Evolution is a Fact

[TheReasoner]

I would agree that at least much of the evidence for creationism is not of a scientific nature, although the flood record stands as a very convincing bit of evidence. However, I'm pretty sure that the folks on this forum aren't fans of the massive flood perspective. I don't need to 'prove' God in a scientific manner. He's shown Himself to me in ways that would not be provable. That's ok, I don't feel the need to try to prove it to anyone.

What evidence is there for a global flood?

Also, Ursie, He has shown Himself to me too. But that does not mean He created the world without the use of the nature He created. Yes God exists. I'm sure of that. And while I don't need to prove Him, science is not about that at all. It's about exploring that which He created and shedding the arrogant assumption that we already know all that from a poetic parable describing an extremely complex and beautiful process taking place over billions of years. In truth a symphony worthy of God.
Also, why do you think (if I understand you correctly) that proving something or understanding something somehow invalidates it's divine origin?
Does understanding Jesus' words somehow make Him less divine? No. Not at all. Does the ability to cure a plethora of diseases with medicine or understanding diseases of flesh and mind invalidate or diminish the divine nature of the healings described in the bible and experienced even today? No. WOuld it invalidate them if we understood how they happened? No, of course not. To me it would seem knowing this would only serve to glorify God even more. It could help us understand Him and the way He works in all aspects of our lives. I love God. Because I love Him I want to know more about Him. Just putting my fingers in my ears is not an option. I need to know more. I need to know Him more than I do now. And closing eyes and ears to His wonderful creation does not serve that goal at all. I could read the bible, and I do. I could pray, and I do. But I do not think ignoring science is the way to go. It can only serve to reveal more of Him anyway. And overturn my own ignorant assumptions. It already has, I am no longer a creationist, and I marvel much more at God's grandure now than I did then. The annoying thing is when people come up to me and say I'm anti-christian because I want to know God more. That is not exactly welcome.

 

[MoonLancer]

Creatures that do not get their carbon from the atmosphere, such as marine and aquatic species and those species that feed on them are known to give anomalous C14 dates. No scientist would use that method for dating aquatic or marine species.

now THAT is something i did not know. Thanks for the info

 

[Ursie]

What evidence is there for a global flood?

Layers and layers, check out Mout St. Helens and see how the layers that were layed down very quickly look just like the geological layers that scientists believe are millions of years old.

As for the closed mind being dead, my mind is not closed to learning and growing, just closed to learning and growing in the Theory of evolution. Lots of other areas I am actively choosing to grow. But in the same way you are not likely to spend all your spare time searching out proof for creationism since you disagree with it, I am not choosing to spend all of my time searching out evolution. Besides, LOL, I have 4 teenagers, who has time!?

 

[MoonLancer]

I would agree that at least much of the evidence for creationism is not of a scientific nature, although the flood record stands as a very convincing bit of evidence. However, I'm pretty sure that the folks on this forum aren't fans of the massive flood perspective. I don't need to 'prove' God in a scientific manner. He's shown Himself to me in ways that would not be provable. That's ok, I don't feel the need to try to prove it to anyone.

People are not fans of the flood because of its lack of evidence, not the idea itself. If the flood were true there would be records of it all around the world embedded in rock and would be consistently found in-between the same to rock layers.

 

[TheReasoner]

Layers and layers, check out Mout St. Helens and see how the layers that were layed down very quickly look just like the geological layers that scientists believe are millions of years old.

That's not evidence. It just shows that some geological features can occur more rapidly than originally anticipated.
As for global flood, impossible. There's not enough water on the planet to accomplish it.

As for the closed mind being dead, my mind is not closed to learning and growing, just closed to learning and growing in the Theory of evolution. Lots of other areas I am actively choosing to grow. But in the same way you are not likely to spend all your spare time searching out proof for creationism since you disagree with it, I am not choosing to spend all of my time searching out evolution. Besides, LOL, I have 4 teenagers, who has time!?

I DID indeed spend a very long time searching for it Ursie. I couldn't find any. Upon that basis I threw the hypothesis away even though I once followed it. I wish to ask you this though:
If you now support this hypothesis of creationism the way you seem to be doing and your teenagers go to study natural sciences, and throw away creationism - then what? There is a very very real chance that if this happens they will throw faith itself away because you taught them the two were one and the same.
So, how do you justify the absolute position you hold given that there is a real chance it may send your own progeny to damnation. Simply because you instilled in them a position which holds that if young earth creationism is not true, then God cannot exist. This is a falsehood (God is bigger than that) and does not serve the Kingdom of Christ at all.

I nearly lost my faith because creationists had almost convinced me that if God is real then creationism must be true as they see it.



Also: Ursie, God has shown Himself to me too. While saying so may make me seem a madman to our atheist friends, I have prophesied myself, I have seen visions and I speak in tongues.

But that does not mean He created the world without the use of the nature He created. Yes God exists. I'm sure of that. And while I don't need to prove Him, science is not about that at all. It's about exploring that which He created and shedding the arrogant assumption that we already know all that from a poetic parable describing an extremely complex and beautiful process taking place over billions of years. In truth a symphony worthy of God.
Also, why do you think (if I understand you correctly) that proving something or understanding something somehow invalidates it's divine origin?
Does understanding Jesus' words somehow make Him less divine? No. Not at all. Does the ability to cure a plethora of diseases with medicine or understanding diseases of flesh and mind invalidate or diminish the divine nature of the healings described in the bible and experienced even today? No. WOuld it invalidate them if we understood how they happened? No, of course not. To me it would seem knowing this would only serve to glorify God even more. It could help us understand Him and the way He works in all aspects of our lives. I love God. Because I love Him I want to know more about Him. Just putting my fingers in my ears is not an option. I need to know more. I need to know Him more than I do now. And closing eyes and ears to His wonderful creation does not serve that goal at all. I could read the bible, and I do. I could pray, and I do. But I do not think ignoring science is the way to go. It can only serve to reveal more of Him anyway. And overturn my own ignorant assumptions. It already has, I am no longer a creationist, and I marvel much more at God's grandure now than I did then. The annoying thing is when people come up to me and say I'm anti-christian because I want to know God more. That is not exactly welcome.

 

[MoonLancer]

Layers and layers, check out Mout St. Helens and see how the layers that were layed down very quickly look just like the geological layers that scientists believe are millions of years old.

Did you know that a group of creationists once set out to prove that the flood happened but when they analyzed rock from around the world they realized the world was very old and that the flood was a farce? These individuals became the fathers of modern geology.

I love how ironic that is.

 

[rjw]

Do you all ever wonder what is the point of these discussion that we humans have? I know that I do. I think we're all looking for someone who agrees with us, but usually we can't find such a person.

No, not necessarily. I actually began engaging creationists some 14 years ago with two things in mind:-

1) to see just how good creationist arguments really were and

2) to attempt to influence creationists to see the sense in mainstream science with respect to biology, geology and astronomy/cosmology.


I can think of better forums to post on, if all I wanted to do is find people to agree with me.



Regards, Roland

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I wanted to give you all a scapegoat, someone you can feel good about calling an idiot.

Hey, sis, you're stealing my thunder! I'm the village idiot around here!

 

[rjw]

Layers and layers, check out Mout St. Helens and see how the layers that were layed down very quickly look just like the geological layers that scientists believe are millions of years old.

The layers might look similar. However, I have no doubt that you have heard of the saying - "appearances can be deceiving"?

Scientists don't just look at layers and think "I believe those are millions of years old". They actually have means of ascertaining approximate ages in many cases - by absolute dating, by counting sub-layers that are precipitated annually, etc.

As for the closed mind being dead, my mind is not closed to learning and growing, just closed to learning and growing in the Theory of evolution.

Then what is your basis for saying that it's wrong?

But in the same way you are not likely to spend all your spare time searching out proof for creationism since you disagree with it, ...

Many evos are quite happy to go to sites such as AiG and ICR, most particularly if a link is offered by a YEC. Many YECs I argue against appear not to know their own science, let alone ToE, geology and astronomy. What's worse, what little ToE they do know, they appear to get from creationist sites.



Regards, Roland

 

[AV1611VET]

Then what is your basis for saying that it's wrong?

The Bible: 3.

 

[rjw]

The Bible: 3.

?

“ 1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.”

I was referring to ToE.

Here it looks as if Paul is referring to the YECs of his day and their persistent reliance on genealogies to prove all kinds of things, but which result in more questions and arguments than resolutions.

He makes no mention of ToE.


(Are you sure you are not adding to Scripture by making it say something that is not really there?)



Regards, Roland

 

[AV1611VET]

He makes no mention of ToE.

He makes no mention of "rapture" or "Trinity", either.

Just because it is not there by name, doesn't mean it's not there.

I'm sure if it was, you guys would harp on it --- like you do the word "steel" in the Bible.

 

[Sanguis]

I'm the village idiot around here!

I think there's more truth in that statement than you actual realise.

 

[BananaSlug]

Ursie, do you believe that australopithecus was an ape, with no relation to humans whatsoever?

 

[CoderHead]

Hey, sis, you're stealing my thunder! I'm the village idiot around here!

Speaking of which...would you care to address this?

Excuse me --- is this a picture, a drawing, or a painting?

I usually go by artists' renditions.

What are you saying? That if it's a drawing or a painting, then you're going to believe it wholeheartedly? Did you think your quote from the EA thread wouldn't count in this one? What's that you like to say? "PWNED!"

That little Haeckel drawing doesn't fool me one bit.

Wait...what? You said you like drawings! Now I'm confused...:o

Any response at all? How do you resolve this gigantic double-standard?

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of which...would you care to address this?

Not really.

Haeckel's drawings have nothing to do with a drawing of Adam, whom the Bible describes as being roughly the age he is in the drawings.

Adam was real, but a drawing of a microraptor is nothing more than Haeckeling.

I also pointed out that if you look at that picture, it came from dinofacts.

An artist drawing a picture with the intention of filling in gaps, then someone passing it off as a fact is Haeckeling, in my opinion.

An artist drawing a picture of Adam, or Noah's Ark, or the Last Supper would not be.

 

[CoderHead]

Haeckel's drawings have nothing to do with a drawing of Adam, whom the Bible describes as being roughly the age he is in the drawings.

You're making this way too easy, AV. Paintings of Adam have nothing to do with microraptor, whom the fossil record and the physical remains describe as being exactly the size and shape it is in the drawings.

Adam was real, but a drawing of a microraptor is nothing more than Haeckeling.

Microraptor is real, but a drawing of Adam is nothing more than Michelangelo (or pick your favorite artist).

I also pointed out that if you look at that picture, it came from dinofacts.

I also pointed out that if you look at the picture of Adam, it came from Biblefacts.

An artist drawing a picture with the intention of filling in gaps, then someone passing it off as a fact is Haeckeling, in my opinion.

Honestly, AV? How is it you can accept a painting or drawing of a white Caucasian - obviously European - man as what Adam "really looked like" based off of nothing more than a vague Biblical account of an illogical birth from dirt but you're just baffled at the stupidity of a person who would attempt a graphical representation of a creature from its physical remains? That is reaching the upper limits of lunacy!

An artist drawing a picture of Adam, or Noah's Ark, or the Last Supper would not be.

Would not be...what? Basing their drawing on any sort of tangible evidence whatsoever? Yes, you're right. That's the difference between Adam, or Noah's Ark, or the Last Supper and microraptor. It's a huge difference.

 

[BananaSlug]

So AV, what color was Adam's skin? We have no clue what Microraptor gui feather coloration was.

 

[Sanguis]

Av, this isn't a drawing:

I understand that sometimes, with your absurd beliefs, that the line between fiction and reality can seem blurred, or non-existent, but I assure you, Microraptor is a lot more real that Adam, Eve, Noah's Ark or anything of that nature.

As for the drawings of Microraptor, the dimensions, the feathers, the shape, everything apart from colouration is exactly as the fossils suggest. There's no exaggerations of any features, as with Haeckle's drawings, and the only gaps filled are the colours. Trying to associate them with Haeckle's drawings is the typical dishonesty I've come to expect from creationists such as yourself. So keep trying to promote your agenda, anyone with any intelligence whatsoever can see right through your absurdities, and your lies. Just remember that those same people associate you with Christianity.

Alternatively, Av, if you believe that paintings of events/people in the Bible make for better evidence for your beliefs than fossilised remains do for evidence against your beliefs, then your issues run a lot deeper than I thought they did.

 

[TerranceL]

If you care to go back a few pages you'll find that I was called moron more than once, but it's okay, I can take it.

Quotes?