Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth [Archive] - Debate Policy

Alter2Ego

06-14-2014, 07:21 PM

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories, but because atheist-evolutionists dismiss an intelligent Designer/God from the equation, abiogenesis is what they are stuck with. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer. So to avoid the problem of the long debunked theory of abiogenesis, some have jumped onto the creation bandwagon and claim they are theists who believe in evolution theory. In fact some claim they are Christians when in reality they are pagans. (A pagan is a theist who does not worship the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.)

According to macroevolution theory, after the first living organism developed from nonliving matter in the ocean and formed into a "primordial soup," it resulted in a "common ancestor" from which came all the different forms of life that have ever existed on planet earth, including humans. All of this is believed to have been accomplished by itself (abiogenesis), without input from a supernatural God aka Jehovah who intervened and guided the outcome. Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life--by itself--and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1978), page 1018)

CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things, each uniquely different, can only be explained by the existence of Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life on the earth just as they are, with the ability for each "kind" of creature to produce variations of itself up to a set point.

Clearly, the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account are polar opposites. Those who accept the evolution theory argue that creation is not scientific. They carefully avoid the fact that science is unable to present a credible alternative for how life came from non-life by itself (abiogenesis). Furthermore, pro-evolutionists—including those in academia/the scientific community—routinely dodge the issue that their philosophy is based entirely upon speculations for which there is no credible scientific evidence. They routinely use fabricated words such as "species transition," "speciation," "Punctuated Equilibrium," etc. to mislead the gullible. I might add that many pro-evolution scientists are determined to make names for themselves and will resort to outright dishonesty when necessary. I will present proof of this later on in this thread.

Regarding the credibility of the Genesis creation account vs. evolution theory, one source states: "But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is evolution itself truly scientific? On the other hand, is Genesis just another ancient creation myth, as many contend? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science?" (Source: LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11)

POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
FACT 1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution).

FACT 2. There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).

FACT 3. Atheists have no explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.

Raman

06-16-2014, 02:27 PM

I can use the exact same reasoning and tactics: there is no evidence atoms really exist [because I choose to ignore the evidence] -> atomic model disproven; Allah did it! *wave Qu'ran*
Islam proved. :2up:

darin

06-17-2014, 06:01 AM

Best evidence against macro evolution:

What evolved first, blood or veins? A brain or brain stem? Feathers or wings? Optic nerves or eyes?

To my non-college-educated mind, simple animals could not and would not mutate to better themselves, even accidentally or magically. To see the complexity in life and creation, and the harmony despite the complexity points to only one logical conclusion - apart from anything in the bible - purposed design.

fj1200

06-17-2014, 01:40 PM

Clearly, the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account are polar opposites. Those who accept the evolution theory argue that creation is not scientific.

A. Creation is not science.
B. Define "creation."

fj1200

06-17-2014, 01:46 PM

Best evidence against macro evolution:

What evolved first, blood or veins? A brain or brain stem? Feathers or wings? Optic nerves or eyes?

To my non-college-educated mind...

Blood. Brain stem. Feathers. Light sensitive cells.

And it's a good thing that there are college educated minds thinking about it. :poke:

darin

06-17-2014, 02:23 PM

Blood. Brain stem. Feathers. Light sensitive cells.

And it's a good thing that there are college educated minds thinking about it. :poke:

:D

So the blood just kinda oozed around until it started becoming encased in veins?

And which bird first tried to fly - then died? I mean...did scales of whatever they were start changing, gradually, into feathers and then the bird thought about flying?

And don't get me started on the whole 'it would probably take two of each gender to mutate at the same time to produce offspring with enough 'mutation' to become the new normal' aspect..

Someday I'll read a book, or take a class.

fj1200

06-18-2014, 06:49 AM

:D

So the blood just kinda oozed around until it started becoming encased in veins?

And which bird first tried to fly - then died? I mean...did scales of whatever they were start changing, gradually, into feathers and then the bird thought about flying?

And don't get me started on the whole 'it would probably take two of each gender to mutate at the same time to produce offspring with enough 'mutation' to become the new normal' aspect..

Someday I'll read a book, or take a class.

Yes, it oozed. Gliding came first. I don't think anyone would argue that.

Just watch Dinosaur Train.

Raman

06-22-2014, 09:32 PM

Best evidence against macro evolution:

What evolved first, blood or veins? A brain or brain stem? Feathers or wings? Optic nerves or eyes?

To my non-college-educated mind

At least you admit to being an illiterate moron.

http://www2.gsu.edu/~bioasx/closeopen.html

jafar00

06-23-2014, 03:15 AM

What evolved first, blood or veins? A brain or brain stem? Feathers or wings? Optic nerves or eyes?

From an Islamic point of view, life was created by God, and has followed his command thereafter. His command includes evolving. :)

darin

06-23-2014, 07:16 AM

At least you admit to being an illiterate moron.

http://www2.gsu.edu/~bioasx/closeopen.html

I apologize if your argument sucks - and I'm sorry if you believe in 'magic' - I don't mean offense. And I'm sorry if you cannot answer the question. That's no excuse for you to get personal.

From an Islamic point of view, life was created by God, and has followed his command thereafter. His command includes evolving. :)

Evolving from what to what? Inter-species evolution - that is to say, small basic organisms magically 'evolving' blood cells, and eventually a closed OR open system - simply does not happen.

darin

06-23-2014, 12:41 PM

Let's REALLY think about what some are suggesting...

An organism without ANY bone cells is floating along in whatever.
Through random chance or luck one of its cells mutated into a bone cell. That bone cell was beneficial-enough for the organism to allow it to continue through at least millions? of years? I dunno, let's say millions of years. So - here's this organism with one bone cell and over time, by magic or sheer luck one was born/divided/however came along with TWO! Now, having TWO bone cells was somehow even MORE beneficial. Multiply that x billions of years and something now has a skeletal structure of some kind. Perhaps no blood yet, nor marrow - or if it DID have those things they must have magically happened at the same time, by sheer random chance or magic, so-as to provide a mechanism to maintain a skeletal structure of some sort.

[edit] Oh - Shit. If the blood and marrow developed simultaneously so would some sort of pumping mechanism? Filter mechanism? something like that...and the veins or other mechanism to flow the blood. Probably a brain-type system to control those things, too. Damnit. Simply trying to describe ONE element of a biological system creates secondary and tertiary affects hard to account-for.

So - we have nearly infinitely-complex systems - interdependent sub-systems - magically or by sheer random chance, aligned and mutated simultaneously so-as to leave a functioning biological system/animal/whatever.

I am okay if some people believe in Santa. Does not hurt my feelings. But when tax-payer dollars go towards Santa as scientific fact I get a little bothered. Santa is as improbable as 'somehow magically the complexities of life happened, and given ONLY time and environment bettered itself by, in essence, happy accident'.

Intelligent design is the only logical conclusion for the genesis and development of life.

fj1200

06-24-2014, 12:48 PM

Intelligent design is the only logical conclusion for the genesis and development of life.

That's one argument, albeit not a scientific one.

darin

06-24-2014, 08:59 PM

That's one argument, albeit not a scientific one.

It's as scientific as the alternative; and I can't find the faith to trust the alternative in the face of little compelling evidence. It's the choice I choose until otherwise convinced :-)

fj1200

06-24-2014, 10:08 PM

It's as scientific as the alternative; and I can't find the faith to trust the alternative in the face of little compelling evidence. It's the choice I choose until otherwise convinced :-)

Not really, one is based on the scientific method and the other is based on a magic wand.*

*:poke:

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/intelligent-design-is-dea_b_1175049.html)
Kepler reminds us that religious people do not need to shrink from science and its naturalistic methods, because they more than others have a rich tradition in which to locate these things, a context that allows them to take science seriously but not too seriously, and a strong bulwark against the lull of materialism.For a person of faith, ID is not just an unnecessary choice; it is a harmful one. It reduces God to a kind of holy tinkerer. It locates the divine in places of ignorance and obscurity. And this gives it a defensive and fearful spirit that is out of place in Christian faith and theology.
Looking upon the new star in September 1604, could Kepler have envisioned stellar evolution, mass-transfer binary stars, and explosive carbon fusion? No, and so he remained silent. His humility, his belief in the richness of creation, and his expansive faith allowed him to admit ignorance while leaving the door of causal science wide open.
ID denies its proponents that freedom. Having opted to close the door on science, they steal from themselves the opportunity to see nature more deeply. In so doing they dig in their heels, refusing to be drawn, Kepler-style, closer to the creator God they all believe in. This is the great irony of ID.

Why I Teach Evolution in Church (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/why-i-teach-evolution-in-_b_1255308.html)
That rare combination of emptiness and joy is something I have come to recognize, and today I understand my early encounter with geologic time as one of my first religious experiences. I think God got involved. Which is one reason I teach science -- evolution, cosmology, geology -- at my church. I want my fellow parishioners to know the mind-expanding awe that comes from an even modestly scientific perspective of creation. I want them to see that science can be a path to God.But there are other reasons. Christians -- at least Protestants, at least in America -- are not exactly well-known for accepting science. Outright rejection of evolution and even of fundamentals of astronomy and geology is depressingly common.
Why? Back in November, cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky published an article (http://theconversation.edu.au/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050) at The Conversation that helps to answer this question. His basic point, that science often poses threats -- commercial, professional, intellectual, personal -- is neither new nor surprising.
But right at the end he asks, "Are there ways in which gaps between scientific knowledge and public acceptance can be bridged?" His answer is yes. Three points follow:
"There is much evidence that the framing of information facilitates its acceptance when it no longer threatens people's worldview. Similarly, the messenger matters. Finally, people are more likely to accept inconvenient evidence after their worldviews have been affirmed."
This is why, if one wants to help end the war between science and religion, teaching science in church is such a good idea. As an experienced teacher, I do not speak in alienating jargon. As a fellow Christian, I share the students' basic worldview. As one who they know personally -- most of them know my extended family as well -- I do not come as a stranger with an agenda. And the classes are held in a familiar and comfortable setting.

darin

06-25-2014, 04:56 AM

fj1200

06-25-2014, 07:02 AM

Right - evolution = magic. Despite the opinion of somebody who probably means well, but ultimately chooses foolishness. :-) In some scientific circles Evolution is not even a theory, as they argue it cannot be proven false. In fact, 'science' is a process - a verb. NOT a noun. A scientist studying general evolution does not make general evoution scientific anymore than a pastor studying rocks makes the rocks religious.

Nobody can prove or disprove general evolution; life from non-life AND life 'magically' or 'somehow' BETTERING itself, become more complex over time. To me, the evidence of intelligent design vastly outweighs 'magic' or 'random chance' General Evolution supports champion.

A scientist who studies the evidence presented and posits a theory that is supported by the evidence does make evolution scientific. A pastor studying rocks makes him an amateur geologist. The commonality? Science. ID is not science and creation is not science which means that they shouldn't be discussed in the same breath as science. If you and I would like to suggest that the natural world is guided by God and we can point to specific ideas and examples that support our belief then we can do that in a religious context. You say that we can't prove or disprove evolution but ID is even farther from being proven or disproven so I'm not sure how you can elevate ID to the same status.

Also, I'm not sure who you are suggesting has "chosen foolishness" but anyone who studies the cosmos and sees the wonders of God at every turn is far from foolish in my book.

darin

06-25-2014, 08:39 AM

A scientist who studies the evidence presented and posits a theory that is supported by the evidence does make evolution scientific. A pastor studying rocks makes him an amateur geologist. The commonality? Science. ID is not science and creation is not science which means that they shouldn't be discussed in the same breath as science. If you and I would like to suggest that the natural world is guided by God and we can point to specific ideas and examples that support our belief then we can do that in a religious context. You say that we can't prove or disprove evolution but ID is even farther from being proven or disproven so I'm not sure how you can elevate ID to the same status.

Also, I'm not sure who you are suggesting has "chosen foolishness" but anyone who studies the cosmos and sees the wonders of God at every turn is far from foolish in my book.

I argue general evolution is probably not even a theory. ID is science as much as any 'theory' (used loosely) because of the evidence. I'm not talking of God - I'm talking of Intelligent design apart from any religion (sidebar: General Evolution = Religion as much as man-made/caused Global Warming). Regardless of the truth of creation/whatever, General Evolution falls short in areas mentioned above, and in things like predictabilty - Either all species are right now perfectly 'evolved' to their environment, or maybe if we could keep our environment constant LONG enough (Millions and millions of years) Maybe we will eventually become adapted. See, I'm unsure how any environment maintained its conditions long enough for any organism to 'perfectly' (used very loosely) adapt to it. If, say, weather changes (global weather) every 10000 years (for the sake of the argument), I find it unlikely species would have time to 'evolve' into a new species more-adapted for the particular weather of the region. Does that last bit make lucid sense (whether or not you agree)?

It goes back to this old example - If we found a space ship floating behind Jupiter mankind would instantly assume it was intelligently-designed. Yet when we find MORE complex 'machines' here on Earth, we very-easily CONCLUDE they happened by sheer random chance, luck, or - 'magic'. I do not understand that conclusion. I cannot make that leap of faith.

The person who chose foolishness is Mr. Wallace, quoted and linked-to above. He seems to have chosen popular opinion over credible evidence -and I say that at least in part because there is such little credible evidence to suppoer General Evolution as discussed in this thread.

fj1200

06-25-2014, 02:41 PM

^I'll just sum up my answer with.... no.

He holds a PhD in experimental nuclear physics from Duke University and an MDiv with a concentration in historical theology from Emory.

revelarts

06-25-2014, 05:46 PM

Ok ya'll done gone and rillled a fella up now. FJ your on the wrong side of the boat buddy. I literally do not have time to address this the way i'd like. but you'll just have to imagine my half page response tearing into your sincere but weak argument against ID and defending evolutionary "science". DMP has got the basics. but he seems to polite to really bring the hammer down. as you know I would try to do ...in Christian love...;). but please note the science is dogma thread http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41835-Science-is-Dogma here's one vids that shows one of the former leading evolutionary biologist explaining (he wrote one of the text books on abiogenesis) why he now REJECTS the Idea that life could EVER rise from non-life in any evolutionary scenrio. it is Impossible and the MORE science we learn about the complexity of life and the specific conditions it becomes MORESO not less. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a2RZzyFTTXo?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>... Also the amount of information needed to get the ball rolling to create any creature and then to Change into other new creature requires MORE working highly specific information based DNA RNA PROTIENS and NOW we know About META GENOMIC information found in the cell walls AND BIO-Electric information found in the .. well in the Bio-electric information around the genes. All of that just pushes the idea of gradual accidental evolution of ANYTHING into ANYTHING in the trash to die. OH, and then evolutionist have to explain the chicken and egg question about that information and gene building. Because RNA, DNA and Proteins all need each other to make each other at different points in different combinations. Evolution has NO leg to get started and in each NEW life form the new versions of COORDINATED new information and new gene building sequences must be perfect. there's a huge uncrossable evolutionary problem there. Evolution is a piss poor excuse for a theory and it will eventual be laughed at like "spontanteous generation"... which is it's grandpa. bye<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/mwM4H9Rb0Oc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

fj1200

06-26-2014, 01:27 PM

darin

06-27-2014, 05:41 AM

Try away. :poke: I wouldn't be doing my job here if I wasn't trying to get someone riled up. Nevertheless you may have overstated my position; summarized below:

ID is not science, it's creation without saying "God" and attempts to fill in the gaps of our ignorance. I'm pretty sure God doesn't need us to fill in the gaps.

BTW, I don't reject the "Designer."

General evolution is trying to fill the gaps in responsible truth by assuming everything just autonomously, magically happened. That Bone cells and marrow cells magically somehow figure out how to form correctly.

fj1200

06-27-2014, 06:35 AM

General evolution is trying to fill the gaps in responsible truth by assuming everything just autonomously, magically happened. That Bone cells and marrow cells magically somehow figure out how to form correctly.

You're kidding right?

darin

06-27-2014, 08:26 AM

You're kidding right?

Not at all! Rather than accepting the logical conclusion of the evidence, Evolution as discussed here simply assumes-away the problems. They'd rather make stuff up than face truth. Those 'scientists' use phrases like 'somehow' and 'eventually' - might as well say 'magically'. :)

fj1200

06-27-2014, 05:48 PM

Not at all! Rather than accepting the logical conclusion of the evidence, Evolution as discussed here simply assumes-away the problems. They'd rather make stuff up than face truth. Those 'scientists' use phrases like 'somehow' and 'eventually' - might as well say 'magically'. :)

That's kind of the heart of ID isn't it? Let's try a thought exercises; think back to all the scientists who posited a theory, wrote a paper detailing their findings, or even logicians who (think, Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)) challenged doctrine and were persecuted and sometimes executed for daring to present their views. Fast forward a few years beyond where they were proven correct and ask yourself; at what point should they have "faced truth" and acknowledged the gap where God resides?

The logical course of action is when God reveals himself to us we can put to rest the ID vs. evolution argument but until then science will proceed based on its methods. This isn't to say of course that scientists are always right or never present dogmatic views (hi Rev :cool:) but those are two different things. And regarding evolution... I'm not wedded to it, if it's false it will fall.

darin

06-28-2014, 08:10 AM

That's kind of the heart of ID isn't it? Let's try a thought exercises; think back to all the scientists who posited a theory, wrote a paper detailing their findings, or even logicians who (think, Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)) challenged doctrine and were persecuted and sometimes executed for daring to present their views. Fast forward a few years beyond where they were proven correct and ask yourself; at what point should they have "faced truth" and acknowledged the gap where God resides?

The logical course of action is when God reveals himself to us we can put to rest the ID vs. evolution argument but until then science will proceed based on its methods. This isn't to say of course that scientists are always right or never present dogmatic views (hi Rev :cool:) but those are two different things. And regarding evolution... I'm not wedded to it, if it's false it will fall.

I get that - but I get the idea you aren't even looking for the science within ID. what's happened is this: General evolution is now the church of antiquity, and the ID folks are the free-thinkers who bear the persecution of the establishment ;)

revelarts

06-29-2014, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by fj1200
A. Creation is not science.
Originally Posted by fj1200
That's one argument, albeit not a scientific one.
Originally Posted by fj1200
Not really, one is based on the scientific method and the other is not.

………….

ok, sadly this is going to long and general, I'll come back with some specifics on the "gaps" aspect in a minute.

1st of all FJ all of those statements are just assertions, you don't even take time to define your terms but you put creation and ID into some mental ghetto of you choosing without even backing it it up .. at all.
it's like the "terrorist aren't human" argument some defended here a while. it's not based in fact.

But ok im going start in an odd place.
I think when they come to this question a lot of people have (what i consider) a very wrong notion of 'religion".
rather than go into a long thing on that here.
I'll just ask a few questions and think you'll get my drift.

lets say you were physically present at the Crucifixion of Jesus. You saw him dead. period he was dead and 3 days later you happened to be at the tomb and without question saw him alive.

OK now is what you see a REAL event? Could you have checked his body 3 days earlier with all of the s"scientific" equipment and found him brain dead heart stopped , and then 3 days later put more "scientific" equipment on him to PROVE he was alive?

you see this is the understanding of most evangelical, bible believing type Christians. .It's not that that Peter and the apostles "felt like they saw Jesus alive, he was really dead and then really alive.
"handle me and SEE. " put your fingers in my side" and believe because it's a SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Not because its a great thing to think about, or a wonderful hope to have, or a great religious "idea".
NO, if you had scientific equipment on the scene you could scientifically CONFIRM whether or not
1. he was Jesus, 2 if he was Dead 3. if he was alive.
i'd be a scientific fact

now the next question comes in, HOW. how did this happen.
Jesus said it was the Power Of God that he had.
NOW if science says " ooh No I'll look for an alternate explanation thank you very much…. we'll have NOTHING to do with a "miracle" or "God"." and so they search for 20, 200, 2000 years and come up with NOTHING natural.
Shouldn't they consider the original explaining given by the person the event happened to? should they consider that maybe there's more to the world that what they see?
Or to just say "I don't know". I've been told by some atheist that even if they saw Jesus rise from they dead they still wouldn't believe in God.
is that science though? or is science going to follow the facts where they lead?

Look the Apostle Paul said "...if Jesus did not rise from the Dead then your Faith is in vain... and we are liars...".
the Apostles didn't go around Asia minor trying to convince people to believe a new "Myth"
A new Myth that's NICER to believe than the others. No, either he rose from the dead in REALITY or he did not.

OK, hope you get my point.
Science is not excluded from examining "religious" claims . Religion is not excluded from making scientific claims.
"A man died, a man rose from the dead by a power that's outside of nature."
Science can FALSIFY some religious claims. Or Confirm them.
the amazing Randi would challenge Psychics to prove they have this power. there's a christian Magician that does the same.

the Greek gods were said to live on Olympus, science can go to Olympus and check.
in Some religions they cliam there are certain ancient people that lived in certain places.
science can look and see if that's true OR NOT.
If a religion says the earth is on the back of a turtle, science can check that correct?
If a religion says …fill in the blank.
in many cases science can check
THAT SCIENCE is real SCIENCE. It's not "religious science" or "wannabe science", it's science FJ.
Just because you don't like the question doesn't make the work less scientific.

But OK some people still have a funny feeling in their gut just trying to think that honestly.
So ok lets take it from the other side.

Darwin GUESSED that evolution was true. he saw some things and an idea came to him and he began to look for CONFIRMING evidence of the IDEA HE HAD.
But he knew his idea was far from "confirmed" or fact
“Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”
Charles Darwin
(BTW that's STILL TRUE)

Often Scientific theories don't come from having a lot of DATA to confirm the idea, but the idea is born on the thinnest of "evidence". THEN Confirmation is sought and research moves forward in the BELIEF that it's true. all the while USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD to either confirm or falsify the idea.

But theories often Begin with a BELIEF. Sometime they end as only that as well.

IMO most open minded people will be with me here.
But confirmed atheist would still have a problem. For them they BELIEVE that nature is the END of all. so they often complain they cannot allow anything OUTside of nature to be the cause of anything we see in nature. That it ALL must be explained within a natural framework or it's "not science".

But again this is not based on Science , there's no study that PROVES that nature and physics is everything there is, was and will be. That's a faith called Naturalism.
But as a matter of fact science like the laws of entropy indicate that there had to be a beginning of some kind that doesn't fit into the "laws of nature" we know. AND many proponents of the big bang admit there was/are a point or points in time and space where the laws of nature break down and things happen that are not "natural" they call them a "singularities" most people would use the word miracles.
that is, something that happens that natural law cannot explain or predict because the normal laws don't apply, but is in fact part of or effects the natural world as we know it.

So Science does allow for miracles... when it wants too.

So if you have a problem with ID begin science it's just your.... cultural prejudice (?) or misunderstanding…. of what science is and what it does. Science investigates questions with certain tools and methods. The source of the questions don't really matter, at all. Science has a set of tools it uses to explore the world. If it investigates 2 or 3 apposing ideas. Then the idea with the MOST evidence SHOULD be accepted as the BEST explanation. correct?
That is if …if folks just want to go with the science and not "preconceived" ideas or popular dogmas.

end part 1

revelarts

06-29-2014, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by fj1200
A. Creation is not science.
Originally Posted by fj1200
That's one argument, albeit not a scientific one.
Originally Posted by fj1200
Not really, one is based on the scientific method and the other is not.

Ok to the what is Science question
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528971/scientific-theory
scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.
In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.

"objects and events observed and posited… Conceived by imagination… (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities...,

There's nothing in the definition that EXCLUDES ID FJ.

FJ you've made several assertions that ID is and creation is "just filling the gaps" in knowledge with God. DMP has made the correct point that Evolution fills the gaps in the knowledge with faith in "evolution".
But here's the difference and advantage that ID has over naturalistic evolution here.
the ID people are using the facts of the scientific discoveries concerning DNA, and micro organisms, information science, to show that there position is the best.
not just assuming that it fills it.
They points out that NONE of the other natural explanations work. And CAN never work. it's basically impossible and definitely not OBSERVED.

SO since they don't work , WHAT DO WE KNOW , (something that we OBSERVE (science)) that does produces information.
the ONLY thing we see in our experience that produces information is mind.
It's the what's Darwin used and is called the inference to the best explanation that is under the scientific method.
he wrote it this way
"And it seems to me that, supposing that such a hypothesis were to explain such general propositions, we ought, in accordance with the common way of following all sciences, to admit it till some better hypothesis be found out."
C. Darwin

Darwin also said
"We should be looking for a cause which is known forom our experience to be able to produce the effect we are trying to explain."

the question is where did the specified information in DNA (and elsewhere) come from?
an information scientist Herny Quastler put it this way
"The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity"

We KNOW from what we see everyday that information comes from minds. Whenever we see information in some coded form, it's a foregone conclusion that it's from a person.
that's a scientific fact.
based on that fact an HONEST person should consider the wild idea that Humans may not be the only entities that have complex minds. Since the evidence for our own cells shows us a complexity that defies honest explanation outside of design. and is beyond our own comprehension to create. (combine that with the fine tuning of the universe itself and other factors and it begins to get overwhelming)

the book on the beach analogy:
if a person was alone on an island all her life and thought she was the only person alive but found a book and managed to translate it. she'd have a real hard time trying to explain how it came to be. She could INSIST that it just sprung up out of the ground or ocean like a rock ..."because it there!" or she could consider the option that she's NOT alone.

The SETI project is based on this idea. that information comes from intelligent minds.
Just as the SETI project knows that if finds a simple "morse code" like signal repeating in the random noise and patterns of the cosmos it KNOWS that it from intelligence. Similarly anyone should be able to recognize that the the design of DNA and more is the proof of intelligence.

When you see the MOST sophisticated and efficient computer code written in your own cells you should recognize it for what it is, so complexed and ordered that Richard Dawkins tells other scientist that they must "REMIND THEMSELVES that's it NOT designed by an intelligence". ANd that "nature only appears to be designed".
if the observation says design why the denials?

But on the other hand there are some secular physicist that have gone so far as to propose that our universe is JUST a computer simulation (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html). and that there is a programmer outside. So here we have atheistic scientist proposing persons OUTSIDE of our universe controlling, inputting and programing. Yet noone assumes it's "religion" at work, but assess the option as a real possibility of our reality.

what's the real diffenerece from the scientist proposal here and the ID's Phds proposal that makes one "science" and the the other not?

So FJ we find before us. the scientific evidence POINTS to a creator outside of the box in putting information into the universe.
it's not "Gaps" it what the observations lead to.

to quote the scriptures.
the heavens declare the glory of God and the earth his handiwork.

fj1200

06-30-2014, 08:43 AM

I get that - but I get the idea you aren't even looking for the science within ID. what's happened is this: General evolution is now the church of antiquity, and the ID folks are the free-thinkers who bear the persecution of the establishment ;)

1. I'm certainly not looking at the Rev level of detail, :poke: B. you haven't presented any,* and III. I'm not proclaiming anyone has "chosen foolishness."

*and I can, and have, certainly exercised the ability to google. :)

fj1200

06-30-2014, 08:57 AM

OK, hope you get my point.
Science is not excluded from examining "religious" claims . Religion is not excluded from making scientific claims.

You missed one of my quotes. ;)

BTW, I don't reject the "Designer."

Nevertheless I don't necessarily disagree with any of your points but what you repeat as scientific fact, the resurrection, may be fact but is no longer provable nor is it repeatable; there is no Law of the Resurrection that we can point to and at this point is a matter of faith. As I said before if the Theory of Evolution falls then it will fall by the scientific method just as the Steady State Theory fell by the scientific method. IIRC many accepted the SST because the idea of the big bang validated a creation argument and it fell regardless of any dogma behind it.

darin

06-30-2014, 09:12 AM

General observation - MASSIVE texts and points make debate or discussion impossible.

with regard to the last post - Theory of Evolution already fails because it cannot be replicated, and it cannot be refuted, it cannot be measured nor has any predictive value. The theory cannot predict the transition from one form to the next, nor measure 'how adjusted' to a particular environment a species should or could be. The theory generally gets broadened based on the facts/data to suit the facts/data/evidence. That is to say 'One piece of evidence counters a current claim of the theory, so the theory is simply weakened/broadened to account for it"

It's like Finding Bigfoot - the TV Show. Eventually EVERY piece of evidence becomes 'classic squatch behavior!' so much that even ABSENSE of evidence proves the creature's existance. "The fact we found nothing is EXACTLY what we expected! If BigFoots do not exist, we would have found evidence thereof - but the fact there's nothing here proves BigFoots are smart enough to avoid leaving evidence!"

And so it goes :)

fj1200

06-30-2014, 09:44 AM

"objects and events observed and posited… Conceived by imagination… (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities...,

There's nothing in the definition that EXCLUDES ID FJ.

FJ you've made several assertions that ID is and creation is "just filling the gaps" in knowledge with God. DMP has made the correct point that Evolution fills the gaps in the knowledge with faith in "evolution".
But here's the difference and advantage that ID has over naturalistic evolution here.
the ID people are using the facts of the scientific discoveries concerning DNA, and micro organisms, information science, to show that there position is the best.
not just assuming that it fills it.
They points out that NONE of the other natural explanations work. And CAN never work. it's basically impossible and definitely not OBSERVED.
...
So FJ we find before us. the scientific evidence POINTS to a creator outside of the box in putting information into the universe.
it's not "Gaps" it what the observations lead to.

I made no assertion that it excluded ID. I can agree that DNA or the Periodic Table or (fill in the blank) point to a designer but the question raised in another thread was the use of such as proof; That is absent. Also I think that the ID position is able to cherry pick the facts and scientific discoveries that are made and point to them as proof of argument. This raises the question of my earlier post:

Let's try a thought exercises; think back to all the scientists who posited a theory, wrote a paper detailing their findings, or even logicians who (think, Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)) challenged doctrine and were persecuted and sometimes executed for daring to present their views. Fast forward a few years beyond where they were proven correct and ask yourself; at what point should they have "faced truth" and acknowledged the gap where God resides?

ID is not science because it rests on the shoulders of actual science. ID does not posit DNA, it does not posit microorganisms, it does not posit the next scientific discovery. ID says look at all of these wonderful things and notes that it can only have come about because of the designer. The "Theory" of ID is required to change at every point that a significant discovery is made. Start at 1:20. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ

the book on the beach analogy:
if a person was alone on an island all her life and thought she was the only person alive but found a book and managed to translate it. she'd have a real hard time trying to explain how it came to be. She could INSIST that it just sprung up out of the ground or ocean like a rock ..."because it there!" or she could consider the option that she's NOT alone.

I'm sorry but that analogy is just silly along with the space ship floating behind Jupiter and finding the watch on the beach. In all of nature we find neither a book nor a space ship nor a watch so yes, the assumption is that there was another intelligent being that made them. It's not a scientific argument. If the person alone on an island all her life finds a billion books laying about then she has no other option to assume it is of nature.

fj1200

06-30-2014, 09:52 AM

with regard to the last post - Theory of Evolution already fails because it cannot be replicated, and it cannot be refuted, it cannot be measured nor has any predictive value. The theory cannot predict the transition from one form to the next, nor measure 'how adjusted' to a particular environment a species should or could be. The theory generally gets broadened based on the facts/data to suit the facts/data/evidence. That is to say 'One piece of evidence counters a current claim of the theory, so the theory is simply weakened/broadened to account for it"

I'll just sum up with arguable. But you've also consigned ID to the same fate.

darin

06-30-2014, 11:26 AM

I'll just sum up with arguable. But you've also consigned ID to the same fate.

...ID is not taught as 'scientific law/theory'. That's the problem. The evidence (as interpreted by perhaps thousands? of scientists in the fields relating to biology and origins) points towards ID as a logical conclusion; whereas General Evolution has much less supporting evidence - but either way, to dismiss one outright is the opposite of 'scientific', no? :)

fj1200

06-30-2014, 01:15 PM

...ID is not taught as 'scientific law/theory'. That's the problem. The evidence (as interpreted by perhaps thousands? of scientists in the fields relating to biology and origins) points towards ID as a logical conclusion; whereas General Evolution has much less supporting evidence - but either way, to dismiss one outright is the opposite of 'scientific', no? :)

I'm dismissing ID as scientific. Are thousands who don't agree with your logical conclusion just as convincing?

darin

06-30-2014, 01:57 PM

I'm dismissing ID as scientific. Are thousands who don't agree with your logical conclusion just as convincing?

I am unsure how people do NOT buy into ID, frankly. To me, logic is as logic does - and to me ALL evidence (important evidence anyway) steers far away from General Evolution to the point where Evolution simply seems silly. There's no account for taste...some people like FJ1200s, when ZZ-R1200's are CLEARLY superior. :)

fj1200

06-30-2014, 03:06 PM

I am unsure how people do NOT buy into ID, frankly. To me, logic is as logic does - and to me ALL evidence (important evidence anyway) steers far away from General Evolution to the point where Evolution simply seems silly. There's no account for taste...some people like FJ1200s, when ZZ-R1200's are CLEARLY superior. :)

You usually don't make the flaw in your argument so clear but me being me means that I just can't overlook such an opening. Yes, something 20 years older you may think is clearly superior but the FJ 11/12 was a class defining bike and signaled a sea change in super sport bikes in the mid-80's. I can go for a ride and people will always say, "nice FJ," or, "I used to have one of those wish I never got rid of it," or, "didn't I see you up on the Dragon yesterday?" all the while being a hundred or so miles away from where we were. Or you might have someone stop by the house only seeing the bike in the driveway and say, "I wish my FJ hadn't gotten stolen would you like to sell?" The ZZ-R? Nice, not necessarily memorable, but merely an acknowledgement that evolution is existent in the world of motorcycling. ;)

revelarts

06-30-2014, 03:08 PM

I made no assertion that it excluded ID. I can agree that DNA or the Periodic Table or (fill in the blank) point to a designer but the question raised in another thread was the use of such as proof; That is absent. Also I think that the ID position is able to cherry pick the facts and scientific discoveries that are made and point to them as proof of argument. This raises the question of my earlier post:

ID is not science because it rests on the shoulders of actual science. ID does not posit DNA, it does not posit microorganisms, it does not posit the next scientific discovery. ID says look at all of these wonderful things and notes that it can only have come about because of the designer.
so FJ lets try something.
Evolution is not science because it rests on the shoulders of actual science. evolution does not posit DNA, (evolutionist predicted that the cell would be "simple" = fail #1. and then on DNA predicted most would be "junk" Fail #2. Both ID scientist and creation scientist Predicted that the DNA would be mostly functional) . Evolution does not find microorganisms it posits (the fossil record has the same old mircroorganisms virus, bacteria going back 550 million years), evolution does not posit the next scientific discovery. evolution says look at all of these wonderful things and notes that it can only have come about because of "evolution".

so then evolution is not science then, correct?
good for the goose?

But you've just pulled that definition of science out of ... where exactly FJ?
ID is a Scientific Theory, I posted an encyclopedias definition of a Scientific Theory. which it clearly fits .
your more far gone than i thought.

Look FJ
astacology is the science of crayfish.
look at all the wonderful things a crayfish can do, and the many "breakthroughs" that come from the study.
caliology scientific study of bird's nests
calorifics scientific study of heat

that's just random sample of the "sciences" you have have to cross off your list.
As well as the big bang theory. it doesn't change the price of tea or make discoveries, it just ignores some data and looks other the data and makes wild adjustments to the theory every time the data conflicts with it's mathematical assumptions.
It's not "science" by your ad hoc definition FJ.

come to think of it the same goes for the current theory of planet and star formation. they simply wait/look for observationally data to confirm their made up theories based on cherry picked data. But lately the data has not been friendly. the scientist have been "shocked" one has said out right that they've been all "wrong".

"Caltech astronomer Mike Brown told NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/05/06/181613582/our-very-normal-solar-system-isn-t-normal-anymore): “Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.""

sorry "thoroughly wrong".

Unless your going to say that astronomical and cosmological theories are not science either you simply do not have an valid argument FJ. It's just your personal prejudice.

And here's another thing, theories don't have to be right. as seen above. they just have to try to explain the phenomenon. the data either confirms or denies the concepts.

the science denies evolution and confirms ID ... and moreso creation.
supporters of various theoretical positions all "cheery pick" the data, the question is which overall has better and more Substantial data confirming and which has more data falsifying.

it's not science to just assume one or the other.

The "Theory" of ID is required to change at every point that a significant discovery is made. Start at 1:20. ;)actually it's the other way around.
evolutionist have to change with every new discovery to the point that they want to change known laws of biology and decay.
no one believes in pure Darwinism anymore. why, because they found that so much of it was wrong. So now they call it NEO-Darwinism. no one has a mechanism for it to work yet they believe it anyway.
gradualism is not proven or seen. so some scientist have proposed "punctuated equilibrium". basically new animals coming out of older ones with new features basically fully formed. Why would leading evolutionist propose this idea. Because the fossils do not show gradual change. and gradual change by accident and natural selection is not an significant enough force to move evolution along. and what's known from animal breeding says that there's a natural limit to how far a species can change. breeders have tried to breed a blue rose for 100's of years but there are LIMITS to mutations. they've hit fruit flys with every mutagen and bred them for 1000s of generations and they only get fruit flys. They've taken a certain Bactria, Ecloi i believe, and done the same for like 10,000+ generations isolating the mutants every generation and they are STILL are Ecoli.

But they still BELIEVE it's the way so they CHANGE the theory to match the data or ignore the data and make excuses.

No theory is perfect but some BETTER match the data than others. and ID and creation PREDICT the limitations of mutations and predict that the further aware from the original the mutations are the weaker the creature will become overall.

---video>=youtube;TTOla3TyfqQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?...v=TTOla3TyfqQ :rolleyes:

Argument by Futurama science, OK we can do that i guess.
but the problem with the linage you point to in the clip is simply... well it's just wrong.
1st of all, if you look closely at any human linage claims you find statements that will say that "well this -fill in the blank- is NOT on OUR LINE but is a cousin.
One that he mentioned for example, Australopithecus "Lucy" was said to be an ancestor but ,surprise, it's not anymore. And nearly every so called "missing link" has a big time in the papers at 1st but a few years later they quietly change the status to a "cousin" or "in the family tree" but not a direct ancestor.
ANd here's a game Ender.
Evolutionary Scientist all assume that those various creature came 1st, BEFORE modern human evolved our bipedal movement, feet etc but a few years a go i pointed out that they've found modern human footprints in 3 million year old rock (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28048-Richard-Dawkins-stumped-by-creationists-question-%28RAW-FTGE%29&p=429706#post429706). So how can modern humans feature long PREDATE our imagined barely outta the tree ancestors FJ?
answer it can't.
Accept the data not the dogma.

I'm sorry but that analogy is just silly along with the space ship floating behind Jupiter and finding the watch on the beach. In all of nature we find neither a book nor a space ship nor a watch so yes, the assumption is that there was another intelligent being that made them. It's not a scientific argument.

If the person alone on an island all her life finds a billion books laying about then she has no other option to assume it is of nature.
and she'd be wrong.
It'd be a poor assumption and she could say the concept other people are a "silly idea" and be very satisfied.... and wrong.
She does have other logical and scientific options FJ and so do you.
We do find things that are MORE complex than watches. You're own brain is a bit more complex than a watch or a book. the information in DNA is far more complex than any computer program.

If you find a 1000000 watches and books on the beach, FJ YOU know it's not an accident of wind, sea and time. you have the advantage over the woman in that you know there are other minds on that level that create the information embedded in those types of things.
Just because watches n books are abundant doesn't mean it they are made by "nature" it just make them common, not neccasialy 'natural'.

darin

06-30-2014, 04:54 PM

You usually don't make the flaw in your argument so clear but me being me means that I just can't overlook such an opening. Yes, something 20 years older you may think is clearly superior but the FJ 11/12 was a class defining bike and signaled a sea change in super sport bikes in the mid-80's. I can go for a ride and people will always say, "nice FJ," or, "I used to have one of those wish I never got rid of it," or, "didn't I see you up on the Dragon yesterday?" all the while being a hundred or so miles away from where we were. Or you might have someone stop by the house only seeing the bike in the driveway and say, "I wish my FJ hadn't gotten stolen would you like to sell?" The ZZ-R? Nice, not necessarily memorable, but merely an acknowledgement that evolution is existent in the world of motorcycling. ;)

^^^^^that... That is why I like you :-)

revelarts

08-31-2014, 02:13 AM

"A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM"
The list of working and retired scientist openly dissenting from Darwinism is growing since the weaknesses have become so apparent.
Here are links to 2 list which make total of over 3000+ scientist.

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660 (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

...............
Darwin Skeptics A Select List of Science Academics, Scientists, and Scholars Who are Skeptical of Darwinism
http://www.rae.org/pdf/darwinskeptics.pdf
Quote:

<tbody>
...Most of the following worldwide scientists and educators (by the time this list was published some may be deceased) all reject “Darwinism” according to the following definition: [I]The belief that evolution and common decent can account for the existence of all life. A few accept common decent but reject the Darwinisn mechanism. Most all persons on this list are also skeptical of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Furthermore, all stressed that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinism should be encouraged. ...

</tbody>

One of the microbiologist listed, Dr. Seelke, describes how his experiments with bacteria shows that even in 2000 plus generations a gene cannot make 2 changes at the same time to create a new function. And explains that it would take dozens of simultaneous changes to genomes to make most of small changes to mutate a new function.

http://mynetbox.info/audio/macro-evo...t-DrSeelke.mp3 (http://mynetbox.info/audio/macro-evolution_NO-Microbiologist-DrSeelke.mp3)

...................

Mind and Cosmos:
Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/misc/amazon_icon.gif (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/) Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/)

"The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology...

...Thomas Nagel's skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic.

In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility."

Gunny

08-31-2014, 10:47 AM

revelarts

08-31-2014, 03:49 PM

Good post. You trying to say I put my post in the wrong thread yesterday? :)

No your Fine.
I posted here as a belated response to FJ's false assertions of evolution being "real" science and implying that "real" scientist don't or shouldn't take ID or Creation seriously as scientific alternatives.

Gunny

08-31-2014, 05:09 PM

No your Fine.
I posted here as a belated response to FJ's false assertions of evolution being "real" science and implying that "real" scientist don't or shouldn't take ID or Creation seriously as scientific alternatives.

The problem is the majority of people I have run across that are adamant "scientists" and God-haters for lack of a better term, try to sell scientific theory as actual science. I have no problem with actual science. Explaining what is real.

I just see little difference between scientific theory and Creationism where that topic is concerned. My stance is simple: It's not up to me to prove there is a God. It's up to the opponent to prove there isn't if that person is the one making that assertion.

Gaffer

08-31-2014, 06:39 PM

Gunny

08-31-2014, 06:51 PM

Real science starts with a theory. The objective is then to prove that theory correct. Creationists don't use theories, they use belief. They've already made up their minds and no amount of evidence will change that.

Creationists don't like evolution because it challenges their belief system. They don't like archeology because it challenges their belief system. They don't like paleontology because it challenges their belief system. There are scores of scientific study and the creationists don't like them because they challenge their belief system.

The "theory", where creation is concerned starts and ends with a belief.

Everything evolves or it's dead. That is not the same as Darwin's Theory of Evolution; which, is what it states it is. I have no problem with evolution by definition. I DO have a problem with someone claiming their unproven belief system is better than mine. Nothing abut Darwinism challenges my belief system. I see them both for what they are. :)

revelarts

08-31-2014, 09:48 PM

Real science starts with a theory.
Darwinism started with an Idea, it was later asserted as a theory.
Spontaneous generation the same.
Darwin Admitted that the fossils DID NOT support his idea and hoped that it would LATER, it does not.
Darwin thought that the cell was simple, -simple =easy to evolve- Darwinist said it was just a blob of goo. It is not. strike 2.
Darwinist thought DNA had a lot of "Junk" that allows space for evolution to occur and was LEFTOVER from ages of evolution, WRONG AGAIN.

the concepts ONLY validity lies in changes within a species. period paragraph end of story.
Experiments have been done for of 40,000+ generations on a certain Bacteria to track evolutionary changes. they still get the same creature... a bacteria. They've bombarded fruit flies with every known mutagentic agent for 10s of thousands of generations and all they get is busted up, crippled, weird Fruit Flies. not bees or ants or caterpillars or misquotes or even fruit flies with ANY BETTER features.

evolution from one celled creature to man is a FAILED idea. From one celled creature to a SLUG is a FAILED theory. And the science proves it. Only FAITH that it happened compels scientist to keep looking.

what i don't understand is why people think if you put the word "religion" in front of an idea it somehow becomes automatically wrong and invalid to consider.

my "religion" says that Nebuchanezzar of Babylon was a REAL person.
And archeology has born this out as TRUE.

the Bible mention washing hands and burying waste outside of the living areas.
This is born out as scientifically wise to do.

a "religious" idea can be tested, just as well as non-religious idea, for it's scientific veracity.
Is that true or false gaffer?
If you don't reply to anything else in this post, please answer that question.

The objective is then to prove that theory correct. Creationists don't use theories, they use belief.
Atheist BELIEVE the theory of evolution DESPITE the huge problems. because it's the only alternative is creation.

it's all about belief, no matter which way you cut it.
the real scientific question is WHAT DO FACTS SUPPORT THE BEST?
true or false?
the source of the ideas is BESIDE THE POINT!
Which idea fits the facts BETTER or NOT? that's the only question that matters.

They've already made up their minds and no amount of evidence will change that.

the Bible says if it's words are lies we should abandon it.
It holds truth and love as 2 of the highest ideals.
It does not ask people to believe no matter what the fact are, It does ask us to study to be sure.
and more than a few people have left the faith over evolution, so evidence , even false evidence, has changed people.
Conversely I can name some biologist and astronomers who have converted from atheism AFTER 1st becoming creationist by just looking at the science 1st.

PLUS you conveniently forget that there are athesit and agnostics that ALSO reject Darwinism, the big bang and even -gasp- long ages of the earth.

Creationists don't like evolution because it challenges their belief system.
Creationist don't like evolution because evolution is largely a pseudo-scientific historical LIE, packaged and sold as a scientific fact. And any lie that challenges reality, "the belief system" and human life is exposed, (see Christian work on other religions, displacing various superstitions including human sacrifice, countering slavery, abortion, etc etc)

They don't like archeology because it challenges their belief system. They don't like paleontology because it challenges their belief system. There are scores of scientific study and the creationists don't like them because they challenge their belief system.
gaffer that's a lot to claim but you've brought nothing to table but hand-waving. What i hear you saying here is.
"there are scores of studies, i don't have them, and i can't/won't site them or know if anything about them that might be refuted or in question but I'm sure they are true and creationist don't like them."
no FACTS on the table here to support evolution, just FAITH in scores of assumed studies that prove it.
Very convenient.

As far as disliking branches of science, why not take a look at the list of dissenting scientist and see if there are any paleontologist, archeologist, etc that have spent their lives in a subject they DISlike.

And after that actually look at what archeology and paleontology really claim, what it can back up and what it forgets to bring to the table.

BTW here are a few from 1 of the list for you
Lawrence J. Lee
B.A. an avid archeologist, received a BA in Anthropology from the University of Nebraska. He is Assistant Editor for the Plains Anthropologist , consultant for Archeological Specialty Services and is presently employed by the University of Nebraska and the United States Department of the Interior doing archaeological research.
Dave Philips M.S.
earned a B.A. and MS in Physical Anthropology/Paleoanthropology, both from California State University, Northridge, and is now completing his Ph.D. in Paleontology. He is currently a Professor in Physical Sciences at the Master's College and is also a researcher in the paleontology laboratory at the La Brea Tar Pits
Edwin Masao Yamauchi PhD
Director graduate studies, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, Professor emeritus Department history, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. He has a BA from Shelton College, and a MA, and PhD from Brandeis University, both in ancient history and archeology. He has published widely on biblical archeology and has authored and edited numerous books including Greece and Babylon, Persia and the Bible, The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor, Harper's World of the New Testament , Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, and Pre-Christian Gnosticism. A co-edited work, Peoples of the Old Testament World, and the Biblical Archaeological Society prize. He recently edited Africa and Africans in Antiquity. His writings have been translated into a dozen languages.

Look the facts make the case gaffer not the source of the idea/theory/hypothesis.
And in all honesty, to date, the facts appear point to creation MORE than evolution.
But believe what ever you want.

revelarts

08-31-2014, 09:59 PM

A few more Scientist that Dissent from Darwin who gaffer says Dislike their profession of paleontology.

Hans Zillmer PhD is a German engineer, author, and paleontologist.

Russell Charles Artist Ph.D.now Professor Emeritus, was Head of the Biology Department at David Lipscomb University in Tennessee where he taught for 23 years. He received his BS from Butler University, a MS in paleoecology from Northwestern University and a Ph.D. and in botany from the University of Minnesota, and has pursued extensive graduate studies at the University of Zurich, Switzerland and, for five years, was a Professor at Frankfurt on Main College, Germany. He is now at Amarillo College, Amarillo, Texas.

Roberto É. Biaggi Ph.D. is a scientist with the Geoscience Research Institute. His Ph.D. in Paleoecology is from Loma Linda University.

Stephen F. Barnett PhD Professor of Natural Sciences, Bryan University. He has a B.A. Biology, from Covenant College, an M.S. Geology, and M.S. Paleobiology from Loma Linda University, and a Ph.D. Geology from the University of Kentucky.

Leonard R. Brand Ph.D. was Professor Emeritus of Biology and Paleontology at Loma Linda University in California. He received his Ph.D. in paleontology from Cornell University.

Anne Dambricourt-Malasse Ph.D. is a Paleoanthropologist at the Institute de Paléontologie Humaine, Prehistory Lab.

David Dockery III Ph.D. Chief of the Mississippi Office of Geology's surface geology division in Jackson. He holds a Ph.D. in paleontology from Tulane University

Roberto Fondi Ph.D. is Professor of Paleontology at the University of Sienna. He has a B.S. in Chemistry from Rhodes College, Magna cum laude, Phi Betta Kappa, and a Ph.D. in Paleontology. He has published several critiques of Darwinism.

Gaffer

09-01-2014, 09:00 AM

A few more Scientist that Dissent from Darwin who gaffer says Dislike their profession of paleontology.

A good thing they have you to speak for them here. Your as bad as noir on christians. Here are all the evil evolutionists and a list of who have turned against it. And here's another list, and another list. Your list mean nothing to me Rev. We can dig up lists of former priests, clergymen, regular folks that have turned from religion. It means nothing without proof and facts. You only get proof and facts with scientific methods.

Evolution hasn't been proved yet. But neither has creationism. As I said before, you are prejudging based on belief and not fact.

revelarts

09-01-2014, 10:45 AM

A good thing they have you to speak for them here. Your as bad as noir on christians. Here are all the evil evolutionists and a list of who have turned against it. And here's another list, and another list. Your list mean nothing to me Rev. We can dig up lists of former priests, clergymen, regular folks that have turned from religion. It means nothing without proof and facts. You only get proof and facts with scientific methods.

Evolution hasn't been proved yet. But neither has creationism. As I said before, you are prejudging based on belief and not fact.

gaffer have u posted any facts yet?
I've got pages of facts that people have yet to reply to.
I've mentioned a few times I've been on all sides of this issues believing evolution and cheering those like Carl Sagan back in the 80's, to being in the middle, to my current position. Your assertions of my bias being a preset to my investigations into this issue is just BS.

But you and others have been claiming that "the scientist SAY" after i present the facts of what science shows.
So I found few "Scientist that say" as well, but you dismiss them out of hand you didn't ask about their facts you just ASSUME prior bias WITHOUT ANY any facts to back it up.
and then you appeal to "facts" which you don't post! And toss in some misapplied analogues.

It's dishonest debate.

look, give me ONE Undisputed fact that you think helps PROVES Evolution from Cells to man or whatever.
A Scientific FACT. if there are scores of studies give me ONE.

and let's see if it stands up to honest scientific scrutiny. THE FACTS.

just like a in murder case.
finger prints are proof, but if they can be shown to have been made the day before the murder it isn't definitive.
Pictures are proof, but if there are other pictures that show the defendant ELSEWHERE at the same time then that puts the photos in question.
which ever side can produce the MOST solid evidence should win the case.
By proof beyond a shadow or something close, that's the best that can be said on this issue using science.
and as i've said before, at this point creation has a BETTER scientific case.

So what's your evidence gaffer? you don't want to hear from scientist that have LOOKED at the evolution evidence and think it's piss poor.
Lets take a look at the evidence they used and make our own determination.
And not be swayed by appeals to scientific authority, numbers or credentials.
if that's what you want.

but you can't have it both ways,
and claim all of "real" science says X but then dismiss those working IN "real" science who disagree... based on the facts.
And say that the scientific evidense against evolution is better than creation's because I don't want to use science to even ask that question.

Gunny

09-01-2014, 02:01 PM

gaffer have u posted any facts yet?
I've got pages of facts that people have yet to reply to.
I've mentioned a few times I've been on all sides of this issues believing evolution and cheering those like Carl Sagan back in the 80's, to being in the middle, to my current position. Your assertions of my bias being a preset to my investigations into this issue is just BS.

But you and others have been claiming that "the scientist SAY" after i present the facts of what science shows.
So I found few "Scientist that say" as well, but you dismiss them out of hand you didn't ask about their facts you just ASSUME prior bias WITHOUT ANY any facts to back it up.
and then you appeal to "facts" which you don't post! And toss in some misapplied analogues.

It's dishonest debate.

I'm going to address THIS part of your post. Your very own words describe the issue. I certainly don't mean it as insulting. I'm not going to sit and read all that, then cut n paste my brain to death responding. I'm certainly not going to research the issue as far as you have. Regardless the side of the issue you are on. I skim, get a general idea where you're going, then express my opinion.

There's nothing dishonest about that. I am aware you responded to gaffer, and not me, but I pulled up your response and just went "crap. I ain't reading all that".:laugh:

I believe that when you arguing an issue that science can neither prove nor disprove, then it's about individual personal beliefs.

Just my two cents.

revelarts

09-01-2014, 03:29 PM

I'm going to address THIS part of your post. Your very own words describe the issue. I certainly don't mean it as insulting. I'm not going to sit and read all that, then cut n paste my brain to death responding. I'm certainly not going to research the issue as far as you have. Regardless the side of the issue you are on. I skim, get a general idea where you're going, then express my opinion.

There's nothing dishonest about that. I am aware you responded to gaffer, and not me, but I pulled up your response and just went "crap. I ain't reading all that".:laugh:

I believe that when you arguing an issue that science can neither prove nor disprove, then it's about individual personal beliefs.

Just my two cents.

Sure but it's my contention that if one position has MORE proof than the other that the honest thing to do is give it the benny of the doubt to that side..

Again, like a murder case with 2 suspects, there may not be iron clad completely irrefutable evidence but there may be much more good evidence against one than the other. And One suspect may be proven to be almost incapable of the crime.

This is the type of proof I'm talking about .
I don't understand why people can't acknowledge this. especially since they are the ones who claim to be unbiased and objective.

Gunny

09-01-2014, 06:54 PM

Sure but it's my contention that if one position has MORE proof than the other that the honest thing to do is give it the benny of the doubt to that side..

Again, like a murder case with 2 suspects, there may not be iron clad completely irrefutable evidence but there may be much more good evidence against one than the other. And One suspect may be proven to be almost incapable of the crime.

This is the type of proof I'm talking about .
I don't understand why people can't acknowledge this. especially since they are the ones who claim to be unbiased and objective.

I don't disagree with you. But is is STILL up to individual to believe what they wish. A lot of that is going to be based as much on perception and experience as anything else. Someone arguing his/her beliefs is not necessarily being dishonest.

Gaffer

09-01-2014, 07:03 PM

Sure but it's my contention that if one position has MORE proof than the other that the honest thing to do is give it the benny of the doubt to that side..

Again, like a murder case with 2 suspects, there may not be iron clad completely irrefutable evidence but there may be much more good evidence against one than the other. And One suspect may be proven to be almost incapable of the crime.

This is the type of proof I'm talking about .
I don't understand why people can't acknowledge this. especially since they are the ones who claim to be unbiased and objective.

Okay, let's use do it like a court. What evidence do you have of Adam and Eve's existence? The use of the bible is hearsay in a court. So present your factual evidence. We can move on from here whenever you want.

revelarts

09-01-2014, 09:38 PM

Okay, let's use do it like a court. What evidence do you have of Adam and Eve's existence? The use of the bible is hearsay in a court. So present your factual evidence. We can move on from here whenever you want.

so your not going to give me a study that presents good evidence of evolution?
Should I assume you can't find one? or you've decided that a a good offense is the best defense here?

look, I don't feel compelled to give you any hard data on this question then either.
I'll just flatly state some little known facts. But if anyone sincerely wants to READ/LISTEN/SEE the numbers, data or studies i will get them.

OK gaffer,
I can answer the way i've been answered after questioning evolution. but with more info.

We... are... here.
That PROVES there was a 1st man and 1st women.
What else do you need?!! (that's what i've been told by evolutionist as the END of the question. believe it or not, good for the goose right?)

but I'll be more honest and give more details.
We are here.
And there's far more proof that people come from OTHER people than from Monkeys or any other creature.
There is ZERO evidence of a monkey EVER giving birth to a human. OR even a transitional monkey/semi-human.

next I'll add this. there are a certain number of people on the earth today.
based on population growth, birth rates and death rates.
the population is nearly exactly right for a growth of population from 2 people (then 8 people after the flood) apx 10,000 ago. Counting back from the current 7 billion plus. the numbers work out nearly perfectly.

NEXT i'll add to that new studies of men's DNA (Y chromosomes) tracks back to ONE man. Also DNA tracers from women's Mitochondrial DNA track back to 3 or 4 women, then to ONE which lines up perfectly with the account of Noah with 3 sons (same y chromosomes) , with 3 wives (different mitochondrial) then to ONE woman.

is it possible that they could be named Adam and Eve?

BTW neither tracks back to 2 monkeys or missing links DNA just HUMAN.

so at this point there's MORE evidence for Adam and Eve than for a missing link. Especially since the missing links are well missing. Why are THEY missing? obviously because scientist can't find them? if they can't find them they are NOT evidence.
However our DNA, the current population and many years of humans experimental reproducing only other humans show compellingly that the human race came from ONE woman and ONE man.
Does this evidence FIT with the "religious" idea that they're could indeed be an original couple whose names were Adam and Eve?

I'd say so.

.................................................. ........

if you have data and studies to refute what I've just posted, them post them.
if not, please note that incredulity DOES NOT count as FACTS or Evidence.

so gaffer
please give me a study that presents some of the best evidence of evolution?

revelarts

09-01-2014, 09:57 PM

I don't disagree with you. But is is STILL up to individual to believe what they wish. A lot of that is going to be based as much on perception and experience as anything else. Someone arguing his/her beliefs is not necessarily being dishonest.

Sure people don't have to believe that Lincoln was shot or that Atila the hun was a real person. But they can't honestly claim their disbelief to be binding on others if they can't produce good facts to back up their versions of history. and they shouldn't force it on other in schools etc right?

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but they are not to entitled to claim the facts are on their side when they are not.

Concerning dishonesty, well there's a difference between people being sincere in their beliefs and being factually correct.

We may be giving an honest opinion
but be factually dishonest unwittingly without malice or an intent to deceive.

And when it comes to matters of faith, well there are people that SAW Jesus do miracles and they did not believe. Saw people rise from the dead, and did not believe.
the facts don't always changes hearts but the facts must be presented as facts to allow those who will believe a foundation to trust in God.
Jesus gave people enough hard evidence to believe for the whole show but we all have to take that final step.
the Bible says the Heavens declares the glory of God and Earth his handiwork.
and it's true. I think we all know this instinctively, but we to often suppress the truth in our unrighteousness.

anyway, yeah later.

Gaffer

09-02-2014, 06:23 AM

so your not going to give me a study that presents good evidence of evolution?
Should I assume you can't find one? or you've decided that a a good offense is the best defense here?

look, I don't feel compelled to give you any hard data on this question then either.
I'll just flatly state some little known facts. But if anyone sincerely wants to READ/LISTEN/SEE the numbers, data or studies i will get them.

OK gaffer,
I can answer the way i've been answered after questioning evolution. but with more info.

We... are... here.
That PROVES there was a 1st man and 1st women.
What else do you need?!! (that's what i've been told by evolutionist as the END of the question. believe it or not, good for the goose right?)

but I'll be more honest and give more details.
We are here.
And there's far more proof that people come from OTHER people than from Monkeys or any other creature.
There is ZERO evidence of a monkey EVER giving birth to a human. OR even a transitional monkey/semi-human.

next I'll add this. there are a certain number of people on the earth today.
based on population growth, birth rates and death rates.
the population is nearly exactly right for a growth of population from 2 people (then 8 people after the flood) apx 10,000 ago. Counting back from the current 7 billion plus. the numbers work out nearly perfectly.

NEXT i'll add to that new studies of men's DNA (Y chromosomes) tracks back to ONE man. Also DNA tracers from women's Mitochondrial DNA track back to 3 or 4 women, then to ONE which lines up perfectly with the account of Noah with 3 sons (same y chromosomes) , with 3 wives (different mitochondrial) then to ONE woman.

is it possible that they could be named Adam and Eve?

BTW neither tracks back to 2 monkeys or missing links DNA just HUMAN.

so at this point there's MORE evidence for Adam and Eve than for a missing link. Especially since the missing links are well missing. Why are THEY missing? obviously because scientist can't find them? if they can't find them they are NOT evidence.
However our DNA, the current population and many years of humans experimental reproducing only other humans show compellingly that the human race came from ONE woman and ONE man.
Does this evidence FIT with the "religious" idea that they're could indeed be an original couple whose names were Adam and Eve?

I'd say so.

.................................................. ........

if you have data and studies to refute what I've just posted, them post them.
if not, please note that incredulity DOES NOT count as FACTS or Evidence.

so gaffer
please give me a study that presents some of the best evidence of evolution?

I'm not here to prove evolution. As for the case of everything leading back to one person, that's malarkey. How do you know how many people have lived in this world in just the past 10,000 years. The so called flood was just a regional occurrence following a volcanic eruption. The Black Sea is reportedly the result of that flood.

Tracing DNA back to one individual is about as factual as tracing it back to a particular ape. It's faux science based on a belief and nothing more.

Since you brought up Noah. He built an ark to carry all the animals in the world. With all the millions of species that had to be one hell of a big ark. Not to mention birds and insects. And when they were released how did they get back to where they originated from?

The book of Genesis is stories made up as a means of explaining to other ignorant people how things began and why they are the way they are. When you start a religion you have to have an answer for everything. Nothing more than camp fire stories. Sorry no links, just my opinion. I'm not going searching for links listing a bunch of doctors and theologians I've never heard of just to add credence to my opinion.

revelarts

09-02-2014, 07:58 AM

I'm not here to prove evolution.
no problem

As for the case of everything leading back to one person, that's malarkey.
"please note that incredulity DOES NOT count as FACTS or Evidence."

How do you know how many people have lived in this world in just the past 10,000 years.

"
"Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

Now the number of human fossils found is nothing like one would expect if this ‘Stone Age’ scenario were correct. The number found is more consistent with a ‘Stone Age’ of a few hundred years,....

When Europeans came to settle in Australia in 1788, it was estimated that there were perhaps only 300,000 Aboriginal people.And yet today we are told that the people have been here for 60,000 years or more. Now there is no way that a mere 300,000 people had exhausted the plenty of this large country so as to account for a long period of very low population growth. If we allow for one-third of the land area as desert, it means that there was only one person for every 18 square kilometres (7 square miles) of habitable land area—hardly overpopulated, even for a subsistence existence.

If 20 people had come to settle some time after the Flood, say 3,500 years ago, it would have needed a population growth of a mere 0.28% per year to produce 300,000 people. Such a minimal rate operating over 60,000 years could produce more people than there are atoms in the Milky Way Galaxy!

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 (http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people#r10) This stretches credulity to the limits.

It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 (http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people#r6) That’s not very much.
Of course, population growth has not been constant. There is reasonably good evidence that growth has been slow at times—such as in the Middle Ages in Europe....
...Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time).8 (http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people#r8) This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.9 (http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people#r9) ...If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2 (http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people#r2) this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood...
...-therefore we- get get six billion people since the Flood."
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

The so called flood was just a regional occurrence following a volcanic eruption. The Black Sea is reportedly the result of that flood.
there are seashells and fossil fish on the tops of mountains, there are fields with millions dead fossils all over the world, dead from some watery catastrophe.

Tracing DNA back to one individual is about as factual as tracing it back to a particular ape. It's faux science based on a belief and nothing more.

they trace the minor 'mutations' like, red hair, brown eyes, letter Bs on a gnome spot compared to letter Ts and find the base also looking at dna from bones of ancient dead.
and the result:
...It shouldn’t be surprising, though. Geneticists say that we are all descended from the same male and female. Their nicknames are Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam, and they lived 100,000 to 300,000 years ago. We all have a bit of their DNA. They are our great-great-great- (just keep repeating that about 5000 times) grandparents.

Some geneticists say our most recent common ancestor is far more contemporary than that. MIT computer scientist David Rohde argued in the journal Nature that a shared ancestor for all humans lived about 5000 years ago, thanks in part to increasing intermarriage. Which means that the vast majority of humans are probably, at most, 100th cousins by blood....
http://mentalfloss.com/article/58006/we-are-family-family-tree-entire-human-race

There's debate on the date but ---i'll just state this but if you want details-- there's better evidence for the lower date.

Since you brought up Noah. He built an ark to carry all the animals in the world. With all the millions of species that had to be one hell of a big ark. Not to mention birds and insects. And when they were released how did they get back to where they originated from?
No need of all species no need for fish or for insects which could survive under the ground and on matts of floating debris and the dead. most animals are small and no need to carry the biggest adult animals. the ark is described as as big as apx 2 footbal feilds and 3 storites tall. It's est carrying space is calculated at about 700-800 railroad box cars. more than enough space to carry species/families with enough gentic diversity to create the animals we have today.

The book of Genesis is stories made up as a means of explaining to other ignorant people how things began and why they are the way they are. When you start a religion you have to have an answer for everything. Nothing more than camp fire stories. Sorry no links, just my opinion. I'm not going searching for links listing a bunch of doctors and theologians I've never heard of just to add credence to my opinion.
that's your opinion, fine, you admit that you haven't studied the subject, it seems you've just accepted the negative modern pop-cultural opinion without honest or careful examination. that's your right,
but it don't make it true.

There's FAR more factual info floating around to support the Bible's accuracy than is part of the average popular conversation.

Gaffer

09-02-2014, 09:54 AM

Let's concentrate on this one thing rather than go through and argue each sentence piece by piece.

No need of all species no need for fish or for insects which could survive under the ground and on matts of floating debris and the dead. most animals are small and no need to carry the biggest adult animals. the ark is described as as big as apx 2 footbal feilds and 3 storites tall. It's est carrying space is calculated at about 700-800 railroad box cars. more than enough space to carry species/families with enough gentic diversity to create the animals we have today.

genetic diversity? As in evolving? And true, fish don't need to be there. Except fresh water fish don't survive salt water and vice versa. Birds don't fly well in down pours and don't have any where to shelter or rest. Insects can only go so far under ground and still need air. Many other insects do not burrow. The numbers don't add up no matter how big you make the ark.

It's a story, about a MAN saving all the animals of the world because GOD told him too. A GOD that could have done it all himself. But that's not as dramatic and gives no credit to the man. At the same time we can explain where rainbows come from. What does and omnipotent god need with a bow? Where did the water come from and where did it go?

As for sea shells and things on mountains. Those areas use to be ocean floors and were raised up in huge earthquakes. Water drains off and fish and shells remain. Happened several million years ago. Seventh grade science there.

revelarts

09-02-2014, 10:21 AM

Let's concentrate on this one thing rather than go through and argue each sentence piece by piece.

genetic diversity? As in evolving? And true, fish don't need to be there. Except fresh water fish don't survive salt water and vice versa. Birds don't fly well in down pours and don't have any where to shelter or rest. Insects can only go so far under ground and still need air. Many other insects do not burrow. The numbers don't add up no matter how big you make the ark.

It's a story, about a MAN saving all the animals of the world because GOD told him too. A GOD that could have done it all himself. But that's not as dramatic and gives no credit to the man. At the same time we can explain where rainbows come from. What does and omnipotent god need with a bow? Where did the water come from and where did it go?

As for sea shells and things on mountains. Those areas use to be ocean floors and were raised up in huge earthquakes. Water drains off and fish and shells remain. Happened several million years ago. Seventh grade science there.

Gaffer you brought up 15-30 topics in the previous post i replied to 15.
now you say you want to deal with 1 at a time which you feel you can rebut, but still bring up 8 issues.

genetic diversity...
fresh water fish...
birds...
insects...
purpose of story...
rainbows...
water source...
mountain origins...

I'm not sure how i can reply to all of that WITHOUT going sentence by sentence.
Do you want to restate an objection to a single point?

or should i just hit them all.
I like to try to make honest and full replies to fair questions ,
it'd be nice to have the same returned btw.

revelarts

09-02-2014, 10:31 AM

NightTrain

09-02-2014, 11:22 AM

revelarts

09-02-2014, 11:54 AM

A minor point, here... freshwater fish do voluntarily enter saltwater and indeed thrive there, returning years later to their freshwater birthplace to spawn. The curious thing is that only some do, while others remain where they were born.

Some Dolly Varden make the journey, and are then identified as Arctic Char. All 5 species of salmon do the same. Rainbow Trout return as Steelhead. Northern Pike swim from river mouth to river mouth out in the ocean and that's how they're spreading here in AK. There's lots more examples, but those are some local critters that I'm familiar with that do it.

Then you have the reverse - there's been many cases of saltwater shark attacks in freshwater rivers & lakes... somewhat unusual but it does happen. The sharks were cruising freshwater for some reason, voluntarily.

I'm no marine biologist by any stretch, but it seems to me that any fish can and will switch water types if they decide to do it. Freshwater fish returning from the ocean are a lot bigger than their counterparts that chose to remain, I would imagine it has something to do with more abundance of food and the big tank/big fish phenomena.

Yep, and then you add to that this.

...Scientists have discovered enormous reserves of fresh, low salinity water in pockets under the ocean. This has the potential to bring clean drinking water to those who are water insecure for decades to come. The findings were announced in the December 5 issue of Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v504/n7478/full/nature12858.html) by lead author Vincent Post from the School of the Environment at Flinders University.

There is likely half a million cubic kilometers of freshwater (about 1.3 x 1017 gallons) stored in pockets on continental shelves below the ocean floor. While the existence of these freshwater reservoirs weren’t news to environmental scientists, the full extent was quite a surprise.

These reservoirs (http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/flinders-news/2013/12/06/vast-freshwater-reserves-found-beneath-the-oceans/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=vast-freshwater-reserves-found-beneath-the-oceans) formed hundreds of thousands of years ago, when the sea levels were much lower due to so much water being tied up into glaciers. Rain water collected in divots and was ultimately covered over by sediment and clay. When the salty ocean water levels became higher about 20,000 years ago, the pockets of freshwater were protected underneath.

This presents a huge opportunity to tap into the aquifer for a source of drinking water. Traditional methods of filtering sea water for human consumption is expensive and leaves hypersalinated water as a byproduct. Because the water found in these reservoirs does not have such a high salt content, it could be a much more desirable source of potable water....

look how they believe this happened
"Rain water collected in divots and was ultimately covered over by sediment and clay."
covered in sediments and clay SUDDENLY maybe? maybe some were uncover as well as waters receded.
also in a large flood isn't it possible that the salinity of the water could be affected, where some area would have high salinity others lower?

Gunny

09-02-2014, 12:18 PM

Sure people don't have to believe that Lincoln was shot or that Atila the hun was a real person. But they can't honestly claim their disbelief to be binding on others if they can't produce good facts to back up their versions of history. and they shouldn't force it on other in schools etc right?

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but they are not to entitled to claim the facts are on their side when they are not.

Concerning dishonesty, well there's a difference between people being sincere in their beliefs and being factually correct.

We may be giving an honest opinion
but be factually dishonest unwittingly without malice or an intent to deceive.

And when it comes to matters of faith, well there are people that SAW Jesus do miracles and they did not believe. Saw people rise from the dead, and did not believe.
the facts don't always changes hearts but the facts must be presented as facts to allow those who will believe a foundation to trust in God.
Jesus gave people enough hard evidence to believe for the whole show but we all have to take that final step.
the Bible says the Heavens declares the glory of God and Earth his handiwork.
and it's true. I think we all know this instinctively, but we to often suppress the truth in our unrighteousness.

anyway, yeah later.

Going out on a limb with your examples, dontcha' think? You are speaking of historical fact. Has nothing to do when speaking of theory and/or faith. BOTH are based on belief. Neither has been proven.

It seems we both have come to the same conclusion, just by different means. I use common sense and logic. And I use scientific theory against physical scientific law. If I had to read through all that data, I'd go throw myself off a bridge.:laugh:

You might want to try an abridged version for us old guys. ;)

revelarts

09-02-2014, 04:21 PM

Going out on a limb with your examples, dontcha' think? You are speaking of historical fact. Has nothing to do when speaking of theory and/or faith. BOTH are based on belief. Neither has been proven.

It seems we both have come to the same conclusion, just by different means. I use common sense and logic. And I use scientific theory against physical scientific law. If I had to read through all that data, I'd go throw myself off a bridge.:laugh:

You might want to try an abridged version for us old guys. ;)

well,
here's the thing historical "facts" like
Lincoln was shot is either real or it wasn't.
There's a certain amount of evidence that supports it as fact
Going further back there was a city named Troy. Years ago there was some evidence that it was real but most thought it myth, however the city remains were found. so now people KNOW that it was indeed a historical city.

The fact that people DID NOT believe that Troy was a real place didn't MAKE it any less real.
The evidence was there the whole time. but people didn't see it. many probably walked right over it.

But it was a fact of reality. regardless of people beliefs.

Same with so called "religious" ideas. At least in Christianity. most events are not presented as allegory... PRIMARILY.

Either Jesus rose from the dead in reality or not.
Faith doesn't make it true or not.
It's either historically true or not.

Whether people believe ANY event is real or not is on them.
But whether it's a historical fact or not is what the evidence shows and finally reality says, period.

Gunny

09-02-2014, 06:10 PM

well,
here's the thing historical "facts" like
Lincoln was shot is either real or it wasn't.
There's a certain amount of evidence that supports it as fact
Going further back there was a city named Troy. Years ago there was some evidence that it was real but most thought it myth, however the city remains were found. so now people KNOW that it was indeed a historical city.

The fact that people DID NOT believe that Troy was a real place didn't MAKE it any less real.
The evidence was there the whole time. but people didn't see it. many probably walked right over it.

But it was a fact of reality. regardless of people beliefs.

Same with so called "religious" ideas. At least in Christianity. most events are not presented as allegory... PRIMARILY.

Either Jesus rose from the dead in reality or not.
Faith doesn't make it true or not.
It's either historically true or not.

Whether people believe ANY event is real or not is on them.
But whether it's a historical fact or not is what the evidence shows and finally reality says, period.

You're mixing apples n oranges. The two subjects you discuss don't mix, and you're trying to mix them. It IS on people what they wish to believe in. You keep using Lincoln and Christ's resurrection as some kind of examples, and they are not comparable.

Hundreds of people witnessed the same event in Lincoln's assassination. Regardless the nuances, the same basic fat is: John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln. That is part of modern, documented history.

Christ's resurrection is witnessed by few, and documented in the Bible. The accounts of his resurrection are individual, and divergent. THAT has to be taken on faith.

There is historical evidence that the city-state of Troy existed.

Baba Booey

09-02-2014, 06:13 PM

Gaffer

09-02-2014, 07:37 PM

Gaffer you brought up 15-30 topics in the previous post i replied to 15.
now you say you want to deal with 1 at a time which you feel you can rebut, but still bring up 8 issues.

genetic diversity...
fresh water fish...
birds...
insects...
purpose of story...
rainbows...
water source...
mountain origins...

I'm not sure how i can reply to all of that WITHOUT going sentence by sentence.
Do you want to restate an objection to a single point?

or should i just hit them all.
I like to try to make honest and full replies to fair questions ,
it'd be nice to have the same returned btw.

Your list is just all the things having to do with Noah's Ark. You want to just do a word at a time instead of an event? I don't like doing one sentence at a time. You have to talk with FJ if you want to dissect sentences. But lets start with genetic diversity aka evolution.

revelarts

09-02-2014, 07:42 PM

"Myth" isn't the appropriate term, theory is.

"Myth" is more appropriate for creationism but I wouldn't use it in that context.

I don't understand why it isn't more popular for both of these theories, beliefs, etc. to be blended. I'm a Christian, so I do believe in creationism but I don't subscribe to that biblical Adam and Eve bullshit. I think we evolved more or less how Darwin and other scientists theorize but this evolution was created.

ah well , another poor deluded brother. taken in by the thin lies of the world and 100 year old BS "science" that's be losing ground since the day it was dumped on humanity.

Baba that comment was pretty harsh, i'm assuming you can take it as well a dish it out.
so at the risk of being considered a "bully" by K and upsetting AboutTime by reminding him of some guys he knew in the army.
this is going to be a bit strait forward,
but I'm just laying out the logical alternatives as i see them. my apologies before hand to innocent bystanders.

so, It's weird for me to hear people who are Christians say they don't believe in Adam.
Especially since Jesus seems to. and he Based his teaching on marriage and divorce on Adam and Eve. Would you base your teaching on marriage on snow white and the seven dwarfs?
the Apostle Paul seemed to believe in a literal Adam and Eve and was lead by the Holy Spirit (if we as Christians believe in such a thing) to say that Adam and his sin is the ROOT of humanities problem. If he's a myth there is NO real root of humanities sin issue. in fact >THERE IS NO SIN issue, at least not as the Bible describes it. NO original sin. Since we came from monkeys, that God created good (maybe) I suppose . But Darwin didn't tell us what to think concerning the morals of the monkeys so... no wait he did. he said something about survival of the fittest. Darwin knows better than Jesus and Paul, who use myths, so the only real basis for a moral code is what the prophet Darwin gives us. And since he's right and the "BS" stories of the Bible are wrong, Paul is wrong, Jesus is Wrong ... anything goes.

it follows logically anyway.
unless we don't want to use logic here.
If instead we want to use a BUFFET style religion where we pick the parts of the Bible we like (or think maybe might be true in some way sometimes) and pick the parts of the current cultures views on history and the world we like and mix them in a stew that makes us feel good.
No need for consistency there.
It works fine. If that's what we want to do then fine. no need for a logical theology base on the Bible. when you can just chuck whatever parts you consider wrong anytime. and make up theology as you go.

that seem like BS to me but for some Christians it works ok.
they believe in Jesus just not in EVERYTHING he said or or taught. that'd be to radical and not inline with the current "science" which is always right and never changes world without end amen.

Baba Booey

09-02-2014, 07:50 PM

ah well , another poor deluded brother. taken in by the thin lies of the world and 100 year old BS "science" that's be losing ground since the day it was dumped on humanity.

Baba that comment was pretty harsh, i'm assuming you can take it as well a dish it out.
so at the risk of being considered a "bully" by K and upsetting AboutTime by reminding him of some guys he knew in the army.
this is going to be a bit strait forward,
but I'm just laying out the logical alternatives as i see them. my apologies before hand to innocent bystanders.

so, It's weird for me to hear people who are Christians say they don't believe in Adam.
Especially since Jesus seems to. and he Based his teaching on marriage and divorce on Adam and Eve. Would you base your teaching on marriage on snow white and the seven dwarfs?
the Apostle Paul seemed to believe in a literal Adam and Eve and was lead by the Holy Spirit (if we as Christians believe in such a thing) to say that Adam and his sin is the ROOT of humanities problem. If he's a myth there is NO real root of humanities sin issue. in fact >THERE IS NO SIN issue, at least not as the Bible describes it. NO original sin. Since we came from monkeys, that God created good (maybe) I suppose . But Darwin didn't tell us what to think concerning the morals of the monkeys so... no wait he did. he said something about survival of the fittest. Darwin knows better than Jesus and Paul, who use myths, so the only real basis for a moral code is what the prophet Darwin gives us. And since he's right and the "BS" stories of the Bible are wrong, Paul is wrong, Jesus is Wrong ... anything goes.

it follows logically anyway.
unless we don't want to use logic here.
If instead we want to use a BUFFET style religion where we pick the parts of the Bible we like (or think maybe might be true in some way sometimes) and pick the parts of the current cultures views on history and the world we like and mix them in a stew that makes us feel good.
No need for consistency there.
It works fine. If that's what we want to do then fine. no need for a logical theology base on the Bible. when you can just chuck whatever parts you consider wrong anytime. and make up theology as you go.

that seem like BS to me but for some Christians it works ok.
they believe in Jesus just not in EVERYTHING he said or or taught. that'd be to radical and not inline with the current "science" which is always right and never changes world without end amen.

I didn't think my comment was harsh, or yours for that matter. Maybe yours was a bit trying-too-hard.

Either way, I think you missed my point - or redirected the flow of discussion back to an agenda you're more comfortable, which is fine.

You have my opinion for what it's worth.

revelarts

09-02-2014, 09:40 PM

I didn't think my comment was harsh, or yours for that matter. Maybe yours was a bit trying-too-hard.

Either way, I think you missed my point - or redirected the flow of discussion back to an agenda you're more comfortable, which is fine.

You have my opinion for what it's worth.

Cool, i've said similar things to people and they've been highly offended.

as far as redirection goes. I'm not so sure. You said Drawin was basically correct and called Adam and Eve a BS story.
But the Bible is a whole piece. and operates on a logical narrative and it's theology is based on all that narrative.

If one dismisses Adam backhandedly, you've done damage to the Biblical narrative at the root.

Adam >Noah> Abraham> Moses> Judges> David> the other kings> the prophets> the Apostles and Jesus.
Adam is a foundation stone.

Many haven't thought it through or been taught the scripture in that fashion, but it is what it is.
you added that you BLEND Darwinism with parts Creation you choose to believe.

so is that "redirection" on my part?
If so what were you trying to say?

revelarts

09-02-2014, 10:10 PM

But lets start with genetic diversity aka evolution.

so are you saying that the genetic difference that make an Italian and Chinese distinct is EVOLUTION?
and that if humans cross breed long enough that they'll get a new kind of human, maybe with wings or extra fingers because it's useful?

When i say genetic diversity I'm talking about what we know experimentally about the range of options the genes give people when the parents mate. Like traits for black hair or brown etc..
the diversity that's already within the genes an is only expressed in various ways. Because it's already THERE. and NOT changing.

When a white couple has a black baby, the father doesn't say "LOOK it's evolution." He wonders WHERE his wife (or he) got the genetic info for those traits. Because new features don't just pop-up outta nowhere.

As i mention in an different thread. the limits of genetic diversity are becoming more and more well known. (as if they weren't before) I mentioned horticulturalist TRYING to breed a blue rose for like 300 years. This is not a DRASTIC change but they were not able to do it because the rose DOES not have the genetic capacity. The growers could only do it when they took dna from ANOTHER flower and artificially spiced it into the rose.
There was no chance a rose was going to evolve into blue. Zero. the range of working genetic diversity is limited and fixed. If it goes out of it's genetic range it's a deformity.

Experiments have been done for 40,000+ generations on a certain Bacteria to track evolutionary changes. they still get the same creature... a bacteria. They've bombarded fruit flies with every known mutagentic agent for thousands of generations and all they get is busted up, crippled, weird Fruit Flies. not bees or ants or caterpillars or misquotes or even fruit flies with ANY BETTER features.

basically, genetic diversity is the limit range of variation a good set of genes has to REcreate the creature it's been programed create.

revelarts

09-03-2014, 12:28 AM

You're mixing apples n oranges. The two subjects you discuss don't mix, and you're trying to mix them. It IS on people what they wish to believe in. You keep using Lincoln and Christ's resurrection as some kind of examples, and they are not comparable.

Hundreds of people witnessed the same event in Lincoln's assassination. Regardless the nuances, the same basic fat is: John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln. That is part of modern, documented history.

Christ's resurrection is witnessed by few, and documented in the Bible. The accounts of his resurrection are individual, and divergent. THAT has to be taken on faith.

There is historical evidence that the city-state of Troy existed.

we agree again, mostly
Whether or not people believe it was an historical event or not is on them.
for Lincoln or the resurrection.
this is what i mean.
we agree that there are varying degrees of historical evidence.
But variation is in degree not in kind.

Jesus was a real person, historical scholarship, secular and religious, agree.
he was crucified, again there's agreement.

Next we have evidence of a resurrection as you mention by way of eyewitnesses. not a few as you say but apx 15 men and 5 women that day and apx 500 after that. is what the record presents.
Am i right in saying that there are currently people on death row that have FAR fewer witnesses, with less aligned stories of the murder than of Jesus's Resurrection?

when a murder case is presented, the evidence and witnesses often don't completely align.
And as you mention with Lincoln. There are vagaries of the story there.
But the primary points. Booth killed Lincoln, is well established.

similarly with the resurrection there are difference in a few details of the accounts but the primary fact are repeatedly well established. He was seen alive from the dead on the same morning, spoke to people, and disciples. this never changes and is of course the main point.

then on the other side people have to account for the missing body. Which hasn't been done to this day. and Officials, of the the day had very good reason to want to squash the "rumors" and present the body. but they did not.

The consequences of believing evidence and the miraculous nature of the event is the thing that puts it in different place.
But the event itself is either a fact or not.

this is a point i keep repeating because some people i've talked to have told me that
"it's JUST faith... But if Jesus arose for real doesn't really matter. "
Or even worse they say outright that "he didn't and all that matters is you believe it."

now THAT type of thinking makes the Resurrection vs Lincoln an apples and oranges issue.

But again, i stress the docs themselves do not ask people to believe it because it's nice myth.

Peter wrote plainly "we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we told you about Jesus, we were eyewitnesses." Paul said if "Christ did not rise then we are liars."

It does of course take faith to believe in the Jesus and his reseruction.
but that faith is not based on fairy stories,
but evidence in everyday reality. this is my point.

sorry it's so long, but folks here will tell you sometimes I just can't cut myself off.

Baba Booey

09-03-2014, 02:24 AM

Cool, i've said similar things to people and they've been highly offended.

as far as redirection goes. I'm not so sure. You said Drawin was basically correct and called Adam and Eve a BS story.
But the Bible is a whole piece. and operates on a logical narrative and it's theology is based on all that narrative.

If one dismisses Adam backhandedly, you've done damage to the Biblical narrative at the root.

Adam >Noah> Abraham> Moses> Judges> David> the other kings> the prophets> the Apostles and Jesus.
Adam is a foundation stone.

Many haven't thought it through or been taught the scripture in that fashion, but it is what it is.
you added that you BLEND Darwinism with parts Creation you choose to believe.

so is that "redirection" on my part?
If so what were you trying to say?

Drawin? :laugh:

I think the bible has some historical value but the rhetorical "stories" are mostly full of shit. Keep in mind the bible was written by man, not God. What we see in modern radical Islam probably wasn't much like what ancient Judaism, Christianity, etc. were like - a lot of zealots using religion as a means of controlling people, so they bake shit up to enforce their agenda.

That's my opinion at least and it's probably not popular.

While what's accurate in the bible can be argued and disputed until the end of days, evolution has a much stronger scientific and factual basis to work from, grant it it's still a theory and there are gaps in the logic but on the whole it's a pretty strong theory at this point.

So I tend to merge the two.

Gunny

09-03-2014, 06:16 AM

we agree again, mostly
Whether or not people believe it was an historical event or not is on them.
for Lincoln or the resurrection.
this is what i mean.
we agree that there are varying degrees of historical evidence.
But variation is in degree not in kind.

Jesus was a real person, historical scholarship, secular and religious, agree.
he was crucified, again there's agreement.

Next we have evidence of a resurrection as you mention by way of eyewitnesses. not a few as you say but apx 15 men and 5 women that day and apx 500 after that. is what the record presents.
Am i right in saying that there are currently people on death row that have FAR fewer witnesses, with less aligned stories of the murder than of Jesus's Resurrection?

when a murder case is presented, the evidence and witnesses often don't completely align.
And as you mention with Lincoln. There are vagaries of the story there.
But the primary points. Booth killed Lincoln, is well established.

similarly with the resurrection there are difference in a few details of the accounts but the primary fact are repeatedly well established. He was seen alive from the dead on the same morning, spoke to people, and disciples. this never changes and is of course the main point.

then on the other side people have to account for the missing body. Which hasn't been done to this day. and Officials, of the the day had very good reason to want to squash the "rumors" and present the body. but they did not.

The consequences of believing evidence and the miraculous nature of the event is the thing that puts it in different place.
But the event itself is either a fact or not.

this is a point i keep repeating because some people i've talked to have told me that
"it's JUST faith... But if Jesus arose for real doesn't really matter. "
Or even worse they say outright that "he didn't and all that matters is you believe it."

now THAT type of thinking makes the Resurrection vs Lincoln an apples and oranges issue.

But again, i stress the docs themselves do not ask people to believe it because it's nice myth.

Peter wrote plainly "we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we told you about Jesus, we were eyewitnesses." Paul said if "Christ did not rise then we are liars."

It does of course take faith to believe in the Jesus and his reseruction.
but that faith is not based on fairy stories,
but evidence in everyday reality. this is my point.

sorry it's so long, but folks here will tell you sometimes I just can't cut myself off.

Eyewitness accounts have mostly given way to forensics. Scientific/historic proof. Don't get me wrong. I've seen some convictions based on forensics and the prosecution filling in the blanks that I were complete crap. IMO, you need both. The human side AND the forensics.

Most of the New Testament was written WAY after the fact, and the writers had an agenda. Some historical fact DOES support the basic events. Not saying I don't believe it. Just saying my belief is based on faith. THAT is what Christianity s about. Faith.

IMO, I think you have lost sight of that in your quest to prove it is real. I am certainly not criticizing you for it. We all find our own way. :)

revelarts

09-03-2014, 06:27 PM

Eyewitness accounts have mostly given way to forensics. Scientific/historic proof. Don't get me wrong. I've seen some convictions based on forensics and the prosecution filling in the blanks that I were complete crap. IMO, you need both. The human side AND the forensics.

Most of the New Testament was written WAY after the fact, and the writers had an agenda. Some historical fact DOES support the basic events. Not saying I don't believe it. Just saying my belief is based on faith. THAT is what Christianity s about. Faith.

IMO, I think you have lost sight of that in your quest to prove it is real. I am certainly not criticizing you for it. We all find our own way. :)

that's fine, we can disagree,
I guess i feel that you may be dismissive of the reality that is foundational to the faith.
But you might be surprised how many people, how many books have been written, how much in depth scholarly work has been done on this subject.

Like a famous murder case, the facts have been dissected thoruoghly. So it's not just wishing thinking that i present the info the way i do.
There have been skeptics lawyers, drs, reporters and researchers of the past centruy and this one that have set out to PROVE that the Resurrection was just a myth or collection of stories made up by fanatics or something. but fairly often after their research they became Christians. Because of the historical facts they could not dismiss.

saying off the cuff
"Most of the New Testament was written WAY after the fact, and the writers had an agenda. Some historical fact DOES support the basic events..." doesn't do justice to the facts .
The evidence is MUCH better than that Gunny.
and the 1st portions the new testament are dated at the 1st lastest 2nd century. apx 70 ad. But there are other writings in the 1st century even closer which are not scripture that mention the Christian faith the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. So the story was ALREADY in the wind before the Official writing of the gospels was done. And as mentioned before Peter wrote while he was alive as an eyewitness, and Unless you think he had death wish "agenda" I'm not sure why he'd keep insisting on repeating the Resurrection account.

there are various ways people come to faith, some don't need very much info or details. however some are from Missouri and want more, all I'm pointing out is that there is IN FACT more than enough evidence to consider FAITH without some leap in the dark.

Thomas wasn't kicked to the curb for asking to see the nails.
Jesus said "LOOK and SEE".
When Jesus spoke to the crowd of doubters, he said if you don't believe my words believe what you SEE I have done .
referring to the miracles.

the whole of the gospel narrative is based on the idea "here's the messiah" and here's the evidence of that claim. His words, miracles and his Resurrection.

you may think i've "lost" something but to me the historical info is amazing.

Gunny

09-03-2014, 06:45 PM

that's fine, we can disagree,
I guess i feel that you may be dismissive of the reality that is foundational to the faith.
But you might be surprised how many people, how many books have been written, how much in depth scholarly work has been done on this subject.

Like famous murder case the facts have been dissected thoruoghly. So it's not just wishing thinking that i present the info the way i do.
There have been skeptics lawyers, drs, reporters and researchers of the past centruy and this one that have set out to PROVE that the Resurrection was just a myth or collection of stories made up by fanatics or something. but fairly often after their research they became Christians. Because of the historical facts they could not dismiss.

saying off the cuff
"Most of the New Testament was written WAY after the fact, and the writers had an agenda. Some historical fact DOES support the basic events." doesn't do justice to the facts .
The evidence is MUCH better than that Gunny.
and the 1st docs of portions the new testament are dated at the 1st lastest 2nd century. apx 70 ad. But there are other writings in the 1st century even closer which are not scripture that mention the Christian faith the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. So the story was ALREADY in the wind before the Official writing of the gospels was done. ANd as mentioned before Peter wrote while he was alive as an eyewitness, and Unless you think he had death wish agenda I'm not sure why he'd keep insisting on repeating the Resurrection account.

but any
there are various way people come to faith, some don't need very much info or details. however some are from Missouri and want more, all I'm pointing out is that there is IN FACT more than enough evidence to consider FAITH without some leap in the dark.

Thomas wasn't kicked to the curb for asking to see the nails.
Jesus said "LOOK and SEE".
When Jesus spoke to the crowd of doubters, he said if you don't believe my words believe what you SEE I have done " the miracles" .

the whole of the gospel narrative is based on the idea "here's the messiah" and here's the evidence of that claim. His words, miracles and his Resurrection.

you may think i've "lost" something but to me the historical info is amazing.

I'm not dismissive. Not at all.

You are attempting to support your faith with scientific/historical back up to convince others. I have no problem with that. All my point to YOU ever was is I don't need all that.

I HAVE faith. I don't need all that backup for it. I take His Word for what it is.

My question to you is: Who EXACTLY are you trying to convince? Others? Me? Or perhaps yourself ... ?

It's all good. If you wish to think we disagree, so be it. Seems to me we both arrived at the same conclusion by different means. :)

revelarts

09-03-2014, 07:28 PM

I'm not dismissive. Not at all.

You are attempting to support your faith with scientific/historical back up to convince others. I have no problem with that. All my point to YOU ever was is I don't need all that.

I HAVE faith. I don't need all that backup for it. I take His Word for what it is.

My question to you is: Who EXACTLY are you trying to convince? Others? Me? Or perhaps yourself ... ?

It's all good. If you wish to think we disagree, so be it. Seems to me we both arrived at the same conclusion by different means. :)

Good enough.

as far as who am i trying to "convince" .
well it'd be nice to convince people who say the bible is full of BS stories.
Or those who claim (without evidence mind you) that x or y event in the Bible is "impossible" especially when it can be honestly shown that it's not.

But I've always been curious about stuff at the edge of convention and had an over-reactive instinct against lies and liars.
Growing older it's been painful for me to really grasps that many people DO NOT want to know the truth ... in many areas.. the status quo is fine for many.
For instance if you know you mom is killing herself by smoking and eating that crap, but she gets mad at you if you bring it up and show her "the facts.".
People's reaction to facts is often not rational.
health? ... "don't bother me, i've always done x".. .and "it's all bad for you anyway..."
politics? ... "my side is right, everyone else is all wrong all the time and they are stupid."
religion? ... "don't mention facts good, bad or other wise, you'll just be offensive... just believe and keep it to yourself."

I've always asked to many friggin questions, but i find most people don't really want to step out and explore unconventional or uncomfortable questions or stand by truths that aren't not part of a party line.

maybe this should go in your human nature thread.

Gunny

09-03-2014, 08:31 PM

Good enough.

as far as who am i trying to "convince" .
well it'd be nice to convince people who say the bible is full of BS stories.
Or those who claim (without evidence mind you) that x or y event in the Bible is "impossible" especially when it can be honestly shown that it's not.

But I've always been curious about stuff at the edge of convention and had an over-reactive instinct against lies and liars.
Growing older it's been painful for me to really grasps that many people DO NOT want to know the truth ... in many areas.. the status quo is fine for many.
For instance if you know you mom is killing herself by smoking and eating that crap, but she gets mad at you if you bring it up and show her "the facts.".
People's reaction to facts is often not rational.
health? ... "don't bother me, i've always done x".. .and "it's all bad for you anyway..."
politics? ... "my side is right, everyone else is all wrong all the time and they are stupid."
religion? ... "don't mention facts good, bad or other wise, you'll just be offensive... just believe and keep it to yourself."

I've always asked to many friggin questions, but i find most people don't really want to step out and explore unconventional or uncomfortable questions or stand by truths that aren't not part of a party line.

maybe this should go in your human nature thread.

I agree with everything you posted. It applies to politics as much as anything else. Most people don't want to think. I've said that for years. I think too much as well. I've just reconciled this topic within myself. I HAD to. I'd be laying on the floor somewhere drunk, or dead, had I not done so.

revelarts

10-26-2014, 03:59 PM

older booklet still good stuff

the Evolution Crisis (http://wallingtongospelhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/the-evolution-crisis.pdf)

Read the stories of 5 PhD atheist scientists who came to believe in the Creator.

Introduction

The Challenge of Creation (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony1.php)
Testing Truth with an Open Mind (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php)
From Oxford Atheist to Leading Creationist (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony3.php)
Superb Design (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony4.php)
From Evolution to Creation (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.php)
To The Reader (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/to-the-reader.php)
Resources (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/resources.php)
Credits (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/credits.php)

IntroductionCharles Darwin's 1859 book, The Origin of Species, radically reshaped the world's view not merely of science, but of politics, morality, sociology, psychology and religion.

Yet as the 21st century dawned more and more scientists were expressing their doubts as to Darwin's central theory. Over 700 have declared, "We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." (See www.dissentfromdarwin.org (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org)).
In 1976 Professor Dean Kenyon repudiated the conclusion of his own evolutionary University textbook Biochemical Predestination (1969) which he had co-authored with Gary Steinman. His intensive research of amino acids and DNA caused him to reject Darwin's theory and accept Intelligent Design. Then, in 1985, the atheist, Dr. Allan Rex Sandage, regarded as the greatest observational cosmologist in the world, told an American conference on science and religion that he had become a Christian, declaring:

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science ... It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence ... Many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work." It is our hope that this book about five scientists' journeys from Darwinism to creationism will be used to raise questions about evolution and challenge readers to look at other options.

http://wallingtongospelhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/the-evolution-crisis.pdf