Well, to be fair to religion, those employed by the “biased, pro-Christian” Catholic Church also agree that evolution is good science, as do many religious people.

First of all the main logical argument of the student is that here exist no relative or complementry ideas just absolute ones. So there is no evil because evil is just the absense of God because God is Good. Well this may look convincing but it’s actually a tautology. Counter example : Peace and war. You can say that war is the absense of peace but would you really claim that war does not exist ?

To backup up this argument he uses examples from physics and there he really messes up.

1) Heat is the amount of energy exchange between 2 bodies caused by temperature differences. It is not an absolut quantity that a single body has. But it is well defined and measurable. Cold is a common word and not a physical quantity. But when comparing 2 bodies of different temperature you can always ssay which is hotter and which is colder. He also confuses heat with temperature saying that it can’t be negative. Actually it can.

2)” It (he means science) uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one”

Wrong, wrong ,wrong. First of all we can measure electromagnetic fields and yes we have understood them pretty well just google “maxwells equations” and “quantum electrodynamics”.
Also recall that ordinary light is also an electromagnetic field.

3)“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
Typicall creationist argument we have debated a lot about this one here. The answer is : large time scales

4)”So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”

my favorite from the whole story, that’s not even wrong . I guess the professor should be glad that no psychopath atheist was in the room who would break his head just to show that he has a brain.

Tim maybe if you wanna make a point here you ll use your own arguments or a better story

“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”

Have you ever seen an atom split? No? Then how do you know it happens? If you’ve never seen it, it must be scientific. So all those nuclear warheads are nothing to worry about, correct?

That being said, you CAN see evolution happen. When we breed dogs, or scientists watch the generational change in fruit flies, or you receive a flu shot every year because the virus has evolved to adapt to our immune system.

Beyond that, we know evolution happens because that is what the evidence points to. If new evidence presents itself, we will go in that direction. If you come up with a better explanation for the existing evidence, we will also go with that.

If evolution is ever shown to be completely wrong, it will be scientists who do so.

I could make up a similar story in which I feature a character named “Timk Urek,” whom I portray as an arrogant fool whose silly claims are shot down by a bunch of sincere believers. Would that convince you of anything?

It’s pretty easy to claim victory when you can make up both sides of the conversation.

So BAD, how did you decide what’s moral and what is not? What is your moral standard? Yourself because you are so enlightened and intelligent? You are a more evolved human than us unenlightened Christians?

As much as you would like to shirk it, you cannot escape the duty to judge: we all have to figure out what is moral and what isn’t: yourself included. It isn’t a matter of arrogance, it is an unavoidable reality of being a thinking being. You are no different at all: the only difference is that you simply refuse to acknowledge what you are doing: you neglect to acknowledge the step you must make when you judge whatever you believe is God to be good, and thus to trust that belief in that particular God.

Of course you can’t understand us, since we are talking about spiritual matters and you are handicapped by only having the wisdom of the world that is foolisness to God, who chose the oolish things of the world to confound the wise.

Any clever, self-sealing ideology, could claim the same: you don’t see that I’m right because you can’t. Bwahahaha!

Really now, though: is that tactic and accusation anything more than lame? If you had a good argument in the first place, you wouldn’t have to resort to comforting yourself with the fact that you are right because you have some sort of special mystical insight that others do not.

http://UriahMinistries.wordpress.com
tim kurek

I don’t know if Tim’s post was a direct quote from a Chick tract, but there is one an awful lot like it…with an evil science professor losing a debate with a pure Christian student.