Question for Evolutionist's

reply to post by seabhac-rua


The bible is the only book of all religions that has yet to be proven false. Even if we prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old, which we have not and cannot through science faith, This would not be proof that the bible is incorrect as the bible clearly states a day to god may not be the same as it is to us. Science also theorizes that time may not be a constant throughout history and the universe. So the same science that may one day prove an old earth may also prove time may not be a constant. Most if not all of the other books actually disprove themselves by conflicting passages, or math that is inaccurate.

Originally posted by MamaJ

I think I need an explanation here. You ask "Whose facts? Mine or yours?" Facts are facts. There is no possessive to be derived on the term. If it's a fact, then it is a fact period...that's the whole point of the term. Do these arguments really have to bandy words in this manner? If people want to pick on the concept of the term 'theory' then you cannot ask such a question as 'Whose facts?' Lastly, I advised on the velcro simply as a dramatic example that all we have are theories using one that is so ingrained in our existance that we don't even think about it much - Gravity. I apologize for forgetting that you might take such a statement literally since we have evidence throughout this entire thread of such literary misinterpretation.

reply to post by Dashdragon

 

In my opinion a fact is based off either an experience or an observation. This is where a theory becomes a fact. If we base some facts on an experience or an observation then said "fact" may not be a "fact" to another observer and for this reason scientists find themselves arguing over observations.

Either way..... on this subject matter....I really find myself not caring either way. Who is right and who is wrong? It is an argument that goes in a circle and the fact to me is none are 100% correct in their facts.

Fair enough.

Suffice to say that this kind of argument boils down to semantics. I mean, I could go on regarding your descriptives used about facts and observations, but the point is, I actually do understand what you mean by them. That's one of the things about the English language is that we use terms for so many different concepts in everyday speaking that many confuse these things when we start talking scientifically.

I'm not picking, I promise, just providing examples.

Above you said a fact is based on an experience or observation. In science, both of those are just what they are, experiences or observations. The problems we have is that many on the creationist side are trying to use such wording as if it discredits evolution rather than understanding what the real scientific terms mean.

A scientific theory is something that has been tested, has a body of facts supporting it, has yet to be disproven by experiment, and can be used to predict future evidence. If you and I had different 'facts' in regards to the same predictions or line of experiments, then the only applicable theory would be one that could encompass both. If you have completely contradicting scientific theories, then one or both of those theories is invalid as a true theory would have to be able to account for the actual facts from both.

It cannot be something as simple as you saying "the light is green" while I say "the light is white". Technically both of those are true...to You, the light is green, and to Me, the light is white, but they are not both facts or theories. The Truth, is that the light is green and falls into the right spectrum that my red/green colorblindness displays it in a muted shade of white. If we were both colorblind and you said the light was yellow, then we'd just both be wrong.

Dead horse and all of course, but wanted to clarify my point for you =)

reply to post by dontlaughthink


You forgot the Duck Billed Platypus. It has fur, is aquatic with webbed feet, a bill, lays eggs and has venomous "spurs" on its hind feet. That is the creator laughing at all the theories regarding slime molds and cross pollination. I would use a smiley face but there is no "tongue in cheek " selection.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

The bible is the only book of all religions that has yet to be proven false. Even if we prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old, which we have not and cannot through science faith, This would not be proof that the bible is incorrect as the bible clearly states a day to god may not be the same as it is to us. Science also theorizes that time may not be a constant throughout history and the universe. So the same science that may one day prove an old earth may also prove time may not be a constant. Most if not all of the other books actually disprove themselves by conflicting passages, or math that is inaccurate.

I find it hard to swallow that anyone would actually type this. Theology can never be proven false...none of them can, that's the whole point of them. They are teachings and representations of Faith. If you can prove a theology true or false, then it ceases By Definition of being a Faith.

I would also think that you risk the ire of other religions by stating that their holy works have somehow and at some point been proven false. I imagine they would wonder why they were never notified of this.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Most if not all of the other books actually disprove themselves by conflicting passages, or math that is inaccurate.

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

Don't you think saying pi = 3 is inaccurate? The actual line in the story had to be over 31 cubits (31.4159265..)

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Zeer0

 

Thanks but the Fossil Record is not scientific method science, it's purely speculative because its not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Sounds like a faith to me?

False, false and false - a completely bogus claim. However, let's assume it's true - are there other lines of evidence for evolution?

Yes!

The most compelling line of evidence (even more so than fossils!) is the molecular evidence, which has just come together in recent decades. If you compare our genome to that of chimps (a different genus, by the way), you find that we share endogenous retroviruses with them. This is powerful evidence for common ancestry. You know - one genus splitting into two or more (not "changing into").

So, even if you somehow make a convincing argument to ignore the fossile (!), you still have tons of evidence.

Now, go read Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True," and come back with some hard questions!

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by cosmicexplorer

 

Don't confuse religion with creation or spirituality. Religion is man made and Religulous. Origins of Life have not been successfully explained by man either with the story of creation in the bible or the story of evolution in the book of science. What I'm glad about is that the journey for truth today is a wide open forum to be discussed openly in public on the internet and nobody is being burned at the stake for their opinions. Thank God (woops)

Point taken....i do sometimes lump religion all under creationism when are indeed different. What is odd is exactly what you said...I consider myself very spiritual but I dont believe in God....and I agree...atleast we can talk about things like this with people from all different backgrounds.

A belief is a conclusion to make up for the gaps in the evidence. Wether in the story of creation or evolution, both sides must fill in the gaps to complete their story. Both sides fall way short of explaining the science of creation and hopelessly bicker about their belief systems. Which side is right? We don't have the instruments for measuring that scientifically yet. What we need is someone to invent a prism to break light into the colors of the rainbow.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

The bible is the only book of all religions that has yet to be proven false. Even if we prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old, which we have not and cannot through science faith, This would not be proof that the bible is incorrect as the bible clearly states a day to god may not be the same as it is to us. Science also theorizes that time may not be a constant throughout history and the universe. So the same science that may one day prove an old earth may also prove time may not be a constant. Most if not all of the other books actually disprove themselves by conflicting passages, or math that is inaccurate.

Sweepng and ignorant statement of monumental proportion. Also, untrue. Are you going to debunk the Sumerian texts, Quran, Dead Sea Scrolls, Rig Vedas and the writing of Lao Tsu or Buddha? How about the Egyptian texts, Emerald tablets or the Mayan Calender?

And the story of Jesus feeding the masses with 2 fish and 1 loaf of bread works mathematically? Or, how about thou shalt no kill, now go out kill. Oh, and the mathematics of poor Noah getting all those animal into the boat, with food to boot. No problem there!

The argument that science is a BELIEF SYSTEM is a very cheap one.

Science *per se* does not have an agenda (doesn't mean that in real life there is none, admittedly)..and Science CAN be very slow accepting new knowledge, especially if old, established theories have to be revised and some proud scientists MIGHT be proven wrong. (Heck, i am very fond of the Ancient Aliens theory, for example...but i still do reject the notion that Science is a BELIEF SYSTEM on a grand scale - it is simply not true.

So..why do you use a cheap argument and empty phrase "suggesting" that creationism and "evolutionism" is "on par", freely interchangeable and both would be more or less equal belief systems.

Science is very well WILLING to accept errors, observations, trial, errors are part of science. If an observation turns out wrong, science can be revised. NO ONE would cry about it. This is what fricking science is about, this is what scientists do, make a logical conclusion from A to B, based on observations.

It's just ridiculous to hear from someone who actually *ignores* any science to begin with to "demand" scientific evidence in the OP (like he cares, because he does NOT!) - and then say that science is a belief system etc...while he doesn't make a secret out of the fact that HIS belief undeniable is one. (Because faith is based on belief).

Furthermore, the errors, gaps and imperfections of science (which certainly exist!) should not be taken as a proof that the whole thing is flawed - let alone "prove" that due to the errors in eg. "Evolutionism" therefore creationism must be right. Absurd.

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
You know....I have a degree in Geography with minor in Earth Science and Biology. I was raised Catholic up to confirmation and attended church through most of high school. I have studied both religion and science searching for answers.

In the end science has answered almost every question I have had where religion just leads me to more questions and frowns when I ask "why" or "how".

I once asked 3 individuals in the same room who all follow different forms of Christianity, "how do I get to heaven". One told me that If I believe Christ died for my sins I was golden. The 2nd stated that if I believed Christ died for my sins and I was baptized I would go to heave...the 3rd stated that if I believed Christ died for my sins and I was baptized at an age where I knew right from wrong I would go to heaven. I then looked at the other two and said I guess Ill see you in hell. They were so upset that 3 people under the same branch of religion could have 3 different answers for the simplest goal of religion....to get to heaven. I watched as they argued....and finished my statement with "this is why we have wars over this #".

The problem is simple the bible answers this question for you. You should read and or listen to the word for yourself. In fact it is possible, not by man but by god, that all 3 of these people were correct. I would recommend reading and or listening to the entire bible for yourself so that God may answer your question, because God is the only one who can. I am not saying that it is not good to discuss and debate but if you have gone through the entire bible you should stick with what God has told you and not judge others if they believe a little different than you. This is not a question about sin but a question on faith that only God can answer. Hope this helps.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

In your OP, you equated the Biblical concept of "kind" to the scientific concept of "genus". In this post, you're equating it to the scientific concept of "species". You should at least take the time to decide where the goalposts are before you start moving them.

Why? Science moves the goalposts everyday with new information.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

The bible is the only book of all religions that has yet to be proven false. Even if we prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old, which we have not and cannot through science faith, This would not be proof that the bible is incorrect as the bible clearly states a day to god may not be the same as it is to us. Science also theorizes that time may not be a constant throughout history and the universe. So the same science that may one day prove an old earth may also prove time may not be a constant. Most if not all of the other books actually disprove themselves by conflicting passages, or math that is inaccurate.

Of course it hasn't proven false -- proving anything about the bible is akin to nailing jelly to a tree.

Are you really saying the the bible has no conflicting passages - or the math is wholly a accurate. Do you not see the irony in say the earth is 6000 years old if we make up a day that fits that.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Chrysalis

 

They are still plants. Not ever do you see a plant growing legs and becoming an animal, so how can evilution be true?

Because if you had trees walking around they'd need more than sun and water to sustain themselves. They'd need to eat things which supply more energy and so they would outstrip thier food supply and then die out. And things only change when they have to.

What a rediculous question.

Even if there were no transitional fossils found, which scientist claim there have been, dna is enough to prove evolution is true. Why would all creatures on the planet share similar dna strands if evolution is false? Why do chimps and humans share over 90% of the same dna? Is your answer, "because there's a common creator"?

If so, could this omnipotent god not make us all uniquely different? Did he have to use the same dna to create us and chimps, and a myriad of other animals? Was he trying to trick us, knowing that one day we would find out how similar our dna is with other animals?

EDIT: Oops, just saw that disownedsky touched on this already.

Originally posted by habfan1968

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

In your OP, you equated the Biblical concept of "kind" to the scientific concept of "genus". In this post, you're equating it to the scientific concept of "species". You should at least take the time to decide where the goalposts are before you start moving them.

Why? Science moves the goalposts everyday with new information.

Nope, that's not moving the goalposts - that's moving toward the goal.

reply to post by habfan1968

Can you please describe in what way science is participating in the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts? In case you need a refresher:

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.

(Wikipedia)

The OP said speciation had never been observed. When he was shown that it had, he alternately "moved the goalposts" to cover changes in genus, class, and kingdom.

The bible is the only book of all religions that has yet to be proven false.

Religion and in particular CHURCH are power structures which are STILL existing in our life as they did 100s of years already.

It would still be taboo to openly "prove the bible false"...heck that would be some screaming and crying, especially in the USA with all the nuts people. (Sorry, could not resist).

It's also pointless trying to disprove a belief system, people do IN FACT have the freedom to believe what they want. If it makes them happy, why not.

The danger is rather if those borders what is belief/religion and science become fluent and those two things become one again, as in the middle-ages. Short: You can belief what you want, you can go to church as often as you want..just don't expect anyone to agree with you...and don't state that religion is equal to science.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

The bible is the only book of all religions that has yet to be proven false. Most if not all of the other books actually disprove themselves by conflicting passages, or math that is inaccurate.

Sweepng and ignorant statement of monumental proportion. Also, untrue. Are you going to debunk the Sumerian texts, Quran, Dead Sea Scrolls, Rig Vedas and the writing of Loa Tsu or Buddha? How about the Egyptian texts, Emerald tablets or the Mayan Calender?

And the story of Jesus feeding the masses with 2 fish and 1 loaf of bread works mathematically? Or, how about thou shalt no kill, now go out kill. Oh, and the mathematics of poor Noah getting all those animal into the boat, with food to boot. No problem there!

edit on 15-9-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

The math I was talking about is in the Koran pertaining to inheritance. You can not prove that God cannot feed 5000 with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, this is faith. Just like you cannot prove science pertaining to evolution and age of earth, also faith. Your faith lies in man mine in God. The math of the ark works fine assuming all creatures were in infantile state. Not much of a problem there mathematically speaking.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Sailor Sam

 

Well your in the wrong thread because your not going to get that. This is the scientific forum. as evolutionist's claim evolution is a science and not a faith this is why i posted my question in this forum.

So do you have the answer then, if you don't believe that evolution exists.
How do you explain that buildings in England, built in the 1000-1300 era, have low ceilings, so low that today we have to bend to enter them else we hit our head on the ceiling.
Humans are now taller than 1000 years ago. Now that is evolution, don't need fossils or anything else to show that humans over a 1000 years have become taller. Now don't blame that on today's "better food", as that did not happen till after World War 2, only 70 years ago.
Similarly if you go to the Cairo Museum, you will see funeral caskets of ancient Egyptian mummies, these are also very much shorter than todays caskets, further proof that humans in ancient times were shorter than humans today.
Unles you believe that the"creator" stretched us all on his torture rack, which was done by the monks of the spanish inquisition as I recall, then I am offering scientific proof after all.
Case closed.