Did Reptiles Evolve?

[Aron-Ra]

We have an awful lot to cover...

Like Helsinki, we do. The only think we need to cover is educating you on the Scriptures. I'm not in the least interested in your evolution garbage. You can keep your cute pictures, graphs, and statistics to yourself, as far as I'm concerned.

If you refuse even to let yourself learn the basics, then how can you pretend to represent truth in any respect? You certainly haven't a leg to stand on arguing against something you don't know anything at all about.

...and you're already squirming.

That'll be the day.

December 5th, 2006.

 

[AV1611VET]

No one is accusing God of lying. What people are pointing out is that if God created exactly as literally laid out in the bible, then he must have altered his creation to make it seem as if he created it a different way.

Creation was altered - read Genesis 3.

For example: If the universe is ~6000 years old, and matured with embedded age, then we should see history beinnging at 6000 years. There should be evidence of anything happening before this point, as obviously nothing was there. However, we do so things. We see older cultures, we see gelogical events like earthquakes, impact craters etc. We see supernova reminants. Why, if nothing was there before six thousand years, would God put the carcuss of a star in the sky that died millions of years before start of everything?

No offense, but you guys don't have 20/20 vision like you'd like to think you do.

If you want to show us that there is nothing prior to 6000 years and we're all mistaken, then you've got to refute an awful lot of science.

No I don't, either. All I have to do is proclaim the Gospel and let God do the rest.

Don't forget that this science is used day in day out. It produces results.

The science that built a better mousetrap is not the same science that says we came from apes. They are two completely different fields. When I insult a particular field of science - (usually geophysics) - and people come back with: "Ya, well you aught to be thankful for doctors" --- that's water off a duck's back to me --- IOW, a cheap shot.

It's not a perfect process, there are mistakes, but it works to discover and correct them and once you cna use that knowledge in real life applications, its a fairly good sign you're on the right track.

You can't have it both ways, Psudopod. You can't claim such good vision that you can "see" stuff that's clearly contradictory to Scripture.

And claiming science is self-correcting is foolish, IMO. Scientists police scientists, and its no wonder they're so far off-target.

I know I've said this before, but I don't think I've ever had an answer from you on it:
Creating a 6000 year old universe with 13.7 billion years of history is like creating Adam on day one as a 20 year old man, but with not only a navel, but an appendectomy scar, a trick knee from a riding accident that never happened and a dislike of shellfish because he remebers them making him puke when he was three, evn though he's never eaten them!

Adam was approximately 20 years old, did not have a navel, did not have an appendectomy scar, did not have a trick knee from a riding accident, and did not puke anything up.

He was absolutely perfect.

 

[Psudopod]

Creation was altered - read Genesis 3.

So creation was altered to make it appear that there was more history than there was?

No offense, but you guys don't have 20/20 vision like you'd like to think you do.

So, are you actually going to refute any of these points? Show me where cultures that appear to be older than 6000 years or not older than six thouand years? Show me supernova remains are not the corpses of stars that died years before creation began? Got any reason why I should change my mind?

No I don't, either. All I have to do is proclaim the Gospel and let God do the rest

You can't have it both ways, Psudopod. You can't claim such good vision that you can "see" stuff that's clearly contradictory to Scripture.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you are talking about here. We do see things that contradict your interpretation of scipture and you have yet to show me otherwise.
Well, he's not doing a very good job of refuting anything. Maybe its because we're lookign at his creation correctly.

The science that built a better mousetrap is not the same science that says we came from apes. They are two completely different fields.

But they do overlap. Biology, genetics, chemistry, phyiscs, geology do not exist in isolated vacuums. The scientific method is the same, and all produce useable results. There have been several threads on appications of evolution.

And claiming science is self-correcting is foolish, IMO. Scientists police scientists, and its no wonder they're so far off-target.

And again you have zero evidence of this.

Adam was approximately 20 years old, did not have a navel, did not have an appendectomy scar, did not have a trick knee from a riding accident, and did not puke anything up.

He was absolutely perfect.

And the universehas more than 6000 years of history. Adam was used as a metapore. I don't belive he existed at all, let laone know any details of his childhood. I was merely using him as an example to point out how stating a 6000 year old world with a 13.7billion year history is decptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

So creation was altered to make it appear that there was more history than there was?

No --- there is no history going beyond 6000 years.

So, are you actually going to refute any of these points?

I am refuting them --- just not fighting fire with fire --- that's why you can't see it --- you're expecting science to refute science, and it's your science that's got you messed up in the first place. As much as you don't want to admit it, there is Something out there more powerful and more logical than science.

Show me where cultures that appear to be older than 6000 years or not older than six thouand years?

Why do it that way? Why not just show you, in writing from the Creator of time, Himself, that there was nothing beyond 6000 years? Let's employ Occam's Razor here. Rather than show snowflake-by-snowflake that Billy did or didn't make a snowman, let's just ask Billy himself.

Show me supernova remains are not the corpses of stars that died years before creation began?

I'll do better than that --- I'll show you in Scripture where God handles the stars, calling them by name, and putting them in the sky in pictographic array. Including supernovae, which are testimonies of the Fall.

• Psalm 19

Got any reason why I should change my mind?

I got a whole Bookful of reasons.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you are talking about here. We do see things that contradict your interpretation of scipture and you have yet to show me otherwise.

Only Someone omniscient can refute science. Are you familiar with what I call the Scientific Caveat:

• [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

Well, he's not doing a very good job of refuting anything. Maybe its because we're lookign at his creation correctly.

It's refuted in writing. If I put up a sign that says DO NOT ENTER HERE, and vandals removed the DO NOT from the sign, so it looks like it says ENTER HERE, and I wrote a letter to everyone saying it really says DO NOT ENTER HERE, then it's not my fault if someone enters.

But they do overlap. Biology, genetics, chemistry, phyiscs, geology do not exist in isolated vacuums. The scientific method is the same, and all produce useable results. There have been several threads on appications of evolution.

I've already posted twice that the Scientific Method is a fake.

And again you have zero evidence of this.

I'm not a walking body of evidence --- Someone else has all the evidence written down in a Book that is your responsibility to learn.

And the universehas more than 6000 years of history.

No it doesn't.

Adam was used as a metapore. I don't belive he existed at all, let laone know any details of his childhood.

Jesus didn't use Adam as a metaphor, and neither do I. In fact, he was used throughout the Old and New Testaments as a literal person.

In addition, we know his name, his address, who his wife and children were, how long he lived, specific quotes from him, where he worked, what he did, and when he died.

That hardly is a metaphor.

I was merely using him as an example to point out how stating a 6000 year old world with a 13.7billion year history is decptive.

Who's being deceived? You? How is it you're being deceived and I'm not?

 

[Pesto]

Yes it does ---

• [bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]
• [bible]Mark 13:19[/bible]

No, no, no, no, no. It is common descent that disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, not the theory of evolution. I still hold that the theory of evolution in no way conflicts with anything Jesus taught.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, no, no, no, no. It is common descent that disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, not the theory of evolution. I still hold that the theory of evolution in no way conflicts with anything Jesus taught.

I have a feeling that if you don't change your perspective on Jesus, those first five words are going to be prophetic.

 

[Pesto]

I have a feeling that if you don't change your perspective on Jesus, those first five words are going to be prophetic.

Are empty threats all you have to resort to?

 

[PacificPandeist]

No you haven't, either --- not my Jesus, anyway:

• [bible]Mark 13:21[/bible]
• [bible]1 John 4:1-3[/bible]
• [bible]2 John 1:9-10[/bible]

I have said nothing that contradicts those, for God is everywhere, and all things are part of God; Jesus is part of God as well, and so Jesus is everywhere and in all things as well, including within you and I!! I have never denied, nor do I deny, that Jesus existed in the flesh, just as you and I so exist today!!

//// Pacific PanDeist

 

[Pesto]

I have said nothing that contradicts those, for God is everywhere, and all things are part of God; Jesus is part of God as well, and so Jesus is everywhere and in all things as well, including within you and I!! I have never denied, nor do I deny, that Jesus existed in the flesh, just as you and I so exist today!!

//// Pacific PanDeist

Made me think of this.

Thou art God and I am God and all that groks is God

 

[PacificPandeist]

Made me think of this.

Indeed, Thou Art God!!

SIASL's a fave of mine.... and a source of deep truth!!

//// Pacific PanDeist

 

[Psudopod]

No --- there is no history going beyond 6000 years.

You keep saying this. But I see no evidence of anything other than you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying its not there. Don't tell me it goes against the bible, because there are lots of Christians who agree that there is history going back further than 6000 years.

I am refuting them --- just not fighting fire with fire --- that's why you can't see it --- you're expecting science to refute science, and it's your science that's got you messed up in the first place. As much as you don't want to admit it, there is Something out there more powerful and more logical than science.

No you are not. You re saying "My interpretation of the bible says you are wrong and therefore you are." A God who creates the world one way, writes about it and then alters reality to make it seem like he didn't is not more logical in my book. You keep showing m zero evidence to the contrary. You cannot use the bible to proove the bible and you won't convince no belivers when you try.

Why do it that way? Why not just show you, in writing from the Creator of time, Himself, that there was nothing beyond 6000 years? Let's employ Occam's Razor here. Rather than show snowflake-by-snowflake that Billy did or didn't make a snowman, let's just ask Billy himself.

Because not everyone believes in your God and not everyone who belives in him believes what you do. You are on a debting forum, telling people that they are wrong. You should be convincing people with argument, but I doubt you've convinced a single person who didn;t agree with you in the first place.

Only Someone omniscient can refute science.

. Not true. Science is there to be scrutinised. Only someone omnipent can alter reality so that it apears to work in one way, but is actually vastly different, so he and his chosen buddies can have a good laugh at all the morons who think red is green.

It's refuted in writing. If I put up a sign that says DO NOT ENTER HERE, and vandals removed the DO NOT from the sign, so it looks like it says ENTER HERE, and I wrote a letter to everyone saying it really says DO NOT ENTER HERE, then it's not my fault if someone enters.

It's not refuted in writing. Reality refutes your interpritation. Also, who vandalise creation? I thought only God had that kind of power. And we're not just talking about vandalised - we're talking altered to the extent that reality appears to work one way, but is entirely different.

I'm not a walking body of evidence --- Someone else has all the evidence written down in a Book that is your responsibility to learn.

I've studied the bible, like a lot of other mythology and I don't find it convincing. Hence why I'm not a Christian.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I've already posted twice that the Scientific Method is a fake.

You dare say something like this even when you quiver in fear just at learning about science?!

What exactly is fake about the scientific method? And do be specific.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus is part of God as well, and so Jesus is everywhere and in all things as well, including within you and I!!

I'm familiar with Deist rhetoric and Jesus is NOT in a person who is not born again; a fact He makes perfectly clear:

• [bible]John 1:11-12[/bible]

In addition, He is not a Deistic part of this world:

• [bible]John 8:23[/bible]
• [bible]John 18:36[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

You dare say something like this even when you quiver in fear just at learning about science?!

Put your Shakespear aside --- neither the knowledge of, nor lack of, science bothers me in the least.

What exactly is fake about the scientific method? And do be specific.

With pleasure:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.


The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar​

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?


Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "​

This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Made me think of this.

Thou art God and I am God and all that groks is God

Sounds like someone I read about:

• [bible]2 Thessalonians 2:4[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

I've studied the bible, like a lot of other mythology and I don't find it convincing. Hence why I'm not a Christian.

Okay, Psudopod, I'm not going to spend an inordinately long time with you on this, then.

Have a good day!

 

[PacificPandeist]

Sounds like someone I read about:

• [bible]2 Thessalonians 2:4[/bible]

To say that one is part of God (and a tiny, tiny part at that) is certainly not to exalt oneself above God!! By contrast, to say that one is not part of God is to declare a limitation on God's omnipresence -- are you so great that everything in the Universe is part of God except for you? Is God so limited that God can not become the Universe at his whim? Is God so limited that God can not share our every moment, our every experience with us? So lame a creature as that is not God!!

//// Pacific PanDeist

 

[AV1611VET]

To say that one is part of God (and a tiny, tiny part at that) is certainly not to exalt oneself above God!!

I have to go right now, but this one part begs to be answered:

• [bible]Isaiah 14:12-14[/bible]

It's an attitude that goes much deeper than just being a tiny, tiny symbiotic speck of the universe.

 

[Ondoher]

Put your Shakespear aside --- neither the knowledge of, nor lack of, science bothers me in the least.

With pleasure:

That scientists do not follow some precanned set of actions as they go about their business does not mean there isn't a methodological framework within which they work. I think this quote pretty well sums up how science works:

Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena.[29] Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations; without passing judgment on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith. Because the scope of scientific inquiry is consciously limited to the search for naturalistic principles, science remains free of religious dogma and is thus an appropriate subject for public-school instruction.

The scientific community has developed a vocabulary to describe the various aspects of the scientist's work. Although individual scientists are not always careful in their use of that vocabulary, a rigorous set of definitions can help to prevent confusion about what a scientific theory is. It can also provide a firm base on which to discuss the legal issues presented in this case.

The grist for the mill of scientific inquiry is an everincreasing body of observations that give information about underlying "facts." Facts are the properties of natural phenomena. The scientific method involves the rigorous, methodical testing of principles that might present a naturalistic explanation for those facts. To be a legitimate scientific "hypothesis," an explanatory principle must be consistent with prior and present observations and must remain subject to continued testing against future observations. An explanatory principle that by its nature cannot be tested is outside the realm of science.

The process of continuous testing leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses that accumulate substantial observational or experimental support. Such hypotheses become known as scientific "theories." If a theory successfully explains a large and diverse body of facts, it is an especially "robust" theory. If it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed, it is an especially "reliable" theory. Even the most robust and reliable theory, however, is tentative. A scientific theory is forever subject to reexamination and -- as in the case of Ptolemaic astronomy -- may ultimately be rejected after centuries of viability.

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

 

[PacificPandeist]

I have to go right now, but this one part begs to be answered:

• [bible]Isaiah 14:12-14[/bible]

It's an attitude that goes much deeper than just being a tiny, tiny symbiotic speck of the universe.

Actually I'd like to see you address the rest.... or do you deny the magnificent capacity of God, to include all of us?

//// Pacific PanDeist