Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on January 24, 2005, 07:45:12 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4204021.stm
Cool, huh?
-
creation is wonderful isnt it
-
Both are big, fat plant-eaters that love water. So what?
On a completely unrelated note, I have just realized the most amazing thing about that fat kid down by the pool who always loves to do cannon-balls right on your head. It really is quite fascninating.
-
Originally posted by an0n
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4204021.stm
Cool, huh?
I had this lady check in to the hotel I work at... god damn! She is the missing link if you ask me. :eek2: If a gorilla and a whale mated and the off spring lived in the water it would be her.
-
*blinks*
Interesting...
I am not a whale :p ...
-
It's all bull... =)
-
Too bad. Here, we were having a nice discussion on the relationship between whales and hippos, and someone brings up creationism. Well, there goes the neighbourhood...
-
I believe a study a few years ago also mentioned bears have a relationship to this group as well.
-
Really? They don't seem to go that well with hippos...
-
They do if you top them with cheese...
Well, it's not exactly surprising, I would be surprised if most aquatic creatues can trace their descendents back to one or two 'proto-species', much like most other species except possibly insiects :)
-
There's a fish in the Congo that's been around since before Dinosaurs were heavin about, and it's never changed. It breathes air. Ahem.
I believe it's called the Lung Fish or something.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
-
I guess if they cross breeded it would be called the Whappo?
-
Awww, it makes a fine tale. But it's 100% wrong. \
1 The fool has said in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.
Psalm 14:1 (New King James Version)
7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.
2 Timothy 3:7 (New International Version)
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 (New International Version)
Repent for the time will come when judgement day draws near and God restores the Earth.
Man's knowledge is right next door to nothing
The sad part is, you can't supply me with one scientific fact that proves CREATIONISM is false.
Does the world have a hold on you? Give it up and let GO SATAN!
-
ohhhh Stop it.
Evolution is not satan. There's nothing saying Evolution isn't God's plan, if you wanted to believe that. Your bible was written by man, and you can't provide me a single fact that proves CREATIONISM right. Whereas, there are dozens of proofs for evolution that you people choose to ignore.
-
Originally posted by Raa
ohhhh Stop it.
Evolution is not satan. There's nothing saying Evolution isn't God's plan, if you wanted to believe that. Your bible was written by man, and you can't provide me a single fact that proves CREATIONISM right. Whereas, there are dozens of proofs for evolution that you people choose to ignore.
That's man speaking, evolution is not a part of God's plan. It's completely against God's word. It either has to be completely right or completely wrong, no middle man.
24And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
- Genesis 1:24
Suggest that evolution only happens according there KIND. Dogs and Cats for example.
There is NO evidence claiming evolution. Name ONE and I show you.
The evidence is there, it's all a matter of interpretation.
All scripture was inspired by God. I know there is a passage that says it, but I can't find it.
‘All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly equipped for every good work.’ (2 Timothy 3:16–17)
-
You realize I could write a book and then claim God wrote it, right? Also, most biblical scholars with half a brain consider Genesis to be allegory, just like Revelations.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You realize I could write a book and then claim God wrote it, right? Also, most biblical scholars with half a brain consider Genesis to be allegory, just like Revelations.
Because of this religion called Evolution is claiming the world.
It's coming to a end and there is one path
-
Pardon me, but you're a bit insane. I suggest you take a short nap, and then try thinking again.
-
The Authority of Scripture
Abstract: Scripture had supreme authority for the Old Testament saints, Christ and His apostles in all matters it touched upon. In particular, for Christ, what Scripture said, God said. Christ also directly affirmed many of the passages attacked by liberals. Objections to the inerrancy and suffiency of Scripture are refuted. The charge that Christ was mistaken or merely accommodating to His hearers is impossible for a consistent Christian to hold. The charge of circular reasoning fails on several counts: the internal and external cross-checks, and the role that axioms play in all philosophical systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I) Old Testament:
1) Moses
Moses often testified that his writings were from God:
Exodus 24:4: ‘Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said …’
See also v.7, Ex. 34:27–28, Nu. 33:1–2, Dt. 31:9,
Deuteronomy 31:11: ‘when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing.’
2) Joshua:
Joshua 1:8: ‘Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.’
The book of the Law is the Torah, also called the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible.
3) David (c. 1000 BC)
Israel’s greatest king clearly also regarded the Law very highly. At his stage in history, not too many books of Scripture had been written, but the Pentateuch was regarded as God’s Law. Psalm 1:2: ‘But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.’
Return to Contents
II) New Testament
1) Jesus Christ:
Matthew 19:3–6:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’
4 ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’
Note:
Christ accepted the Genesis Creation account literally
He cited from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, showing that He did not regard Genesis 1 and 2 as separate contradictory creation accounts, but as complementary. See also Do Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other?
v.5, which in Genesis is an editorial comment, is equated with the word of the Creator. This is not the only place where the New Testament cites an Old Testament passage as ‘God said’; compare the following pairs: Ps. 2:1 & Acts 4:24–25, Ps. 2:7 & Heb. 1:5, Ps. 16:10 & Acts 13:35, Ps. 95:7 & Heb. 3:7, Ps. 97:7 & Heb. 1:6, Ps. 104:4 & Heb. 1:7, Is. 55:3 & Acts 13:34. The converse is true in the following pairs: Gen. 12:3 & Gal. 3:8, Ex. 9:16 & Rom. 9:17; where a direct statement by God in the OT is cited as ‘Scripture said’.
Luke 17:26–32:
26 ‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 ‘It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building.
29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 ‘It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
31On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.
32 Remember Lot’s wife!
Note: Christ took the accounts of Noah’s flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the calamity befalling Lot’s wife literally. Those who dispute their historicity are therefore defying Christ. Matthew 12:39 ff. shows that Christ took the account of Jonah and the whale literally, and even used it as a type of His resurrection.
Luke 16:31: ‘He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man in Hell), “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”’
Note: Christ clearly shows how important the Old Testament is. Many liberal evolutionary theologians who reject Moses also refuse to believe that Christ rose from the dead.
John 5:46–47:
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?
Note: a similar lesson can be learnt — liberals who doubt Moses often doubt what Jesus said (except of course for a selective use of His words if they could somehow be twisted to support a politically correct cause they happened to agree with).
Also, this shows that the ‘JEDP/Documentary Hypothesis’ of the Pentateuch is contrary to Christ, who clearly taught that the Pentateuch was edited by Moses. See Did Moses really write Genesis?
Matthew 22:23–34:
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27 Finally, the woman died.
28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31 But about the resurrection of the dead — have you not read what God said to you,
32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
Note:
the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture, while the Pharisees accepted the same books as the Protestant OT (as confirmed by the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (ca. 130 BC), Josephus (ca. AD 90), Melito (ca. AD 170)). Jesus accused the Sadducees of not knowing the Scriptures, because they did not accept the Prophets and Writings.
Even the Scriptures accepted by the Sadducees taught the resurrection: Christ demonstrated this with an argument depending on the present tense of the implied verb ‘to be’ implied — the patriarchs were living in a sense in Moses’ day, centuries after they had died physically. This passage shows that the Lord believed in verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture.
Matthew 5:18: ‘I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.’
Note: the ‘jot’ was the smallest Hebrew letter, and the ‘tittle’ was a small part of the letter. So Christ is supporting inspiration even down to the individual letters.
Return to Contents
Matthew 23:35: ‘And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.’
Jesus here gives the extent of the Canon of Scripture:
The Pharisees’ Bible is the same as the Protestant OT, but the order is different. The first book was still Genesis, but the last book was 2 Chronicles. That generation was to be held responsible for all God’s people murdered in the OT, from Abel (Gen. 4:8) to Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20–21). There were other martyrdoms recorded in the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not regard these writings as Scripture, and never cited them. Jesus agreed with the Pharisaic canon (John 5:39), but not the Saddusaic one.
The Apocrypha was not recognised as canonical by the Jewish scholars at Jamnia (AD 90), and the Talmud stated that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after Malachi. Many Church Fathers agreed, e.g. Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome. Athanasius, in his 39th Festal Letter of AD 367, listed the same canon as modern Protestants (with the exception of the book of Esther). He also stated that the Apocryphal books Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther additions, Judith and Tobit were worth reading but not canonical. He made no mention of the books of Maccabees.1
The apocryphal books abound in geographical and historical errors,2 e.g. 2 Macc. 15:1 ff is inconsistent with 1 Macc. 2:41; Judith 1:1 has Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh rather than Babylon. The morality and doctrine of the apocryphal books also falls short of biblical standards: Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach morality based on expedience; God assists Judith in a lie (Judith 9:10,13); salvation by works (Tobit 12:9, 14:10–11); prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12:45–46), pre-existence of souls (Wisdom 8:19–20) and creation out of pre-existent matter (Wisdom 11:17). Even the books themselves disclaim divine inspiration: 1 Macc. 9:27 recognises that prophecy had disappeared in Israel, while 2 Macc. 15:37–39 admits that it was a human composition with possible flaws.
It’s also important to note that each book was canonical as soon as it was finished, because its ultimate author was God Himself. Their canonicity did not have to wait for the Church to choose them. The NT scholar FF Bruce writes:
‘The NT books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect…. [Church] councils [did] not impose something new upon the Christian communities but codif[ied] what was already the general practice of those communities.’3
John 10:35 ‘… and the scriptures cannot be broken.’ — self-explanatory
John 14:26:‘But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.’
Note: Christ here promises his disciples that they would be taught by the Holy Spirit. These teachings eventually became written down in the New Testament.
Return to Contents
2) the Apostle Paul:
2 Timothy 3:15–17:
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Note:
the Greek word for ‘Scriptures’ in v.15 is γραμματα (grammata), and must refer to the OT alone, as these are the only Scriptures Timothy would have known from his childhood
in v. 16, the word translated ‘Scripture’ is γραφη (graphè), which would include the OT plus all the NT written by then (AD 63), i.e. all the NT except 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and John’s writings. As Paul’s writings were divinely inspired, this statement would apply even to the latter books.
‘God-breathed’ is a correct translation by the NIV of the Greek word θεοπνευστος (theopneustos). If Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ and God cannot err, it logically follows that Scripture cannot err.
Scripture is able to make a man ‘wise unto salvation’ and ‘thoroughly furnished unto all good works’. This implies that Scripture contains all the doctrine and moral law we need.
But since v. 16 makes it clear that all Scripture is God-breathed, not just some, inerrancy applies to whatever the Bible affirms, and is not restricted just to those verses deemed to relate to faith and conduct. After all, doctrine is inextricably linked to history and science, so that whatever Scripture affirms on scientific or historical matters is also true. For example, the key doctrine of the Resurrection is linked to the historical fact that Jesus’ body had vacated the tomb on the third day. It also impinges on science, because naturalistic scientists assert that it is impossible for dead men to rise. And the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection is tied to the historical accuracy of the event recorded in Genesis (1 Cor. 15:21–22). And if we bow to uniformitarian ‘science’ in the area of origins, what should we do when Scriptural teaching on morality conflicts with ‘science’, e.g. the Bible’s prohibition on adultery or homosexual acts vs ‘scientific’ assertions that such behaviours are ‘in our genes’. Jesus asked Nicodemus ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12).
1 Tim 5:18 cites both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as graphè; i.e. both the Old and New Testaments. This again shows that the NT was already regarded as Scripture even in apostolic times.
1 Timothy 2:12–14:
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Note: Paul accepted the Genesis account as a historical narrative, and used it to teach on the role of men and women in Church.
Acts 17:1–3:
1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.
2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,’ he said.
Note: this shows how important the Scriptures were to Paul’s evangelism to Jews, who already accepted them as authoritative.
Acts 17:10–11:
10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
This shows that even Paul’s teaching was subjected to the test of Scripture by people who were commended for it. So Christians today should follow that Berean example and test the teachings of any church (or scientist) by Scripture.
Return to Contents
3) Peter:
2 Pet. 1:20–21:
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Note: The chief Apostle, Peter, believed that God moved (literally ‘carried along’) the writers of Scripture so that they recorded exactly what He wanted. However, God did not usually dictate the words, but superintended the authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they recorded His revelation without error.
2 Peter 3:15–16:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Note: Peter affirms that Paul’s writings were also Scripture.
Return to Contents
4) Jude
Jude 3: ‘Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.’
N.B. If the faith was once delivered, then there is no need for additional revelations of doctrine after the canon of scripture was closed).
Return to Contents
5) John:
John 14:26: ‘But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.’
Christ’s promise in John 14:26 was to His disciples personally present. John was the last survivor, so his books are the last of the NT Canon. It is possible that Rev. 22:18–19 is an indication that this book closes the Canon.
Return to Contents
6) Church Fathers:
All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the writings of the Fathers.4 For Irenaeus (c. AD 170), the fourfold gospel was as axiomatic as the four quarters of the earth and the four winds. He cited 23 of the 27 NT books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. Ignatius (AD 50–115), Bishop of Antioch, cited 15 NT books. He recognised that the NT had a higher authority than he: ‘I do not wish to command you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles.’
Return to Contents
Objections refuted
1) John 20:30: ‘Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.’
This verse is used to suggest that perhaps the Church has preserved some essential doctrines not taught in Scripture. However, the next verse implies that what was written was enough (note all the NT had been written by the time that John was written, except for his letters and Revelation) — John 20:31:
‘But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.’
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ‘So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.’
This verse is sometimes alleged to support the existence of essential tradition not recorded in scripture. However, this book was probably one of the first NT books written (AD 51), so the verse does not apply once all the essential traditions had been recorded in the NT. 1 Cor. 15:1 ff. is a good example of a well established oral tradition which Paul writes down.
3) 1 Timothy 3:15: ‘if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.’
Paul was simply affirming the church as the support and bulwark — not the source — of God’s truth. His words should not be stretched beyond this to claim that no-one can know the truth unless he depends on the teaching of some organised church or church group. Note:
The Greek word ecclesia means congregation or assembly, so this verse cannot rule out (say) Sunnybank District Baptist Church.
Even a church founded by apostles could have its lampstand removed from its place (Rev. 2:5).
4) ‘Jesus was mistaken, because in the Incarnation his omnipotence was masked.’ Often this and the next blasphemous charge are made by liberal theologians or theistic evolutionists with pious-sounding talk about Jesus’ humanity. But:
This confuses Limitation and misunderstanding:5 while the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, He voluntarily limited His omniscience (Phil. 2:5–11). I.e., in His humanity, He did not know all things. But this does not entail that He was mistaken about anything He said. All human understanding is finite, but this doesn’t entail that every human understanding is errant. Also, what Jesus did preach, He proclaimed with absolute authority (Mt. 24:35, 28:18), because He was speaking with the full authority of God the Father (John 5:30, 8:28), who is always omniscient. So if a liberal wishes to maintain his charge that Christ was mistaken because of His humanity, he must logically charge God the Father with error as well. Or else, if Jesus taught an inerrant Bible and attributed his teaching to the Father and such teaching is wrong, Jesus must be a charlatan in a hopeless muddle.
Where do you draw the line? If Jesus was wrong in His view of Scripture, maybe He was wrong in other areas too. Who decides whether He is right or wrong? We must, so Jesus loses His authority.
5) ‘Jesus deliberately accommodated Himself to the mistaken views of His audience.’ But:
This confuses Adaptation to human finitude with accommodation to human error:5 the former does not entail the latter. A mother might tell her four-year-old ‘you grew inside my tummy’ — this is not false, but language simplified to the child’s level. Conversely, ‘the stork brought you’ is an outright error. Similarly, God, the author of truth, used some simplified descriptions (e.g. using the earth as a reference frame, as modern scientists do today) and anthropomorphisms, but never error.
Jesus often challenged His audience, so He would not have failed to point out their mistaken views on Scripture, if such they were.
If Jesus acquiesced in this error, maybe He did so elsewhere as well. Who ultimately decides when Jesus is acquiescing? We must, so once again, Jesus loses His authority.
The passages considered in section II(1) show that Jesus was not just acquiescing to the views of His audience on the inerrancy of Scripture, but was in fact reinforcing them.
6) ‘Jesus was misreported, or we can’t possibly know what He believed.’ But:
First, it is absurd for liberals to claim to be ‘Christian’ if they cannot be sure that they are really following Christ.
On what basis can they possibly invoke Christ’s teachings on any topic at all, usually their favoured politically correct causes?
Even many liberal scholars believe that there is overwhelming historical evidence that Christ affirmed biblical inerrancy, although they disagree with Him. The evangelical scholar Harold Lindsell6 cites the liberal scholars H.J. Cadbury, Adolph Harnack, Rudolf Bultmann and F.C. Grant to prove this point.
7) ‘This is circular reasoning.’ In answer to that:
As shown, even many liberals believe that there is overwhelming evidence that Christ affirmed biblical inerrancy. Such independent support of Christ’s statements proves that evangelicals do not necessarily commit the fallacy of arguing in a circle, of using the Bible to prove the Bible.
It is not circular to use Matthew to prove Genesis (Mt. 19:3–6, cf. Gen. 1:27, 2:4), Paul to prove Luke (1 Tim 5:18, cf. Lk. 10:7) or Peter to prove Paul (2 Pet. 3:15–16). Finally, allegedly circular reasoning at least demonstrates the internal consistency of the Bible’s claims it makes about itself. If the Bible had actually disclaimed divine inspiration, it would indeed be illogical to defend it. This is one argument against the canonicity of the Apocrypha — as shown above, 1 Macc. 9:27 and 2 Macc. 15:37–39 disclaim divine inspiration.
Answers in Genesis accepts the authority of Scripture as an axiom or presupposition: i.e. as a starting point or assumption that requires no proof, and is the basis for all reasoning. All philosophical systems start with axioms. So it’s not a question of a religious system starting from prior assumptions vs. a ‘scientific’ system without any prior assumptions, but which axioms are self-consistent and provide a consistent framework in which to fit the evidence. See also Creation: ‘Where’s the proof?’ and Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation.
Return to Contents
Recommended reading
H.M. Morris with H.M. Morris III, Many Infallible Proofs, Master Books, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 1996.
G.L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, USA ,1982.
G.H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and its Critics, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, MD, USA: 2nd ed. 1987.
P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press, Chicago, 1989, Ch. 18.
N.L. Geisler and R.M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, USA, 1990.
N.L. Geisler and T.R. Howe, When Critics Ask, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, USA, 1992.
N.L. Geisler and Wm. E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody, Chicago, 1986.
H. Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 1976.
J. McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA 92402, USA, 1981.
John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible, Eagle, Guildford, Surrey, UK, 3rd ed. 1993. 3rd ed. 1993).
The Formation of the OT Canon
The Textual Reliability of the New Testament
Return to Contents
References
F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, IVP, Downers Gr, Ill., pp. 77–80 1988. Return to text.
F.F. Bruce, Evangelical Quarterly 42:55, 1970, says: ‘It is possible for scholars … to defend the historicity of Daniel and Esther’; but it is ‘very difficult indeed to argue for the historical inerrancy of Tobit and Judith’. Return to text.
F.F. Bruce The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? (Downers Gr, Ill.: IVP 1960). Return to text.
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Ch. 24. Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986. Return to text.
Geisler and Nix, Ref. 4, pp. 62–64 contains helpful discussions of these points. Return to text.
Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 43–45. Return to text.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Pardon me, but you're a bit insane. I suggest you take a short nap, and then try thinking again.
Try me, I'm not insane.
There is no proof of evolution.
I'll believe in God, before I believe a Tornado can fly by a junk yard assembling a Boeing aircraft.
-
See my last post, and as an addendum, why the hell did you copy and paste that? A link would have sufficed....
-
No comment.
-
Don't do it jdj, this thread is headed for lockhood at this rate.
If you don't believe in it, then fine, but would you jump in a Den of Lions to preach vegetarianism?
Don't preach, it'll only lead to trouble ;)
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
I'll believe in God, before I believe a Tornado can fly by a junk yard assembling a Boeing aircraft.
Err... that's the farthest from evolution...
You really need your facts straightened out.
Grey Wolf, you right a book, and I'll vouche for it with you as being god's word.
-
The simpliest life form is THAT complex
-
We all have our own way of looking at things. Religion is the art of explaining the universe, science is, though we would never call it that, another religion. It's another way of looking at things ;)
-
To put it simply: Science tells me things and I can see them working exactly how science said they'd work.
The Bible tells me things and all I can see is the Bible telling me it's right.
-
wow...
hehehe, you know personally I believe that God does not give a rats as about anything. She just pressed the start button. :D
-
Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter1.asp)
-
Originally posted by ubermetroid
wow...
hehehe, you know personally I believe that God does not give a rats as about anything. She just pressed the start button. :D
Only till you submit to God will you know the TRUTH my friend, and the TRUTH will set you free. :)
-
You see, the 'attraction' of science is that it provides far more than promises, prophecies and questionable codes, at least for me, it may be otherwise for you.
It has provided warmth and food and clothing and computers. It has also created Nukes and Chemical Weapons and torture devices and various other weapons of War. Like all religions, science itself is a tool. It depends how you use it.
-
an0n, interesting article. Now I'm going to back out of this one before the flames get too hot for my asbestos underwear...
-
To Flipside:
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter1.asp)
That is God my friend, don't be fooled
:)
All Good is from God
All Bad is not.
But bad is usually judged by man, but cannot be seen good until looked through God's eyes
Understand that God doesn't control you or anybodies will.
But He DOES know what will happen
-
You know, I'm dissapointed. I thought we had passed this stage of forum development after Liberator and WeatherOp had given up. On that note, I'm going to stop posting in this thread, as it serves no purpose arguing with a fanatic, as they are impervious to logic and reason....
-
Oo; I'll be jiggered. You're nuts.
-
I'm sticking with Lamarckism, as far as the progression of the biology of Earth goes.
-
Grey Wolf 2009: Your logic and reason is nothing compared to God. And your Evoluionist beliefs tell me that you believe that your logic and reason is by accidental. Why would I believe a accident?
-
Idiot.
In infinite chaos, on a large enough scale, infinite order evolves.
-
I see where you stand, but ask yourself. Would you be willing to stand in front of God and tell him that you didn't believe just because you didn't understand?
-
Oh and I'm citing the United Federation of Planets as proof of evolution.
They adapt, they change, the weak perish, the strong survive and the Federation as an entity changes to suit the galactic environment.
See, evolution.
-
Still, my stance stays.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
I see where you stand, but ask yourself. Would you be willing to stand in front of God and tell him that you didn't believe just because you didn't understand?
I don't believe in God, so any answer is moot.
If I believed in science but still feared God, I'd hate myself even more than I hate your beliefs.
And on a totally off-key note: I'd happily stand before God and mouth off.
-
Science or The theory of Evolution?
Is it not what shapes science into a bigotry that there is no God.
But yet science can still go the other way.
-
All science is integral to all other science.
You can't just ignore the theory of evolution. It shares ****loads of sections with other areas of science, ranging from simple math and probability, to biochemistry and physics.
Remember that next time you're taking your anti-biotics.
On a related note: What's your view on all the species of plant and animal that've been created in the labs? I suppose they're God's work too?
-
Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/surprise.asp)
-
I've got a little test of faith for you.
Go read the Bible, cover-to-cover, but without your 'faith'. Read it objectively and see if that changes your mind about anything.
-
Originally posted by an0n
All science is integral to all other science.
You can't just ignore the theory of evolution. It shares ****loads of sections with other areas of science, ranging from simple math and probability, to biochemistry and physics.
Remember that next time you're taking your anti-biotics.
On a related note: What's your view on all the species of plant and animal that've been created in the labs? I suppose they're God's work too?
Clones?
Clones (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/cloning.asp)
-
No, I mean like the glow-in-the-dark mice.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I've got a little test of faith for you.
Go read the Bible, cover-to-cover, but without your 'faith'. Read it objectively and see if that changes your mind about anything.
I have, when I was younger in faith.
You remember me, that's why I was here.
Be careful of your thoughts, thoughts leave to feelings, feelings leave to actions.
You read the Bible knowing there is a God, I've already read it your way
-
No child reads the Bible without faith. You read it because your faith-packed parents make you read it.
Go read it as a book, instead of as scripture.
Take it in as a series of ideas, instead of a series of divine facts.
-
Originally posted by an0n
No, I mean like the glow-in-the-dark mice.
Ok, clones are nothing more than men playing God. He prophecised it and said that men at the end of days would think themself to be God
-
Originally posted by an0n
No child reads the Bible without faith. You read it because your faith-packed parents make you read it.
Go read it as a book, instead of as scripture.
Take it in as a series of ideas, instead of a series of divine facts.
I tell you the Truth, I know more than they.
I spent my years here because I thought you guys knew what you were talking about. I changed it around to fit it with Evolution. Then found that I was blind because. THE TRUTH SET ME FREE
-
Your thoughts are thoughts of Men, submit and your reality will strech far beyond that of Man
-
Posting three times in a row is poor forum etiquette, as is trolling and flaming. I know I violated the last a bit earlier in the thread, but you're taking it too far.
-
no comment
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
I tell you the Truth, I know more than they.
I spent my years here because I thought you guys knew what you were talking about. I changed it around to fit it with Evolution. Then found that I was blind because. THE TRUTH SET ME FREE
Then how exactly did you find this truth?
Your comments and statements all have the cohesion of an islamic militant...
-
Goodnight and Goodbye Hardlight forums. I'm leaving this place, so anything that I'm involved with is gone with me, yes this means my projects. Had some good times, but nothing more can be said, I'll miss most of you and Freespace. But they are no longer a part of my life. :)
-
Originally posted by Ace
Then how exactly did you find this truth?
Your comments and statements all have the cohesion of an islamic militant...
;)
Goodbye Ace.
-
Bye.
(http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/images/bigguy.jpg)
-
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. --Mohandas Gandhi
-
I have a question, please no flames. Just before this thread gets closed.
Ok, you say there was no world wide flood, correct? Then please anwser this, The Egyptian pyramids are said to be around 3 to 6 thousand years old, and the Meyan pyramids are said to be a few thousand years old, and the Aztec pyramids are said to be about the same. And lets say the the Egyptian pyramids last 2 more thousand years. Ok, why are there no stuctures dated back 10 or 15 thousand years or so? War could not have got all of them. So, what happened to them?I may be wrong and the may be buildings back 8 thousand years or so. But, it is basicly cut off from there. Well, thats my question.
-
Er... isn't it generally believed that there were no large civilizations capable of creating monumental structures before that time?
Ur, the mesopotamian city is the oldest, aside from one in Turkey. But the Turkish settlement wasn't a 'great civilization'.
It's believed that people wer nomadic before then, and therefore couldn't have built structures that would last as the Egyptans and Mesopotamians had.
-
A prominent theory is that there was a fairly large flood near the Black Sea, which inspired the flood legends in most Indo-European religions.
-
Or there's the story of Gilgamesh... (I think that's who it was) where the flood was the annual flooding of the tigris and euphrates rivers... That was one possibility.
-
But, why were they nomads? Evolution says we turned into man from primates 64,000 or so years ago. Would we have populated enough to have big civizations? And Why did we get so smart so quick too build great things like that? I've herd of that Gilgamesh thing, but that still wouldn't explain it.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
I have a question, please no flames. Just before this thread gets closed.
Ok, you say there was no world wide flood, correct? Then please anwser this, The Egyptian pyramids are said to be around 3 to 6 thousand years old, and the Meyan pyramids are said to be a few thousand years old, and the Aztec pyramids are said to be about the same. And lets say the the Egyptian pyramids last 2 more thousand years. Ok, why are there no stuctures dated back 10 or 15 thousand years or so? War could not have got all of them. So, what happened to them?I may be wrong and the may be buildings back 8 thousand years or so. But, it is basicly cut off from there. Well, thats my question.
...your point? Agrarian societies are relatively recent (past 8,000 years) with evidence of non-nomadic hunter gatherers being around 12,000-10,000 years.
Before that there is plenty of evidence showing that humans have been on this planet for at least the past million years. Though nomadic and slowly developing more tools and technology as well as migrating throughout the world. Before this there were many homonid species reaching back a few more million years, occuring when the climate changed due to the ice ages.
What I don't understand is why can't some of these folks take a holistic approach to their faith. The universe was made 13 billion years ago, and god has then influenced events in human history here and there but otherwise everything has been a natural process. What is so unreasonable about this? People seem to have no issue eating shellfish or other taboo things in the old testament, why not admit that we're closer to understanding creation now and the old story was to explain the world to less technologically advanced people?
-
Here, have the National Geographic link I stick in every thread that mentions Noah:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html
As you can see on that first page, many different cultures have the flood mythos, and there is evidence of a massive flood.
On the whole nomadic thing, the reason that we lacked civilization is the lack of technology required for farming, which is a prerequisite for diversication of roles in society, which is what leads to more advanced cultures with cities and the like.
-
No, my point is this. If we can make a Scientific Theory"about the same as a fact as I've herd" and say this happened 250-300 million years ago or 4 billion years ago by looking at rocks. Why can't we look back a lowly 8,000 years and say this happened looking at real tools and such. Or lets say 15,000 years.
-
Because geographic evidence in rocks is much better preserved than wooden stick tools in dirt?
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
No, my point is this. If we can make a Scientific Theory"about the same as a fact as I've herd" and say this happened 250-300 million years ago or 4 billion years ago by looking at rocks. Why can't we look back a lowly 8,000 years and say this happened looking at real tools and such. Or lets say 15,000 years.
We can, it's called arecheology.
The whole idea is studying past civilizations off of their remains and determining how they lived their lives, how the society lived, started, etc.
Works on the same principles as being able to determine the geologic history.
While, yes, the record is incomplete (politics in countries like Turkey, Iran, and Iraq prevent digs in those areas) we have a pretty good idea as to what happened.
Tomorrow there could be evidence found of a magical flying city of Atlantis, YHWH, or even the alien trapped in a volcano the scientologists talk about and scientists would be willing to adapt their theories if there's enough proof :)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
On the whole nomadic thing, the reason that we lacked civilization is the lack of technology required for farming, which is a prerequisite for diversication of roles in society, which is what leads to more advanced cultures with cities and the like.
Ok, let me add this. The population on the Earth has doubled or tripled over the past thousand or so years. If they didn't know how to farm the would starve, and over 64,000 years don't you think that they would have multipled too?
-
Large geographic formations are a tad bit more durable than wooden tools, or even bone or stone tools.
-
And that my friend, is the problem with man. You may be telling me today that evolution is true, but tommorow you could be telling me that aliens planted us on Earth.
-
That's not humanity's fault. It's the fault of the universe for not telling what's true.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ok, let me add this. The population on the Earth has doubled or tripled over the past thousand or so years. If they didn't know how to farm the would starve, and over 64,000 years don't you think that they would have multipled too?
Your population can only increase as much as the food you have. Farming isn't going to happen until you have enough of a surplus in an area to allow you to have leisure time to experiment.
That's why fertile areas like the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, and the Yellow river all led to the fist major civilizations (that we have records of).
With an area with enough food year round to be sedentary you'll start domesticating your plants and animals as opposed to hunting. It's a slow process but then you build a civilization. Eventually writing and such happens.
Keep in mind, while there has been rapid change in the last three centuries things developed at a slow pace until the development of the scientific method. Applying the modern pace of things to earlier times is fallacial.
Civilizations like Sumer, Babylon, and China lasted thousands of years with little change much like medieval Europe did for several hundred years. It's not hard to see why it'd take so long for literate cultures to develop out of nomads.
If you want more information take a class on biological anthropology or archeology.
Also on your comment about 'man being flawed due to changing its mind' that is the strength of humanity. If we find more evidence of what occured it is right and proper to change our mind and worldview to match with the reality.
While there might be comfort in relying on unchanging words (which change between translations but that's an issue for theologians) there should be a greater comfort in knowing that we don't know everything and that we're willing to adapt to find out more.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Only till you submit to God will you know the TRUTH my friend, and the TRUTH will set you free. :)
What if I am allready Free? :thepimp:
-
Originally posted by Ace
Your population can only increase as much as the food you have. Farming isn't going to happen until you have enough of a surplus in an area to allow you to have leisure time to experiment.
That's why fertile areas like the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, and the Yellow river all led to the fist major civilizations (that we have records of).
With an area with enough food year round to be sedentary you'll start domesticating your plants and animals as opposed to hunting. It's a slow process but then you build a civilization. Eventually writing and such happens.
Keep in mind, while there has been rapid change in the last three centuries things developed at a slow pace until the development of the scientific method. Applying the modern pace of things to earlier times is fallacial.
Civilizations like Sumer, Babylon, and China lasted thousands of years with little change much like medieval Europe did for several hundred years. It's not hard to see why it'd take so long for literate cultures to develop out of nomads.
If you want more information take a class on biological anthropology or archeology.
Also on your comment about 'man being flawed due to changing its mind' that is the strength of humanity. If we find more evidence of what occured it is right and proper to change our mind and worldview to match with the reality.
While there might be comfort in relying on unchanging words (which change between translations but that's an issue for theologians) there should be a greater comfort in knowing that we don't know everything and that we're willing to adapt to find out more.
But, why... How did we come from people who couldn't build nothing, to someone who could build the huge pyramids? I though evolution take millions of years to do anything?
-
This isn't evolution in that sense, my friend. This is social evolution, a far different proposition. You are nearly identical genetically and physically to neolithic man. However, the culture you were raised in is far different.
-
But, the thing that don't fit is that they had 64,000 years to get smarter, if you look over the last 6 to 8 thousand years, we have come so fast. And if that was the case, than that means somebody would have woke up one morning and said" Hey I'm gonna build this and this and this. Why didn't it happen sooner? If you would add it up, and 64,000 years ago, we started avancing like we have in the past 6,000 or so. We would have devoloped LS or subspace and we would have huge cruisers flying thru space.:) I really don't know about that far. Too much FS.
Well, good night all.
-
There is no reason it has to be a linear progression. Actually, the data supports an exponential progression. Most likely, the barrier of agriculture was the most important block, which took many years to achieve, but set us on the exponential path we followed.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
And that my friend, is the problem with man. You may be telling me today that evolution is true, but tommorow you could be telling me that aliens planted us on Earth.
Thats ok. We adapt to that new reality...it happens :)
I mean, at one point I thought Santa Claus was real (gosh I hope we have no youngins here), but it turns out he's a corporate icon for Coca-Cola. Reality changed...works for me. Maybe not for all?
Keep up the good elements of this thread and cut out the rest please. Its not getting locked just yet because I see some good discussion going on.
-
God’s
creation reveals his eternal power and divine nature, His invisible qualities. ROM 1:20
Creation Declares God’s eternal power and his divine nature
If we would only be still and listen with the heart not the ears
We would know the creation of the world was just a breath
God’s eternal Power can be something to behold or to fear
The choice is ours we’re either for or against his eternal Power
He created the world with just words it will end with a bang
God’s divine nature is to create and love his little children
If we read his word we would realize He looks out for us
In times of trouble we can go to God who is our Father
The word of God isn't man written. The word of God or as you call it the Bible is spirit written. God's word cannot be understood unless you have faith. To try and understand God's word without faith would be foolish. Another thing that is foolish is mocking God's word.
Proverbs 19:29
Penalties are prepared for mockers, and beatings for the backs of fools.
But despite your mocking Jesus still loves you.
jdjtcagle is my friend and Brother in Christ
-
:welcome:
:wtf:
-
Ummm... Wow.
I believe in the Faith, and I follow it fairly tightly. However, your amount of belief borders on the lines of irrational thought. Here's something I can suggest. Watch the movie Dogma, then compare your faith to the movie. Can you tell me which one is closer to what Faith should be? I would have given up on Christianity if I had not seen that movie. Not because of the atheists or agnostics, but because of ridiculous thoughts like those.
I would post more, but I am just too agrivated to see that people like that are so common. Good bye, HLP. It's been fun. See ya tommorrow, I have to get some sleep (big day tommorrow).
EDIT: Oh, and do NOT take the Bible at face value. EVER!! The bible is alot deeper than that.
-
jdjtcagle, ok, are you just screwing around? becase if you'r not just kidding with all of this and you are some sort of evangelist I'll be happy to walk you through evolution, weather you beleive it or not it would be in your best interest to understand how it works, even if only to better your atacks against it, wich by the way are so poor and cliched I'm haveing a hard time beleiveing that they are not just a sarcastic joke.
BTW, if you are kidding around and you want to continue the fun PM me and I'll just play along.
[edit]oh, hey look there was a second page
Hi jdjtcagle's bible trolling alter ego! :D
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ok, let me add this. The population on the Earth has doubled or tripled over the past thousand or so years. If they didn't know how to farm the would starve, and over 64,000 years don't you think that they would have multipled too?
This may be what's confusing you, the population on the Earth hasn't doubled or tripled over the course of the past thousands of years, it has doubled or tripled over the course of half a century!
(http://www.balticuniv.uu.se/environmentalscience/ch1/Fig1_3.gif)
-
Yes yes, all thanks to increased knowledge about food, health etc.
As for this nonsense about folk leaving over an argument like this? To probably quote the Apostles on Jesus' post-nailed appearance: WTF?!
Are you really that weak you cannot tolerate other peoples beliefs that you have to walk away from an entire gaming community?
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
And that my friend, is the problem with man. You may be telling me today that evolution is true, but tommorow you could be telling me that aliens planted us on Earth.
... of course, those things do not contradict each other at slightest, but whatever.
Edit for reduced assholeness: Evolutionary theory as itself takes no position on how life on Earth has started. It only deals with what we have so far observed and prooved - that is, evolution.
-
Originally posted by Raa
ohhhh Stop it.
Evolution is not satan. There's nothing saying Evolution isn't God's plan, if you wanted to believe that. Your bible was written by man, and you can't provide me a single fact that proves CREATIONISM right. Whereas, there are dozens of proofs for evolution that you people choose to ignore.
Hi yall,
Raa, I'll chalange you. Where's your proofs of evolution? I'll agree that there is no proof of creation, in the scientific sence, but last time I checked a proof must be reproduceable. When was the last time you made something evolve. Both creation and evolutin are just theories.
Janos,
You too.
Where's your poof?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28disambiguation%29
Check the last item on the page. WTF.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
But, the thing that don't fit is that they had 64,000 years to get smarter, if you look over the last 6 to 8 thousand years, we have come so fast. And if that was the case, than that means somebody would have woke up one morning and said" Hey I'm gonna build this and this and this. Why didn't it happen sooner? If you would add it up, and 64,000 years ago, we started avancing like we have in the past 6,000 or so. We would have devoloped LS or subspace and we would have huge cruisers flying thru space.:) I really don't know about that far. Too much FS.
Well, good night all.
uhhhhh
That's really confusing, but I try to give it one shot.
First, cultural heritage and cultural evolution - memetics. This is basically passing on learned traits and habits, but not on genome level. Your family, teacher or Bob from the neighbouring ghetto teaches you to read, someone else teaches you to ride a bicycle, someone teaches you to shoot an MK-19 AGL, whatever. These things pass along the generations really fast and well; some of the mathematics we study in high school were university level just a couple of centuries ago. Most people have basic understanding about nuclear reactions and stuff, even though it's very new invention.
Cultural evolution is a huge mess, but it's not unique to humans and is actually quite common in fauna. Even oystercatchers - birds, and not very advanced birds - have learned habits. Sea otters have them, peregrine falcons have them, quite a few primates have them. However, it requires pretty sophisticated brain system and capability to learn. Cultural evolution is usually highly advantageus (sp) in evolutionary standards, that is, such a habit will quickly spread through entire population because it gives such a huge bonus to everyday lives.
Then we have the huge increase in human population (which Ghostavo addressed), large brainmass of your average Homo sapiens, mediocre lifespan and tendency to travel a lot. These, when combined with cultural evolution, create quite an unique combination: an extremely adaptative, highly dispersive and intelligent species with ability to pass on learned traits, with high reproduction rate and a sudden big change in habits a few thousand years ago (switchin to agricultural lifestyle).
However, cultural evolution requires that someone actually invents something that is really beneficial, and the Big Changes are not that that common anyways. Also, notice that the entire world has only pretty recently (last couple hundred of years) become so well-connected that information passes really quickly.
uhh I can address more points but now I am tired. This post propably has gross mistakes somewhere.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Hi yall,
Raa, I'll chalange you. Where's your proofs of evolution? I'll agree that there is no proof of creation, in the scientific sence, but last time I checked a proof must be reproduceable. When was the last time you made something evolve. Both creation and evolutin are just theories.
YOU DID NOT JUST SAY THAT AAAARGH
Theory in scientific language means something that is as close to fact as one can get. Read it. Understand it. Then come back and say that again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Creation is not even a hypothesis. It's a guesswork. Nothing supports it.
As for your "evolution has not been proved", lol: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
-
Janos,
Are you reading your own links?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
Says:
Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty.
(I would disagree with this, for mathematics then goes out the window and what about the Laws of science.)
Then it goes on to expalin a more evedentiary explination of proof. The evedentairy explination is the type they use in court.
If were going to use this proof then we need to way the evidence some of which was presented in the scopes trial.
Also your definition of theory dosn't fly with the link you posted.
Your link says:
"A theory has to be something which is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that an apple will fall when dropped, and then drop an apple, to see what happens."
Then neither Evolution or Creation is a theory. They are even less.
Your link does quote Stephen Hawking which is a great definition of theory.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
Are you reading your own links?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
Says:
Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty.
(I would disagree with this, for mathematics then goes out the window and what about the Laws of science.)
[/b]
You could read the links again.
Then it goes on to expalin a more evedentiary explination of proof. The evedentairy explination is the type they use in court.
If were going to use this proof then we need to way the evidence some of which was presented in the scopes trial.
And this somehow disproves evolutionary theory.. how? What kind of experience would you like to have? And you can present the proof as well. Or debunk the theory. One correct finding is enough to either completely debunk it or cause significant corrections in it.
Also your definition of theory dosn't fly with the link you posted.
Your link says:
"A theory has to be something which is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that an apple will fall when dropped, and then drop an apple, to see what happens."
Then neither Evolution or Creation is a theory. They are even less.
Your link does quote Stephen Hawking which is a great definition of theory. [/B]
:wtf: It has been tested, several times.
-
Ofcourse evolution cannot be proven. Nothing can. Secondary mathematics still havent been proven, but does that mean you dont see the results are always identical day by day? Saying evolution is pure horse manure is like saying mathematics is horse manure, on the basis that science has not found a way to identify non-finite numbers. 0.999x does not equal 1, but it cannot be distinguished from 1 either. There are some things that logic cannot explain. That doesnt make it incorrect, however.
Oh, BTW evolution by adaptation is the key. If you look at the art of several eons ago, you'd see that many human features look more ape-like than is seen in todays generation. That implies that our species have changed since then. However, since we dont have a time machine, we cant go back and prove it. It's difficult to go any further than that, as we do not have the logic to sustain anything further.
Nothing can ever be proven, no matter what.
-
Let me ask a question, it says
" Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, whales and many snakes develop hind limbs as embryos which are reabsorbed before birth"
Ok, now lets say that snake devolped one leg or lets say two and he kept it when he was born. How would have he survived? Snakes depend on speed and stealth. With two big back legs he would have trouble even moving, how could he be quick enough to catch that mouse or such. In one word, he couldn't he would end up food for some hawk, or other snake that DIDN'T have back legs.
And I have also herd of that bats evoloved from rats, that the grew long front toenails and slow devoloped skin on those toenails. How could he survive? He would end up food for a Snake with no legs.
And that is the problem with evolution, these "mid" evoloving animals would have died far before they could reproduce. And transfer the gene.
-
Originally posted by Janos
:wtf: It has been tested, several times. [/B]
Where and when has evolution been reproduced? That is the test it must undergo.
-
Ladies and gentlemen here we have the results of a decade where education founds were cut and the mass-media took parentage.
I won't even try to enter into this senseless "creationism vs evolutionism" fray.
Just go and read Darwin, it's less spectacular and entertaining than many other sources but makes more sense.
If humanity is approaching such a decline (twenty years ago people would just have laughed at this) then all i can feel is pity and concern.
Just remember that school and church have different purposes kids, and education is part of the former, while the latter is designed to provide spiritual comfort.
You don't ask an artist to teach you psichology, do you?
Admins, i really think it's time to close such threads and regulate the matter just like you did with political ones some time ago.
We don't want to ruin the primary function of this exemplary community, do we?
-
I already said evolution by adaption, WeatherOp. But thank you for upstaging me :(
-
Not quite. Who's to say that the bat didn't evolve in an area where the snakes all travelled on the ground? Perhaps the early bat fled to the trees, and there it evolved the wings to provide a better freedom of movement.
-
Scuddle,
Your first paragraph... The evidence for creation in the evedentary proof is just as compelling as the evedentary proof of evolution.(If not more) Plus there are plenty of disproofs of evolution.
Your second paragraph.... is pure opinion. I see nothing resembling apes on the ceiling of St. Peters.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And on a totally off-key note: I'd happily stand before God and mouth off.
Seconded, if He exists he's got a **** load to answer for. A "Prime Directive" is not a valid excuse either.
-
Grey wolf,
If evolution is gradual the rat would have begun to sprout wings and eventually they would get in the way of evading a preditor and eventually died.
If evolution is quick then why haven't we seen it anywhere in recorded history. Surely someone might have mentioned a rat suddenly sprouting wings (or something like it) in the last 10,000 years of history.
-
Well, forgive me, but I absolutely hate it when people consider theory as untrue because it hasnt been fully proven (which I said, is literally impossible). And I didnt say people looked like apes, I said more ape-like features. Rounder eyes, not as square headed, deeper jaws, etc. People still look like people, but they are different nonetheless.
Has it occured to nobody that both evolution and creation may be true? Probably not very many. Because obviously, religion is mythology, and science is an act of the devil.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Not quite. Who's to say that the bat didn't evolve in an area where the snakes all travelled on the ground? Perhaps the early bat fled to the trees, and there it evolved the wings to provide a better freedom of movement.
But, then why didn't the hawk get it then, or the owl at night? And with such long toenails, how did he get in the holes to protect him? Or how could he climb.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Let me ask a question, it says
" Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, whales and many snakes develop hind limbs as embryos which are reabsorbed before birth"
Ok, now lets say that snake devolped one leg or lets say two and he kept it when he was born. How would have he survived? Snakes depend on speed and stealth. With two big back legs he would have trouble even moving, how could he be quick enough to catch that mouse or such. In one word, he couldn't he would end up food for some hawk, or other snake that DIDN'T have back legs.
[/b]
what
Of course? (Of course, back legs are such complex features that once lost they cannot be regained in their former shape or form. Lost finger's don't just grow back if the gene that directs the coding has been lost.) I don't really get your point.
And I have also herd of that bats evoloved from rats, that the grew long front toenails and slow devoloped skin on those toenails. How could he survive? He would end up food for a Snake with no legs.
Bats are insectivores, so you are wrong on that. The evolution of bats is unclear, though - they are insectivores, but as far as I know we don't have very good fossil archive about them.
And that is the problem with evolution, these "mid" evoloving animals would have died far before they could reproduce. And transfer the gene. [/B]
Those features don't just pop up all of a sudden. They evolve gradually. Also, they must have a positive impact in order to be preserved and eventually evolve into something else. Same thing all over and over again. And of course, the usage of traits can vary as well. Evolution has no goal, it's barely the process of trying to adapt to current enviroment.
-
Scuddie,
Theories arn't necessarily untrue because it hasn't been proven, but becaust it hasn't been proven dosn't mean it is true.
People have blended evolution and creation. That theory is the day-age theory.
-
Funny thing is, I don't use the fact I believe in evolution to try and say the Christ never existed..... funny dat...
-
Simple answer:
Rats go out at night, snakes and eagles don't.
Derived answer:
This is a gaming community, if you want to rant about other topics please go elsewhere.
Just a friendly advice :)
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Where and when has evolution been reproduced? That is the test it must undergo.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Speciation is one form of evolution. That has been proved.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Simple answer:
Rats go out at night, snakes and eagles don't.
Derived answer:
This is a gaming community, if you want to rant about other topics please go elsewhere.
Just a friendly advice :)
Yeah, your right, it's about time to let this one go.
But, just to you guys with one last thought, some snakes do come out at night.:D And thats not evolution, they are still the "same" kind of fish, a bass is still a bass, a catfish is still a catfish.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Funny thing is, I don't use the fact I believe in evolution to try and say the Christ never existed..... funny dat...
It appears you're argument is being nicely skirted there. :) :lol:
-
Janos,
"They evolve gradually. Also, they must have a positive impact in order to be preserved and eventually evolve into something else."
If something evolves slowly how can it have a positive impact? Lets take the rat to bat example. A rat to evolve into a bat slowly must change his diet, shrink his nose, grow different teeth(to accomodate the different diet), shrink his tail, sprot webbing at his front paws, grow extra bones and cartelege, learn echo location, go nearly blind, grow larger, more sensitive ears, etc. At any point a gradual evolution would yield him useless and a prime target for preditors, thus stopping that evolution.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
"They evolve gradually. Also, they must have a positive impact in order to be preserved and eventually evolve into something else."
If something evolves slowly how can it have a positive impact? Lets take the rat to bat example. A rat to evolve into a bat slowly must change his diet, shrink his nose, grow different teeth(to accomodate the different diet), shrink his tail, sprot webbing at his front paws, grow extra bones and cartelege, learn echo location, go nearly blind, grow larger, more sensitive ears, etc. At any point a gradual evolution would yield him useless and a prime target for preditors, thus stopping that evolution.
Rat to bat is incorrect, goddamnit, because rat is a rodent while a bat is an insectivore.
So, scratch over some of those. Then you can think about the radar/blindness. Some bats have pretty good sight on bat terms (usually the dayactive ones), some don't. The radar organ would be supplemental for sight (at first it would be just a communications tool, which has no negative consequences), until it would bypass sight, and so on - besides insectivores are traditionally pretty weak-eyed, being primarly nocturnal animals who rely on smell and hearing instead of vision.
"Half a wing" is useful for gliding, for example. The insectivore that evolved into a bat (assuming that bats are monophyletic) did not grow extra bones, either. Larger ears have no negative consequences, at least in nocturnal animals. At none point would gradual evolution render the protobat useless. Besides, evolutionary theory does not support the idea of half-winged, half-blind protobat. Such an animal would not be sufficintly adjusted to it's enviroment and would die.
We do see animals in transitional phases, but it's not that simple as you think. Sugargliders and flying squirrels and most notably the fishes that live partially on dry land.
-
Janos,
Your link again hasn't reveiled anything. I looked into the first instance that the link quotes which is:
A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens. [London Times 1998; Byrne and Nichols 1999]
The only thing that diferentiates between the two is that the molestus lives underground, but only part of the time. This is not evolving it's using what's presented. Kinda like I choose to live in Maryland rather than Pennsylvania. That isn't evolution.
I'm not going to look into the other examples since one is suspect then they all are. Furthermore, none of them represent a change in species. A mosquito is a mosquito.
Finally if you have preconcieved notions of what your going to find then you will find it. In other words if you first assume evolution is true then you can find evedentiary evidence to support it. That is the problem combining Scientific proof and evedentary proof. The scientific approach is that you have a theory and find proof for it, but it has to be reproducable. Evedentary is it isn't true until the evidence says it is. Scientists combine the two and assume it is true without allowing untainted evidence to prove for or against.
-
Janos,
"We do see animals in transitional phases, but it's not that simple as you think. Sugargliders and flying squirrels and most notably the fishes that live partially on dry land."
How are those transitional? Flying Squirrels, for example, have some aspects of squirrel and others of other creatures, but why assume they are transitional? They haven't transitioned in known history and they should if your going to hold to a slow evolution. You have the same precocieved notions as the scientist.
-
The truth is in the hearts of those that believe. I believe all the planets, space, earth and everything in it was created in 6 days. Why do I believe that you ask? Because the Bible is the book of truth.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Revelation 1:8 8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
The (I, AM) Is Jesus Christ. Just in case you don't know what alpha and omega mean. Alpha the beginning of time Omega is the end of time. This verse is talking about Jesus being here from the beginning of time. In the book of John Jesus said He was the truth. By the way don't make the mistake of thinking that I have religion. I have a relationship. The difference is you can only get a relationship through Jesus Christ and get to know the author that wrote the Bible. That is how you have true understanding of God's word. And it all starts by a seed of faith.
-
The first mistake most people make when thinking about evolution is thinking it is 'going' somewhere. It isn't, it is merely happening.
Cheetahs didn't think.... 'Hmmmm we need to be faster to catch the prey', the slow prey got eaten, the fast prey bred. After a surprisingly short while, the creature becomes synonymous with it's evolutionary niche 'As fast as a Cheetah, as strong as an Elephant' etc. Slow Cheetahs die, because they cannot catch the fast prey.
Think about it this way, there are 4 Billion people on Earth, every single one of them is evolutionarily different, different tastes, opinions and abilities.
In the wild, only those with the most effective genes would breed. It's hard to understand evolution because we have created a society in which that no longer applies, so because we don't see natural selection at work, we find it hard to take it into our lives.
Edit : Oh, and the Bible also describes 'Heaven' by dimensions, and I hope you don't mind sharing a room...
-
There's something strange going on here...
I smell trolls incoming.
Look at the posters and number of posts...
Some of them are joining here just to get into this discussion.
It would be better if the admins takes a look at this.
-
hehehehe Possibly they just wanted to join in on the side of the Creationists, I don't have a problem with that, and they haven't said anything inflammatory.
-
If your going to claim evedentary evidence for proof you must follow evedentary rules. Number one being it isn't true until evidence prooves it to be true. Number two is if the evidence can be explained in a different plausable way then the proof is not there. Thus we are left with two fully plausable answers to the proof and then we make a decision by faith.
-
Indeed, but the evidence for creationism has neither been revised nor reviewed to 2000 years, and aspects of it have already been disproved.
Evolution is constantly revised and enhanced as our knowledge grows, if we are wrong, then we accept thoes mistakes and move on with new knowledge. Personally, I'm for looking forward to the future for my answers, not dredging up the litany of the past.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
There's something strange going on here...
I smell trolls incoming.
Look at the posters and number of posts...
Some of them are joining here just to get into this discussion.
It would be better if the admins takes a look at this.
Admin won't have a problem with it. The more that join and post the more advertising dollar they can charge.
-
Flipside,
Can you share how creationism has been disproved?
-
The main one that springs to mind is dolphins and whales which have to come up to breath. It strongly suggests that, at least for a time, these animals did not dwell in their current medium. I can't see God giving a 40m long aquatic mammal the ability to drown as some kind of a joke, so evidence suggests these things had lungs for a reason.
-
I was thinking about evolution the other day.... I really wish we never out grew our tails... :D
-
Theres still a little stumpy bit left, as nature reminds you every time you sit on a wooden chair too hard ;)
-
yea, but it is a little hard to hang from trees or to whip people with just a stub. :(
-
:lol:
You obviously have a far more enjoyable private life than I do ;)
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
"We do see animals in transitional phases, but it's not that simple as you think. Sugargliders and flying squirrels and most notably the fishes that live partially on dry land."
How are those transitional? Flying Squirrels, for example, have some aspects of squirrel and others of other creatures, but why assume they are transitional? They haven't transitioned in known history and they should if your going to hold to a slow evolution. You have the same precocieved notions as the scientist.
Argh.
"Transitional" means "evolving into something different". Flying squirrels and stuff are maybe becoming airborne as in bats. Their ancestors were not gliding, so yes, they have changed their form - EVOLVED - in history. Transitional change is not something which happens over several decades.
And of course what do YOU mean as transitional? Some kind of weird half-flying abomination? You should maybe elaborate your points rather than beg for question. Also, you seem to have little understandment of evolutionary process while you stubbornly - and sometimes biologically falsely - try to attack said theory (notorious "rats for bats", for example).
And of course I have the same attitude as scientists. Evolution is a theory, it has been proved, it's as close to fact as one can get and using Occam's Razor we can nicely leave any metaphysical beings and ID crap out of equation.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Flipside,
Can you share how creationism has been disproved?
It hasn't been proved at all, you know. You could just look at the entire talk.origins archive for proof of evolution, on the other hand. You can't hold unproven myths as a viable substitute for scientifically proved theories.
-
Flip,
Yes, evidence might suggest it but it dosn't disprove. Let me give you an example of a disprove. The sun shrinks it has been at a constant rate ever since we knew it and could measure it. If the earth is billions of years old, or even millions, adding back the suns mass it looses per year the Earth and even Jupiter would have been within the sun. It's hard for dinosaurs to live walking on a 3,000 degree rock.
Uber,
I could use a tail, or better yet a trunk. It would be better to be able to grab things with it.
-
Oh for the love of....
-
Yes, but it's also been proved that a star goes through periods of growth as well. Remember 'since we have been measuring' is a phenominally small expanse of the suns life, you are taking measurements in creationist timescales and applying them at evolutionary timescales, if you see what I mean?
It depends on the particular materials the Sun is fusing at the time, in it's Early and Later life, it burns a lot hotter, and thus expands, at the moment it is at 'Yellow Dwarf' phase, which is a quiescent burning period billions of years long.
-
Janos,
Flip said that Creationism has been disproved I just asked for a when and where.
Secondly, the term "transitional" implies evolution. If your going to hold to a evedentary evidence you must first say it isn't true instead of assuming it is.
I only used rats to bats because it was brought up earlier. You can do the same with any jump from species to different species.
I know plenty about evolution. It isn't that hard. Like you said ocam's razor. Both theories are pretty simple.
P.s. Ocam was a monk.
-
I actually would be interested to find out what the outcome would be if both Evolution and Creationism were put through the same test, with the same rules, both required to provide 'proof' of their claims.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
Flip said that Creationism has been disproved I just asked for a when and where.
Secondly, the term "transitional" implies evolution. If your going to hold to a evedentary evidence you must first say it isn't true instead of assuming it is.
[/b]
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Are you high?
I only used rats to bats because it was brought up earlier. You can do the same with any jump from species to different species.
I know plenty about evolution. It isn't that hard. Like you said ocam's razor. Both theories are pretty simple.
P.s. Ocam was a monk. [/B]
But you still ignored the fact that rats are rodents. They are not closely related to bat, which are insectivores, like shrew and hedgehogs.
-
Flip,
You have made a couple of leaps in your statements. First, what we know about stars is very new and still the theory stage (of course that is what it will always be) Second, you sliped when you said "...particular materials the Sun is fusing at the time." The sun dosn't change the material it is fusing. Third, you just stated that "...at the moment it is at 'Yellow Dwarf' phase, which is a quiescent burning period billions of years long." Which supports that the sun has remained at a constant rate of shrinking.
I was using that as an example of a disproof. It does have it's flaws. The main one being assuming a constant rate of decay. But, ultimately we are left with no proof for either creation or evolution and then our left to a choice of belief. We can choose to believe evolution or creation.
-
It's impossible to disprove creationism, because science is in the business of evidence and proof, not disproof. Science has stacked up thousands of little pieces of information that support evolution and an old earth, from many different sources, and practically none that support a 6 day creation 6000 years ago. Thus, evolution is incredibly more likely, so much more likely that it has, to all intents and purposes, been proven (though in pure scientific terms, nothing is ever proven). If, therefore, we accept that evolution and old earth theories have been proven, then by default young earth Creationism has been displaced and disproven.
-
Ok, Janos
I admit it, you caught me. Your right, a rat is a rodent wow, that just proves evolution. Hey, heres another proof, a rodent is a mamal. Oh. my gosh! Burn the Bibles! Darwin is now our messiah.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Flip,
You have made a couple of leaps in your statements. First, what we know about stars is very new and still the theory stage (of course that is what it will always be)
And yet, of course, the evidence you can use to support creationism can be thrown up there with no kind of disclaimer about the relative newness of the study of stars.
Originally posted by jpheu
Second, you sliped when you said "...particular materials the Sun is fusing at the time." The sun dosn't change the material it is fusing.
Yes, it does. It starts by fusing Hydrogen into Helium, then, when it runs out of hydrogen, it fuses the Helium to ... Beryllium I think, and so on until it reaches Iron, which can't be fused. These are fundamental atomic changes to the material within the star.
Originally posted by jpheu
Third, you just stated that "...at the moment it is at 'Yellow Dwarf' phase, which is a quiescent burning period billions of years long." Which supports that the sun has remained at a constant rate of shrinking.
No it doesn't. It supports nothing more than what it says - that the yellow dwarf phase lasts billions of years. There's no mention of the behaviour of the star during those billions of years.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Flip,
You have made a couple of leaps in your statements. First, what we know about stars is very new and still the theory stage (of course that is what it will always be)
[/b]
Yep, so we're as good as we can within the bounds of current knowledge.
Second, you sliped when you said "...particular materials the Sun is fusing at the time." The sun dosn't change the material it is fusing.
Well I don't know, stars do change from hydrogen to helium fusion as they get older. Big stars go all the way to iron.
Third, you just stated that "...at the moment it is at 'Yellow Dwarf' phase, which is a quiescent burning period billions of years long." Which supports that the sun has remained at a constant rate of shrinking.
Well that's right, Sun is not a dwarf. It's a G2 star, mediocre in most aspects.
I was using that as an example of a disproof. It does have it's flaws. The main one being assuming a constant rate of decay. But, ultimately we are left with no proof for either creation or evolution and then our left to a choice of belief. We can choose to believe evolution or creation. [/B]
Well we are left with proof of evolution and no proof for creation, but as creationists tend to bypass and dodge those proofs and come up with their own outrageous demands ("you must show me a living descedant of a dinosaur! oh a bird won't do, it has to be a LIVE MARTIAN VELOCIRAPTOR"), convincing them that sound and tested proof (which you have been excessively linked to in this thread alone) exists.
edit **** beaten
-
Black Wolf,
Those thousand pieces you talk about can be just as easily explained by creation. God didn't create the egg, he created the chicken. In other words, God created with a maturity.
The problem, once again, is that scientists assume evolution is true, and never start with the premice of finding out what is true. Therefore the proofs they find are flawed by the preconcieved theory. ANY "Proof" for evolution can just as easily, and easilyer, be answered with creation.
-
Now that I think of it, the term "Science fiction" has to be the truest of them all :D.
-
Janos
I am not making outrageous demands I simpley demand that if we are to use an evedentary system of proof then we go by evedentiary rules and start with asking, "Which one is true."
Both evolution and creation can explain how everything got here. Thus we are left with nothing. Neither can be said as proof, because both give adiquite reasons for any proof postulated. Then we are left with a choice of belief. And, applying ocam's razor, what is more plausable: God created it, or it evolved over billions of years.
-
Scuddie,
Yea, science fiction is great. I could almost believe we are in a matrix.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Black Wolf,
Those thousand pieces you talk about can be just as easily explained by creation.
I'm sorry, but not all of them can. In fact, the vast majority cannot. Ill give you one of my favourite examples - though I'll admit this was given to me by a lecturer.
We have a complete evolutionary sequence for the transition from regular echinoids to irrergular echinoids. When you dig in the correct places, or review what others have dug up, you'll find a series of fossils that show the gradual motion of the mouth and anus from the bottom and top (respectively) of the organism to the front and back, as well as the increasing complexty of the hard shells on the outside. These are found exactly in order, with the changes taking place gradually over millions of generations. The ages are accurate whether you date through compararison of local microfossils, the geological stratum the fossils are found in, or radiocative decay of the relevant elements in the fossil. It's a perfect sequence. How does creationism explain that?
Or how about all the other fossil sequences we have, for horses, humans, sauropods, bony fish, sharks, mammals etc. etc.?
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Janos
I am not making outrageous demands I simpley demand that if we are to use an evedentary system of proof then we go by evedentiary rules and start with asking, "Which one is true."
Both evolution and creation can explain how everything got here. Thus we are left with nothing. Neither can be said as proof, because both give adiquite reasons for any proof postulated. Then we are left with a choice of belief. And, applying ocam's razor, what is more plausable: God created it, or it evolved over billions of years.
You're missing the point, and I suspect it's deliberate.
Evolution has a lot more verified evidence than creationism does. This is fact. You check the creationist websites and you find a consistent theme - they flatten you with pseudoscience and poorly thought out arguments against the most well known evolutionary evidence, but toally ignore the really important stuff that modern geologists and biologists use as proof, like genetic correlation, radioactive dating and confimation of the geological column, etc. etc. They present little pure scientific evidence for creationism, and what they do present has often been debunked decades before, which a little googling can show.
If you want to apply Occam's razor (which I intensely dislike for the record) then evolution wins. Evolution and old earth provides us with a method by which everything we know today could have come to pass ithin the physical laws that govern the universe. Creationism and even ID require those laws to be broken, and are thus less simple (they only seem simpler because they are simpler to explain - creations requires one only to say "God made it" without describing the process by which he may have done so, wheras explaining evolution requires anexplaination of the process).
-
Black Wolf,
You are talking about the fossil record, which, when a fossil is found is dated by the layer of strata it is in. Correct? How then do we know how old that layer of strata is? By the fossil record found in it. You cant acurately date any fossil. As for the how the layers of fossils appear... The great flood easily answers it. Once you disturb a layer of sediment in water what settles first? The heaviest particle, then lighter and lighter particles. Thus the fossil record is born, not over a millenia but in about 40 days and nights.
Now, Carbon 14 dating. Is the measurement of raidoactive decay of a Carbon atom. I'll skip the plesentries and say that it's flawed by assuming the non-existence of a later element to begin with.
-
This is just too damn fun to watch.
That said, I recommend this to anyone aspiring to dispute evolutionary theory - if you want to say something is wrong, you really should have all information you can about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
And on another note, for the new members, HLP doesn't make any revenues from advertisement, so we have no reason whatsoever not to lock this thread if it gets out of hand. As long as you keep it civilized (which it is right now, apart from a couple of isolated events), it'll stay open. If it devolves into flames, it'll be locked. Though I really don't see much point in you guys continuing this discussion.
-
beyond time and space
What is beyond time and space? Is it something beyond our reach? Or is space just there to keep us in wonder? Could there be another world more planets? Was the creator of star trek on to something in his wild imagination of creating new species and new cultures? Are we wasting our time and dollars trying to find aliens that don't exist? Or are we trying to find heaven and to see if there truly is a God? Don't they know that there is a
cheaper way to finding heaven? Are we trying too hard and looking in the wrong places? Does anybody know the answers? Maybe we are wasting time with science looking for proof that God doesn't exist? Truly there must be a better reason for us humans being on this beautiful earth and a better answer then the big bang theory that we were evolved from apes? Could we be looking for the answers in all the wrong places? Could we be holding the answers to these question all along in the book we Christians call the Bible? Maybe we should start trying to close our eyes and start looking with our hearts instead of our minds. Could the stars be really angels giving us light in the darkness? Are the falling stars, angels coming from heaven? How much time do we have till it runs out? what if there really is a lake of fire called hell?
In the beginning God created heaven, earth and everything in it
It's not our time we should be worrying about it's God's time
For God is time and its on his time that we're still ticking
Beyond time and space is a most magical place
There's only one way to reach the heavens that's
By the Lord Jesus Christ who died making our way
You say where's the proof that the earth was made by God
If there's no God we wouldn't exist not even the outer space
We were created in Gods image not from evolving apes
Beyond time and space is Gods loving grace
One day those in the book of life will walk with
God, who will explain the works of His hand
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Black Wolf,
You are talking about the fossil record, which, when a fossil is found is dated by the layer of strata it is in. Correct? How then do we know how old that layer of strata is? By the fossil record found in it. You cant acurately date any fossil. As for the how the layers of fossils appear... The great flood easily answers it. Once you disturb a layer of sediment in water what settles first? The heaviest particle, then lighter and lighter particles. Thus the fossil record is born, not over a millenia but in about 40 days and nights.
[/b]
Oh yes, and the radioactive decay rates just go wildly up and down all the time, and lava pours inside those formations, and all species just mysteriously die in evolutionary order, and stuff , read this! (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord) Also, you also age fossils with radiometric dating, or the type of the rock it is found in, or ****loads of various data.
Now, Carbon 14 dating. Is the measurement of raidoactive decay of a Carbon atom. I'll skip the plesentries and say that it's flawed by assuming the non-existence of a later element to begin with. [/B]
Now this is insane.
Of course, C14 has such a short decay time that it cannot be used in measuring anything else than rather recent archeological findings (roughly five thousand something years). One could use different
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
You're missing the point, and I suspect it's deliberate.
Evolution has a lot more verified evidence than creationism does. This is fact. You check the creationist websites and you find a consistent theme - they flatten you with pseudoscience and poorly thought out arguments against the most well known evolutionary evidence, but toally ignore the really important stuff that modern geologists and biologists use as proof, like genetic correlation, radioactive dating and confimation of the geological column, etc. etc. They present little pure scientific evidence for creationism, and what they do present has often been debunked decades before, which a little googling can show.
.
I'm not missing you point, I get that you think Evolution is more verifyed. My point is that if you assume something and look for ways to prove it, you will find them. Superstitions are born this way. I'm sure the first person to open an umbrella indoors had a string of bad luck that he would say is proof of that superstition. Again your comming from a presupposition that evolution is true and anything you see to prove against it will seem like pseudoscience and poorly thought out arguments,and any evidence for will debunk it.
You must first start with asking what is true. And give up any preconcieved notions. If you still end up with evolution then it will ultimately be by your choosing to believe it.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
I'm not missing you point, I get that you think Evolution is more verifyed. My point is that if you assume something and look for ways to prove it, you will find them. Superstitions are born this way. I'm sure the first person to open an umbrella indoors had a string of bad luck that he would say is proof of that superstition. Again your comming from a presupposition that evolution is true and anything you see to prove against it will seem like pseudoscience and poorly thought out arguments,and any evidence for will debunk it.
You must first start with asking what is true. And give up any preconcieved notions. If you still end up with evolution then it will ultimately be by your choosing to believe it.
Prove creation and disprove evolution is scientifically viable way, now.
-
:wtf:
Anyway...
Originally posted by jpheu
Black Wolf,
You are talking about the fossil record, which, when a fossil is found is dated by the layer of strata it is in. Correct? How then do we know how old that layer of strata is? By the fossil record found in it. You cant acurately date any fossil. As for the how the layers of fossils appear... The great flood easily answers it. Once you disturb a layer of sediment in water what settles first? The heaviest particle, then lighter and lighter particles. Thus the fossil record is born, not over a millenia but in about 40 days and nights.
Now, Carbon 14 dating. Is the measurement of raidoactive decay of a Carbon atom. I'll skip the plesentries and say that it's flawed by assuming the non-existence of a later element to begin with.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
A prominent theory is that there was a fairly large flood near the Black Sea, which inspired the flood legends in most Indo-European religions.
-
Janos,
There you go. You know all the arguments for and against evolution. We don't have to discuss it anymore. You have made your choice to believe what you do. The truth is relitive then for my choice is to believe the opposite. But what if your wrong?
-
Originally posted by Janos
Prove creation and disprove evolution is scientifically viable way, now.
That's my point, you cant! I cant, No one can. It comes down to a choice given the evidence presented. First, you must weigh ALL the evidence. Search for it and then make a decision. I am done searching, for the logic and evidence of the existence of a God, and that he created the world in six literal days, is more and more powerful.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
There you go. You know all the arguments for and against evolution. We don't have to discuss it anymore. You have made your choice to believe what you do. The truth is relitive then for my choice is to believe the opposite. But what if your wrong?
Truth is relative? :wtf: That's... uhm.
I can be wrong, and so be it. But until evolution is disproved and debunked, it is correct. It has evidence for it - as you have propably seen, if you have read the links I have so generously given - and is just as much a theory than gravity or relativity. Your choice to believe the opposite is your own business, but it has nothing to do with scientific credibility, it has no links to observable reality, has been proved wrong zillion times and is based on a book which is written by Man (oh yes i went there).
-
Originally posted by jpheu
That's my point, you cant! I cant, No one can. It comes down to a choice given the evidence presented.
IT CAN BE DONE AND IT HAS BEEN DONE.
Don't dodge.
-
04
Ecclesiastes
Gathering mud some water a lizard, ken and barbie
Mixing it all together in a metal bowl putting it in the
Microwave trying to create the world
Big bang the world was created turning barbie and ken
In to cave people who got eaten by t-rex then choked
Falling dead creating a big earthquake
Ecclesiastes is right the world is meaningless without God
Without a God the world would make no sense thinking
The world was created by mistake would be foolish
Gathering the heavens and the stars the worlds creation was started
Adding a sun and the moon there was light adding a cup of water, trees
Bringing animals, took some dust, creating man, God saw it was Good
Big bang or Genesis one an accident, the other made
Don't know what to believe, I for one would rather
Think I was created in the image of God
-
I for one would rather believe the universe is so vast and full of possibilities that we did pop out of a probability equation.
-
If he's wrong? He'll go to hell. Peacefully, quietly, he'll enjoy it. But if he's right, and he can prove this thing, Jpheu... You will have confirmed the ideas, of millions of acclaimed scientists.
Hmmm... I think I'm in a weird mood today :blah:.
On a more serious note, I am actually very curious as to why it seems science and religion are almost always closed minded, even if they are proven wrong. The idea of that something is true because I say it is, or someone else says it is, really gets to me. As does the idea that something is not valid because it hasnt been proven. If you're like me, you'd take religion and science with a grain of salt.
Now if you excuse me, I will attempt to make a coherant thought... Any time now... Yep, I'll come up with a brilliant argument that will make everyone realize they are right and wrong at the same time... Yep...
Or not :(.
EDIT: And walker, I understand your human right to follow the Christian religion. However, do you believe that the pattern of life is fixed as it was eons upon eons ago? Or do you believe the pattern of life changes as time passes? If you want to take part in this thread, I suggest making reasonable and logical arguments, rather than stating ideas that are extremely biased and based on inherited belief.
-
I can't believe people are still going on about the flood as a way of sorting fossils - it doesn't make any logical sense. How would the flood sort these echinoids, when they are all of close to the same size? Why are they not sorted based on their physical structure, but on the degree of biological complexity? And why oh why are the vast majority of fossils marine animals? Wouldn't land animals have died in far more copious amounts during some kind of global flood?
And as long as we're on the subject, why don;t we find scablands (Which are known flood produced landscapes) all over the world? Why do we see genetic diversiy in species that could not have developed from a single pair of animals? How did noah gather two of every animal when he could not have accessed the vast majority of the planet in order to get unique animals from these places?
If there was enough water to cover all the landmasses on earth, where did it go and where did it come from?
But we're not debating the flood here... well, we shouldn't be.
[EDIT]Oh, and I strongly reccomend you read this (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html) to answer your problems with radiometric dating. You might want to browse some of the other articles on the site while you're there too - very informative.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
If he's wrong? He'll go to hell. Peacefully, quietly, he'll enjoy it. But if he's right, and he can prove this thing, Jpheu... You will have confirmed the ideas, of millions of acclaimed scientists.
[/b]
Yeah, because evolution theory as we see it is wrong it's inevitable that I go to hell, not that some other scientific theory would emerge victorious. I see your point though.
Of course I have linked a ****load of proofs of evolution in this thread alone, so wade back a couple of pages if you want your
On a more serious note, I am actually very curious as to why it seems science and religion are almost always closed minded, even if they are proven wrong. The idea of that something is true because I say it is, or someone else says it is, really gets to me. As does the idea that something is not valid because it hasnt been proven. If you're like me, you'd take religion and science with a grain of salt.
Or not :(.
You maybe should read up on your scientific method and ethics of science before making such claims.
Science is close-minded only in that aspect that it only accepts provable stuff. Some crackhead's hallucinations are to be outright ignored unless someone suddenly pops out of the framework and goes: "Hey, I have proven Jack the Crackwhore's idea!" Then scientist go all "wtf" and subject said thingie into inspection, critics and finally to dismission/acceptance.
-
Janos,
It hasn't in the evedentary sence. I thought we fought this round already. Who's dodging?
Personal truth is relitive! As for true truth that isn't.
As for the Bible it has never been proven wrong and it won't be. You post from your preconcieved notions and I from mine. To say that one can be proven wrong, I have shown, is incorrect. You cannot hold evolution to the same tests as gravity or relitivity for it isn't reproducable.
As far as the Bible written by man I would agree. But it was inspired by God.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
You cannot hold evolution to the same tests as gravity or relitivity for it isn't reproducable.
It is reproducable. We've seen laboaratory speciation of fruit flies, bacteria and lots of other organisms, and wild speciation of snakes, more insects, more bacteria, fish and even more other organisms.
-
You people are smart, web-savy people. You can find the evidence against evolution just as much as evidence for. We can argue certain points from now until Christ returns and we will be exactly where we are now.
It is ultimately like I said. We make a choice to believe what we want in this matter.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Yeah, because evolution theory as we see it is wrong it's inevitable that I go to hell, not that some other scientific theory would emerge victorious. I see your point though.
Of course I have linked a ****load of proofs of evolution in this thread alone, so wade back a couple of pages if you want your
You do realize that it was a butchery of a Ghostbusters quote, right? For some reason, the "But what if you're wrong?" line made me come up with that. I still dont know why. :nervous:
You maybe should read up on your scientific method and ethics of science before making such claims.
Science is close-minded only in that aspect that it only accepts provable stuff. Some crackhead's hallucinations are to be outright ignored unless someone suddenly pops out of the framework and goes: "Hey, I have proven Jack the Crackwhore's idea!" Then scientist go all "wtf" and subject said thingie into inspection, critics and finally to dismission/acceptance.
Look at Leonardo Da Vinci. Many people thought he was crazy, and it wasnt until later where many of his ideas came to light.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
It hasn't in the evedentary sence. I thought we fought this round already. Who's dodging?
Personal truth is relitive! As for true truth that isn't.
As for the Bible it has never been proven wrong and it won't be. You post from your preconcieved notions and I from mine. To say that one can be proven wrong, I have shown, is incorrect. You cannot hold evolution to the same tests as gravity or relitivity for it isn't reproducable.
As far as the Bible written by man I would agree. But it was inspired by God.
Personal truth has jack **** to do with this. I can claim that I personally believe that Bulibubu, the great jackrabbit, created the world in seven days. I cannot then go and try to disprove, say, scientists with my Bulibubu account, and when being excessively roasted with objectively credible evidence retreat and shout "yeah but that's like your opinion man".
I would also be happy to know what this "evidentiary" fact means. I am not an native English speaker, and only thing that I found by rabid googling is that evidentiary fact is a fact. "It has been proven in factual sense." What else do we need?
And as for your "NOT REPRODUCIBLE" (which is, btw, not one of the critic points of larger theories, mind you!), http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
-
Originally posted by jpheu
You people are smart, web-savy people. You can find the evidence against evolution just as much as evidence for. We can argue certain points from now until Christ returns and we will be exactly where we are now.
If you now would just show us that credible evidence you've been talking so much about, ok? One that does have validity behind it?
Thank you.
-
Janos,
Your bulibubu is just as defenceable as another theory if it offers an alternate evidence as to how things got here. I doubt it would be as effectual as evolution or Creation unless, it exactly mirrors one or the other.
Evidentiary proof is the process of proof that is used in a court system. It is the proof your link set foreward as evidence of evolution, it however is flawed in that it assumes the truth of the matter first when it should start with asking what is true.
The "not reproduceabe" part is taken from the scientific process which requires a hypothesis be testable and reproducable in order to become any more than a hypothesis. For example, You cannot prove scientificaly that you were born. It isn't reproducable. Evedentiary proof would lead me to believe it is true, since you are where you are and no one gets to be where they are without being born.
-
If you need links to start (google is broken I guess) Here are a few
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.icr.org/
www.answersingenesis.org
www.creationscience.com
My recomendation is to start with http://www.icr.org/ and when your done reading that whole site come back.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
...and when your done reading that whole site come back.
Did you read the whole TalkOrigins.com site, per any chance? ;)
And no flame-baiting. Further posts containing content that I consider to be flame-baiting will be edited or deleted.
-
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
edit: Damn you Styxx, you stole my punchline! :mad:
Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
Your bulibubu is just as defenceable as another theory if it offers an alternate evidence as to how things got here. I doubt it would be as effectual as evolution or Creation unless, it exactly mirrors one or the other.
[/b]
But it cannot be proved in any reasonably ways and as such should not be used as an equal option for something that is internationally confirmed as true. It's close to Creation, because it's a myth.
Evidentiary proof is the process of proof that is used in a court system. It is the proof your link set foreward as evidence of evolution, it however is flawed in that it assumes the truth of the matter first when it should start with asking what is true.
The "not reproduceabe" part is taken from the scientific process which requires a hypothesis be testable and reproducable in order to become any more than a hypothesis. For example, You cannot prove scientificaly that you were born. It isn't reproducable. Evedentiary proof would lead me to believe it is true, since you are where you are and no one gets to be where they are without being born. [/B]
I assume you did not read the link I gave to you at all?
And as for your evidentiary part, well, what other kind of set could you really use? You really can't evaluate the truthfulness of something unless you have some kind of an hyopthesis you are trying to prove or disprove. Besides science is self-correcting, that is, if something is found that contradicts the previous theories, then everything is inspected and false theories are discarded or modified.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
If you need links to start (google is broken I guess) Here are a few
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.icr.org/
www.answersingenesis.org
www.creationscience.com
My recomendation is to start with http://www.icr.org/ and when your done reading that whole site come back.
LOL
Random snips from that HUGELY SCIENTIFIC AND NOT RELIGIOUSLY BIASED site:
Well I started with this WHOA:
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear—and apparently—unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Already debunked in this same thread.
Then I found this gem:
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy—also known as the second law of thermodynamics—stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
"Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same." Nature is so full of these cyclic processes, and nature and organisms themselves are completely isolated from everything else, right?
Then this:
Special creation by a divine Creator can account for the actual observed facts of nature much better than a hypothetical process of development in the past which is contrary to basic known scientific law in the present. It is more reasonable that “similarities” be explained in terms of a common Designer, who created similar structures for similar functions, rather than by assumed ancestral relationships. Furthermore, creation accounts for the differences as well as the similarities, which evolution cannot do.
Contrary to known what laws - the infamous misinterprated second law? Metaphysical wizard in the sky is the best explanation for things that have completely normal and concrete explanation as well? And evolution is quite heavy in similarities.
That site makes my head hurt. I guess you're busily wading through talk.origins archives finding something to use against me.
-
*pops head into HLP*
Good grief. Quite an impressive thread, this....
Righty then:
An0n: good article - very interesting. Thanks.:) And yes, if there is a god (something nobody can ever know, btw - so arguing for or against is entirely futile and a massive waste of your life), it's going to get an earful when I find it! :nod:
jdjtcagle: An emphatic :wtf: to you. When did you go all fundie?
As for the new people,
:welcome:
Some points, though:
ksw walker: If you're going to post, at least make some useful pint. Mindlessly quoting... whatever it is you're quoting from... isn't much use.
Creationists: One little point. The bible was written by people. People are not god. God is/would be of another order, existing on an entirely different plane of reality. These people weren't visited by god - why would god speak to someone and tell him things? God wouldn't care what humanity thinks of the universe, how it came to be, etc.
I could come back tomorrow and say I have been visited by god in a dream/on top of a hill/on the toilet and am going to write a book about it. I can't prove it. Nobody else was with me. Would you accept my words as the words of god? Somehow I doubt it. If I went and preached my revelations on the streets, I'd probably get a lot of funny looks, and eventually some nice men in uniforms would drag me away...
-
Janos,
What you linked isn't any better; Sites that are just as militant in confirming evolution.
I didn't get how you were trying to debunk the second law of thermodynamics proof. Please clarify.
Pyro,
We can get into a discussion about the existence of God and why He is a involved God in another thread.
Styxx,
Sorry, consiter it withdrawn.
-
jpheu, the second law of thermodynamics simply cannot be applied like that site mentions, first it does not applies to any case in general that I am aware of and even if it did, they don't even take into consideration all of the entropy (heat, material losses between generations, etc, etc, etc...) which would in essence refute any possible claim of violating that law. In other words, it is the most used fallacy on the face of the Earth and any mention of it grants the speaker of such violation a pair of :wtf:
Search around the forums, I believe it has been mentioned like a billion times before.
-
The first part of my first post and my last two posts are not quotes. I write song/poems those were 3 of them and they had to do with God's creation. Isn't this thread on how everything was made? My IMO are in the songs/poems that I write.
-
Well, proof that the evolution is the work of Evil : AIDS. I mean, this dear little viruses are a proof of evolution, since that's why we have problem curing it. The weaker form of the virus are killed of by the medication we try on it, but the stronger form stay, and evolves to get immune against this medication. Survival of the fittest, like this evil, evil Darwin guy said, against the word of GOD.
/me is going to watch Dogma again, then Back to the future.
In other words : Chill out people. Personnaly, I see science as having made much more than religion to improve the quality of life for all of humanity,which is why i tend to put more faith (oh, the irony :D) in scientific explanation than in religious one. Only religious people I respect for their fatih are the Mormon who still live in condition equal to the 18th century, since at least they are not hypocritical enough to use what science has offered to badmouth it later.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Pyro,
We can get into a discussion about the existence of God and why He is a involved God in another thread.
You can't take the words of men as the Word of God. Even if the men responsible did have direct contact with god, there's no way they could comprehend everything they were told - that would mean being on the same level of reality as god, which cannot happen. Thus the bible is, and can only ever be an interpretation, the words of men trying to convey what they experienced (contact with god would not be like a conversation) in words. :)
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
jpheu, the second law of thermodynamics simply cannot be applied like that site mentions, first it does not applies to any case in general that I am aware of and even if it did, they don't even take into consideration all of the entropy (heat, material losses between generations, etc, etc, etc...) which would in essence refute any possible claim of violating that law. In other words, it is the most used fallacy on the face of the Earth and any mention of it grants the speaker of such violation a pair of :wtf:
Search around the forums, I believe it has been mentioned like a billion times before.
It isn't a case of where the Second Law of Thermodynamics is applied. A law is a law because it applies to all of science. From biology, to chemestry, to physics, to botany, etc.
The argument in it's simplest form is: 1) The second Law of thermodynamics says that the universe is going from a state of order to a state of disorder, ie. De-evolution. 2)Evolution says that the universe is going from a state of disorder to order.
3) These two statements cannot be equally true.
There are three ways to argue with it. 1)deny that the second law of thermodynamics says that. 2) deny that evolution says that, or 3)tell me that while the universe is becoming disorganised it is also becoming more organised. (the oxymoron approach)
-
Pyro,
If you insist on arguing this here then I must first have definitions. How do you define God? (was that flame-baiting?)
-
A metaphysical concept created by humans living in the early stages of our current form of society, to explain what could not be explained due to the limitations of science at that time.
Also a hell of a way to keep everyone in line.
But that's my definition, not his, so carry on. :p
-
No, evolution does not imply order from disorder, when you try to order something you automatically raise the entropy of the system with heat release, etc...
Also straight from wikipedia
Evolution, creationism and the second law
Creationists often claim that biological evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, citing a flawed version of the law that states that entropy never decreases.
Biologists point out that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to a closed system, which the Earth is not, since it receives megajoules per second of energy from the Sun. The flawed version of the law would preclude any decrease in entropy, including things like the formation of a snowflake. This objection is not grounded in any understanding of thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
-
vyper,
So... God is a concept? nothing more. only existing in the minds of people?
-
Ghostavo,
I didn't say imply. I said says. it changes the meaning entirely.
Your wikipedia quote is very limited in its grasp. The Creationist argument, like the evolutionary argument is for the whole universe. Which is a closed system.
Your responce would seem that you are disagreing with my definition of the second law of thermodynamics and with my definition of Evolution. Please, supply your own definitions, and we will debate those.
-
Evolutionary theory isn't meant to describe the whole universe. It describes how some completely meaningless **** happens on a completely meaningless piece of dust in a completely meaningless universe. It's really quite small in scope when you take a step back.
-
Evolution doesn't imply, or in words you cannot misunderstand, does not mean, cannot mean and will never mean an decrease of entropy of the system in study (Earth) because of:
1- The system is not closed, therefore throwing the second law off the place you wish it to be.
2- Any site mentioning such a violation of the second law doesn't even consider the release of entropy into the system (which suffers from what I said in 1).
According to your definition of the second law of thermodynamics, you cannot at any time freeze water! Yes, that's right, water is in a much organized state than it was when it was liquid, I have managed to bypass the second law completly! True? No, the heat (or energy) from the water raised the entropy of what's around the frozen water therefore making the overall entropy of the system be like it was before or even greater (depending on other stuff of course).
So concluding, any mentioning of the second law of thermodynamics prohibiting evolution cannot be taken seriously as even those who make such claims do not take the second law seriously as they do not care how the law works, just where the flawed version they try to throw at people's faces takes them.
-
Interesting question... is the Universe a closed system? From a religious standpoint it is not, it is effected by an 'external' source, i.e, God, but what about from a Scientific viewpoint?
Personally, I don't think the Universe is 'closed' but not because of any sentient or judging external entity ;)
-
Even if the universe was closed there is no presently possible way of measuring the entropy of the entire universe, as one cannot even know it's entire extention.
-
We don't know enough about the universe to make the conclusion about what kind of system it is. For instance, some have theorized that electromagnetism is a force from another plane of existence that is manifesting itself in ours.
-
The thing is, it's like a hologram, smash a hologram up into minute pieces, and then look into one of those pieces. You will see the whole hologram intact, every tiny grain of a hologram contains an image of the whole thing. The universe can be like that sometimes.
-
Do holograms exist?
And lol, creation scientists, walking talking oxymorons.
-
Originally posted by jpheu
vyper,
So... God is a concept? nothing more. only existing in the minds of people?
I believe thats what I said, yes. :)
-
Ghostavo,
Your water analogy is where the wikipedia argument comes in. Water when the heat reduced to 32 degrees F. by an outside source turns to ice. This implies an outside energy force for in and of itself water cannot turn to ice. Again thermodynamics, in the creationist argument is universally applied.
Again, I ask what is your definition of evolution? Part of Mariam-webster puts it: a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state :
-
I'll catch up tomorrow guys. Keep it up.
-
You're being pedantic. You know what the scientific process of evolution is, but you're playing with other, broader definitions of the word.
Biological evolution is the process by which individuals of a species either die or survive for long enough to reproduce, causing the gradual change of the species over time depending on the dynamics of the environment.
It should be noted that evolution doesn't always happen if there's no reason for it to happen. The crocodilians are a prime example; they've hardly changed for millions and millions of years.
-
OMFG. :mad:
I am stating a close system where the water and a cold body are close or together.
Also, biological evolution = change in the genetic components of a species over time. The definition you quoted (I assume) is flawed as evolution does not mean that a being goes from a simple being to a complex one, just one that adapts to the enviroment, or else virus wouldn't exist.
-
Dear Lord. I didn't even have to read this one; hop to page 8 and there's the standard creationism vs. evolution debate. You people need to stop being so predictable. :p
-
We can't help it, it's too much fun ;)
-
Yeah, it is fun isn't it.:)
-
Originally posted by jpheu
Pyro,
If you insist on arguing this here then I must first have definitions. How do you define God? (was that flame-baiting?)
Not at all. For the sake of my point, god is the supreme being, the highest consciousness, the ultimate incarnation of intelligence and understanding (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc) that created the universe. Whether or not God exists (or whether or not I believe in God) is not important to what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that the men who wrote the bible cannot have written the entire truth. It's kind of hard for me to make myself clear (eloquence isn't one of my traits :( ). Um...
OK, try this: You're standing on a high place (top of a mountain, a tall building, doesn't matter really). You look out, and see before you an incredibly beautiful view. There are cliffs and oceans and forests and cities and all kinds of spectacular things to see. It is every season of the year, happening all at once. The sun is shining off lakes, while at the same time the leaves are gold and red, and the wind is blowing across cornfields, and snow is falling softly, and frost is forming on the leaves. The sun is setting, and fully bright, and an eclipse is in progress. At the same time, you are eating the most delicious meal possible, and are tasting all the courses at once. You are also sleeping, and running a marathon, and fighting, and making love all at once, and you are experiencing everything with perfect senses, where distance, time etc. do not matter.
Now, take everything you are experiencing, and try to make an ant understand it.
That is like God explaining the nature of reality to us as humans. It is something which, no matter how hard God tried, he could not convey sufficiently to a person without elevating him to the same state of existence. It is simply not possible. A mortal man cannot comprehend such things accurately and fully, so he can only make sense of the things which make sense, so to speak. So the bible is at best God's word as interpreted by men, and is not the supreme "Truth" that many people believe it to be.
Hope that helped you understand my viewpoint. :)
-
Pyro,
The problem with that argument is that I didn't make the ant. If God created everything, like you said, don't you think he could communicate with it in a way the created can understead? Example, Robots. Man made robots, and man can communicate with them in the language they can understand.
-
Again, If you guys want to keep bantering about particulars of the creation/ evolution debate you can, but I insist the evedentiary proof will not lead to a decisive outcome.
-
you don't know much about programing languages do you, becase if you did, you would know that the language we comunicat to robots with has no subject, only actions, it is imposable to acurately describe the world to a robot, as we have created them.
-
He won't buy it Bob, it'll take God leaning through the clouds, shrugging and saying 'Don't look at me!' before he believes anything other than exactly what he chooses.
Not a fault in the person, but a really annoying place to stand if youre in a discussion ;)
-
Bobboau,
It was an ANALOGY. We, as humans, certainly cannot create something as intricate as another human. God has, and He knows us so well that He has communicated to us in a language we can all understand. God can't reveal His entire world to us either. We would have no way of comprehending it.
-
and that I think was the point, we would be incapable of understanding the wholeness of what ever any supreem being would want us to know.
-
Bobboau,
But as our creator He knows us intricatelyand communicates with us on our level, not on His. Like (analogy) We do with robots. In order to communicate with them we communicate on their level. The same can be said with anything we communicate with. Babies, dogs, other people.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
He won't buy it Bob, it'll take God leaning through the clouds, shrugging and saying 'Don't look at me!' before he believes anything other than exactly what he chooses.
Not a fault in the person, but a really annoying place to stand if youre in a discussion ;)
The nature of belief, the very definition, is something we choose . It might be based on scientific, emotional, spiritual, and factual evidence but ultimately we choose what we believe. Psychologist Victor Frankel postulated this.
-
Are you lot still at this?
We're bordering on the free-will/determinism debate here now.
-
Vyper,
I ventured into that debate on another forum
http://www.homewithgod.com/forum/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2974
If you care to look.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Are you lot still at this?
We're bordering on the free-will/determinism debate here now.
I'm in again! Work takes it's toll on furious internet crusaders-
Though I pretty much try not to take part on more spiritual aspects of religious debates, since as an avowed atheist it always end in flames.
However trying to side science with religion is ultimately a futile attempt. As an empirical "philosophy" science can not discuss the relevance of religious faith. It can only focus on more concrete points - for example creationism. Evolutionary theories - the most heatly debated area of science because it directly contradicts with Genesis myth - do not prove or disprove God as such (quite a few religious people I know are practically theists, since they personally find no difficulty in accepting the scientific results along with personal faith), nor are they atheist in very strict sense. They handle with evolution of species, quite a strictly limited and small area of biology, though one of the most important.
Religion is, though, very well studied subject in scientific circles, but all concrete studies only handle the personal and cultural variations and aspects of faith.
The most disturbing features in these debates are seeming endlessness. The subject of debate has, in this thread alone, surfed from cladistical comments all the way to deeply religious aspects, determinism/free will quagmire, transitional species, science vs. religion and all that jazz. It would be so much easier if we had someone as a referee to shout "red herring! strawman! stay on subject!" all the time, because debaters themselves often become so entangled in the discussion that it kinda starts to go on on it's own weight.