Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Are you saying that if discoveries are made in areas of science other than biology that disprove evolution, then we should disregard it?"
I hadn't been informed that there is such a disproving. And if you're ready to accept a new idea in science that "throws over" Newton's laws (give us a big break here), then why won't you seriously investigate the bases for the theory of evolution? There is a lot of evidence out there for the latter.
OK, I'm trying to keep all these posts on track, and I'm trying to respond to as many of them as I can but this thread ignited overnight so I'll do the best I can to keep this short and sweet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
First, I'll reiterate what was stated above, and that which I have stated before..... ID and biblical creationism are NOT the same thing. They may be similar in some respects, but they are different and I, as a biblical creationist, do not agree with ID.
Look at the evidence from the Dover trial. Either ID and Biblical Creationism are the same thing or you have some serious explaining to do. That is, you have some serious explaining to do that no one from the ID side could do. Watch the video's I posted. They link up perfectly with the court transcript. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
Second, I'll state again that most biblical creationists do not want creationism taught in schools. The teachers teaching it would probably get it wrong because half wouldn't want anything to do with it in the first place. As far as I'm aware after reading many creationist websites, they're only seeking to have the flaws of evolution exposed... flaws pointed out by scientists, secular or otherwise... and not touted as "absolute fact/truth".
Most ID'ers probably don't want Creationism taught in school because, just like you, they think there's a difference. Ever hear of the "Wedge Strategy"??? Read the court documents and watch the video... You might be surprised at the little 'hidden agenda'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
Third, I've never ever stated believing in evolution equates with following satan. And actually, if that has been said by believers they're wrong. What I and many others like me have said is trying to fit evolution within a biblical framework is inconsistent with their beliefs. It does not have any bearing on one's salvation. Either you're saved or your not. Evolution is not involved in the salvation equation. I merely state those who try to fit evolution into the bible are IMO being inconsistent. That's it. Anyone who says what you've stated above is wrong.
Mams, I'm not so sure about that one. Although I've never heard you say that you think a belief in evolution will equal a lifetime in eternity, I can only point out this little visual illness (the picture at the bottom of my response) that seems to pervade the AiG website you constantly link to. You mean to tell me that evolution is not seen as satan's work, and that by telling our children to follow ID we are not driving a wedge between science and God? Here's a nice little picture... I wonder what the moral of the story is???
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
I agree with your first sentence. Be skeptical. As far as your other thoughts, you can very easily replace the words ID/creationism with evolutionary teachings. If you want to talk about things being made up, what about the frauds of evolution some of which are still, to this very day, being portrayed as facts and evidence? For example:
You know... I've never heard of someone arguing FOR Piltdown Man, Haeckel's embryo's, etc... etc... I've never actually seen someone point out Piltdown Man as their argument for evolution. I've only seen it as an argument against it. Nevertheless I want to touch on a few things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
the Piltdown man
Who and how do you think Piltdown man was proven to be a hoax, Mams?? Guess what.... it wasn't ID who found it. Nope. It was scientists being skeptical. You know what else? The very chemical dating methods you have disputed for dating things (a la the AiG website) was the very method in which Piltdown man was discoverd as a hoax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
Ernest Haeckel’s embryonic recapitulation
This is another one I have never heard a modern day scientist use as evidence for evolution. However, I must point out that studying certain embryological characteristics are important for some evolutionary research. Regardless, Haeckel's work was criticized before Darwin's book ever came out. I don't think he and Darwin were in 'cahoots' trying to get this ball rolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
horse evolution
I'm kind of surprised you brought this one up since the horse is one species that we have a vast amount of fossils showing their steps up the evolutionary ladder. I'd be interested if you could clarify a bit more exactly what you mean by horse evolution since it is one of the clearest examples we have of evolution. Go to the Museum of Natural Science and History in NYC sometime, they have a huge 'horse evolution' display. Quite neat I might add.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
peppered moths
This is a rather broad topic for argument. I can go on and on about the peppered moth for a while so can we narrow this down a bit? What EXACTLY are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
Archaeoraptor the feathered dinosaur
This is why science is skeptical. Actually though, the two halves that the chinese farmer glued together were important discoveries in and of themselves. Unfortunately, the press got a hold of this one before any research had been done on it. Nature and Science magazine actually came out at the time and said "Hold your evolved horses guys, we haven't done any testing on this yet".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
But even after these, and others, evolution still is seen as untouchable and unquestionably true. Like you said, be skeptical.
I say to be skeptical because, I, like any other person could get some plaster of paris, some dirt, and a shovel, go out in my backyard, 'dig up' a bone and present it to scientists as a fossil. Some people may even be able to be so good at it that at first glance it does look like a fossil. So, if that somehow 'leaks' to the press (which would be hard not to imagine given that I'm already being deceptive enough to claim I found a fossil and obviously I want the attention) than there could be a myriad of results. People want to jump onto any claim in the press and take it as truth. I don't think any REAL scientist purported the claims of Archaeoraptor prior to its' testing although they may have said IF it is true that it would be a great find. And it would have.
Even then, science is constantly skeptical of itself. Was this test done right? Was that the right way to do things? Given this new technology, let's refine this test some more. On and on and on, successive testing is done over and over to ensure we still have accurate data. Anyway, what I don't see happening is AiG 'refining' anything at all. They obviously have the grand illusion that their work does not need refining. Maybe they're just perfect human beings , eh??
Having a rich imagination doesn’t make an event repeatable, but it does demonstrate that non-repeatable events of the past are subject to speculation, which is what evolution is.
All I was saying is that I've already cited evidence on this thread for almost the exact same argument you provided. It wasn't a rebuttal against my argument, it was essentially the exact same argument I responded to.
The verse you cite is from the same Bible that tells a story of the sun stopping its transit across the sky, even going backwards!
I wouldn't bet the house on that translation of 'chuwg'! Neither the Hebrews nor any major culture (Sumerian, Egyptian, Assyrian) in the Near East at that time believed in a spherical Earth. (But some Ionian Greeks knew better by about the 4th c BCE!) The burden of proof is on you.
The Hebrews didn't even get their Genesis myths from God, but rather from the cultures of Mesopotamia. This was known as long ago as 1876, such as in this book: http://www.archive.org/details/thech...ccou00smituoft
Where have you (or your teachers) been since 1876?
I've been down this road a hundred times and it's always the same - nothing new under the sun. Anyone can dig up anything anywhere to say whatever they want. That's a fact.
BUT the Bible does not and has not changed. Like God, it's the same yesterday, today, tomorow and forever.
I'll answer/entertain some of your writing briefly then off to a nice dinner and quiet night.
The sun mentioned above:
Well, you've got it wrong. It says the SHADOW will go backwards.
Isa 38:8 I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.’ ” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.
Every hear of a solar eclipse? Happens all the time.
Standing Still: A look at ancient records show that heavenly bodies standing still was common terminology used back then. Read some classic Greek or Akkadian literature for reference.
BUT lets be real, we are talking about the same God who created everything with a flick of a finger. Can God Almighty not cause such a feat? Of course he can!
You say the burden of proof is on me? Well is it? YOUR the one making the claims something DIDN'T happen in response to someone who said it did, so I think the burden is on you sir! Basic apologetics and debate principles...really.
So I now ask YOU. The bible is clear, it says the earth is a "circle" or "sphere" long before anyone tested the principle or could view the earth from space. So where did THAT come from?
Did someone walk the "ring" of the earth to confirm? Did someone sail around the world and report back to Isaiah?!
A lucky guess? It would take more faith to believe THOSE odds!
Only a view that goes beyond this world would have that knowledge.
BUT does any of that answer the question that if you die tonight - where will you be? Nope! Just a bunch of noise to distract the real message. Christ died for you, loves you and is willing to forgive and forget. Talk to him with an open, sincere heart and you might be surprised at the answer.
I've been down this road a hundred times and it's always the same - nothing new under the sun. Anyone can dig up anything anywhere to say whatever they want. That's a fact.
BUT the Bible does not and has not changed. Like God, it's the same yesterday, today, tomorow and forever.
I'll answer/entertain some of your writing briefly then off to a nice dinner and quiet night.
The sun mentioned above:
Well, you've got it wrong. It says the SHADOW will go backwards.
Isa 38:8 I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.’ ” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.
Every hear of a solar eclipse? Happens all the time.
Standing Still: A look at ancient records show that heavenly bodies standing still was common terminology used back then. Read some classic Greek or Akkadian literature for reference.
BUT lets be real, we are talking about the same God who created everything with a flick of a finger. Can God Almighty not cause such a feat? Of course he can!
You say the burden of proof is on me? Well is it? YOUR the one making the claims something DIDN'T happen so I think the burden is on you sir! Basic apologetics and debate principles...really.
So I now ask YOU. The bible is clear, it says the earth is a "circle" or "sphere" long before anyone tested the principle or could view the earth from space. So where did THAT come from?
Did someone walk the "ring" of the earth to confirm? Did someone sail around the world and report back to Isaiah?!
A lucky guess? It would take more faith to believe THOSE odds!
Only a view that goes beyond this world would have that knowledge.
BUT does any of that answer the question that if you die tonight - where will you be? Nope! Just a bunch of noise to distract the real message. Christ died for you, loves you and is willing to forgive and forget. Talk to him with an open, sincere heart and you might be surprised at the answer.
Round and round we go... where the circular logic will stop no one knows...
Using the Bible to prove the Bible is kind of irrational. Similarly, using any book to prove itself is pretty irrational.
"Are you saying that if discoveries are made in areas of science other than biology that disprove evolution, then we should disregard it?"
I hadn't been informed that there is such a disproving. And if you're ready to accept a new idea in science that "throws over" Newton's laws (give us a big break here), then why won't you seriously investigate the bases for the theory of evolution? There is a lot of evidence out there for the latter.
I didn't say I embraced the throwing over of newton's laws, I said that modern science was using it as an argument against the escaping moon problem.
As far as looking at the evidence, I have looked at it and I find it to be very weak. In both cases (creationism and evolutionism), what is actually involved here, at the most basic level, is beliefs.
The proponents of evolution like to think that what they say is "true", "scientific" and "factual", but the real bottom line truth is that, when it comes right down to it, they "believe" in it just as much as the religious folks "believe" in theirs. Neither belief corresponds to any actual perceivable, observable, or verifiable tangible thing or occurrence(s).
People call many things "science". Science should refer only to subjects derived from the honest and careful application of the scientific method. This involves theorizing, testing, observing test results, reworking theories, retesting, and coming up with theories and understandings (i.e. laws, formulas) which correspond to real things and situations which get actual results.
The application of the scientific method in the physical sciences has produced many legitimate and useful understandings. These have enabled the prediction and control of many chemical, electronic and physical processes.
This prediction and control has not been true for much of the evolutionary "sciences" because they are riddled with so much opinion, bias, and wishful thinking not based upon legitimate observation, facts and verifiable things.
It’s also interesting how anyone can possibly believe the idea that scientists are capable of looking at current existing evidence and data, extrapolating this back in time over periods encompassing billions and trillions of years, and clearly perceive (or deduce) how everything happened and unfolded.
Please!
Modern police have trouble investigating and figuring out what happened in simple crimes which occurred three days ago! And that’s with "fresh" evidence.
Basically, what it comes down to is this - what either believes, equally to the same degree, is solely and only a belief. In the end, it is a choice of what one decides to agree with and believe. It comes down to faith, either in the "religious" explanation or the "scientific" explanation. That it makes you feel good is irrelevant. Both "feel" this. That it makes "mores sense" is meaningless. Both think it "makes more sense".
At the most basic level each simply asserts what they tend to like as an opinion, and then spend endless hours theorizing, explaining, and reasoning to defend their largely arbitrary views.
Now, I challenge you to look at the "evidence" for evolution and see how much of it can be attributed to the scientific method.
All I was saying is that I've already cited evidence on this thread for almost the exact same argument you provided. It wasn't a rebuttal against my argument, it was essentially the exact same argument I responded to.
I do hope you can give us an example. What we’re looking for is not just new COPIES of existing genetic information, those are not “new genetic information”, what we’re looking for is an example of an evolutionary process whereby a sightless creature, for example, gained new genetic information such that this creature can then see.
I do hope you can give us an example. What we’re looking for is not just new COPIES of existing genetic information, those are not “new genetic information”, what we’re looking for is an example of an evolutionary process whereby a sightless creature, for example, gained new genetic information such that this creature can then see.
And then you would be misunderstanding evolution because you are assuming that all of a sudden a sightless creature is going to give birth to creature with sight. It doesn't work that way.
Ever shake hands with someone who has six fingers?
I do hope you can give us an example. What we’re looking for is not just new COPIES of existing genetic information, those are not “new genetic information”, what we’re looking for is an example of an evolutionary process whereby a sightless creature, for example, gained new genetic information such that this creature can then see.
Your understanding of genetics is incomplete. "New genetic information" is not a technical term and covers a broad area. There are numerous ways in which novel genes can arise. Here are just a few examples:
1. DNA replication is error-prone. DNA polymerases, the enzyme that builds the new copies of DNA strands, are not perfect. Although there are many error-correction mechanisms in genetics, the chance that a genetic change occurs is nonzero.
2. Recombination - An individual inherits genes from both their mother and father. Due to the chromosomal crossover, changes in chromosomal structure may occur. Thus there is a chance that duplication, deletion, translocation, and/or inversion occurs - perhaps in the middle of a regulatory or coding sequence of DNA.
3. Transposons are DNA sequences which can jump around to various spots in the genome through a process called transposition. Cuts, copies, and insertions of transposon sequences may occur in the regulatory and/or coding sequences of genes. IIRC, Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize a few years ago for discovering that transposons can change the color of corn kernels.
Regarding the evolution of sight (photoreceptors / opsin proteins), read these research papers: The opsins
On a side note, I do not believe in evolution. Rather, I look at the enormous amount of genetic and fossil evidence (as well as my own experience in molecular biology) and accept the theory as valid. From a purely semantic perspective evolution is a fact since alleles frequencies change over time; every birth, death, and mutation is evolution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
