Hypothetical for Scientists

[Targ]

He also said we have 'all the steps', and we don't have 'all the steps'.

Talk about "god-of-the-gaps" -- evolution has more gaps than the White Cliffs of Dover has coccospheres.

I don't believe it is in the slightest bit unreasonable for there to be gaps in the fossil record. It is totally expected, given the nature of fossilisation.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe it is in the slightest bit unreasonable for there to be gaps in the fossil record.

Neither do I.

It is totally expected, given the nature of fossilisation.

Then don't tell me we worship a god-of-the-gaps, when evolution's god is bigger.

 

[Split Rock]

He also said we have 'all the steps', and we don't have 'all the steps'.

Talk about "god-of-the-gaps" -- evolution has more gaps than the White Cliffs of Dover has coccospheres.

Are those coccospheres the ones that God swept up into a nice neat pile after The Flood from the millions of coccolithophores He killed in The Deluge? I thought marine species didn't die in The Flood?? Hmmmm......

 

[AV1611VET]

Are those coccospheres the ones that God swept up into a nice neat pile after The Flood from the millions of coccolithophores He killed in The Deluge? I thought marine species didn't die in The Flood?? Hmmmm......

That He killed in the Deluge?

I don't know -- are they?

 

[Chalnoth]

He also said we have 'all the steps', and we don't have 'all the steps'.

While we don't ever expect to have all of the steps, today we do have all of the major steps in animal evolution. That is, there are no glaring gaps between birds and dinosaurs, mammals and reptiles, reptiles and amphibians, amphibians and fish, etc.

But this is pretty much just nice to have. There would be far more than enough evidence for evolution even if we had no fossils at all, and just had living plants and animals to go by.

 

[Split Rock]

That He killed in the Deluge?

I don't know -- are they?

You are the one claiming that the White Cliffs of Dover are the results of God's "clean-up" after The Flood. You tell us.

 

[Split Rock]

Neither do I.

Then don't tell me we worship a god-of-the-gaps, when evolution's god is bigger.

So explain to us how the rare nature of fossilization becomes a god in the twisted creationist mind.

 

[lucaspa]

He also said we have 'all the steps', and we don't have 'all the steps'.

Talk about "god-of-the-gaps" -- evolution has more gaps than the White Cliffs of Dover has coccospheres.

For some transitions in the fossil record, we do have "all the steps". See
Transitional fossils - Christian Forums

Those transitions both 1) falsify creationism and 2) strongly support evolution.

For those transitions where we don't have "all the steps", there are independent reasons we don't.

 

[lucaspa]

I thought that's what peer review is for; one man debating his reality against another's.

Not at all. Peer-review is a quality control check on publications before they are published. It weeds out papers that don't meet minimum standards.

 

[lucaspa]

Science is just a method to help describe reality and how the universe works. When you debate against science you really debate against reality which is both foolish and nonproductive.

From the perspective of a Christian, science is reading God's other book: Creation. When you debate against science or tell it to "take a hike" you are debating against God or telling God to "take a hike".

Not only is that "nonproductive", but it is extremely foolish if you believe in God's judgement.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, just see the theological arguments here revolving around the trinity. The claim is that the apparently contradictory language is not actually contradictory by some mysterious, unknown mechanism.

Neither mysterious nor unknown. We know what the original Greek words meant. They don't have one-word equivalents in English, just like "simpatico" doesn't, but we still know what they meant. And that's the point: in English Trinity is apparently contradictory, but that is only an appearance. It's not really contradictory, especially not in Greek.

The essays are from 1859 and from one minister. As such, they don't represent the consensus of Christian theology anymore than Robert Chambers represents the scientific consensus about evolution. I don't think you really read the article. The article is addressing 2 very specific claims about the Bible: it is infallible and it was dictated by God. This is summed in the question: "Must we thus divest the language of all truth to save the infallibility of the writers -- destroy the revelation to preserve the divine authority?"

It appears that non-theists are not immune from making strawmen.

By the line of reasoning used here, one can admit any sort of contradiction at all into theology.

That is not the case, and isn't even the case argued by Dr. Taylor. All you have to do is look at the theologies that theists have decided are false. So yes, you can disprove some theologies. The issue is whether Christianity has been disproved.

 

[Skaloop]

Not at all. Peer-review is a quality control check on publications before they are published. It weeds out papers that don't meet minimum standards.

Exactly. Peer review is not meant to address the findings of a study, but rather the methodology.

 

[lucaspa]

"Formed" and "created" are two concepts that are quite distinguishable in Genesis 1.

But not in your example. Of course, to get "formed" and "created" to be different concepts in Genesis, you must go back to the Hebrew! Which you call "speaking in tongues" and refuse to do.

So what do you want to do, AV, give up "formed" and "created" or give up KJVO?

Knowing the difference between creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia and formed helps to understand what happened (and what didn't happen).

Not the way you have it. After all, if "dalite" is "formed" on the earth and that formed dalite shows that it was "formed" longer than scripture says the earth existed, that still denies your "creation" in recent time.

Also, you haven't addressed the reason God would create dalite with more particles in it than needed to indicate the real age of the earth. Why couldn't God indicate the real age of the earth?

BTW, the real puzzle you have to solve is why there are no virgin radioisotopes on earth that have half-lives less than 50 million years. Why did God neglect to create the short-lived radioisotopes that would show the earth is 6,000 years old but did create the long-lived isotopes that show an age of billions of years?

 

[Chalnoth]

Neither mysterious nor unknown. We know what the original Greek words meant. They don't have one-word equivalents in English, just like "simpatico" doesn't, but we still know what they meant. And that's the point: in English Trinity is apparently contradictory, but that is only an appearance. It's not really contradictory, especially not in Greek.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The doctrine of the trinity does not appear in the Bible. It can potentially be inferred, but in any case it isn't directly in the Greek at all.

The essays are from 1859 and from one minister. As such, they don't represent the consensus of Christian theology anymore than Robert Chambers represents the scientific consensus about evolution. I don't think you really read the article. The article is addressing 2 very specific claims about the Bible: it is infallible and it was dictated by God. This is summed in the question: "Must we thus divest the language of all truth to save the infallibility of the writers -- destroy the revelation to preserve the divine authority?"

I don't think there is any sense in attempting to find a consensus of Christian theology. I'm not sure any such thing exists (if you think there is, you're going to have a hard time explaining the multiple denominations). The fact remains that there is definitely a branch of Christian theology that explicitly argues that contradictory language isn't a problem, and when you attempt to argue that, you're separating yourself completely from any sort of reality, and are just turning inwards to your own beliefs.

I wouldn't pretend to argue that this particular pitfall is particularly prevalent in Christian theology. Just that it is a pitfall, and one that seems to explain quite a lot about what Christians are taught in church (which, in my experience, includes quite a lot of contradictory language).

That is not the case, and isn't even the case argued by Dr. Taylor. All you have to do is look at the theologies that theists have decided are false. So yes, you can disprove some theologies. The issue is whether Christianity has been disproved.

I'm not so sure this is very sensible, however, because different theists have decided that different theologies are false. True, some theologies have fallen out of fashion and are no longer around. But there are other theologies that are so blatantly opposed to reason and evidence that it is amazing they continue (young Earth creationism, for instance). Sure, there are theists who consider these things false, but again, I don't see anything close to a consensus among theologians. I just see a lot of people with different opinions and no way to come to any sort of agreement.

 

[The Lady Kate]

CHAPTER ONE​

You hold in your hand a rock known as, let's call it, Dalite.​

This Dalite emits one particle called a Dalon every year on January 1.​

Analysis shows that the Dalite you're holding has 10 particles of Dalon embedded in it.​

CHAPTER TWO​

Absolutely without fail, observation shows that every time Dalite is formed (keyword: formed), it always forms with 100,000 Dalons embedded --- irregardless of the size of the rock.​

CHAPTER THREE​

Chris T. Ian claims that, according to The Book, this universe has only been in existence for 100 years, and the following converstion ensues:​

YOU: Not so --- I have a Dalite rock with only 10 Dalons left. This is evidence that this rock is 999,990 years old.​

CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) Dalite, He must have created it with only 110 Dalons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 100,000 Dalons into it.​

QUESTION​

Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?​

Jumping in a bit late here, I know, but what does Chris T. Ian know that makes all my research on Dalite inconclusive?

 

[DarkProphet]

Jumping in a bit late here, I know, but what does Chris T. Ian know that makes all my research on Dalite inconclusive?

He read something in a book and then he jumped to the conclusion that his interpretation of that book (that no one else shares) makes the research inconclusive.

 

[Tiberius]

Neither do I.

Then don't tell me we worship a god-of-the-gaps, when evolution's god is bigger.

evolution has a god now?

News to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

evolution has a god now?

Goddess, actually.

YouTube - 70s Mother Nature *Chiffon* Margarine Commercial

 

[Gracchus]

Goddess, actually.

YouTube - 70s Mother Nature *Chiffon* Margarine Commercial

A margarine commercial! Congratulations AV1611VET, you have plumbed new depths of the ridiculous!

 

[AV1611VET]

A margarine commercial! Congratulations AV1611VET, you have plumbed new depths of the ridiculous!

And made a point doing it too!

-- thank you!