Bugeyed,
That was my error in not stating that science does not have the standard definition of 'theory', which is, 'A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.' (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v theory).
Science's meaning of 'theory' is: 'A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses' (
source).
Agreed. Science has a specific meaning in context of scientific subjects, as do many things in language. Split pin is another one that carries completely different meaning depending on whether you're talking to a mechanic or a tenpin bowler.
Evolution can't be based on observation of evolutionary processes for macroevolution as they happened. You and I were not there to see the dinosaurs and humans deposited in the same layers of rock.
Apart from the fact that there never has been a human fossil found in the same layer of rock as a non-avian dinosaur fossil, do you agree that detectives solve crimes that happened in the past when they weren't present? Would you also agree that they do this without referring to a written record of the crime, even if one exists?
Endogenous Retroviral remains in the DNA of pretty much all living things are the smoking-gun evidence of Common Ancestry and wider confirmation of the Theory of Evolution. We, all of us life forms (including humans), fit neatly into a descended hereditary tree of life. This hierarchy pretty much matches perfectly with various other methods of determining relatedness, whether it be morphology, embryology, paleontology, etc. For example, you agree you're a Chordate (i.e. you have a spinal chord that runs the length of your body), right? You also agree you're a Vertebrate (i.e. you have a spine)? Then a Tetrapod (as in you have four limbs)? and an Amniote (i.e. contained placental birth), and you're also a Synapsid (your skull has one temporal fenestra)?, and you're also a Mammal (i.e. Fur and Mammary Glands)? Primate (hand mobility, opposable thumbs, finger nails instead of claws)? Haplorhini (Dry nose)? Ape (downward facing nostrils and 5 sectioned molars)? Hominid (upright walking on two legs)? Human (the 'Us' version of Hominid with bigger brains)?
Each level of phylogenetic progression is a slight variation of the group it descends from. We can do exactly the same for all life on this planet, they all fit into this divergent tree of life in a very specific way that demonstrates a nested hierarchy that simply put, could never have occurred by any other method we know of besides Evolution.
I know you're about to write a spittle-flecked response to insert "...but GOD!", and sure, if there is a God, he used Evolution to put us here. Either that, or your God engineered this universe to fool us beyond a shadow of a doubt that we evolved, so we never stood a chance... If that's the case, would that make your God's creation a Lie perpetrated to fool us, or could it be that Men writing the Bible didn't understand the Universe in the same way as your God? If the Map doesn't match the Terrain, which one is wrong, the Map or the Terrain? I'm going to go with the Map being wrong on this one... there are too many maps, and they all show something different to the terrain anyway.
Your presupposition is that you only interpret the evidence in creation from an evolutionary perspective. You do not consider the evidence from historical science, as found in Scripture. By the way, historical science also is science.
Wait, so you DO acknowledge we can know about things that happen in the past after all? This completely undoes your assertion that we can't know what happened millions of years ago. In exactly the same way we can examine evidence today of a crime that happened in the past, we can examine the evidence of evolution by examining the evolutionary relics left in its wake. This would be things like ERVs (this is a knock-down argument, would love to see you address that), as well as phylogenetic tree derived from DNA, morphology, palaeontology, embryology, so on... the various experiments we've been able to complete in the lab, verifying our predictions, etc. Ringspecies also show how speciation occurs, and we have numerous examples of various life forms in between all forms of existence, exactly like Evolution would predict.
So what? That doesn't prove that it is correct when you censor other information that doesn't fit within science's worldviews.
Like What? What is censored and how does it not fit into whatever you think is science's 'worldview'(??)
There is another one of your presuppositions. The evidence of the reliable Scriptures contradicts that view.
What have I presupposed? Feel free to demonstrate that reliable scripture whenever you're ready.
See what you've done with your evolutionary presuppositions!
- Human fossils can be found in the same layer as dinosaurs but that doesn't have to be the best explanation. Ever heard of evidence uncovered in support of the destruction of every living thing on the earth through Noah's Flood (Genesis 6).
There's NEVER been any human fossils found in the same rock layer as non-avian dinosaurs. Please show the evidence in support of that. Genetics, Geology and many, many more of the sciences contradict the idea of a worldwide flood at any time in the most recent few hundreds of thousands of years. Feel free to demonstrate that anytime you'd like too.
Pretty. There's another one in Kentucky too. Doubtful either of them would last in actual floodwater and/or ocean currents for any decent amount of time, let alone fully laden with 16.4 million species pairs and enough food & water for the duration of the alleged flood... do you have any idea how much food just one Elephant alone eats?
Even your use of 'Precambrian' is an evolutionary view (see
Origin of life, Precambrian evolution).
Precambrian is a reference to a relative place in the geological column. If you like, don't use "Precambrian" and let's call it the "bottom layers" then. I have to point out though that this is a Geological term, not an evolutionary term.
Your claim is that evolution is 'a model built on observation and evidence - otherwise it wouldn't have been a scientific theory in the first place'.
Correct.
God has given you some of the evidence in
Romans 1:18-32. Your mind is closed to that information that you can investigate in creation. Why? Your naturalistic presuppositions!!
Did Men write the Bible, or did God write the bible, and how do we know? What sets apart these writings as opposed to any other sacred text of any other religion? Why is the Bible your 'Go-To' religious text above all others?
You can't accept that criteria used to test the reliability of any document, including the writings of The Australian newspaper of 30 years ago, Captain Cook's journals, and that finds the New Testament to be superbly reliable:
Well, the difference being, we have other historical records, documents and accounts of the stories in The Australian newspaper of 30 years ago and Captain Cook's journals, we aren't restricted to just those references - because you're right, otherwise we couldn't just accept what these documents say. The other thing to consider too is that the accounts in both The Australian newspaper of 30 years ago and Captain Cook's journals don't make extraordinary claims about the supernatural, let alone claim I have an immortal soul that will be tortured forever if I don't set aside my critical faculties... I can cross-check both these documents with other sources - Police and Courthouse records for the Australian, the Royal Records, and Ship's Log/First Mate's diary for confirmation of Captain Cook's journals. There is NO contemporary extra-biblical source for the stories in the Bible, so no way to confirm any of the supernatural claims made in it. History has records of *some* of the mundane mentions in the Bible, but nothing of any of the supernatural claims. Now, if there were any substance to the Supernatural stories, surely that would be what history remembers, not the mundane parts of failed prophecies, don't you agree? but Wait, Let me guess, Satan conspired to erase it all and God let him?
If we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D. (
Is the New Testament text reliable? Greg Koukl).
Again, going back to it, a majority of History isn't something we need to plan our lives around. My not knowing about Alexander the Great won't have any real bearing on how my life plays out today, wouldn't you agree? That said, we DO have extra texts referencing his existence outside his own accounts - we have records of him from his enemies, we have official government records of his laws and dictates during his time of rule, we have gold coins from the era with his head on one side, etc. there's a wealth of information from all over the better part of Europe, Middle East and Africa throughout his time there while he was alive. Nothing like that for the Bible or Jesus.
You DO know this information about God's creation as he has revealed it to you in Scripture and creation. But you are not open to receive it. God is not going to hit you with a bolt of Canberra lightning (I used to pastor a church in the ACT) to make you sit up and take notice of God's existence.
Well, he ought to get onto that sooner than later, because wherever he chose to hide that tidbit of knowledge in my brain, he picked a very safe place for it and obviously if true, this is the most important piece of life-altering knowledge that I would think should be first and foremost in my mind - not hidden, nor even should it ever have been hidden in the first place.
What did Jesus say about the evidence? In the story he told about the rich man and Lazarus, one experiencing blessedness and the other torment, this is recorded:
‘He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”’ (
Luke 16:31).
Well, I'd like to see that backed up with evidence rather than you just asserting it as true with no justification - if someone who were clearly dead came back to life - That's Very Credible and Extraordinary Evidence that'd win me over... Back to the Alexander the Great example though, what extra-biblical evidence do you have for Moses? Do we know which Pharaoh's brother he was?
If you won't believe the evidence for God in creation, and the evidence in a reliable Bible, you won't be convinced even if God would raise someone from the dead - or you were hit by a lightning bolt. Or, if I continue to reason with you. Wouldn't you agree that at this present time you are NOT open to consider the evidence in Scripture? If that is so, why do you come onto a Christian forum to spread your evolutionary message?
I'm ABSOLUTELY Open to consider the evidence in Scripture if we can verify it is the written word of a God. Is there any way we can do that at all? If not, how do you know it's the word of God and not just by unknown authors? Here's the thing: I have read a number of religious texts now, and they all make competing claims as to the author of the universe and how we all came about and where we all go next. Why should the Bible stick out to me as something different? How can you verify this was the work of your God and not a book of confusion authored by Satan to hide your God's true wish? Do you think you can discern the difference between two immortal and powerful beings considering your God doesn't make himself known to us in any Damascus Road experience that would instantly clear things up for everyone who gets one...?
Let's be honest now, if God chose to make himself known to us, wouldn't you agree the all-powerful creator of the universe could convince our puny minds of his omnipotent existence in a snap?
If you won't believe the evidence for God in creation, and the evidence in a reliable Bible,
I would, if we could determine with certainty the divine origin of them. How do you propose we do that? How did you determine among all the religions still in practice today, that this is the right one? I don't understand how you've come to that determination and you don't seem to be willing to explain it to me and just keep claiming that I already know, but something's getting in the way of it... I don't accept this. Feel free to back it up with something of substance, bible quotes won't be meaningful for outsiders if there's no evidence of its divinity.
you won't be convinced even if God would raise someone from the dead - or you were hit by a lightning bolt. Or, if I continue to reason with you. Wouldn't you agree that at this present time you are NOT open to consider the evidence in Scripture? If that is so, why do you come onto a Christian forum to spread your evolutionary message?
You're wrong to say I'm not open to the evidence - be honest with yourself, there hasn't been any evidence forthcoming just yet. I come here to spread reason, rationality and critical thought. If you still believe your religion at the end of that, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem what you believe in. When I do get concerned though when parents forego medical attention for their children because of religious beliefs, I worry that people are victimised because of who they are, whether by race, gender or sexual orientation because of religious beliefs. I worry when actual scientific knowledge and progress is not only denied, but actively campaigned against and undermined at every turn by people of religion for no other reason than their religious beliefs.
All human beings who reject the reliable evidence in Scripture do so because of what
Romans 1:18 states, 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who
suppress the truth by their wickedness' (NIV)
I keep coming back to it, but why should I believe this? Do you believe what the Qur'An says? You know that was allegedly written by Mohammed, God's final messenger - If not, why not?
Are you a textual critic who has investigated why the Bible, both OT and NT, is a book of reliable, trustworthy, credible documents? Many have written advanced doctorates on this topic. I did it myself. I have a PhD in New Testament in which I investigated a dimension of the historical Jesus - 482pp dissertation.
Great! Perhaps you can tell me why it should make for compulsory reading then? Also, perhaps you could tell me how you apply the same criteria to other holy texts of other religions like the Torah, Qur'An an the Hindu Vedas, etc.
The NT's and OT's reliability are based on evidence - not evolutionary evidence - but textual evidence. You have given me standard throw-away lines from atheists. Take a read of F. F. Bruce,
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?.
This is good, and all, but even if we can establish that they're reliable, it doesn't mean what's written in them are correct and accurate to reality. There's a number of scientific experiments that have shown humans to be quite faulty in their recollection of an event, even moments after it (go read police reports on traffic accidents for one easy example). We are dealing with extraordinary claims and they demand extraordinary evidence - Would you believe a written text that claims that a man flew to heaven on a creature similar to a flying horse? The Qur'An after all has one extra advantage over the new testament, the Islamic Religion has at least one of the original 5 copies of their Holy Texts, so there's no doubting the accuracy of their document at all. I have to note that this is around 1500 years old and therefore puts the canonization of the Qur'An around a century or two after the earliest canonized version of the Bible - I also couldn't help but notice how many different versions of Bible there are and what they include/don't include:
Biblical canon - Wikipedia - The Qur'An has remained much more consolidated by comparison... not sure why that is if (one of those forms of) Christianity is the correct one.
I don't expect you to be open to that evidence because of your presuppositional bias to reject such evidence.
Incorrect. The only bias I'll have is to ensure critical thinking and the null hypothesis are observed when considering the evidence. As indicated above, which Bible (or Qur'An, or Torah) is the one God wants us to observe? It seems even among Christians, there's plenty of confusion. The bible even refers to chapters and verses not even in it - did God forget them? Did he make a mistake? Or is it that fallible men wrote it and put it together?
He has already proven he's real in creation and through the death and resurrection of Jesus. You'll know about his reality in a very different way at his Second Coming. See:
What will happen when Jesus comes again?
I pray that you will be open to ALL of the evidence and not listen to your selective hearing and reading.
If you clicked on my name under my avatar to read my profile, you'd know I'm an Aussie bloke from Brissy.
Oz
So, again with the unevidenced supernatural allegation - why on earth would a God wanting to deliver the most important message about our existence, deliver it in the darkest most secluded corner of the middle east with little to no fanfare until at the very least, decades after the fact? and even then, it really didn't get going until some roman leader decided to make it the official religion of the state some several centuries afterwards. Surely this resurrection ought to have happened in front of the World, not just a handful of peasants in the back end of the desert? Why the secrecy?
The problem here is you're asking me to set aside my critical faculties and start with the apriori assumption the bible is true and written by God before doing anything else. I just can't do that knowing what I know about our fallibility - and your God would know this all too well if he exists. Why would he give us a brain and the ability to reason, then hide from us critically minded people, doesn't he love us and want a relationship with us too?
