

To Brian, Kelly & Rook,

I really admired your patience tonight with the Liberty President. I thought all three of you did a great job questioning him. Frankly, however, I personally didn't follow much of his "logic." I'm wondering whether it was just me or whether he made as little sense to the rest of you as well.

His logic appeared to be

1) presume the bible is true, no matter what

2) reinterpret any problematic passage as metaphor, based on presumption number 1

In other cases, he either dodged the question - such as when challenged on how one could 'sin' without any intent, or he sought to reword the question so that he could answer it more easily...

He also seemed unwilling to concede that an omnipotent, omniscient creator is necessarily perfectly responsible for his own creation. As Gene Roddenberry once said:

"We must question the logic of an omnipotent, omniscient creator who creates fautly humans and then blames them for his own mistakes."

 Near the end, he conceded that his belief in jesus was absolute, and he approached problems in his theology as 'things I need to shore up" rather than 'things that may demonstrate that my belief is false."

Very revealing. 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Bobdigital21
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Should they do interviews on the show?

I was just thinking if it would be a good idea or not for this group to start doing an interview with the theist they have discussions/debates with.  I think it would help make it clear where these people stand and give the debate more of a flow.  Also, it wouldn't have to be a long one but just a 2 minute deal or so kind of like something you would see on Inside the Actors Studio, but of course with different questions.

For instance

#1 How long have you been religious?

#2 Do you consider it possible that there is not a God in some form or that the holy text you read is imperfect?

#3  Do you consider people who do not follow your beliefs immoral or less moral?

 Something along those lines.

How do I get these ideas? It's like a gift, you know? It's like I can't control it.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
David Mills wrote: To

David Mills wrote:

To Brian, Kelly & Rook,

I really admired your patience tonight with the Liberty President. I thought all three of you did a great job questioning him. Frankly, however, I personally didn't follow much of his "logic." I'm wondering whether it was just me or whether he made as little sense to the rest of you as well. To those in the chatroom, I apologize for bad-mouthing this man of God as he was speaking. But I felt his answers to the Squad's questions were very evasive.

David

 Yes, very evasive.  We've learned to be patient as we realize that we will have problems getting theists on the show if we get a rep for not allowing them to speak.  Obviously we disagreed with most all of his responses and gave him a great many free passes.  I thought the best way to handle him was to just ask him hard questions and let him hang himself, letting the audience decide.  You clearly decided correctly, you pass.  Eye-wink

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
At one point he said

At one point he said something about 6 days could be 6 minutes or 6 years, something to that effect.

I think it was you Brian who said they would not talk about Falwell because the guest "was not Falwell" and that they were two different people.

It makes me wonder how the guest could have become acting president considering Falwell's offical stance on the 6 day creation story of Genisis. It is my understanding that Falwell litterally believes that it happened in 6-24 hour days.

Mind you though, it wasn't untill the mid 90s, if I remember correctly, seeing Falwell on TV finally admitting that the Bible was written over a thousand year period.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Unlucky13
Unlucky13's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
I just got pissed that he

I just got pissed that he believed that the Bible was pure truth, yet he kept talking about how so many parts are up to interpretation. Every time a verse was presented that was contrary to Christian preachings, he would defend it by completely spinning it so that it was now a good thing.

 RRS was way too easy with him. He was being nice and patient, which is good, but all in all he is a Christian leader, someone who is responsible for teaching people about Christianity. If he can not properly defend it, then what the hell is he doing teaching others about it?

 Oh, and did anyone notice the "Oh shit, I'm getting pwned" tone of voice when he was saying "No" to each of Brian Flemming's questions?! That has got to become a highlight of all the RRS shows. Freakin spectacular!

ASK A PRIEST!!!!

I am collecting questions for the next couple of weeks. Do you have a question you'd like to ask a priest? Post it here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5959


LovE-RicH
LovE-RicH's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Hey I couldn't get to the

Hey I couldn't get to the site when the show started!!!Sad Bandwidth problems? I sooo wanted to watch this show live! Is it available for download somewhere?


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
LovE-RicH wrote: Hey I

LovE-RicH wrote:
Hey I couldn't get to the site when the show started!!!Sad Bandwidth problems? I sooo wanted to watch this show live! Is it available for download somewhere?

"Live" would be on recording session days in the Sitkcam room (next one is today, March 3rd). The shows are available for download individually, I think, at freethoughtmedia.com or, in batches, on the RRS web site (follow the "Download Shows" link).

-Triften 


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
For a man of his age, his

For a man of his age, his theology was no better than the average 17 year old you-tuber.

 

I mean com'n!  The bible is infallible, but we must individually interpret it?   This guy wasn't doing an interview, he was playing 'dodge the question'.

 

The most telling comment he made was when he said "I am a contextual apologist".  What the hell is that?  Change the context whenever you don't like or understand something to better fit your preconceptions?

I was totally unimpressed with anything he said and became frustrated about 2/3 the way in and stopped listening.  When the video is put up, I will finish it but as it stands, I felt very disappointed in his evasive and juvenile answers.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
yep, yep... 1) The bible

yep, yep...

1) The bible is completely inerrant, but that can't be proven because people are errant and can't see that the bible is inerrant without making errors...

so....

how does he know it's inerrant?

 

2) God created man with free will, and is omnipotent...

but...

he couldn't have created a world with free will and no innocent suffering because that's not possible...

hmmm... not possible... all powerful.... brain bleeding...

3) People everywhere throughout history have had a longing for "something"

therefore... the Christian god exists because....

um...

actually, I don't think he answered past that...

 

I am torn as to whether he's a nice guy or not. Part of me wants to believe the humble, questioning guy, and the other part remembers that he's the president of one of the most pathologically militant Christian schools in the country.

He displayed a certain condescending nature several times, by saying, "No, no, no..." interrupting Brian and trying to correct him as if he were a ten year old.

Other times, he was quite defferential. Methinks he doth defer too much, but maybe he'll come through and let Brian Flemming address his class. That would be a cold day in hell, wouldn't it?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nils
Silver Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-04-03
User is offlineOffline
I wrote a review of last

I wrote a review of last night's interview of Dr Caner on my blog. Here is a short excerpt:

"When I consider the replies Dr Caner gave to the RRS's questions, ultimately I find myself looking at two very different worldviews which do nevertheless coincide somewhere in the middle. Goodness knows how! Not only was he willing (and forthcoming) to admit that religion is a very dangerous idea, but that those who peddle blind-faith are also dangerous. He actively promotes doubt, though I must wonder if this is not simply done in a theatrical way, a way through which he can set forth a stage and create unilateral scenarios for a premeditated conclusion, since though for instance he did cast doubt on his faith and on certain interpretations of the Bible, his relentless conclusion was one of biblical inerrancy and of the certainty (not doubt) that his god existed.

I also found myself screaming out at the feed with frustrated "but you're not answering the question" or "but that was not the question". In a sense, I suppose it is only fair to concede that, as Dr Caner put it, because he is trained as a philosopher, he does find it difficult to restrict himself to a particular subject without looking to explore the question just as much as he does the answer. I also could not put away the feeling that he was attempting to fall back on previously thought-out and well rehearsed tracks. In the most powerful example of this, Dr Caner attempts to explain the reason why Adam and Eve must be punished by their god based upon the order by this god to not eat the apple. He uses freewill to explain this, which is a technique to which I am very accustomed. But he fails to answer the question put to him by the RRS, which was that of the futility of punishing a person if they do not know the difference between right and wrong since it was only after they ate the apple (after hearing the truth put to them by the snake) that they acquired this knowledge. Prior to this, they had no conception that disobeying their god was wrong or of the consequences, so punishing these two child-like gullible fools for this was not only unfair but also extremely overkill. Either Dr Caner did not understand this point or he wanted to avoid the issue, the question remained unanswered (I suspect that it was the former since he struck me as a genuine person).

I was also struck by the blind faith of this person. When asked for the 3 best pieces of evidence by which to prove his god, Dr Caner expanded somewhat too much and ended up forwarding a few others. But when I consider the deistic nature of his proposals, I fail to see how any of this could lead anyone, let alone a group of Atheists, to accept his particular brand of Christianity. A few examples of his evidence were the "universality of theism", "first cause" and "the need for something bigger". These struck me not only as being poor arguments to put to a group of intelligent skeptics, but aslo as being extremely weak since not only do they support an agnostic deistic stance, they also go so far as to support every single other theistic stance imaginable. Nowhere during the interview does Dr Caner answer the question of validity of one particular religion over another. He seems very much content on establishing arbitrarily that a god exist and then puts a beard and a white robe on this faceless, unidentified entity. But I suppose that this is were faith jumps in and why I always fail to make that leap (though in all honesty, I never make it past First Cause anyway).

Similarly, in very interesting but oft circular discussions with Rook, Dr Caner seems to arbitrarily establish that the Bible is inerrant, but when asked to prove this, he utilizes a panoply of techniques to extract one particular apologetic interpretation from the text. All other interpretations are dismissed and not even considered because they contradict his foregone conclusion. The fact that he, himself, states that he may be wrong should at least open him to the possibility that since his interpretation may be wrong, the Bible may in that particular instance contradict itself. But with the arbitrary decision that the Bible is inerrant and only human interpretation found to be flawed, Dr Caner fails to prove his point and simply saps the ground under his feet and is left standing on nothing more than blind faith, which of course inevitably proves the RRS' point: You cannot prove that something is inerrant by utilizing blind faith. It is no different than proving that orcs exist by reading Lord of the Rings and saying "trust me on this one".

Nevertheless, Dr Caner is by far the most intelligent and educated Christian apologist that I have had the pleasure of hearing. Listening to him, I have finally realized why I am wasting my time debating literalist and absolutist Christians on MySpace: Dr Caner is academically trained and hasn't learnt everything he knows from reading Lee Strobbel and watching YouTube videos. Dr Caner's thoughts are his own and he's considered the alternatives, which is why he so honestly embraces doubt (unless it saps his blind faith and his faith in Biblical Inerrancy). He is not simply the 104th person on the "Indian Telephone" of Christianity on MySpace or in Christian communities. When you spend a few weeks debating literalist Christians on MySpace, you soon realize that none of their arguments are fresh, intelligent or in fact of their own creation. One might go so far as to claim that they all come from the very same origin. Is there a page online which teaches these individuals to evangelise? Could this explain why they all sound alike and why they all commit the same mistakes? Needless to say that it was a breath of fresh air to listen to someone who had a brain of his own and who raised some very valid points."

 

Read the full review

I'm sure that I'm not alone in looking forward to a future meeting between Dr Caner and the RRS. Way to go guys! That was a job truly well done!

 

~Nils

"Blessed be the absent-minded for they will not notice."


Sonny
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Thanks

Hi,

I hope I am doing this right. I'm a Liberty Student and am very glad that you had patience with Doctor Caner on Friday night. Please remember however that it was very late and he seemed extremely tired by the end of the discussion. Your questions are very good, and he will answer them.

I find it interesting that you all feel that Liberty is a very close minded school that only believes one thing and is never willing to ask the tough questions. If anything, I hope that this discussion has caused you to rethink this line of thought. I am a Biochemistry major and we learn the theories of Evolution and proofs used for it. But as a University should be, they also teach us the differing views on this "Iron Clad" theory and allow us to choose for ourselves. Which is better; a school that presents one side and forces you to believe it, or a school that presents both sides and allows you to choose? Liberty is the second school.

Now why am I a theist? This may be a bit off topic, but I think it goes along the same lines as what Doctor Caner mentioned. Doctor Caner's field of study is obviously philosphy, but mine is science. Frankly, I have been stunned to see how many problems there are with Evolution that even the evolutionists admit to. Just an example given from the broadcast was Macro verses Micro Evolution. Microevolution is doctumented and proven. We have seen this on countless occations. Macroevolution is not. Why do I say this? There are no documented Transitional forms noted in the fossil record. Archaeopteryx is a commonly used example by evolutionists to show a transitional form. However, it has now been clearly stated that Archaeopteryx was indeed entirely bird. The Cambrian Explosion goes completely against macroevolution in that if macroevolution was true, there would not be this giant influx of animals without any explanation for them other than they just appeared out of the fossil record. If the slow changing over time theory of Macroevolution were true, there should be no problem proving it. In fact, there is no evidence that has been presented that definitively proves Evolution in a Macro since. Some evolutionist have proposed the Punctuationalism theory that states that there were long periods of slight change (Natural Selection) and then short bursts of extreme change in species and in type. There is however, no proof for this argument. It simply fixes a problem that the evolutionists cannot truethfully fix.

So whats my point? The theory of evolution is on extremely rocky ground. Caner mentioned that if you were to believe that there was a God, would this God be able to reveal himself to his people in a book form? Caner was not making the statement that the God of Christianity was the God, but simply stating that if he was real, would he be able to do these things? The answer is yes. Now why do people have such trouble with reading the Bible? It is because of our "fallen" nature. Its our fault the Bible doesn't always seem to make since. You all understand that nobody is perfect. That is an obvious problem with the human race. The only way that you can be sure that you are properly reading the Bible is to pray to God and ask him to help you. Now before you start telling me that God doesn't exist, remember that this statement that I am making is all hypothetical.

Now given my hypothetical statement, and given the apparent problems with evolution, is it possible that a God may exist? Not only is it possible, but it is perhaps just as provable as evolution is. In fact, many of the evidences used to prove evolution, can be easily used to prove creation. The fossil record seems to fit exactly with a global flood. The lack of transitional forms fit with a God created kind. Natural selection fits with the call to "be fruitful and multiply and cover the earth." (Why would God call all the animals to cover the earth if he did not provide a way for them to live in the various parts of it?)

Anyway, my point is not to start another debate today. However, some of you expressed interest in coming to Liberty University to talk with the students. I look forward to your arrival. There is much to discuss and I am very thankful that you are willing to discuss these hard issues with us. Maybe at some point in your visit to Liberty we can get together and talk.

I'm sure by this time in reading this article you are chomping at the bit to discuss some of my answers. Feal free to PM me or send me an email regarding my answers. I'm not sure that I will be able to post here again, given time constraints, but I will message you individually if you have questions.

Thankyou all once again for listening to Ergun. I understand that you may not agree with some of his points and I commend you for hearing him out. Hopefully one day we will be able to talk on a deeper level and hopefully understand each other better. My attempt is not to hijack this thread, so please e-mail me with further questions. Forgive my grammar. I am sure that there are many problems with it. Writing has never been my forte. Thanks again.

Respectfully,

James

(Sonny)


David Mills
High Level Donor
David Mills's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Sonny wrote:  There are

Sonny wrote:

 There are no documented Transitional forms noted in the fossil record. Archaeopteryx is a commonly used example by evolutionists to show a transitional form. However, it has now been clearly stated that Archaeopteryx was indeed entirely bird. The Cambrian Explosion goes completely against macroevolution in that if macroevolution was true, there would not be this giant influx of animals without any explanation for them other than they just appeared out of the fossil record. If the slow changing over time theory of Macroevolution were true, there should be no problem proving it. In fact, there is no evidence that has been presented that definitively proves Evolution in a Macro since.

1. The Linnean system of taxonomical classification has no special provision to "note" transitional fossils. This creates the unfortunate illusion that no transitional forms exist.

2. The Cambrian Explosion actually represents the evolution of fossilizable body parts. It was not until shells, teeth and bones developed that fossilization could readily occur. If you're trying to suggest that the Cambrian Explosion actually represents Creation Week as depicted in Genesis, then you must explain why Cambrian rock strata contain neither reptiles nor mammals. This absence discounts the idea that God simultaneously created all lifeforms.

3. Archaeopteryx had teeth and scales. These are not common avian characteristics.

 David Mills


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Does this so-called

Does this so-called university teach Alchemy as an alternative to Chemistry? Or a geocentric as opposed to heliocentric solar system? How about Astrology as opposed to Astronomy? Or how about in med classes "the stork brings it" instead of birthing babies?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Unlucky13 wrote: I just

Unlucky13 wrote:

I just got pissed that he believed that the Bible was pure truth, yet he kept talking about how so many parts are up to interpretation. Every time a verse was presented that was contrary to Christian preachings, he would defend it by completely spinning it so that it was now a good thing.

Yes, ad hocism is the driving force of his apologetics. He doesn't seem willing to openly consider that the 'pure truth' that he derives from the bible comes from him simply reinterpreting a problematic passage into something else.

If we applied such ad hoc methodology to anything else, we could find the same 'truth'.

2+2=5  - wrong?

No. Not for very high values of 2.

2+2=27 - wrong?

No, cleary the writer knows that 2+2=4, ergo this is a joke.

and so on... we can even make a game of it. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
2 + 2 = 22 - of course add a

2 + 2 = 22 - of course add a 2 next to another 2 and you got 22!


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sonny wrote: Hi, I hope I

Sonny wrote:

Hi,

I hope I am doing this right. I'm a Liberty Student and am very glad that you had patience with Doctor Caner on Friday night. Please remember however that it was very late and he seemed extremely tired by the end of the discussion. Your questions are very good, and he will answer them.

I find it interesting that you all feel that Liberty is a very close minded school that only believes one thing and is never willing to ask the tough questions.

We listened to Dr. Caner.... his first presumption was always that the bible is true.

As for the tough questions: he ran from them or tried to reintepret them.

He was pleasant to us, and he gave a good deal of lip service to critical thinking, but when pressed, he turned to ad hoc reinterpretations, or simply evasions.

Quote:
 

 If anything, I hope that this discussion has caused you to rethink this line of thought. 

Actually, you have it backwards. The discussion is what led to my conclusion. 

 

Quote:
  Frankly, I have been stunned to see how many problems there are with Evolution that even the evolutionists admit to. Just an example given from the broadcast was Macro verses Micro Evolution.

The macro/micro evolutionary distinction is mainly a creationist bugaboo.... this is already a tip off that you're not approaching the subject as an evolutionary scientist would...

Quote:
 

Microevolution is doctumented and proven.

Science never proves anything. Science is inductive and works through falsification (modus tollens). Science supports.

 

Quote:

We have seen this on countless occations. Macroevolution is not. Why do I say this? There are no documented Transitional forms noted in the fossil record.

Basic errors abound here.

From: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Macroevolution_has_never_been_observed 

Generally, creationists do not define macroevolution in the same precise way that biologists do, allowing them to continually shift the goalposts as to what qualifies as macroevolution. Biologists generally define the boundary as change above the level of species, and there have been directly observed instances of speciation as well as many examples of recent speciation in the wild.

  • The honeysuckle maggot fly has recently been found to have directly arisen from a hybridization between the snowberry maggot fly and the blueberry maggot fly.
  • In 1905, in his patch of Oenothera lamarckiana, Hugo de Vries discovered an unusual specimen, and found that he was unable crossbreed it with its parent-plants. He later named it O. gigas, and found that it had 2N=28, while its parent had 2N=14.

 More on speciation can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

 

Quote:
 

Archaeopteryx is a commonly used example by evolutionists to show a transitional form. However, it has now been clearly stated that Archaeopteryx was indeed entirely bird.


You state this authoritatively, without any source.

  

Quote:

The Cambrian Explosion goes completely against macroevolution in that if macroevolution was true, there would not be this giant influx of animals without any explanation for them other than they just appeared out of the fossil record. If the slow changing over time theory of Macroevolution were true, there should be no problem proving it.

If you really know much of anything about evolution, can you tell me why I can refute each of your claims by simply posting from Talkorigins? Each of your claims indicates that you haven't even bothered to simply go to a library and read what evolutionists actually say!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

 

  1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Fossil microorganisms have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

  2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

  3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

    Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

    And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.

  4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

 

Quote:
 

In fact, there is no evidence that has been presented that definitively proves Evolution in a Macro sence.

This is simply false.  

Quote:
 

Some evolutionist have proposed the Punctuationalism theory that states that there were long periods of slight change (Natural Selection) and then short bursts of extreme change in species and in type. There is however, no proof for this argument. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201_1.html

Claim CC201.1:

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed ad hoc to explain away the embarrassing gaps in the fossil record.

Source:

Yahya, Harun, 2003. Darwinism Refuted, The invalidity of punctuated equilibrium. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/equilibrium.html

Response:

  1. The theory of punctuated equilibrium is based on positive evidence, including extensive studies of living and extinct species groups (Eldredge and Gould 1972).

  2. The idea of phyletic gradualism, which is invoked to justify a lack of gaps, fails to fit the evidence of population biology.

  3. There is nothing wrong with proposing theories to fit the data.

Links:

Elsberry, Wesley, 1996. Punctuated equilibria. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

 

 

Quote:

So whats my point? The theory of evolution is on extremely rocky ground.

 

Only within the strawman version of it, in your head. 

 

Quote:
 

I'm sure by this time in reading this article you are chomping at the bit to discuss some of my answers.  

You've already been refuted. This happens whenver you try to argue a point over which you are fundamentally ignorant.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Sonny wrote:  I am a

Sonny wrote:


 I am a Biochemistry major and we learn the theories of Evolution and proofs used for it. But as a University should be, they also teach us the differing views on this "Iron Clad" theory and allow us to choose for ourselves. Which is better; a school that presents one side and forces you to believe it, or a school that presents both sides and allows you to choose? Liberty is the second school.



hi sonny, these are the questions i had after reading this post; if you want, you can pm me your answer. (sorry if i'm taking this thread in the wrong direction!)

what are all the sides to the question of life on this planet--can you define them clearly? for example, do you in your biology classes look at different creation stories from all narrative traditions when they describe the origin of life, or particularly the judeochristian narrative tradition, in comparison to evolution?

what perspective has being a biochemistry major given you in approaching and understanding the question of life on this planet?

 thanks for your post. 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Sonny wrote: Hi, I hope I

Sonny wrote:

Hi,

I hope I am doing this right. I'm a Liberty Student and am very glad that you had patience with Doctor Caner on Friday night. Please remember however that it was very late and he seemed extremely tired by the end of the discussion. Your questions are very good, and he will answer them.

Should have stopped this post here since it encompasses the thread topic. Instead you go on a tangent(do they teach trig at Liberty?)

Quote:
I find it interesting that you all feel that Liberty is a very close minded school that only believes one thing and is never willing to ask the tough questions. If anything, I hope that this discussion has caused you to rethink this line of thought. I am a Biochemistry major and we learn the theories of Evolution and proofs used for it. But as a University should be, they also teach us the differing views on this "Iron Clad" theory and allow us to choose for ourselves. Which is better; a school that presents one side and forces you to believe it, or a school that presents both sides and allows you to choose? Liberty is the second school.

Your idea of 'tough questions' and their 'answers' is lacking in my opinion. The theory of evolution is not plural. You are confusing belief with science here. Evolution isn't a doctrine at all.

I would prefer a school that stops right there in it's title. Rather than forcing education, would it not be better to teach people the processes involved in discovering the answers for themselves? You are given 'doctrine' to choose between. It is educating an ideology instead of merely educating.

Quote:
Now why am I a theist? This may be a bit off topic, but I think it goes along the same lines as what Doctor Caner mentioned. Doctor Caner's field of study is obviously philosphy, but mine is science.

Why mention theism first? This, to me, speaks directly to the point that you wish to use anything connected with science to try and prove your theism instead of approaching the scientific method as it should be with no preconceived notions.

Quote:
Frankly, I have been stunned to see how many problems there are with Evolution that even the evolutionists admit to. Just an example given from the broadcast was Macro verses Micro Evolution. Microevolution is doctumented and proven. We have seen this on countless occations. Macroevolution is not. Why do I say this?

Bonus points if you can point out who first made this distinction in your understanding of evolution. They aren't separate. If one is proven then.....

Quote:
There are no documented Transitional forms noted in the fossil record. Archaeopteryx is a commonly used example by evolutionists to show a transitional form. However, it has now been clearly stated that Archaeopteryx was indeed entirely bird. The Cambrian Explosion goes completely against macroevolution in that if macroevolution was true, there would not be this giant influx of animals without any explanation for them other than they just appeared out of the fossil record. If the slow changing over time theory of Macroevolution were true, there should be no problem proving it. In fact, there is no evidence that has been presented that definitively proves Evolution in a Macro since. Some evolutionist have proposed the Punctuationalism theory that states that there were long periods of slight change (Natural Selection) and then short bursts of extreme change in species and in type. There is however, no proof for this argument. It simply fixes a problem that the evolutionists cannot truethfully fix.

Gaps should not be filled with gods that require more explanation than the gap itself needs.

You leave off very important words such as 'yet'. Natural selection does not work that way, friend.

Natural selection is not 'change' it is the survivability of changes. Your profession of 'long periods of slight change' is incorrect and bespeaks volumes of the education provided by your 'university'. Changes occur and the best changes survive while species that were at the 'top' of their food chain and adaptability continue to exist. The weaker species unable to survive die out.

If you think for one minute that the rise of species follows some linear well-ordered chain of adaptations then you have succumbed to doctrine and shunned science. I pity you for the universe you ignore.

Quote:
So whats my point? The theory of evolution is on extremely rocky ground. Caner mentioned that if you were to believe that there was a God, would this God be able to reveal himself to his people in a book form? Caner was not making the statement that the God of Christianity was the God, but simply stating that if he was real, would he be able to do these things? The answer is yes.

Semantics. 'would he be able to' is never the same as 'he did'. It is that 'leap of faith' that Caner is aiding his students in accepting just as any preacher does.

Quote:
Now why do people have such trouble with reading the Bible? It is because of our "fallen" nature. Its our fault the Bible doesn't always seem to make since. You all understand that nobody is perfect. That is an obvious problem with the human race. The only way that you can be sure that you are properly reading the Bible is to pray to God and ask him to help you. Now before you start telling me that God doesn't exist, remember that this statement that I am making is all hypothetical.

I have absolutely no problem reading the bible. I have problems with believing something because it says that it is true.

Hypothetical questions allow for hypothetical answers. Here's one or two: Are you positive that YOU are reading the bible correctly? Has your god answered your prayers with 'special' insight that allows you to be ensured of your interpretation?

Quote:
Now given my hypothetical statement, and given the apparent problems with evolution, is it possible that a God may exist? Not only is it possible, but it is perhaps just as provable as evolution is. In fact, many of the evidences used to prove evolution, can be easily used to prove creation. The fossil record seems to fit exactly with a global flood. The lack of transitional forms fit with a God created kind. Natural selection fits with the call to "be fruitful and multiply and cover the earth." (Why would God call all the animals to cover the earth if he did not provide a way for them to live in the various parts of it?)

Natural selection by no means equates with 'be fruitful and multiply'. Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. 'be fruitful and multiply' is allegory for spreading one faith throughout the world.

Quote:
Anyway, my point is not to start another debate today.

Then why proceed with an off-topic post?

Quote:
However, some of you expressed interest in coming to Liberty University to talk with the students. I look forward to your arrival. There is much to discuss and I am very thankful that you are willing to discuss these hard issues with us. Maybe at some point in your visit to Liberty we can get together and talk.

It seems that you have your mind made up anyway. It would be nothing more than attending church. I would come to Liberty. However, it is much more productive to maintain this type of communication than a face-to-face sermon would be.

Quote:
I'm sure by this time in reading this article you are chomping at the bit to discuss some of my answers. Feal free to PM me or send me an email regarding my answers. I'm not sure that I will be able to post here again, given time constraints, but I will message you individually if you have questions.

'Time constraints'??? This site isn't going anywhere. There is nothing wrong with being in the open on cyber-space. Just be honest about your answers and either agree to disagree or admit proven points also it is okay to ask for us to admit when you might have made a point that hasn't been sufficiently responded to in the forums. Just don't troll. Try to stick to the forum topic and try to find threads where your questions or answrs are relevant.

Quote:
Thankyou all once again for listening to Ergun. I understand that you may not agree with some of his points and I commend you for hearing him out. Hopefully one day we will be able to talk on a deeper level and hopefully understand each other better. My attempt is not to hijack this thread, so please e-mail me with further questions. Forgive my grammar. I am sure that there are many problems with it. Writing has never been my forte. Thanks again.

Respectfully,

James

(Sonny)

Again. There is no problem with continuing discussions on the boards. I use e-mail for communication with so many other theists that you might get lost in the mix.

Writing is very important to science because it is needed to effectively communicate ideas to others.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.