|
MARK L. BAKKE'S
  Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 Last Update: 23 Apr 99 Return to "Religion" essay Back to Philosophy page Please feel free to E-mail me with your own comments on this issue or on anything else included in my Philosophy of Life section. Debate is good!
Please report any problems with this page to the
Webmaster!
|
|
REPLY #69 TO
"RELIGION"
Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
 Italicized/emphasized comments prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited. My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB). NOTE: This is a compilation of a series of e-mail messages sent to me by the respondent in Reply #68i which refers to the questions concerning a proposed debate on evolution/origin of life he asked at the end of the response. It should be noted that the first eight parts of my response to him in Reply #68 have, as of this posting, gone completely unanswered. [First response, 27 Mar 99] (R) Hello! I got your e-mail and should hopefully send a response shortly. Your reply was #68 to Religion. I have a couple questions for you. 1. Where do you live? (MB) I live in Augusta, GA. Where do you live? (R) 2. Would you be interested in participating in a live debate on the origin of life? (MB) What sort of forum would you propose for such a debate? Also, would this be meant to be a refutation/defense of evolution? This should not be the case since evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. (R) Talk to you soon. Acts 4:12 (MB) "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is one other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Say what? [Second response, 29 Mar 99] (R) I live in California. Too bad, I'm sure the debate would be interesting. Unless you want to fly out here. The debate would be on the origin of life, which evolutionists proudly claim "has nothing to do with evolution" because of thier inability to come up with a logical answer. Bypassing the important question isn't good science, just blind faith. (MB) Evolutionists don't avoid the question of the origin of life. They just realize that it is a separate question that is not contained within evolution theory. Evolution is the theory of how life on planet Earth has progressed and diverged *after* it began. How life actually originated is beside the point. It is only *after* life began that evolution could enter the picture. Life first...then comes evolution. Not the other way around. BTW, the origin of the universe is also not something that falls under evolution theory. The "important question" is not being bypassed at all. If you want to debate evolution, let's debate evolution. If you want to debate primordial biology, I can go there, too. But don't confuse the two. Such confusion is what is not good science. Now, if you wanted to debate the origin of life in any sort of formal setting, you would have to state a formal and detailed positive proposition that you wished to affirm. What would your proposition be? [Third response, 01 Apr 99] (R) I have a friend of a friend who is a medical doctor who is looking for someone to debate on the origin of life. (MB) There are certainly no lack of professional scientists who would be more than willing to give Eastman's ideas a thorough beating in a formal debate. Has he approached any of them with debate challenges? Or is he looking for somebody he feels will be "easier pickings"? (R) I would not be the one debating you. I am only 18 and hardly qualified. (MB) Yet, you certainly sound confident that what you preach is undeniable truth. It's difficult to defend that position while admitting to be young and unqualified. (R) You can check out his website at www.marshill.org. (MB) From what I've seen on that site, it looks like I've been debating Eastman all along. I already found that several of your major arguments were copied verbatim from what is posted on that site. This is probably why you seem reluctant to follow up on them after my refutations. Since you didn't devise them in the first place, it would be difficult to defend them. (R) The origin of life is a separate question, but I still haven't heard a reasonable answer to the problem. Biogenesis states that life only comes from life. (MB) Biogenesis is not the be-all and end-all of the issue. You're also going to have to delve into organic chemistry and abiogenesis to find your answers. Creationists aren't going to supply any of them. I would strongly advise you to read real books by real scientists before committing your life to Creationist frauds. [Fourth response, 01 Apr 99] (R) If you are referring to Eastman, he has debated before. He has tried to get professors to debate him before but they refuse. (MB) Which professors were these? Does he follow in the footsteps of William Lane Craig and offer to debate only those professors who aren't experts in what he wishes them to debate? Also, there's a question of whether or not those professors consider the guy to be somebody worthy of the time and effort it would take to debate. Lots of people have contrary opinions and throw out challenges. Few of them are more than hot air. (R) Why don't you start a conversation with him? I am sure he would be more than willing to talk with you. (MB) I'm sure he would, too. I'm sure that there are thousands of other amateur and professional apologists who might feel the same way. What's so special about this particular guy? Why don't you tell him to check out my web site and see if there's anything he wishes to comment on? Yet, you certainly sound confident that what you preach is undeniable truth. It's difficult to defend that position while admitting to be young and unqualified. (R) I said I was unqualified in debating the origin of life. I am more confident in debates on Christianity. (MB) Even though you seem to rely primarily on copied material? I already found that several of your major arguments were copied verbatim from what is posted on that site. This is probably why you seem reluctant to follow up on them after my refutations. Since you didn't devise them in the first place, it would be difficult to defend them. (R) Which arguments were copied verbatim? (MB) The one that stood out most prominently was the one on Daniel and Artaxerxes and the bogus calculation of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. It strains the imagination to think that you could have constructed this on your own and exactly matched the wording, sentence order, paragraph division and punctuation of the essay posted on the Mars Hill site. (R) I am only reluctant to follow up because it seems you have already made up your mind no matter how much truth you are presented with. (MB) Even if that was the case, why should that be a problem for you? If you really have truth on your side, you should have no difficulty whatsoever in presenting it. I know that your mind is solidly made up and is not subject to change, but that doesn't stop me from responding to what you write. (R) The law of biogenesis is pretty easy to understand. No matter how much you try to get around it, evolution breaks the law. (MB) Please explain your understanding of this "law" and how evolution breaks it. [Fifth response, 02 Apr 99] Which professors were these? Does he follow in the footsteps of William Lane Craig and offer to debate only those professors who aren't experts in what he wishes them to debate? Also, there's a question of whether or not those professors consider the guy to be somebody worthy of the time and effort it would take to debate. Lots of people have contrary opinions and throw out challenges. Few of them are more than hot air. (R) He has asked several professors at UCI here in California. (MB) Who are they? Are any of them recognized experts in the field? Certainly, UCI isn't the only place in academia where professors can be found. Doesn't Eastman extend his challenges nationwide? (R) When has William Craig done this? I know he successfully defeated, and defeated, Frank Zindler in an Atheism vs Christianity debate. Why wouldn't he be a worthy opponent? He certainly has the credentials. (MB) Frank Zindler is a biologist, not a philosopher or theologian, nor was he experienced in these sorts of debates. Craig's most interesting debate refusal to date is his running from Doug Krueger. Craig's reason for refusing to debate this recognized expert is that Krueger "doesn't have a PhD". Funny how that didn't stop Craig from taking on Zindler (who also does not have a PhD). You may also wish to investigate why Craig eagerly pushes tapes and transcripts of his debate with Zindler while steadfastly refusing to authorize publication of any of the many debates in which he has been trounced. I'm sure he would, too. I'm sure that there are thousands of other amateur and professional apologists who might feel the same way? What's so special about this particular guy? Why don't you tell him to check out my web site and see if there's anything he wishes to comment on? (R) I'll tell him, but I don't see why you couldn't. (MB) Because I don't go out actively seeking these folks. If they want to approach me, that's fine, but there's simply too many of them for me to take them all on individually. You didn't say why this particular guy is so special. Even though you seem to rely primarily on copied material? (R) I said I have used other resources of course. (MB) Indeed. However, if you copy material liberally and verbatim from those other resources, it is proper to give credit to them. Otherwise, what you write is considered to be your own work. The one that stood out most prominently was the one on Daniel and Artaxerxes and the bogus calculation of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. It strains the imagination to think that you could have constructed this on your own and exactly matched the wording, sentence order, paragraph division and punctuation of the essay posted on the Mars Hill site. (R) I thought it was fairly obvious I didn't come up with this myself. I'm not that smart. I did use Eastman's material. So what? (MB) Like I said, it is proper to give credit where credit is due to avoid any false impression that this is your own work. Also, when you just copy something from another source and can't answer follow-up questions or rebuttals, it shows that you don't have any genuine understanding of the material that was copied. You would be better advised to include URLs for this material so it could be read from the original source. Even if that was the case, why should that be a problem for you? If you really have truth on your side, you should have no difficulty whatsoever in presenting it. I know that your mind is solidly made up and is not subject to change, but that doesn't stop me from responding to what you write. (R) It's not the difficulty in presenting it, it's the difficulty in getting it through to other people. (MB) That's a cop-out. You can't rescue a bad argument by blaming the person who sees the flaws in it. This is the most common problem in apologetics. Please explain your understanding of this "law" and how evolution breaks it. (R) Simple. Life comes from life. Evolution teaches that non-living material produced living material, a direct violation. (MB) Evolution teaches no such thing. Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life so there is no possibility that your statement is true. I don't know how you are going to successfully argue against evolution if you don't know what it says. Now, it should be fairly obvious that living things are made up of the exact same elements as non-living things. I doubt you are going to try to claim that a carbon atom, for example, is alive. The only difference between living and non-living things is in the arrangement of those basic elements. [Sixth response, 03 Apr 99] Who are they? Are any of them recognized experts in the field? Certainly, UCI isn't the only place in academia where professors can be found. Doesn't Eastman extend his challenges nationwide? (R) I would have to talk with Eastman to get their names. I e-mailed him to check out your site. I hope he does. (MB) I'll let you know if he does. For your information, I've searched the Internet for further information on any of Eastman's debates and it is non-existent. If he has debated anybody, no transcripts seem to exist and no commentary on them has ever been posted. The only references to Eastman at all were inclusions of his name in lists of apologists participating in Bible study or Creationism seminars. Frank Zindler is a biologist, not a philosopher or theologian, nor was he experienced in these sorts of debates. Craig's most interesting debate refusal to date is his running from Doug Krueger. Craig's reason for refusing to debate this recognized expert is that Krueger "doesn't have a PhD". Funny how that didn't stop Craig from taking on Zindler (who also does not have a PhD). You may also wish to investigate why Craig eagerly pushes tapes and transcripts of his debate with Zindler while steadfastly refusing to authorize publication of any of the many debates in which he has been trounced. (R) Rob Sherman, spokesman for athiests, was asked to find the best debater on athiesm that he could for a debate. This is what Sherman did. He picked Zindler from a host of other choices. Why would he pick someone unqualified? (MB) You really need to check out your sources instead of blindly believing everything they tell you. Sherman is a free-lance agitator who loves to pick legal fights against religious groups. He is a "spokesman for atheism" only in the respect that he is very vocal and has made a bit of a name for himself through his activities. He is not a philosopher or a theologian nor is he a debate veteran. He is not a representative of American Atheists or any other national organization. There is no reason to believe that he is unquestionably capable of choosing debate opponents for Craig. Why would Craig go to (or *claim* to go to) Sherman when there are so many other people or organizations who are far more capable of debating him or selecting qualified opponents? In fact, such organizations *have* picked opponents for Craig in the past and have been rejected. (R) Which debates has he been beaten in? I would like to hear these if possible. (MB) Probably the most famous one is the Craig-Washington debate of 1995. Craig fought a few legal battles to block publication of the transcript of this debate and lost. Because I don't go out actively seeking these folks. If they want to approach me, that's fine, but there's simply too many of them for me to take them all on individually. You didn't say why this particular guy is so special. (R) This is understandable. He is special just because he is an intelligent, well qualified man who has a great way of debating. (MB) There are a great many people who could have such claims made in favor of them and many more who have them made in their favor who don't deserve them. Indeed. However, if you copy material liberally and verbatim from those other resources, it is proper to give credit to them. Otherwise, what you write is considered to be your own work. (R) You are right. I am sorry. Will you forgive me? I didn't think it was that big of a deal at the time. From now on I will try to properly quote my sources. (MB) You should have run across this any time you've done a term paper for school work. I doubt your instructors will let you get away with not providing citations for material that is copied from another source. Now, there is such a thing as "fair use" that does not require documentation, but verbatim copying is not one of them. It's not so much that it's a reflection on the person doing the copying, but it does rob the originating source of proper credit and makes verification of the material more difficult. Like I said, it is proper to give credit where credit is due to avoid any false impression that this is your own work. Also, when you just copy something from another source and can't answer follow-up questions or rebuttals, it shows that you don't have any genuine understanding of the material that was copied. You would be better advised to include URLs for this material so it could be read from the original source. (R) Like I said, I am sorry. I can follow up with rebuttals, but I don't have hours to spend. I am very busy with school and work. (MB) I work for a living, too, you know. But, if you're going to get actively involved in serious debate, you're going to have to be willing to invest the time that is required to do a proper job. There's no problem with stating your opinion and leaving it at that, but debate that is aimed at finding real answers to questions takes more effort. That's a cop-out. You can't rescue a bad argument by blaming the person who sees the flaws in it. This is the most common problem in apologetics. (R) So I couldn't blame a person who continued to believe in a flat earth even though he was shown pictures of the earth from space? (MB) That's the exact opposite of what I said. Here you don't have a bad argument. You have solid and unquestionable evidence that the Earth is not flat and a person who stubbornly refuses to believe that evidence. Evolution teaches no such thing. Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life so there is no possibility that your statement is true. I don't know how you are going to successfully argue against evolution if you don't know what it says. Now, it should be fairly obvious that living things are made up of the exact same elements as non-living things. I doubt you are going to try to claim that a carbon atom, for example, is alive. The only difference between living and non-living things is in the arrangement of those basic elements. (R) They may not directly refer to it as evolution, but it is certainly found in text books and literature as being part of the evolutionary process. (MB) That's not true and no science textbook would say such a thing and hope to have any credibility. Evolution is clearly defined as beginning only *after* life has emerged. No life, no evolution. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Now, it is true that many books on evolution contain chapters that deal with the origin of life. This is fine and it certainly helps answer other questions, but such chapters are not talking about evolution. (R) What is the most important part of science? (MB) The continual examination and questioning of all evidence and all theories. This is the only way to ensure that they are sound. There is nothing in science that relies upon blind faith and nothing that is immune from questioning or from being revised or overturned. [Seventh response, 04 Apr 99] I'll let you know if he does. For your information, I've searched the Internet for further information on any of Eastman's debates and it is non-existent. If he has debated anybody, no transcripts seem to exist and no commentary on them has ever been posted. The only references to Eastman at all were inclusions of his name in lists of apologists participating in Bible study or Creationism seminars. (R) I am not sure if the transcripts have been posted on the internet. I have a video of him debating a man by the name of Joe Tyndale. (MB) Who??? Who is "Joe Tyndale"? The only "Tyndale" I know of is the famous William Tyndale, the man who first translated the Bible into English. (R) Craig didn't go to Sherman. Lee Strobel met with Sherman one day. They decided to have a debate, each man picking the best choice for each side. (MB) Lee Strobel is a associate pastor at Willow Creek Community Church and is the author of such scholarly tomes as "What Jesus Would Say to Bart Simpson" and "What Jesus Would Say to Rush Limbaugh". One wonders why Strobel and Sherman didn't debate each other rather than going to surrogates. (R) You still didn't answer why Sherman would pick an unqualified debater. (MB) Given his lack of credentials, I can only assume that he didn't know any better. Probably the most famous one is the Craig-Washington debate of 1995. Craig fought a few legal battles to block publication of the transcript of this debate and lost. (R) Where can I see the transcripts of this? (MB) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/corey_washington/craig-washington/intro.html (R) I didn't exactly consider this a term paper. I wanted to find good arguments and so I got them out of books. (MB) It's still proper to give credit when using somebody else's material. The fact that you weren't writing a term paper is irrelevant. (R) I don't think Daniel's Seventy Weeks is copied verbatim from Eastman's website. (MB) Perhaps you should look at: http://www.marshill.org/70weeks.htm I work for a living, too, you know. But, if you're going to get actively involved in serious debate, you're going to have to be willing to invest the time that is required to do a proper job. There's no problem with stating your opinion and leaving it at that, but debate that is aimed at finding real answers to questions takes more effort. (R) What do you do for a living? You are right, this is taking a lot of time. (MB) I'm an Army SSG assigned as an instructor at the Army Computer Science School at Ft. Gordon, GA. That's in the Military bio posted on my site. That's the exact opposite of what I said. Here you don't have a bad argument. You have solid and unquestionable evidence that the Earth is not flat and a person who stubbornly refuses to believe that evidence. (R) And this is exactly the evidence that has been presented to you. (MB) You have presented "solid and unquestionable evidence"?!?!?! About what? Have you actually read the refutations that I posted? I know it was nine parts long, but you really should read it before making foolish claims. That's not true and no science textbook would say such a thing and hope to have any credibility. Evolution is clearly defined as beginning only *after* life has emerged. No life, no evolution. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Now, it is true that many books on evolution contain chapters that deal with the origin of life. This is fine and it certainly helps answer other questions, but such chapters are not talking about evolution. (R) What is your best explanation for the origin of life? (MB) Have we finally cleared up the question of whether or not evolution includes the origin of life? If so, do you want to debate evolution (as you said originally) or do you want to debate the origin of life? As soon as you figure that out, let me know and we'll go there. In the meantime, am I ever going to get any answers to the questions I put to you concerning the defense of Creationism? Just to refresh your memory, they were:
The continual examination and questioning of all evidence and all theories. This is the only way to ensure that they are sound. There is nothing in science that relies upon blind faith and nothing that is immune from questioning or from being revised or overturned. (R) This would include observation I presume? (MB) Of course. Observation is a major part of scientific investigation. It's something else that's so sorely lacking in religious belief. [Eighth response, 06 Apr 99] Given his lack of credentials, I can only assume that he didn't know any better. (R) Is this really plausible? (MB) It's not only plausible, it's highly likely. Perhaps you should look at: http://www.marshill.org/70weeks.htm (R) Yes, and? (MB) And, you wanted to know where the 70 weeks prophecy was copied from. That's it. You have presented "solid and unquestionable evidence"?!?!?! About what? Have you actually read the refutations that I posted? I know it was nine parts long, but you really should read it before making foolish claims. (R) Yes, I did. The answers you are looking for can be found in an apologetic book. Try "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mcdowell. (MB) No, they can't be found in that book. If they could, I wouldn't have posted the questions. McDowell has been thoroughly refuted any number of times. For an extensive treatment, check out the material at this link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/ Have we finally cleared up the question of whether or not evolution includes the origin of life? If so, do you want to debate evolution (as you said originally) or do you want to debate the origin of life? As soon as you figure that out, let me know and we'll go there. In the meantime, am I ever going to get any answers to the questions I put to you concerning the defense of Creationism? Just to refresh your memory, they were: (R) Did I say evolution included the origin of life in the above question? (MB) Creationism always attempts to lump evolution together with the origin of life. Sometimes they try to make evolution explain the origin of the universe! Am I going to get an answer as to what you actually want to debate? (R) The answers to your questions, again, can be found in a Creation science book. (MB) In that case, the answers to all of your questions can be found in a *real* science book. See how unsatisfying those sorts of evasive answers are? Why are you so dead set against answering any of my questions about Creationism? And, don't just shuffle me off to Henry Morris or Duane Gish. I've read them. I've analyzed many of their claims in the replies already posted to my Evolution vs. Creationism section. I want to hear what *you* believe. Creationism is not science in any way, shape, or form. It is Christian fundamentalist apologetics, pure and simple. There is not one single claim of Creationism that has ever withstood critical scrutiny. Why don't you explain how one critical cornerstone of Creationism -- the Ark story -- is "science" instead of religious mythology? Of course. Observation is a major part of scientific investigation. It's something else that's so sorely lacking in religious belief. (R) Which model does observation fit with? I observe whales producing whales, bacteria producing bacteria, and humans producing humans. What do you observe? (MB) I observe that you need to take a real course in biology to learn how evolution works rather than letting the Creationists tell you what to believe. Or, you could start with reading Darwin's Origin of Species and learn about what natural selection, descent with modification and speciation really are. (R) If whales did evolve from single-celled organisms, as evolution teaches, where is the observation? They have an idea, they certainly have a conclusion, but no observation. (MB) The observation is called "the fossil record". Now, before you start quoting chapter and verse from Duane Gish at me, why don't you read my responses posted to my Evolution vs. Creationism section and see where I've already refuted the standard Gishian junk?
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 23 Apr 99
E-mail: mlbakke1@bakkster.com Earthlink Network Home Page |