Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics

Crisis Magazine ^ | Benjamin D. Wiker

[shubi]

A mutation is a new allele. A new addition changes the allele frequency, so would a duplication of genetic material.

[Rocky]

I haven't found Part I yet, but here is a link to another great article by the same author in the same publication:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2004/wiker.htm

[Rocky]

Here's the link to Part I, although it doesn't say "Part I" in the title:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2003/feature1.htm

[jwalsh07]

Mix oxygen with hydrogen, and you will get water, all the times

Try it in the liquid form of each and then get back to me.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Thank you so much for trying to answer though, dear PatrickHenry! Hugs!

[Alamo-Girl]

It did say that the faithful should not accept any evolutionary doctrine that posits a naturalistic evolution of mind/spirit.

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping to your post!

And what do you say to those who claim that the evidence proves that man's "soul" is a product not of divine creation, but of natural evolution?

Indeed. For anyone interested in our last big debate on that worldview: In Nature v Nuture, a Voice for Nature.

[jennyp]

do not think of the word "placemarker".

[shubi]

What about Hydrogen Hydroxide?

[xzins]

Arse????

Come on now....this is Free Republic.

You are perfectly free on this forum to say:


A$$


:>)

[xzins]

Anyone with sense knows the left side of the road is the wrong side to be on....

And that, by and large, the brits are all crazy, to include (especially) MadIvan!

:>)

[MadIvan]

And that, by and large, the brits are all crazy, to include (especially) MadIvan!

Merely eccentric. :)

Regards, Ivan

[r9etb]

I think we can declare a complete meltdown on r9etb's part after this post

Actually, no. I'm purposely making an outrageous hypothesis to demonstrate that your challenge has no power to resolve the debate between evolution and "other factors," whatever they may be. The taxonomic data could have result of any number of processes, not just evolution, and the methodology that informs your challenge would be unchanged.

In order for your challenge to work, you're basically requiring us to first accept the truth of the thing the challenge is supposed to be about. As such, it's logically fallacious.

[betty boop]

And what do you say to those who claim that the evidence proves that man's "soul" is a product not of divine creation, but of natural evolution?

I'd say just what jwalsh07 said at post #490. :^)

[conservlib]

It is a figure of speech. I did not say at what proportion, or at what temp&pres! If you like to argue for its sake, I don't want to play, if you would like to discuss the real subject, I am happy to debate you.

[conservlib]

BTW Jesus is the way the TRUTH and the life.

That is what Jesus said of himself. Do you always believe whatever people tell you about themselves? I told you a true concept, that is verified by alll credible people on earth, and you are still trying to shoot holes into it, even unfairly. O2+H2=H2O go to an elementary school and see if even kids would agree with me. I bet even if you go to your priest he would agree with me, I am not too sure of the Baptist ministers though.

[P-Marlowe]

That is what Jesus said of himself. Do you always believe whatever people tell you about themselves?

I believe EVERYTHING Jesus said about himself.

I told you a true concept, that is verified by alll credible people on earth, and you are still trying to shoot holes into it, even unfairly. O2+H2=H2O go to an elementary school and see if even kids would agree with me. I bet even if you go to your priest he would agree with me, I am not too sure of the Baptist ministers though.

Not true kimosabe.

I suppose you consider hydrogen peroxide to be water?

H₂ + O₂ = H₂O₂

I dare you to drink even one drop of pure 100% evenly mixed hydrogen and oxygen.

[jwalsh07]

Be more precise in your language then.

What would you like to debate?

[StJacques]

". . . The taxonomic data could have result of any number of processes, not just evolution, and the methodology that informs your challenge would be unchanged. . . ."

You are still missing the point. The "taxonomic data" you refer to are the observed characteristics of the fossils in any given geological age existing within a single geological stratum. The "taxonomic theory" that brings all of that "data" together is the tracing of heritable traits from ancestor species to their evolved descendants. I have already admitted that one could make an argument that, within any given geological stratum, the origins of the fossil species that exist there could -- in terms of pure theory alone argued outside of common sense -- have come to reside there by any one of a number of causes. But what I insist upon pointing out, and what you repeatedly ignore, is that the tracing of heritable traits between ancestor and descendant species requires a theoretical justification to explain their existence within a continuum and that the evolutionary science of taxonomy is the only justifiable, i.e. "believable," explanation that can be offered to explain this transition. Relying upon outside actors, whether God or extraterrestrials, requires acceptance of repeated and orderly interventions to a point at which it cannot be deemed acceptable, and certainly fails the test of "empirical scientific reasoning."

"In order for your challenge to work, you're basically requiring us to first accept the truth of the thing the challenge is supposed to be about. As such, it's logically fallacious."

No; I am asking you to accept two things only: 1. That Petroleum Geologists use taxonomy and other scientific knowledge and methodolgies used by evolutionary scientists. 2. That Petroleum Geologists actually do find oil. Both of these are proven facts.

What I am asking you to do is to give an explanation as to how petroleum geologists find oil in spite of what you or anyone else who believes that new scientific evidence undermines the Theory of Evolution have argued. Because if those arguments against the Theory of Evolution are correct, then that means that petroleum geologists are operating under false assumptions. So the challenge is definitely valid.

Thus far; your repeated attempts to answer the challenge have come down to two things. 1. Your first attempt to argue that their success is explained by mere correlation of maps and charts with other oil finds. I have demonstrated to you that this is an inadequate response since you treat the scientific methodologies petroleum geologists use as dependent upon "static" evidence, which denies the "vertical" progression of the evolution of species from one geologic age to the next, which is a key underpinning to taxonomy, an evolutionary science petroleum geologists utilize when searching for oil, and a key factor in justifying its use since that "vertical" progression across geologic ages validates the methodology in their eyes. 2. After refusing to address the importance of heritable traits in taxonomy from one geologic age to the next you have attempted to deny the challenge by arguing that I am asking you to assume the answer as a premise to my argument (challenge). Now, just for your information, in terms of logic the fallacy you are attempting to accuse me of committing is known as Petitio Principii or "begging the question." But I would only be guilty of this if I could not demonstrate that taxonomy offers a theoretical explanation based upon causality, which it does in fact do, since the passing of heritable traits from ancestors to descendants is a known and observed fact of biology.

Unless and until you can develop an answer that unites the use of the methodologies of evolutionary science [taxonomy, radiometric dating, "biomarkers," and reduced carbon graphite analysis] by petroleum geologists with an alternative hypothesis that explains the success of these methods in terms other than those petroleum geologists use, you fail to meet the challenge. In the singular case of their use of taxonomy you must answer the tracing of heritable traits across generations as made evident in the fossil record, which petroleum geologists view as validation of the science of taxonomy and is why the utilize it in their work.

You have not met the challenge r9etb. You have first failed to answer it and then, falsely, denied that the challenge is real. That is all you have done.

[conservlib]

Debate this; one molecule of Hydrogen + one molecule of Oxygen will ALWAYS form water!