Evolutionists win by default....

[lithium.]

Today at 05:26 AM L'Anatra said this in Post #78


You do know what a scientific theory is, don't you?

Here, let me help you: a scientific theory is NOT a mere conjecture or guess. A scientific theory IS, however, a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. To dumb that definition down just a bit for you: a scientific theory is a set of statements relating portions of some process (fact) observed in nature. In this way, evolution is both theory and fact. You heard me right, biological evolution as a process was and continues to be observed in nature. The theory of evolution was developed in order to explain how it works. Got it?

To reiterate: Evolution is NOT mere conjecture. In addition, it has done a remarkable job explaining the diversity of life on this planet for nearly 150 years in some form or another. So, chances are it will not be "debunked" any time soon.

However, if a scientist or group of scientists managed to falsify evolution, or any theory which requires a young Earth (as it were), or any other commonly accepted theory, he/she would gain instant fame. He'd (or she'd) make a heck of a lot of money as well. It really would be a "grand day." I'm certainly beginning to sense a great deal of paranoia in your tone. THERE IS NO "EVOLUTIONIST" CONSPIRACY!!!

Do you follow? The overwhelming support for these theories (i.e., evolution, gravity, relativity, the big bang, the standard model of particle physics, etc. ad nauseum) exists because the theories work. That's right, they are useful for something, if only to explain how things have come to be. As human beings, we inherently ponder these concepts. That's why no one in their right mind has any reason to accept evolution dogmatically. No one at all. I certainly do not...

By the way, I find it totally ironic that you choose not to realize that the Bible itself, though certainly inspired by God, was written by fallen men thousands of years ago. In that sense, the Bible is just as unreliable as creation, if you choose look at it that way. You can't pick one over the other. That's why creation is the second book of God. Do you deny that God created? To throw away whichever evidence you choose is to call God a liar. That's right, bud: you're calling God a liar because you can't get it through your unbelievably thick skull that maybe your interpretation of His word could conceivably be the teeniest bit WRONG!

Just to get something off my mind: Biblical literalists are absolutely dangerous to Christianity. The irony is becoming so thick I can grasp it with my hands! Literalists prattle on about how they know the whole truth (coming from their own fallen minds) and choose to remain in a state of ignorant bliss, while scientists in general state (without any hesitation, I might add) that we know practically nothing about how our world works and do everything they can to make sure human fallibility is removed from their conclusions. Just a thought for those picking through the Bible looking for verses relating how our arrogance and ignorance will destroy us...

Well, I'll get off my soapbox now and wait for a reply.

EDIT: wording

Nice!

 

[lucaspa]

28th March 2003 at 02:33 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #33

Its very nice that you use the same twisted tactics of atheists everywhere.

Melchior --an atheist -- thinks I'm a Christian.  However, since I'm trying to save Christianity from the depredations of creationists, I doubt that a description of "atheist tactics" applied.  Atheists love Biblical literalists like you and Francie. Because you have the only version of Christianity that can actually be falsified.

And here is more of your arrogance.  Arguing against your interpretation of the Bible is said to be atheism!!  Once again, you arrogate to yourself the status of God. 

THERE IS NO SECOND BOOK OF GOD!!!

Your fellow Christians have disagreed with you for 1600 years.
"the great book ... of created things.  Look above you; look below you; read it, note it."  St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum
"duplex cognito"  John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed by John T. McNeil, 1.2.1, 1960.
"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth.  One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."  Bacon: Advancement of Learning

Your ignorance of Christianity is mind-boggling.

Lucaspa you and others like you are outright liars and decievers.
The bible SPECIFICALLY says 6 days.

The Bible also says one day. Genesis 2:4b: "in the day God created the heavens and the earth".

The contradiction should tell you that your literal interpretation is wrong. 

WHO CARES WHAT YOUR THEOLOGIANS SAY
Scholars of the actual Hebrew language

These are scholars of the Hebrew language. 

I will take their word over any self righteous theolgian.

And who are these "scholars"?  You seem to insult Christians and Jewish scholars because they disagree with you.

You may admire her chutzpah, BUT I feel nothing but comtempt for your total disregard for the actual written word of God

Who said I had "total disregard for the actual written word of God"?  I have total disregard for your interpretation, but are you saying your interpretation is the word of God?  If so, you only reinforce my point that you are being apostate by arrogating  yourself to be God. 

your blatant ignorant arrogance in trying to convince someone that the text says something other than what it very plainly says.

It's not so plain when it is contradicted in the very next chapter, is it?  Such a contradiction should tell you that it is not to be read "plainly" but rather for the theology. Too bad you ignore the theological message God meant for you.

Her interpretaion is EXACTLY GODS interpretation of 6 DAYS.

Then why did God turn around in Genesis 2:4b and say one day?  It's your human interpretation, not God.

That you can't see a difference between you and God scares me.

 

[lucaspa]

28th March 2003 at 07:29 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #42

Which came first belief in Gods written word OR: the theory of evolution.
( insert remarks about how evolution theory preceded scripture here).

Evolution coming afterward and the fact that it has worked like leaven throughout His congregation, I wont be surprised at all to see multitudes wishing they had only kept their faith in God Untainted by the world.

Which came first, the belief in the written dietary laws or Peter's dream?  Yet the "leaven" that adherence to the dietary laws wasn't necessary worked throughout His congregation.

Let's get something straight, FoC.  Evolution does not deny that God created.  That is your logical mistake.  There is no reason that all Christians have to adopt your faulty logic.

Once again, I will ask you what is wrong with this view?

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." 

What changes for Christianity if God created by evolution and not by your literal interpretation of Genesis 1?

See the following site for some of the Christian denominations that abandoned your literal interpretation:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9375_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp

 

[lucaspa]

28th March 2003 at 07:40 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #43

I love how all your secular and sellout ''christian'' scientists are the true scientists in your opinion.

I love how anyone that disagrees with you becomes a "sellout 'christian'".  It's never possible for you to be mistaken about your interpretation, is it?

God and His truth was rejected by the Hebrews time and again.
His Christ was rejected by the Hebrews.
His propitiation for our sins has been rejected by the masses since day one.

So why in the world would we care that anyone or even everyone rejects His truth now?

What "truth" does evolution reject?  Not God's existence.  Not that God created.  Not Christ.  Not Christ's propitiation for your sins.  So what are you referring to?

People will come to God on HIS terms and In HIS truth or not at all.

And it appears that you won't come to the simple truth that God created and that everything science discovers in that Creation must have been put there by God.

I see now who is rejecting God:  creationists.  They simply won't accept that God created.

Many will come in that day and He will say He never knew them.

And that is where I am afraid you will be. 

I wonder which group that could possibly be?

Creationists.

The ones who decided He was a liar because they couldnt understand Him.

Creationists again.  As Pete has pointed out, you decide that God lies in His Creation.  I don't think it's because you can't understand Him, but because your pride won't let you give up your interpretation and actually listen to God, both in the creation stories and Creation.

He will always have His remnant that takes Him seriously and who dont ridicule His word.

Let's hope so. But those aren't creationists.  I would say the theistic evolutionists are the ones that don't ridicule either the Bible or Creation.

 

[lucaspa]

28th March 2003 at 10:30 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #48

You ever play the PC game called ''Lemmings"
If not, buy a copy and check it out.
Just like sheep lead to the slaughter

This is irony, since I referred to lemmings in what creationists are trying to do: destroy Christianity.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 08:38 PM Ray Cho said this in Post #71

Sorry.  Here's a more direct link.  www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/synop.htm

Lucaspa, I don't think you fully understood my point.  From a scientific point of view, I agree with almost everything I have read in your postings.  What I am simply saying is that a 24-hour day is not the only possible translation for yom and that many of the so-called irreconcilable differences between Genesis and evolutionary theory may not be so irreconcilable if one goes back to the original Hebrew text to see what the author really meant to say.   I don't discount the possibility that figurative language may have been used extensively by the Hebrew author(s), but to completely throw out any historical content in Genesis is to put Christians in a tenuous position when it comes to the inerrancy of the Bible.

I hope you can find the time to read Glenn Morton's theory.  It's quite intriguing.

By the way, I am very familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis.  Whether it is a valid theory or not, it doesn't change the fact that the Pentateuch is a vital portion of the foundations of Judaism and Christianity.

Thanks for the site. I'll look at it later.

I did understand, Ray, what you were saying about reconciling the Bible and science by changing "yom".  It's not a new idea and I've encountered it many times before.

I've looked at it but rejected it because the sequence of creation still doesn't work. For instance, we have plants now millions of years before the sun.. We have whales before land mammals.

What is the "history" that you really care about in Genesis? Isn't it the historical accuracy of "God created"?  Do you really care about the details of how God created? The "inerrancy" of the Bible you care about is the theological inerrancy, isn't it?  Not the detailed history or the science.

Remember, Genesis discusses history only in the context of showing that the theology is correct.  In that context, compare Genesis 1 with the Enuma Elish and all the "contradictions" melt away.

The authors of Genesis were concerned with preserving the faith of the Hebrews.  They retrodicted the God they knew thru the intervention in Israel's history back to the beginning.  Genesis 1 eliminates all the Babylonian gods and goddesses by turning them into created creatures.  And it does so in order.  The earth and the sea are the first generation of Babylonian gods.  Those gave rise to the rest.  The reason plants come before sun is not history but because Marduk -- king of the gods -- is second generation god but is the god of agriculture and plants. The sun is Marduk's younger sister.  So Marduk is destroyed first and then the sun goddess.

Yes, the Pentateuch, particularly Exodus and following, are essential.  However, knowing that Genesis is redacted from different traditions allows you to understand the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 and the contradictions within Genesis 6-8.  Different traditions redacted together.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 03:26 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #65



White man speak with forked tongue. So are you saying that humans are "inherently fallable" but when it comes to facts then they are always right on?

Or are you simply saying that any facts that support what you believe are true and if the facts do not support your position then they are inherently fallable?

Neither.  While one on one people may be "inherently fallible" (I'm not sure I agree on that one) together they can't be wrong when all  of them see the same thing under similar circumstances.

And that is what science limits itself to: evidence that is available to everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Those observations are what we call "facts". 

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 02:12 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #63

I cant throw out the fallable dating methods and evolution speculation?

Based on the months of searching thru lots of science sites (secular and Christian) I believe all dating methods used are fallable (unless someone builds a time machine).

What sites? Why do you think the dating methods are fallible?  Have you looked at isochron methods?

Any evidence presented that shows the fallability of dating method is always dismissed anyway, so whats the point?

It can't be just "dismissed". It must be demonstrated where the fallacy is.
 
If someone showed you personally that they were not as predictable as some here believe, would you then change your stance?

Of course. After all, it has been demonstrated that C14 can't be used on mollusks. C14 is not valid there.

I say that the evidence fits (almost all of it) in my young earth faith.

It's the evidence that doesn't fit that matters. The evidence that falsifies the theory.  It's too bad you made the logical error of making young earth part of your faith.  That's the trouble geocentrists did before Galileo.  The Catholics learned their mistake. Too bad creationists weren't paying attention.

If One can buy into secular theory, then I can buy into theory thats fits the Biblical account.

I hate to tell you, but evolution wasn't a "secular theory" when Darwin introduced it.  Instead, Darwin put it firmly in the natural theology tradition.  It was the way God created.

However, acceptance of theories is independent of your personal theological faith.  What you propose is invalid science and really bad theology.  If you "buy into a theory" that contradicts the evidence God left in His Creation, you are denying God in favor of your interpretation of the Biblical account.

I am pointing this out -- again and again -- so that more Christians don't end up denying God like you are doing.

 

[lucaspa]

28th March 2003 at 10:49 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #52


Typical.
Anyone who disagrees with evolution, regardless of their credentials or motivations would not be ''scientists'' in your opinion, which is why we dont care about your opinion in this matter.

Other than starlight, the evidence fits our views, and even without theory on that we accept the biblical account of a 6 day creation.

You misread the post by chickenman.  Chickenman didn't say "regardless of their credentials or motivations" but laid down one specific condition -- adherence to a book rather than the data.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1.  All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are.  How do we determine what they really are?  Through direct experience of the universe itself." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

Creationism is a prejudice about how you would prefer creation to have happened.  Since the testing refuted creationism, adhering to it can't be science anymore.

Starlight is not the only area where the evidence doesn't fit creationism. For instance, the amount of dust on the moon and the amount of sodium in the ocean doesn't fit, either.  There are thousands of other examples, including a favorite of mine -- phylogenetic analysis.

 

[tulc]

lucaspa I have only this to say:
You are my hero. I don't agree with you in everything, but you don't make your way of looking at something the ONLY way. Thanks for sticking around.
tulc(who meant that in a totally non-stalker, friendly way)

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:27 PM lucaspa said this in Post #84 

And it appears that you won't come to the simple truth that God created and that everything science discovers in that Creation must have been put there by God.

No problem there, I do not question their power of observation. What I question is their creative writting ability to give an explaination for what they have observed.

It sort of reminds me of summer camp and they bring out a big bag of stuff. You dig into the bag and pick out an item. Then they say, make up a story about that item.

Science is good at making up stories about the items they find or the things they observe. I just don't believe their made up story.

So you say peer review. Well, that takes us back to summer camp. After each person tells his creative made up story, then everyone in the group can vote on how believeable the story was.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Yesterday at 05:30 PM tulc said this in Post #90

lucaspa I have only this to say:
You are my hero. I don't agree with you in everything, but you don't make your way of looking at something the ONLY way. Thanks for sticking around.
tulc(who meant that in a totally non-stalker, friendly way)

So you want a ''hero'' who merely follows any pack that currently seems to make sense and will take an absolute stand for nothing?

Someone whose views change with every wind of ''scientific theory'' that could be reversed tomorrow based on some new finding by scientists.

Hmmm. interesting..

 

[euphoric]

Today at 05:27 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #92 So you want a ''hero'' who merely follows any pack that currently seems to make sense and will take an absolute stand for nothing?

Someone whose views change with every wind of ''scientific theory'' that could be reversed tomorrow based on some new finding by scientists.

Hmmm. interesting..

No, I think he was referring to someone who actually bothers to educate himself on the issues he discusses and who keeps his opinions in the realm of opinion rather than trying to assert them as fact.  He also, unlike yourself, doesn't try to bully other Christians into accepting his view by questioning their faith should they dare disagree.

-brett

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:33 AM euphoric said this in Post #93



No, I think he was referring to someone who actually bothers to educate himself on the issues he discusses and who keeps his opinions in the realm of opinion rather than trying to assert them as fact.  He also, unlike yourself, doesn't try to bully other Christians into accepting his view by questioning their faith should they dare disagree.

-brett

Hoo boy, here we go again...

 

[euphoric]

Today at 05:36 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #94


Hoo boy, here we go again...

No! That's exactly the point, we don't go anywhere.  You never back up anything you say.  You throw it out there like it's gospel and expect others to be stupid enough to buy it at face value.  If you're going to debate scientific issues, then for the sake of all things holy, support your arguments with something other than your own inflated sense of expertise.  Crimeney. 

-brett

 

[Cantuar]

See the following site for some of the Christian denominations that abandoned your_literal interpretation:

Erm, that would be so-called "Christians," I think. You know, on account of once you've abandoned the literal interpretation, you can't be a True Christian. Even though we're also assured by at least some fundamentalists that beliving in a literal reading of Genesis is not necessary for salvation. Go figure.

 

[LadyShea]

Today at 09:27 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #92
So you want a ''hero'' who merely follows any pack that currently seems to make sense and will take an absolute stand for nothing?

Someone whose views change with every wind of ''scientific theory'' that could be reversed tomorrow based on some new finding by scientists.

Hmmm. interesting..

Let's see, lucaspa is a professional scientist, a PhD IIRC, and works with scientific ideas everyday...this is hardly "following any pack".

Follower of Christ you really are acting like a 5 year old, can we raise the discussion to maybe a high school level?

 

[Cantuar]

And as I pointed out elsewhere, it will be a grand old day when some new fact or theory pushes evolution right out the door.

It won't, you know. Whatever theory replaces evolution will be as grounded in the laws of nature as the theory of evolution is. That will not include anything along the lines of "God performed miracles as set forth in this or that holy book." Science doesn't work that way.

Science theory is notorious for pushing theory as fact, and then a couple years later being forced to recant based on some new finding that debunks previous theory.

No, it is not. The only notorious things around here are creationists who persist in this misunderstanding of theory and fact. It's really amazing how creationists will come onto a board frequented by scientists and will lecture them about some ridiculous distortions of science and won't listen when the scientists tell them what science really is about. Why do you think you know more about science than Prof Lucas? It's been pointed out to you several times that the creationist sites where you get your information are not science sites, they're ministries dedicating to upholding the supremacy of scripture. Science doesn't work on the basis of agreeing with whatever some holy book or another says. Maybe you think it should, but that's quite another matter. At present, science is the way it is, and all the kicking and screaming and yelling in the world by creationists isn't going to change that.

The essence of science is the methodology. Not the results, the method. Science exists to explain observations of nature in terms of the laws of nature. That's the purpose of science - to explain bodies of data. Scientific theories are the explanations; facts are the observations and the data. OK? Theories aren't facts, theories EXPLAIN facts. Science doesn't exist, UNLIKE CREATIONISM, to get a particular answer. The answer is whatever the scientific method comes up with. If it agrees with other results, or if it's obtained by several different groups of workers, then it's more likely to be accepted. If it appears to be anomalous, then there's a problem with the observations or with the theory, and it becomes necessary to test both and correct whichever is anomalous. Sometimes, for a number of reasons, the observations are wrong. Sometimes the theory is. If it's a very general theory, chances are it's only a small part of it that's wrong. When things are found to be incorrect, they're corrected. All the time, scientists are looking for the most complete and accurate explanation, and the result itself is less important than that it was obtained by a proper application of the scientific method, with all the checks and balances and safeguards and correction mechanisms in place.

See, it wouldn't matter to scientists if the scientific method did say the Earth was 6,000 years old. The point of science is not to agree or disagree with scripture, it's to get as accurate an explanation of observed data as possible. As it happens, the data suggest the Earth is billions of years old. But if the data suggested the Earth was a few thousand years old, scientists would accept that result as long as it was obtained by the scientific method. The problem with creationist methods is that they start with the result they need and they manipulate the data to agree. In the last analysis, for creationists the scientific method isn't important because they already know the answers from scripture, and scripture is far more important to them than science. They just demand that science agree with scripture because they've grown up in post-Enlightenment western society where they think that things have to have some sort of objective proof. Being rammed into the straijacket if being obliged to support scripture is not how the scientific method works. Scientists accepted big bang theory because that's where the data appeared to lead. The fact that it agreed with scripture about a finite beginning of the universe was irrelevant. Nice for theologians, but irrelevant to science. However, if scientists really were conspiring to have science contradict the Bible at every turn, why didn't they suppress big bang theory and pretend the data agreed with steady-state theory? It's because they aren't trying to undermine the Bible. The Bible is not a part of science. That you think it should be the focus and the foundation of science doesn't alter the fact that it isn't. You're trying to put two things together than don't belong together.

 

[L'Anatra]

Today at 01:50 AM LadyShea said this in Post #97
Let's see, lucaspa is a professional scientist, a PhD IIRC, and works with scientific ideas everyday...this is hardly "following any pack".

Follower of Christ you really are acting like a 5 year old, can we raise the discussion to maybe a high school level?

I think I've said this before (and I don't mean to be disrespectful) but this guy is supposedly twice the age of a number of people who frequent these boards, but can't hold himself well at all in a simple adult discussion. I'm beginning to feel like replying to him is an insult to our intelligence, and that can't be good...

 

[Cantuar]

He's a lot younger than I am...

Mind you, most people are these days.