rmwilliamsll said:
Whats not true? That carbon-14 is always been constant that nearly every evolution scientist asumes or that it is inconstant?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
rmwilliamsll said:that is NOT true.
see a decent scientific site like http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
and understand what the dendrochronology recalibration actually does. AiG is scientifically wrong on the issue in this essay.
period.
.....
Spiritualyalive said:Whats not true? That carbon-14 is always been constant that nearly every evolution scientist asumes or that it is inconstant?
Spiritualyalive said:Wow now your calling God a Liar. I know who the liar is here and it isn't God.
Spiritualyalive said:I doubt you have, it's pretty much unrefutable. Since you are not taking into acount the Flood and the world pre-flood vrs post-flood there is, this is where you error lays. There is no overcoming this error either. You premise is off so all that follows will be off as well.
Spiritualyalive said:
Spiritualyalive said:Whats not true? That carbon-14 is always been constant that nearly every evolution scientist asumes or that it is inconstant?
LewisWildermuth said:This part nearly every evolution scientist assumes[sic] The scientists have known about this weakness for a long time, which is why C-14 tests are calibrated with samples of a known age from the area when ever possible. When AiG implies otherwise it is AiG that is being dishonest, not the scientists.
LewisWildermuth said:No matter how many times one listens to a lie it is still a lie.
Well tell me has AIG ever posted exactly where the flood starts and stops in the geologic column? Since a global flood is a pretty big event one should easily be able to point that out. I have asked about it several times, they do not seem to have an answer.
What are AIGs numbers on what decay rates we should find before the flood and after the flood? How did they come to these exact numbers?
Why should I accept AiG as a better resource than ASA? AiG has stated on their own site that the will ignore any evidence that does not fit their model. Why should I trust a group that ignores evidence?
Spiritualyalive said:And yet they still falsly claim that carbon-14 can be used to test beyound 50,000 years. I seen it thousands on times on T.V. ,news, papers, magazines, etc.
Yet they never mention that a word wide flood whould have thrown nearly all carbon-14 off from the flood time all the way back to creation. It's stupid to assume that there this ignorant.
Spiritualyalive said:Ignoring false evidence is ok with me. There are alot people out there, especially evolutionists that will LIE up the ying/yang to prove evolution.
vossler said:You're right, I am looking for something I don't see, a transitional form.
That's not how I see it.
However, most scientists are not theists.
I would submit that the reason most of us can't overcome the first two hurdles is because it would require a faith in something which can never be definitively proven.
The very idea of stating we can emphatically prove that something occurred billions of years ago is, to me, obsurd when we have only been around just a few thousand years.
Luckily, the Bible tells us everything we need to know and evolution, thankfully, isn't one of them.
As for point c. You were somewhat accurate. Let me modify your definition with one that applies to me:
'they are so fully committed to scripture and anything which contradicts it they must deny. Evolution contradicts and disturbs their belief. To them, this particular interpretation of scripture is a human interpretation of the text; it is not identical to God's Word. So they see disagreement with this interpretation, not as disagreement with a human person, but as disagreement with God.'
BTW - Is there a reason you've never responded to post #420?
Scholar in training said:I don't see what believing in evolution or an old earth has to do with being politically correct. I'm conservative and I still believe in an old earth.
genez said:I believe in an old earth, as well.
You missed the pun.
His icon said, "AMEN." Right?
To be politically correct, it would have to read...."APERSON."
(If not, some woman's libers may get offended!)
Grace and peace, GeneZ
Spiritualyalive said:Old earth or old creation?
I can believe in a old Earth but the creation was not very old.
genez said:This creation is not very old. There were other creations before this one, just like there will be another new creation to take the place of this one.
Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."
I suggest you backtrack in this thread a ways. For, it seems you just entered and missed a lot of work that has been done. Lot's.
Grace and peace, GeneZ
Well I keep hearing how reptiles begat mammals, yet each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. I'm sure you can come up with something that in your mind meets your criteria as a transitional form. But I do know this; there is anything but universal acceptance of it even in the secular scientific community.gluadys said:Technically all fossils are transitional forms. There are many fossils that well illustrate connections between major taxa.
Why don't you name two groups and tell me what a transition between them would probably look like.
I guess it depends on what you think a good percentage is. Personally, I don't believe it's any where near as high as you state, but for sake of discussion I'll give you that number. Now, depending on the survey 75 to 90% of all Americans profess to be Christians. So for you to state that 35-45% is a good percentage is really rather amusing, shouldn't it be something that cooresponds to the national average, something considerably higher than half?gluadys said:A good percentage are. Depending on the survey and the question asked, theists account for 35% to45% of scientists.
No disagreement?!?!?! Let's at least attempt to be genuine o.k? There is a vast amount of disagreement within the scientific community who actually do profess to be Christians.gluadys said:But the proportion of theists is not the point. It is that there is no disagreement among scientists on the fact of evolution or the major premises of the theory of evolution. Scientists who are Christian are just as convinced as those who are not.
If science claims that evolution is truth how is it that they can do this without proving it? The only truth that needs no proof is God's Word, and even that has been proven true time and time again. If evolution isn't definitively proven, how can it be possibly be considered truth?gluadys said:Science does not require faith precisely because it never attempts to definitely prove anything, so once you understand the logic of science, that is not a real barrier. Science does not aim for definitive proof because it is evidence-based, and we can never say we have all the evidence. So what it aims for is a theory which accounts for the evidence in a comprehensive, coherent and logical way. A theory is accounted good if it explains all known relevant evidence and predicts as yet unobserved evidence with success. That does not amount to definitive proof, but for a theory with the track record of evolution it amounts to a degree of confidence very close to it. Much biological evidence simply cannot be explained in any other way.
Not a fair comparison at all. Forensic, criminal and medical sciences all concern themselves with things that have happened in the very recent past. If you don't see the difference to ability of accurately stating what happened a week ago compared to a billion years ago well then you really do have blinders on.gluadys said:Actually, it is no more absurd than being able to say what happened a week ago, if one was not an eye-witness to an event. It is called the science of forensics and without it we would lose the basis of most criminal convictions and many medical diagnoses.
I hope you don't think that the Bible only speaks about what we need to know to be saved. It says far, far more than that.gluadys said:I assume you mean everything we need to know to be saved, since the bible most certainly not tell us everything.. Knowledge of evolution is not needed for salvation, but that does not make it any the less true.
My interpretation is based not on my personal beliefs but on the actual Word of God. How did I come to this belief, through good bibilically based hermanuetics. If you'd like to discuss this topic from this point of view and not a scientific one I'd be more than happy to.gluadys said:That is begging the question--assuming what you want to prove, namely that your interpretation of scripture is identical to God's Word.
I know you believe it is, so your statement follows from that belief. But believing your interpretation of scripture aligns with God's Word is precisely the point at issue.
If evolution is true, your interpretation of scripture cannot be. Therefore your interpretation of scripture cannot be identified with God's Word.
Interesting...gluadys said:I didn't see anything to comment on. Is there something particular you want to draw to my attention?
vossler said:Without science could any man realistically determine that evolution took place?
Your task is great because the Word of God is clear and without ambiguity.
Yes, science is good, I've never disputed that. All I've said is that we put science above Scripture, God's very Word. If Scripture says 6 days but science says billions of years, well then science must be right.depthdeception said:I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Without science, we wouldn't know that the earth orbits the sun, that effects of gravity upon the earth, the physical laws of the universe, etc. Has sciene "changed" the interpretation of the Scriptures in regard to these issues? Of course not. Why? Because the Scriptures are not meant to give us exact descriptions of the universe in which we live. THey are theological literature that represents the tesimony of GOd's people to God's activity in the history of God's people. If it is purported to be anything else, one actually mishandled the Scriptures.
Ahhh...yes, "our best observations" are suppose to supersede the very Word of God. I suppose they really could if I just suspended my presupposition that the Scriptures say what they claim to say. Mmmmm...depthdeception said:The theory of evolution is not based upon "liberties" taken with the texts of the Scriptures. It is merely a representation of our best observations of the world in which we live. ANd if one is able to suspend certain personal presuppositions about what the Scriptures are intended to communicate, there is absolutely no difficulty in reconciling the Scriptures and theory of evolution, quantum physics, etc.
That's an interesting position; what if we took that approach for the rest of Scripture also? I suppose you would also tell me that when attempting to 'interpret' passages in the Bible that speak of subjects such as fornification, adultery, homosexuality that my task would also be great in attempting to communicate this to someone. Even though the Words of the Bible may be clear and succinct on these matters, it is up to me to show them to be truth, to prove them in some manner. That I should substitute my own 'personal interpretation' because, well, I need to remember when these subjects were written about it was a different time and culture. Today, things are different, we've been enlightened, with so much more knowledge as to what they really mean.depthdeception said:And your task is great to show that your interpretation of the texts is actually what the Scriptures are attempting to communicate. I, for one, would suggest that substituting your personal interpretations for what the texts are probably actually saying.
vossler said:Well I keep hearing how reptiles begat mammals, yet each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. I'm sure you can come up with something that in your mind meets your criteria as a transitional form. But I do know this; there is anything but universal acceptance of it even in the secular scientific community.
I guess it depends on what you think a good percentage is.
No disagreement?!?!?! Let's at least attempt to be genuine o.k? There is a vast amount of disagreement within the scientific community who actually do profess to be Christians.
lucaspa said:The first big question raised by the theory of evolution is this:
1. Are species specially created or do they arise by changes in existing species?
Today it is non-controversial to note that new species arise by changes in existing species. We have observed it many times in nature and replicated speciation in the laboratory. Evolution is a fact. No question about that at all.
So then we come to the next big question.
2. What is the major way of change?
Darwin proposed the answer which still stands: natural selection. The evidence is overwhelming. This is not to dispute the role of mutations or the existence of genetic drift and other non-selective mechanisms. Only to point out that natural selection is the principal driver of evolution, with other mechanisms playing the role of assistants.
But now comes a new question:
3. What is the major mode of speciation?
In this case there are three answers: phyletic gradualism, allopatric and sympatric speciation. All of these have been verified by observation and experiment as you have seen.
Now we can pose a new question:
4. Which one of those happened the most in the past?
To this question we do not yet have an answer. Darwinists plump for phyletic gradualism, PEs for allopatric cladistic speciation.
But the thing to notice is this. Would either answer to question 4 change any of the answers to the first 3 questions?
No, they would not. Our 4th level question is a smaller question, more focused and specific. It presumes we already know the answers to 1, 2 and 3 and builds on the known answers to those questions.
http://www.christianforums.com/t726062&page=121
If science claims that evolution is truth how is it that they can do this without proving it?
Not a fair comparison at all. Forensic, criminal and medical sciences all concern themselves with things that have happened in the very recent past. If you don't see the difference to ability of accurately stating what happened a week ago compared to a billion years ago well then you really do have blinders on.
I hope you don't think that the Bible only speaks about what we need to know to be saved. It says far, far more than that.
My interpretation is based not on my personal beliefs but on the actual Word of God.
How did I come to this belief, through good bibilically based hermanuetics. If you'd like to discuss this topic from this point of view and not a scientific one I'd be more than happy to.
Interesting...
How about just this:
Without science could any man realistically determine that evolution took place? If you're honest you would say no. Then it would be safe to say the science changed the interpretation of God's Word and therefore took precedent. So it really doesn't come down to my personal reading of scripture because I'm not the one taking liberties with the text, you are. Therefore, it is you that must, beyond a shadow of a doubt, clearly and convincingly, prove your point. Your task is great because the Word of God is clear and without ambiguity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?