Saturday, September 23, 2006

Patty Apologetics

Here is a discussion with a kid on NS, enjoy, maybe (text in italics his):

"dude, sorry for not responding in-thread, but the whole thing is spiraling into me versus everyone on anything Bible related, which isn't the point of the thread.

" and Moses gathered two (one male and one female) of each species of animal into one giant boat (built by him and his kids (not so sure in this one, patty correct me if I'm wrong)) with enough food and sweet water to keep them all alive for 40 days.

a mystical being (aka God) created the sun by saying "let there be light"

I find a lot of the stuff in the bible to be hard to believe"


Ok, this first part. What I don't get is the hypocrisy (not of you) but of that statement.
Do you believe you exist? Because on a scientific and evolutionary level, you are as much of a miracle as anything else. The probability of life created from nothing is 0. Scientists have you at about one chance in several trillion of ever having even been here, let alone in this current shape and form. That's preeeeeeetty dern miraculous.

Look, honestly, at what both sides offer. One side offers pure and random chance to have created over time, from nothing presupposedly, because we're dealing with ultimate origins, everything.
Then, the other side says that a being called God created the world as we know it.

Now, in terms of ultimate origins, both are equally valid from the get-go, because each needs a "thing" from the start, something eternal. For big bang theorists, mass and energy to react and form matter. For creationists, God. So, two "theories" reacted together to form matter, whereas an entity created everything. At this point, there is a stalemate.

Now, when it comes to what is more logical and more credible, it all depends on matters of faith and perception. I am hard-core into biology. I want to be a marine biologist. And trust me, in my many years learning how everything works, nothing has yet to convince me that it all happened by chance.

The evolution theory is fatally flawed, in that no one can reproduce the linkages between phyla of animals, nor is there any tangible proof for it today, as it happened only once. Empirically, it cannot be proven. Seems again, that God vs Evolution produces a stalemate.

Now, the evolution theory IS something proven, to the extent that we see speciation happening. In fact, the concept was developed by a Christian scientist. No one today believes in immutability of species. Creationists just don't buy that everything boils down to one organism, something not proven, but thought to be the conclusion of the theory, which is flawed, because of such problems as irreductible complexity and natural selection being a loss of information.

Evolution cannot be proved 100%. Get that notion out of your mind. Any honest scientist will tell you that educated guesses on the conclusion of the matter is what we have, not concrete proof.

Now, I'm sure you object to the idea of "incest" as it were for the population and subsequent re-population of the earth. The thing is that, creationist believe that evolution (by that I mean speciation) can occur rapidly (as proven time and time again by studies involving insects and other such observations in nature). The Flood occurred sometime around 4 500 years ago says creationists, and the Earth 6000 years old. At this point in human/natural history, there would not have been so much genetic change and mutations in the DNA of animals to cause any bad effects in interbreeding. Also, if you take God into account, anything is possible. It sounds crazy, but so is the alternative.

"And so what if they found some pools next to Jerusalem. They could have been there all along, that doesn't mean Jesus was there.
Someone could tell me that Jesus did a misty 7 to the handrail infront of my house. Just because there really is a handrail infront of my house doesn't mean that it really happened."


Besides the fact that I hate the condescending tone that you seemed to bring about, the question "so what" is a stupid one to ask.

The Bible says that Jesus went to these pools, where they were, and what he did. No one had found the pools, and thought that the Bible was mistaken, not historical, yadda yadda. But, lo and behold, the fountains were right where the Bible said they were. Now, whether or not Jesus healed anyone there is not the point: the fact that it was historically accurate is what I was saying.

Now, you say that if someone told you Jesus did a misty 7 on the handrail in front of the house, what would you use to see if that is true, if you were away getting shit-faced at a party or skiing? You'd see if the source of information is reliable. If it's one person who likes to pull pranks, you wouldn't trust a word he said. But what it were someone who has proven to be always accurate? And what if it were backed up by the fact that hundreds of other people were there at the time, and could easily have told you that no, that dude is full of shit, but didn't, and in fact praise the exploit? Now, I hope you see what I'm leading to.

The Bible is an eyewitness account, written by people from all different societal classes, talking of events where thousands of people were present and who could have EASILY proved he whole thing wrong but didn't, and who ALL AGREE about everything that happened, even if they lived many years and very far apart.

My conclusion, and you can take it as you will, but it's my final word on the matter: you accept the Bible and its teachings on FAITH. I cannot prove myself right beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I cannot convince you of anything. But you, likewise, cannot prove me wrong. That is the conundrum of the matter. However, I believe the Bible gives the most reasonable account for this world based on my own studies and knowledge. That you have a different opinion, so be it. However, the Bible is accepted on matters of faith and belief in what cannot be proven to those without it.

So respect that fact.

Thank you."

Response:

"wow, dude, I wasn't beibg that serious when I posted that, but thanks for taking to time to type that. Your arguments are solid but I found some stuff that confuses me a little.

The bible states (or atleast that's the thought I got from what you wrote:"and the Earth 6000 years old") that the earth is 6000 years old, but it has been sientificly prove that the earth is really billions of years old.
that shows that the bible can be wrong and if its wrong about onething it can be wrong about another.

about the big bang/beginning of time, I believe that there was something before it, maybe there were other planets and other skiers like us arguing about the gods, and so on. Just because the big bang was the first thing we know of doesn't mean it really is the first thing to ever ever happen anywhere in space. For all I know this universe might be a alien experiment and you can't prove that theory wrong.

but you are right that the bibles teachings can are accepted on faith, and everyone has the right to belive whatever he wants.
"

Response:
"The thing about radiometric dating is that no, it has not proven that the earth is billions of years old.

A while back, some scientists collected rock from the bottom of the grand canyon and sent them in to 3 different labs to get them dated. The rocks were from the same geological formation, and thus should have turned up relatively the same dates. They did not, by a factor of a few thousand. Some where a billion years old, others 10 000 years old, when the rocks came from the part of the canyon supposed to be dated at 3,5 billion years old.

You find carbon 14 in diamonds. Carbon 14s half life is 5760 years. Diamonds are supposed to have been formed billions of years ago. No one uses carbon 14 dating for diamonds because there shouldn't be any left after such a long time, but there is.

You're right, I can't prove that the other theories about this universe are wrong, but I can decide using logic and argument whether or not they are more probable in my eyes. You can and should do the same. If at the end your have a different conclusion than mine, at least we have both given our ideas the time of day to investigate them."

I'll keep you guys posted.

2 Comments:

Blogger studu said...

You, dude, are one sharp apologeticist...Keep on keepin' on son!

12:11 AM  
Anonymous Ezinma said...

Hey, just wanted to egg you on right there and say : Keep hanging tough with Christ!

3:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home