An atheists world (3)

[Oncedeceived]

I don't really care. It is just another point of inconsistency by theists.

Fair enough.

No, you are reading a book. You have yet to establish that this "God" is anything other than a character in that book as this point.

My claim was that Creation has predictions and support for those predictions. Considering it is a book that was written millenniums ago and that it is not meant to be a "science book", I feel it gives enough information to be informative.

That's why I try to stay clear of arguing bible interpretations. They are all different.

It is best that way. God uses the Bible to speak to those who believe in Him. Interpretations are based on what God wants to impart to those who are reading it.

That is not what I said.

Hm...

You referenced mainstream cosmology (in error) for a "beginning" of the universe, and then rejected the same science when it came to determining the timing of the formation of the heavier elements through to the Sun, Earth, and Moon. You are cherry-picking.

How was I in error? There is no real evidence for what sequence the earth, sun and moon formed in.

Science doesn't "prove" anything. There are however, ways to test and falsify theories of the earth and moon formation.

Ok, provide the evidence that would show earth could not have formed first.

If the bible cannot be tested, why look to it as a source of knowledge. How would one validate it?

There are things in the Bible that can be tested.

Agreed, but the problem with theism is the absence of a mechanism for resolving differences of opinion (barring war, torture, crusades, splits, etc). Scientific methodology and scientific consensus are beyond their reach.

It is a process. Scientific methodology has its place. Theology has its. The problem with Science vs. The Bible is that Science is discovering and changing all the time while the Bible is always the same. Some areas science isn't capable of providing the answers, at times science says one thing and then has to change it to accommodate new findings.

That tells me as much as saying that it was inspired by Bob.

OK.

So this is an exercise in futility. Meshing the bible with science gains no new knowledge, and persuades no one. I suppose it may make you more comfortable in your beliefs. Is that your goal?

My goal is as I've told you. Take it or leave it. I am not twisting your arm to converse with me. I am here to exchange ideas, to present my worldview to those who do not hold that same view and to gain insight into theirs. I want honest and respectful dialog between those who frequent this site. I have gained friendships, I've laughed and even cried with those who I've encountered on this and other sites. For those who wish to do so, I say Come let us reason together.

 

[CabVet]

My claim was that Creation has predictions and support for those predictions.

A claim that remains unsupported...

 

[OllieFranz]

yes I undestand some species don't interbreed, but thats fine it is just that micro evolution has not expanded the species yet. But macro evolution a cross between genra is yet to be seen, agreed?

Cross-breeding has nothing to do with evolution, except as evidence that speciation (the splitting of one species into two or more) is incomplete. When it completes, interbreeding is no longer possible. Ever!

Cross-breeding even a cougar with a leopard, much less a crocodile with a duck, would be positive evidence that evolution is wrong. Where did you ever get the impression that "macro-evolution" demands it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Cross-breeding has nothing to do with evolution, except as evidence that speciation (the splitting of one species into two or more) is incomplete. When it completes, interbreeding is no longer possible. Ever!

Cross-breeding even a cougar with a leopard, much less a crocodile with a duck, would be positive evidence that evolution is wrong. Where did you ever get the impression that "macro-evolution" demands it?

lets start with a dinasaur and a bird

or a human and an ape

those are different genra, and therefore are not related at all!

so you solve the problem with as many steps as you need, baby steps or large.

 

[CarlosTomy]

straw man

How on earth is this a strawman????

now you want to publish peer review I have one you may like

note this is just a summary link of the article

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper Cites Guillermo Gonzalez's Galactic Habitable Zone as Evidence Earth is a Privileged Planet - Evolution News & Views

Wow! we are really jumpin' topic to topic now aren't we? I've seen Creationist Whack-a-Mole played but not at THIS speed!

OK, let's have a go at it (since apparently you are no longer interested in talking about your claims about the atmospheric chemistry, nor, apparently about macroevolution...)

The key problem with this approach is to assume that, as the saying goes: was the hole made for the shape of the water of the puddle or did the water fill the hole?

See what I'm getting at?

Let's assume you are "OK" with Deep time (since it is hard to argue against a really old earth, but sadly I've seen people try to tear apart physics and chemistry to do so).

With sufficient time we have the ability of a set of self-replicating organisms to ADAPT to that setting. In fact if they are MALADAPTED they won't exist for very long.

I can't live for long if I'm in a box full of toxic poisonous gas.

OBVIOUSLY the life on earth is well suited to life on...earth. So by definition the habitats we have (which actually span a WIDE range of hability) are inhabitable by creatures which can inhabit these habitats.

(See the circularity yet?)

This zone satisfies the requirements of life in that it has both extreme conditions where MOST life cannot exist (but some still does) to other extremes where the "extremophiles" will die out immediately but WE can survive quite nicely.

Switch places with a tube worm that lives near a submarine volcanic vent and you'll see my point.

OUR type of life is well suited to where we exist because, if it weren't we wouldn't be here.

 

[createdtoworship]

That coming from someone who describes evolution as a cat giving birth to a dog is just precious.

or a dinasaur giving birth to a bird

or a monkey giving birth to a human

 

[createdtoworship]

How on earth is this a strawman????



Wow! we are really jumpin' topic to topic now aren't we? I've seen Creationist Whack-a-Mole played but not at THIS speed!

OK, let's have a go at it (since apparently you are no longer interested in talking about your claims about the atmospheric chemistry, nor, apparently about macroevolution...)

The key problem with this approach is to assume that, as the saying goes: was the hole made for the shape of the water of the puddle or did the water fill the hole?

See what I'm getting at?

Let's assume you are "OK" with Deep time (since it is hard to argue against a really old earth, but sadly I've seen people try to tear apart physics and chemistry to do so).

With sufficient time we have the ability of a set of self-replicating organisms to ADAPT to that setting. In fact if they are MALADAPTED they won't exist for very long.

I can't live for long if I'm in a box full of toxic poisonous gas.

OBVIOUSLY the life on earth is well suited to life on...earth. So by definition the habitats we have (which actually span a WIDE range of hability) are inhabitable by creatures which can inhabit these habitats.

(See the circularity yet?)

This zone satisfies the requirements of life in that it has both extreme conditions where MOST life cannot exist (but some still does) to other extremes where the "extremophiles" will die out immediately but WE can survive quite nicely.

Switch places with a tube worm that lives near a submarine volcanic vent and you'll see my point.

OUR type of life is well suited to where we exist because, if it weren't we wouldn't be here.

ok so I went from abiogenesis to macro evolution because of your vague link.

then I went back, and now you are accusing me of going various speeds and changing the bars etc.

well heck for that matter I might as well change the bars!

lets go back to genus level transitions. Try one of those on for size,

a ape is one genus and human another,

got anything in between?

genus are the biblical kind in my view. So thats why a monkey will not interbreed with a human.

 

[lasthero]

or a dinasaur giving birth to a bird

or a monkey giving birth to a human

If those things happened, they would disprove evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

If those things happened, they would disprove evolution.

ok provide a monkey/man

please just one.

I have moved on from abiogenesis since no one not even carlos can provide a suitable environment in which it would happen,
so

moving on

provide a monkey/man or a frog/man or whatever

whatever you feel you want to provide.

 

[CabVet]

or a dinasaur giving birth to a bird

or a monkey giving birth to a human

To say that this is a strawman is an understatement. This is a dishonest misrepresentation of evolution.

 

[lasthero]

ok provide a monkey/man

please just one.

I have moved on from abiogenesis since no one not even carlos can provide a suitable environment in which it would happen,
so

moving on

provide a monkey/man or a frog/man or whatever

whatever you feel you want to provide.

You. You are an ape.

 

[CabVet]

ok provide a monkey/man

please just one

You should be the one trying to provide this because you are the one trying to disprove evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

strawman

Tourette's.

 

[Loudmouth]

ok provide a monkey/man

Man did not evolve from monkeys, so why would we find a monkey/man?

provide a monkey/man or a frog/man or whatever

A frog/man would likewise falsify evolution. If evolution is true we should not see a monkey/man or frog/man anywhere in the fossil record, or any living species for that matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

or a dinasaur giving birth to a bird/quote]

We see that everytime a chicken hatches from an egg. Birds are dinosaurs.

 

[EternalDragon]

If those things happened, they would disprove evolution.

But evolution says they did happen......it just took a millions years but it did happen. So that means evolution is false? I mean, you do have Lucy don't you, as a prime example?

 

[CabVet]

But evolution says they did happen......it just took a millions years but it did happen. So that means evolution is false?

Are we being childish now?

 

[EternalDragon]

or a dinasaur giving birth to a bird/quote]

We see that everytime a chicken hatches from an egg. Birds are dinosaurs.

So according the Lasthero logic, evolution has thus been proven false?
"If those things happened, they would disprove evolution."

 

[CabVet]

So according the Lasthero logic, evolution has thus been proven false?
"If those things happened, they would disprove evolution."

There is no example of a cat giving birth to a dog, or a monkey to a human, so no evolution has not been proven false.

 

[EternalDragon]

There is no example of a cat giving birth to a dog, or a monkey to a human, so no evolution has not been proven false.

No monkey to human?

Lucy? Java man? Neanderthal man? Homo erectus?