Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[Dracil]

No, it just means you don't understand how the word theory is used in science.

 

[notto]

Hmm, I didn't think that there was anyone to witness the creation of the universe to "prove" evolution's explanation of life. Silly me, I just thought there was only God in the beginning. LOL

Who said anything about the creation of the universe? We are discussing evolution and the fact that life in the past was much different than life today.

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

Do you disagree with the fact that life in the past was much different than life today?

The evidence shows that this change took place over many millions of years. You may not accept that conclusion but you can't do it without ignorning the evidence itself and the valid observations of scientists worldwide.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

what type of evolution? I don't know if I accept macro evolution. I don't find any validation of a horse becoming a dolphin. The fruit fly example that people can do in labs is great. They have figured out how to add 2 more wings to a fly. Turn the fruit fly into what looks like a minnow. Then we have something.

 

[gluadys]

what type of evolution? I don't know if I accept macro evolution.

There is only one type of evolution. The prefixes "micro" and "macro" don't refer to different types of evolution, only to scale. Expressing doubt about macro-evolution is rather like saying you believe in inches but not in yards.

I don't find any validation of a horse becoming a dolphin.

I should hope not. That is not an example of evolution on any scale.

Turn the fruit fly into what looks like a minnow. Then we have something.

Something maybe, but not evolution.

 

[david_x]

Of course it fits. But it fits for faith as well.

Not really, definetly not as well.

That is what I was pointing out.

I was tryin' to say somthing like you took it the wrong way, like you mixed two conversations.

OK. But you are not digging deep enough. Prophecies don't give a reason to believe for people who do not already believe in God and Christ.

Well that would be their ignorence, here i'll put it another way:

(i'm pretty sure it goes like this)
1. take any 30 of the 333 prophices of the old testament that Christ fullfiled.
2. The chance that any person would fullfill those is as follows:

-bury Texas, USA in 2 feet of quarters.
-take one of those quarters and put an "X" on it.
-mix well
-the chance that you could randomly pick that one quarter is the same chance that anyone has of fullfilling those 30 prophecies.

(eventually it leads up to the earth of or the moon covered in a mile of marshmellows)

You see how much evidence these provide.

And what about the Jews? Read this.
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_a...s_messiah3.htm

Now, if you were evangelizing among Jews, how would you answer the claims that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies?

You must know as well as I do that the prophicers they refer to will be done in the end times! Christ says he will do them. Many Jews will wait to long for Christ to finish his work on earth.

So are facts. That doesn't mean that facts are biased

Does it? You never can tell, people always become over confident before they fall.

Every thing science is doing proves more and more the truth behind the bible.

 

[gluadys]

Not really, definetly not as well.

Is this anything more than your own opinion? And is your opinion based on anything more than the need to save face?

Well that would be their ignorence, here i'll put it another way:

(i'm pretty sure it goes like this)
1. take any 30 of the 333 prophices of the old testament that Christ fullfiled.
2. The chance that any person would fullfill those is as follows:

-bury Texas, USA in 2 feet of quarters.
-take one of those quarters and put an "X" on it.
-mix well
-the chance that you could randomly pick that one quarter is the same chance that anyone has of fullfilling those 30 prophecies.

(eventually it leads up to the earth of or the moon covered in a mile of marshmellows)

You see how much evidence these provide.

Yes. None. Especially to someone who doesn't believe in prophecy in the first place. Throwing around dubious statistics about irrelevant possibilities is not evidence that a single prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus.

You must know as well as I do that the prophicers they refer to will be done in the end times! Christ says he will do them. Many Jews will wait to long for Christ to finish his work on earth.

Did you read the page? That objection was answered. Now how would you show the answer is wrong?

Does it?

Yes. Facts are what they are. They don't care what anyone thinks of them. People can have a lot of biases about facts, but facts cannot be biased in themselves. They just are what they are.

Every thing science is doing proves more and more the truth behind the bible.

Science does not comment on the truth of the bible. The truths of the bible are true, but most of them are not matters of science.

And in many cases, a plain reading of the scripture contradicts today's science. e.g. the sky is not a firmament as scripture declares.

 

[ebia]

Well that would be their ignorence, here i'll put it another way:

(i'm pretty sure it goes like this)
1. take any 30 of the 333 prophices of the old testament that Christ fullfiled.
2. The chance that any person would fullfill those is as follows:

This is mathematical garbage. Many (most?) of those prophecies can only be identified after the event.

A meaningful analysis can only proceed on the basis of taking those prophesies that were recognised as messianic before Christ's birth, disregarding those that could be stage managed (eg riding on a donkey), lied about or are vague enough they could apply to anyone. Then look at how many of what is left were fullfilled verses how many have not been.

Looking at "prophesies" that can only be recognised as such once they are "fullfilled" is statistical garbage.

 

[david_x]

Yes. None. Especially to someone who doesn't believe in prophecy in the first place. Throwing around dubious statistics about irrelevant possibilities is not evidence that a single prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus.

Like I said trying to refute that the evedence for these sign are not their would prove to be idol folly.

Yes. Facts are what they are. They don't care what anyone thinks of them. People can have a lot of biases about facts, but facts cannot be biased in themselves. They just are what they are.

And there's your bias.

Science does not comment on the truth of the bible. The truths of the bible are true, but most of them are not matters of science.

It doesn't have to, the scriptures are alive. They can talk for themselves!

And in many cases, a plain reading of the scripture contradicts today's science. e.g. the sky is not a firmament as scripture declares.

Does it? Has science explored the sky, or more specifically do you realive that the sky refers to anything on top, anything above, anything else. God's power reaches to the farthest star, man has yet to land on the nearest planet.

This is mathematical garbage. Many (most?) of those prophecies can only be identified after the event.

A meaningful analysis can only proceed on the basis of taking those prophesies that were recognised as messianic before Christ's birth, disregarding those that could be stage managed (eg riding on a donkey), lied about or are vague enough they could apply to anyone. Then look at how many of what is left were fullfilled verses how many have not been.

Looking at "prophesies" that can only be recognised as such once they are "fullfilled" is statistical garbage.

=) Look closer, I have heard this argument before. The Prophices that I am refering to are the ones in the OT written hundreds or thousands of years ago.

As for "stage managed" prophecies, men wrote the new testament, and not just any men. These men were fishers, carpenters. They were not educated in their religioun, at least not to the extent it would take to make three hundred and thirty-three prophices, much less one of them, up from their own minds!

 

[gluadys]

Like I said trying to refute that the evedence for these sign are not their would prove to be idol folly.

You want to start dissecting them one by one?

And there's your bias.

Show that it is bias. Show me some facts that are not true. Show me facts that are biased in that they are true for some and not for others.

Does it? Has science explored the sky, or more specifically do you realive that the sky refers to anything on top, anything above, anything else. God's power reaches to the farthest star, man has yet to land on the nearest planet.

Yes, science has explored the sky. That is why we know the stars are not fixed to a firmament near enough to build a tower to as described in Genesis.

 

[ebia]

Look closer, I have heard this argument before. The Prophices that I am refering to are the ones in the OT written hundreds or thousands of years ago.

The verses were written long before, but not all were identifiable as being a prophesy before hand. Including those that could only be identified once fullfilled is statistical garbage because there are a potentially infinite number of similar unfullfilled prophesies. I could go through the OT picking out "prophesies" that I've "fullfilled". I wonder how many I could find - quite a lot if I put in the man-hours that have been put into finding those Jesus fullfilled.

As for "stage managed" prophecies, men wrote the new testament, and not just any men. These men were fishers, carpenters. They were not educated in their religioun, at least not to the extent it would take to make three hundred and thirty-three prophices, much less one of them, up from their own minds!

Matthew, for example, clearly knew about some of them, because he referred to them in his Gospel. He even says things like "he did this so that such and such prophesy would be fulfilled". I.e. Matthew actually says that some of them were stage-managed, eg the donkey ride. The author of Matthew is clearly very keen to identify as many prophesies as possible and clearly has tried to do his homework on the matter.

So, can you answer the question? When we take away those that were not pre-identified as messianic prophesies, those that were stagemanaged (and could easily been stagemanaged by anybody) and those that could easily been lied about, how many are left? And what proportion of those have been fulfilled?

 

[The Lady Kate]

The verses were written long before, but not all were identifiable as being a prophesy before hand. Including those that could only be identified once fullfilled is statistical garbage because there are a potentially infinite number of similar unfullfilled prophesies. I could go through the OT picking out "prophesies" that I've "fullfilled". I wonder how many I could find - quite a lot if I put in the man-hours that have been put into finding those Jesus fullfilled.

The late WinAce already did it... with Napoleon.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/napoleon_messiah.htm

 

[david_x]

Yes, science has explored the sky. That is why we know the stars are not fixed to a firmament near enough to build a tower to as described in Genesis.

did God try to build the tower, no. And, no man has ever explored the expances of the sky, it's like tryin' to number the hairs on your head.

Show that it is bias. Show me some facts that are not true. Show me facts that are biased in that they are true for some and not for others.

look at history, there we get our greatest acount of just how ignorent men will be.

The only theory that has ever stood the test of time are htose in the Bible.

You want to start dissecting them one by one?

If your a Christian we don'ty have to.

The verses were written long before, but not all were identifiable as being a prophesy before hand. Including those that could only be identified once fullfilled is statistical garbage because there are a potentially infinite number of similar unfullfilled prophesies. I could go through the OT picking out "prophesies" that I've "fullfilled". I wonder how many I could find - quite a lot if I put in the man-hours that have been put into finding those Jesus fullfilled.

Of cource you could, some are as simple as not breaking a bone. Then again if you did you would leave sorely disapointed since there is a lot of the prophices that deal with Christs liniage and his being a diety.

So, can you answer the question? When we take away those that were not pre-identified as messianic prophesies, those that were stagemanaged (and could easily been stagemanaged by anybody) and those that could easily been lied about, how many are left? And what proportion of those have been fulfilled?

the truth remains wether "stage managed" or not. Christ told them to bring him a donkey.

 

[gluadys]

did God try to build the tower, no. And, no man has ever explored the expances of the sky, it's like tryin' to number the hairs on your head.

According to the story, God agreed that the tower could reach the sky (Gen. 11:6). That is why he acted to prevent its completion.

Do you know what a firmament is? Do you know that it is less than 500 years since humans discovered the sky is not a solid roof above our heads?

look at history, there we get our greatest acount of just how ignorent men will be.

The only theory that has ever stood the test of time are htose in the Bible.

Don't ask me to do the research you need to do to back up your claims. Generalities about history and theory don't cut the mustard. Here is what you need to do to show you are not just whistling in the wind:

Show me some facts that are not true. Show me facts that are biased in that they are true for some and not for others.

If your a Christian we don'ty have to.

If we are evangelizing people who don't have our faith, we do have to. We need to understand our own faith and our own scriptures if we expect others to believe. Prophecies are a dime a dozen. Any psychic can give you prophecies and their fulfilments. Other religions have lots of fufilled prophecies too.

So if prophecies are a basis for believing in Christ they are also a basis for believing in Buddhism, Hinduism, various Native American and African beliefs and run-of-the-mill psychics.

What makes the prophecies of Christ unique? Why should they be given any more credence than the prophecies concerning Cyrus or Krishna or Caesar Augustus?

 

[ebia]

did God try to build the tower, no. And, no man has ever explored the expances of the sky, it's like tryin' to number the hairs on your head.



look at history, there we get our greatest acount of just how ignorent men will be.

The only theory that has ever stood the test of time are htose in the Bible.



If your a Christian we don'ty have to.



Of cource you could, some are as simple as not breaking a bone. Then again if you did you would leave sorely disapointed since there is a lot of the prophices that deal with Christs liniage and his being a diety.



the truth remains wether "stage managed" or not. Christ told them to bring him a donkey.

Then again if you did you would leave sorely disapointed since there is a lot of the prophices that deal with Christs liniage and his being a diety.

So come on, how many meet the testable criteria I gave, and how many were fulfilled? "a lot" isn't a credible answer.

the truth remains wether "stage managed" or not. Christ told them to bring him a donkey.

And so would anyone else wishing to appear to be the messiah, or anyone writing a story latter that wished the character to appear to be the messiah. Assuming this was a pre-identified messianic prophesy.

Have you looked at the webpage by WinAce kindly provided above - when you can pick out any verses you like from the bible and claim them as messianic prophesies you can prove anyone is the messiah.

 

[bullietdodger]

So many times in a few of the threads TEs have said that evolution is fact. Where do you get this notion that evolution. When has the scientific community said that evolution is fact? I don't ever remember any of the news media reporting on scientists proving evolution. TEs, where is your proof for evolution being fact.

 

[notto]

So many times in a few of the threads TEs have said that evolution is fact. Where do you get this notion that evolution. When has the scientific community said that evolution is fact? I don't ever remember any of the news media reporting on scientists proving evolution. TEs, where is your proof for evolution being fact.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

It is a pretty much undisputed fact that life in the past was much different than life today.

It is pretty much an undisputed fact that this change took place over millions of years with populations diversifying and sharing a common ancestry.

These are the facts that are discussed when it is stated that evolution is a fact. The diversity of life we see today evolved.

The theory of evolution makes predictions, identifies the mechanisms, and explains why we observe these facts.

Much like gravity is a fact and a theory.

It is a fact that objects are attracted to each other.
The theory of gravity tries to identify the mechanims that cause this observation and make predictions based on it.

Theories are not proven, facts such as the observations of evolution and gravity are proven when they are observed.

There is little doubt in the scientific community about the facts of evolution. The theory of evolution is the best comprehensive explanation we have of these facts.

 

[bullietdodger]

Don't ask me to do the research you need to do to back up your claims. Generalities about history and theory don't cut the mustard. Here is what you need to do to show you are not just whistling in the wind:

Show me some facts that are not true. Show me facts that are biased in that they are true for some and not for others.

Hmmmm, this sounds familiar. TEs tell creationist to do the research and now a TE is tell a creationist that she will not do some research. TEs demand creationists to defend their POV and when push comes to shove this TE says she won't do what she and other TEs have demanded of creationists. Hmmm, must be nice to tell creationists to get their XXXX together, but won't do the same.

By they way, I haven't seen any substantial "evidence" for TEs to prove that evolution is fact.

 

[bullietdodger]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

It is a pretty much undisputed fact that life in the past was much different than life today.

It is pretty much an undisputed fact that this change took place over millions of years with populations diversifying and sharing a common ancestry.

These are the facts that are discussed when it is stated that evolution is a fact. The diversity of life we see today evolved.

The theory of evolution makes predictions, identifies the mechanisms, and explains why we observe these facts.

Much like gravity is a fact and a theory.

It is a fact that objects are attracted to each other.
The theory of gravity tries to identify the mechanims that cause this observation and make predictions based on it.

Theories are not proven, facts such as the observations of evolution and gravity are proven when they are observed.

There is little doubt in the scientific community about the facts of evolution. The theory of evolution is the best comprehensive explanation we have of these facts.

You still have not come up with any evidence to prove evolution to be fact. Nor have you given reference to any media confirming such a calm. Contrary to what you have said about the scientific community in agreement, you are wrong. There is not 100% concensus between scientist concerning evolution to fact.

 

[notto]

Hmmmm, this sounds familiar. TEs tell creationist to do the research and now a TE is tell a creationist that she will not do some research. TEs demand creationists to defend their POV and when push comes to shove this TE says she won't do what she and other TEs have demanded of creationists. Hmmm, must be nice to tell creationists to get their XXXX together, but won't do the same.

By they way, I haven't seen any substantial "evidence" for TEs to prove that evolution is fact.

It is up to the person making a claim to back it with evidence and provide research. All that is being pointed out is that in order for someone to try to make a claim, they should be able to back it up and not put the burden of proof on others. This is a fairly basic request in discussions like this.

As for evidence for evolution, what would you accept as valid evidence for evolution? There is plenty presented on this forum. Are you interested in any particular aspect? What part of the theory would you like to see evidence of? Please be specific.

Have you reviewed the evidence in this thread alone? It might be a good idea to do that before claiming that evidence has not been provided.

 

[notto]

You still have not come up with any evidence to prove evolution to be fact.

Are you suggesting that life in the past was not very different than life today? What part of the facts of evolutoin do you think is in doubt by any serious part of the scientific community?

Nor have you given reference to any media confirming such a calm.

Media? Why is that your threshold for validity?

Contrary to what you have said about the scientific community in agreement, you are wrong. There is not 100% concensus between scientist concerning evolution to fact.

There is 100% consensus in any involved field by any respected scientists in that field that life in the past was much different than life today and that this change occured over time as populations diversified. This is not disputed and is easily evidenced and observed.

You seem to not understand how the term fact and theory are used and are related especially how it is used in science terminology.

What fact of evolution do you think is in dispute within the scientific community? What serious discussion can you point to that shows this dispute? Anything other than religiously motivated ministries?