| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
12th August 2002, 03:01 AM
| | | | "a course list of biological subjects at harvard
evolution is an integral part of modern biology"
Your link does nothing to disprove my completely accurate statement that evolution is not a science in itself, like biology or chemistry. It is a theory of the science of biology. Please don't bore me with semantic games.
__________________
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths."
Stephen Jay Gould
"Ontogeny and Phylogeny", Harvard University Press |
12th August 2002, 08:56 AM
| | Rabbit Worshipper
43 
| | Join Date: 21st May 2002 Location: Cleveland
Posts: 255
Blessings: 108,704
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Please don't bore me with semantic games.
I would likewise ask the same of you, because all you've done so far is criticize evolution. Are you ever going to offer a better theory, or just provide us with the usual endless, ho-hum tirades against evolution?
- Joe
__________________
"It is often easier to fight for one's principles than live up to them."
- Adlai Stevenson |
12th August 2002, 09:53 AM
|  | Science Officer
| | Join Date: 14th May 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 980
Blessings: 109,055
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by Christian Soldier
Most evos automatically assume that Creationists have never read any books or papers by prominent evolutionists. I have read Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Ruse, Ager, Eldredge, Wilson, Prigogine, Huxley, Lewontin and many others. So don't bore me with your presumptuousness.
If you have truly read these people, then why do you consistently misrepresent their opinions? I rejected Darwinism BEFORE I was a Christian. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, I don't know how old the earth is. I'm amused by the several evos on this forum who automatically brand anybody who doesn't blindly accept evolution as a YEC. Some evos here have foolishly assumed that I am one.
Do you accept the scientific evidence that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that the Universe is ~15 billion years old? If not, why not? Most evos, not all, presume that evolution "proves" there is no God--or that science can never prove the existence of God.
Please tell us which of the evolutionists you listed above makes that claim and provide us a quote which illustrates that. You will not be able to do so.
However, that view is not shared by even staunch evolutionists like Edward O. Wilson. In his book Consilience, Wilson states that science may indeed eventually prove the existence of a deist God. Stephen Hawking acknowledges that a deist God is a possibility. Einstein was a committed believer in a deist God. The claim made by many atheists that all "highly educated" individuals are staunch atheists, is pure baloney.
Please list several atheists who make this claim with quotes to support your assertion. Now to answer your question, I read Gould's essay in its original source, Natural History magazine, an evolutionist periodical.
Please give us, then, a quick one or two sentence summary of what you think the point of the essay was.  |
12th August 2002, 10:12 AM
|  | The New Compassion
31     
 | | Join Date: 18th December 2001 Location: outskirts of the Romdo ruin
Posts: 17,467
Blessings: 4,701 My Mood 
Reps: 2,543,266,106,944,145 (power: 2,543,266,106,973) | | Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"No science is exact. Every science is precise."
Evolution is neither. Nor is evolution a science in itself. It is an unproven theory of the science of biology.
Please don't bore me with semantic games.
or valid representations of scientific thought either, eh? 
Repartee aside, do you not understand the scientific difference between accuracy and precision? If not, then I recommend a good science dictionary. They are invaluable references.
__________________ "No matter what the analogy is, any attempt to use analogy, simile, metaphor, or any other lofty rhetorical technique in a debate
being conducted on the Internet is doomed to end badly. No matter how carefully you set up your analogy, somebody will come
along and interpret it in the most stupidly literal way possible, find some tiny point where it fails to correspond perfectly with the
actual topic of discussion, and decide that this disagreement is an utterly devastating counter-argument to whatever point you
were trying to make. If the topic is anything remotely controversial, like religion or politics, tens of somebodys will jump on the
stupidly literal interpretation, and arguments about the validity of the analogy will come to totally dominate the discussion."
Chad Orzel. Uncertain Principles: Physics, Politics, Pop Culture.
Posted: September 19, 2009 8:54 AM.
|
12th August 2002, 11:58 AM
| | Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
28 
| | Join Date: 13th January 2002 Location: Texas
Posts: 3,048
Blessings: 123,585
Reps: 1,043,414,178,913,406,720 (power: 1,043,414,178,913,421) | | Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Do you accept the scientific evidence that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that the Universe is ~15 billion years old? If not, why not?
Because no one is that old to say for a fact except God alone... and because all relative dates are based off specualtion about things they see... and there is no proof that time has always moved at the same rate either...
__________________
Happy WORD searching!
"It is more blessed to give than to recieve"-Acts 20:35
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose! -Jim Elliot
It's all about Jesus!!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
12th August 2002, 11:58 AM
|  | <font color="#880000" ></font>The sum of everything = zero
| | Join Date: 4th April 2002
Posts: 1,973
Blessings: 110,818
Reps: 143,091 (power: 156) | | | "Most evos, not all, presume that evolution "proves" there is no God"
Statistics please?
I bought Dinosaur in a Haystack at a used bookstore for $10 CDN, I can assure you I own it and am currently reading it. What exaclty would providing extensive references accomplish. I am sure I could find some of the essays published in that book on the web, then cut and paste them.
I gave you my interpretation of the essay, I also clearly pointed out that your quote was out of context and did not mean what you claimed.
"What in blue blazes is an "assteration"?! "
Proof that I can't spell
__________________
"We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert speaking out against teaching evolution in Pennsylvania schools
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The flood becomes harder and harder to support when you get more information.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
12th August 2002, 12:33 PM
| | Science Officer
| | Join Date: 14th May 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 980
Blessings: 109,055
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
Because no one is that old to say for a fact except God alone
I'm not asking if you accept it as absolute fact. I'm asking if you accept it as the best conclusion given the evidence. .. and because all relative dates are based off specualtion about things they see...
False. The dates are based off of logical inferences made from the evidence. Radioactive decay, one of the primary sources of evidence, is hardly "speculation". and there is no proof that time has always moved at the same rate either...
The same rate compared to what? If you accept Einstein's theory of relativity, then there is no such thing as absolute time. |
14th August 2002, 02:58 AM
| | Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
28
| | Join Date: 13th January 2002 Location: Texas
Posts: 3,048
Blessings: 123,585
Reps: 1,043,414,178,913,406,720 (power: 1,043,414,178,913,421) | | Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I'm not asking if you accept it as absolute fact. I'm asking if you accept it as the best conclusion given the evidence.
I'm sorry... wait no I don't apologize for it... creation is the best conclusion from the given evidence, because it fills in all the blanks that Big Bang and evolution can't. What you really mean to say is "the best conclusion given the evidence-> apart from God" Because as soon as you put God into the equation everything else you think is automatically thrown off.... False. The dates are based off of logical inferences made from the evidence. Radioactive decay, one of the primary sources of evidence, is hardly "speculation".
So radioactive decay automatically makes the universe 4.3 billion years old (or whatever the current running number is)? However when a more relevant and fully substantiated source, such as the Bible, says otherwise... one is compelled to wonder. How do you know when the radioactive decay kicked in? How do you know how much was there before the decay? Are you calculating values for decayed substance that wasn't even there to begin with? Here's another thought... the moon currently moves away from the earth at what oh 1 or 2 inches a year... not much right? But consider this... it must have been closer to move away, right? Let's figure oh 1-2 inches a year for as many years as you would have us to believe and there is just not enough space for this to be possible... The same rate compared to what? If you accept Einstein's theory of relativity, then there is no such thing as absolute time.
So how do you know how long anything has been around?  Your logic confuses me a bit I must say...
__________________
Happy WORD searching!
"It is more blessed to give than to recieve"-Acts 20:35
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose! -Jim Elliot
It's all about Jesus!!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by sbbqb7n16; 14th August 2002 at 03:04 AM.
|
14th August 2002, 08:34 AM
|  | Just an old legend...
28  
| | Join Date: 23rd June 2002 Location: In perpetual bliss, so long as I'm with Jess.
Posts: 1,095
Blessings: 109,075
Reps: 617 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
So radioactive decay automatically makes the universe 4.3 billion years old (or whatever the current running number is)? However when a more relevant and fully substantiated source, such as the Bible, says otherwise... one is compelled to wonder.
Thanks for making me choke on a gulp of soda! 
Funniest. Message. Ever. *Steals it for later use on Christian parody website* |
14th August 2002, 08:53 AM
| | Science Officer
| | Join Date: 14th May 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 980
Blessings: 109,055
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
I'm sorry... wait no I don't apologize for it... creation is the best conclusion from the given evidence, because it fills in all the blanks that Big Bang and evolution can't.
I fail to see you creation can be the best conclusion given the evidence when there is not one scrap of emprical evidence to support it. We have repeatedly asked for such evidence on this board and received nothing in return. What you really mean to say is "the best conclusion given the evidence-> apart from God" Because as soon as you put God into the equation everything else you think is automatically thrown off....
By that logic, why bother with any science? Why bother studying the workings of the atom if adding God into the equation makes our study worthless? Why study geology? Or chemistry? Isn't "putting God into the equation" just as likely to invalidate all of these sciences as it is evolution? So radioactive decay automatically makes the universe 4.3 billion years old (or whatever the current running number is)?
Unless you are proposing that the laws of physics changed drastically at some point, yes. However when a more relevant and fully substantiated source, such as the Bible, says otherwise... one is compelled to wonder. How do you know when the radioactive decay kicked in? How do you know how much was there before the decay? Are you calculating values for decayed substance that wasn't even there to begin with?
Do you think you're the first genius to ask these questions? None of your objections has any scientific merit. Here's another thought... the moon currently moves away from the earth at what oh 1 or 2 inches a year... not much right? But consider this... it must have been closer to move away, right? Let's figure oh 1-2 inches a year for as many years as you would have us to believe and there is just not enough space for this to be possible...
Ah. The old, discredited, recession of the moon argument. See below for an explanation of why it is invalid. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html So how do you know how long anything has been around? Your logic confuses me a bit I must say...
This introduction to radiometric dating will perhaps clarify the logic: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Last edited by LiveFreeOrDie; 14th August 2002 at 08:56 AM.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
