Creation Mon, 24 Apr 17 01:33:16 -0400 Creation en-CA Privillaged Opportunity. Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:56:47 -0500 truth13reigns 68@/forum/discussions My name is Ron. I come from just outside London, England. I regret to say that I come to this site with no serious academic qualifications. I certainly don't come from a scientific background.
I am a Christian with an open and very inquisitive mind. The more I learn and discover, the more I have personally become convinced in the validity of a Creator, Designer God.
 At the same time, I have become more and more disenchanted and convinced that the Darwinian view that all life is the product of unguided naturalistic processes is just completely unsatisfactory.
I am absolutely convinced on the basis of the evidence (witch I won't go into here at the moment)
that the universe and life have an intelligent cause and purpose.

When I was young I lived very near the Natural History Museum in London, it's a beautiful building and I was a regular visitor. As you enter, immediately on you right hand side there is a huge statue of Charles Darwin.  This whole place is a huge shrine to his and his followers unquestioning closed world view. However the building and gardens surrounding it are beautiful and  well worth a visit if you haven't already done so.

I find it so frustrating that when school children visit that place they are taught with such unquestioning certainty that Darwin's view of science can be the only valid explanation of all reality.
No descent or opposition will be tolerated.

It appears to be the same with the whole British establishment including the BBC.

I also find it frustrating that eminent respected people like Professor Brian Cox and David Atenborough and their ilk talk about evolution as if it is an established undeniable fact.

Michael Gove, the minister for education here is now saying that Evolution must be taught to primary aged school children. Richard Dawkins doing somersaults of joy. I'm not talking about variation in species or some examples of natural selection con firing  advantageous survival traits.

Even the name of Darwin's book, is so misleading,The Origin of Species. As far as I understand it the scientists from that side of the argument have not even come close to explaining the origin of life and the universe.

Now this is my problem.
There is practically nobody among my family and friends, that are even remotely interested in this subject.
I am not a regular church goer.  I certainly never come into contact with anybody that is interested in scientific matters. If I were to mention Stephen Meyer and Signature in the Cell, or Michael Behe and Darwin's black box.
I'm not joking, they would think I was mad. I tried to engage a friend the other day about the wonder of protein  synthesis whilst I was trying to educate myself on the internet about the phenomenon of all life only having left handed amino acids. He ran from me as if I had the plague.
Can you imagine how frustrating this.

So this is why I turned up here.
I need your Help!
 I'm looking for a buddy or a mentor or a friend that would be prepared to help when I need to talk to somebody, and maybe sometimes share a bit of your knowledge with me.
Critics on the other side of this debate will accuse me of indulging in confirmation bias. I don't think I am. I am trying to employ a bit of critical thinking, and to discover some nuggets of truth that will equip me to challenge some of the misconceptions that are being forced on us all.

Interestingly I'm sure there are many people just like me that are fed up with being mislead and lied to.
If any body feels they would like to help me let me know. I would be grateful.  I am looking forward to trawling through the posts and maybe participating a little.
Thanks. Ron 
How do organic molecules know where to go? Thu, 02 Aug 2012 01:23:55 -0400 rkandreasen 58@/forum/discussions
How do all of these molecules know to do this?  It seems like they are all acting with purpose.  Is there a deeper biochemistry that I am not aware of?  My degree was marine biology, not molecular biology, so is there really a lot more chaos than what is taught in your high school biology book? 

Respectfully submitted,
C4ID conference Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:34:14 -0400 Simon 59@/forum/discussions What Todd Wood would like to hear an evolutionary creationist say Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:56:31 -0500 AnthonySmith 23@/forum/discussions Colossian Forum is some new thing trying to promote discussion on issues of science, culture and Christian faith. They invited young-age creationist Todd Wood to write an article for them on What I Would Like to Hear an Evolutionary Creationist Say. So what would Todd Wood like to hear an evolutionary creationist say?

"I don't know."
Perhaps when people ask if Christian theology is compatible with evolution, the first answer should be, “I don’t know.”

He continues,
As a young age creationist, let me take this opportunity to follow my own advice and publicly express my ignorance. If creationism is true, why can we see starlight from stars millions of light years away? I don’t know. If creationism is true, what does radiometric dating mean? I don’t know. If creationism is true, why do humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical genomes? I don’t know. Just like evolutionary creationists wrestling with theological issues, though, young-age creationists have proposed all sorts of answers to the above questions. Some weren’t very good ideas, but others are quite intriguing. And just like evolutionary approaches to theology, there is no single creationist scientific model that most creationists would accept.

And in conclusion,
When it comes to the origins fight, maybe the key is to follow Christ’s example. Maybe the only way we’ll ever resolve the war is through surrender. Maybe in surrender, we’ll find out what real victory is. Maybe we’ll find that confessing ignorance is the first step towards finding God’s truth. Maybe we’ll discover that asking for wisdom is just what God wanted us to do all along. Most important of all, maybe we’ll find that we can humbly ask for wisdom together, and in doing so, the world really will see something different about us.
A new "Monkey Bill" Thu, 17 May 2012 09:17:24 -0400 Simon 51@/forum/discussions


]]> Should creationism be taught in schools? Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:15:07 -0500 AnthonySmith 22@/forum/discussions

I've linked to the Michael Reiss clip, because I think it is very clear and reasonable. His view is that creationism should not be presented in school as though it had wide acceptance within mainstream scientific circles, but that discussion of the topic should be welcomed, in the interests of promoting respectful understanding of those who understand things differently. This would help the creationist students to learn about evolution in a non-threatening way, and as this would help the atheist students to understand what it is like to have a religious faith.]]>
Discussions with Creationists Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:23:36 -0400 exchemist 54@/forum/discussions

Debating with Creationists

   Debate between scientists and creationists seems to be repeatedly hobbled by a failure to reach a common understanding on the same small core of central scientific ideas, and/or on a couple of key aspects of  debating technique. The writer believes these basic principles need to be tabled in advance and any disagreement smoked out and either settled or parked, before it is worth engaging in more specific discussions.

Matters of Science

1) Nature of Scientific Theories
a) In natural science, all theories are mere models of the reality of nature. As such they are always provisional and subject to revision if observations are found that do not fit them. An observation that fits serves to confirm the theory but can never “prove” it, as science is always open to the possibility that a future observation may be found that does not fit and thus calls some aspect of it into question. Indeed, most theories do have aspects that are in question. This is a normal state and does not generally mean the theory needs to be overturned. 
b) Valid scientific theories must not only account for current observations but must enable testable predictions to be made, i.e. it must be possible to envisage what further observations would test whether it works. 
2) Distinction between Evolution and the Origins of Life
While evolution is a theory to explain the origin of species, it does not purport to explain the origin of life itself. This is another, more speculative, topic called “abiogenesis”. The theory of evolution does not depend on any particular theory of abiogenesis.
3) Predictions of Evolution
Like other scientific theories, evolution makes testable predictions. Examples would be where in the geological column fossils of related lineages should be found, and that the similarity in the DNA of organisms should depend on how far they are from a common ancestor.

Matters of Debating Technique

4) Intellectual Honesty
Refrain from misrepresenting authorities by quoting them out of context (so-called “quote mining”).  
5) Disciplined Argument
Address points made in debate and counterarguments raised, before introducing new ones.

Stephen Meyer - 17th Nov Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:24:08 -0500 Simon 20@/forum/discussions
Meyer's lecture was truly awful. I was sat next to a pro vice chancellor of a Russell group university (I'm not supposed to divulge who else was at the event) who left pretty much as soon as the lecture was over saying he didn't have time for this drivel. To be fair I was expecting something much better from so senior an ID person and was disappointed. He started with a brief overview of natural selection followed by a more detailed (but stumbly) description of the cellular transcription/translation machinery. He then showed all the usual calculations of why a functional protein sequence can't have evolved by chance, followed by a really confused attempt to explain how the information content cannot have evolved by necessity (ie physical laws). This was the worst bit of his lecture by a long way - something about bonds between base-pairs in DNA not being able to self assemble. He really did not spend enough time explaining his reasoning on this point and sort of jumped quickly to his conclusion (he was running late at this point) by saying since the cellular machinery was so complex, it must have been intelligent design.

I was hoping for a much better talk from so well known a speaker, but basically it boiled down to the incredulity argument coupled with a God of the gaps conclusion. The event reminded me of why I no longer bother to read any of the ID literature, and generally consider anyone who takes ID seriously as either being naive about science or alternatively a bit stupid.]]>
C4ID activity watch Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:09:42 -0400 Simon 43@/forum/discussions

What is the root of creationists' objection to evolution? Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:49:30 -0400 exchemist 41@/forum/discussions
Can any contributor explain why this would be, or correct me if I've misunderstood the the issue?