Creationists - Explain this please

reply to post by sir_chancealot


"So, no one has communicated with Alex the Parrot, and that Ape that was taught sign language? Nope, no scientific evidence of creatures that can communicate. Granted, you did say "talk", but then again, the bible doesn't say "snake", it says "serpent". While in general language, those are synonymous, in the bible they aren't quite synonymous, as "serpent" is often used specifically of the being known as Satan."

Sooo... just because a Gorilla can communicate simple concepts means that reptiles can talk? Name of those, or any animal, which contains the cognitive abilities necessary to have a detailed and convincing discussion with man about the choice between free will and subservence.

Oh.. but it wasn't an animal... it was SATAN!!.

Now if you can just prove that Satan even exists other than a religious or philisophical concept...

"Go into any hospital in America and ask how many "magical things" happen every day. i.e., people living when there was absolutely no medical reason they should, or even people coming back from the dead (and I'm not talking about resuscitation here). I think you'd be surprised at the number of "magical things" that any nurse or doctor could tell you about."

Don't forget to then ask them how many of those phenomena can actually be attributed to the best of their reasoning to magic or miracles. Doctors don't just chalk that up to divine providence. They study the phenomena to try to learn all they can about it. We also refer to birth as a "miracle", despite knowing in full detail the processes behind it.

"Here's a challenge for you. Find me any book that displays more collected wisdom than the Book of Proverbs.

Encylopedia Brittanica. Volume A.

"Another thing: The bible talks about the earth being round about 2,000 years before anyone else."

It mentions "the circle of the earth", and many flat Earth drawings depict the world being a flat disk. It says nothing of the Earth being spherical. Indeed, I would throw their understanding of circles and spheres into question because they apparently couldn't even solve for Pi. (In the bible, it's simply listed as "3")

"God talks about laying the "foundation stone" of the earth. For 6,000 years, everyone assumed this was just allegorical."

Er, no.. 6,000 years ago people thought the Earth was flat and therefore had NO core. The first known inklings of the Earth being round came from the Greeks in the 6th century BCE.

"Now come on, who in their right mind would have thought that the very core of the earth would be a cube? Well, apparently God did (or at the very least, whoever wrote the Book of Job, if you don't believe in God)."

Er, read the article. It doesn't state the Earth's core is a cube. It talks about the body-centered cubic structure of iron under such conditions. Basically, it's crystaline, but the overall shape of the core is still roughly spherical.

In any case, it doesn't matter since you'd still be wrong. A newer and related story on the very page you linked reveals that the Earth's core is multi-layered. It has an inner-inner core. And it's not a cube either.

ScienceDaily

It mentions "the circle of the earth", and many flat Earth drawings depict the world being a flat disk. It says nothing of the Earth being spherical. Indeed, I would throw their understanding of circles and spheres into question because they apparently couldn't even solve for Pi. (In the bible, it's simply listed as "3")

actually the hebrew word for "circle" was also used for "sphere"

job also says
job 26:[7] He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

reply to post by miriam0566


Spheres and Circles are two very different shapes, so it's important to make the distinction. Which do they mean? And further, the bible in many passages (including Job) makes mentions of Pillars of the Earth. This is a direct reference to Babylonian thought of the Earth being a flat disk resting upon pillars, covered by a crystalline dome, in a vast ocean.

It also makes mention of being able to show striped patterns to a pregnant cow to produce striped calfs and other absurdities.

The bible cannot be read literally and still be compatible with what we know to be true and observe in reality. It can only be read subjectively as parables and myths, and if that's the case - then there is no conflict between the bible and evolution. Even the Pope agrees to this.

If god did create the universe in all it's form and splendor, then it boggles my mind to see people who would rather trust a bronze-age book written by men about god over what we know to be true about the very works of god itself.

I agree with Thomas Paine who once wrote:

The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."

Please note some of my original response to him have been left off for brevity. Please check previous posts if any quotes seem unclear.

Originally posted by Lasheic
... Oh.. but it wasn't an animal... it was SATAN!!. ...

Nice Reductio ad absurdum. I merely was pointing out your carelessness with language. Also nice "moving the goalposts". You mentioned a talking snake, I named two specific cases of animals communicating (one using actual language, and the other sign language), and suddenly it's not communication, but "discussions of free will". I use the word "communication" because some deaf and/or mute people do not "talk" except through sign language.

Now if you can just prove that Satan even exists other than a religious or philisophical concept...

That is, admittedly, a tough one. I suppose you'll rule out, apriori, the testimony of hundreds of millions of people throughout thousands of years of human history?

...Don't forget to then ask them how many of those phenomena can actually be attributed to the best of their reasoning to magic or miracles. Doctors don't just chalk that up to divine providence. They study the phenomena to try to learn all they can about it. We also refer to birth as a "miracle", despite knowing in full detail the processes behind it.

My quote shows very clearly I was not talking about what can be deemed natural phenomena. I even mentioned people coming back from the dead without resuscitation. Did you misunderstand me, or are you purposefully being deceitful?

"Here's a challenge for you. Find me any book that displays more collected wisdom than the Book of Proverbs.

Encylopedia Brittanica. Volume A.

And here you show your inability to tell the difference between WISDOM and a collection of (generally accepted) facts. The two are not synonymous, and serve very different purposes in humans. Pray tell, where in the Encyclopedia Britannica can I get advice on how to deal with enemies? Or what I should look for in a wife? Or how to treat employees? Or how do deal with foolish men?

"Another thing: The bible talks about the earth being round about 2,000 years before anyone else."

It mentions "the circle of the earth", and many flat Earth drawings depict the world being a flat disk. It says nothing of the Earth being spherical. Indeed, I would throw their understanding of circles and spheres into question because they apparently couldn't even solve for Pi. (In the bible, it's simply listed as "3")

And exactly how many decimal places would have been proof of Pi? 2? 4? 100? Even today, when writing it in decimal, most people will put 3.14, which is not technically correct. As to the "circle" of the earth, some translations have "sphere" instead of circle. One document I found even says that the greeks (taken as a whole) weren't the first to propose a spherical earth, because they never believed the earth was flat. (Admittedly, I did not have the time to further research this claim) What is your opinion about the bible saying God "hangeth the earth upon nothing"? Even you would have to admit that is a pretty good description of how earth looks from space, as opposed to riding on the back of a turtle or elephant, or Atlas' shoulders.

"God talks about laying the "foundation stone" of the earth. For 6,000 years, everyone assumed this was just allegorical."

Er, no.. 6,000 years ago people thought the Earth was flat and therefore had NO core. The first known inklings of the Earth being round came from the Greeks in the 6th century BCE.

*sigh* If we assume your argument that no one before the 6th century BC Greeks knew the world was round, THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT. A "cornerstone" is the first stone laid for a 3 DIMENSIONAL OBJECT. (bridge, building, monument, altar, etc.) For how could a two dimensional object have a "cornerstone"? You don't find roads that have "cornerstones". You don't find patios that have "cornerstones". Yet, even today, you have buildings with "cornerstones", generally noted by plaques.

"Now come on, who in their right mind would have thought that the very core of the earth would be a cube? Well, apparently God did (or at the very least, whoever wrote the Book of Job, if you don't believe in God)."

Er, read the article. It doesn't state the Earth's core is a cube. It talks about the body-centered cubic structure of iron under such conditions. Basically, it's crystaline, but the overall shape of the core is still roughly spherical.

In any case, it doesn't matter since you'd still be wrong. A newer and related story on the very page you linked reveals that the Earth's core is multi-layered. It has an inner-inner core. And it's not a cube either.

ScienceDaily

Most (but not all) crystals will form cubes in nature. Can you give one example of crystals that form a round shape? I suppose one could argue for the inner-inner core being snow-flake shaped, or even some other shape, but I have never heard of a round crystal. (And I'm not being a smart aleck here, I've never heard of crystals that assume a rounded shape) This definition www.answers.com... doesn't seem to leave room that an object composed of crystals can be round, but perhaps I am wrong.

Anyway, we have gotten off topic with this conversation. I'll be happy to take it to u2u if you would like.

My original point remains that Geologists do indeed date strata of rock from the fossils they find in it. I have provided links to reputable sites that readily admit such.

Originally posted by Lasheic
Spheres and Circles are two very different shapes, so it's important to make the distinction.

i agree, but that doesnt change the fact that ancient isrealites used the same word for both.

And further, the bible in many passages (including Job) makes mentions of Pillars of the Earth. This is a direct reference to Babylonian thought of the Earth being a flat disk resting upon pillars, covered by a crystalline dome, in a vast ocean.

why would job so obviously contradict himself like that? one second he says the earth hangs on nothing, and the next its supported by pillars. maybe pillars are symbolic.

job 9:[6] Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

later, he talks about heaven the same way

job 26:[11] The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

pillars can be symbolic for a foundation. not literal pillars

The bible cannot be read literally and still be compatible with what we know to be true and observe in reality. It can only be read subjectively as parables and myths, and if that's the case - then there is no conflict between the bible and evolution. Even the Pope agrees to this.

partially true, while at times there are things that are figurative (creation days, alot of the things entioned in revelation), alot of it is literal (god creating man, jesus' miracles)

I agree with Thomas Paine

if the universe has a god that communicates his will like thomas put it then yes he would be right.

however, it must be noted that the bible disagrees with him

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I think you might find it very interesting to compare the specific gravities of said fossils in layers and consider if it would have been possible for them to have been laid down in a world-wide flood. There have been several papers written about this if you care to look them up.

Not going to help you. For example, ammonites were bouyant but are only found in lower strata. Turtles are heavy dudes but only found in mid to higher strata. Then we have sediments completely jumbled up, coarse above fine, fine above coarse. It just don't fit reality.

The strata layers do not fit any such a flud explanation. We have layers where we can see complete environments - swamps with animal tracks and burrows right in the middle of the geological layers. So unless the biblical flood stopped for a few million years to allow complete ecologies to develop, and then start fludding again, it's another bible-based fantasy.

And by 'papers', of course you mean creationist pseudoscience by the likes of the ICR.

Mount Saint Helens formation of the "mini Grand Canyon" should have laid to rest what we THOUGHT we knew about sedimentary layer formation.

Not at all. I don't think you can compare the formation of a 'canyon' in volcanic ash to the grand canyon.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
So, no one has communicated with Alex the Parrot, and that Ape that was taught sign language? Nope, no scientific evidence of creatures that can communicate. Granted, you did say "talk", but then again, the bible doesn't say "snake", it says "serpent". While in general language, those are synonymous, in the bible they aren't quite synonymous, as "serpent" is often used specifically of the being known as Satan.

Heh.

Why even bother? Why not just say 'magic'. Of course, it's easy to say all that, but it was the poor snakes who were made to walk on their bellies. Maybe Eve was a parseltongue?

Go into any hospital in America and ask how many "magical things" happen every day.

I think the word you are looking for is 'unexpected'.

Here's a challenge for you. Find me any book that displays more collected wisdom than the Book of Proverbs.

I feel Harry Potter can give it a run for its money. But the bible does contain some nuggets of wisdom.

Oh, and guess what? In the Book of Job (considered the oldest book in the bible), God talks about laying the "foundation stone" of the earth. For 6,000 years, everyone assumed this was just allegorical. Guess what? The Center of the earth may be an actual CUBE! www.sciencedaily.com...

Heh.

So if we eventually find it to not have four sides you'll lose your faith?

I do like your pick and mix style.

Now come on, who in their right mind would have thought that the very core of the earth would be a cube? Well, apparently God did (or at the very least, whoever wrote the Book of Job, if you don't believe in God).

Are you really surprised that the ancient dudes who wrote this book used a builder's analogy of 'foundations' and 'corner-stones' etc for the earth?



[edit on 11-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by sir_chancealot


"I merely was pointing out your carelessness with language."
"You mentioned a talking snake"

lol, you weren't even talking to me. I picked up on your discussion with a different poster. Not a good way to prove that you're capable of reading comprehension.

As for your example, even if it was an absurdity, would still be completely wrong because the ability for Gorillas to communicate has absolutely NO bearing what-so-ever on whether or not a snake or serpent can talk. To make that kind of leap of faith statement is like saying that just because a crow can fly, then it should also be possible for an Emu. And they are even both birds!

As for the discussion of free will vs. servitude - that being in reference the cognitive capabilities of an animals ability to communicate. So even if you make the absurd supposition that a serpent could talk or communicate with a human - NO other animal, even with communication ability, has EVER demonstrated an ability to hold a conversation on the level in which it would take to convince Eve to eat of the fruit. Ye shall be as gods, remember?

If I'm ridiculing your statement, it's because it was ridiculous to begin with.

"I suppose you'll rule out, apriori, the testimony of hundreds of millions of people throughout thousands of years of human history?"

Yes. Just as I rule out the testimony of hundreds of millions of people throughout history who testify to the existance of Thor, or Zeus, or Hades, or Endu, or Krishna, or Bast. Every religion has followers which will claim to have had divine revelation, miracles, or supernatural phenomena and NONE of it can be proven true or accurate. Hardly any of it collaborates with any other religions either.

Subjective human testimony is the LEAST credible form of evidence.

"My quote shows very clearly I was not talking about what can be deemed natural phenomena."

And my quote showed very clearly that "miracles" are often referred to when dealing with something which is unknown. Sometimes it is even when it IS known. Just because there is no known explanation, doesn't mean it's not a natural phenomena, and doctors will not rely on miracles to save patients.

Epilepsy used to be known as the "Sacred Disease", a curse from the gods or possession by demons.

"The two are not synonymous, and serve very different purposes in humans. Pray tell, where in the Encyclopedia Britannica can I get advice on how to deal with enemies? Or what I should look for in a wife? Or how to treat employees? Or how do deal with foolish men?"

As per the definition, Wisdom is: The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.

Gaining knowledge and facts is critical in discerning what is true and right. It is critical to insight. To that end, you will find far more wisdom in a collection of facts, than you will in some bronze age texts written by men thousands of years ago who led lives largely inapplicable to today's world.

It's the difference between being wise yourself, or just listening to someone else's perspective.

And exactly how many decimal places would have been proof of Pi? 2? 4? 100? Even today, when writing it in decimal, most people will put 3.14, which is not technically correct.

Pi is commonly truncated to 3.14159265 - which is a pretty damned finite, and orders of leauges far more accurate than simply "3". Still, no accurate description of Pi ever states that it ends at any point. It will always, to be accurate, make note that it is a truncation and that the number is infinite.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot But guess what they do when one of the "absolute" dating methods puts out a date that isn't consistent with the age of the fossils? Care to guess? If you said "They throw it out and say the sample was 'contaminated' you get the gold star!

Originally posted by Lasheic I recall no such event occuring, so please, since you've provided so many other links. Provide one for that story.

hold on . . . let's rewind that . . .

Originally posted by Lasheic If they found a poodle in a cambrian strata layer, you'd be damned sure they will be employing other dating methods.

So what you're saying is, if the data retrieved from the test site is not what is expected and does not fit with the overall theory; it is tested again and again until they get the result they want? These paleontologists must be fresh meat for casinos . . .

Originally posted by LasheicYOU are the link between our primate common ancestor and the species which will evolve from us.

don't you mean the species that will de-evolve from us?

"hit me!"

[edit on 6/11/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by sir_chancealot




Even you would have to admit that is a pretty good description of how earth looks from space, as opposed to riding on the back of a turtle or elephant, or Atlas' shoulders.

No, because the Earth isn't "hanging". it's orbiting. And even if this description were semi-correct, it doesn't allow for other astronomical errors prevalent in the bible. Many of which contradict each other. I could throw out a hundred different baseless examples of what might be at the center of a black hole, and claim I was divinely inspired - but even if one of those ideas somehow remotely resembled how the interior of a black hole operated, it wouldn't actually mean I was divinely inspired.

Of course, a major difference in the example I listed being that the bible had several authors and I only counted myself.

If we assume your argument that no one before the 6th century BC Greeks knew the world was round

Er, 6th century BCE would be 2,600 years ago roughly. Yer a lil off in yer maths thar.

A "cornerstone" is the first stone laid for a 3 DIMENSIONAL OBJECT

Iron is not a stone. The core of the Earth is not Cubical. There is no "Cornerstone" of the Earth.

You don't find roads that have "cornerstones". You don't find patios that have "cornerstones"

You don't have spheres that have cornerstones either.

Can you give one example of crystals that form a round shape?

Er, the core of the earth isn't one GIANT cube iron crystal. It's is a collection of hundreds of thousands of cubicle structures. The surface of the earth isn't populated by concave disk shapes, but it's spherical.

Do you understand that concept and what you're failing to grasp?

My original point remains that Geologists do indeed date strata of rock from the fossils they find in it.

And your point is moot, because they used multiple differing dating methods from multiple samples from multiple locations to corroborate the data. They don't just basely identify the strata by the fossils and call it a day.

I have provided links to reputable sites that readily admit such.

You cherry picked the information you wanted to misrepresent a field of study.

Anyway, we have gotten off topic with this conversation.

You should know. You're the one who lead it off-topic. You never answered the OP's question, but rather took an opportunity to divert the conversation by trying to poke holes in an established scientific method. Claiming that Geologists don't know what their doing is NOT an explanation for...

"how do you (creationists) explain that we have found fossils of animals that have been living only in a certain time period and not before that time."

Originally posted by miriam0566
so essentially you ask what a creationist believes, then reject his answer because its too simple?

if god creates a life, lets call this life "bob", what is the physical process this god would us to create bob?

first, what is the ability of god? is he omnipotent? if he is, how is saying "god thought up bob and *pop* there was bob" a non-answer. because its unlikely to you? would it be better if god took clay and breathed life into it? would the presence of a process make it more acceptable to you?

an omnipotent god is omnipotent, he/she/it can do anything. so your reply to ferdane isnt appropriate because he DID answer the question.

Hello again, miriam.

I was just suggesting that what he is talking about is comparable to magic. Of course I dismiss your faith-based ramblings. However, I was more interested in getting someone to answer the OPs question. And in a confused way he did, from what I gather it came down to:

'the evidence you have is wrong, it was a supernatural magic-man that done it. He can do anything'.

Why x? God wanted it that way, he's magic donchyaknow.

Why a not b? God wanted it that way, he's magic donchyaknow.

Why b not a? God wanted it that way, he's magic donchyaknow.

Once you are not constrained by reality, all you have is one big bag of vacuity. If that sort of answer gives you a fuzzy feeling inside, I can ride with that. Just don't expect me to buy it. It can answer absolutely everything - no rhyme, no reason.

But at least he did attempt to answer the OP, so he deserves kudos for that.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by redshirt0202

 

If you ask a religious person a question that is designed to highlight a highly illogical situation, the answer is always some version of "God did it". When asked why, they will reply "God works in mysterious ways; it's not possible for us to understand".

I'll call your "..mysterious ways.." and raise you: "Dinosaur fossils were put on earth by God in order to test our faith." I kid you not, I've heard this #*&% so many times.
Here's what you do: God is testing My faith, dinosaurs are testing Theirs, ipso-facto God is a dinosaur. There, sorted. But only temporarily mind you, these folks just won't stay down.

reply to post by JPhish


So what you're saying is, if the data retrieved from the test site is not what is expected and does not fit with the overall theory; it is tested again and again until they get the result they want?

Not at all. They would retest to confirm the data. As would other scientists. If the dating methods prove to be accurate, then that would throw Evolutionary theory a major curveball.

don't you mean the species that will de-evolve from us?

De-evolution isn't possible. There's no such thing.

To reply to miriam0566:

pillars can be symbolic for a foundation. not literal pillars

If pillars are symbolic, then couldn't a circular earth described in Job also be symbolic? Even so, why would he be right when the structure of the earth and it's celestial place be so wrong in other passages of the bible? Isn't it all the unwavering truth revealed by god?

No, the ENTIRE bible is subjective and filled with symbolism, metaphor, and parable. You can't just pick out one passage which seems to fit a point you want to make and then justify it without any real measure as to what makes that particular passage any more accurate than the other ones and claim it was inspired - and that the ancients knew "the truth", especially when they were quite clearly very confused on that and many other points.

alot of it is literal (god creating man, jesus' miracles)

God's creation of man comes from the exact same source as the six creation days. You can't just pick out at your own whim which is literal and which is figurative. And really, is it any less absurd to believe that God couldn't create the world in six days, he had to use millions of years - but he REALLY did literally breath life into clay to form man and then split his rib to make women.

Oh, and then created all the evidence to suggest that humans came from the animal kingdom via evolution.

As for Jesus's miracles, there's really no substantive evidence that he even existed outside of the bible. There's a bit of circumstantial evidence, but nothing really having anything to do with his miracles. Pontius Pilot, though, we know he existed via documentation.

I personally don't doubt the existence of a Christ figure. I believe he was real, and that he was in some way connected to the divine, but I would never actually posit that belief as an absolute truth in any manner other than as statement of my belief.

For belief, you don't need evidence.

if the universe has a god that communicates his will like thomas put it then yes he would be right.

You misunderstand. Thomas Paine wasn't saying that god was trying to actively communicate with us through his creation. Merely that his creation is what it is, and that if we wish to know him better - it would be best served through studying his creation.

however, it must be noted that the bible disagrees with him

The bible has yet to prove that is the authority on god. There are a lot of religions, and each have their own bibles, and each claim to know the true state of god. None of them have any real advantages over the other in this regard.

the sedimentary layers do confom to the evolutive scheme. The older the layer, the simplier the organism gets. I do believe in God, but one thing I never get is why do creationists think they do a service to God by making teology out of things God never did or said. All the arguments come from the strugle to say that one day in Genesis is 24 hours. But the word used there is AEON that means age/period of time.And by the way , the Genesis story was copycat of the Summerian mithology - so think twice before you take all that literarry.

Originally posted by JPhish
i love how this thread had posed a question for creationists and yet anti-creationists are the only ones responding . . .

It's a little arrogant to presume that you know how creationists will respond to the question.

Except my answers were essentially right. We have god poofing stuff into existence, and the flud laying down fossils in particular order (i.e. specific gravity), and, of course, science being the sux0rz.

I'm also very interested in answers given by others (and have tried to get people to focus), but the thread was dropping like a lead-balloon when I posted. That is, I bumped it in my own stylee. And if I did help to stimulate non-'evolutionists' to answer, what's the problem?

Keeping them focused, rather than going down the 'science sucks' path, is the bigger problem

I interpret the OP as: Why do we find the nice nested heirarchy (i.e. apparent change and diversification) that we do in the fossil record that fits evolutionary theory so well?

So far we have lots of 'dating sucks', but only a few real answers - goddidit (and he can do anything) and it was a form hydrological sorting.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by melatonin]

Who said everything in the Bible would be magic? When we look at the end times beetween 2008 - 2013 (and forth), we see a lot of increase in earthquakes and floods and bad yield. And guess what? When the planet Nibiru passes by, it could be the logical reason for that, no magic. And it passes by every 3,600 years. Could Earth really be fine if this happened a million times? Do Evolutionists even take everything into consideration.. The Bible does not go against the facts of science. And evolution, it is not a fact of science, it is a belief that tried to hide in the protection of it. I think that evolution would require much more magic to be as it's assumed to be in reality.

And back on-topic. Just if there is no proof that something existed before a certain time doesn't mean it could be impossible for it to have existed before it. Just that there has not been found any evidence supporting it. You simply cannot 100% know everything without being able to observe it. There is really no proof that dating methods would work when it comes to so long periods of time. You have to trust, and believe in it.

reply to post by melatonin


duly noted Mel

Well, i've said this before, but how about this . . .

"Postdestination"

You enter a room and you see a cracked vase on the floor next to a table. You also see a cat on the table. You can say to yourself, logically, that the cat more than likely knocked the vase off the table. You'd be using information acquired ex post facto to form a logical conjecture.

Now predestination of course, is if before you enter the room, you know that an earthquake will tremble the house and knock the vase to the floor, also scaring the cat into jumping onto the table (a high place)! And when you enter, or before you enter the room, it happens.

Predestination is illogical; Postdestination is logical and it works nearly flawlessly within reality, but it is not necessarily accurate. The entire theory of evolution is based on "postdestination".

reply to post by Ferdane


You are right. Nothing can be known 100%, and even in science - no credible scientist will ever say that any theory is 100% absolute truth no matter how well established. This actually does work out in Evolutions favor, because it keeps Evolution falsifiable. In over 150 years, this hasn't happened. Although the theory has been modified to fit new evidence. Now, here's the thing. If science were nothing but purely subjective belief, then we would not have anything that our first world society depends upon. For example, we cannot SEE electrons, but we KNOW that they exist. How? Turn on your computer and tell me.

Evolution isn't an untested hypothesis. It's principles are used to create REAL products in the REAL world both biological (medicine) and in engineering fields. To make no mention that the same phenomena is seen in the development of technology itself.

When we look at the end times beetween 2008 - 2013

What end times? Some fanciful predictions made by some ancient indiginous hunter-gatherer tribes? We are not in "End Times", and there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support that claim. If you want to die by 2013, that's your burden, but I plan to live well into old age.

we see a lot of increase in earthquakes and floods and bad yield.

No, we don't. There has been no substantial rise in the rate or severity of Earthquakes. It may SEEM that way to you, because we have become much better at detecting them, gauging them, and then disseminating that information out to the public through modern media.

As for floods and bad yields, that's a result of Global Warming changing our climate and disrupting weather patterns. The warming is happening and it is a fact. It has many different contributers, one of which being man. This is NOT the first time the Earth's climate has changed. The Earth's climate is a dynamic cycle that is constantly in flux. It has NEVER been stable, ever in it's history that we know of. It is a continual process of heating and cooling and regular cycles of warm periods and ice ages.

Further, it is a very complex science - much moreso than evolution, and it is still discovering new data that sheds new light on the situation. Regardless, life on Earth will long survive the human species. Global Warming will not be the end of life on Earth, only the end of our current environment. Some species will die, some will thrive. Just like they always have. Even by the most radical estimates (barring fanciful "venus" scenarios) Global Warming will most likely NOT come anywhere close to the mass extinction which occured at the P-T boundry, which was far larger than the extinction at the K-T boundry that killed the dinosaurs. Both of which occurred without the aid of man.

It may be a rarity, but this stuff is NOT new to this planet, and life HAS rebounded.

When the planet Nibiru passes by, it could be the logical reason for that, no magic.

You speak as though Nibiru was a commonly known body in our solar system. Seriously, how can you contend that Evolution is false, despite all of the evidence presented - and then so matter-of-factly speak of Nibiru which apparently doesn't even exist outside of a few books and Sumerian legends considering there are NO photographs, no orbit perturbations, and no measurable proof of it's existence what-so-ever?

Originally posted by Ferdane
And back on-topic. Just if there is no proof that something existed before a certain time doesn't mean it could be impossible for it to have existed before it. Just that there has not been found any evidence supporting it.

OK, so now this basically means - the evidence is out there, we just haven't found it yet. So, we would expect to find human fossils in early cambrian strata.

Even mammal fossils would do, you know, the olde 'rabbit in the cambrian', possibly alongside a fossil of Elmer Fudd tooled up riding a tricerotops.

You simply cannot 100% know everything without being able to observe it. There is really no proof that dating methods would work when it comes to so long periods of time. You have to trust, and believe in it.

Of course, but we can observe the fossils, and we can test and observe.

Radiodating is a well-established method based on fundamental physical processes.

www.asa3.org...

So far we have goddidit because he can do anything; fossils were sorted hydrologically; and, in contrast, we just haven't found bugs bunny and Elmer Fudd in cambrian strata at this point but we will, honestly, the bible says so.



[edit on 11-6-2008 by melatonin]

Science and Creationists can be likened to Attorneys and Detectives.

Attorneys (Creationists) already have a set conclusion which they must uphold based on whether they are defending or prosecuting the defendant (the bible). Facts and evidence may fit into this scheme, but they are not a requirement nor a guantee of a desired outcome. An attorney will craft their case to fit the evidence and make it look like however they want to make the case turn out in their favor.

Detectives (Scientists) are not concerned with the verdict. Their interest lies is finding out what happened, how it happened, why it happened, when it happened, etc. They are free to follow the facts to their conclusion and to challenge their initial biases based on what can be gleaned by the evidence to find the truth behind the matter.

Of course, it doesn't always work out as it is supposed to. Some innocent people are incarcerated. However, because the detective usually isn't there at the time of the crime, they cannot know 100% absolute for sure exactly how it all went down because they weren't there. Do you REALLY think that's a good reason to simply open our prison doors up and let all the convicts out?

If a member of your family were brutally and sadistically murdered, wouldn't you want forensic science to help track down the killer? Or would you simply ignore the crime, because since the detectives weren't there at the time - there's no way to ever be sure he caught the right guy.

Mistakes have been made in science too. They still are. Our knowledge isn't complete, and we are continually learning new facts about the universe and creating new methods of discovery and refining old ones. This will continue in the future. Science is a self-corrective process. Religion, and by extension, creationism does not adhere to self-correction because it starts with a pre-defined supposition and no evidence is accepted unless it fits that supposition. Therefore it is not a way of knowing, but rather a way of staying ignorant forever.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by JPhish
Predestination is illogical; Postdestination is logical and it works nearly flawlessly within reality, but it is not necessarily accurate. The entire theory of evolution is based on "postdestination".

True, we wouldn't expect 100% certainty in all our scientific endeavours. But it is a tried and tested method, a successful method. And evolutionary theory is one of the most tried and tested out there.

However, we are in a way comparing the methods of testing reality by empirical scientific methodology and much of what is really theological revelation. Not even a competition.

You did help to prime an interesting 'hypothesis'* that some IDers have proposed to explain the evidence, allowing for their god disembodied telic entity.

I'll wait and see if someone else fronts up and loads it in the chamber.

*I say 'hypothesis', but I really mean potentially unfalsifiable metaphysics.