Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you think Dr. Behe is just another evolution scientist? He is an avowed creationist and says so right in his own Lehigh University Bio:


faculty


Department Home • Faculty • Post-docs & Research Scientists • Adjuncts • Staff
Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.
Professor
Biochemistry

Department of Biological Sciences
Iacocca Ha ...[text shortened]...

He is not out to learn the truth, only to bend his work to force it to support creationism.

You don't think everyone is out to prove what they think is true?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you think Dr. Behe is just another evolution scientist? He is an avowed creationist and says so right in his own Lehigh University Bio:


faculty


Department Home • Faculty • Post-docs & Research Scientists • Adjuncts • Staff
Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.
Professor
Biochemistry

Department of Biological Sciences
Iacocca Ha ...[text shortened]...

He is not out to learn the truth, only to bend his work to force it to support creationism.

He says, "I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems." That makes him an evolutionists. You are the one that claims he is a creationist. Just because he believes some systems are irreducibly complex and are difficult to explain by Darwinian evolution does not mean he is a creationists. It just means that he sees a problem with the commonly excepted view of evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He says, "I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems." That makes him an evolutionists. You are the one that claims he is a creationist. Just because he believes some systems are irreducibly complex and are difficult to explain by Darwinian evolution does not mean he is a creationists. It just means that he sees a problem with the commonly excepted view of evolution.

No, he is in fact a proponent of 'intelligent design' even though he will never say 'I am a creationist', he is Roman Catholic, so he believes his god created the universe, even if it was billions of years ago.

Here is an interview of Behe in the year 2002 on NPR (National Public Radio) where he lays out his agenda:

http://ncse.com/rncse/22/1-2/michael-behe-intelligent-design-national-public-radio

This is not video, you actually have to read it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, he is in fact a proponent of 'intelligent design' even though he will never say 'I am a creationist', he is Roman Catholic, so he believes his god created the universe, even if it was billions of years ago.

Here is an interview of Behe in the year 2002 on NPR (National Public Radio) where he lays out his agenda:

http://ncse.com/rncse/22/1-2/micha ...[text shortened]... ehe-intelligent-design-national-public-radio

This is not video, you actually have to read it.

A new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA has vindicated Michael Behe in one of the central controversies over his 2007 book The Edge of Evolution.

A minimum of two mutations sufficed for (low) CQ transport activity, and as few as four conferred full activity. ... The findings presented here reveal that the minimum requirement for (low) CQ transport activity in both the ET and TD lineages of CQR PfCRT is two mutations.

(Summers et al., "Diverse mutational pathways converge on saturable chloroquine transport via the malaria parasite's chloroquine resistance transporter," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 111: E1759-E1767 (April 29, 2014).)

Why does it matter? As Dr. Behe explained, this was a major point of contention among critics of his book. They claimed that Behe mistakenly thought chloroquine resistance required multiple simultaneous mutations, when in actuality it could arise through sequential mutations, each conferring a successively greater resistance-advantage. It can no longer be denied that the critics were dead wrong: chloroquine resistance does not arise at all until two mutations or more are present.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe087901.html

Roman Catholics accept evolution {properly understood}. They do not have a problem with it as Protestant Christians do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]A new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA has vindicated Michael Behe in one of the central controversies over his 2007 book The Edge of Evolution.

[quote]A minimum of two mutations sufficed for (low) CQ transport activity, and as few as four conferred full activity. ... The findings presented here reveal that the minimum ...[text shortened]... volution {properly understood}. They do not have a problem with it as Protestant Christians do.[/b]

The fact the Academy of Sciences agrees with that one paper does not in any way mean they agree with his agenda. He is a closet creationist pure and simple. His brand of intelligent design allows for a billion + year old universe.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The fact the Academy of Sciences agrees with that one paper does not in any way mean they agree with his agenda. He is a closet creationist pure and simple. His brand of intelligent design allows for a billion + year old universe.

He identifies himself as an evolutionist, with certain disagreements with Darwin's viewpoint, which is also true of other evolutionist. Just because he was raised Roman Catholic and not as an atheist does not mean he can not be an evolutionist. You said you were raised in some odd Christian religion, yet you also claim to be an evolutionist. So should I then declare you a liar for that?

Originally posted by RJHinds
He identifies himself as an evolutionist, with certain disagreements with Darwin's viewpoint, which is also true of other evolutionist. Just because he was raised Roman Catholic and not as an atheist does not mean he can not be an evolutionist. You said you were raised in some odd Christian religion, yet you also claim to be an evolutionist. So should I then declare you a liar for that?

They ATTEMPTED to brainwash me in that Pentacostal cult but I opted out at the age of 8. I knew they were nutters at that age. And I am totally grateful to have been though that experience and to see through it even at the age of 8.

Behe is a scientist who agrees with the general idea of evolution but if cornered by the religious right, I am sure he would agree that "intelligent design' has to include supernatural control.

Originally posted by sonhouse
They ATTEMPTED to brainwash me in that Pentacostal cult but I opted out at the age of 8. I knew they were nutters at that age. And I am totally grateful to have been though that experience and to see through it even at the age of 8.

Behe is a scientist who agrees with the general idea of evolution but if cornered by the religious right, I am sure he would agree that "intelligent design' has to include supernatural control.

If that is the implication of the evidence, then why not speak the truth?

Originally posted by sonhouse
They ATTEMPTED to brainwash me in that Pentacostal cult but I opted out at the age of 8. I knew they were nutters at that age. And I am totally grateful to have been though that experience and to see through it even at the age of 8.

Behe is a scientist who agrees with the general idea of evolution but if cornered by the religious right, I am sure he would agree that "intelligent design' has to include supernatural control.

What is a Pentacostal cult? Cults typically have a leader, at least all of those I'm aware of.
You had some guy/gal that was leading the church so that they believed in just him/her?

Originally posted by KellyJay
What is a Pentacostal cult? Cults typically have a leader, at least all of those I'm aware of.
You had some guy/gal that was leading the church so that they believed in just him/her?

Pretty much. Mind you, I was like 6 when I first went there and saw a lot of crazy stuff, people rolling around in the isles, literally, speaking in tongues, whatever that is and such. The only time I liked there was when the kids in a quartet sang a song that stuck with me,
"Peace in the Valley', those kids sounded angelic. They had great talent but were not allowed to take their abilities any further.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What is a Pentacostal cult? Cults typically have a leader, at least all of those I'm aware of.
You had some guy/gal that was leading the church so that they believed in just him/her?

Pentecostalism emerged in the early 20th century among radical adherents of the Holiness movement who were energized by revivalism and expectation for the imminent Second Coming of Christ. In 1900, Charles Parham, an American evangelist and faith healer, began teaching that speaking in tongues was the Bible evidence of Spirit baptism. The three-year-long Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, California, resulted in the spread of Pentecostalism throughout the United States and the rest of the world as visitors carried the Pentecostal experience back to their home churches or felt called to the mission field. While virtually all Pentecostal denominations trace their origins to Azusa Street, the movement has experienced a variety of divisions and controversies. An early dispute centered on challenges to the doctrine of the Trinity. As a result, the Pentecostal Movement is divided between trinitarian and non-trinitarian branches.

Comprising over 700 denominations and a large number of independent churches, there is no central authority governing Pentecostalism; however, many denominations are affiliated with the Pentecostal World Fellowship.

Albert Benjamin Simpson and his Christian and Missionary Alliance was very influential in the early years of Pentecostalism, especially on the development of the Assemblies of God. Another early influence on Pentecostals was John Alexander Dowie and his Christian Catholic Apostolic Church. The teachings of Simpson, Dowie, Adoniram Judson Gordon and Maria Woodworth-Etter (she later joined the Pentecostal movement) on healing were embraced by Pentecostals. Edward Irving's Catholic Apostolic Church also shared many characteristics later found in the Pentecostal revival.

There was no one founder of Pentecostalism. Instead, isolated Christian groups were experiencing charismatic phenomena such as divine healing and speaking in tongues. The Wesleyan holiness movement provided a theological explanation for what was happening to these Christians. They adapted Wesleyan soteriology to accommodate their new understanding. Pentecostalism's Wesleyan-holiness heritage distinguishes it from the rest of Evangelicalism, which has roots in Christian Fundamentalism.

Charles Fox Parham, an independent holiness evangelist who believed strongly in divine healing, was an important figure to the emergence of Pentecostalism as a distinct Christian movement. In 1905, Parham moved to Houston, Texas, where he started a Bible training school. One of his students was William J. Seymour, a one-eyed black preacher. Seymour traveled to Los Angeles where his preaching sparked the three-year-long Azusa Street Revival in 1906.

Because speaking in tongues was initially believed to always be actual foreign languages, it was believed that missionaries would no longer have to learn the languages of the peoples they evangelized because the Holy Spirit would provide whatever foreign language was required. (When the majority of missionaries, to their disappointment, learned that tongues speech was unintelligible on the mission field, Pentecostal leaders were forced to modify their understanding of tongues.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism

United Pentecostal Church

Cult Beliefs:

- the ability to speak in tongues is a necessary indication of a valid religious conversion

- the practice of baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ only

- water baptism is essential to salvation

- God is not a trinity but is a unity, a Spirit, who has manifested himself in three roles to humanity

- there is no salvation outside of the United Pentecostal church

http://www.eaec.org/cults/unitedpentecostal.htm

Originally posted by sonhouse
Pretty much. Mind you, I was like 6 when I first went there and saw a lot of crazy stuff, people rolling around in the isles, literally, speaking in tongues, whatever that is and such. The only time I liked there was when the kids in a quartet sang a song that stuck with me,
"Peace in the Valley', those kids sounded angelic. They had great talent but were not allowed to take their abilities any further.

I identify myself as a Christian nothing else, but I've had the experience people call
Pentecostal, and I agree with you that there are some who claim this I'd run away from.

That does not mean it is all false, that God does not work through people still in the here
and now.

I agree with you on music, angelic is a good way to describe some of the music. I however
cannot think of anything better than praising God with people, I don't see anything being
better than that, so there isn't anything to go further too unless you think pleasing people
is better than pleasing God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Pentecostalism emerged in the early 20th century among radical adherents of the Holiness movement who were energized by revivalism and expectation for the imminent Second Coming of Christ. In 1900, Charles Parham, an American evangelist and faith healer, began teaching that speaking in tongues was the Bible evidence of Spirit baptism. The three-year-long Azu ...[text shortened]... tion outside of the United Pentecostal church

http://www.eaec.org/cults/unitedpentecostal.htm

I am aware thanks.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am aware thanks.

Okay. I was just making sure.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Pentecostalism emerged in the early 20th century among radical adherents of the Holiness movement who were energized by revivalism and expectation for the imminent Second Coming of Christ. In 1900, Charles Parham, an American evangelist and faith healer, began teaching that speaking in tongues was the Bible evidence of Spirit baptism. The three-year-long Azu ...[text shortened]... tion outside of the United Pentecostal church

http://www.eaec.org/cults/unitedpentecostal.htm

cult beliefs:
- the practice of baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ only

Can you show us just one place in the New Testament where the diciples baptised in any other method than this?