Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

James Wilson · Jan 3, 2016

lesliedellow said:
I don't know where you got that from, but it is nonsense. I didn't read all of it, but apart from anything else, there is no way you could make measurements on a particle without energy transfer being involved. How else do you think you are going to get information out of the system?

Also, quantum entanglement does not allow information to be transferred.

lesliedellow stated, "There is no way you could make measurements on a particle without energy transfer being involved."

I was doing some research in this area some time back and came across the argument of the instrument interacting with the particle. The researcher said that this was true originally, but modern techniques allow this measurement to be taken indirectly.

I'm not submitting this as proof. I'm seeking the comment so I can include the reference, not because I believe you'll read it, but for others following this blog.

I'm making the above statement only to show I'm not ignoring the comment but need more time to prepare the response.

lesliedellow · Jan 3, 2016

James Wilson said:
lesliedellow stated, "There is no way you could make measurements on a particle without energy transfer being involved."

I was doing some research in this area some time back and came across the argument of the instrument interacting with the particle. The researcher said that this was true originally, but modern techniques allow this measurement to be taken indirectly.

I'm not submitting this as proof. I'm seeking the comment so I can include the reference, not because I believe you'll read it, but for others following this blog.

Oh, I will read it, and I am pretty sure of what it won't say, unless it is a creationist with a degree in (say) computer science, telling physicists that they don't know their job. That wouldn't be at all unusual.

James Wilson · Jan 4, 2016

lesliedellow said:
Oh, I will read it, and I am pretty sure of what it won't say, unless it is a creationist with a degree in (say) computer science, telling physicists that they don't know their job. That wouldn't be at all unusual.

This is the second time you've responded to my comment with the off-the-wall statement about creationists with computer science degrees. If you are referring to me, my BS degree is in mechanical engineering and the MS is in nuclear engineering, both from UC Berkeley.

lesliedellow · Jan 4, 2016

James Wilson said:
This is the second time you've responded to my comment with the off-the-wall statement about creationists with computer science degrees. If you are referring to me, my BS degree is in mechanical engineering and the MS is in nuclear engineering, both from UC Berkeley.

It was referring to the "researcher" mentioned in your post, which ought to have been obvious.

lasthero · Jan 4, 2016

Sureenough, the proud and arrogant evolutionists acted out as predicted by God almost 2,000 years before. They claimed that Noah's Flood was actually a series of small floods of limited extent all over the world! Why did they care? Because the fossil record could be created in the exact order it is, by Noah's Flood covering the highest mountain. Seashells and bottom dwelling creatures buried first, then larger fish, finally ending with horses and men who could delay their burial until the last moment, due to their greater land speed.

Let's see, where to start...

Eggs are found in all levels of strata, and they're always with the things that give birth to them. If fossils were sorted by land speed, we'd expect to find near the bottom, and rarely, if ever, in the same level as what gave birth to them, since eggs have a land speed of exactly ZERO. That is not the case. The same would go for plants and tools - for instance, we've never found flowering plants appearing before a certain layer, and we've never found tools before humans have been around.

Also, if it was determined by ability to survive in a worldwide flood, we'd expect birds and other flying animals like pterosaurs to be near the top in most situations. This is not the case. Pterosaurs disappear in the fossil record long before most mammals show up, and flightless birds like ostriches only appear after birds in general first show up. I really don't see how a flightless animal is going to survive long in such conditions than one that can't.

It's also worth pointing out that animals like slothes, moles, and koalas aren't exactly known for their incredible running speed, yet they still appear far after just about everything else in the fossil record.

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 5, 2016

Neogaia777 said:
Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

Without reading all the comments since your original post, I can still say with confidence that I'm sure you've opened a gigantic can of worms.

It comes down to a fairly basic question: are you going to interpret God through science, or science through God? You will find mounds of evidence for all theories.

You said you've had personal encounters with God. Ask Him to reveal His truth to you.

Loudmouth · Jan 5, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
It comes down to a fairly basic question: are you going to interpret God through science, or science through God?

A better question is why you would need to ignore the facts found in the world around us in order for the Bible to be true. That's the dilemma.

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 5, 2016

Loudmouth said:
A better question is why you would need to ignore the facts found in the world around us in order for the Bible to be true. That's the dilemma.

There's no need to ignore them.

Loudmouth · Jan 5, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
There's no need to ignore them.

Creationists do ignore them.

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 5, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Creationists do ignore them.

Like what?

Loudmouth · Jan 5, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
Like what?

The most basic thing that creationists continually ignore is the nested hierarchy.

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml

Time and again we find creationists using the same wrong argument. They start with the claim that straightforward similarities is what is used to evidence evolution. They then argue that a common designer would also create life with similar features. That ignores a huge fact. Evolution is evidenced by the PATTERN of similarities, not simply being similar. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

To use a counterexample, a fossil with a mixture of bird and mammal features would be similar to both mammals and birds. However, such a fossil would disprove evolution because it would contradict the expected nested hierarchy.

I have pointed this out time after time after time, and creationists know that creationism can not explain the most basic observation in biology. They also know that a nested hierarchy is exactly what we should see if evolution is true. Their response is to ignore it.

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 5, 2016

Loudmouth said:
The most basic thing that creationists continually ignore is the nested hierarchy.

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml

Time and again we find creationists using the same wrong argument. They start with the claim that straightforward similarities is what is used to evidence evolution. They then argue that a common designer would also create life with similar features. That ignores a huge fact. Evolution is evidenced by the PATTERN of similarities, not simply being similar. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

To use a counterexample, a fossil with a mixture of bird and mammal features would be similar to both mammals and birds. However, such a fossil would disprove evolution because it would contradict the expected nested hierarchy.

I have pointed this out time after time after time, and creationists know that creationism can not explain the most basic observation in biology. They also know that a nested hierarchy is exactly what we should see if evolution is true. Their response is to ignore it.

Tell you what. I dislike arguing, but I enjoy discussions. I have a decent background in science, so I will offer up a challenge.

I will read and research any evidence you provide that proves evolution, if you will do the same for creation. Then, after a few days, or whatever time is needed, we get together on a new thread to discuss what we read.

Deal?

RickG · Jan 5, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
Tell you what. I dislike arguing, but I enjoy discussions. I have a decent background in science, so I will offer up a challenge.

I will read and research any evidence you provide that proves evolution, if you will do the same for creation. Then, after a few days, or whatever time is needed, we get together on a new thread to discuss what we read.

Deal?

How about the fossil distribution throughout the geologic column? If evolution were false should we not find fossils of all life forms that ever existed in all layers of strata?

Grafted In · Jan 5, 2016

OP, if you are truly born again, God can work with that.

Subduction Zone · Jan 5, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
Tell you what. I dislike arguing, but I enjoy discussions. I have a decent background in science, so I will offer up a challenge.

I will read and research any evidence you provide that proves evolution, if you will do the same for creation. Then, after a few days, or whatever time is needed, we get together on a new thread to discuss what we read.

Deal?

You do realize that the word "prove" is not really used in science. Theories are supported by scientific evidence, of which there are literally mountains of for the theory of evolution. I do not know of any scientific evidence that supports the creation story in the Bible. And supposed evidence against the theory of evolution is not evidence for the Bible version. Do you have any scientific evidence at all that supports the Bible version? It would be a first if you had any.

Loudmouth · Jan 5, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
Tell you what. I dislike arguing, but I enjoy discussions. I have a decent background in science, so I will offer up a challenge.

I will read and research any evidence you provide that proves evolution, if you will do the same for creation. Then, after a few days, or whatever time is needed, we get together on a new thread to discuss what we read.

Deal?

The link I just gave you is a great place to start. The nested hierarchy is the big piece of evidence. Taking it one step further, we get the SAME nested hierarchy when we compare morphology and DNA. When we create a tree based on the outward appearance of species and a tree based on DNA sequence in genes that have nothing to do with outward appearance, we get the same tree. With DNA we also get interesting relationships, like genetic equidistance which I discuss in this thread:

Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

I would say that the link I gave in the previous post plus the thread above should be all the material you need.

Loudmouth · Jan 5, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
You do realize that the word "prove" is not really used in science.

In most situations, there is a tacit agreement that proof is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Scientists even describe proof and proving theories. However, precision in language can be beneficial.

Subduction Zone · Jan 5, 2016

Loudmouth said:
In most situations, there is a tacit agreement that proof is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Scientists even describe proof and proving theories. However, precision in language can be beneficial.

Yes, I am suffering from an overdose of Zosimus, who for all of his supposed law education does not seem to realize that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for juries too and not the mathematical or logical versions of proof he is constantly yammering at.

But even so, the rest of my post stands. I know of mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and of none for the creationist side.

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 5, 2016

Loudmouth said:
The link I just gave you is a great place to start. The nested hierarchy is the big piece of evidence. Taking it one step further, we get the SAME nested hierarchy when we compare morphology and DNA. When we create a tree based on the outward appearance of species and a tree based on DNA sequence in genes that have nothing to do with outward appearance, we get the same tree. With DNA we also get interesting relationships, like genetic equidistance which I discuss in this thread:

Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

I would say that the link I gave in the previous post plus the thread above should be all the material you need.

Ok. I have one article so far:

https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...enes-shared-mistakes-between-primate-genomes/

I am searching for a second, but in the meantime, I propose we agree on the following ground rules:

We each take the facts presented in the articles and research them objectively.

Proof is considered beyond reasonable doubt.

We both realize that we cannot likely change the other's mind. Therefore, this will be a discussion on whether or not the other's view is possible, and not an argument.

The facts being discussed is whether or not evidence supports creation or evolution, and especially whether nested heirarchy is based on solid evidence and does in fact only support evolution.

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 6, 2016

Loudmouth said:
The link I just gave you is a great place to start. The nested hierarchy is the big piece of evidence. Taking it one step further, we get the SAME nested hierarchy when we compare morphology and DNA. When we create a tree based on the outward appearance of species and a tree based on DNA sequence in genes that have nothing to do with outward appearance, we get the same tree. With DNA we also get interesting relationships, like genetic equidistance which I discuss in this thread:

Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

I would say that the link I gave in the previous post plus the thread above should be all the material you need.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Regular Member

Contributor

Contributor

Regular Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency