PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution is Failing

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

rob74696 said:
Just out of curiosity, what is the reason you do not consider yourself a christian any longer and what do you consider yourself?

I was raised Christian, went to a catholic school, was very happy being a Christian.  But over the years it just seemed more and more like a fairy tale to me.  I didn't want to stop believing but it's a conclusion I couldn't escape.
I consider my self agnostic now, there could be a supreme being, but I don't think so and I definitely don't believe in the christian god or the myths of the bible.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:42 PM on July 24, 2005 | IP
luke9

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dont think you quite looked hard enough


-------
luke
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 9:32 PM on August 10, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dont think you quite looked hard enough

Looked hard enough at what?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:20 PM on August 10, 2005 | IP
rob74696

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree Luke, what do you think Demon38 did not look at hard enough to make him abandon the beliefs he was raised on? You think this was a decision taken lightly? I have read many of his posts and he is by far one of the most intelligent posters on this forum. You will need to be more specific if you even want me to consider that he jumped in feet first without considering first.


-------
Robert
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 9:11 PM on August 12, 2005 | IP
rob74696

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In fact I need to correct something I said in my previous post, the fact that demon38 has claimed himself an agnostic does not indicate the he has abandoned his faith, just would prefer to wait for concrete evidence. Sorry for the confusion.


-------
Robert
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 9:15 PM on August 12, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, I can't resist jumping in here.  I am a Christian who has been interested for a long time in the debate of evolution vs. creation.  This has been a very entertaining forum to read.  I will concede that Christians often use rhetoric rather than clear, concise logic to support their positions.  But that perhaps stems from the fact that the majority are not predisposed to scientific reasoning and logic.  The vast majority of believers are not basing their belief on science, but rather their FAITH that something in the witness of Christ makes sense and rings true for them.  

It is not fair for an agnostic/atheistic scientist to belittle that faith merely because the Christian cannot not scientifically support it.  

Would you, if you were an expectant parent, take the view that there is some slight percentage chance that your child would be born with some sort of significant defect -- and therefor abort the fetus rather than risk that the child might not be "perfect"?  No, you would, with hope and faith, await the child's birth.  (At least I hope you would.)

Thus it is with faith, we must at some point simply accept that we don't understand everything in the universe.  We can attempt to come up with theories and concepts to hopefully explain things within the physical universe, but we can never fully comprehend all functions and events that occur and that have occured to bring us where we are.  Faith must take over, and we must choose the sequence of logic that makes the most sense to each of us.  

Early on in this thread, someone likened the evidence for evolution as being similar to a "smoking gun" argument of circumstantial evidence to convict someone of murder.  Well, then a THEORY can be created which attempts to explain all of the evidence as accurately as possible.  But no one, aside from the murderer (if there was indeed a murderer) and the victim will be able to FACTUALLY state what occured.  I bring this up to say that I have read several times throughout these posts that evolution is a FACT.  Indeed it is NOT a FACT, it is a theory.  Whether or not evidence overwhelmingly supports it is irrelevant.  It is a THEORY and will always be a theory.  How many times has the wrong person been convicted of a crime because of overwhelming evidence against him/her, only to be released later because the THEORY created from that evidence was later determined to be FACTUALLY incorrect??  

I choose to believe, based on what my HEART tells me, as well as my deductive reasoning, that there must have been and must still be a creator.  I don't have to support that by evidence, I choose to believe it on faith.  

On the other hand, one who believes in evolution has to also at some point maintain his belief based on FAITH, because the truth of the matter is that we just do not have all of the evidence we need to be able to conclude FACTUALLY that evolution is the one and only way that life could have possibly been established and maintained on this planet.  

So, in conclusion to my rambling monologue here, I will submit that everyone accepts either creation or evolution based on FAITH in a THEORY.  Now, the only question is, do you want to believe in evolution, and deny the existence of God (I don't believe theistic evolution is a plausible theory)?  Or do you want to have faith and belief in God, and remain hopeful that He will ultimately let us in on his secrets that we can't comprehend?  As for me, I choose God, and if I'm wrong, what happens?  I rot in the ground and my existence is done.  If you choose to believe evolution (and hence deny the existence of God), and it turns out that God is real, you rot in hell for eternity.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:19 PM on August 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"OK, I can't resist jumping in here.  I am a Christian who has been interested for a long time in the debate of evolution vs. creation.  This has been a very entertaining forum to read.  I will concede that Christians often use rhetoric rather than clear, concise logic to support their positions.  But that perhaps stems from the fact that the majority are not predisposed to scientific reasoning and logic.  The vast majority of believers are not basing their belief on science, but rather their FAITH that something in the witness of Christ makes sense and rings true for them. "

Yes, but the theory of evolution is an explaination of related observations.  As any other theory, it says nothing about God, it neither denies nor confirms his existance.  Many christians fully accept the theory of evolution and have no problem keeping their faith in God.  The problem lies with those fundamental creationists who can't seem to understand that classic creationism was refuted over 200 years ago.  They can't seem to understand that evolution is supported by all evidence found to date.  They can't seem to understand that evolution is the unifying concept of biology.  It doesn't matter how much scientific expertise one has, creationism has been disproven, evolution is still valid.  And as theistic evolutionists show, one can accept evoltuion and believe in God.

"It is not fair for an agnostic/atheistic scientist to belittle that faith merely because the Christian cannot not scientifically support it."

Maybe you have a point, but I don't see that happening all that often.  What is fair is refuting these creationists who believe their primitive myths, a young earth,  a world wide flood, life not evolving is supported by scientific evidence.  If you want to debate science, don't use your primitive myths as evidence, they've all ready been disproven.

"Thus it is with faith, we must at some point simply accept that we don't understand everything in the universe."

Why not?  Do we just throw our hands up and not even bother?!?!  Studying the universe is an ongoing process, when do we give up and just say Goddidit?

"We can attempt to come up with theories and concepts to hopefully explain things within the physical universe, but we can never fully comprehend all functions and events that occur and that have occured to bring us where we are.  Faith must take over, and we must choose the sequence of logic that makes the most sense to each of us."

Again, where do we draw the line?  Where in science does faith take over?  We can never comprehend all the events that brought us to where we are today?  How can we know this unless we continue to study and research?  

"But no one, aside from the murderer (if there was indeed a murderer) and the victim will be able to FACTUALLY state what occured.  I bring this up to say that I have read several times throughout these posts that evolution is a FACT.  Indeed it is NOT a FACT, it is a theory. "

This is simply not true.  Evolution is an observed fact, allele frequencies in populations do change over time.  Evolution IS a fact.  The theory of evolution explains it.  We have observed speciation events, we create new species in the lab.  So you are completely wrong here, evoltuion is a fact.  You should learn a little more about what you're talking about.

"How many times has the wrong person been convicted of a crime because of overwhelming evidence against him/her, only to be released later because the THEORY created from that evidence was later determined to be FACTUALLY incorrect??"

But now you're conflating theory in the common usage and a scientific theory, they are different.  Do you apply this reasoning to other theories in science?  Do you choose not to believe the earth orbits the sun because it's the heliocentric theory?  Do you disbelieve in electricity because it's the electromagnetic theory?  Do you deny gravity because of the theory of gravity?  Evolution is one of the strongest, most well supported theories in science.

"I choose to believe, based on what my HEART tells me, as well as my deductive reasoning, that there must have been and must still be a creator.  I don't have to support that by evidence, I choose to believe it on faith. "

Fine, that is your right.  But don't try to pass it off as science and don't try to drag real science, like the theory of evolution, down to that level.

"On the other hand, one who believes in evolution has to also at some point maintain his belief based on FAITH, because the truth of the matter is that we just do not have all of the evidence we need to be able to conclude FACTUALLY that evolution is the one and only way that life could have possibly been established and maintained on this planet."

No it doesn't come down to faith, it comes down to an honest appaisal of the evidence.  The theory of evolution is the only unfalsified explaination of the diversity of life on earth.  It is supported by all evidence found to date and disproved by none of it.  We have made countless predictions based on the theory of evolution that have been borne out.  We successfully use evolutionary concepts in farming, animal husbandry, medicine and industry.  If it wasn't valid, we couldn't apply it practically.

"So, in conclusion to my rambling monologue here, I will submit that everyone accepts either creation or evolution based on FAITH in a THEORY. "

This is untrue for a number of reasons.  Nothing in evolution is taken on faith, if you believe different, please give us some examples.  Creationism is a disproven theory.
Creation by God is beyond science's ability to investigate and whether it's true or not, it is not science.

"Now, the only question is, do you want to believe in evolution, and deny the existence of God (I don't believe theistic evolution is a plausible theory)?"

Doesn't matter what you believe, the fact of the matter is the majority of the world's christians accept evolution and believe in God.
Evolution does NOT equal atheism.

"As for me, I choose God, and if I'm wrong, what happens?  I rot in the ground and my existence is done.  If you choose to believe evolution (and hence deny the existence of God), and it turns out that God is real, you rot in hell for eternity. "

But what if the creator of the universe isn't your God?  What if the real creator punishes christian creationists even more harshly than atheists?  What if ODin really created everything, you'll spend all eternity in Niffelheim for worshipping a false god.  You falsely claim that there are only 2 choices, when in reality, there are an endless number of choices.   I'll choose honesty over a believing in primitive myths in a desperate attempt to live forever anytime.





 


 

 





 






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:20 PM on August 20, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Post from demon38:
"No it doesn't come down to faith, it comes down to an honest appaisal of the evidence.  The theory of evolution is the only unfalsified explaination of the diversity of life on earth.  It is supported by all evidence found to date and disproved by none of it.  We have made countless predictions based on the theory of evolution that have been borne out.  We successfully use evolutionary concepts in farming, animal husbandry, medicine and industry.  If it wasn't valid, we couldn't apply it practically."

Evolution theory, as well as creationism theory, rely on assumptions.  You can't deny that.  Therefor, you have accepted the set of assumptions as fact, hence you have taken by faith that the assumptions are true.  

I don't care how many times you tell me that "evolution is fact", you are just plain wrong.  It cannot possibly be fact, because we have no factual record of the beginning.  We make assumptions based on observable evidence.  Those assumptions, regardless of their accuracy, form the basis of the theory.  If the assumptions turn out later to be proven false, then the theory must be modified, correct?  You speak so authoritatively about your certainty that evolution can be the only possible explanation to correlate the vast evidence around us, yet you cannot accept that it is based on assumptions, just as many other theories are.  

You are right when you say that the theory of gravity, the theory regarding rotation of planets around stars, etc. are accepted as fact.  But that of itself doesn't make these theories fact.  How many times have we heard lately that astro-physics theories might need to be modified because of new evidence from Hubble and other sources?  You keep saying that evolution is fact because it supports all of the evidence without conflict.  I disagree.  I say there are countless conflicts within the evolution model.  I am not a scientist, nor am I well-versed in all of the research on either side, creationism or evolution.  And its clear that I'll never win an argument with you based on a listing of evidence, because you're well-prepared to battle any contingency.  But if you cannot concede that evolution as well as any scientific theory MUST be based on assumptions, you are deluded.  


"Doesn't matter what you believe, the fact of the matter is the majority of the world's christians accept evolution and believe in God.
Evolution does NOT equal atheism."

What is this supposed to convince me of?  "The majority" of christians in the world have been raised in public schools where evolution is the only THEORY espoused, and therefor they must attempt to reconcile that with their belief in the bible.  That doesn't make it a fact that evolution is acceptable.  It only means that evolutionists have been highly successful in ramming evolution theory down the throats of people who might have chosen to reject it if it were presented alongside creation theory.  

You continue to refer to creationist christians relying on "ancient myths" or flawed science to support their position.  I submit that YOU consider this information flawed because of the point of reference you have taken, using the ASSUMPTIONS that were provided to you in school.  You reject (vigorously, I might add) that there can be any other reasonable explanation for our world as it exists presently.  Sounds to me like this might be a touchy subject precisely because you worry that someday your assumptions will be proven false and you'll have to eat your words.  

You keep asking where science ends and faith begins.  Well, for you, faith obviously has crept in so insidiously into your brain that you have forgotten that you needed so much of it to believe what you were told in school.  You accepted the set of assumptions that were "preached" to you by science teachers and professors, and at some point you chose to accept those assumptions without question.  That has become your frame of reference.  Again I will say that I choose to have faith that God will reveal his creation to us, either in this life or the next one.  That is faith by acceptance of assumptions also.  So you and I stand on faith in our assumptions.  You cannot deny that.  Science is not exact.  If you turned your argument around and were arguing for creation rather than evolution, you would still be fervently denying that any other possible explanation works with the evidence.  So I submit that your "worship" is to scientific principles (I don't mean that in a demeaning way at all), and your faith has made you a strong supporter of the religion of science.  You fight for science because you believe in it.  I fight for creation because I believe in God.  I believe there are enough holes in evolution theory to warrant questioning it.  I have never denied that evolution theory fits well with much of the evidence out there.  My concern is that it should not be blindly accepted without questioning the assumptions upon which it is based.  


I look forward to your next statement of "Evolution is FACT" and your next assertion that "the majority of Christians around the world accept evolution".  Bring it on, those are absurd positions to take.  



-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 08:45 AM on August 21, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 4:19 PM on August 20, 2005 :
OK, I can't resist jumping in here.  I am a Christian who has been interested for a long time in the debate of evolution vs. creation.  

Good.


So, in conclusion to my rambling monologue here, I will submit that everyone accepts either creation or evolution based on FAITH in a THEORY.  Now, the only question is, do you want to believe in evolution, and deny the existence of God (I don't believe theistic evolution is a plausible theory)?  


Why not?

 If you choose to believe evolution (and hence deny the existence of God), and it turns out that God is real, you rot in hell for eternity.  


And I thought humility was the mark a Christian?

Seems like you are taking the responsibility for judging.  




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:33 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"And I thought humility was the mark a Christian?

Seems like you are taking the responsibility for judging."

That, my friend, is not judgment.  That is stating biblical truth, which is the truth I stand on.  As many evolution-theorists on here have stated to the Christian creationists, "get your facts straight before you speak."



-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 2:47 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It was also asked, why do I not accept theistic evolution.  It is because that creates even more of a barrel of monkeys than soley accepting evolution from an atheistic point of view or accepting creation.  From my point of view there are too many holes in evolution theory already.  Why should I attempt to incorporate that into my creationist view?  




-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 2:51 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution theory, as well as creationism theory, rely on assumptions.  You can't deny that.

Yes I can deny that. What assumptions does the theory of evolution make.

I don't care how many times you tell me that "evolution is fact", you are just plain wrong.  It cannot possibly be fact, because we have no factual record of the beginning.

No I'm not wrong, we see evolution happening, we have observed new species arising, both in the wild and in the lab.  So evolution, the changing of allele frequencies in a population over time is, indeed, a fact.  The theory of evolution explains this.  We don't need a "factual record of the begining", what ever that is, to know this.  Evolution happens.

We make assumptions based on observable evidence.

What assumptions about evolution do we make that are not supported by the evidence?  You keep repeating this line but you can't back it up!

You speak so authoritatively about your certainty that evolution can be the only possible explanation to correlate the vast evidence around us, yet you cannot accept that it is based on assumptions, just as many other theories are.

But evolution is observed.  The theory of evolution explains all observed evidence, it is the only unfalsified explaination for the diversity of life.  Thousands of predictions have been made based on the TOE that have been borne out.  Evolution is practically applied.  And stop saying it's based on assumptions when you can't show us any assumptions it's based on.

You keep saying that evolution is fact because it supports all of the evidence without conflict.

No I keep saying evolution is a fact because we directly observe it, because we use it in farming, animal husbandry, medicine, industry.
The theory of evolution explains how evolution is responsible for the diversity of all life on earth and how all life stems from a common ancestor.

I say there are countless conflicts within the evolution model.

Then name one...

But if you cannot concede that evolution as well as any scientific theory MUST be based on assumptions, you are deluded.

How am I deluded when you are making the claim and can point to no assumptions whatsoever that evolution is based on?

What is this supposed to convince
me of?


It's not supposed to convince you of anything, it shows that you created a false dicotomy, one doesn't have to accept evolution OR believe in the christian God, one can do both and the fact that the majority of the worlds christians do this proves it beyond a doubt.

The majority" of christians in the world have been raised in public schools where evolution is the only THEORY espoused"

That's because evolution is the only UNFALSIFIED theory that explains the diversity of life on earth.  The majority of christians around the world have been taught that the earth revolves around the sun because it's the only THEORY espoused, so what.  Evoltuion is good science, it's one of the strongest theories in science, it should be taught.

It only means that evolutionists have been highly successful in ramming evolution theory down the throats of people who might have chosen to reject it if it were presented alongside creation theory.

yes, and they've been ramming the heliocentric theory down their throats too, how dare they teach them the earth orbits the sun and they don't even give them the chance to reject it!  That's just silly!  Biologists have no special attachment to the TOE, as with any theory, literally thousands of biologists have tried to rip the TOE to shreds in the last 150 years but have not been able to.  Creationism, on the other hand, was completely refuted over 200 years ago.  Do you want to give students the chance to believe other failed theories, like a flat earth?  

You continue to refer to creationist christians relying on "ancient myths" or flawed science to support their position.  I submit that YOU consider this information flawed because of the point of reference you have taken, using the ASSUMPTIONS that were provided to you in school.  You reject (vigorously, I might add) that there can be any other reasonable explanation for our world as it exists presently.  Sounds to me like this might be a touchy subject precisely because you worry that someday your assumptions will be proven false and you'll have to eat your words.

Touchy?  No, just sick and tired of creationists using the same old refuted arguments to try and make their case.  Creationism was refuted, the earth is NOT 6 - 10 thousand years old, it's roughly 4.5 billion.  There was no world wide flood, no evidence to support it, lots to falsify it.  Life does evolve it is directly observable.  My point of reference doesn't matter, the evidence makes it plain, the creation stories in the bible are primitive myths that could not possibly be true.

You keep asking where science ends and faith begins.  Well, for you, faith obviously has crept in so insidiously into your brain that you have forgotten that you needed so much of it to believe what you were told in school.

Not true, science is not faith based, and for all your ranting, you haven't shown us one example of that faith.  Science goes where the evidence leads, simple as that.

You accepted the set of assumptions that were "preached" to you by science teachers and professors, and at some point you chose to accept those assumptions without question.

Untrue, I understand the theory of evolution, it makes sense, I see how it led to the diversity of life, I see how all life is related, it logically makes sense, it is the best explaination for all the evidence.  No faith required, no assumptions made.  You, on the other hand, have nothing but a book of refuted, primitive myths to support your position.  You can provide no evidence to support your position.  The best you can do is try (unsuccessfully) to drag real science down to the level of your mythological religion.

Again I will say that I choose to have faith that God will reveal his creation to us, either in this life or the next one.

And that's all you can do because science has destroyed the factual basis of your myths.  

That is faith by acceptance of assumptions also.  So you and I stand on faith in our assumptions.  You cannot deny that.

Of course I can deny that!  I make no assumptions based on faith, I accept evolution because it is supported by all available evidence.  And you still haven't shown us one assumption the TOE is based on.  

Science is not exact.

No it's not perfect, but it's the best, most objective method we have of investigating the natural world.  It takes nothing on faith.  It draws its conclusions from the evidence.  unlike creationism which all ready claims to have the answer and then tries to twist the evidence to fit this, and outright rejects evidence that contradicts it's conclusions.

If you turned your argument around and were arguing for creation rather than evolution, you would still be fervently denying that any other possible explanation works with the evidence.

No I wouldn't.

So I submit that your "worship" is to scientific principles (I don't mean that in a demeaning way at all), and your faith has made you a strong supporter of the religion of science.

Science isn't religion and you haven't been able to show us anything I take on faith.
You are wrong.

You fight for science because you believe in it.

No, I don't believe in science, I accept it based on the evidence, wrong again.

I believe there are enough holes in evolution theory to warrant questioning it.

Name on.

My concern is that it should not be blindly accepted without questioning the assumptions upon which it is based.

And once again, evoltuion is not based on assumptions and it has been continually questioned by the experts who understand it best and it still is valid.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:47 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


tell me that radio-isotope dating is not based on assumptions.


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 8:58 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Prove to me that the generally uniform strata in which the majority of fossils are recovered could not have possibly been created by a catastrophic flood.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 8:59 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, and by the way, don't try to defend the uniform strata by using carbon-dating as a fact, I already submit that carbon-dating is based on assumptions.


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:01 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Show me conclusively that the earth could not possibly be less than billions of years old.  (Hint:  You won't be able to do it, I already question the primary techniques used to date geologic evidence.)  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:03 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Explain to me the supposedly "falsified" testing of rock taken from Mt. St. Helens that was dated at least 350,000 years old when it was actually formed in 1984.


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:05 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Assumptions from school:  
1.  Life began spontaneously when inorganic matter became organic matter.  (This must be theory, because no one was there.  However, it is taught as fact, when it is NOT fact.  It is THEORY.)
2.  Random processes tend toward chaos (entropy), and yet we are told in school that evolution consists of gradual natural improvements via mutation.  (Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like one of them there dichotomy things of which you speak.)
3.  Carbon-dating is a highly accurate tool (ummmm, but excuse me, doesn't using carbon-dating already pre-suppose an old earth??  What if its NOT old?)
4.  The earth and life on it MUST be millions and billions of years old, because there is no way that evolution as extensive as is required by the theory could have taken place within a much younger environment.  (HMMM, just thinking out loud here, but if one were to NOT accept this as a requirement, then creation theory becomes practical.)
5.  Evolution is taking place today and is seen all around us.  Well, you say tom-ah-to, I say to-may-to, what you call evolution I call a mere mutation.  Where today are there visible signs of true "evolution" of species.  (Oh, don't bring up that fruit fly poppy-cock, give me something with meat on its bones.)  (Oh, and don't use the platypus either.  I don't consider that a transitional species, because why on earth would there be a transitional species still transitioning to mammal when mammals have already "evolved"?)  God gave us the platypus (this is only conjecture on my part, here, don't confuse it for a statement of fact) for the primary reason that he has a sense of humor and wants to watch all you evolution theorists scratch your heads and try to make it fit the mold.  

and....

drum roll please...

the grand assumption:  Evolution is the ONLY theory that could possibly explain our natural world.  When you remove that assumption, its amazing how free you can become to think outside the box.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:26 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ummmm, and remind me again, why there are so many varieties of primates within the world if they were supposedly transitional species to our present human form?  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:29 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

one more note for demon38:

You continue to bash me for not providing back-up for my statements.  Yet you continue to state that "the majority of Christians around the world accept evolution along with their belief in God."  For one thing, where do you get your data to make this statement?  For another thing, why does it make any difference.  Are you saying that merely because the majority believes something, it must be true???  You keep referring to the flat earth.... (and by the way, I understand that educated people for thousands of years have known the earth to be spherical -- the statement perpetuated as a mocking of people who question scientifically accepted theories is largely a myth itself.)  Well if I assume for a moment that the majority of the earth's human inhabitants accepted that the earth was flat, should I have also accepted that?  

Tell me clearly, why that statement -- that the majority of Christians accept evolution -- is so fundamentally important to this discussion.  That statement is hyperbole intended to intimidate me and other creationists.  Why else would you be so insistent on using it ad nauseum??  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:39 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, it is indeed a myth that Columbus thought the world to be flat.  A speherical earth was widely accepted in the 15th century.  

Ummmm, GASP!!  does that mean you accepted something you learned in school as fact, when it turned out not to be????  Say it isn't so!  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:43 PM on August 21, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One more tiny little question here:  Care to give me a definition for "extrapolation" that can't be twisted around to say that it is an assumption?  You know you can't.  I'm sure you have your own biased definition rather than Webster's, but please cite from a source other than yourself.

Seems to me that there was quite a bit of extrapolation used by Darwin to "fit" the evidence to his theory.  Is this not true?


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 05:48 AM on August 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

tell me that radio-isotope dating is not based on assumptions.

Radiometric dating is not based on assumptions.  If that's your claim, explain how it is.

Prove to me that the generally uniform strata in which the majority of fossils are recovered could not have possibly been created by a catastrophic flood.

Prove to you?  You've already stated that you ignore the evidence and choose to believe in myth.  But generally some strata have been created by floods, but since we know localized flooding has occurred since water has been on the planet, this does nothing to support a world wide flood.  Your problem is explaining the strata that could not possibly have been created by a flood.  The Coconino Sandstone is part of the strata of the Grand Canyon.  It formed roughly 280 million years ago and is 350 feet thick.  It is essentially petrified sand dunes.  It could not possibly have formed in a flood, the sand particles that make it up are very mature, very small and very uniform in size, this means they could have been made in water, they were created by wind.  This strata also contains numerous fossilized tracks and burrows that could not possibly have been created during a flood.  There you go, just one of many examples of strata that could not possibly have been laid down by a flood, your claim is refuted.

Oh, and by the way, don't try to defend the uniform strata by using carbon-dating as a fact, I already submit that carbon-dating is based on assumptions.

But I deny your claim that radiometric dating is based on assumptions and you haven't been able to prove otherwise.  And just for your information, carbon dating isn't used for dating geological features, it only works on organic material and is only accurate back to about 50,000 years.  So right off the bat you demonstrate that you don't understand absolute dating.

Show me conclusively that the earth could not possibly be less than billions of years old.  (Hint:  You won't be able to do it, I already question the primary techniques used to date geologic evidence.)

Don't be ridiculous, of course we can show that the earth is billions of years old.  The oldest rocks on earth are dated at over 4 billion years old and they are dated by multiple radiometric tests that all concur.  It is imopossible for dating by different isotopes decay rates to give us the same date and be wrong.  Now you have to explain how the earth could be possibly be thousands of years old.  This means you have to explain how lake varve dating is wrong (they date back 100's of thousands of years), how coral reef dating is wrong (they date back millions of years) and explain to us how radiometric dating is wrong.
go ahead, we're waiting...

Explain to me the supposedly "falsified" testing of rock taken from Mt. St. Helens that was dated at least 350,000 years old when it was actually formed in 1984.

No problem, real geologists know that dating lava flows is difficult because they can pick up older pieces of rock and crystal, xenolithes, that can throw off dating if one isn't careful.
As to your specific case, from here:
Mt.St.Helen

"Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless."

So we see Steve Austin, the creationist who had the samples dated, misused the dating techniques.  When you misuse a tool, don't expect to get accurate results.  This is clearly no problem for an old earth or radiometric dating.  Why exactly did you post it?

Assumptions from school:
1.  Life began spontaneously when inorganic matter became organic matter.  (This must be theory, because no one was there.  However, it is taught as fact, when it is NOT fact.  It is THEORY.)

This is not part of the theory of evolution, this is abiogenesis.  And since we can see organic molecules forming naturally, what are your objections?

2.  Random processes tend toward chaos (entropy), and yet we are told in school that evolution consists of gradual natural improvements via mutation.  (Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like one of them there dichotomy things of which you speak.)

No problem, you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics.  First of all, evolution (and abiogenesis) are not random acts, so your first statement doesn't apply.  Second of all, order can increase in a closed system as long as the overall entropy of that system doesn't increase.  And the earth isn't even a closed system, it is continually receiving new energy from the sun.  Thirdly, if a sperm cell and an egg cell can increase their complexity and order (which happens continually), evolution can happen.

4.  The earth and life on it MUST be millions and billions of years old, because there is no way that evolution as extensive as is required by the theory could have taken place within a much younger environment.  (HMMM, just thinking out loud here, but if one were to NOT accept this as a requirement, then creation theory becomes practical.)

As has been stated, evolution is a fact, we observe it happening, it is not contingent on an old earth.  And creation theory (that statement is a joke) has already been disproven.

5.  Evolution is taking place today and is seen all around us.  Well, you say tom-ah-to, I say to-may-to, what you call evolution I call a mere mutation.

Mere mutation is a part of evolution.  And as I said before, we have seen new species arise both in the lab and in the wild, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it.

Where today are there visible signs of true "evolution" of species.

From here:
HawainFruitFly

"Hawaiian Drosophila show remarkable patterns of colonization and speciation. At least 700 species of Drosophilids on Hawaiian islands. Not just typical little fruit flies either: large body size, dramatic "picture wing" species, some with "hammer-head" shaped heads. Banding patterns of polytene chromosomes allows phylogeny reconstruction: these and other data show that patterns of colonization are from older to younger islands (flies on Hawaii are derived from ancestors on Maui). Most species are found only on one island (high levels of endemism; more later in Biogeography). This implies that most new colonization events have lead to speciation events! This observation lead Hampton Carson to propose the founder-flush model of speciation."

From here also:
Cichlids

" African cichlid fishes are another remarkable case of "explosive speciation" (the Hawaiian Drosophila of the fish world). Geology and geography again plays an important role. African rift lakes: great fresh-water lakes in east Africa. Formed recently: < 1 million years old. Lake Victoria colonized by one (??) founder 200,000 years ago(??) now has ~ 200 species of fish!. Recent study (Meyer et al. 1990, Nature vol. 347, pg. 550 and see pg. 512) used mitochondrial DNA to show that the species in the lake are indeed monophyletic and that there is very little sequence divergence between species: confirms short time span. But there has been remarkable evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral variation in these fish: algae grazers, snail crushers, plankton feeders, paedophages (clamp onto the mouth of a fish brooding her young in her mouth and force her to spit out here young into the mouth of the attacker), one fish (in Lake Malawi) plucks the eyes out of other fish as food. All this diversity in 200,000 years with very little genetic differentiation."

From here:
RingSpecies

" More recently, a team of researchers led by David Wake6-8 has examined genetic relationships among salamander populations using DNA sequences and other molecular traits, and the genetic evidence has supported Stebbins' hypothesis. The geographical variation, when combined with the inferred history revealed by the molecular traits, allows us to envision the small steps by which a single ancestral species in the north gave rise through evolutionary divergence to two species in southern California. "

There ya go, three quick examples of evoltuion happening and your point is disproved.

Oh, and don't use the platypus either.  I don't consider that a transitional species, because why on earth would there be a transitional species still transitioning to mammal when mammals have already
"evolved"


Why not?  The platypus was isolated in Australia, so there was little competition from placental mammals.  And this shows how you really don't understand how evolution works, how does the fact that mammals already evolved affect the platypus' standing as a transitional organism???  The platypus has hair, warm blood and produces milk like a mammal but it lays reptilian eggs, has one exit point from it's body like a reptile and produces poison like a reptile, what ELSE would you call it but a transitional organism?!?

the grand assumption:  Evolution is the ONLY theory that could possibly explain our natural world.

No, evolution is the only theory that can explain the diversity of life on earth, it has nothing to do with how old the earth is, or where life came from.  And it's the only unfalsified theory of life's diversity.  Other theories have been proposed but they have been proven wrong, like creationism and Lamarckism.  That's how science works.  You obviously know nothing about what real science is or what evolution really is, all your points were easily refuted.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:27 AM on August 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ummmm, and remind me again, why there are so many varieties of primates within the world if they were supposedly transitional species to our present human form?

Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance of the theory of evolution.  The many varieties of primates in the world today are NOT transitional to our present human form.  Every living primate is just as evolved as humans are.  That's like saying why are your cousins still alive since you were born...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:30 AM on August 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You continue to bash me for not providing back-up for my statements.  Yet you continue to state that "the majority of Christians around the world accept evolution along with their belief in God."  For one thing, where do you get your data to make this statement?

The Catholic church, the single largest christian denomination in the world has no problem accepting evolution.

And from here:
TheisticEvolutionists

"In views that diverge widely from those in other developed nations, in a November 1997 poll by the Gallup Organization that quizzed people about their views on the origin of humans, 44 percent agreed with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” Another 39 percent subscribed to a “theistic evolution” view, that humans did develop over millions of years from lower life forms, but God guided the process. Only 10 percent said they believe in evolution with no participation from God. Seven percent had no opinion.

A 1991 survey asking the exact same question in 17 countries found adults elsewhere were much less likely to take the literal view. In Great Britain, for instance, the percentage was 7 percent. Germany, Norway, Russia and the Netherlands were also among the nations where a smaller percentage of adults believed in taking the Bible literally"

The point is, many, many christians accept evolution and have faith in God, what you think really doesn't matter...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:52 AM on August 22, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 2:47 PM on August 21, 2005 :
That, my friend, is not judgment.  That is stating biblical truth, which is the truth I stand on.  As many evolution-theorists on here have stated to the Christian creationists, "get your facts straight before you speak."


Could you be wrong?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:08 AM on August 22, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Could you be wrong?"

Yes indeed I could be wrong.  I have no problem admitting that.  Do you have the same ability to admit you could be wrong?

Because I concede that there is no proof of either theory without assumptions, of course I also concede that ultimately one theory will be proven correct (indeed, on faith I maintain my confidence that creation theory will be proven correct.).  However, "proof" is a very strong word, and cannot be used in place of "interpretation of evidence."  Interpretations are biased due to frame of reference.  And interpretations cannot be transformed into "facts" merely because a lot of time has passed or that multitudes of people have mistakenly accepted the assumptions put forth to them by their peers and teachers.  




-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 11:37 AM on August 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes indeed I could be wrong.  I have no problem admitting that.  Do you have the same ability to admit you could be wrong?

Of course I'd admit I was wrong, that's how science works.  No theory is sacrosanct, no theory is above falsification.  There are no sacred cows in science.  Of course, before I admitted I was wrong, I'd have to see the evidence that falsifies evolution AND explains the evidence for evolution better than the TOE does.  Again, that's how the scientific method works, go where the evidence leads.

Because I concede that there is no proof of either theory without assumptions,

And we're still waiting for a single valid assumption evolution is based on...

indeed, on faith I maintain my confidence that creation theory will be proven correct.

But creationism was decisively proven wrong over 200 years ago, what new evidence do you have that revives it?

However, "proof" is a very strong word, and cannot be used in place of "interpretation of evidence."  

That's why "proof" is seldom used in science, theories are all about being supported by the evidence.  And the best people to interprete evidence are the objective experts who spend most of their lives studying it, not religious fanatics who already state they will ignore any evidence that contradicts their myths.

And interpretations cannot be transformed into "facts" merely because a lot of time has passed or that multitudes of people have mistakenly accepted the assumptions put forth to them by their peers and teachers.

No facts are repeatable observations, like the fact of evolution.  Theories are well tested explainations of groups of related observations, like the theory of evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:35 PM on August 22, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 11:37 AM on August 22, 2005 :
Do you have the same ability to admit you could be wrong?


Certainly.


Because I concede that there is no proof of either theory without assumptions, of course I also concede that ultimately one theory will be proven correct (indeed, on faith I maintain my confidence that creation theory will be proven correct.).


How do you demonstrate that you are not creating a false dichotomy?

You have made a number of statements indicating poor understanding of science, are you willing to look at your own assumptions?


However, "proof" is a very strong word, and cannot be used in place of "interpretation of evidence."  Interpretations are biased due to frame of reference.  And interpretations cannot be transformed into "facts" merely because a lot of time has passed or that multitudes of people have mistakenly accepted the assumptions put forth to them by their peers and teachers.  


How do you verify your assumptions?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:57 PM on August 22, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I cannot make posts for some reason.  Any ideas?  I have typed a response at least 3 times and have been unable to get them posted.


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:48 PM on August 22, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, one more try:  just quickly, since I don't want to type it all again:  this eloquent statement was found on a blog, wizbangblog, in the middle of a discussion similar to ours.  

Nathan wrote on March 28, 2005: "More information might lend strength to the theory, but it could just as easily weaken it. Those who assume that Evolution Theory is just a step or two away from becoming Evolution Law and then argue on the basis of that belief to deride Creationists/IDists are being shortsighted at best, and hypocritical at worst.

Someone truly committed to science would be open to the possibility that ID could just as easily be proven in the next decade as Macro-Evolution, going wherever the actual evidence leads, and would take either result as equally fine. It is clear from the style and substance of responses to Paul's comments that many people would have a negative emotional reaction to the discovery of additional evidence for ID; indeed, they refuse to acknowledge that it has any aspect of accuracy or utility, demanding that it not be taught in school.

Which is an ironic form of censorship, in my opinion, since all ID really does is posit an answer to the several significant problems with Evolution Theory. Refusing to acknowledge the Evolution even has problems, or arguing/assuming that those problems have already been answered/resolved is a reaction remarkably similar to religious faith."

Wow, there's that pesky comparison of strong belief and faith again.  Where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah, I said it in my first post.  Go ahead, respond to that, and I'll try to get posted again.  



-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:53 PM on August 22, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For apoapsis:  I guess my poor understanding of science stems from the fact that did not swallow the whole tripe when it was force-fed to me, and I am now energetically trying to recover.  I concede that I am not well-versed in the nuances of evolution theory and teaching, I didn't go to school for that.  However, take care not to underestimate me, I am still educated (technical degrees) and work in a highly technical and logical field.  Although I may not have years of propaganda in my head, I am a quick study and I assure you I can hang with this discussion.  In any case, you ask if my assumptions can withstand scrutiny.  I tell you honestly, that seems to me to be a leading question, and I'll also tell you that I would fully expect to be buried on here if trying to stand on my assumptions.  But, one thing I have going for me is, I don't have to have all the answers.  I have the faith and confidence that God has them and will reveal them to me one day, either here or in heaven.  One of the most entertaining aspects of imagining heaven, for me, is the thought of being able to sit down and view the entire creation of earth and its existence through my lifetime.  All questions will be answered, all conflicts will be resolved, all will make sense.  I am a very logical person, and my acceptance of Christ when I was 23 hinged on my acceptance of logical evidence.  So you can feel free to attack my assumptions (I'm sure you're just waiting with drooling enthusiasm for me to parade them out, to be shot down one by one).  Feel free to list them yourself, you know what they are and you probably have canned responses ready to copy and paste for every one.  

My discussion here is not about convincing you that my assumptions are true.  My discussion centers around dispelling the myth that evolution and evolution theory are fact.  Ok for demon38's sake, so I don't risk his having an aneurism while reading this, let's say "macro-evolution" and evolution theory.  They must contain assumptions.  And you know what they are.  You just don't want me to know what they are.  If you still refuse to acknowledge that there are fundamental assumptions, then you have accepted evolution theory as fact, on FAITH.  If you choose to concede that assumptions exist, then you must also concede the possibility of other tenable theories.  Which walk on thin ice would you like to choose?  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:10 PM on August 22, 2005 | IP
Foxtrot12

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Glad to see someone pays attention ^.^

I think I see what you are trying to get at. Lets make clear what a theory is, and what a fact is. I apologize in the following post if I am too idealogical. Can't help it. Its easier to explain this way.

A theory is, I suppose one can concede, an assumption based on solid, concrete scientific and logical evidence that allows one to make a conclusion without crossing over any boundaries.

Theories are usually not questioned until there is an opposing argument. For instance, gravity is a theory. It isn't a fact-- its a theory. Which means it is falisifiable, and not "absolute." Theories are not "absolute."

A fact, in contrast to a theory, is basically a theory in itself, although because there is no evidence against it, because it is so blatantly
"true," it is considered a fact. Humans want solidity and stability-- the idea of a "fact" is comforting.

---

Theories, like most of science, are assumptions based on evidence that try to incorporate no faith whatsoever. Faith, in a scientific sense, means nothing. It doesn't matter if you are faithful to A or B, it doesn't make it "right" or "just" or "correct." Science wants to know what is "true," while at the same time making sure it doesn't brainwash itself and make it assume that something is true. A scientific conclusion is falsifiable. That means we are willing to admit something is wrong. Unlike religious "faith" in some cases, which denies scientific evidence and prefers to consider things absolute. Beautiful thinking, but twisted nontheless.

To tell you the truth, I have never understood faith. It has never appealed to me. I used to be a religious Jew, but too many things seemed irrational in religious aspects, and I had to choose-- science, or religion?

In the end, science provided me with more explanations and answers to my questions than Judaism did.

For example, when I asked a biological question, or even a life question, the religious answer was quickly proclaimed "because God made it that way." That wasn't good enough for me.

The theory of evolution provided a detailed description which both answered my question and went on to cover other subjects. It was like a puzzle-- evolution "agreed" with biology, anthropolgy, chemistry, geographical history, etc. All the pieces fit, although we don't always have all of them.

Faith never did that for me. Faith made me feel real, it made me feel comfortable, it made things easier.

But it never made things true. Even when I was engrossed in religious ferver, I was never spoken to by God. I was never contacted. I wasn't comforted by the god that I worshiped. I gave God a chance, but he must have turned me down. So I switched to science.

Science doesn't comfort me. But it at least recognizes that comfort isn't what I should be looking for-- its fact.

----

Wow that was a doozy. Spilled my heart out on that one. :-)
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 03:19 AM on August 23, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Foxtrot, I appreciate that post, I enjoyed reading it, and I find your position logical.  I have no problem agreeing to disagree with someone who can respond as you have.  Thank you for your thoughts.

For me, the faith comes in when I choose to accept that I just can't have all the answers until God decides to reveal them to me.  If I get to heaven and God slaps the side of my head and asks, "You dolt, what were you thinking?  I had overwhelming clues regarding evolution, and you chose to ignore them?  Silly boy!"  I can shrug my shoulders, laugh with God, and walk into His kingdom.  The tragedy for some people is, if you choose science alone, and God ends up to be real, you WILL bow to His glory, as the bible teaches, either as you sit in heaven or sit in hell.  

For me there is no difficulty in accepting theories of science and the Word of God.  The fact that I don't understand it all or have all the pieces to the puzzle doesn't trouble me.  I am a patient man, I will wait until God makes it all very clear to me.  

The issue then, is to make a decision as to what makes the most sense when trying to reconcile the theories of man with the inerrant Word of God.   For me, creation theory must be the choice.  If I love God and seriously give Him credit for providing direction and clues to life in His Bible, I feel compelled to take the side of creationism, which to my way of thinking forces me to discard the theory of evolution.  For me to accept evolution is to accept that God did not create man individually and apart from the other creatures of this world.  

Thanks again for your post, Foxtrot, I enjoyed reading it.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 05:44 AM on August 23, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 10:10 PM on August 22, 2005 :
For apoapsis:  I guess my poor understanding of science stems from the fact that did not swallow the whole tripe when it was force-fed to me, and I am now energetically trying to recover.  

Would what you did not swallow include discussion about the difference between hypothesis, theory, and law?


My discussion here is not about convincing you that my assumptions are true.  My discussion centers around dispelling the myth that evolution and evolution theory are fact.

Evolution is an observed process.  Evolution theory explains it.

Ok for demon38's sake, so I don't risk his having an aneurism while reading this, let's say "macro-evolution" and evolution theory.  They must contain assumptions.  And you know what they are.  You just don't want me to know what they are.


Maybe you could start by explaining what you think they are.  You've already submitted a laundry list.  If you fully expect to be buried do you consider your position to be behind from the start?

You say you have a technical background, what assumptions do you require for day-to-day work?




(Edited by Apoapsis 8/23/2005 at 09:48 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:39 AM on August 23, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 05:44 AM on August 23, 2005 :
 
The issue then, is to make a decision as to what makes the most sense when trying to reconcile the theories of man with the inerrant Word of God.  


Could you consider rephrasing that as "an errant man's interpretation of the Word of God"?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:44 AM on August 23, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Could you consider rephrasing that as "an errant man's interpretation of the Word of God"?"

Could you describe your position as errant man's interpretation of incomplete evidence?




-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 09:52 AM on August 23, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

With regard to your question about expecting to be behind from the start, yes I do consider myself behind from the start in this forum.  It is readily apparent that you are well-rehearsed in anticipating creationist-view arguments.  However, I'll throw you a bone so you can drool as you fight to shoot it down.  

I assume that life is far too complex to have been "evolved" through natural selection.  DNA, if it were a document to be read, would indicate design, not random process.  (My opinion)

I assume that the "old-world" theory is not without its conflicts, such as holes in the fossil record; supposedly evolved creatures' fossils being found in the same strata as the creatures from which they were supposed to have evolved; the process of fossilization itself, which tends to indicate rapid burial of the organic material rather than a very very long length of time (hence opening the door for a catastrophic event such as a flood).

I assume that radio-isotope dating techniques are biased due to their various assumptions of the rate of decay of isotopes.  If one wants (or needs) a certain date to be exhibited in a sample, the process is adjusted (re-calibrated) to account for anomalies that don't fit the anticipated time frame.  If old-earth scientists would honestly and openly evaluate the data anomalies, they would have to admit the possibility that the testing assumptions are flawed.

That's all I have time for at the moment, back to work.  By the way, you asked what assumptions I make at work, here's one:  I assume that light (especially laser light) travels at a constant speed, but that is not precisely true because it is affected by the atmosphere, so I take that into account by verifying the data provided by the light measurement from two independent positions.  Over long distances, I apply correction factors that approximate the effect of atmospheric conditions on the speed of the light, or alternatively I determine the range of error possible with the measurement given the assumptions I make about the conditions that exist at the time of the test.  That is something I work with every day.




-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:12 AM on August 23, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One more thing for apoapsis:  Does it make you feel superior to point out that I am misusing terms?  You want to detract from the central argument (and you do know what I'm saying, I'm certain of that) by attempting to demonstrate my inferiority to you in the realm of science.  You can continue that if you wish, but does it really make you look so much better to belittle my vocabulary?  As I said before, please don't make the mistake of underestimating my ability to stay with you on this discussion.


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 11:24 AM on August 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Deductive christian,

You stopped responding to my posts, I don't know if it's because you couldn't post as you stated above or because you couldn't refute my points.  But in your subsequent posts, you show that you still don't understand the scienctific method and the theory of evolution.

Someone truly committed to science would be open to the possibility that ID could just as easily be proven in the next decade as Macro-Evolution, going wherever the actual evidence leads, and would take either result as equally fine.

But there is no evidence for ID.  There's nothing for scientists to investigate, nothing for them to test, it's not science, just an unfounded guess.  The actual evidence is that evolution happens.  Macro evolution is defined as a change at or above the species level, we have seen new species arise soley by the mechanisms of evolution, so macro evolution is an observed fact.  Is Intelligent design valid?  Even though it is not scientific, I don't deny the possiblity that it is.  God working unseen through the natural forces he set up is unprovable scientifically, but it is a possibility
(one I don't believe, but it's still a possiblity).  
The thing is evolution theory has been very useful to us, it is the cornerstone of biology, it is integral to modern farming, medicine and industry.  If God did magically (miraculously) zap all life into existance unchanging, then biology is worthless, because you can't examine, test, research and apply magical one time miracles that defy the natural laws.  

indeed, they refuse to acknowledge that it has any aspect of accuracy or utility, demanding that it not be taught in school.

Why should ID be taught in schools, there's nothing scientific to it.  What would you have them teach?  Creationist claims that life is too complex to have evolved on it's own is an unsubstantiated claim.  Mutation, sexual selection, genetic drift and natural selection have been shown to be able to increase the size of a genome and add new information to it without any supernatural help.

Which is an ironic form of censorship, in my opinion, since all ID really does is posit an answer to the several significant problems with Evolution Theory. Refusing to acknowledge the Evolution even has problems, or arguing/assuming that those problems have already been answered/resolved is a reaction remarkably similar to religious faith."

What are the problems??  You keep insisting this but you can't give us any problems to discuss.  We see in the fossil record that unicellular life first appeared about 3.8 billion years ago and it was the only life for about 2 billion years.  We see the mechanisms at work that can cause gene size to increase and add new structures to organisms.  We see in the fossil record evidence that organisms changed, we have numerous clearly transitional fossils, we see organisms evolving today.  Where is the evidence of supernatural interference?  Where is the evidence that life is too complex to have evolved on it's own?

I concede that I am not well-versed in the nuances of evolution theory and teaching, I didn't go to school for that.

Then how can you argue against it if you don't know what it is?

Although I may not have years of propaganda in my head, I am a quick study and I assure you I can hang with this discussion.  

But you do have years of propaganda in your head, creationist propaganda.  That's obvious by your inaccurate portrayal of the theory of evolution.

My discussion centers around dispelling the myth that evolution and evolution theory are fact.

but despite the propaganda that you've been brainwashed by, evoltuon is a fact, we directly observe it, we use it in medicine, farming and industry.  No matter what you say, evolution is a fact.

Ok for demon38's sake, so I don't risk his having an aneurism while reading this, let's say "macro-evolution" and evolution
theory.


Heh heh, don't worry about my physical state, I'm doing fine.  But macro-evolution, as I showed above, is already an observed fact.
And the theory of evolution, well, no theory in science ever becomes a fact or a law.  A theory is as high as a concept can get.  It will always be the heliocentric theory, the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity, the atomic theory and the theory of evolution.  A theory is an explaination of related facts that is well founded on evidence, makes successfully predictions and has not been falsified.  And evolutionary theory is so well supported by the evidence, has made so many successful predictions and is so successfully applied practically, that it must be considered valid.

They must contain assumptions.  And you know what they are.

Sorry, you keep saying this, but can't provide any examples.  And I've studied evolution for quite some time now and I don't know what they are.

If you choose to concede that assumptions exist, then you must also concede the possibility of other tenable theories.

Sorry, I don't concede there are any assumptions and all other theories have been falsified.  


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:03 PM on August 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I assume that life is far too complex to have been "evolved" through natural selection.  DNA, if it were a document to be read, would indicate design, not random process.  (My opinion)

Why do you make this assumption?  DNA is not a document to be read, it is an organic molecule that synthesises proteins.  It is not a random process, it follows the laws of chemistry.  And we see how it can cause changes in organisms and how these changes can be selected for or selected against.

I assume that the "old-world" theory is not without its conflicts, such as holes in the fossil record; supposedly evolved creatures' fossils being found in the same strata as the creatures from which they were supposed to have evolved; the process of fossilization itself, which tends to indicate rapid burial of the organic material rather than a very very long length of time (hence opening the door for a catastrophic event such as a flood).

What assumptions?  Organisms found in the same strata as those they were supposed to evolve from is no problem, because no where in the theory of evolution does it say a parent population must die out when a new species divirges off of it.  What we never find in the fossil record is an organism that evolved from a supposedly earlier organism older than the parent organism.  We don't find multicellular life before unicellular life, we don't find vertebrates before invertabrates, we don't find reptiles before amphibians, no other theory explains this pattern.  Yes, some fossils had to have been formed by rapid burial but some fossils could not possibly have been formed that way.  We find animal track ways and burrows smack dab in the middle of strata that creationists claim was laid down by the flood and this is impossible.  Ever see a piece of dog poop after a driving rain?  Not much left of it.  Yet creationists claim that fossilized dinosaur poop (coprolites) that are intact, had to be dried out by the sun and buried in wind blown sand, were unaffected by the flood.  Just can't happen.

I assume that radio-isotope dating techniques are biased due to their various assumptions of the rate of decay of isotopes.  If one wants (or needs) a certain date to be exhibited in a sample, the process is adjusted (re-calibrated) to account for anomalies that don't fit the anticipated time frame.  If old-earth scientists would honestly and openly evaluate the data anomalies, they would have to admit the possibility that the testing assumptions are flawed.

What assumptions?  We have been directly observing decay rates for about 100 years here on earth, they haven't changed.  We can observe decay rates in stars that go nova, so we can look back 100's of thousands of years and the decay rates have not changed.  The atomic theory is based on the constancy of these decay rates.  What evidence do you have that they have changed??  You claim that the experts purposely fix the dates obtained to make them support evolutionary theory, got any evidence for this?  Any reason why they would do this?  Any examples of any scientist ever doing this?  Dates obtained by radiometric dating are dated by more than one method before a date is determined.  How could 2 or more isotopes have changed decay rates and still give the same wrong answer?  
And as I mentioned before, these radiometric dates are checked against non radiometric dating techniques where applicable and they also concur.

Over long distances, I apply correction factors that approximate the effect of atmospheric conditions on the speed of the light, or alternatively I determine the range of error possible with the measurement given the assumptions I make about the conditions that exist at the time of the test.  That is something I work with every day.

And how does this falsify an old universe or old earth and how does it support a young earth.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:42 PM on August 23, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, you are dangerous because you throw things around without regard to context, and you use distraction to lead someone away from a full-on assault of your assumptions.  If you will look at the context of the following quote you copied from me, you will see that it was a response to a specific question by apoapsis regarding assumptions I use in my day-to-day work.  That is the only purpose for that statement.  Pay attention.  

Quote by me as copied by demon38:

"Over long distances, I apply correction factors that approximate the effect of atmospheric conditions on the speed of the light, or alternatively I determine the range of error possible with the measurement given the assumptions I make about the conditions that exist at the time of the test.  That is something I work with every day."

Question by demon38:  "And how does this falsify an old universe or old earth and how does it support a young earth."

It wasn't intended to support or refute anything in this discussion.  READ the context.  If you have that much difficulty staying on topic in this simple discussion, how can I trust that you have the ability to focus where it matters?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to refute that Darwin used extrapolation (another word for assumption) to develop his theory.


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 3:17 PM on August 23, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, I just scrolled up to reread your posts.  Yes I intended to respond to your challenge but I typed it 3 times and lost it while trying to send it to the board.  I think the problem was that I was trying to include a web address in my response, and it booted the post.  Do you think that is what the problem was?  I don't have time today to continue the response, I'm very busy at work.  I will get back to you.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 3:24 PM on August 23, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, and I have been jumping up and down here, at least I finally got a concession that as a concept it could be possible to develop an ID theory to refute evolution.  I realize you don't think of that as any more than an infinitessimal possibility, but your dogmatic stance that evolution cannot be refuted by an ID theory was very frustrating.  Thank you for that concession.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 3:27 PM on August 23, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ummmm, demon38, you may have tripped up.... you should perhaps write more slowly so that your evolutionary-biased slips don't show....  

Quote from demon38:  "What assumptions?  We have been directly observing decay rates for about 100 years here on earth, they haven't changed."

Ok, so let me get this straight.  You have 100 years of data regarding decay rates of various isotopes.  That must be an awesome volume of data.  So tell me, how is it that you take this data you have amassed, and use it to interpret evidence?  Could it possibly be that you EXTRAPOLATE (oh, no, wait, I think you ASSUME) that the data for 100 years must conclusively predict what should have happened thousands if not millions of years ago.  I believe that's what I hear you saying.  

I'm not sitting here saying that the application of extrapolation in this case is necessarily faulty.  All I'm saying is that it is indeed an assumption, regardless of how well it serves to predict what the theory says it should predict.

One other thing, demon.   I think it a bit arrogant of you to make statements such as, "ALL geologists concur...", "ALL biologists concur..."   That is not a man of science who makes a statement like that.  Pure hyperbole, intended to intimidate and distract from the central argument.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 8:52 PM on August 23, 2005 | IP
Foxtrot12

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I like how you think, Deductive Christian, and I like your style.

As for intelligent design, the idea spans too many variations of itself for me to pinpoint what claims it makes and what evidence it provides.

A certain ID idea, the most popular being, was originally "created" (I suppose one could say), by a biologist of the name Michael Behe, who supports the "irreducibly complex" idea.

I have done some term papers about his idea, but find it difficult to incorporate it with the scientific method. It simply isn't scientific. I have no problem with it being taught, but I have a problem with it being taught in a science classroom.

Edit: If case anyone would like to know, my other names on these forums have been "Pallim" and "Box of Fox." The YouDebateForums, for whatever reason, do not like me keeping one account for more than a few months before deciding to break down on me. :-)

(Edited by Foxtrot12 8/23/2005 at 9:34 PM).
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 9:31 PM on August 23, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I enjoy your posts also, Foxtrot, and I would have hoped for such a light and non-confrontational discussion on here with everyone, but apparently that isn't possible.  I understand your reasoning behind being unwilling to accept creation theory, and I hope you would attempt to understand that I accept it based on my faith in God, not on my faith in science.  Science of itself is created by man, and I truly believe that all of the conflicts and issues of theories in any realm of science can be reconciled when God chooses to reveal the answers.  

Gentlemen, duty calls, I am going to be out of town and likely out of internet access range for the rest of the week.  I am hopeful that I can see more of demon38's rebuttal material at some point, but I doubt if I'll get a chance to reply anytime soon.  Have a great week, I'll be back as soon as I can.  




-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 07:08 AM on August 24, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to refute that Darwin used extrapolation (another word for assumption) to develop his theory.

What has Darwin to do with modern evolutionary theory?  True, he first proposed the theory of evolution but it has grown greatly since his day.  We have much more evidence to support it, we have directly observed evolution both in the wild and in the lab.  We use the theory of evolution in industry, medicine, farming.  Darwin's theory of evolution is 150 years out of date.  If you notice, it's called Neo Darwinism now or more accurately, the modern synthesis.  What Darwin did has no bearing on modern day evolutionary theory.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:56 PM on August 24, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It wasn't intended to support or refute anything in this discussion.  READ the context.  If you have that much difficulty staying on topic in this simple discussion, how can I trust that you have the ability to focus where it matters?

Why are you so worried about my mental state?!?  Sorry I jumped to conclusions, but we were talking about the age of the earth.
All you should be worried about is refuting the data, which you haven't been able to do yet.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to refute that Darwin used extrapolation (another word for assumption) to develop his theory.

What Darwin did or didn't do is 150 years out of date and has no bearing on modern evolutionary theory.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:00 PM on August 24, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, and I have been jumping up and down here, at least I finally got a concession that as a concept it could be possible to develop an ID theory to refute evolution.

I think you better reread my post.  I never said that it would be possible to develop an ID theory to refute evoltuion!  What I said was that God, working unseen through natural forces such as evolution and abiogenesis,
would mean that ID is ultimately true, but it will never be a scientific theory and since God is working with evolution and other natural forces, it will never refute evolution or any other natural force.  ID has absolutely no evidence to support it.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:06 PM on August 24, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.