Help

[AV1611VET]

Then why do Baptist universities such as Baylor, Mercer, and Wheaton feature evolution prominently in their biology curriculum?

I can't speak for those three in particular, but I'll say this: some institutions have to teach that stuff for the simple reason that they are getting public funds.

When you apply, you have to pass certain standards:

• Inspection by the Fire Marshall.
• Building codes up-to-date.

And in many cases, you have to allow co-ed dorms, on-campus dating, have a TV in the recreation room, and teach evolution and other unwanted subjects.

It could be too, that they preach Theistic Evolution as well. I hope not, but I suppose anything is possible, since we're living in the end times now.

• [bible]Matthew 24:24[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

...lest your arguments be soundly refuted, eh?

Soundy? --- I suppose it depends on what drummer we're marching to.

Huh? Where in this thread did that happen, exactly? You posted an argument by a man whose sole qualification is a journalism degree , chalnoth gave you a link to show why the argument is demonstrably flawed. Now where is the scientific contradiction?

I did not quote Lee Strobel, I quoted Stephen C. Meyer.

 

[LittleNipper]

AV you dont care what anyone says. You dont even care about what you can learn from the oldest versions of the Bible becuase you believe only the KJV is correct.


Since theres a lot of Christians that do, you must mean "real" Christians. Christians that believe what you believe.

The question is always who is swallowing what? There is just as much evidence (perhaps even more) that more people swallow evolution without really understanding anything about it than there are Christians. As soon as a textbook chapter in a science school book starts off with Millions of years ago, or NOVA starts off with a program saying, "Several hundred million years ago...." A little flag should go up and say ---- OPINION, OPINION, OPINION....

 

[caravelair]

Here's a quote from The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, quoting Stephen C. Meyer, p. 229:

• "There's a minimal complexity threshold," he replied. "There's a certain level of folding that a protein has to have, called tertiary structure, that is necessary for it to perform a function. You don't get tertiary structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so. That may be conservative. Now consider what you'd need for a protein molecule to form by chance."
• "First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you've got to get only left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence."
• "Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find that the probabilities of forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That's a ten with 125 zeroes after it!" *
• "And that would only be one protein molecule - a minimally complex cell would need between three hundred and five hundred protein molecules."

this is strawman nonsense so your numbers don't even correspond to reality.

* Anything 1/10[sup]50th[/sup] or less is considered a mathematical impossibility.

that's total nonsense, and this is coming from someone with a degree in math here. not only is that number completely arbitrary, but things with much less chance than that happen all the time. if i was to roll a 6-sided die 200 times, the particular sequence that was the outcome would have less of a chance than 1/10[sup]155[/sup]. yet the outcome still occurs. the only probability that describes something mathematically impossible is 0.

 

[Baggins]

IAnd in many cases, you have to allow co-ed dorms, on-campus dating, have a TV in the recreation room, and teach evolution and other unwanted subjects.

Unwanted by whom, you or the students?

ps I hope you can read this it's in British

 

[AV1611VET]

And you wonder why people get fed up with arguing with you. You don't have to belive anything Talkorgins says. But you can look at their references and see why they say what they say.

For the record, I do not know what Talkorigins is. I've never been to their website, I don't know what their missions statement is, etc. Furthermore, you're display of disgust at a person who is:

1. A sola scripturist
2. King James Only
3. Independent Fundamental Baptist

...shows a lack of knowledge of the discipline we go through to become one.

We don't take what we hear on any given subject and compare it to what other people are saying about it. We take what we hear and compare it to what the Bible says about it first. If there is anything in the Bible that is contrary to what we heard, then what we heard is considered false. On the other hand, if we take something we've heard to the Bible, and the Bible is silent on that particular point, then we should take it to the Lord in prayer, see what other like-minded Christians have to say, etc. If there's still no conclusion, then (and only then) should we very cautiously consider what the secular world has to say.

Science is based on evidence. If you want to convince someone you are right, you show them that evidence.

Only insofar as that evidence lines up with the Bible. If it goes against Scripture, the conclusion is wrong.

Here are two perfect examples:

1. Scientists said the Hittites never existed outside of the Bible - until the physical evidence was found - then they took the credit for this "great discovery".
2. Scientists say that the Egyptians existed before Noah did - the Bible says they didn't exist until after Noah. I go with what the Bible says.

Chances are the first time a new idea is brought out, few people buy inot it. But as more people look at the calcualations, repeat the experiments etc, then the idea gains more credit. Or the oposite happened, and the idea is shown to be wrong at it is falsified.

Few people buy into it? Aristotle's science stunted the growth of science for 2000 years. I'd say his science passed through the hands of more than a few people.

Percival Lowell's science went 76 years before it was debunked by later discoveries.

And no, Christians don't "swallow it", but most of them do look at the evidence and except it, because it makes sense.

No comment - I'm not here to insult my brothers and sister in Christ (or anyone, for that matter).

 

[GoSeminoles!]

It could be too, that they preach Theistic Evolution as well. I hope not, but I suppose anything is possible, since we're living in the end times now.

Here's a wacky idea:

Maybe evolution is sound science and in order to attract promising students the university wants to offer the best science curriculum it can.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was more thinking along the line of the "hear nothing, see nothing, say nothing" monkeys, but then I realized that he says quite a lot.

Wrong zoo --- it's:

• Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV you dont care what anyone says. You dont even care about what you can learn from the oldest versions of the Bible becuase you believe only the KJV is correct.

How many times have you seen me post from an older [authorized] version of the Bible, Edx? Many, I hope.

Since theres a lot of Christians that do, you must mean "real" Christians. Christians that believe what you believe.

And what of scientists that don't believe what YOU believe? What do YOU call them?

 

[Tomk80]

No, thanks --- I couldn't care less what talkorigins has to say about it.

That's all scientists do, is contradict each other.

Because christians are so coherent as a group, right?

Then you wonder why we Christians don't swallow this stuff lock, stock, and barrel.

Why would they? They could actually study the evidence and would reach the same conclusions. But you are never going to do that, are you AV? You lock yourself in your own private reality. And from what you've written, it is probably very private indeed. Your statements are unlike any statements I've seen made by any christian. You effectively seem to form a group of 1, just as dad does. It's hard to contradict someone else in your group, when your the only one in it, although I've seen you manage that even.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

We take what we hear and compare it to what the Bible says about it first. If there is anything in the Bible that is contrary to what we heard, then what we heard is considered false.

You mean your particular interpretation of you particular bible. You don’t believe the earth is the center of the universe any more do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a wacky idea:

Maybe evolution is sound science and in order to attract promising students the university wants to offer the best science curriculum it can.

A Christian university that teaches Evolution in one class, and Hermeneutics 101 in another, is like a Ford dealership selling Toyotas.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because christians are so coherent as a group, right?

Well we should be in light of:

• [bible]Ephesians 4:4-6[/bible]

But unfortunately, we have an adversary that's skilled in divide-and-conquer tactics.

Your statements are unlike any statements I've seen made by any christian.

I always shake my head when I hear something like that.

Translation: I've been there, done that, heard it all. Anything I've never heard before, it's because some rogue wack-o is saying it. After all, I'm so knowledgeable in the different denominations in existence...

Yada yada.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Hey, I am dealing with a professor or mathematics on another forum who is an evolutionist. Anybody have anything to say to her regarding the mathematical impossibility of evolution?

perhaps the answers you seek are at:
http://www.christianforums.com/f425-creationism.html
only young earth creationists can post there. you can get the help from the flat earthers, geocentrics and hollow earthers that post there without interference from science or other worldly answers.

 

[Baggins]

F
Here are two perfect examples:

1. Scientists said the Hittites never existed outside of the Bible - until the physical evidence was found - then they took the credit for this "great discovery".
2. Scientists say that the Egyptians existed before Noah did - the Bible says they didn't exist until after Noah. I go with what the Bible says.

.

I don't think you'd find many scientists who'd give two hoots about the Hittites or the Egyptians.

There word you are grasping for is Historian, or perhaps Archaeologist.

Neither of those are scientific disciplines.

Want to try again?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean your particular interpretation of you particular bible.

I'm sure you'd do the same with "your interpretation". If not, then you fall victim to Ephesians 4:14.

• [bible]Ephesians 4:14[/bible]

How many different interpretations do you think Jesus paid respect to?

You don’t believe the earth is the center of the universe any more do you?

Center-of-Mass or Center-of-Preference?

 

[Baggins]

Well we should be in light of:

• [bible]Ephesians 4:4-6[/bible]

But unfortunately, we have an adversary that's skilled in divide-and-conquer tactics.



.

So you seem to be saying that some christian groups are actually guided by satan.

Could you tell me which ones?

 

[Split Rock]

H "There's a minimal complexity threshold," he replied. "There's a certain level of folding that a protein has to have, called tertiary structure, that is necessary for it to perform a function. You don't get tertiary structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so. That may be conservative.

Absolute bunk. A few amino acids are all that is required to form a three-dimentional surface. All an enzyme had to do (most proteins are enzymes) is to increase the rate of a reaction that would occur in its absense anyway. Even a small increase in rate of reaction would be selected for. A small cleft with a negative charge, for example, would be enough to serve as a catalyst. That hardly requires 75 amino acids.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think you'd find many scientists who'd give two hoots about the Hittites or the Egyptians.

They may not hoot like an owl, but they have one doosey of a family album.

There word you are grasping for is Historian, or perhaps Archaeologist.

The word I'm grasping for is "scientist".

Neither of those are scientific disciplines.

Says you.

Want to try again?

No --- I got it right the first time --- thanks, anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you seem to be saying that some christian groups are actually guided by satan.

"Guided"?

Could you tell me which ones?

None that I know of.