Creation & EvolutionForum 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.
It's the doctrine of everyone who thinks belief is the criteria for getting into heaven. Never mind what kind of person you've been - works don't count. Believe in me or suffer eternally...that is NO kind of love.
Bellman, I'm glad you raised that point
I must go soon, but the entire New Testament teaching is that no-one can earn their way to Heaven
Salvation is by the sheer graace of God, thru faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross
See John 3, Romans 3, Galatians 2:15/16, Ephesians 2:8/9 etc
I must go soon, but the entire New Testament teaching is that no-one can earn their way to Heaven
Marvellous, so when we get to heaven we can expect to be surrounded by evil men who believe in God and not good ones that don’t. With that in mind I am not so sure I want to be a Christian anymore.
Originally Posted by mrversatile48
Salvation is by the sheer graace of God, thru faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross
No that's not true, see I Corinthians 7:13/15
Originally Posted by mrversatile48
See John 3, Romans 3, Galatians 2:15/16, Ephesians 2:8/9 etc
Such self-sacrifice is the greatest love
Well not if it is done to enable him to deny salvation to anyone who do not believe in it. Frankly I have met many atheists I would rather spend eternity with than some of the supposed Christians I have met.
No that is okay, I am already so bored with this discussion it is hard to come here and answer questions. The sad thing is, it could be exciting but instead of discussing things, I am all but called an idiot because I still have many unanswered questions and therefore do not adopt the TOE as fact. This totally takes away all interest in even learning more on the subject because it sounds all to similar to the unwavering C who refuses all scientific observations, in order to hold to their belief system. Both are missing the boat and both are inventing something from nothing.
I am trying to follow the thread as it has been flowing. That is all. Knowledge and wisdom and truth cannot be found by closing our eyes to the possibilities around us. In order to find knoweledge, wisdom, and truth, one must seek out all the answers and possibilities, explore, question, experiment, etc. All the things that science seeks to do. Yet when someone comes here and does that, they are treated as not knowing anything, not looking for answers, blinded by belief, etc. I am sorry, but from the thread, I would have to say that it is you among others that do not understand scientific method. Science cannot give us all the answers to life. Science cannot prove beyond resonable doubt the TOE. Accept it! If you want to believe that the TOE is a sounder theory, that is okay with me, but it is not okay to try to tell someone else that they are not accepting the evidence simply because they see the evidence differently. I fully accept that the TOE is possible. What I do not accept is that you can rule out the other theories based on the evidence. Therefore, which theory one holds too is irrelevant. It is purely a matter of individual conviction, not a matter of lack of knowledge, etc. Now when there is enough evidence for science to make the TOE into what is considered a scientific law, or that there is enough evidence to disregard the root of the other theories, not the certain aspects of those theories, then we can talk about which is more sound. Until then, the only thing that we can discuss is the amazing world in which we live and what science can tell us about that world. If you see overwhelming evidence, okay, but overwhelming it is not, what it is is suggestive evidence.
The one that stands our formost in my mind right now, is the difficulty of new species to reproduce. Though this is not a cause to rule out the theory, it does offer many unanswered questions and seems to be why the theory is changing to take on a more C feel than it has had in the past.
So if then I look at your above sentence, am I to assume that you are now claiming that the TOE is no longer a theory, but now it is a scientific law because you are not aware of any area in which TOE fails (failing equal to unanswered questions)? This is getting more curiouser by the minute.
Well, first, the best available answer can be a very subjective thing, so I think that that is not the best question to be asking on such a thread.
As a visual philosopher (which is where my inability to resight names and dates stems from, I do everything in pictures), I can tell you that there are still many holes in the TOE that science cannot address. Why animals today are becomeing extinct rather than evolving, why there are reproductive problems when crossing species lines, how we can know history when the only way to prove history is first hand accounts, even the DNA evidence, is a relatively new device and offers much unanswered questions, not all of which I can put into words because of my extreme visual nature. Then we can deal with the questions that arrise when science assumes only one theory and therefore does not look into the answers the other theories provide for the data. (Accepted that many years ago this was not the case but about the time the YEC was disproven, the theory of C was pretty much thrown out the door and the only theory truely looked at was E, instead of allowing the TOC to adapt to the new data as the TOE is allowed to do.) How is that for a start from someone who is visual not termilogical.
Percisely but one cannot do that if one automatically assumes that the theory cannot offer possibilities. It is the assumptions that further hurt your case.
Now I don't understand this at all, for the root theory of C has not changed at least since our biblical records date. And the TOE is apparently not the same theory as I was taught many years ago, so how is it that the TOC has adopted the TOE, it would seem to me that the TOE has adopted much of the TOC, but why do we even need to discuss this issue, because it really doesn't make any difference who adopted whose, but rather that the theories continue to draw closer together.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
No that is okay, I am already so bored with this discussion it is hard to come here and answer questions. The sad thing is, it could be exciting but instead of discussing things, I am all but called an idiot because I still have many unanswered questions and therefore do not adopt the TOE as fact. This totally takes away all interest in even learning more on the subject because it sounds all to similar to the unwavering C who refuses all scientific observations, in order to hold to their belief system. Both are missing the boat and both are inventing something from nothing.
I am trying to follow the thread as it has been flowing. That is all. Knowledge and wisdom and truth cannot be found by closing our eyes to the possibilities around us. In order to find knoweledge, wisdom, and truth, one must seek out all the answers and possibilities, explore, question, experiment, etc. All the things that science seeks to do. Yet when someone comes here and does that, they are treated as not knowing anything, not looking for answers, blinded by belief, etc. I am sorry, but from the thread, I would have to say that it is you among others that do not understand scientific method. Science cannot give us all the answers to life. Science cannot prove beyond resonable doubt the TOE. Accept it! If you want to believe that the TOE is a sounder theory, that is okay with me, but it is not okay to try to tell someone else that they are not accepting the evidence simply because they see the evidence differently. I fully accept that the TOE is possible. What I do not accept is that you can rule out the other theories based on the evidence. Therefore, which theory one holds too is irrelevant. It is purely a matter of individual conviction, not a matter of lack of knowledge, etc. Now when there is enough evidence for science to make the TOE into what is considered a scientific law, or that there is enough evidence to disregard the root of the other theories, not the certain aspects of those theories, then we can talk about which is more sound. Until then, the only thing that we can discuss is the amazing world in which we live and what science can tell us about that world. If you see overwhelming evidence, okay, but overwhelming it is not, what it is is suggestive evidence.
The one that stands our formost in my mind right now, is the difficulty of new species to reproduce. Though this is not a cause to rule out the theory, it does offer many unanswered questions and seems to be why the theory is changing to take on a more C feel than it has had in the past.
So if then I look at your above sentence, am I to assume that you are now claiming that the TOE is no longer a theory, but now it is a scientific law because you are not aware of any area in which TOE fails (failing equal to unanswered questions)? This is getting more curiouser by the minute.
Well, first, the best available answer can be a very subjective thing, so I think that that is not the best question to be asking on such a thread.
As a visual philosopher (which is where my inability to resight names and dates stems from, I do everything in pictures), I can tell you that there are still many holes in the TOE that science cannot address. Why animals today are becomeing extinct rather than evolving, why there are reproductive problems when crossing species lines, how we can know history when the only way to prove history is first hand accounts, even the DNA evidence, is a relatively new device and offers much unanswered questions, not all of which I can put into words because of my extreme visual nature. Then we can deal with the questions that arrise when science assumes only one theory and therefore does not look into the answers the other theories provide for the data. (Accepted that many years ago this was not the case but about the time the YEC was disproven, the theory of C was pretty much thrown out the door and the only theory truely looked at was E, instead of allowing the TOC to adapt to the new data as the TOE is allowed to do.) How is that for a start from someone who is visual not termilogical.
Percisely but one cannot do that if one automatically assumes that the theory cannot offer possibilities. It is the assumptions that further hurt your case.
Now I don't understand this at all, for the root theory of C has not changed at least since our biblical records date. And the TOE is apparently not the same theory as I was taught many years ago, so how is it that the TOC has adopted the TOE, it would seem to me that the TOE has adopted much of the TOC, but why do we even need to discuss this issue, because it really doesn't make any difference who adopted whose, but rather that the theories continue to draw closer together.
Very quickly, now SE-USA is headline news..
Georgia recently had a series of winters so severe that all bees & other insects died
So much vegetation died, without their pollenation, that they were forced to import bees
Surely this disproves the ridiculous postulation of aeons between plants arriving on the scene & the bees so vital for their survivla
A 2nd cracker for YEC is translucent rocks with perfect rainbow pattern of impurities inside
If rocks had really taken aeons to solidify from liquid, those impurities would be scattered randomly
Consider the perfect new world of Revelation 21/22
As soon as it is made, it will look as if it has always been there
KInda like Genesis 1: "God said, 'Let there be....& there was...& God saw that it was good...& the evening & the morning were the 2nd/33rd/4th/5th/6th day"
The Hebrew word translated as day is yom
Wherever that word is used, it always means a 24-hour period
Nothing is too difficult for the Almighty
& the clear evidence of His wisdom, power & love is clearly seen in all that He has made, as Romans 1:20 reminds us
Again, God is not only concerned to communicate to academics
THe evidence of your God-given eyes is valid
Likewise that "there is none so blind as those who wil not see"
ET fans wilfully shut their eyes to mmyriad missing links @ every so-called step/link
Some of this I simply will not take the time to go over again.
What do you mean "again". Much of this is new material which you have not gone over even once yet.
But I would like to point you to post # 639 the following paragraph was posted in that post as a beginning to the questions that the TOE still cannot answer. Now it is only a beginning but shows that there are a lot of unanswered questions.
All responded to in my post #653
But since I haven't put forth any questions or indicated where the holes in the theory are, I guess we can totally skip this post okay?
No, it is most certainly NOT okay.
I particular I would like responses to these sections:
Well, let's look at that root again:
1. God made all living things.
This is not a scientific statement. It is a statement of faith. I, personally, agree with it as a statement of faith. But I know it is not testable or falsifiable by scientific means. Therefore, it cannot be part of a scientific theory.
2. all things reproduce after their kind.
Here we cannot test the statement until "kind" is defined.
But if we take it in the broadest sense that children are similar to their parents, this is not a theoretical statement. It is an observation. An observation is not a theory; it is what needs to be explained by the theory.
Now, most versions of creationism define "kind" as something more than a species, but not as large as the group of all living things. In short they would consider it possible to group living things into a plurality of kinds. Unfortunately, they do not ever give a more precise definition. If they did, the statement would be testable.
Finally, let us look at the question of variety. Living things come in an enormous variety of forms. Why?
TOE addresses itself especially to that question. How did we get such a variety of living organisms? Especially since we observe that children are always similar to their parents?
The root statement you have posted does not even address this question. Taken as it stands one would have to assume that the variety of living organisms is limited to the original number of kinds. i.e. that kinds are fixed and do not vary.
The statement does not even assume (much less attempt to explain) variation within the kind. For all we know, from this statement, there is no variation within the kind. There is certainly no explanation for variation within the kind.
So it is not just "certain aspects" such as young-earth and flood geology that are a problem for TOC. The root itself is completely inadequate to explain our observations, including its key observation, that living things reproduce after their kind.
TOE on the other hand fully explains both that key observation and the origin of the bewildering variety of living organisms.
a) children are similar to their parents because they inherit a genetic code that programs their devolopment along the same line as that of their parents;
b) variety is due to changes in the genetic code, which change the program inherited from the parent, and so change the development pattern seen in the children.
c) the accumulation of particular variants in particular lineages generates different "kinds" of species, which can be plotted on a phylogenetic "tree".
TOC=no explanation
TOE=full explanation
And
Please read the opening post in "The Evolution of Creationism".
I would like to know if you understand the first italicised section and what your comments are.
I would like to know if you have read the OP of that thread and what your comments are.
I will look for you comments on post 653, and if there are none, I will ask for comments.
I will also look for additional unanswered questions.
It seems to many of us here that you have indeed ignored a good portion of my post. For you skipped the portion of my post that detailed "missing links". (No problem so far--you need not include everything.) But then you asked where the missing links were. Now this was either a big blunder, or it was incredibly unethical to ask where the missing links were after reading a lengthy discourse on missing links. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you simply forgot you were responding to a post that detailed missing links. Alas, after you have been reminded of the problem several times by different people, you still can't seem to admit that your response was not appropriate.
Merle's post showed two fundamental problems with seeking truth, one he assumed he knew truth before he started seeking answers. Never a good sign.
Well yes, I assumed that Creationism was true when I started my search, but I am not sure that my assumption was a bad thing based on what I knew. You see, my entire education up to that point in time was from the viewpoint that Creationists had the answers, and that Evoutionists were a bunch of incompetents. But, as I said in that post, I did not declare victory at that point. For I saw that somebody thought the evidence pointed to something else. And so I did the right thing--I looked up the reference that had been provided. That led me to other references and a continued search of both sides (and an eventual switch to evolution). It seems to me that I did the right thing.
Two he now assumes to know truth. Which ultimately means that Merle didn't learn what he claims to have learned, because he still assumes to know truth.
I assume to know the truth that the earth is round, the proton has a positive charge, F = m a , evolution occured, etc. But in no case do I block my mind from receiving credible evidence that any of this might be wrong.
A theme running throughout my website is this quote from Einstein, "The important thing is to not stop questioning."
Are you trying to pretend I don't believe in questioning? Gosh, just look at my avatar.
__________________ "If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?"--Robert G. Ingersoll
Not interbreeding within the species, but breeding. Take the mule for instance, if a horse and donkey produce an offspring, that will carry both the horse and donkey traits, then the resulting animal, if adapting would then need to be fully able to reproduce or the evolution process stops.
However, you are missing the point. Assuming that the horse and donkey are derived from a common ancestor, the sterility of the mule shows that the horse and the donkey have already evolved to the point that they can no longer interbreed successfully. The mule is evidence that evolution has already occurred.
It doesn't stop either the horse or the donkey from continuing to evolve separately.
Another problem is the small population base of the new species that would cause genetic problems in the interbreeding necessary for the species to become large enough to be a viable part of this world.
This has been a problem in some cases: in fact the horse family is one of those cases. The cheetah is another. However, in other cases the population affected by evolution is quite large enough for this not to be a problem. So it is not an overall objection to TOE. One has to check it out on a case-by-case basis.
It is not the interbreeding problems with the parent species that create the problems, it is the breeding down the road that create the problems.
Interbreeding problems with the parent species confirms that we have a new species. It is evidence that evolution has occurred. And if the daughter species in turn becomes the parent of other new species, we would expect the same interbreeding problems with its daughter species. This again would be evidence that evolution has occurred.
Similarly if two or more species are derived from the same parent species, we would expect that they would show interbreeding problems when we try to cross them. That would confirm that they are separate species.
So, say we have this scenario:
Population A is parent to populations B and C
Population B is parent to population X
We would expect that B will not breed successfully with any of A, C or X.
The fact that B does not breed successfully with A shows that speciation has occurred and B is a new species. If it continued to breed successfully with A it would be at best a variant or sub-species of A. It would not be a new species.
The fact that B does not breed successfully with C shows that although both are derived from A, they are different species. If they did interbreed successfully, B and C would be variants of the same species, not two different species.
The fact that B does not breed successfully with X shows that X is a genuine new species, not simply a variant or sub-species of B.
In short, the inter-breeding problems you are pointing to are not a problem for TOE. They are expected evidence that evolution has in fact happened.
And we have seen this scenario, both in nature and in controlled experiments. That is why we can state with confidence that evolution is a fact.
Thanks, I haven't run away, only limiting the discussion to what is and is not relavent to the issue, and each and every scientific observation is not relavant for it does nothing to close the holes, only futher explains why the conclusions that were drawn were drawn.
Good, that's fine by me.
What you seem to be missing so nicely is what the TOC says.
No, I addressed that in the post you chose to skip.
I asked, I ask for someone to show me how illogical it is, you provide evidence to back the claim but ask me to add to that logic the word existed.
You change the point and this is suppose to be an explaination of how it is an illogical statement. Come now!
Not changing the point. Bringing you back to the point.
The point raised was that no fossil of a dinosaur has been dated at less than 65 million years old. Meanwhile no fossil of a hominid has been dated at more than 8 million years old.
From this evidence we conclude not only that dinosaurs became extinct before man, but that they became extinct almost 60 million years before man existed.
What other logical conclusion can this evidence lead to?
Remember, no using faith in evidence not yet seen.
Science does not do that.
Science bases its conclusions only on evidence already observed.
Linear Mode
