Help me out here guys.

dad · Apr 30, 2008

Danyc said:
Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

An old earth has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

What does this say for Christianity?

How can we reconcile this with the Bible?

I'm wondering, because right now I'm at a crossroads:

Become an atheist, or an OEC.

Thoughts?

Old earth is anything but proven. Perhaps you ought to look for a more solid excuse to do what it is you want to do??

Chalnoth · Apr 30, 2008

dad said:
Old earth is anything but proven. Perhaps you ought to look for a more solid excuse to do what it is you want to do??

The key word was reasonable. Proven beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubts are quite unreasonable.

AV1611VET · Apr 30, 2008

Chalnoth said:
The key word was reasonable. Proven beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubts are quite unreasonable.

Where does doubt come from in the first place?

Chalnoth · Apr 30, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Where does doubt come from in the first place?

Often from the recognition of an inconsistency. Why, where do you think doubt comes from?

AV1611VET · Apr 30, 2008

Chalnoth said:
Often from the recognition of an inconsistency. Why, where do you think doubt comes from?

From ignorance.

Chalnoth · Apr 30, 2008

AV1611VET said:
From ignorance.

Nah. If you were ignorant, then you wouldn't know enough to know that your beliefs may potentially be wrong. Ignorance breeds certainty. Knowledge breeds doubt. Doubt, therefore, is nothing to be feared, but embraced.

Pwnzerfaust · Apr 30, 2008

AV1611VET said:
From ignorance.

Doubt is more likely to come from knowledge than from ignorance. Doubt of myths, for example, is likely to come from the knowledge and understanding of natural explanations for the events in those myths. Doubt of old beliefs can come from new knowledge. Ignorance is what leads to dogmatic certainties.

Vene · Apr 30, 2008

Gawron said:
Posted by Vene:

"Then why did you bring it up?"

If you read that entire post from which you drew the quote, you know the answer to this question.

I did read the quote, the morality discussion came out of nowhere because the majority of the people on this board disagree with you and the majority of them were atheists.

This is a debate forum, of course people are going to disagree with you, and when you come in and start making arguments that creationists make, of course we're going to think you're a creationist. Now, as far as I can tell, you happen to like Lamarckian evolution. Which is just as stupid as creationism by the way. The Soviets tried to use Lamarckian evolution, it failed horribly.

Gawron · Apr 30, 2008

"I did read the quote"

Yes, but obviously not the entire post.

"majority of the people on this board disagree with you"

About what, specifically? I did get some responses on the 'moral relativism' issue, but not much else.

"and the majority of them were atheists."

Which goes to prove the point I made in that particular post.

"you happen to like Lamarckian evolution."

I think the study of epigenetics and neo-lamarckism can account for processes which neo-darwinism can't. Read up on Steele's work along with studies on the epigenetic control on the HIV-1 virus.

"Which is just as stupid as creationism by the way."

This comment validates the points I made in the post you seem to be so upset about. Thanks.

salida · Apr 30, 2008

Evolution proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Well, if you talking about darwinism its a farse and has no evidence behind it at all as the Bible has overwhelming evidence. Science? I'm a scientist. Go to www.reasons.org - a PhD in Chemistry started it - its about science and belief. Microevolution is true and some macroevolution - this doesn't contradict with the Bible. In fact, good science doesn't but bad science does because its filled with fables. Also, read Evidence that Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (it would stand up in court concerning bible evidence). And Examine the Evidence by Muncaster (a former athiest).

Darwinism - something that came from nothing is a big joke. Your car didn't come from thin air and a human body cell with is a thousand times more complicated sure didn't. In fact, in 10-20 years you will find that more scientists in general will be going to intellectual design because they don't have a leg to stand on concerning darwinism.

The Bible is the most true book or anything in the world because of the overwhelming evidence.

Biblical Evidence This is a very small amount of information
out of large amounts of information out there.

Internal Evidences-Prophesies that are confirmed with Bible;

mentioning only a few but there are hundreds.

Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen. 49:10, Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Lukes time period is 60-70 AD)

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5, Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60-70 AD)

Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14/Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(60-70 AD)

Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 four kingdoms are described in the interpretation
of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek Daniel 8:21, 10:20/ and a fourth great kingdom to follow which was part iron and clay which is the
Roman Empire during this empire, Christ came and the church was established Daniel 2:44.

Historical Accuracy

The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events of hundreds of years ago, yet
none of them has been proven to be incorrect.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents)
New Testament starts at 25 years between the original and surviving copies
Homer- starts at 500 years/Demosthenes at 1400 years/Plato at 1200 years/
Caesar at 1000 years

Number of Manuscript Copies

New Testament 5,686/Homer 643/Demosthenes 200/Plato 7/Caesar 10

Consistency Written by 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no
Internal inconsistencies.

Claim of Inspiration- It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.

External Evidences

(Prophesies Outside the Bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never to be built again- and they havent.
Niveveh Nahum 1:10, 3:7, 15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon Isaiah 13:1-22
Tyre -Ezekiel 26:1-28

Bible before Science

He hangs the earth on nothing Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago some scholars think it could have been even 3000
years ago)
Note: Man only knew the above for 350 years.
Earth is a sphere Isaiah 40:22/Air has weight Job 28:25/
Gravity Job 26:7, Job 38: 31-33/Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6

Documents that Prove Bible is True

Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

Archealogical Evidence (Still adding to this list today- it hasnt stopped)
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

Baggins · Apr 30, 2008

What sort of scientist are you?

The mind boggles.

plindboe · Apr 30, 2008

Gawron said:
I said nothing about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I simply think the fossil record is a better indicator for PE rather than Gradualism.

Why such a one-sided stand? Are you a paleontologist who've spend a lifetime carefully examining the evidence, or are you a layman who read some articles by Gould and agree with him because he wrote some provocative things that you liked to see?

Fact is, there's still lots of debate in the scientific community, it's far from a settled issue, and there is evidence of both gradual and rapid changes in the fossil record.

These illustrations are usually how the two positions are represented:

Neither are probably entirely realistic though, in reality it's probably more like a combination of these.

If you're interested in the evidences for phyletic gradualism, Gingerich have provided some elaborate work. For instance: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980AREPS...8..407G

A telling illustration from the paper (among many others):

Peter

Chalnoth · Apr 30, 2008

salida said:
Evolution proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Well, if you talking about darwinism its a farse and has no evidence behind it at all as the Bible has overwhelming evidence. Science? I'm a scientist. Go to www.reasons.org - a PhD in Chemistry started it - its about science and belief. Microevolution is true and some macroevolution - this doesn't contradict with the Bible. In fact, good science doesn't but bad science does because its filled with fables. Also, read Evidence that Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (it would stand up in court concerning bible evidence). And Examine the Evidence by Muncaster (a former athiest).

You're a scientist? A scientist of what, pray tell? Because this post does not read like the writings of a scientist.

salida said:
Darwinism - something that came from nothing is a big joke. Your car didn't come from thin air and a human body cell with is a thousand times more complicated sure didn't. In fact, in 10-20 years you will find that more scientists in general will be going to intellectual design because they don't have a leg to stand on concerning darwinism.

Considering that Darwinism has nothing whatsoever to do with anything coming from nothing, what on Earth are you talking about?

Gawron · Apr 30, 2008

"Are you a paleontologist who've spend (sic) a lifetime carefully examining the evidence, or are you a layman who read some articles by Gould and agree with him because he wrote some provocative things that you liked to see?"

Explain the insistence on the constant effort to minimalize anyone who doesn't agree with all aspects of the evolutionary party line. Are you a sheep who worships at the alter of science, or do ever actually think about any of these things?

"Fact is, there's still lots of debate in the scientific community"

Which I would think would allow for debate for it elsewhere. In addition, I tried to post diagrams in a few of my prior post illustrating the two schools of thought, but due to the odd rules of this web-site, will not be able to until I reach the magic number of 100 post. This makes no sense, but it is what it is. But you still seem to take the position that I have never seen any of this stuff before.

Loudmouth · Apr 30, 2008

Gawron said:
Explain the insistence on the constant effort to minimalize anyone who doesn't agree with all aspects of the evolutionary party line.

Who would these people be?

Loudmouth · Apr 30, 2008

salida said:
Evolution proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Well, if you talking about darwinism its a farse and has no evidence behind it at all . . .

Two sentences in and you are already wrong. Didn't take long.

Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ and get back to us.

Split Rock · Apr 30, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Where does doubt come from in the first place?

Chalnoth said:
Often from the recognition of an inconsistency. Why, where do you think doubt comes from?

AV1611VET said:
From ignorance.

Chalnoth said:
Nah. If you were ignorant, then you wouldn't know enough to know that your beliefs may potentially be wrong. Ignorance breeds certainty. Knowledge breeds doubt. Doubt, therefore, is nothing to be feared, but embraced.

Quoted for truth.

Split Rock · Apr 30, 2008

salida said:
Darwinism - something that came from nothing is a big joke. Your car didn't come from thin air and a human body cell with is a thousand times more complicated sure didn't. In fact, in 10-20 years you will find that more scientists in general will be going to intellectual design because they don't have a leg to stand on concerning darwinism.

I know of no scientific theory that claims something comes from nothing. I think you mean "Intelligent Design" and it is pretty much dead now. I still am not sure what you think "Darwinism" means.

Chalnoth · Apr 30, 2008

Gawron said:
Explain the insistence on the constant effort to minimalize anyone who doesn't agree with all aspects of the evolutionary party line. Are you a sheep who worships at the alter of science, or do ever actually think about any of these things?

Really, now. Have you ever heard of psychological projection? You know, where you can't face up to your own faults, so you project them onto others?

Look, if you had any evidence whatsoever to back up your notions about evolution, you wouldn't have to resort to specious ad hominem attacks. Resorting to them just tells us you've got nothing.

Gawron said:
Which I would think would allow for debate for it elsewhere. In addition, I tried to post diagrams in a few of my prior post illustrating the two schools of thought, but due to the odd rules of this web-site, will not be able to until I reach the magic number of 100 post. This makes no sense, but it is what it is. But you still seem to take the position that I have never seen any of this stuff before.

You can boost your post count by talking to ChrisBot:
http://christianforums.com/f111-chat-with-chrisbot.html

Should only take a few minutes. And by the way, epigenetics is a part of evolution. That all traits must only be passed down by DNA is an absurd characterization of evolution. The fact remains however that the high copying fidelity of DNA makes it one of the best means of encoding information for future generations.

Finally, debate outside the scientific community tends to be pointless, because people outside the scientific community don't have the expertise to make significant contributions. Basically, it takes a lot of time and effort to get ones' knowledge up to the point where one can make a meaningful contribution to any field of science, for the simple reason that there are many people that have come before. It is entirely possible to do this "from without" by taking a lot of time and effort to learn the field in and out, but it's far easier to just go to a university and study there.

Baggins · Apr 30, 2008

Gawron said:
[

I simply think the fossil record is a better indicator for PE rather than Gradualism.

This doesn't really make much sense. Whether things appear to us to have evolved through PE or gradualism is really all down to fossil preservation.

If you study fossils that live in a stable environment and have short generations you will be a firm believer in gradualism. Foraminifera a good example of this, their fossils are ubiquitous and from a stable environment, they show all characteristics of gradualism. If you study land animals with longer generations you will a firm believer in PE because that is what the geological record will be telling you.

In fact they are both true.

As someone who studied micro-fossils I think the fossil record is a better indicator for gradulaism than for PE

Help me out here guys.

Undefeated!

Senior Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Contributor

Pwning

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency