During my second year at University, I had sufficient time to engage in a couple of email debates with a friendly creationist under the name Dr Dino (yes the irony is outstanding). Since this blog is on communicating geosciences and creationists need some talking too I’ve popped this on here, the communication is about two years old, but still gives a good review of emailing a creationist and discussing ideas with them. If you have a lot of time on your hands then this could be entertaining.
I am not trying to insult anyone, simply being curious. It's a bit text heavy, so I've added some nice pictures.
(ME)
Right, well as a geologists I view creationism, as complete rubbish; I would like to present why I think you and other people like you are holding onto creationism with such a strong hold.
essentially you don't want to see the bible being eroded away by fact, you view that evolution should be 100% complete and have no holes in it, I'll admit there are holes in it, we haven't found every missing link for example. the bible to you, is the word of God, no problem there (should point out I'm strongly atheist) your bible is, to you 100% accurate, if there are any holes in it people might stop believing etc etc.
Never mind it was written 2000 years ago, borrowing stories from around the region blended delicately with whatever the author thought sounded good; I'm not saying the bible is all wrong,I live a fairly moral life, which I would think has borrowed aspects of the bible (I live in the Uk and our law is based on Christianity) but it is just a story book, that people believed, I'm sure you laugh at Scientology and their wacky story of creation, that too is a story; what if 2000 years from now Scientology and its Zenon God of whatever somehow makes it into the 'mainstream' will people like you try to teach it to children?
There is bugger all evidence for Creationsism that cannot be explained with correct science which has been presented and reviewed. Creationsists point to the Grand Canyon being formed in a weekend, by a raging torrent, never mind theere is 500ft of Granite and basalt which almost unlimited water couldn't shift in a weekend (need chemical reactions to change the feldspar in the granite and basalt into clay minerals which are then carried away in water, once the feldspar has gone the granite breaks down); there are a million and one examples which nicely break away your arguemnts,
I look forward to hearing from you for intelligent debate about Creationism and its flaws (I'll take evolution too!)
Jack
(DR DINO)
Dear Jack,
It is your right to stand against good science if you so choose .... until you die and then answer to God.
Well, either "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" or ... there can be "something from nothing for no reason."
Take a look at our Debate Series: http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=629DVD
Creationists contend that we are the ones siding with science. We do not need "hocus pocus" like the Big Bang theory to presume something from nothing for no reason.
After all, which is the bigger miracle, that God created the universe from outside of it, or that nothing (defying the laws of science) created the universe?
Evolutionists like to contend that creationists are the ones resorting to miracles. And they further contend that they side with science. And yet how, under their theory, did molecules - all by themselves - decide to become more and more complex? Was gravity (by accident) present at the Big Bang, or did it evolve itself into existence later? Was it everywhere at once, or did it start in one place and then spread itself out (for no reason)? Is the same true for angular momentum? Was all of the light spectrum originally in existence, or did it "evolve" over time? Why are the laws of science consistent today (given evolution?s belief in magic in the past)?
If you put an empty box into an attic and left it there for 50 years, what are the chances - scientifically speaking - that a "Little Bang" would happen inside during that 50 years? Such a belief is not scientific, but rather religious in origin.
Sincerely, Paul Abramson
Right, well as a geologists I view creationism, as complete rubbish; I would like to present why I think you and other people like you are holding onto creationism with such a strong hold.
essentially you don't want to see the bible being eroded away by fact, you view that evolution should be 100% complete and have no holes in it, I'll admit there are holes in it, we haven't found every missing link for example. the bible to you, is the word of God, no problem there (should point out I'm strongly atheist) your bible is, to you 100% accurate, if there are any holes in it people might stop believing etc etc.
Never mind it was written 2000 years ago, borrowing stories from around the region blended delicately with whatever the author thought sounded good; I'm not saying the bible is all wrong,I live a fairly moral life, which I would think has borrowed aspects of the bible (I live in the Uk and our law is based on Christianity) but it is just a story book, that people believed, I'm sure you laugh at Scientology and their wacky story of creation, that too is a story; what if 2000 years from now Scientology and its Zenon God of whatever somehow makes it into the 'mainstream' will people like you try to teach it to children?
There is bugger all evidence for Creationsism that cannot be explained with correct science which has been presented and reviewed. Creationsists point to the Grand Canyon being formed in a weekend, by a raging torrent, never mind theere is 500ft of Granite and basalt which almost unlimited water couldn't shift in a weekend (need chemical reactions to change the feldspar in the granite and basalt into clay minerals which are then carried away in water, once the feldspar has gone the granite breaks down); there are a million and one examples which nicely break away your arguemnts,
I look forward to hearing from you for intelligent debate about Creationism and its flaws (I'll take evolution too!)
Jack
(DR DINO)
Dear Jack,
It is your right to stand against good science if you so choose .... until you die and then answer to God.
Well, either "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" or ... there can be "something from nothing for no reason."
Take a look at our Debate Series: http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=629DVD
Creationists contend that we are the ones siding with science. We do not need "hocus pocus" like the Big Bang theory to presume something from nothing for no reason.
After all, which is the bigger miracle, that God created the universe from outside of it, or that nothing (defying the laws of science) created the universe?
Evolutionists like to contend that creationists are the ones resorting to miracles. And they further contend that they side with science. And yet how, under their theory, did molecules - all by themselves - decide to become more and more complex? Was gravity (by accident) present at the Big Bang, or did it evolve itself into existence later? Was it everywhere at once, or did it start in one place and then spread itself out (for no reason)? Is the same true for angular momentum? Was all of the light spectrum originally in existence, or did it "evolve" over time? Why are the laws of science consistent today (given evolution?s belief in magic in the past)?
If you put an empty box into an attic and left it there for 50 years, what are the chances - scientifically speaking - that a "Little Bang" would happen inside during that 50 years? Such a belief is not scientific, but rather religious in origin.
Sincerely, Paul Abramson
(ME)
Dear Paul,
Thankyou for informing me of what will happen when I die, its nice to know that you subscribe fully to scientific beliefs, with a friendly metaphysical being there to reprimand me for using free thought which I was blessed with, damn, hats bad. I love the way you wish to present yourself as a scientist; yet hold onto a metaphysical belief system handed down from 2000 years ago – and good science? What good science? Reading a 2000 year old text that scouring the globe to desperately find details for it; ignoring all modern ideas (or twisting them so far they are unrecognisable) just because you do not want to see your faith eroded. I fail to see a single peer reviewed creationist study anywhere. Remember that many scientists are Christians too, but they can accept facts of science and not teachings from the Bible.
Life was not formed from 'nothing' you need the 'building' blocks – protein molecules, which are fairly easy to make, it did not happen over a weekend, I'm sure you've heard of the saying 'enough monkeys and enough typewriters they will write Shakespeare' – well, something like that. There was enough monkeys (geological evidence of widespread water from 4 billion years ago) and plenty of typewriters (a couple of billion years, there is evidence for; that's 1000 million years, or 1,000,000,000 years) it does sort fo blow your mind that time. So perhaps it is better to avoid it and have the age of the Earth based on some Irish Bishop and a 2000 year old book, much much better science.
I fail to see how you can describe the Big Bang theory as 'hocus pocus' contrasting with what? A metaphysical being (who left no evidence of his existence) creating the world in 6 days (the heavens in 1 or 2) then making mankind from dust and womankind from a rib. The big Bang theory is produced from observations and calculations. Your theory is from a book, a very old book with no evidence for it. I regret I have not been able to view the 'debate series' due to a page load error, but I will try another time.
In science, miracle do not exist, everything can be explained. Molecules did not decide, they just did under the laws of physics, that's like saying 'the wind decided to knock down a fence'. I'll be honest I do not understand everything (very few people do) have a look on Wikipedia, that'll probably explain what you need to know. Angular momentum is simply explained under Newton's second law 'The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction' so for example a flywheel will continue to spin, if noting there is to stop it, its not free energy, but energy is being conserved. Evolution is not based on magic, it is based on fact. For example the Meller Urey Experiment, performed by Stanley Miller, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment) there was enough time for millions of these 'experiments' going on simultaneously. II invite you do check some fo the more famous scientific reports and thesis's for more information, since I do not know everything.
No-one is saying fi you put a box in the attic anything much would happen whatever beliefs you wish to use; what your belief is saying however is that if you are good (or subscribe to beliefs presented in a 2000 year old book with no evidence) you go to a land of milk and honey, if your not you burn in hell... nice to know that science is not dead.
Jack
 |
Hutton's Unconformity at Siccar Point |
DR DINO TO ME:
Dear Jack,
I already gave you good answers. Hide if you want to. That is your temporary right.
Jesus went around the false religious teachers of His day. He went directly to the people instead, and eventually made the Pharisees come to Him. Today's dominant false religion, evolution (the belief that God was not needed for our origins, or that He is weak, etc.), is similar. Its high priests determine "truth" by consensus, ignoring the scientific evidence - while claiming to have real evidence to support their beliefs.
We mostly go around evolution's priests today, teaching the people. They will deceive many. We cannot stop them from working their evil.
Dr. Kent Hovind has done about 100 public debates. 20 of them are on DVDs - so all can see what the science really shows. http://www.drdino.com/ But they want us mired down, answering lots of trivial questions, casting pearls in their direction. We do not want to do that.
There are so many of these debates going on. Praise the Lord! ...But we have to decline. It takes a lot of time and effort, but without much positive results (compared to other ways of teaching folks).
Almost all of the one-on-one (private, Internet) debates are not fruitful.
Somewhere out in cyberspace some devout skeptic wants to keep evolution as "true" since a "mental hiding place" from God is needed. Evolution provides such a hiding place. They want to argue, but then don't listen as evolution is shown to be untrue. --So the debate helps no one and it just wastes the creationist's time.
Dr. Hovind's seminars start with the true age of Planet Earth. Once we show that the Earth is young, there was no time for evolution to have supposedly happened. For a person with an open mind, the main problem of considering creation theory is solved.
Please take a look at a few of the 20 debates in the current DVD series. He keeps winning. Again, we can't really devote resources to the one-on-one (with no/small audience) debates or the one-sided anti-science pro-evolution web sites that stand against normalcy.
Here are two sets of illustrations, FREE to download and use in classes:
http://www.creationism.org/books/BibleInPictures/index.htm -and-http://www.creationism.org/images/DoreBibleIllus/index.htm
Sincerely,
Paul Abramson
(seems to like the ENTER key; so I shortened it)
ME TO 'DR DINO'
Dear Paul
I fail to see why you want to be taken seriously by the science community but wish to also spout hard line right winger christian theology; the two are opposite, you know at first I thought you might be someone who doesn't just look in the bible and then re spout it to people who do not follow YOUR beliefs. I know it is Easter time, so I'd like to ask you; did Jesus even exist? there is no record of him before the 3rd century AD; I fail to see what he has to do with a debate (or so called) on the earth, I thought this would be about science, not religion, or is creationism basically that?
Evolution is not criminal, it is simply a differing theory to yours, that doesn't mean people who 'follow' it are evil or sinners; these trivial questions, I'm confused, are these questions YOU can't answer? questions that can't be answered by looking in the bible. you haven't answered any of my questions in my last email, just sent me on a wild goose chase of links, is it just that you can't think of anything solid to say, and have to send me off to other besites which using a scrap of evidence try to compete with a flood (yes, I used it intentionally) of well researched GOOD SCIENCE.
Are you against 1 on 1 'debates' because I can find evidence to the contary quickly and easily, which I could not do in an open talk? I feel that 1 on 1 debates work well, for they can be recorded and I can (attepmt to) address all the points you provide.
Please can we talk science; I am a scientist, I'm not a theologist or a thiest, you wish to dress yourself up as something serious, but all it appears as you can provide for me is fundermentalist thought, stop telling me I'll answer to 'The Lord'; I don't believe that ( no evidence) and deal with some solid cold science. I must thankyou for replying and hope your next responce will deal with something solid.
 |
| The Blue Marble; work of God? |
AFTER THREE ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO CONTACT 'PAUL' I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING:
DR DINO:
Dear Jack,
Still here!
Still answering questions!
But ... I just cannot do Email debates.
Sorry. -Know too much. Can't go back to darkness.
Please ... watch some of Dr. Hovind's seminars and/or debates.
Best Wishes, Paul
AND BACK AGAIN:
Why can't you do email debates? Is it that I can respond with correct facts faster than you can find 'true' ones?
I'd be willing to talk over Skype... but due to time differences it may be a little challenging.
It seems odd that at the beginning of out 'debate' you were happy to reply quickly and efficently, but now you've realised that I can answer your points (and I don't view the Bible as, excusing the pun, gospel are you to give up? good scientists don't tend to give up.
I would watch Dr Hovids seminars, but I find it diffuclt to hear 'science' from someone who has no more qualifications than three degrees from unaccredated organsations... he could at least try.
I await your reply, but fear that you may not be man enough to continue with me
thankyou for your time
Jack
DR DINO:
Dear Jack,
Still here!
Still answering questions!
But ... I just cannot do Email debates.
Sorry. -Know too much. Can't go back to darkness.
Please ... watch some of Dr. Hovind's seminars and/or debates.
Best Wishes, Paul
AND BACK AGAIN:
Why can't you do email debates? Is it that I can respond with correct facts faster than you can find 'true' ones?
I'd be willing to talk over Skype... but due to time differences it may be a little challenging.
It seems odd that at the beginning of out 'debate' you were happy to reply quickly and efficently, but now you've realised that I can answer your points (and I don't view the Bible as, excusing the pun, gospel are you to give up? good scientists don't tend to give up.
I would watch Dr Hovids seminars, but I find it diffuclt to hear 'science' from someone who has no more qualifications than three degrees from unaccredated organsations... he could at least try.
I await your reply, but fear that you may not be man enough to continue with me
thankyou for your time
Jack
No comments:
Post a Comment