- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
so again like I said if not even scientists attempt to prove something, yet you offer their views as proof...how does that work?
Upvote
0
so again like I said if not even scientists attempt to prove something, yet you offer their views as proof...how does that work?It leaves it rock-solid. No theory can ever be proved; that's not how science works. But theories do reach a point where, after they have been confirmed for long enough by multiple lines of evidence, we think of them as trustworthy. I like the way it is put in this essay (and have highlighted a few sentences):
Has Evolution Been Proven? - Daylight Atheism
"The more evidence that accumulates to support a theory, the more our confidence in it grows. Eventually, a point may be reached where the quantity of evidence supporting the theory is so vast, so overwhelming, that further attempts to deny or question it would be futile and unfounded. This is the case with the theory of evolution, as it is the case with the other theories, such as the atomic theory of matter or the theory of plate tectonics, that form the pillars of modern science. But this is not absolute proof. Not even the best-supported, most thoroughly verified theories of science are put on a pedestal and considered infallible
...
This is not to imply that the theory of evolution is in any way tentative or uncertain. On the contrary, it is extremely robust, backed by over a hundred years of research, experiment and observation. In all that time, not a single piece of evidence that seriously contradicts any part of it has ever turned up. Within the scientific community, evolution is not at all controversial and is no longer questioned; it is considered to be a fact, as simple and indisputable as gravity. While it can never be absolutely proven, it has come as close to attaining this status as it is possible for any scientific theory to be. To attack evolution by labeling it an “unproven theory” misses the point entirely. There is a saying in some scientific circles: “Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.”
An interesting point, but an irrelevant one. I take it you opened the link and saw that it was not of Talk Origins' writing, but a complete and unedited record of the trial. In other words, I didn't quote a "biased" site, I pointed to a document hosted on it, giving the facts that you have been asking for. The fact that this record is quoted on a website whose views you disagree with does not matter at all.
Do you acknowledge this?
You know, you're right. It is hard to prove that people are lying, deceitful and dishonest in their representations. It would probably take weeks of careful cross-examination and careful reviewing of all available evidence.
Lucky for us this has been done, then. The Dover trial was decisive, the evidence is all there, and the conclusion admits no dispute. Here are some examples:
On whether ID is science: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 2
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."
And also this part, which seems particularly pertinent to you, gradyll:
"To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."
And with regards to ID being represented by liars:
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3
"We initially note that the Supreme Court has instructed that while courts are "normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (citing Wallace, 472 U.S. at 64)(Powell, J., concurring); id. at 75 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment) . Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District's science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants' asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous.
Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake."
And also: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
Now, you might object that although this may show the board of the Dover school to have been shameless liars (which it certainly does) that does not necessarily mean that the Discovery Institute and its representatives lied. But that would be incorrect. They supported the lying school board, they cooperated with them, and they shared in their deceit. And there is, of course, much more. One good example is from the textbook, of Pandas and People. It's a very funny story, which you can read here, about how their clumsiness in lying tripped them up; but to put it briefly, the textbook began life as a Creationist book, was altered in a deceitful attempt to evade the laws against teaching religion, and became an "Intelligent Design" textbook:
"The earlier drafts, as you might expect from the titles, made repeated references to creationism. But in the wake of the Edwards decision, the book underwent a revision: the term “creationism” was replaced – literally replaced, as in the find-and-replace function of a word processor – with the term “intelligent design”. And in one draft, a transitional fossil was preserved:
Image credit, NCSE.
Clearly, intelligent design is just a retitled form of creationism. What more compelling evidence of this fact could you ask for than the term “cdesign proponentsists”?"
gradyll, you can deny this as much as you like, but the truth is plain to see: Intelligent Design is not science, and the Discovery Institute lied in an attempt to trick people into thinking it was.
The Catholic Church did not develop the BB theory.
When you study the passages in the bible with the proper context and in the original languages and with the biblical understanding that there are two books of revelation that complement each other, the bible and Nature, then many verses become amazingly clear when it comes to the few scientific issues that the Bible does touch on.
Ok well I'm trying to be logical in a scientific way. Every where in the universe and our galaxy and earth there is cause and affect in action. well yes there must be cause to the universe.Hello dougangel. Sorry, my theory about what? About where the universe "came from"?
And when you say "people who say the universe just popped up" - what does that mean?
Must there? Is there? And why do I have to have any kind of answer, plausible or otherwise?
If I can't explain how the universe came into existence, am I therefore obliged to become a Christian?
Ok well I'm trying to be logical in a scientific way. Every where in the universe and our galaxy and earth there is cause and affect in action. well yes there must be cause to the universe.
Genesis 1
7 Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.
this is a simple explanation.
evolution
water
dust, moss, plants, trees, animals, man
Genesis 1
dust- man.
the process doesn't actually disagree.
Fascinating rationalization here. I must now ask... When the author also wrote:
"7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed"
You are saying that this was a very gradual process, (from dust to man)?.?.?.?
When did He actually declare Adam? After enough micro-changes? I've always been fascinated by the ones whom try to marry both the evolutionary process and Genesis.
At the end of being formed man became living spiritual being as God breathed his life into him. that is he became the man species. with spiritual character of God.
NPAre you then saying, that you accept evolution, in all of it's claims, and as homo sapiens evolved into their current state, at some point, God declared one of them 'Adam'; and only then, was there the 'beginning' of the human race, and all other lateral living sapiens, were not?
Sorry for the run on sentence....
NP
NO. I don't accept every thing But I take some things as quite plausible.
He picked Adam to breathe his life into him making him the man species. Adam was the first man with a spiritual nature. It does seem to be saying that.
I believe in miracles but the evidence suggests God didn't plant every star in the sky with his finger. He used science as he is all knowing.
God uses adaption. We a vertebrae's. Carbon organic creatures just like animals. A spiritually god driven evolution is plausible and there is evidence towards this.
Stay with me... I'm not changing the subject. But it will 'appear' that I am
When God speaks of 'days' in Genesis, are these 'days' literal, or not?
Of course I know where your going with this. Is the earth young or old. I think it is old. Its going to a take a while to get back to u on the explanation of that.
When God speaks of 'days' in Genesis, are these 'days' literal, or not?
Consider the use of the word "Yom" by Moses. In the Genesis creation account and in Psalm 90 (written by Moses), it is used four different ways!
In each case, it is the same author, Moses, who uses the word "Yom" to represent a different period of time. Thus, young earth creationist claims that "Yom" is only a 24-hour day are completely unfounded by Scripture. For more, see Word Study: Yom.
- 12-Hour Period. In Genesis 1:5, it says "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." This use of "Yom" is for a 12-hour period.
- 24-Hour Period. In Genesis 1:14, it says "And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,…”. This use of "Yom" is for a 24-hour day.
- The Entire Creative Week. In Genesis 2:4, it says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Here, "Yom" refers to the entire six-day creative week.
- A Long Period of Time. Psalm 90:4 says, "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." In this instance, Moses says "Yom" is like a thousand years.
So I think yom which is the Jewish word can mean a day or an age. that is a period of time. So the word day in the creation account has a duel meaning.
the important thing about the 7 days is it sets out the whole Jewish calendar and the prophecy's and the old testament sabbath.
No, that's not what I'm asking. Are the days literal or not? I already know you think the earth is 'older' from your prior responses.
there's things that are not literal in the creation piece of prose.
For example
Genesis 1:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
As prose that's not wrong.
But literally in a science exam if I called the moon a light I would get it wrong. It's not a light. It's a reflection of light. That is it is not a source of light.
So no I don't take genesis 1 literally. that's the logical thing to do.
Was each day the same duration in time? For evolution/astronomy/cosmology/etc to even have a chance, each 'day' would need to be vastly different time spans. Thus, if 'day' is nothing more than slang, it would make more sense for the Bible to instead state, 'God did this first, this second, this third, etc', and leave out 'Yom' all together. But instead, it would appear the Bible sort of incriminates itself, by forcing apologists to instead use this 'Yom argument', when it is really worthless in this application regardless. Otherwise, you have a whole mess of apologetics to contend with...
Thanks for helping me debate this old earther. I appreciate it. I disagree with some of your views, specifically that evolution/astronomy/cosmology etc need long lengths of time, for one simple reason. When God created adam and eve, they were full grown. When God created the tree with the forbidden fruit is was not a sapling, it was full grown. If God created these things with age dating factors already in place, is it that hard for God to create star light that took billions of years to get here, or fully evolved human beings (granted if they evolved from apes at all, which there is no evidence of that). I hope you see my point, so God created "age dating factors" into the universe on day one, and the rest of the days. As you see the animals were not babies, they were of age to reproduce. Same with adam and eve. Which makes sense.
sorry sir I don't have time to watch your video, if you can post the relevant arguments in a sentence or two I would love to debate just the highlights.Hence, the gulp at 3:40
sorry sir I don't have time to watch your video, if you can post the relevant arguments in a sentence or two I would love to debate just the highlights.
no thanks, like I said if you wish to post the arguments briefly I can respond, if not then to me it is not important.In the time it takes you to read a short response, you can watch the videoListen carefully at 3:40-3:41.
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?