$50 to anyone who can prove to me evolution is a lie.

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

Badfish said:
Literally? Well why would God go through all the trouble of inspiring a book (Genesis) if it wasn't meant to be literal, I can see no distinctive markings to imply that it is an analogy or a general guideline, it is deliberate in it's account.

Distinctive markings that it is not literal. That is because you are not reading it in Hebrew.

1. The Torah is a SONG. It is meant to be sung and IS sung every Sabbath in Jewish synagogues (in Hebrew).

2. Genesis 2:1-3 is a very structured poem in the Hebrew, complete with rhymes.

3. Numerology: The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

4. You mention only 1 creation story. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally.

Now, WHY would God inspire a non-literal creation story (ies)? That's simple. THE BIBLE IS ABOUT THEOLOGY! You see, you are so focussed on reading them literally that you don't even realize the stories HAVE theological messages and it is the messages that are important. Look at all you are missing!

And how does Gods observable creation 100% prove that evolution was his means of creation?

Because new species are obsevered to be created or have been created by gradual changes: both in real time and in the fossil record. That's just one "proof".

Haven't you been paying attention AT ALL in this forum? We keep presenting the evidence to you.

And no, science doesn't 100% prove. But it does 100% falsify or show ideas to be wrong. And the evidence 100% proves that a literal interpretation of Genesis is NOT how God created.

My interpretation is literal, almost all reliable bible scholars and concordances recognize Genesis as a literal interpretation.

Actually, NONE of them do. Just the one or two Biblical literalists use. Do me a favor. Go to Barnes and Nobles or Borders and look at translations of Genesis or commentaries on it. See how many use a literal interpretation. When I did so the count was: 10 non-literal and 0 literal.

Would you even consider that man has dug so deep into DNA and the human genome, that they might just be finding out that all creation is similar in design yet seperate and unique in species and that although we share common traits and in some cases genes that we may have been uniquely created, yet similar in composition?

Absolutely not. Phylogenetic analysis (comparison of thousands of DNA sequences across thousands of species) clearly shows that genes are related by historical connections (evolution) and NOT separate and unique creations.

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

WinAce said:
There aren't any that I'm aware of (as of yet); but then, there aren't any peer-reviewed articles supporting creationism either, and you consider that a theory, correct?

Yes, there are peer-reviewed (for the time) papers. You have to go back to the 1700s and early 1800s to find them, but they are there. Look under Thomas Burnet, William Whiston, and Whewell. Later verions of creationism can be found in the papers of Buckland, Sedgwick, and Agassiz.

Remember, I said ceationism is a FALSIFIED theory. Which means, of course, that NOW there are no papers because the theory has already been shown to be false.

But, you are claiming that atheism is a currently valid theory. So where are the papers?

I do believe a "theory" is defined by aspects independent of being found in the scientific journals.

LOL!! Now you sound like creationists and IDers!! They claim a valid theory too but don't publish in the scientific literature. Winace, if you can't get your ideas past peer-reviewers, it really ain't "scientific" is it? And you claimed atheism as a SCIENTIFIC theory.

For now, I'll let you have enough rope to later hang your own posts with by asking you to define the specific criteria that make something a "scientific theory".

OK.

" Science is the human search for a natural explanation of what the universe is: how it is constructed, how it came to be. The only rule of the scientific method is that we must discard any scientific statement if the evidence of our senses shows it to be wrong. To be scientific, we must be able to go to nature to see if an idea works, to see if it fits. If we cannot go out and test the validity of a notion directly, we can take a more circuitous route: if an explanation about the world is correct, it must imply some further consequences that we can observe in nature. If we fail to find these predicted consequences, if instead we observe something else, then our explanation can't be correct. If we *do* make the predicted observations, temporarily the explanation has defied our attempts to show it false."
Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 27-28.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

Now, the scientific literature is devoted to intersubjective direct experience of the universe itself. So, what intersubjective experience of the universe do you have for atheism?

Actually, I would argue both could be. Theistic evolution is only lacking in the theory department because it makes no predictions distinguishable from ordinary evolution.

Theistic evolution is based on a faith that God is sustaining nature. That can't be tested.

Michael Behe's form of theistic evolution via primordial supercell, for example, does make testable empirical predictions, so it certainly qualifies as a hypothesis, at the least (although a falsified one).

Behe's hypothesis has nothing to do with the "theistic" part of theistic evolution. As you said, Behe's contention is a primordial cell has ALL the genetic material/information for later species. Notice deity anywhere in that? That's because there isn't.

What you are doing is tying untestable claims about the existence of the supernatural to testable claims about the physical universe. That is non-sequitor.

If repeated testing failed to falsify the unique predictions it made, I would have no qualms with calling theistic evolution a "theory"; would you?

But theistic evolution doesn't make unique predictions, does it? Theistic evolution simply says that God works by the material processes discoverd by science. That is a statement of faith, not a testable statement.

I hope repeating that mantra loud and often enough brings you enough emotional comfort to justify looking foolish in front of the entire forum.

LOL! Must not have any arguments to offer, since you have to fall back on ad hominem.

An argument could be made over the former, but atheism does indisputably have a lot of the latter.

Predictive power? It has NONE. What predictions can you possibly make that a deity does not exist?

Atheism, like creationism, relies on denying data. As such, it is intellectually anemic. That dependence on denial of data is why Darwin and Huxley dismissed it.

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

Ben Reid said:
Originally Posted By: Frumious Bandersnatch

It is imporant to separate methodological naturalism which is necessary for science from philosophical naturalism which seems to be what you are talking about. Creationists seem to be fond of conflating the two.

What you seem fond of doing is repeating to me something I've already heard three times on this thread and assuming I'm a creationist.

If you've heard it three times, then address it! Show us how methodological naturalism arises, what it does, and how it MUST also be philosophical naturalism.

No, you could be an atheist. They also erroneously conflate the two. Which is why it is so much fun to watch creationists and atheists. They use the same type of arguments and make the same mistakes about science.

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

Ben Reid said:
Yes. And I think many scientists would argue that there is a HIGH probability that evolution has no need for direction.

Many scientISTS would. However, are they arguing science or their personal beliefs? You seem to think that, if a scientist says it, then it is automatically science. Not so.

What scientists DO state is that there is no need for DIRECT CREATION of species. They also deny that NATURAL SELECTION has a long-term goal. However, both those statements are very different from saying that evolution is "undirected".

"...scientists can be more careful about how they use terms. For example, evolutionists sometimes confuse the evidence we have for considerable contingency during the course of evolution with evidence for a lack of ultimate purpose in the universe. Fuytuma writes, 'Perhaps most importantly, if the world and its creatures developed purely by material, physical forces, it could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal...Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and it the product of more material mechanism -- but this seems to be the message of evolution.' (20) GC Simpson is regularly quoted with dismay by creationists as saying 'Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.' (21) A theist might respond that we do not know what God's purpose is or what he planned. It is possible that if there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity, it was part of its plan to bring humans and every other species about precisely in what seems to us the rather zig-zag, contingency-prone fashion that the fossil record suggests. Of course, this would be a theological statement, but that, indeed, is the point. Saying that 'there is no purpose to life' is not a scientific statement. We are able to explain the world and its creatures using materialist, physical processes, but to claim that this then requires us to conclude that there is no purpose in nature steps beyond science into philosophy. One's students may or may not come to this conclusion on their own; in my opinion, for a nonreligious professor to interject his own philosophy into the classroom in this manner is as offensive as it would be for a fundamentalist professor to pass off his philosophy as science." Eugenie Scott in the essay Creationism in The Flight from Science and Reason, New York Academy of Sciences, volume 775, 1995, pg 519.

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

Tinker Grey said:
WinAce,I know of no scientific assertions that atheism makes. An argument against Theism is typically the omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and the existence of evil. However, this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

Good work about Popper. And a very good statement here.

However, you miss the point. I believe lucaspa is asking where does the scientific discipline of atheism, if it exists, get discussed. What experiments are performed to demonstrate that it is true, or that Theism is false?

See above, though I don't purport to speak for lucaspa.

But you did an excellent job anyway! :clap:

Nicely said.

I think it is useful here to use some distinctions used in the Great Debates at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/

Hard Atheism: the belief that God does not exist.

Soft Atheism: the lack of belief that God exists.

Hard Agnosticism: the belief that God's existence is not knowable.

Soft Agnosticism: the acknowledgement that one doesn't know if God exists.

Soft atheism won't stand examination. It must go to either hard atheism or soft agnosticism.

I haven't heard the hard and soft agnosticism before, but they do seem good to me. The "soft" atheism is there to disguise that atheism is a faith.

Note that hard agnosticism is also a faith since it makes a faith statement about the knowledge we will get in the future (or lack thereof).

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

mikelaughs said:
Oh, you mean like the coelacanth?

I think he was thinking more on the lines of Acanthostega or the contemporary mudskipper.

That coelencanths did not go extinct means what? That a conclusion was reached without looking thru all the available search space? So what?

Coelencanths earn a good living with the morphology they have. That means that purifying selection (one flavor of natural selection) is going to keep them the same.

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

mikelaughs said:
Vance,

can you please show me one example of an observed species evolving into a NEW species which sustained itself (i.e. a random mutation that cannot or does not reproduce obviously does not qualify).

Remember, you did say SPECIES. Too late now to go back and use "they are all flies" or "they are still plants" argument, since both "flies" and "plants" are GROUPS OF SPECIES and not a single species.

Nope, you are going to fall back on that.

Is it still bacteria? Is it still a virus? has it changed into an ant? a mite? a louse?

Bacteria and viruses are whole KINGDOMS composed of tens of thousands of species. Yet you are using them like they are a single species. Nice semantic games you play. Well, games you cheat at.

Oh, well, a few instances of observed speciation for you, both in the lab and the wild.

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature. Follow up paper in PNAS http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/20/11757
2a. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
2c. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
3. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely find fossil record.
13. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
10. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
11.. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
12. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
4. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
11. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
12. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

If you want to discuss any of these in detail, just let me know.

Otherwise, your statement is falsified.

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

mikelaughs said:
Arikay,

As for the coelecanth, it has been found in different OCEANS, stressing the word, because we're not even just talking about different parts of one ocean. certainly we can't suspect that the isolated findings of the seeming rare fish just happen to be in locations where the environment is identical in every way, and has been for millions of years.

Why not? What are we talking about here:

1. Temperature
2. Salinity
3. Pressure
4 Food supply
5. Predators.

Those wouldn't be the same or nearly identical in PARTS of different oceans? Why not?

i don't think that a closer look at the facts of this fish will support that either.

Actually, a closer look at the facts of the fish show the present coelencanth to be a member of the same FAMILY, but not the same genus or the same species. There have been changes over the last 65 million years.

moving on...Whales, with legs? surely you jest. Are we talking pictures here? fossils, a single mutant specimen, the piecing together of bones from several animals?

No, contemporary whales with leg and pelvic bones.

Also, fossil specimens of several individuals (not composite) all being whales with legs.
1. http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
2. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413277a0_fs.html
3. http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm

How about we talk about the Piltdown man (in US textbooks for over 40 years) and found to be a hoax.

In textbooks for over 40 years? Since Piltdown was only considered valid for a period of less than 40 years (1918-1950), this isn't possible. Who discovered the fraud? Evolutionists, that's who. And it was a fraud perpetrated ON scientists.

How about Ramapithecus, a man assembled from a handful of teeth, and assembled incorrectly at that.

Ramapithecus was never considered human. It was always considered an ancestral ape.

How about the Nebraska man and his wife, who graced the pages of many a 20th century text book? The man and his wife were deduced from one tooth. Later it was discovered to be a pig's tooth.

Discovered by whom? THE SAME SCIENTIST WHO MADE THE MISTAKE! BTW, pig teeth and human teeth are very similar -- similar diets.

What about Java Man "discovered" by Eugene Dubois? or Homo Habilis?

H. habilis is known from over 50 specimens right now. H. erectus in Java is known from over a dozen specimens, including some recent discoveries that place H. erectus still living at only 20,000 years ago. What's you problem?

These fraudulent, and/or very imaginative attempts to prove the assumption of evolution are not damaging to the theory itself?
Do we see a pattern?

The only pattern is one of distortion and misrepresentation by professional creationists. You weren't given the list of transitional individuals linking A. afarensis to H. habilis to H. erectus to H. sapiens, were you? Why not? Because your sources deliberately mislead you, is why.

And yet you continue to follow them even after they are pointed out to be frauds. Do we see a pattern?

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

wblastyn said:
Originally Posted By: Badfish

As for the theistic evolutionist, thats a different story, but I believe that it discredits Gods sovereignity by denying he is able to create the way he said he created, it is more potent to spontaneously create than to set life into motion by means of evolution from a singularity.

Have you learned nothing? Theistic evolution does not deny that God could zap everything into existance, it just says He chose not to because evidence from creation says he used evolution.

You know, at least 4 of us have told Badfish or Dayton the same thing at least twice each in the two forums. Yet they keep repeating this while never addressing the counters.

:sigh:

I think they have the fatal disease of Biblical literalism.

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

mikelaughs said:
This is sadly not true. The Piltdown man and others were shown to be a hoax, but were still used for many years to teach our children that God didn't really do all those things they told you about in Sunday School.

1. Please document that Piltdown was included in textbooks WRITTEN AFTER it was found to be a hoax.

2. Please document that evolution has EVER been used in a classroom to deny the existence of God or that God created. You may have told your kids a wrong HOW God created in your Sunday School, but that is your problem. I can't stop you from lying to your kids.

In fact, take a look at who Cro-magnon man, and neandrethal have been found to be, yet these are still depicted today as evidence of evolution.

They are. How are they not? Cro-Magnon is H. sapiens in Europe. Neandertals are a sibling species.

Badfish strikes a very relavant chord in this whole discussion. Neither of us (me or you) will change our minds today, based on evidence or arguments presented. Why is that?

Because you do not listen to God.

I hold that we are both finding evidence to support what our heart already believes. This belief is often referred to as Faith. It takes alot of faith to believe either theory - creationism or evolution, because niether of us were there to see how it went down.

The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Do you deny that you know a meteor hit the earth and formed Meteor Crator in Arizona? You weren't there to see it.

We know the past because it leaves evidence we can look at today. If the past had been different, then the evidence would be different.

Creationists aren't consistent about this. They say you can know a Flood happened without any reference to Genesis. All you have to do is look at the geology. Right? So THEY don't believe your last sentence.

I'd rather believe that God knows what he is talking about than that i am part of a hopeless pointless life in which there is no ultimate goal, no path to perfection, where the only reason to live is to survive and the only reason to survive is to live. Why would i choose this? This has one end...Death.

The naturalistic fallacy red in tooth and claw. Where does evolution tell you this is a pointless life? Where does it say YOU have no ultimate goal? Where does it say YOU can't strive for SPIRITUAL perfection? Wait, it is the BIBLE that tells you that you can't be perfect!

Nihilism is one choice of philosophies. But it is not compelled by evolution. Nice, big strawman you made to knock down.

Why not choose to believe in eternal life. Why not choose to believe that God has made a way to save us from this sinful world and that way is Jesus Christ.

Which is what at least half the evolutionary biologists in history believe/believed.

CreationISM is not Christianity, and evolution is not atheism.

Why not believe creationism? Because it calls God a liar and means you can't believe in God or Jesus Christ.

WinAce · Aug 21, 2003

lucaspa said:
[insert long rant on atheism being unscientific]

I think I'll start a new topic here (or maybe General Apologetics?).

mikelaughs · Aug 21, 2003

lucaspa said:
1. Please document that Piltdown was included in textbooks WRITTEN AFTER it was found to be a hoax.

One of the evolutionists on this forum referred me here, and for that, i thank him. He knows who he is, the guy with the scary wolf boy in his signature

August
Weiner has finished a rough copy of his book, The Piltdown Forgery. Teilhard visits England and discusses Piltdown with a number of British scientists, including Oakley and Weiner. November 15
J. Manwaring Baines, the curator of the Hastings Museum, accuses Dawson of plagiarizing The History of Hastings Castle, as well as faking other artifacts. One response to this came from Downes, who was investigating Dawson's artifacts; and an anonymous suggestion appeared that Arthur Conan Doyle was behind the Piltdown forgery (Anon 1954kl; Downes 1954; Thorne 1954; Watson 1954; also see Salzman 1955; Weiner 1955b). Baines published the book Historic Hastings the following year, but his comments about Dawson have only reappeared in the 1986 edition (Baines 1986). (For more information about Dawson and forgeries, consult Section D.) 1955

January 7
Sir Arthur Keith dies. Almost immediately a letter is published in which Keith had said he thought Dawson was behind the forgery (Anon 1955b; Hampton 1955).

November 1955
Sonia Cole releases Counterfeit, a book about great cases of fakery, including a section on Piltdown (Cole 1955; Crawford 1956). Piltdown ceases to be a news item (until the 1970s) and for the next 15 years is referred to mostly in textbooks, usually briefly (some good exceptions are Howells 1967 [orig. 1959]; Wendt 1956: 405-17).

lucaspa said:
They are. How are they not? Cro-Magnon is H. sapiens in Europe. Neandertals are a sibling species.

Unfortunately, even evolution believing scientists have found that their rock solid view of neandarthals (or neandertals) was wrong. One might conclude that, if there was interbreeding, neanderthals could be considered human, with some visual differences. Many humans today have visible differences that don't make them animal.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/neanderthal991025.html
Radiocarbon dating on pill-size samples from two skulls put their age at 28,000 years old. The Neanderthal specimens had earlier been dated at 45,000 years using a less accurate method.
It just makes the picture of the relationship between modern humans and Neanderthals far more complicated than it was before, comments Jan Simek, head of the anthropology department at University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Youre not talking about one advanced form and an animal. They were all people.

lucaspa said:
Because you do not listen to God.

How do you know? Please, let's focus on the issue, not my attentiveness or lack there of, to the Almighty.

lucaspa said:
The naturalistic fallacy red in tooth and claw. Where does evolution tell you this is a pointless life? Where does it say YOU have no ultimate goal? Where does it say YOU can't strive for SPIRITUAL perfection? Wait, it is the BIBLE that tells you that you can't be perfect!

I got the pointless life point from wolf boy, who stated a belief that there is no goal in evolution, evolution happens only when it has to, in order for the species to survive. this indicates no driving goal to me, no?

part2 from the above; Joh 17:20 And I do not pray for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on Me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me.
Joh 17:22 And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as We are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them, and You in Me, that they may be madeperfect in one; and that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me.

lucaspa said:
Why not believe creationism? Because it calls God a liar and means you can't believe in God or Jesus Christ.

I believe in creation based on a literal translation of the events of Genesis. it is ludicrous that this would make me a liar, however,

Pro 30:4 Who has gone up to Heaven and has come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in His garments? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know.
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Pro 30:6 Do not add to His Words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar.

lucaspa · Aug 21, 2003

mikelaughs said:
Originally Posted By: lucaspa

1. Please document that Piltdown was included in textbooks WRITTEN AFTER it was found to be a hoax.

One of the evolutionists on this forum referred me here, and for that, i thank him. He knows who he is, the guy with the scary wolf boy in his signature
August
Weiner has finished a rough copy of his book, The Piltdown Forgery. Teilhard visits England and discusses Piltdown with a number of British scientists, including Oakley and Weiner. November 15
J. Manwaring Baines, the curator of the Hastings Museum, accuses Dawson of plagiarizing The History of Hastings Castle, as well as faking other artifacts. One response to this came from Downes, who was investigating Dawson's artifacts; and an anonymous suggestion appeared that Arthur Conan Doyle was behind the Piltdown forgery (Anon 1954kl; Downes 1954; Thorne 1954; Watson 1954; also see Salzman 1955; Weiner 1955b).

Mike, you want to explain how any of this is RELEVANT??!! Your claim was that Piltdown was used as VALID in textbooks to, how did you put it?, tell children that God did not create.

All this shows is that the origin of the Piltdown hoax was discussed. None of these are textbooks and none mention Piltdown as anything other than a hoax. Where is the documentation of you claim?

Unfortunately, even evolution believing scientists have found that their rock solid view of neandarthals (or neandertals) was wrong. One might conclude that, if there was interbreeding, neanderthals could be considered human, with some visual differences.

What a misrepresentation of the articles you post!

The shakeup in the last several years has been conclusive evidence that neandertals were NOT a subspecies of H. sapiens but a separate species of their own. The Multiregional Hypothesis (advocatedWolpoff) has been falsified. Instead of thinking of neandertal as our great-gandad on the maternal side, we find that he was our great uncle and not our direct ancestor. Big deal.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/neanderthal991025.html

"New dating of Neanderthal bones indicates that the evolutionary cousins of modern humans survived later in central Europe than had been thought and shared the continent with their successors for several millennia. "

What's the big deal here? No threat to evolution.

How do you know?

Because you reject anything in His Creation that conflicts with what you want to hear. The transitional individuals in the human lineage are like God shouting "I did it by evolution!" but you don't listen. God wrote two books, but you ignore one of them.

I got the pointless life point from wolf boy, who stated a belief that there is no goal in evolution, evolution happens only when it has to, in order for the species to survive. this indicates no driving goal to me, no?

We need to distinguish between evolution and natural selection. Natural selection modifies species only when the environment changes. This was in response to your claim that the coelencanth HAD to change. There is nothing in evolutionary theory to require a population to change. If the environment is constant, natural selection will keep the population constant.

But you apparently are also taking evolution and natural selection as a PHILOSOPHY. They are not. You committed what is called the Naturalistic Fallacy. That is, what happens in nature tells us about morals. It doesn't.

Look, you believe God is external to nature, right? That God has goals and intentions for human beings. Right? Well, evolution says nothing about that. Those goals and intentions are there just as much with our having evolved as they are there if God had zapped us into existence.

You certainly don't think that our particular physical features are of intense interest to God? After all, God is spirit so what would He care about our physical appearance.

Joh 17:20 And I do not pray for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on Me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me.
Joh 17:22 And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as We are one,
Joh 17:23I in them, and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me.

THIS is what you base your "perfection" on?? You interpreted this to mean some form of PHYSICAL perfection? How could you possibly do that? Jesus is talking about SPIRITUAL communion and closeness to God. "that they may be one, even as we are one" is obviously talking about Jesus' close relationship to God and his desire that everyone has just that close a relationship. Not about physical perfection. How can you abuse the Bible and Jesus' teachings so?

I believe in creation based on a literal translation of the events of Genesis. it is ludicrous that this would make me a liar, however

Read what I said again: "Why not believe creationism? Because it calls God a liar and means you can't believe in God or Jesus Christ."

Creationism calls God a liar. Your literal interpretation of the Bible calls God a liar.

For instance, WHICH creation do you believe in? The one in Genesis 1 where it took 4 days to make the heavens and the earth, or the creation in Genesis 2:4b where all that happens within a single day? Your literal interpretation means God had to lie in one of those? Which one?

Now, your man made theory of creation based on Genesis 1 contradicts what God left for us in His Creation. According to you, God either lied in Genesis or He lied in His Creation. Nice work. If we follow your man made interpretation, God has to lose.

Pro 30:4 Who has gone up to Heaven and has come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in His garments? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know.
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Pro 30:6 Do not add to His Words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar.

OK, so why does creationism break this commandment? Why does creationism add to God's words all the time? Why does creationism IGNORE God's words?

Are you saying this says you are to take a literal translation? If so, please look at Luke 2:1 and tell us why Japanese, Sioux, and Zulus were not taxed. Or are you saying they were?

Tell me, does the earth move around the sun? If you think so, then you have added to God's words because the Bible says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable: Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5.

The translation in my Bible says: "If you claim that He said something He never said, He will reprimand you and show that you are a liar."

Well, God certainly has done a good job of showing creationism to be a lie with His Creation. When are creationists going to stop claiming that He said something He never said?

Arikay · Aug 21, 2003

One thing to note, I find it interesting when I ask this question,

when gods creation says one thing and you interpretation of his words says another, who is right? (Gods creation or your interpretation).

I dont think I have Ever recieved a straight answer from a creationist. Most of the time its just ignored.

And, to repeat, one more time, for those that seem to ignore it:

Evolution is Not atheism.

Tinker Grey · Aug 21, 2003

lucaspa said:
Soft atheism won't stand examination. It must go to either hard atheism or soft agnosticism.

I haven't heard the hard and soft agnosticism before, but they do seem good to me. The "soft" atheism is there to disguise that atheism is a faith.

Note that hard agnosticism is also a faith since it makes a faith statement about the knowledge we will get in the future (or lack thereof).

Thank you for your compliments.

There are plenty of folks at the Straight Dope who contend quite well that soft atheism exists. I've come to respect it. However, as a theist I don't really feel the need to defend SA as a valid stance, especially as it would seem that our esteemed colleague is a hard atheist.

Tinker

ByGrace · Aug 21, 2003

$50 to anyone who can prove to me evolution is a lie.

God goes one better then that. Eternal Life to anyone that will believe in Him.

$50 or Eternal Life. Ummm, Ill take eternal life

Arikay · Aug 21, 2003

So, unless you can show us how Evolution can destroy salvation, and how the Majority of christians wont be saved. I dont see the point.

JohnR7 · Aug 21, 2003

ByGrace said:
$50 or Eternal Life. Ummm, Ill take eternal life

Are you sure? Is that your final answer?

OldBadfish · Aug 21, 2003

Very easy, your faltering Arikay.

Teaching our children that evolution is truth contradicts Gods word, or at the least causes questions about the creation, it is simple to see that this somewhat contradictory teaching to the bible will cause children and future generations (not to mention todays generation) that embrace this evolution *theory* will have problems believing Gods word because of the contradiction and as a result will cause a loss of salvation obviously, if one doesn't believe in God.

Are you going to tell me that the invent of the theory of evolution hasn't *created* atheists?

OldBadfish · Aug 21, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Are you sure? Is that your final answer?

John sometimes I don't understand you.

But I know that you most likely speak the truth.

$50 to anyone who can prove to me evolution is a lie.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Just an old legend...

Active Member

Legend

HI

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads