Evolution

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
That's peachy and all, but I was addressing my question to the poster who made the claim it was un-wise to go against the bible.

Since the majority of Christians agree with evolution and this is a fact, I was curious whether he felt the majority of Christians were un-wise.

You seem to suppose that the majority of Christians are fine with going against the Bible in favor of belief in evolution. In that model you are right my post does not contradict your claim that for Christians to choose to side with evolution - they must go against the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The thing that always gets me is evolution wasn't 'created' to prove the Bible wrong. It came out of observing the universe, nature, creation, etc. .

We "tested that" in the video "What we still don't know"

Monday at 2:08 PM #50

(Which is why I keep saying the "key to promoting intelligent design is better science education")

where a couple of Nobel prize winning atheist scientists demonstrated that no matter the observations in nature - they refused a conclusion that would admit to an intelligent designer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You seem to suppose that the majority of Christians are fine with going against the Bible in favor of belief in evolution. In that model you are right my post does not contradict your claim that for Christians to choose to side with evolution - they must go against the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

Depends on what interpretation of the bible, one subscribes to.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
We "tested that" in the video "What we still don't know" where a couple of Nobel prize winning atheist scientists demonstrated that no matter the observations in nature - they refused a conclusion that would admit to an intelligent designer.

If you really want to dig into the validity in regards to the arguments for ID, google the Dover trial and you will read the testimony of the few scientists that support ID, that had to explain it under cross examination.

They got their heads handed to them and a conservative Christian judge, scolded them for trying to pass it off as science.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Depends on what interpretation of the bible, one subscribes to.

I see... so then we are back to this post again.

=================================

================================
QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68176678, ...

Here is another quote about "majority" views on the Bible and evolution

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
If you really want to dig into the validity in regards to the arguments for ID, google the Dover trial

The Dover trial was pretty funny .. They had a 45 second intro to an all-evolution-all-day highschool biology class and that 45 seconds begins with something of the form "there exists a book in the library..." and ends with "you can go to the library and read it if you like".

In the dark ages that sort of thing would cost you a few dollars to get by the thought-police.
 
Upvote 0

gord44

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2004
4,352
658
✟27,716.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We "tested that" in the video "What we still don't know"

Monday at 2:08 PM #50

where a couple of Nobel prize winning atheist scientists demonstrated that no matter the observations in nature - they refused a conclusion that would admit to an intelligent designer.

As someone who does think there is an intelligent designer it doesn't bother me. Evolution still has stronger legs by far then anything creation offers. Just my opinion. :)
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The Dover trial was pretty funny .. They had a 45 second intro to an all-evolution-all-day highschool biology class and that 45 seconds begins with something of the form "there exists a book in the library..." and ends with "you can go to the library and read it if you like".

In the dark ages that sort of thing would cost you a few dollars to get by the thought-police.

What was most entertaining to me, was reading through the many pages of the testimony of ID's star expert, Dr. Michael Behe.

He and ID, were exposed and exposed badly. It got to a point were he had to admit under oath, that if ID was considered science, than astrology would also be considered legit science.

Highly entertaining stuff.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
What was most entertaining to me, was reading through the many pages of the testimony of ID's star expert, Dr. Michael Behe.
.

What was even more funny is the idea that they were in a position to rule on "what is science" as if that is something we ever turned over to the judiciary branch in the first place. I prefer to leave that in the hands of scientists - not the thought police.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What was even more funny is the idea that they were in a position to rule on "what is science" as if that is something we ever turned over to the judiciary branch in the first place. I prefer to leave that in the hands of scientists - not the thought police.

That is why ID had a scientist on the stand, making their case that ID was legit science.

You see, courts of law allow experts in fields to testify on the evidence and present their case. ID's case failed, big time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Here we have a case of atheist scientists themselves complaining about what amounts to evolutionism.

========================

BobRyan, post: 68162122, On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

=====================quote

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson
to Sunderland

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]
===================================== end quote




Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

---------------------diehard atheist evolutionist: Patterson said -

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

===================================

The secret to promoting intelligent design - is better science education I always say.[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
That is why ID had a scientist on the stand, making their case that ID was legit science.

.

Which is fine - but I did not see any scientists meeting to make a decision - what I saw was scientists taking a back seat to the judiciary on what is or is not science -- no matter the findings of even atheist scientists such as Martin Rees and Leonard Susskind to the contrary of the view of the judiciary branch.

In any case I understand why it is that when their argument grows weak the evolutionists had to resort to censorship and getting the judiciary branch to inform everyone what science is to "them".

Evolutionism cannot last long if 45 second statements of the form "there exists a book in the library..." are allowed to stand without judicial challenge at the start of an evolutionary biology course for highschool kids.


===============



Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

---------------------diehard atheist evolutionist: Patterson said -

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Which is fine - but I did not see any scientists meeting to make a decision - what I saw was scientists taking a back seat to the judiciary on what is or is not science -- no matter the findings of even atheist scientists such as Martin Rees and Leonard Susskind to the contrary of the view of the judiciary branch.

In any case I understand why it is that when their argument grows weak the atheists had to resort to censorship and getting the judiciary branch to inform everyone what science is to "them".

Do you want to poll Phd biologists for a consensus on whether ID is legit science?

Trust me, you won't like the results.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Do you want to poll Phd biologists for a consensus on whether ID is legit science?

Trust me, you won't like the results.

Yes lets get them to vote. Just like the steady state guys were trying to outvote the big bang group and were doing it quite well for the longest time.

Yep that is the way to do it! :)
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes lets get them to vote. Just like the steady state guys were trying to outvote the big bang group and were doing it quite well for the longest time.

Yep that is the way to do it! :)

How about peer review in science? You know, the process in which scientists get to submit their work for examination of other scientists.

How has ID done in that area?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
How about peer review in science? You know, the process in which scientists get to submit their work for examination of other scientists.

How has ID done in that area?

They do pretty well even with the "censorship" flight-or-fright model being used by many of the evolutionist groups.

http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

blind faith evolutionism survives by hiding from the light of day in the form of closed circles, censorship and judicial activism.

Because it cannot survive the light of day.

Othaniel Marsh proved that -- he proved it with the horse series still at the Smithsonian.

So also Ernst Haeckle- with some wood carving "proofs"

So also Osborn in his fright-or-flight exhibit of so-called "Nebraska man".

Blind faith evolutionism has a long standing tradition of hoax and fraud used for decade upon decade as 'the best evidence' in its favor.

And even on this thread we see the abiogenesis efforts of Eurey and Miller exposed for 60 years and still we have diehard "believers" in that mythology hoping against hope that someone will step up and pull the rabbit out of that hat.

Consider for a moment the mythical "Self-replicating molecule" - water. Wouldn't that be a handy thing to have in the desert ??!

Pretty simple molecule... stable... useful... wonder if we can make it "self-replicating"??
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
And even on this thread we see the abiogenesis efforts of Eurey and Miller exposed for 60 years and still we have diehard "believers" in that mythology hoping against hope that someone will step up and pull the rabbit out of that hat.

An experiment that was to try to see if amino acids could be produced chemically and specifically was not trying to create life is a failure because amino acids were produced chemically and life wasn't created? Pretty awesome reasoning there.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
An experiment that was to try to see if amino acids could be produced chemically and specifically was not trying to create life is a failure because amino acids were produced chemically and life wasn't created? Pretty awesome reasoning there.

Exactly. The experiment was conducted to find out what would happen in those conditions. They found out. How is that a failure?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Please, explain how they fail to fit observations in science.

1. Abiogenesis does not happen.
2. Abiogenesis cannot be forced/made to happen in the lab.
3. Abiogenesis is based on steps - never observed in nature.
4. Abiogenesis is a "necessary fiction" for one model of origins - totally unneeded by others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0