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
     Is Evolution a Religion?
       Is Evolution Really a Religion or is it fact?

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

    
sp3wk

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For all those out there that think Evolution is a Fact please show me positive and solid evidence that it is fact rather then fiction.

All those that bealive that Evolution is just another Religion pleas show solid evidence on this.

My personal opinion is that Evolution is just another religion that should be treated just as that.  If they can't teach Creation or any other religion they should not teach evolution.


-------
Sheldon P. Wassenaar
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 6:53 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For all those out there that think Evolution is a Fact please show me positive and solid evidence that it is fact rather then fiction.


There's no such thing as "fact" in science. Gravity is not a fact. Electro-magnetisum is not a fact. Evolution isn't a fact either.

However, like Gravity, Evolution is the only accepted scientific explanation for how life got to the stage it's at.

Now, before I post the evidence, I'd like to know if you'd prefer the dumbed-down version, or the version hundreds of pages long.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:16 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I as well.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 8:20 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is not a religion.  Calling evolution a religion is absurd.  A religion is based on faith - that which cannot be seen or proved.  Science has nothing to do with proving or disproving religion.  Science endeavors to explain the natural world around us.  Theories are the result of applying the scientific meithod - of using rational thinking and making objective observations.

Evolution is a solidly founded scientific theory based on facts and obervations.  It also has stood up to many, many tests since Darwin first published his book in 1859.  The interesting thing about Evolution is that it has only been more strongly supported as more scientific discoveries have been made over time - genetics, DNA, the fossil record, radioactive dating techniques, plate tectonics - to name just a few areas.

Theories are actually more useful in science than mere facts.  Facts are based on  observations .  Theories are the cohesive glue that explain facts and observations, and make useful predictions.  Theories explain ideas.  Theories also must stand up to repeatable testing.  If a theory fails to explain or predict observations, then it is either modified or discarded.  Thus far  evolutionary theory has only been strengthened by immense supporting evidence in the past 150 years.

Here are two excellent web-sites that explain evolution and give supporting evidence.  

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.pandasthumb.org/
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:15 PM on January 7, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evolution is not a religion for the same reason christianity is not a science.  it is all about how we observe and study it.  we study evolution through a scientific process.  we study christianity through a spiritual process.  show me a scientific study of creationism and i will call it a science.  but anything short of that is not science.  show me a spiritual study of evolution and i will call it a religion.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:52 PM on January 8, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

re·li·gion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn)
n.

1a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural
  power or powers regarded as creator and  
  governor of the universe.
1b A personal or institutionalized system  
  grounded in such belief and worship.
2 The life or condition of a person in a religious
  order.
3 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based  
  on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with  
  zeal or conscientious devotion.

By definition, evolution is not a religion.  The closest it can possibly get is definition 4 and then only to some really weird people.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:43 PM on January 8, 2006 | IP
BVZ

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidence for evolution:

Imagine a teacher who has to mark a hundred answer sheets. How can a teacher determine wheter two students has copied from each other?

The teacher takes two answer sheets, and compare them. Now, imagine that the teacher starts to suspect that a everyone in the class was cheating?

This should be easy to determine.

The way this can be done is to identify certain copying errors, and to look for them in all the papers. One student makes a mistake. Everyone who copies from this student will copy this mistake as well, not knowing that it is a mistake. They themselves might make mistakes too, so thier maper will not have TWO mistakes. (There might of course be more!)

In this way you can build a tree using these 'copying mistakes', and you can determine who copied from who etc.

There is a way to test wether this method is accurate. You can take a class list and see where each studend was sitting. If the 'spread' of the data match the positions they were sitting in (it spread from desk to desk), it fortifies the 'Students Were Cheating' theory.

This is exactly what scientists found when examining DNA in all animals living today. Children inerit thier DNA from thier parents. In the copying process there are occasional mistakes, just like the 'copying errors' in the teacher example. (These errors are called mutations.)

These mistakes can be used to build a tree of who inherited thier DNA from who.

You can then use fossil evidence to see if the 'spreading' of the DNA through the world matches with thier actual location in space and time. If they correlate, it gives credence to the tree built by using 'copy mistakes' in the DNA.

This is exacly what we did with the teacher example.

Keep in mind two things:
1) This is only ONE partial piece of evidence. It goes a lot further than just this.
2) This is simplified so that it is easily readable, and understandable.

Enjoy!





-------
Evil always contain the seed of its own downfall.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 04:37 AM on January 19, 2006 | IP
TNBiologist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a Bachalors degree in Biology and am Church of Christ so I think I have a very unique view of this debate. Evolution is not a religion. It is as much of a fact as any other biological prinicple, none are total laws but have enoough proof to be considered valid. As for the religous aspect, I believe that God created the world and mankind, i know the bible says the lord created everything in 7 days buit do you really think that we as mere people could comprehend how the universe was created by our lord? I don't and that is why I think that when God was inspiring followers to write the bible he put in the 7 day part, so that we could comprehend the creatation. Basically, everything I have learned and seen as a biologist tells me that God had to create it as no one else or no other force has the ability to. I do believe in evolution, I can see it everyday at work. For an example look at bacteria, we use antibacterial agents to kill it but some always survives do to some genetic variation that make the particular bateria immune to what every we just used (this would be G1 for research). Now the bacteria that survived the last round of antibiotics reproduces. There offspring is going to be resistant to the same antibiotic used against the parent bateria( this is now G2 for research). This is evolution at work but that bateria was created by God. I hope this helps.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:46 PM on January 22, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I, personally, would not say Evolution is a religion. Creationism (I.E. Christianity, the most challenged religion in this issue) is a religion, obviously.

I would call Creationism and Evolutionism two faiths. It takes faith to believe in Creationism, and it takes faith to believe Evolution.

Science is not a faith, evolution is a faith. I'll tell you why Evolution takes Faith, at least the first five basic steps.

Warning: The concepts I have are short and basic. Feel free to debate that with me.

1) Cosmic Evolution: big bang makes hydrogen.

Did you know that has never been observed or tested? There is no evidence for that occurence, and certainly none that could be found today. That takes Faith.


2) Chemical Evolution: higher elements evolve

You cannot get every other element from Hydrogen. It is simply not possible, especially since Hydrogen cannot go together with so many other elements. You CAN physically put them together, but it doesn't work that way. You'd need intervention from a designer to do that, and, according to the theory, there was no designer there.


3) Planetary Evolution: evolution of stars and planets from gas

None of this has ever been observed, tested or proven in any way. For one thing, how do the stars form? Nobody has ever proven the formation of a single star, and nobody has ever seen new planets form either. It takes faith to believe that a lot of chemicals swirling about in space (as the result of an explosion. DESTRUCTIVE, NOT CONSTRUCTIVE) could put together something like that, and certainly not a planet as unique as ours. That takes faith.


4) Organic Evolution: life from rocks

Not one living person has ever seen life arise from non-living material. Spontaneous generation was proven wrong years ago when people believed that Flies were born out of dead meat; when in reality, the flies lay eggs there and they hatch out of the meat when they eat enough. Yet, they teach that life can come from rocks?! Things that are 100% non-organic? It takes faith to believe that life came from rocks.


5) Macroevolution: evolution between kinds of plants and animals

Not one person has ever observed one animal give birth to another kind of animal. There are different species that can interbreed (I.E. A dog can interbreed with another species of dog) but you still have the same kind of animal. You will never get your dog to give birth to a cow, a hamster, a whale or anything else.

And you will never get an orange, some grapes or a banana to grow on your apple tree.

It takes loads of faith to believe something like this when it never happens.


6) Microevolution: changes within kinds

This is the only step that has been tested and observed and proven. There are changes in the "Species", but there are no changes with the KINDS of animals. You can get a really small dog from a great dane, but you will never get a chiuwawha (correct me if I spelled it wrong) from him. There are variations within the kinds, but there are limits. You can get some pretty odd differences with the offspring of normal animals, but if that can change the KIND of animal, then why don't you breed wings on your horses? There are limits, folks.

My problem with this step is the title that it has. It's just variation, but it's the only step of evolution that is true. People automatically think that if that bit is true, then everything else is.

---

Creationism takes Faith, but Evolution takes just as much, if not more faith to believe in its ideas.

Creationism is a Faith

Evolution is a Faith

Fact: Neither are scientific.

Fact: People insist on having E in while C is kept out.

Fact: Evolution is tax supported.

I don't mind if they teach evolution in schools as a theory, but I do mind when they teach it like it's all facts when only the last step of it is scientifically observed to be true.

Evolution is a religion in the idea that it tries to explain how the universe came into being. It is possible to teach science without bringing in a theory that tries to teach that. Unobserved, unproven, it has the same idea that religion has. Trying to explain the origin of the world.

But look at it this way, which would you rather believe? Neither can be proven, but wouldn't intelligent design make better logical sense than a theory that relies on total blind chance?



-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 1:51 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I, personally, would not say Evolution is a religion. Creationism (I.E. Christianity, the most challenged religion in this issue) is a religion, obviously.

Well, at least you got this right, most creatioists get it wrong.

I would call Creationism and Evolutionism two faiths. It takes faith to believe in Creationism, and it takes faith to believe Evolution.

Well, your streak of being right just ended...evolution takes nothing on faith, it is overwhelmingly supported by all evidence found so far.  People don't 'believe' in evolution, they accept it based on the evidence.  

Science is not a faith, evolution is a faith.

But evolution is science, virtually all biologists agree, so evolution isn't faith.

1) Cosmic Evolution: big bang makes
hydrogen.


Has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, if God magically created hydrogen, it doesn't affect the evidence for evolution at all.

Did you know that has never been observed or tested? There is no evidence for that occurence, and certainly none that could be found today. That takes Faith.

Of course it can be tested, we can observe old stars, and see how hydrogen forms, this is similar to how free hydrogen formed thousands of years after the Big Bang.  So with the help of radio telescopes and mass spectrometers we can "see" hydrogen formation.  And not only do we know how hydrogen was formed, we can determine how much was formed, from here:
BigBangNucleosynthesis
"The key parameter which allows one to calculate the effects of BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) is the number of photons per baryon. This parameter corresponds to the temperature and density of the early universe and allows one to determine the conditions under which nuclear fusion occurs. From this we can derive elemental abundances. Although the baryon per photon ratio is important in determining elemental abundances, the precise value makes little difference to the overall picture. Without major changes to the Big Bang theory itself, BBN will result in 25% helium-4; about 1% of deuterium; trace amounts of lithium and beryllium; and no other heavy elements, leaving about 74% of H-1. That the observed abundances in the universe are consistent with these numbers is considered strong evidence for the Big Bang theory."

The Big Bang theory predicted what the ratio of Helium, Deuterium and Hydrogen would be, and guess what, that is exactly what we DO see.

2) Chemical Evolution: higher elements evolve

You cannot get every other element from Hydrogen. It is simply not possible, especially since Hydrogen cannot go together with so many other elements. You CAN physically put them together, but it doesn't work that way. You'd need intervention from a designer to do that, and, according to the theory, there was no designer there.


Ever hear of nuclear fusion?!?!  We do get heavier elements from hydrogen and helium, we actually observe it happening.  From here:
Nucleosynthesis

"Nuclear fusion in stars converts hydrogen into helium in all stars. In stars less massive than the Sun, this is the only reaction that takes place. In stars more massive than the Sun (but less massive than about 8 solar masses), further reactions that convert helium to carbon and oxygen take place in succesive stages of stellar evolution. In the very massive stars, the reaction chain continues to produce elements like silicon upto iron."

So you are wrong here too, we can get all the other elements from just hydrogen and helium, the basic elements created just after the big bang.

3) Planetary Evolution: evolution of stars and planets from gas
None of this has ever been observed, tested or proven in any way. For one thing, how do the stars form?


How do stars form?  From here:StarFormation

"According to current theories of star formation, cores of molecular clouds (regions of especially high density) become gravitationally unstable, fragment and begin to collapse (sometimes, shockwaves from supernovae will trigger star formation in nearby gas clouds). Part of the gravitational energy lost in this collapse is radiated in the infrared, with the remainder increasing the temperature of the core of the object. The accretion of material happens partially through a circumstellar disc. When the density and temperature are high enough, deuterium fusion ignition occurs, and the outward pressure of the resultant radiation slows (but does not stop) the collapse. Material from the cloud continues to "rain" onto the protostar. In this stage bipolar flows are produced, probably an effect of the angular momentum of the infalling material. Finally, hydrogen begins to fuse in the core of the star, and the rest of the enveloping material is cleared away."

No faith involved because we have observed star formation, from here again:
ObservedStarFormation

"Key elements of star formation are only available by observing in wavelengths other than the optical. The structure of the molecular cloud and the effects of the protostar are best observed in rotational transitions of CO and other molecules; these are observed in the millimeter and submillimeter range. The radiation from the protostar and early star has to be observed in infrared astronomy wavelengths, the extinction caused by the rest of the cloud where it is being formed is usually too big to allow us to observe it in the visual part of the spectrum."

So you're wrong here too, we HAVE actually observed stars forming.

) Organic Evolution: life from rocks
Not one living person has ever seen life arise from non-living material. Spontaneous generation was proven wrong years ago when people believed that Flies were born out of dead meat; when in reality, the flies lay eggs there and they hatch out of the meat when they eat enough. Yet, they teach that life can come from rocks?! Things that are 100% non-organic? It takes faith to believe that life came from rocks.


Again, ridiculous!  Studies in abiogenesis are very promising.  We see organic compounds occurring naturally all the time.  We haven't found the exact path life took on earth yet, but no one has falsified the possiblity.  Spontaneous generation had nothing to do with life arising on a primitive earth, so it proves nothing.  Creationists, on the other hand, can give us absolutely no evidence that life was supernaturally created...

5) Macroevolution: evolution between kinds of plants and animals
Not one person has ever observed one animal give birth to another kind of animal. There are different species that can interbreed (I.E. A dog can interbreed with another species of dog) but you still have the same kind of animal. You will never get your dog to give birth to a cow, a hamster, a whale or anything else.
And you will never get an orange, some grapes or a banana to grow on your apple tree.
It takes loads of faith to believe something like this when it never happens.


And of course the theory of evolution doesn't say one kind of organism will give birth to a different kind of organism.  You really don't understand evolution if you make this claim!  Single organisms don't evolve, populations of organisms evolve!  That all life shares a common ancestor is supported by the fossil record and transitional fossils, twin nested hierarchies, biogeography, ERV's, just to name a few.  There is so much evidence to support this that over 99.9% of the worlds biologists accept it.

6) Microevolution: changes within kinds
This is the only step that has been tested and observed and proven. There are changes in the "Species", but there are no changes with the KINDS of animals. You can get a really small dog from a great dane, but you will never get a chiuwawha (correct me if I spelled it wrong) from him. There are variations within the kinds, but there are limits. You can get some pretty odd differences with the offspring of normal animals, but if that can change the KIND of animal, then why don't you breed wings on your horses? There are limits, folks.


Define "kinds", we've seen new species arise, so we've seen macroevolution.  Chimpanzees and humans share 7 endogenous retroviruses, the only explanation is they share a common ancestor, we see 1000's of clearly transitional fossils that blend characteristics of different "kinds".  The evidence completely supports the theory of evolution and falsifies creationism.  It's clear you have a lot of research to do!  Get cracking!

(Edited by Demon38 3/21/2006 at 12:55 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:29 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, it is ridiculous to argue that Creationists can give no evidence that supernatural causes were included in their origin or creation. If God created everything, than he can also change things in different ways for what he wants. I.E. miracles. Something like that cannot leave a mark where the natural stuff is involved, unless you where there and watched it happen. So that arguement is falacious.


Define "kinds", we've seen new species arise, so we've seen macroevolution.  Chimpanzees and humans share 7 endogenous retroviruses, the only explanation is they share a common ancestor, we see 1000's of clearly transitional fossils that blend characteristics of different "kinds".  The evidence completely supports the theory of evolution and falsifies creationism.  It's clear you have a lot of research to do!  Get cracking!


Look, a monkey can have a baby different from itself. That can be seen and observed and tested.

They all have a common ancestor, true. Monkeys had monkeys as common ancestors, and humans had humans as common ancestors.

Similar bone structure, to me, doesn't show that they had the same common ancestor. You want know of another explanation? There just happens to be another right here. It shows more evidence for a common designer that had the same ideas in mind. I think that supports I.D. better than evolution.

As you've already researched the sites, I'll put the question to you. How did we get all these other elements from hydrogen? I know you have already told me that it can be done, but how did all this come about?

The star formation info you showed were still theories. I have yet to still see it happen today.

Key elements of star formation are only available by observing in wavelengths other than the optical. The structure of the molecular cloud and the effects of the protostar are best observed in rotational transitions of CO and other molecules; these are observed in the millimeter and submillimeter range. The radiation from the protostar and early star has to be observed in infrared astronomy wavelengths, the extinction caused by the rest of the cloud where it is being formed is usually too big to allow us to observe it in the visual part of the spectrum."

That's all they can do? I don't know about this. It seems like they have a pretty difficult time observing what they teach as facts. What goes on behind what they see? It sounds like an excuse for lack of info to me.

I've got to go to bed now, or I'll kill myself. By the way, you're nucleosynthesis link didn't work.


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 01:22 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, it is ridiculous to argue that Creationists can give no evidence that supernatural causes were included in their origin or creation. If God created everything, than he can also change things in different ways for what he wants. I.E. miracles. Something like that cannot leave a mark where the natural stuff is involved, unless you where there and watched it happen. So that arguement is falacious.


That’s precisely the point. While Evolution can be falsified—and therefore qualifies as science—Intelligent Design could have happened even if there’s not a shred of evidence to say so.

Look, a monkey can have a baby different from itself. That can be seen and observed and tested.


And all it took were changes of the same kind across but a small minority of those monkeys, an alteration in the population’s niche, and after a couple thousand years the differing population can no longer reproduce with the population of their descendants.

Similar bone structure, to me, doesn't show that they had the same common ancestor. You want know of another explanation? There just happens to be another right here. It shows more evidence for a common designer that had the same ideas in mind. I think that supports I.D. better than evolution.


An awfully uncreative, incompetent designer, but a designer no less, of course.

As you've already researched the sites, I'll put the question to you. How did we get all these other elements from hydrogen? I know you have already told me that it can be done, but how did all this come about?


In brief, the core of a star gets so hot that atoms lose their electrons. The exposed nucleuses of atoms condense; following the explosion and the cooling, the electrons trail back to the nucleuses, which have now grown into more complex elements.

The star formation info you showed were still theories. I have yet to still see it happen today.


We can’t look into a star and watch atoms lose their electrons, but we can tell what’s happening through infrared and radiation monitors. We then hypothesize exactly what’s going on in a particular star, and test the process out on a much smaller scale. It works, and we look at another star that is in a more mature stage of the process. We measure what’s happening in that star, test out the properties of the atoms involved in the lab, and rinse and repeat. As it stands, we have the entire process mapped out and verified. We don’t need to go back in time because we can see stars of all ages from right here on Earth.


But drop that for a moment. You still have yet to explain how the change of life over time relates to cosmology.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/21/2006 at 01:46 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:44 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, it is ridiculous to argue that Creationists can give no evidence that supernatural causes were included in their origin or creation. If God created everything, than he can also change things in different ways for what he wants. I.E. miracles. Something like that cannot leave a mark where the natural stuff is involved, unless you where there and watched it happen. So that arguement is falacious.

So you have no evidence and you have a magic excuse why you don't...It's not a falacious argument, it's true.  Sure, if God exists, he can do anything, he can create false evidence to fool us, but is a god who tries to trick you someone you want to worship?  Miracles are non scientific, they can never be observed, tested, repeated so they can never be part of science, whether they are true or not...

Look, a monkey can have a baby different from itself. That can be seen and observed and tested.  They all have a common ancestor, true. Monkeys had monkeys as common ancestors, and humans had humans as common ancestors.

Then why do we see homonids that had apelike features and human like features?  Why do chimpanzees and humans share 7 endogenous retroviruses?  Retroviruses can only be passed on through inheritance.  So the only explaination for us sharing 7 with chimps is that we share a common ancestor that had those same 7 retroviruses.

Similar bone structure, to me, doesn't show that they had the same common ancestor.

What is your expertise?  How many years have you studied biology, zoology, comparative anatomy?  What evidence do you have that refutes homologies?  You do realize that 100's of thousands of biologists, people who spend their whole lives studying the bone structure of animals disagree with you...

As you've already researched the sites, I'll put the question to you. How did we get all these other elements from hydrogen? I know you have already told me that it can be done, but how did all this come about?

Check out this site:
HeavyElements

The star formation info you showed were still theories. I have yet to still see it happen today.

No, we observe star formation throughout the galaxy.  From here:StarFormation

"Breathtaking portraits of blooming stars in their strange nurseries have proved to be a specialty of the Hubble Space Telescope, orbiting high above the planet Earth. Among the most stunning so far is a picture of a star cluster called, unprettily, NGC 3603."

So we actually have pictures of stars forming.

That's all they can do? I don't know about this. It seems like they have a pretty difficult time observing what they teach as facts. What goes on behind what they see? It sounds like an excuse for lack of info to me.

What's the problem?  We can see them, study them on many different levels, we can explain them, we can make predictions based on what we see.  What evidence do you have that refutes star formation theories?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:57 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You don't seem to understand. It's true that there is no real scientific evidence from miracles. But your arguement is still wrong. Supernatural miracles cannot possibly be repeated by "normal natural" forces. You're trying to prove the nonexistence of something that cannot be researched with normal techniques. That's impossible, and its simply ridiculous for you to argue it.

My arguement is that I still have never seen a single star proven to have been formed recently or a star in current formation. Anybody can suppose that it can happen, but that doesn't mean it does and I haven't seen a single star form. Saying they see stars forming in clouds doesn't mean they're not seeing a clearing in the cloud and there's a star behind it. They already admit that the cloud hinders their study and insight into this stuff, so I doubt that's dependable. And I already looked at the wikipedia stuff.

I want you to answer the question, not the site. For once, I'd like you yourself to explain it.

And stop challenging my capabilities to answer these questions or study of these things. I don't assume that you have a lack of understanding or knowledge, so don't you do it either.

Monkeys are perhaps the more biologically related beings on earth, and there are monkeys that resemble us quite a bit, but they are still a monkey! Not a human! I think God created such a thing for similarity and for interest in scientific studies. But a monkey had a monkey for a father and so did humans. And why didn't all the original monkeys not evolve into humans? Why did they branch off to an inferior animal like regular monkeys that are so different from humans biologically? Evolution teachs that evolving means that a species is getting better and better, and the common ancestor of humans and monkeys would not be better if it had to evolve two different kinds of animals with such different designs.



-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 11:12 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You don't seem to understand. It's true that there is no real scientific evidence from miracles. But your arguement is still wrong. Supernatural miracles cannot possibly be repeated by "normal natural" forces. You're trying to prove the nonexistence of something that cannot be researched with normal techniques. That's impossible, and its simply ridiculous for you to argue it.


I don’t know about Demon, but that’s been my point from the very beginning. You cannot scientifically study miracles. They are a different form of truth, and need not be mentioned in science class. (On another note, however, I studied miracles for about a month in my literature class, in late December to January. Just because religion is excluded from the science classroom, does not mean that it isn’t brought up elsewhere in the school.)

My arguement is that I still have never seen a single star proven to have been formed recently or a star in current formation. Anybody can suppose that it can happen, but that doesn't mean it does and I haven't seen a single star form. Saying they see stars forming in clouds doesn't mean they're not seeing a clearing in the cloud and there's a star behind it. They already admit that the cloud hinders their study and insight into this stuff, so I doubt that's dependable. And I already looked at the wikipedia stuff.


There are two types of science. There’s science based on evidence, and there’s science based on observation. For science based on evidence, we take what we have today and make predictions as to what happened in the past. Then we find out what the conditions of the past would have been in order to make our prediction true, and test the prediction out in the lab. We don’t need to see a whole star form to know it happens, because we’re able to make the same chemical processes occur inside a laboratory. We know you can make more complicated elements out of hydrogen, because we’ve done it. Then, we look at stars that are in a given process of formation, and measure the amount of heat and radiation it’s giving off. These measurements support our predictions, and the formation of stars becomes a tested scientific theory under the study of cosmology.

Evidential science is not enough on its own, in other words. You need to take the predictions evidential science suggests, and test the validity of those predictions in the laboratory. This process works for evolution and the formation of stars, but it has not succeeded in proving the predictions offered by the Theory of Abiogenesis.

I want you to answer the question, not the site. For once, I'd like you yourself to explain it.


Was my explanation on the nuclear fusion of hydrogen not acceptable? Press Ctrl-F, and type in “electrons”.

Monkeys are perhaps the more biologically related beings on earth, and there are monkeys that resemble us quite a bit, but they are still a monkey! Not a human! I think God created such a thing for similarity and for interest in scientific studies. But a monkey had a monkey for a father and so did humans.


That’s your claim—not a fact.

And why didn't all the original monkeys not evolve into humans? Why did they branch off to an inferior animal like regular monkeys that are so different from humans biologically? Evolution teachs that evolving means that a species is getting better and better, and the common ancestor of humans and monkeys would not be better if it had to evolve two different kinds of animals with such different designs.


This is a very silly argument. It’s like arguing why, since the United States branched off from Europe, why there are still Europeans around to this day. Human beings occupied a different niche than monkeys, just as Americans occupy a different land than Europeans. There was no competition over human beings and monkeys, because one lived on land and the other lived in the trees. Likewise, America has not attempted to conquer Europe, because we live in North America, and we don’t need that land.





-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:33 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You don't seem to understand. It's true that there is no real scientific evidence from miracles. But your arguement is still wrong. Supernatural miracles cannot possibly be repeated by "normal natural" forces. You're trying to prove the nonexistence of something that cannot be researched with normal techniques. That's impossible, and its simply ridiculous for you to argue it.

No, gong back to the original point, I'm right.  You admit that mircales have are not scientific evidence, that they can't be repeated or tested, so they can't be evidence for scientific theories.  So when creationists claim it's more reasonable to say a magic, undetectable sky man created the universe, that's not true.  It's more reasonalbe to assume the universe formed by natural forces, since we can observe natural forces and study them but we don't even know if a magic sky man exists.  The law of parsimony:
"A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known."

My arguement is that I still have never seen a single star proven to have been formed recently or a star in current formation

When did you research star formation?  How many radiotelescopes have you peered through?  Science doesn't care what you personally have or haven't seen!  You have done absolutely no research but here you are claiming the worlds best astorphysicists are wrong, that they are lieing.  When you make claims like this, you have no credibility.

Anybody can suppose that it can happen, but that doesn't mean it does and I haven't seen a single star form.

You never looked...You can't believe stars form by natural forces, so you must be right.  You're ignorant of the science of star formation, so it must be wrong...Truely a pathetic claim.

Saying they see stars forming in clouds doesn't mean they're not seeing a clearing in the cloud and there's a star behind it. They already admit that the cloud hinders their study and insight into this stuff, so I doubt that's dependable.

Show us the research that supports your ignorant claim or retract it.

I want you to answer the question, not the site. For once, I'd like you yourself to explain
it.


Why?  I showed you the latest research, you can't refute it.  Case closed.  Your claims that we don't know how stars form or that we've never seen them form have been completely disproven, I'm not going to continue the discussion with someone who is scientifically illiterate.  Show us the information that supposts your claims, that falsify my points, then I'll respond.  until then, I won't do your research for you.

And stop challenging my capabilities to answer these questions or study of these things. I don't assume that you have a lack of understanding or knowledge, so don't you do it either.

But you've made so many glaring errors!  It's obvious you don't understand science in general and evolution in particular!  Educate yourself!

Monkeys are perhaps the more biologically related beings on earth, and there are monkeys that resemble us quite a bit, but they are still a monkey!

So what...how does that falsify evolution?  They're still monkeys but they are more closely related to humans than they are to earthworms, why, because monkeys and humans evolved from a more recent common ancestor.  If you say monkeys are more biologically related to humans, the way they are related is evolution.

I think God created such a thing for similarity and for interest in scientific
studies.


What evidence do you have to support this?  What evidence do you have that God even exists?  So God made all life just look like it evolved to fool us...

And why didn't all the original monkeys not evolve into humans? Why did they branch off to an inferior animal like regular monkeys that are so different from humans biologically?

More evidence that you don't understand evolution!  Where in the theory of evolution does it say all monkeys should have evoled into humans?  You don't understand evolution!
You are presenting infantile strawman arguments.  And why do you say monkeys are "inferior" to humans?  They are just as evolved as us.  Evolution makes no claims of superiority or inferiority.  If you had even studied the basics of evolution, youwould know that .

Evolution teachs that evolving means that a species is getting better and better,

No it doesn't, so your whole point is invalid.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:46 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How did the universe come into being naturally? What I mean is this. Where did everything begin? How did all the things we see around us come into existence at all? And where did the energy that fuels all this come from too? Where did Time come from?

It's not a fairytale to believe that someone higher than our understanding can comprehend designed us. We are here you know. We ultimately had to have a beginning too. We, humans, are incredibly complex life forms, and trying to say that we evolved through mutations (None of which are beneficial) makes a lot less sense than saying we were created by an intelligent designer. It's no silly or fairytalish thing to believe that.

How often have you researched stars? How many have you seen form and come together and go through that cycle you've shown me? I looked at it, and I can see where the flaw is. I think you quoted it from wikipedia.

"According to current theories of star formation, cores of molecular clouds (regions of especially high density) become gravitationally unstable, fragment and begin to collapse (sometimes, shockwaves from supernovae will trigger star formation in nearby gas clouds). Part of the gravitational energy lost in this collapse is radiated in the infrared, with the remainder increasing the temperature of the core of the object. The accretion of material happens partially through a circumstellar disc. When the density and temperature are high enough, deuterium fusion ignition occurs, and the outward pressure of the resultant radiation slows (but does not stop) the collapse. Material from the cloud continues to "rain" onto the protostar. In this stage bipolar flows are produced, probably an effect of the angular momentum of the infalling material. Finally, hydrogen begins to fuse in the core of the star, and the rest of the enveloping material is cleared away."

Like I said, these are only theories. They even admit here that they cannot be definite.

"Key elements of star formation are only available by observing in wavelengths other than the optical. The structure of the molecular cloud and the effects of the protostar are best observed in rotational transitions of CO and other molecules; these are observed in the millimeter and submillimeter range. The radiation from the protostar and early star has to be observed in infrared astronomy wavelengths, the extinction caused by the rest of the cloud where it is being formed is usually too big to allow us to observe it in the visual part of the spectrum."

Do you see the extreme circumstances are required to simply observe these things? Nonvisually? Come on. Considering these are still theories, I'm not going to believe them until they can produce better evidence.

And stop challenging my capabilities to answer these questions or study of these things. I don't assume that you have a lack of understanding or knowledge, so don't you do it either.

--But you've made so many glaring errors!  It's obvious you don't understand science in general and evolution in particular!  Educate yourself!--

I happen to believe that you are ignorant of certain aspects of evolution and science as well. But I do not belittle you for it, and neither should you. I will cease to argue with you if you bring that up again. You don't know how much research I've done on this subject, that is why you continue to debate me. Don't make assumptions if you don't know for scertain.

Wikipedia--In biology, evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation.--

That is another definition of evolution. But there are multiple definitions, and the one I'm most familiar with is the idea that the first living being was small, and that evolving made it bigger and stronger. If that bit of evolution applies itself there, why not here? They believe through mutations or biological change, we can become better to what we were before. We were improved or something.

I still hold fast the idea that monkeys and humans had their own common ancestors. I don't see how biological change can turn them into a human over any length of time. You can rearrange their information in any way, but you'll never get a human in any amount of time. Suer there are differences, but there are limits.

Natural selection does not prove evolution for this reason. There are limits to change. If one species evolved even a liiitle better than the rest, the others would have to die off to keep that new change from being diluted and lost in the general population. If you took all the biggest pigs in a yard and had them seperate from the smaller ones, then you could get a population of larger pigs. But you will never get them to get as big as a barn. There are limits to change.

Second, Natural selection does work. I don't deny that it works, but it does not change anything. If you selected all the better planes produced in a factory, how long would it take that process to get a space rocket from one of those plans?

Natural selection works. But it only selects, it changes nothing. And there are limits to the possible change.

I do admit my idea of monkeys and humans branching off was wrong. You are correct, I didn't think of it that way.





-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 6:44 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How did the universe come into being naturally? What I mean is this. Where did everything begin? How did all the things we see around us come into existence at all? And where did the energy that fuels all this come from too? Where did Time come from?

Unknown at this time, but real scientists are investigating.

It's not a fairytale to believe that someone higher than our understanding can comprehend designed us.

It is a complete fairytale!  No evidence to support it.  The supernatural has explained nothing so far, it's only logical to assume it will explain nothing in the future.

We, humans, are incredibly complex life forms, and trying to say that we evolved through mutations (None of which are beneficial) makes a lot less sense than saying we were created by an intelligent designer.

Sorry, you keep making stupid mistakes.  Beneficial mutations have been observed.  Incredibly complex life is bested explained by evolution.  An intelligent designer is a fairytale that has nothing to support it but out of date myths created by unsophisticated, primitive tribesman over 2000 years ago.

Like I said, these are only theories. They even admit here that they cannot be
definite.


You don't know what a theory is in science.  The highest a concept can reach in science is a theory.  And no theory can be completely definite.  Ever hear of the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the heliocentric theory, you know, the theory that the earth orbits the sun?  A theory in science explains a set of related facts.  There is nothing higher than a theory in science.  The theory of evolution is one of the most well supported theories in science, in fact, it's so well supported that virtually all biologists accept it as fact.

Do you see the extreme circumstances are required to simply observe these things? Nonvisually? Come on. Considering these are still theories, I'm not going to believe them until they can produce better evidence.

The evidence is conclusive, you don't believe them because it destroys your primitive beliefs, not based on any scientifically evidenced claims.  You don't understand science, so you don't believe it.  And as I said, you don't know what a scientific theory is.  Like I said above, that the earth orbits the sun is a theory, the Heliocentric theory, guess you don't believe that either because it's just a theory.

And stop challenging my capabilities to answer these questions or study of these things. I don't assume that you have a lack of understanding or knowledge, so don't you do it either.

Then answer the questions and stop running away!

I happen to believe that you are ignorant of certain aspects of evolution and science as well.

Support your claim!  I'm not ignorant of science and evolution, I defy you to show me where I've made mistakes!  You can't do it, and seeing how you debate, you'll ignore this challenge too!

But I do not belittle you for it, and neither should you. I will cease to argue with you if you bring that up again. You don't know how much research I've done on this subject, that is why you continue to debate me. Don't make assumptions if you don't know for scertain.

You continue to make mistakes, I'll call you on them.  You say things like you don't understand how populations evolve, not individuals, you talk about inferior and superior animals in evolution, you don't understand how genetics work, you say we don't know how hydrogen first formed, you say we don't know how stars form, all wrong and I'll continue to refute your erroneous claims until you stop making them.

That is another definition of evolution. But there are multiple definitions, and the one I'm most familiar with is the idea that the first living being was small, and that evolving made it bigger and stronger.

There is one definition of evolution in science, the one stated in wikipedia, you don't get to make up your own, that's not how science works.

They believe through mutations or biological change, we can become better to what we were before. We were improved or something.

Wrong!  Better doesn't apply in evolution, you don't understand this, you don't understand evolution.

I still hold fast the idea that monkeys and humans had their own common ancestors. I don't see how biological change can turn them into a human over any length of time. You can rearrange their information in any way, but you'll never get a human in any amount of time. Suer there are differences, but there are limits.

Then how do you explain the continuum of fossils that go from apelike to increasingly human?  How do you explain ERV's?  Let's face it, you don't understand evolution, so it can't be true, that's your only claim.  You haven't been able to back anything up with real evidence, just your uniformed opinion.  I keep asking you to support your claims, but you can't do that.

Natural selection does not prove evolution for this reason.

In science nothing is proven, it is either supported by the evidence or falsified by it.  Natural selection is a part of the theory of evolution.  It is an observed phenomenon.

There are limits to change.

I keep asking youwhat are those limits?  Why won't you answer me?

If one species evolved even a liiitle better than the rest, the others would have to die off to keep that new change from being diluted and lost in the general population.

What if a population is split in 2 by an earthquake and no longer interbreed?  They would accumulate different mutations, they would slowly become different, one would NOT have to die off, both populations would live and both populations could end up being very different.  What if a small portion of the population developes a mutation that allows them to exploit a different niche in the environment, they would live in the new niche, the original population would live in the original niche, neither one would die.  Better has no meaning in evolution, youdon't seem to understand that.

If you took all the biggest pigs in a yard and had them seperate from the smaller ones, then you could get a population of larger pigs. But you will never get them to get as big as a barn. There are limits to change.

Whales evolved into massive animals from much smaller animals.  The small thecodonts of the Triassic period evolved into the super giant sauropods of the Jurassic.  I ask you again, what are those limits and what evidence do you have to support your claim?

Second, Natural selection does work. I don't deny that it works, but it does not change anything.

Of course it doesn't, mutation is how new information is created.  And as I've said, mutation has been observed to increase the size of the genome and add novel new information, and that's all evolution needs to function.  Since natural selection has been observed and mutation has been observed, where's the problem?  As I said, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:40 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're doing it again! You're complaining that there is no evidence to support the claim of supernatural power. There is a book called the bible that claims many supernatural miracles. Perhaps they are only claims, but to the people to whom they occured, they were real. It was real enough to try and spread the gospel through the roman empire and suffer torturings and persecutions for it. Do you think they did this for fun?

There was a missionary several years ago who was trying to spread the gospel in (I believe it was) Africa. Several tribesmen attempted to kill him during the night, but they reported large shining men standing guard outside their house. Obviously angels. They were much larger than the men and they wore clothes that shone with light. They only appeared to the men, and only when they tried to enter the missionary's house. This was a fairly recent occurence (in terms of just a few years, not thousands) And the men who saw them know them to be true. Why else didn't they simply kill him when they talked to him later when the angels were not there?

That happened to be a supernatural occurence. Why is there no evidence for it and/or other miracles? I'll tell you why.  The God who created this universe is not effect by Time, Space, Matter etc. He is outside his creation and can make changes of things when he wants. It is unnatural, many of those things, and that is why it is so hard to believe or comprehend them without evidence. You're demand for natural evidence for works outside the universe cannot be met, but there are an awful lot of people who were persecuted during the rain of Nero that endured torturings and sufferings for the sake of their belief. They didn't make these things up because they were bored you know. It took supernatural miracles to convince them that Jesus Christ was Lord because of their despair and growing unbelief in the prophecies depicting Christ.

The power of a supernatural miracle can move nations of people, whether the people who watched them saw the miracles or not. The behavior of the prophets spreading the gospel through an empire riddled with enemies ready to tear them apart (And did to many) is enough evidence for me to believe it. Whether you believe it or not is your own choice.

If you wish, I can show you some of the "fairytales" in the Bible that happen to be proven true without supernatural form.

And you're wrong again. Not all scientists accept evolution, and all biologists do not accept evolution. Many do, I don't doubt. But a biology teacher or science teacher who mentioned believing in intelligent design or creationism in counter to evolution isn't aloud to say so. The Bible is hardly out of date or mythical. Prof. Greenleaf researched it's whole history and says it is as legitimate as any other event confirmed in history. You look him up, I think you'll be interested.

You want limits? Well lets see.

A pig is never going to get the size of New York state. That's pretty obvious. There are limitations to the types of change. You can have a population of cows living next to the sea eating seaweed for years and years and you might get a different species of cows more dependant on seaweed. But it will never turn into a seal, or a fish of any kind. That just shows differences in the species, it is still a COW. It will never turn into a fish or a whale.

And your population split apart by earthquake idea doesn't work. I don't know how many circumstances you could bring up, but an earthquake does not work. Every seperate species being seperated by earthquake to be something else just would never happen to all the different kinds of animals. You would tons of earthquakes to branch of everything into seperate species.

Did you know how many different types of corn there is? In Iowa, there are so many different types of corn there that they point of specifically what type of corn grows in a field by numbers and letters to tell it apart from another field where the difference may only be a single number or letter. There are many different types of corn, and they've gotten more and more different. But none of them will ever get a tomato or a strawberry or an orange or cabbage or anything else to grow on them but corn. There is the limit.

And you cannot use evolution being a fact because the evolution process is true. Even if it were, that's like trying to use science to prove itself. It's circular reasoning, and that doesn't work. Sort of like using the geologic column, but that's a whole different arguement.

(This may be the last post I'll make on this topic. If you'd like the bible fairytales and such, I'll reply, but there are other topics I want to read and respond to.)


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 3:01 PM on March 22, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're doing it again! You're complaining that there is no evidence to support the claim of supernatural power. There is a book called the bible that claims many supernatural miracles. Perhaps they are only claims, but to the people to whom they occured, they were real. It was real enough to try and spread the gospel through the roman empire and suffer torturings and persecutions for it. Do you think they did this for fun?


People have died for every major religion known to man. Vast numbers of people have also been converted to every major religion known to man. Converted peoples nor martyrs are any indication of the truthfulness of a religion.

There was a missionary several years ago who was trying to spread the gospel in (I believe it was) Africa. Several tribesmen attempted to kill him during the night, but they reported large shining men standing guard outside their house. Obviously angels. They were much larger than the men and they wore clothes that shone with light.


Too bad they didn’t have a camera on hand. That would have sealed the deal…

That happened to be a supernatural occurence. Why is there no evidence for it and/or other miracles? I'll tell you why.  The God who created this universe is not effect by Time, Space, Matter etc. He is outside his creation and can make changes of things when he wants.


We’ve already established this, and Demon agrees completely with that premise. However, when you attack the evidential foundations of the ToE, you warrant counters on any evidence (or lack thereof) that would suggest otherwise.

It is unnatural, many of those things, and that is why it is so hard to believe or comprehend them without evidence. You're demand for natural evidence for works outside the universe cannot be met, but there are an awful lot of people who were persecuted during the rain of Nero that endured torturings and sufferings for the sake of their belief. They didn't make these things up because they were bored you know. It took supernatural miracles to convince them that Jesus Christ was Lord because of their despair and growing unbelief in the prophecies depicting Christ.


Yes, yes. No different than the miracles of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism…

The power of a supernatural miracle can move nations of people, whether the people who watched them saw the miracles or not.


I agree, and it’s very scary that people would believe such things without stopping to verify their own thoughts. More people are killed over these things than any other cause of war.

The behavior of the prophets spreading the gospel through an empire riddled with enemies ready to tear them apart (And did to many) is enough evidence for me to believe it.


According to that statement, that fact that Islamic prophets have been tortured to death in the name of Islam should be enough for you to believe Islam as well.

And you're wrong again. Not all scientists accept evolution, and all biologists do not accept evolution. Many do, I don't doubt. But a biology teacher or science teacher who mentioned believing in intelligent design or creationism in counter to evolution isn't aloud to say so.


I’ve shown you already that there’s no question more than 99% of all biologists accept Evolution. The studies are conducted through polls, and Answers in Genesis, a really well-known Young-Earth Creationist website, acknowledges these polls.

The Bible is hardly out of date or mythical. Prof. Greenleaf researched it's whole history and says it is as legitimate as any other event confirmed in history. You look him up, I think you'll be interested.


Well, if Professor Greenleaf says so, obviously it’s true.

A pig is never going to get the size of New York state. That's pretty obvious. There are limitations to the types of change. You can have a population of cows living next to the sea eating seaweed for years and years and you might get a different species of cows more dependant on seaweed. But it will never turn into a seal, or a fish of any kind.


If food becomes scarce on land, you would be incorrect.

That just shows differences in the species, it is still a COW. It will never turn into a fish or a whale.


Empty assertion.

And your population split apart by earthquake idea doesn't work. I don't know how many circumstances you could bring up, but an earthquake does not work. Every seperate species being seperated by earthquake to be something else just would never happen to all the different kinds of animals. You would tons of earthquakes to branch of everything into seperate species.


Wrong. The Bonobos, a primate, became separated from their initial population, retreated into the forest, and when reunited could not reproduce with one another. Speciation in action.

Did you know how many different types of corn there is? In Iowa, there are so many different types of corn there that they point of specifically what type of corn grows in a field by numbers and letters to tell it apart from another field where the difference may only be a single number or letter. There are many different types of corn, and they've gotten more and more different. But none of them will ever get a tomato or a strawberry or an orange or cabbage or anything else to grow on them but corn. There is the limit.


First of all, human-grown corn will not evolve at all, because we deliberately grow food the way we want it to grow. In the case of domesticated plants and animals, we’ve changed everything on our own. Second, of course corn will not turn into tomato. What reason is there for it to do so? You need an environmental factor that would grant an advantage to tomatoes or plants with properties similar to tomatoes. Then there’s the degree of mutation involved. You aren’t going to get a tomato out of corn, but you could very well get something that is a lot like a tomato out of corn.

And you cannot use evolution being a fact because the evolution process is true. Even if it were, that's like trying to use science to prove itself. It's circular reasoning, and that doesn't work.


There’s no circular reasoning here. The Theory of Gravity is a scientific conclusion built off of the fact that matter is mutually attracted to itself, and that the amount of gravitational force is directly proportional to mass. The ToG explains how those forces work.

Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific conclusion built off of the fact that organism populations do and have evolved. The ToE explains how the populations evolve.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/22/2006 at 3:37 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:28 PM on March 22, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


People have died for every major religion known to man. Vast numbers of people have also been converted to every major religion known to man. Converted peoples nor martyrs are any indication of the truthfulness of a religion.

Me: Islam and Muslim and Christianity have an awful lot in common with each other. They may believe a lot of miracles as well, but I doubt they just saw an angel and then ran flying into the teeth of the enemy preaching their religion regardless of torturings and death. I don't doubt their belief in their religion, but my belief in my particular religion is that mine is better than the others.

Now before you take that like a biased comment or anything else, let me mention this. That Proffesor Greenleaf fellow I mentioned to you was challenged to falsify those types of religions including Christ. He is the Royal Professor of Law at harvard and one the most intelligent men when it comes to discovering evidence to a claim.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that his testimony is the most basic and compelling that can be accepted in any English-speaking court in the world.

So he is not just a successful professor, he is believed by many to be the leading expert on evidence in the world. Not in religion mind you, but in the law.

He was challenged to study the old documents and scriptures and ancient writings and to see if the Bible was true. He studied everything he could and concluded with these words.

"quote from bishop wilson: Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and the headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner and afford evidence from which the careless and the perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes is to propose such evidence as may satisy the meek, the tractable, the candid and the serious inquirer. End quote.

This is the question in all human tribunals in regard to persons testifying before them. We propose to test the veracity of these witnesses by the same rules and means which are there employed in our courtroom. The importance of the facts testified and the relations to the affairs of the soul in the life to come can make no difference in the principles and the mode of weighing the evidence. It is still evidence of matters of fact, capable of being seen and known and related as well by one man as another.

Every document apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, amd bearing upon its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proing it to be otherwise

Me: This man is a man for facts only. He could not falsify Christianity as a skeptic, and he accepted it when he found he could not. One of the most intelligent men ever proved Christiantiy to be fact. No marks of forgery and no real lies inside. I am a skeptic of evolution as I believe you two may be of Christianity, or at least, Creationism. I haven't falsified evolution yet, but I would like to see my own faith in the Bible proven wrong as well. That might take a whole other topic, but as far as the research of this man goes, I am convinced beyond question.

A corn cannot evolve if it is grown by man? Perhaps if the roots and such were intertwined and produced a totally different plant (An ear of tomatoes ;-) ) But an advantage for the plants in one environment or another will just make a slightly different plant from itself. It won't make a corn plant turn into a tomato however different the environemnt is; whether it suits tomatoes or not.

Evolution being supported by facts is not what I was calling circular reasoning. Demon said: "As I said, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it." Thats like trying to say Science proves itself. Science cannot be a fact by its own reasoning until its proven by facts. Evolution (At least the last concept) has been proven by facts, but I still have yet to be convinced of its factualness yet. That is my opinion, please don't counter it like I'm a closed minded person who disbelieves everyone else. Not that your assuming this, just don't mention it.



-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 11:51 AM on March 23, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Islam and Muslim and Christianity have an awful lot in common with each other. They may believe a lot of miracles as well, but I doubt they just saw an angel and then ran flying into the teeth of the enemy preaching their religion regardless of torturings and death. I don't doubt their belief in their religion, but my belief in my particular religion is that mine is better than the others.


Are you kidding me? Dude, look no farther than Iraq, where religious fundamentalists are blowing themselves up every bleeding day. You’d need more than your average dose of faith to do that.

So he is not just a successful professor, he is believed by many to be the leading expert on evidence in the world. Not in religion mind you, but in the law.


That was back in 1850, you realize…

I hope you also realize that there’s much more to a witness’s credibility than what’s written in their affidavit. In American law, the most vital principle of a witness trial is the opposing counsel’s right to cross examine the witness. No such opportunity exists in this case, obviously.

Therefore…

This is the question in all human tribunals in regard to persons testifying before them. We propose to test the veracity of these witnesses by the same rules and means which are there employed in our courtroom.


That’s just a big load.

Me: This man is a man for facts only. He could not falsify Christianity as a skeptic, and he accepted it when he found he could not. One of the most intelligent men ever proved Christiantiy to be fact. No marks of forgery and no real lies inside. I am a skeptic of evolution as I believe you two may be of Christianity, or at least, Creationism. I haven't falsified evolution yet, but I would like to see my own faith in the Bible proven wrong as well. That might take a whole other topic, but as far as the research of this man goes, I am convinced beyond question.


I don’t inherently deny religion. As an Agnostic, I neither believe nor disbelieve Christianity. It is my opinion that not enough evidence exists to prove nor disprove the three monotheistic religions.

A corn cannot evolve if it is grown by man? Perhaps if the roots and such were intertwined and produced a totally different plant (An ear of tomatoes ;-) )


That’s crossbreeding, a completely different type of change from Natural Selection.

But an advantage for the plants in one environment or another will just make a slightly different plant from itself. It won't make a corn plant turn into a tomato however different the environemnt is; whether it suits tomatoes or not.


Over hundreds of generations, it’s very certain that it will, or the corn would go extinct.

Evolution being supported by facts is not what I was calling circular reasoning. Demon said: "As I said, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it." Thats like trying to say Science proves itself. Science cannot be a fact by its own reasoning until its proven by facts. Evolution (At least the last concept) has been proven by facts, but I still have yet to be convinced of its factualness yet. That is my opinion, please don't counter it like I'm a closed minded person who disbelieves everyone else. Not that your assuming this, just don't mention it.


Demon said exactly what I said. It’s a fact that we evolved. The scientific Theory of Natural Selection, developed by Darwin, moves to explain how. It is not necessarily a fact that life changed over time through Natural Selection, but it is a fact that this earth’s first-known life started with prokaryotes, worked its way up through protazoa, fungi, and eventually into plants and animals with nerve tissue.



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/23/2006 at 4:04 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:47 PM on March 23, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:47 PM on March 23, 2006 :
Demon said exactly what I said. It’s a fact that we evolved. The scientific Theory of Natural Selection, developed by Darwin, moves to explain how. It is not necessarily a fact that life changed over time through Natural Selection, but it is a fact that this earth’s first-known life started with prokaryotes, worked its way up through protazoa, fungi, and eventually into plants and animals with nerve tissue.


I applaud you for saying that the scientific theory of natural selection which is at the heart of the theory of evolution is not necessarily a fact.  Generic "evolution" is so broad a term that it is not necessarily incompatible with creationism.  God could have taken many elements from one species and used them to form another species, though in a short amount of time.  "Evolution" as a generic them doesn't say much.  But it has been so ingrained in the mind of the average person, it can continue to be used by evolutionists in a deceptive way even though the heart of it, i.e. natural selection, may be ripped out of it.

Why do you think that the long term evolution of many species from simple organisms is "fact."  Is this belief based on various fossil remains?  Could the remains instead point to degenerative (though intelligently directed) evolution?  Perhaps you might come back with "proof" from radioactive dating that gives a "timeline" for apparent progressive evolution.  Though I am not technically sophisticated enough in this field to defend my stance against radioactive dating, there are many creation scientists who say radioactive dating is not always reliable.  There are cases of recently formed material that dates "millions of years old."  I know that evolutionists have very elaborate and sophisticated arguments to "explain away" these descrepancies.  But when something gets so technical that the normal person can't understand it, let alone prove it's truth, I become skeptical.  Priestcraft has always worked to keep "the truth" reserved only for the select few who can "understand it."  Priestcraft in science is no different than in religion.

My point is that in the end you as an evolutionist must have faith that the elaborate theories along with the inevitable assumptions and interpretation of results that "explain away the descrepanies" are indeed completely true.  You may argue that science is at least better than religion in establishing "facts," but I'm not so sure.  It may be better at establishing certain low level facts in between the assumptions and interpretation of results.  But if any assumptions known or otherwise are missed, you're screwed.  Science in some ways is worse than religion because it often presumes to "know truth" better than religion.  Deep truth is beyond the grasp of science, but because it is defined as "the way to knowledge," many less experienced people accept the more fantastic theories of science as "fact" while religion remains just a matter of blind faith.  I would argue that there is just as much blind faith out there in science as there is in religion.


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 3:33 PM on March 23, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do you think that the long term evolution of many species from simple organisms is "fact."  Is this belief based on various fossil remains?


Fossil remains wouldn’t nearly be enough for the foundation of a theory on its own. However, when contrasted with homology and the related field of taxonomy, psychology (human behavior is not much unlike mammalian behavior, and specifically primate behavior), and geology, the whole thing adds up quite consistently. Completely remove one of the pieces of that puzzle, though, and it would become much more difficult to establish the fact of evolution.

Could the remains instead point to degenerative (though intelligently directed) evolution?


I’m not sure what you mean by degenerative.

Perhaps you might come back with "proof" from radioactive dating that gives a "timeline" for apparent progressive evolution.


Well, first of all, there already exists a crude timeline, with or without the aid of radioisotope dating techniques: the fossil record itself. Generally, the deeper we dig, the more primitive kinds of organisms we find. This next example has to do with an argument against the Great Flood, but it’s not what I’m trying to get at:

Proponents for the Great Flood sometimes claim that the fossil evidence supports their position. It’s said that the more sophisticated species capable of swimming better than others would be found near the top of the fossil layers. The lesser-able species drowned first, and were buried in the mud first. This does not make sense, however, because we find fish buried near the bottom, and ascendants of elephants and horses nearer to the top.

On the other hand, we see an obvious pattern going on. Here’s the fossil timeline, in brief:

The bottom starts with fossilized protozoa, and gradually we see multi-cellular organisms, and then small fish. This leads up to bigger fish of different sorts, and then we see amphibious species with small appendages that could carry them from one body of water to another. After that we see more developed reptiles, then some variations of early mammals and dinosaurs. The dinosaurs stop, and then up springs a slur of mammalian fossils, which would eventually bring us to 2006 AD.

Okay, so, back to atomic dating.

Though I am not technically sophisticated enough in this field to defend my stance against radioactive dating, there are many creation scientists who say radioactive dating is not always reliable.


I probably don’t know much more than you do, but since you opened the door, I think it’d be fair for me to respond with the fact that a great many more scientists believe it is a reliable method.

There are cases of recently formed material that dates "millions of years old."


In all the cases I’ve seen, these problems are associated with the differences between decay of Carbon and Uranium. Last time I checked, Carbon-14’s halflife is a wee length of 5,000 years. And for that reason, Carbon-14 is used to date organic materials, and is sometimes completely useless in rocks and minerals that never had any carbon in them. For dating of millions of years, we use three different isotopes of Uranium. Uranium has a halflife of several billion years, and thus it’s more accurate to measure to very old frames of time. Uranium will not give you a very precise picture, though. More likely than not, it will give you a date that could be perhaps hundreds of thousands of years off. But on a scale of billions of years, that’s actually quite good. The key to remember is that it doesn’t blatantly defy the ToE. Dating techniques can be a couple million years off, give or take, and the theory still checks out. The techniques, even if millions of years off, would still be more than 95% accurate. Young Earth Creationists are essentially asserting than these measurements are more than 99% off, all the time.

I know that evolutionists have very elaborate and sophisticated arguments to "explain away" these descrepancies.  But when something gets so technical that the normal person can't understand it, let alone prove it's truth, I become skeptical.


Most of the world doesn’t understand Calculus either, and if for some reason, a math professor wanted to teach some of these ordinary people the basics of Calculus, it would take him a very long time. I can understand the difference in that no one really challenges Calculus, and so there’s not much reason to be skeptical of its validity (while radioisotope dating is sometimes challenged). But it might still be worthwhile to learn about the basics of a subject like this before making any opinion of it at all.

Priestcraft has always worked to keep "the truth" reserved only for the select few who can "understand it."  Priestcraft in science is no different than in religion.


I don’t really follow. You can take any science class you want almost anywhere in the United States. You can’t accuse science of being shadowy in this respect, because there’s been no attempt made to shun people from understanding atomic dating. It’s just a difficult concept to learn.

My point is that in the end you as an evolutionist must have faith that the elaborate theories along with the inevitable assumptions and interpretation of results that "explain away the descrepanies" are indeed completely true.


I disagree. For one thing, I don’t really care if evolution turns out to be a false and a certain religion turned out to be the Truth. It would be a severe deflation for my ego to find it out, maybe, but my life wouldn’t be lost, and I’d get over it and join that religion and participate in its services like any other practical person. The ToE is simply what I accept to be the standing scientific explanation for how we came to be (that is, starting off from the point where Cosmology and Abiogenesis ends, for the quote miners out there). The ToE has not been revised to perfection, and like Newton’s proposed Law of Gravity, it’s likely to be changed by someone in the future who stumbles upon some new concept.

Science in some ways is worse than religion because it often presumes to "know truth" better than religion.


No it doesn't. Science is merely a different type of "truth analysis." It examines things from the standpoint of our five senses, and verifies claims through tests that utilize those senses. Religion is completely different, in that it examines things from the standpoint of personal experiences. Religious claims aren't meant to be verified, as the current post-modern movement is showing more frequently in literature and art. Relgious claims are meant to be examined for meaning, not truth.

An excellent essay on this matter can be found here. It’s called “How to Tell a True War Story,” by the Vietnam War novelist Tim O’Brien. At the end, you should be able to grasp that a truth may not always be a fact.

Deep truth is beyond the grasp of science, but because it is defined as "the way to knowledge," many less experienced people accept the more fantastic theories of science as "fact" while religion remains just a matter of blind faith. I would argue that there is just as much blind faith out there in science as there is in religion.


Absolute Truth is different from a scientifically-verified fact, as again demonstrated by O’Brien’s essay.

If the essay fails to solve the problem for you, think of it this way:

If you’ve ever read a book and dislike it because the events of the book seem so ludicrously unrealistic, you’re focusing on the wrong aspect of the book. In most ways, fiction is not meant to be taken as fact, but the meaning of fiction can still apply to everyday life. In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was not narrating the book as if an evil spirit named Sauron really did take over the world. We all know that Middle Earth, orcs, elves and dragons really don’t exist. But his points about Industry—all the damage it can do—and his points about power—how it corrupts people and has the capacity to destroy everything—are still very relevant. The Truth of the Lord of the Rings is that power can be very damaging. There are very few facts in the book, though.

Likewise, there's very little Truth in a textbook on the 1944 invasion of Normandy, France. It's a book of facts.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/23/2006 at 5:00 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:39 PM on March 23, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Entwickeln,

I find the brief fossil analysis you gave uncompelling.  Briefly, I can understand why organisms in water would be buried quickly en masse from huge outpourings of water and mud from the opening up of "great fountains of the deep."  As for reptile-like creatures buried before mammals in the fossil record: Those which did not "go on their bellies" (which may have included the dinosaurs) died off en masse before the flood because they were cursed by God.

In my last post I was referring to the discrepancies found with Argon dating (nothing to do with Carbon dating).  As for the reliability of Uranium dating, there seems to be a strong case that some accelerated decay of Uranium took place at the time of creation.  A study was done a few years ago by a group of creationist scientists who found that too much helium is found in zircon crystals.  Helium and other daughter elements of the radioactive processes of Uranium are found in these crystals. The original amount of Helium can be computed from other daughter elements which do not diffuse through the crystals.  All the Helium should be diffused from these crystals if the earth is on the order of millions or billions of years. There is only about 6000 years worth of Helium which has escaped from the crystals through diffusion.  I'm sure the TalkOrigins site has a rebuttal to this study, I threw it out there to show that these topics like everything else in science (especially the soft sciences) are theories which can be effectively challenged: they are not absolute facts in spite of your claims.

I disagree that facts and truth are different things.  Science just verifies a surface level of facts, of truth.  Because science has no knowledge of deeper spiritual facts/spiritual truth, it must work from initial assumptions which are always incomplete fact, incomplete truth, at best; or wrong fact, wrong truth, at worst.  Instead of saying that "truth" and "facts" have independent realities,  I would rather conclude that deeper facts, deeper truths, take precedence over surface facts, surface truth.  And science is all about surface facts and surface truth.

(Edited by serp 3/23/2006 at 8:58 PM).

(Edited by serp 3/23/2006 at 9:02 PM).

(Edited by serp 3/23/2006 at 9:03 PM).


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 8:24 PM on March 23, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for the reliability of Uranium dating, there seems to be a strong case that some accelerated decay of Uranium took place at the time of creation.  A study was done a few years ago by a group of creationist scientists who found that too much helium is found in zircon crystals.  Helium and other daughter elements of the radioactive processes of Uranium are found in these crystals. The original amount of Helium can be computed from other daughter elements which do not diffuse through the crystals.  All the Helium should be diffused from these crystals if the earth is on the order of millions or billions of years. There is only about 6000 years worth of Helium which has escaped from the crystals through diffusion.  I'm sure the TalkOrigins site has a rebuttal to this study


Yep… I’ve used it a couple of times before. lol

I threw it out there to show that these topics like everything else in science (especially the soft sciences) are theories which can be effectively challenged: they are not absolute facts in spite of your claims.


The theories, no, are not facts. They are disputable conclusions based on facts.

I find the brief fossil analysis you gave uncompelling.  Briefly, I can understand why organisms in water would be buried quickly en masse from huge outpourings of water and mud from the opening up of "great fountains of the deep."  As for reptile-like creatures buried before mammals in the fossil record: Those which did not "go on their bellies" (which may have included the dinosaurs) died off en masse before the flood because they were cursed by God.


I know this is getting slightly off topic to go back and forth over whether or not fossil evidence supports the Ark or Evolution, but I’ll keep this going for a couple more posts.

1.) We still find reptiles that “go on their bellies” buried far beneath human beings—even beneath the dinosaurs, actually. Other than that, dinosaurs weren’t even reptiles.

2.) Why is that only the more primitive species of fish got buried at the bottom? Why aren’t there schools of tuna fish or salmon, or better yet, slow-moving aqua reptiles buried next to trilobites, like the model for an Ark-supporting pattern would predict? Moreover, why are human beings at the top? Most people who lived in the desert could definitely not swim, and even those that could, would not last long in comparison to better-fitted swimmers. Human beings would be nowhere near the top of the record if a flood came in.

3.) Where’s the mass extinction pattern? We should see the greatest mass extinction ever, all taking place in one single layer! We should dinosaur bones jumped up with elephants and monkeys, lions, alligators, and snakes. Yet we don’t.

You said my description of the fossil record was uncompelling. What isn’t compelling about it? Does it in some way fail to fit the predictions set forth by the ToE?

I disagree that facts and truth are different things.  Science just verifies a surface level of facts, of truth.  Because science has no knowledge of deeper spiritual facts/spiritual truth, it must work from initial assumptions which are always incomplete fact, incomplete truth, at best; or wrong fact, wrong truth, at worst.  Instead of saying that "truth" and "facts" have independent realities,  I would rather conclude that deeper facts, deeper truths, take precedence over surface facts, surface truth.  And science is all about surface facts and surface truth.


I was only countering your claim that science assumes itself to be superior to religion in analyzing truth. If you believe the opposite, I can’t argue otherwise, because it would become a battle of word definitions for “truth” and “fact”, which are different for every individual. And the definitions offered by Post-Modernism clearly differ from yours. I would nevertheless, however, encourage you to at least take a literary course on such literature, (if you’re still in high school or college) and this exact issue is often times at the core of discussion. The fact of the matter is (no pun intended… I just couldn’t word the sentence any differently), western societies are moving away from the fact-rooted ideals of our five senses. My literature teacher happened to be the daughter of a scientist-turned-pastor, who had a BA in Biology and an MA in Philosophy. He came a few different times throughout the semester and discussed the core differences between science and religion, and how the two answer completely separate questions.

The message is basically:

Science = How

Religion = Why



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:36 PM on March 23, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 9:36 PM on March 23, 2006 :
I know this is getting slightly off topic to go back and forth over whether or not fossil evidence supports the Ark or Evolution, but I’ll keep this going for a couple more posts.

I will sum up my position with the following: Certain species could have far outnumbered other species at specific periods before the flood because of various global and localized environmental and supernatural conditions.  No one today can pretend to know the extent of those unique environmental/supernatural conditions.  We do, however, have a written historical testimony of a world wide flood.



I was only countering your claim that science assumes itself to be superior to religion in analyzing truth. If you believe the opposite, I can’t argue otherwise, because it would become a battle of word definitions for “truth” and “fact”, which are different for every individual. And the definitions offered by Post-Modernism clearly differ from yours. I would nevertheless, however, encourage you to at least take a literary course on such literature, (if you’re still in high school or college) and this exact issue is often times at the core of discussion. The fact of the matter is (no pun intended… I just couldn’t word the sentence any differently), western societies are moving away from the fact-rooted ideals of our five senses. My literature teacher happened to be the daughter of a scientist-turned-pastor, who had a BA in Biology and an MA in Philosophy. He came a few different times throughout the semester and discussed the core differences between science and religion, and how the two answer completely separate questions.

The message is basically:

Science = How

Religion = Why



Garbage.




-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 01:21 AM on March 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Garbage.


My point, whether or not you believe what I said about post-modernism, is that you're looking at the wrong angle of religion if you're only focused on whether certain events are likely to have occured or not. In the mean time, you can keep brushing that idea away, but do take note that post-modern ideas are used as central themes in almost every single Theology and Philosphy class, including those offered by prominent religious universities. I also don't quite understand your hostility toward it, because if you'd spend enough time thinking about it, you would find that post-modernism does leave science behind in the dust as an inferior means for seeking Truth.

But enough of that. I'm not going to convert you to a certain outlook on life, and to try further really has nothing to do with whether or not the ToE can be regarded as a religion.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/24/2006 at 02:11 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:03 AM on March 24, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science (at its best) = the surface how (his humble operations) and the surface why (his servanthood) of Christ in his intelligent operations of the universe.

Religion (at its best) = the deep how (his meekness, lowliness, honesty) and the deep why (for the love of spiritual things such as  the souls of people)

Science (at its best) + Religion (at its best) = The perfect knowledge of Christ



Science (at its worst) = the erroneous how of Christ as the exertion of will in the world, e.g. Christ (rather than the Father) as the glue of the universe.

Religion (at is worst) = the erroneous why of Christ (sacrifice for the love of the visible world).

Science (at its worst) + Religion (at its worst) = The mark of the beast


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 1:53 PM on March 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science (at its best) = the surface how (his humble operations) and the surface why (his servanthood) of Christ in his intelligent operations of the universe.

Religion (at its best) = the deep how (his meekness, lowliness, honesty) and the deep why (for the love of spiritual things such as  the souls of people)

Science (at its best) + Religion (at its best) = The perfect knowledge of Christ



Science (at its worst) = the erroneous how of Christ as the exertion of will in the world, e.g. Christ (rather than the Father) as the glue of the universe.

Religion (at is worst) = the erroneous why of Christ (sacrifice for the love of the visible world).

Science (at its worst) + Religion (at its worst) = The mark of the beast


This is assuming, of course, that Christianity is the Truth.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:07 PM on March 24, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Greenleaf living a hundred or so years ago isn't a big deal. The Bible "is" now, like it was then. Matter of fact the case would have been easier to decide because of hundreds, probaly thousands of archeological finds since then. Never has an arch find absolutely contradicted the bible, not one, not even one time. The man wrote a book over 2000 pages called "Treatise on the Law of Evidence". . . . . and the defense rests.




 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 12:17 AM on March 25, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Greenleaf living a hundred or so years ago isn't a big deal. The Bible "is" now, like it was then. Matter of fact the case would have been easier to decide because of hundreds, probaly thousands of archeological finds since then. Never has an arch find absolutely contradicted the bible, not one, not even one time.


Do you really want to see the Great Flood picked apart clause by clause? The evidential contradictions wouldn't be limited to archeology either.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:01 AM on March 25, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's not relevant to Greenleaf.

Yes I would. Remember, there's a "local" worldwide flood theory and a worldwide flood theory.

If you're trying to disprove Christianity you have to start with Jesus and the Resurrection, or Mohammed and the Quran, etc. You're definitely not ready for that, different forum too.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:38 AM on March 26, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's not relevant to Greenleaf.


Yes it is, because I said earlier than Greenleaf lived 150 years ago, when contradictory archealogical finds had either been overlooked or were yet to be discovered.


Yes I would. Remember, there's a "local" worldwide flood theory and a worldwide flood theory.


Explain which one you believe occured within the Bible passages.

If you're trying to disprove Christianity you have to start with Jesus and the Resurrection, or Mohammed and the Quran, etc. You're definitely not ready for that, different forum too.


My goal would not to be disprove Christianity so much as this statement:

Never has an arch find absolutely contradicted the bible, not one, not even one time.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:55 PM on March 26, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm playing catch-up here, in response to Prototype's post from March 22:

You're doing it again! You're complaining that there is no evidence to
support the claim of supernatural power. There is a book called the bible
that claims many supernatural miracles. Perhaps they are only claims, but
to the people to whom they occured, they were real. It was real enough to
try and spread the gospel through the roman empire and suffer torturings
and persecutions for it. Do you think they did this for fun?


OK, I'm not sure what your point is here, but this is mine:  Anything that
claims to be supernatural CAN'T be used as scientific evidence, simple as
that.  Miracles can't be verified by science, whether they're true or not.
I don't believe any miracles have ever happened, but that's a belief.
Because the supernatual can't be investigated by science, science is
agnostic to the supernatural, it can neither support it nor falsify it.  As
to thousands of christians being tourtured and dieing for Christ, this
proves nothing, thousands were torutured and killed because they worshipped
Amon Ra, Zeus, Allah, The Great Spitit, any number of other gods.

There was a missionary several years ago who was trying to spread the
gospel in (I believe it was) Africa. Several tribesmen attempted to kill
him during the night, but they reported large shining men standing guard
outside their house. Obviously angels.


Obviously angels?  Where were their wings?  No, obviously they were aliens
or interdimensional guardians, or a million other things.  Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence, where's yours...  This might be enough to convince you, but it's a far, far cry from valid scientific evidence.

That happened to be a supernatural occurence.

No it wasn't, more likely a dellusion or a tall tale, where's your evidence
that it even happened?

Why is there no evidence for it and/or other miracles?

Either because they never really happened, they happened, but were misinterpretted by the people viewing them or they really were miracles and therefore could not produce ANY scientific evidence and so, aren't valid science.

The God who created this universe is not effect by Time, Space, Matter
etc. He is outside his creation and can make changes of things when he
wants. It is unnatural, many of those things, and that is why it is so hard
to believe or comprehend them without evidence. You're demand for natural
evidence for works outside the universe cannot be met, but there are an
awful lot of people who were persecuted during the rain of Nero that
endured torturings and sufferings for the sake of their belief.


How convenient.  Even now, physicists are trying to study natural forces outside our universe.  And a lot of people have been persecuted for their beliefs in many other gods, just because they were persecuted doesn't make them right.

They didn't make these things up because they were bored you know.

No, they made them up because they were unsophisticated, they didn't
understand how the world, the universe worked, so they made up stories
that made sense to them.  Thinking that they had a better understanding of
nature, of how things worked made them feel safer, more in control.  But
how many of those primitive religious myths have been proven true over the
years?  The Greeks believed the sun was Apollo's chariot riding across the
sky every day, the Hebrews believed in the Mesopotamian world view where
the earth was a flat, unmoving disc floating on water and the sky was a
bowl covering in (as detailed in the Old Testament in the Bible), early
Christians believed disease was caused by demons.  All wrong.  The
supernatural has never in the history of man provided any accurate answers,
why are your claims any different?

If you wish, I can show you some of the "fairytales" in the Bible that
happen to be proven true without supernatural form.


So what, many works of fiction have truth in them, that proves nothing.  The Bible is a book of religion, it's not a book of history or a book or science.

And you're wrong again. Not all scientists accept evolution, and all biologists do not accept evolution. Many do, I don't doubt.

Over 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution, those that don't reject it based on religious regions, not based on the evidence.

But a biology teacher or science teacher who mentioned believing in intelligent design or creationism in counter to evolution isn't aloud to say so.

For the same reason a science teacher isn't allowed to say the sun orbits the earth!  There's no evidence to support their claim and much evidence to refute it.  Evolution is the unifying concept of modern biology, there is no evidence that refutes it.

The Bible is hardly out of date or
mythical.


Of course it is.

Prof. Greenleaf researched it's whole history and says it is as legitimate as any other event confirmed in history.

Greenleaf was wrong.  We've seen too many of the bible's claims completely refuted.  As I said, it's a book of religion, not of history or science.

A pig is never going to get the size of New York state. That's pretty obvious. There are limitations to the types of change.

Well, there's certainly limitations on size!  But these are physical limitations, where does this refute evolution?  How does this refute genetic diversity?  Show us how those limits refute evolution.  As for size, life can get pretty big...From here:
Mushroom

"Officially known as Armillaria ostoyae, or the honey mushroom, the fungus is 3.5 miles across and takes up 1,665 football fields."

You can have a population of cows living next to the sea eating seaweed for years and years and you might get a different species of cows more dependant on seaweed. But it will never turn into a seal, or a fish of any kind. That just shows differences in the species, it is still a COW. It will never turn into a fish or a whale.

Then how do you explain the evidence that says that's exactly what happened?  You haven't backed up your claim, you've just said it can't happen, no reason why, just that it can't happen.  The evidence show us that is exactly what happened, from here:
WhaleEvolution

"In 1978, paleontologist Phil Gingerich discovered a 52-million-year-old skull in Pakistan that resembled fossils of creodonts -- wolf-sized carnivores that lived between 60 and 37 million years ago, in the early Eocene epoch. But the skull also had characteristics in common with the Archaeocetes, the oldest known whales. The new bones, dubbed Pakicetus, proved to have key features that were transitional between terrestrial mammals and the earliest true whales. One of the most interesting was the ear region of the skull. In whales, it is extensively modified for directional hearing underwater. In Pakicetus, the ear region is intermediate between that of terrestrial and fully aquatic animals.

Another, slightly more recent form, called Ambulocetus, was an amphibious animal. Its forelimbs were equipped with fingers and small hooves. The hind feet of Ambulocetus, however, were clearly adapted for swimming. Functional analysis of its skeleton shows that it could get around effectively on land and could swim by pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its tail, as otters do today.

Rhodocetus shows evidence of an increasingly marine lifestyle. Its neck vertebrae are shorter, giving it a less flexible, more stable neck -- an adaptation for swimming also seen in other aquatic animals such as sea cows, and in an extreme form in modern whales. The ear region of its skull is more specialized for underwater hearing. And its legs are disengaged from its pelvis, symbolizing the severance of the connection to land locomotion.

By 40 million years ago, Basilosaurus -- clearly an animal fully adapted to an aquatic environment -- was swimming the ancient seas, propelled by its sturdy flippers and long, flexible body. Yet Basilosaurus still retained small, weak hind legs -- baggage from its evolutionary past -- even though it could not walk on land."

And it's not only the fossil record that shows us whale evolution, what about comparative anatomy?  What about the vistigial features, like legs that some whales still retain?  Whales swim like mammals because they have a mammilian spine, not like fish.  This is only some of the evidence for whale evolution, in order to have a competing theory, you have to better explain the evidence, nothing else does.  So present your evidence, you say whales couldn't possibly have evolved from land mammals, all the evidence says different.

And you say you might get a different species, well, that's all that evolution requires, the formation of new species is macroevolution.

And your population split apart by earthquake idea doesn't work.

Why not?  Since we have already seen these principles in action and they work exactly as I've stated.  Look up ring species.  From here:
RingSpecies

"One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.
A well-studied example of a ring species is the salamander Ensatina escholtzii of the Pacific Coast region of the United States. In Southern California, naturalists have found what look like two distinct species scrabbling across the ground. One is marked with strong, dark blotches in a cryptic pattern that camouflages it well. The other is more uniform and brighter, with bright yellow eyes, apparently in mimicry of the deadly poisonous western newt. These two populations coexist in some areas but do not interbreed -- and evidently cannot do so."

The evidence refutes your claim, geographical barriers can cause organisms to speciate.

I don't know how many circumstances you could bring up, but an earthquake does not work. Every seperate species being seperated by earthquake to be something else just would never happen to all the different kinds of animals.

The earthquake was just an example, there are millions of scenarios where a population is split.

There are many different types of corn, and they've gotten more and more different. But none of them will ever get a tomato or a strawberry or an orange or cabbage or anything else to grow on them but corn. There is the limit.

Then give us that limit.  Tell us exactly what it is.  As to corn, from here:
Corn

"Corn (maize) is arguably man's first, and perhaps his greatest, feat of genetic engineering. Its huge ears--each packed with firmly attached kernels filled with starch, protein, and oil--make it a food staple. Contemporary corn, unlike its wild grassy ancestor teosinte, can't survive without people because it can't disperse its own seeds. The origins of maize have long intrigued geneticists, but only recently have new molecular methods enabled evolutionary sleuths to pinpoint its origins and identify the genetic modifications (GMs) that enabled the radical transformation of teosinte into contemporary maize. On page 1206 of this issue, Jaenicke-Després, Doebley, and their colleagues ( 1) provide the latest chapter in this detective story and suggest that prehistoric people were quick to adopt GM corn.
So how, when, and where was teosinte transformed into maize? Beadle gave his mentor, Emerson, credit for the idea that just a few mutations changed teosinte into maize ( 4). Analyzing backcrossed maize-teosinte hybrids with molecular probes, Doebley's group came to a startlingly similar conclusion: The differences between maize and teosinte could be traced to just five genomic regions ( 5). In two of these regions, the differences were attributable to alternative alleles of just one gene: teosinte glume architecture (tga1) and teosinte branched (tb1), which affect kernel structure and plant architecture. "

Corn evolved from teosinte due to mutations.

And you cannot use evolution being a fact because the evolution process is true. Even if it were, that's like trying to use science to prove itself. It's circular reasoning, and that doesn't work.

I'm not, evolution is a fact because we observe it and the theory of evolution explains it.  So evolution is a fact because we observe it, allele frequencies in populations change over time, new species arise, all directly observable.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:20 AM on March 27, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:55 PM on March 26, 2006 :
It's not relevant to Greenleaf.


Yes it is, because I said earlier than Greenleaf lived 150 years ago, when contradictory archealogical finds had either been overlooked or were yet to be discovered.


Yes I would. Remember, there's a "local" worldwide flood theory and a worldwide flood theory.


Explain which one you believe occured within the Bible passages.

If you're trying to disprove Christianity you have to start with Jesus and the Resurrection, or Mohammed and the Quran, etc. You're definitely not ready for that, different forum too.


My goal would not to be disprove Christianity so much as this statement:

Never has an arch find absolutely contradicted the bible, not one, not even one time.


  It doesn't matter which flood, which ever one is easier for you. Hypothetically I'll defend whatever, I can go with worldwide.

There have been thousands of finds supporting the bible, honeslty even if you found one that absolutely contradicted it, it's not going to be a big deal to the people who believe the bible. But go ahead, what do you have?

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:32 AM on March 31, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It doesn't matter which flood, which ever one is easier for you. Hypothetically I'll defend whatever, I can go with worldwide.


Well, the situation is different in your case. You're not a "biblical literalist" in the traditional sense, because you've expressed doubt that the earth could have been created in six days, in other threads, and it appears that you might also believe the Great Flood depicted in the Bible was not a world-wide one. That's why I don't have much motivation in refuting something that you don't necessarily believe in anymore than I do. I think there clearly was a flood, but it was not world wide.

So, concerning the world-wide flood:

1.) There is not enough water anywhere on the planet to cover Earth, unless peaks like Mt. Everest simply didn't exist approximately 5,000 years ago.

2.) Chinese writings, as well as those of Egypt, continue on straight through the period in which all their citizens should have been killed. Not only is there no mention of a flood killing everyone (well, logically, if someone's dead they can't write about it, but...), but there's no mention of anyone walking into a completely deserted China or Egypt and picking up where the dead scribes left off. Lastly, Egypt was just getting into their Great Pyramids when the Flood would have occured, killing all who were working on it.

This brings up an interesting point, because if Pr. Greenleaf himself wasn't a Biblical literalist either, then I would have to agree with him that there aren't hardly any archaeological finds that contradict the Bible. When you turn to fundamentalists, however, supporting archaeological evidence for the Bible goes out the window.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:49 AM on April 1, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry about he delay, REALLY BUSY

Well, the situation is different in your case. You're not a "biblical literalist" in the traditional sense, because you've expressed doubt that the earth could have been created in six days, in other threads, and it appears that you might also believe the Great Flood depicted in the Bible was not a world-wide one. That's why I don't have much motivation in refuting something that you don't necessarily believe in anymore than I do. I think there clearly was a flood, but it was not world wide.


So do you believe in God or that the bible is just a historically accurate book?

Considering EVERY use of the word day is a literal one, I'm inclinded to belive it meant one day at a time.

Also plants, sun, animals, in that order. If eons pass between makings, plants need sun and the animals to help pollenate. There's alot of other issues also unless you want to insert something that isn't written in the account.

I'm also inclined to believe the flood was worldwide because of the 80,000 stories documented and 100 major ones that all say it was worldwide.



So, concerning the world-wide flood:

1.) There is not enough water anywhere on the planet to cover Earth, unless peaks like Mt. Everest simply didn't exist approximately 5,000 years ago.


Think of what one hurricane/typhoon does in a few hours or a monsoon. It can rain for 1 day and flood people. Furthermore, the bible states alot of the water came from the earth.

Actually some people believe the Earth was indeed differently shaped before the flood(s)


2.) Chinese writings, as well as those of Egypt, continue on straight through the period in which all their citizens should have been killed. Not only is there no mention of a flood killing everyone (well, logically, if someone's dead they can't write about it, but...), but there's no mention of anyone walking into a completely deserted China or Egypt and picking up where the dead scribes left off. Lastly, Egypt was just getting into their Great Pyramids when the Flood would have occured, killing all who were working on it.


I'm not sure about China but Egypt definitely new about the flood in advance. According to the Egyptians, it wasn't the first flood, according to what they told Plato. The Egyptians also had several huge boats in holes so to speak. Seafaring boats, according the scholars would be capable of going "anywhere".


This brings up an interesting point, because if Pr. Greenleaf himself wasn't a Biblical literalist either, then I would have to agree with him that there aren't hardly any archaeological finds that contradict the Bible. When you turn to fundamentalists, however, supporting archaeological evidence for the Bible goes out the window.


 As stated earlier, this is irrelevant to what he did. His study began as a non-believer and he was challenged to use the legalistic method he wrote for Harvard Law hundreds of years ago to prove the reliability of the four gospels, whether they were genuine and believable, as a result, he became a christian and evangelist.

Where are all the absolute contradicting archaeological evidence you purport to know about?


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:58 AM on April 15, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So do you believe in God or that the bible is just a historically accurate book?

The Bible is NOT a historically accurate book.

I'm also inclined to believe the flood was worldwide because of the 80,000 stories documented and 100 major ones that all say it was worldwide.

But a worldwide flood is impossible, no evidence for it and much falsifiying it.

Think of what one hurricane/typhoon does in a few hours or a monsoon. It can rain for 1 day and flood people. Furthermore, the bible states alot of the water came from the
earth.


And where is that water now?  In order to cover the highest peaks at the time there would have to be over 5 times the amount of water we have on earth now.  Where did it come from?  Where did it go?  Why is there no evidence that such vast amounts of water were ever under the earth?  If Mt. Everest was covered by water, most of the earth's atmosphere would have been pushed off into space.  Your only explaination is Goddidit.

Actually some people believe the Earth was indeed differently shaped before the
flood(s)


So what?  Where's your evidence?

I'm not sure about China but Egypt definitely new about the flood in advance. According to the Egyptians, it wasn't the first flood, according to what they told Plato. The Egyptians also had several huge boats in holes so to speak. Seafaring boats, according the scholars would be capable of going "anywhere".

Egypt's written history extends from before the flood, through the time when the flood supposedly raged, and after the so called flood.  If everyone but Noah and his family was wiped out, who was writing Egyptian history before, during and after the flood? No, Egypt clearly proves there was no world wide flood.

Where are all the absolute contradicting archaeological evidence you purport to know about?

What's the matter, can't do your own research?

Exodus

"Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary stories, the Jews did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon. In other words, David and Solomon and their exploits are tall tales."
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:43 AM on April 15, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


So do you believe in God or that the bible is just a historically accurate book?


Neither. God creating the Earth in six days is not historically accurate. But then again, if I were a Christian, I wouldn’t be concerned with how well the Bible to fits to modern-day archaeology and geology.


Think of what one hurricane/typhoon does in a few hours or a monsoon. It can rain for 1 day and flood people. Furthermore, the bible states alot of the water came from the earth.

Actually some people believe the Earth was indeed differently shaped before the flood(s)


A hurricane does not magically put more water on the earth. I’m saying there is a limited amount, and God would have needed to ‘poof’ more than there actually was in order to flood the entire world.

If Earth was shaped differently, it wasn’t scientifically possible—that’s for sure. It would have been another divine intervention for which not a scrap of physical evidence exists, same as the idea put forth by other YEC’s that says there was actually a liquid atmosphere of water hanging over the land at all times before the flood. Both are physically impossible.

I'm not sure about China but Egypt definitely new about the flood in advance. According to the Egyptians, it wasn't the first flood, according to what they told Plato. The Egyptians also had several huge boats in holes so to speak. Seafaring boats, according the scholars would be capable of going "anywhere".


Egypt had trouble with Nile flooding, but at no point in time were their tiny pyramids (yes, tiny in comparison to mountains) ever swallowed up by water.


As stated earlier, this is irrelevant to what he did. His study began as a non-believer and he was challenged to use the legalistic method he wrote for Harvard Law hundreds of years ago to prove the reliability of the four gospels, whether they were genuine and believable, as a result, he became a christian and evangelist.


I’ve strictly been arguing against OT material so far. Please clarify whether or not Greenleaf studied any archaeological evidence beyond the four gospels.

Where are all the absolute contradicting archaeological evidence you purport to know about?


We’ve just gone over them. China and Egypt’s archaeological records are completely inconsistent with a world-wide flood.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:02 AM on April 15, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's the matter, can't do your own research?

Exodus


Checked out your link.  So much of the page was such a blatantl misrepresentation of the Bible that I'm surprised you lowered yourself to using it as a reference.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:26 PM on April 15, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Checked out your link.  So much of the page was such a blatantl misrepresentation of the Bible that I'm surprised you lowered yourself to using it as a reference.

I admit the source was over the top, but my point still stands, Exodus is a tall tale and has no historical support. Any objections to this source?    Exodus

"Building a history. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel, he says."

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:03 PM on April 16, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I admit the source was over the top, but my point still stands, Exodus is a tall tale and has no historical support. Any objections to this source?    Exodus


No more, I'm sure, than you probably have for God and Science , Underwater land bridge  , Ipuwer Papyrus  , or even ynetnews which neither supports fully the "story" of the Exodus, but finds it hard to believe that it is not "at least" based on fact.  I think we can both agree that, while evidence could be found to prove the Exodus, it is impossible to find evidence to disprove it.  After all, no scholars (current ones anyhow) believe that Mt. Ararat in Turkey is THE Mt. Ararat referred to in the Bible.  (Which kind of makes it stupid for people to keep looking up there for a boat :P)  With name changes and revisionist history (Israel is one of the few nations that have kept records of their defeats as well as their victories) knowing that you are even looking in the right place is iffy at best.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:18 AM on April 17, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No more, I'm sure, than you probably have for God and Science , Underwater land bridge  , Ipuwer Papyrus  , or even ynetnews which neither supports fully the "story" of the Exodus, but finds it hard to believe that it is not "at least" based on fact.  I think we can both agree that, while evidence could be found to prove the Exodus, it is impossible to find evidence to disprove it.  After all, no scholars (current ones anyhow) believe that Mt. Ararat in Turkey is THE Mt. Ararat referred to in the Bible.  (Which kind of makes it stupid for people to keep looking up there for a boat :P)  With name changes and revisionist history (Israel is one of the few nations that have kept records of their defeats as well as their victories) knowing that you are even looking in the right place is iffy at best.

Fine.  My point isn't that the Exodus happened or not.  My point is the Bible isn't an historically accurate book nor was it meant to be.  Agree or disagree?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:39 AM on April 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

disagree


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:02 AM on April 17, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: Fine.  My point isn't that the Exodus happened or not.  My point is the Bible isn't an historically accurate book nor was it meant to be.  Agree or disagree?

EMeyers: disagree

Then let's go back to Exodus.  Here is an example of the Bible's historicall inaccuracy.  There is no record of the plagues recorded in the Bible affecting Egypt, the Hebrew slaves, the drowning of the Egyptian army.  From here:   Egypt

"In addition, the book of Exodus claims to contain an historical account of the escape of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, but historians and archaeologists have been unable to verify the events related in that book. No known Egyptian records refer to the biblical Moses, the devastating plagues that God supposedly inflicted on the country, the escape of the Hebrew slaves, or the drowning of the Egyptian army. Moreover, Andrew White reports that the records contained on Egyptian monuments show that the pharaoh ruling at the time of the alleged escape of the Jews was not overwhelmed in the Red Sea.

White, Andrew D., A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. II, (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1910). p. 375.

Scholars Doubt Truth of Exodus, http://nowscape.com/mormon/moses-news.htm

As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting, http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2002/03/09/906776.xml "

From here:
EgyptII

"Despite the fact that there is undeniably some accuracy in the Bible, scholars are now convinced that many inaccuracies can be found in it. Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy report that the Hebrews, numbering as many as 2.5 to 3 million, left Egypt, wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years, and finally invaded and conquered the promised land. Most biblical scholars and archaeologists doubt the historical accuracy of this biblical story. The March/April issue of Archaeology magazine declared that neither the exodus nor the conquest of Canaan happened as recorded in the Bible. "Today's archaeologists are certainly not the first to challenge the Book of Joshua," said Neil Asher Silberman in the feature article. "Its historical reliability has been a matter of dispute for more than two centuries" ("Who Were the Israelites?" p. 22)."

Since the Bible doesn't give us accurate dates for past events, since the the Bible doesn't give us accurate accounts of past events, since the Bible weaves superstitious myths into it's accounts, the Bible can't be an accurate book of history.  


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:39 PM on April 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought that I covered that.  History has proven, time and time again, that most civilizations (besides the Israelites) did NOT record their defeats.  While you have shown that there is very little evidence of Israelites triumphs by other nations (just as there is very little evidence of any nations triumphs against other nations by the nations who lost) there is an abundance of evidence by other nations when they won.  Since Israel readily admits its defeats (which most nations did not have the integrity to do) one would normally give them the benefit of the doubt when they record triumphs that the losing nation didn't bother to record (or which they provide an "alternative" version of history).  In fact, the only reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt is that this would require admitting that there is a God.  Any other nation with Israel's track record for honesty (providing they made no claims about religion) would face no scrutiny.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:47 AM on April 18, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

non-christian historians and archeologists used to consider ninevah a good example of the fact that the Bible is not historically accurate. they used it in their arguments and called all failed attempts to find ninevah proof that they were right.  however, in the mid 19th century, the ruins of the city of ninevah were found- exactly where the Bible said they should be!  the Bible was proven historically accurate once again.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 09:51 AM on April 19, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

non-christian historians and archeologists used to consider ninevah a good example of the fact that the Bible is not historically accurate. they used it in their arguments and called all failed attempts to find ninevah proof that they were right.  however, in the mid 19th century, the ruins of the city of ninevah were found- exactly where the Bible said they should be!  the Bible was proven historically accurate once again.


I have yet to meet anyone on the internet--creationist or not--who can say with any backing whatsoever that the story of the Great Flood is historically possible.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:31 PM on April 19, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

my point exactly.  what people are now saying about the flood, people used to say about ninevah.  but look what happened in that situation!
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 1:43 PM on April 19, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.