Re: Gentry and his claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.
- Thread starter Late_Cretaceous
- Start date
- Status
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
This entire thread, especially all the posts concerning creationists' confusing ideas about "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, is a grand testament to the utter failure of scientific education and scientific popular literature worldwide to teach people what science truly is.
Oh, that's obvious.
Water as chaos is an obvious theme to any civilization living beside a river.
Night and day. Don't tell me you don't know what those are.
Plants springing up from the ground.
Hey, the existence of ground itself! Especially considering the chaotic nature of water.
The fact that man returns to dust (though that's only really alluded to in Gen 2 and 3).
The fact of sin and the fact that it brings death.
All this comes together in one grand story of origins where God the hero brings all this (except sin and death, naturally) into being. The believer looks at this, appreciates God's immense wisdom in creating the world, and goes away understanding that he is made in God's image and is designed to steward God's world for Him.
The unbeliever, on the other hand, comes to it as a piece of scientific literature, notes that it makes no sense as science, and goes on to ridicule the Bible. Funny how the YEC starts from the exact same place as him.
replied by:
That really tested my dad-o-meter!
The "good old days of bible understanding" included St. Augustine and St. Basil telling us that Genesis need not be literal. The "good old days of bible understanding" never included anyone who thought Genesis 1 had to be a "how to build a world in seven days - signed, God" scientific treatise.
Substantiate this. You still haven't told me what Mendel's laws are.
To prove that creation is true, show me that the first plants did not photosynthesize for one day, that all the stars in the universe are exactly the same age as both the sun and the moon, that the first fish and the first bird was born one day after them, that the first terrestrial animal was born one day after them, that marine phytoplankton don't exist (since God didn't mention creating them in Genesis 1, AFAIK), and that man has the same molecular composition as, or has a molecular composition derivable from, dust. While we're at it, find me a human male fossil with one rib missing, find me Abel's murder weapon, show that the place it was found in was originally a field, and show by DNA analysis that the blood on it belongs to one of the sons of that human male fossil with one rib missing you're supposed to have found.
Which part of perverse, evidential, demands do you not understand?
On this alone I agree wholeheartedly!
To all those creationists busy "defending" the word of God: Show me where the word of God tells us to take the word of God scientifically.
Oh, that's obvious.
Water as chaos is an obvious theme to any civilization living beside a river.
Night and day. Don't tell me you don't know what those are.
Plants springing up from the ground.
Hey, the existence of ground itself! Especially considering the chaotic nature of water.
The fact that man returns to dust (though that's only really alluded to in Gen 2 and 3).
The fact of sin and the fact that it brings death.
All this comes together in one grand story of origins where God the hero brings all this (except sin and death, naturally) into being. The believer looks at this, appreciates God's immense wisdom in creating the world, and goes away understanding that he is made in God's image and is designed to steward God's world for Him.
The unbeliever, on the other hand, comes to it as a piece of scientific literature, notes that it makes no sense as science, and goes on to ridicule the Bible. Funny how the YEC starts from the exact same place as him.
shernren said:
replied by:
nolidad said:Yeah those were the good old days of bible understanding.
That really tested my dad-o-meter!
The "good old days of bible understanding" included St. Augustine and St. Basil telling us that Genesis need not be literal. The "good old days of bible understanding" never included anyone who thought Genesis 1 had to be a "how to build a world in seven days - signed, God" scientific treatise.
Substantiate this. You still haven't told me what Mendel's laws are.
To prove that creation is true, show me that the first plants did not photosynthesize for one day, that all the stars in the universe are exactly the same age as both the sun and the moon, that the first fish and the first bird was born one day after them, that the first terrestrial animal was born one day after them, that marine phytoplankton don't exist (since God didn't mention creating them in Genesis 1, AFAIK), and that man has the same molecular composition as, or has a molecular composition derivable from, dust. While we're at it, find me a human male fossil with one rib missing, find me Abel's murder weapon, show that the place it was found in was originally a field, and show by DNA analysis that the blood on it belongs to one of the sons of that human male fossil with one rib missing you're supposed to have found.
Which part of perverse, evidential, demands do you not understand?
On this alone I agree wholeheartedly!
To all those creationists busy "defending" the word of God: Show me where the word of God tells us to take the word of God scientifically.
Upvote
0
KerrMetric said:
I'm sure I am on thin ice here, but I must say what is the truth. You fear the world and not God. You put your intelect and logic above what is plainly stated. Your God is created in your image. You cannot believe that He could truly do what the bible says He did, or that He did it that way. The reason you see the bible as factually incorrect is because you don't understand it, because you don't believe it. You deny the truth and are blind to it.
2 Cor 4:1-10
4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;
10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
KJV
2 Tim 3:1-9
3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness , but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
KJV
Upvote
0
KerrMetric
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2005
- 5,171
- 226
- 64
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
livingword26 said:
Your plainly stated is another persons confusion and vice versa. There is a reason there are hundreds to thousands of denominations. Becuase there are hundreds to thousands of interpretations many of which claim to be literal. Yet somehow the literals vary. I wonder why that is?
This is just poorly thought out rationalisation on your part.
I do believe in it just not as a text book. There are errors in the text. Perhaps your education does not allow you to see them but I'm afraid mine has. That is not my fault is it? I know there was not a world wide Flood a few thousand years ago. You think there was because you haven't had the training to know otherwise. I know planting sticks in the ground to genetically change offspring is ancient world nonsense but the Bible talks of this as fact. Again, not my error.
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
I'm sure I am on thin ice here, but I must say what is the truth. You fear the world and not God. You put your intelect and logic above what is plainly stated. Your God is created in your image. You cannot believe that He could truly do what the bible says He did, or that He did it that way. The reason you see the bible as factually incorrect is because you don't understand it, because you don't believe it. You deny the truth and are blind to it.
One of the interesting ideas i come away from, almost daily, this board with, is the extraordinary "personalization" of epistemology that YECism proposes. It is not simply enough to study the universe, to do well at university, to be competent in handling the data and the theories of science. But to really really understand the universe you must be a particular type of Christian.
Look at how the discussion degenerates into "he said he was a Christian, she said he was not the right kind of Christian, but which she meant he did not understand the Bible like she does" etc.
When i first saw this phenomena, i thought it was a ploy, a way to discredit science and scientists because there was no way that YECism could compete at the level of science, so it bumps the discussion up into the realm of religion.
Religion is not just dominanted by this kind of thinking, but it is the realm of private knowledge, you have to have a particular kind of private experience in order to know the right things. Interestingly this is esoteric knowledge, hidden knowledge available only to the adept inside spiritual elite. but that is another issue.
What i'd like to point out, is that science, from the late 17thC to the mid 19thC freed itself from these epistemological wars based on private knowledge. It did so by making science the domain of the instrumentally accessible. Within some parameters it doesn't matter what religion the person at the lab bench or behind the instrument panel is, or what s/he believes about the authority of Scripture, their data is the same. In New Delhi, in Moscow.
after watching the display here, i'm glad my car was designed with these scientific principles freed from the religious epistemology. I'd rather have it work then be theologically correct.
it surprises me, given the divisiness of theology that people would seriously argue putting it back into utilitarian science. I really don't want to have to establish theological and Biblical credentials in order to do science, nor do i think you want the results of a religisized/politicized science to have to rely on in order to get to work......
but worst of all is what this extension of the Gospel into the realm of science does to the Gospel itself. The Gospel is about Jesus, not about the age of the earth. It is about how to go heaven not about how the heavens go. YECism is fully a child of a scientism age, fully believing that in order for something to be truth it must be scientifically true. Jesus as the Christ is to me the stumbling stone, not the age of the earth, or if human beings share genes with the great apes etc.... To attempt to save the Gospel in a scientific age you have distorted not just the Gospel but held it up to derision and rejected, not on the basis of things intrinsic to the Gospel but on externals that even unbelievers understand.
sad.
One of the interesting ideas i come away from, almost daily, this board with, is the extraordinary "personalization" of epistemology that YECism proposes. It is not simply enough to study the universe, to do well at university, to be competent in handling the data and the theories of science. But to really really understand the universe you must be a particular type of Christian.
Look at how the discussion degenerates into "he said he was a Christian, she said he was not the right kind of Christian, but which she meant he did not understand the Bible like she does" etc.
When i first saw this phenomena, i thought it was a ploy, a way to discredit science and scientists because there was no way that YECism could compete at the level of science, so it bumps the discussion up into the realm of religion.
Religion is not just dominanted by this kind of thinking, but it is the realm of private knowledge, you have to have a particular kind of private experience in order to know the right things. Interestingly this is esoteric knowledge, hidden knowledge available only to the adept inside spiritual elite. but that is another issue.
What i'd like to point out, is that science, from the late 17thC to the mid 19thC freed itself from these epistemological wars based on private knowledge. It did so by making science the domain of the instrumentally accessible. Within some parameters it doesn't matter what religion the person at the lab bench or behind the instrument panel is, or what s/he believes about the authority of Scripture, their data is the same. In New Delhi, in Moscow.
after watching the display here, i'm glad my car was designed with these scientific principles freed from the religious epistemology. I'd rather have it work then be theologically correct.
it surprises me, given the divisiness of theology that people would seriously argue putting it back into utilitarian science. I really don't want to have to establish theological and Biblical credentials in order to do science, nor do i think you want the results of a religisized/politicized science to have to rely on in order to get to work......
but worst of all is what this extension of the Gospel into the realm of science does to the Gospel itself. The Gospel is about Jesus, not about the age of the earth. It is about how to go heaven not about how the heavens go. YECism is fully a child of a scientism age, fully believing that in order for something to be truth it must be scientifically true. Jesus as the Christ is to me the stumbling stone, not the age of the earth, or if human beings share genes with the great apes etc.... To attempt to save the Gospel in a scientific age you have distorted not just the Gospel but held it up to derision and rejected, not on the basis of things intrinsic to the Gospel but on externals that even unbelievers understand.
sad.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
What follows is a classic example of a Bible Hammer, and a reportable one if I ever saw it. First time leniency. Anyway, I'm not interested in silencing you. But as an evolutionist I spend my time trying to learn how creationists think, so that I am able to learn everything I can from them, that I will be able to be used by God to bless them in any way possible, and that I will know how to stand united with them in any aspect possible even though we must stand apart on so many other things. I can't force all creationists to return the kindness but I hope you will.
Note that within the context of the passage (and even if one plucks the verse out) the "gospel" that is hidden is the message that Jesus has died and risen again to bring salvation to the world. Therefore as this passage is rightly interpreted, the message that Jesus is Lord and Saviour is hidden by Satan from the minds of those who will not acknowledge Him. That is absolutely true and I agree that Satan has indeed hidden God's saving truth from some people. At the same time, I hope you are aware that you made have that statement in a subforum where every poster holds fully to the Nicene Creed, and so the passage cannot possibly apply (by God's grace) to any of us or anything of what you think we should believe.
Unless you have solid proof that every single evolutionist here is a "lover of their own selves, covetous, boaster, proud, blasphemer, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreaker, false accuser, incontinent, fierce, despiser of those that are good, traitor, heady, highminded, lover of pleasures more than lover of God; of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.", I have every right to believe that this passage does not apply to any evolutionist here.
What do you gain from slandering your brothers and sisters so?
Upvote
0
shernren said:
This has nothing to do with creationism and evolution. It has to do with one who does not beleive the bible. He has said it outright. If you would read the posts that lead up to this it is clear why I posted it. I started the post by saying I was on thing ice. If you want to report it I understand. The intent was not to injure, but in hopes of this person coming to the understanding of the truth that is in the bible. That is our job as christians. I am afraid for him and if I do nothing then I am guilty.
Upvote
0
KerrMetric said:
So you think Moses was liar? Do you think he mad up Genesis? Or are you one of those that think that the bible has jut been to contaminated to be true anymore? Don't you think that God is perfectly capable of bringing us His word in written form the way He wants it. Many versions you say? True, some closer and som further away. I myself believe that the textus receptus is prabably the purest form of His word we have. No man has a grasp on the entire bible. It is the pride and the intelect of man that leads him down paths of false doctrine. You claim to know the Lord. Has He told you that the bible is incorrect? It would be much easier to just leave and not bother to continue in this conversation, and indeed I may end up removed, but if there is the slightest chance that I can open your eyes to the truth then I must take it. You are preaching against Gods word. You are preaching against what Christ spoke. Please pray and be open to what He tells you.
Upvote
0
livingword26 said:
Thousands of Christian scientists have looked carefully and repeatedly at the actual handiwork and creation of God and have come to the conclusion that the reality of creation doesn't match up with a literal interpretation of the bible. If your beliefs are contradictory to the actual creation, you can be assured that it is your beliefs that are wrong.
I haven't seen anyone preaching against Gods word. What I have seen is you claiming to be intimately familiar with God and claiming that others can't be because they disagree with your interpretation of scripture. Please pray and be open to what the actual creation of God can tell you.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I won't report you, since you were unaware that you were in the wrong (wrong, at least from where I see things). But I hope that you will understand why I thought you were in the wrong, and I hope that you will listen carefully to what posters say before you start shooting off bible hammers.
Firstly, I don't want to speak for KerrMetric, but I don't think he "does not believe the Bible". One thing you have yet to learn is that for a lot of posters here, truth does not correspond to factuality. A myth can be as true as a scientific fact, even more true. I know this may sound counter-intuitive, but frankly (and frustrated-ly) speaking I don't expect you to agree, it will be a miracle enough if you even understand, and see enough to identify with, this. From this viewpoint one can say "the Bible is factually incorrect" and "the Bible is given by God as divine revelation towards salvation" without any incoherence whatsoever. If you want to explore this point further, you can PM me or start a new thread to ask. If you just want to confirm your knee-jerk "I don't agree with this, it must be unbiblical" ideas then do not be surprised if you encounter hostility.
Second, even if KerrMetric or any of us here did not "believe the Bible" (in whichever capacity you want to interpret that), it would still have been improper to use the verses you used. Those verses, as I have shown, are specifically applicable to false prophets who have rejected the very saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. I'm stepping on thin ice here, but the Bible is not strictly necessary for this saving knowledge to be conveyed. Mind you, I'm not saying that the Bible is not important. I'm one of the rare TEs here who still hold quite closely to verbal infallibility (which I shall confront later). But hey, the prophets and the apostles who didn't have the Bible believed in God, and faraway tribes believe in God even before having a Bible in their language, and I do not think their lack of belief in the Bible (or lack of a Bible to believe in) will hinder their "faith being credited to them as righteousness".
(On an aside, you will have to understand that it is a sensitive thing for some people here to call the Bible the Word of God. This phrase is used very specifically and unequivocally in John 1 to name Jesus Christ, with sound theological reasoning behind it. Also, normally this appellation is attached by people who have a more Quranic understanding of the role of the Bible. Again, feel free to ask if you genuinely want to learn more.)
Finally, I am still awaiting the Biblical proof that the Bible is scientifically rigorous. This is not equivalent to saying that the Bible is:
- true
- useful
- God-given
- unalterable
I agree with all of this, and yet I do not agree with you that the Bible intends to be read scientifically, or even with a scientific Modernist mindset in hand.
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2006
- 6,762
- 1,269
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Or as is the correct way of looking at it: The babylonian myth is a corrupted spinoff of the truth. It bewcame corrupted after the dispersion at Babel, just like Noahs ark was corrupted after Babel.
Your concept of God saddens me! All other linguistically known parables in the bible have their explanations at the ready time wise, but creation he waited 2,000 years to say why He told the "story" of creation--to set up a sabbath!! And then He did a lousy job of it at that!! Cause He told Israel that the reason why He wanted them to rest on the seventh day was to follow His example-- because He created everything in six days! But then again He really didn't because it would really mess up HIs story if He clued them in that it was only a story and not true--so He worded it to sound true!! Then we had to wait until the 1800's to find out it was all only a good yarn and he didn't mean it as it sounded. Wow you amaze me!!!
Well as your side on this thread love talkorigins.org, go there and they will tell you genesis 1&2 and evolution are diametricallyy oppossed to each other!! I know you won't take my word for it (after all I am a bible beleivng Christian) but I do know you will take their word for it.
Make you a deal, qoute me correctly and I won't have to say these things.
Because they reject the account of Adam and Eve as being literal (talkorgins probably says that somewhere). Reasons:
Timeline too short. Genesis 1-11 chronologically and geneologically are seamless wholes. We have Adam formed and breathed into by God and down through Noah, and HIsa children and their children and the table of the dispersion of nations into their historic regions. Noah is a descendant of Adam and God destroyed the world then. Noahs children are the progenitors of all teh nations and linguistic bodies of today!!
And even giving for missing names in the geneological accounts- you have from The creation to Noah less than 2 K years. And them from Noah to the birth of the Jewish nation and their exodus from Egypt c. 1k years. And all this flows from 6 literal days of creation.
Bible-- earth created first- 5 days before man
Evolution stars first billions of years before man.
Bible each "kind" created unique and locked into its "kind"
Evolution- each "kind" evolved from another "kind"
Bible- man hand formed frm God
Evolution- man evolved A. afarenses into many differing "homo" before intelligent enough to be "Adam".
But you knew all this already! you are not as dumb as you portray on this post I am answering!
Well I can tell the difference between something omaginary and reality! You have failed to produce any evidence that even implies that the crfeation account was meant only as a tale. You havew only offered supposition as to a "why" it COULD or MIGHT BE a tale ( I use the you in the collective sense)
Well I am in good company: Because no one who was a beleiver (at least recorded) thought as you did prior to Asa Grey and his movemetn to marry evolution and the bible together in the 1800's. So I am in company of hundreds of millions! Maybe even billions! And if not why don't you showe me wherew my Hebrew language and Greek language teachers erred.
mrwilliams11 writes:
YEC is the result of consistent hermeneutc techniques and is the product of a school of interpretation.
you should inform the Lady KAte and other TEists here, they take the creation tory to be bound to the Sabbath immediately. It is not as a consistent use of proper hermeneutics shows.
Well what are Adam and Eve allegories of pray tell?????
Kerr Metric writes:
Well then you should write JPL. OAk Ridge, many major universities, printing houses, awards commissions. For all YEC scientists are degreed scientists. Thjey chari departments in secular colleges, have received awards, patents, hav published textbooks used in secular colleges etc. etc. etc.
Be onsistent--when an evolutionary biologist debates a YEC geologist and seeks to refute his geological claims will you call him not a scientist as well??
If you wish < i can post a listing of 100 YEC scientists, their degrees, awards approved publications, and work histories. No they are very bonafide scientistsa who have published numerous approved papers in theri major field of expertise. Now you are expressing peresonal desire without any facts to warrant it.
Then why did you write this:
If gravity cannot be technically proven true??? You beleive evolution can?????????????? Wow talk about moving goalposts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And for the record-- the theorized mechanism for what has been dubbed "macro" evolution is not in debate here. We know mutations occur! We know that somoe mutations are harmful, some are neutral (though that is contested by lack of empirical data) and even fewer have been proven beneficial! But we have seen no mutation and selelction take a fish and turn it in to a reptile over millions of years through gradual change.
All we have seen is speciation and how much of that speciation is due to mutation and not just a reshuffling of prexisting information in the genetic code is the mystery. For if it is simply reshuffling info- it is not a mutation but simply Mendels law at work.
More later I have a hard time keeping up with all the posting here.
Off for 2 days and I am 10 pages behind.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
nolidad said:
Possible... if Babel isn't another rewritten story.
All the other linguistically known parables were written by different authors over a thousand years later... Genesis was written in a time when "myth" and "history" weren't so clearly separated.
Odd, then that the Isrealites were already doing this before Genesis was written... why would God instruct them to do something which was already being done?
Did He word it that way, or did the writers He inspired word it that way?
You seem to think it matters to God how long it takes for us to find out how His world is put together... as if God is as impatient as His followers.
Precisely what Genesis cannot be taken literally... because a literal interpretation contradicts what we can observe from God's own creation.
I don't need to take anyone's word for something I already know... and please stop feeling sorry for yourself simply because people don't agree with everything you say.
It probably says that in several places... Adam and Eve are not literal.
So what?
Which cannot possibly be literally true given what we have observed from God's own creation.
So what?
Suppose we diceide that the Bible is not literally true:
So what?
Pointless. "Kind" is a meaningless term anyway.
So what?
We're still God's creation... we just took a little longer.
So what?
I am so thankful that you have decided I am not an idiot.
This brings me back to my original question:
So what?
Given that creation itself was made by God, and given that what we interpret from His creation must be as much the truth as God's revealed word, and given that what we're learned from creation flatly contradicts a literal historical reading of Genesis, I'd say the evidence is pretty solid.
Good for you. Believers also believed in slavery, Crusades, and burning witches at the stake... admittedly, even by the 1800s, some of these practices were already out of fashion, but the point is that the majority of God's children have entered the 21st century, and have learned enought about His work to re-examine what we thought He was telling us 5000 years ago.
Never mind language, it's your history teachers you should be talking to... geology, biology, zoology, astronomy, and cosmology professors should probably be conferred with as well. I'm sure they'd love to hear how everything they've learned from God's creation is wrong because it doesn't add up with the way people chose to interpret their Bible 200 years ago.
Upvote
0
KerrMetric
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2005
- 5,171
- 226
- 64
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
nolidad said:
JPL???? As someone connected to JPL I wonder who you mean?
Oak Ridge??? You do realise Gentry worked in disposing waste don't you? He is not a PhD in Physics. He is not a "world renowned nuclear physicist". He hasn't worked there for years if I recall anyway.
What major universities?? Little Bible schools don't count you know. Just about all the folk they dredge up work for AIG and ICR and do not do research or publish.
What department chairs??
What "secular" textbooks?
If you notice most of these people are not directly educated in the relevant areas. A lot of engineers, doctors, anatomists, dentists, engineers and agriculturists.
And I could (if I could cut/paste for long enough) put a list up that would be several hundred thousand names long including probably every single professor of every single large research university in the world in the relevant science disciplines. Every single one! You can maybe get a list of a couple of dozen of which zero (YES ZERO) are at renowned research universities in the actualy relevant disciplines.
Then why did you write this:
If gravity cannot be technically proven true??? You beleive evolution can?????????????? Wow talk about moving goalposts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Objects falling down whe you drop them is a fact.
The theory of gravity is the explanation for this. (Theory)
Similarly:
Evolution as the change in populations over time. (fact)
Evolutionary theory via mating, natural selection, genetic drift etc is the explanation(theory)
See the similarity?
Gee I wonder why we haven't "seen" it. That doesn't mean there is no evidence.
Mendels Laws are not absolute. Heck human blood groups violate them. And Mendels laws are not at odds with evolution. And mutation has been seen to effect change.
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2006
- 6,762
- 1,269
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Well you were not busy mouthing off about evolutionists. You made the false accusation that YECers are not scientists in your opinion! The fact that the super majority of scientists are evolution is not called into question by your arrogant statemetn. what was called into question was that you "feel" that YEC scientists are not true scientists. So I will now post a long series of sites that show there are numerous true scientists in nearly all fields that YECers and do hold prestigious positions in some cases. And please spare the talkorigin.org blurb about how many named Steve--it is just as tacky as a defense today as it was when they first crafted it to try to escape their false accusdation about YEC scientists.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_hmorris
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_jmorris
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_vardiman
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_baumgardner
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_humphreys
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_snelling
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_faulkner
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_wile
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_lalomov
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_wise
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_wanser
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_hermann
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_berg
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_young
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_samec
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_reynolds
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_gish
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_cumming
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_dcriswell
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_wood
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_fliermans
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_macreadie
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_eggen
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_tantcheva
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_veith
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_kramer
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_brewer
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_sanders
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_wolfrom
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_armitage
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_lumsden
No apology necessary for your unthought out accusations against these scientists and their accomplishments. This is just from one YEC organization and is not all inclusive--there are many more names that could have been posted.
Now, as you have complained that some of these men speak on issues out of their field of expertise--can you please post your educational and experiential data so we can make sure you remain consistent and not speak out in areas you are not "qualified" to speak in as well???
Well please show the research and the data that rule dout natural variation already present within the individual researched.
Well please show the "evidence" and you win!!! But please don't show the might bes, possibly, seems to show, suggests, could, kind of evidence--that is guessing. But please show the Evidence for the stuff we don't see.
No one ither than you just now even implied Mendels laws are absolute. But the vast majority of changes we do find in nature are more rreadily explained by Mendellain variation than random mutation.
The LAdy Kate writes:
Well that is your opinion you are entitled to though it is wrong.
And your proof that Adam and Seth and Noah and Enoch were just like their unrighteousness relatives is????
And your proof that Israel observed the Sabbath in the egyptian captivity and prior to it is?????
Are you implying that God is incapable of having those He inspired to write HIs Word to get the info straight??
Well I think when God spent as many words saying He created and not evolved and that it was a short time ago, I think He is displeased with those who profess to be His followers and accept age of the earth concepts from those who reject HIm and are ambivilent towards HIm? Do I think that all who beleive in evolution are unsaved?? Not in the least. Bu they are decieved by slick sounding snake oil science and do themselves spiritual harm and discredit the name of God.
Such as????????????????
Please don't become a pshycic cause you are lousy t reading peoples emotiuons and thoughts. I don't feel sorry for me, I actually rejoice in the truth, but I do feel sorry for you.
Would you like to back this up with you ridea of facts or are you just going to keep writing no info one liners????
When you stand before its inspirer you will find out the so what!
You forgot two words at the end;; "as water"!!
Well to paraphrase proverbs: there is a way that seems rioght ot men but the ends therof are death.
Yup do you want the list of greater atrocities performed by those accepted darwinian evolution???
Well I ahve been told in a debate by a phd in zoology that the taxonimical nomenclature are meaningless as well. So there!!
Truth is we didn't. Your turn!
Well seeing as the subject we were talking about in this response of your s was a linguistic problem--why should I unless they could deminstrate greater profieciency in the biblical languages thasn the ones I learned them form.
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
i'm not really interested in this high level banter, it doesn't seem to be anchored to anything concrete to understand. but this===>
But the vast majority of changes we do find in nature are more rreadily explained by Mendellain variation than random mutation.
you have just gotta explain what you mean by this.
what is Mendelian variation in your mind?
and why is it so different from random mutation?
looking forward to a data filled explanation.
But the vast majority of changes we do find in nature are more rreadily explained by Mendellain variation than random mutation.
you have just gotta explain what you mean by this.
what is Mendelian variation in your mind?
and why is it so different from random mutation?
looking forward to a data filled explanation.
Upvote
0
KerrMetric
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2005
- 5,171
- 226
- 64
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
You make my point for me. Which one of those is actually a working academic researcher in the applicable sciences at a major research univrsity? Which one?nolidad said:
In fact, how many of them are full time employees of ICR or AIG?
How many of them specifically perform research and publish in physics, biology, astronomy or geology that directly impinges on the evolution or universal origins arena?
Why do some of these people publish regular science that includes old earth arguments in their work - Baumgardner and Faulker have?
I am a physicist (PhD) working formerly in stellar physics/geophysics modelling and now work in planetary science. If I need to I can always use my wife who is a PhD molecular biologist. If you think my real name is getting posted on a message board then you are sadly mistaken.
By the way, Project Steve was a hilarious counter. The Steves outnumber the Creationists by a mile and they actually have a lot of them from real universities.
There are many lists of mutation effects on the genome so that I'm sure you can Google them. I'm also sure they have been listed at you on this very forum.
Upvote
0
nolidad said:
No, not to set up a sabbath. To explain why the Sabbath tradition existed. And this was probably evident to the first generation of hearers. It is only to literalists of today that it needs to be re-explained again.
Only if Gen. 1&2 are interpreted as literal historical fact.
Human beings.
If gravity cannot be technically proven true??? You beleive evolution can?????????????? Wow talk about moving goalposts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No we are talking the difference between observation and theory. The impact of gravity has been observed. But the mechanism of gravity has not been worked out yet. Evolution is an observed fact. The theory explains the mechanism of evolutionhow it happens. But evolution would still be an observed fact even if (as is the case with gravity) we hadnt figured out yet how it works.
Of course not. Because mutation is not synonymous with evolution. We do have good evidence that mutation + natural selection has transformed sarcopterigian fish into amphibians and reptiles over time.
Speciation is the end-point of the evolutionary process. All groupings above the species level are groups of species arranged in categories for human convenience. Every division between one supra-species group and another is the consequence of speciation at some point in the past. There is no such thing as the instantaneous emergence of a new family or order or any higher taxonomic rank. All of these are dependent on speciation.
Pre-existing information came about through mutations in earlier generations. There could be no Mendelian re-shuffling of information if ancient mutations had not created alleles to be re-shuffled in the first place.
Upvote
0
nolidad said:
I think you are conflating two different ideas: mutation (change) and variation. Mutations are genetic changes which may or may not be expressed as phenotypic changes. Variations are phenotypic differences which are the result of mutations. There is really no such thing as Mendellian variation in the sense of creating new genetic variations. New genetic variations come about through mutation. What Mendel worked out was how existing genetic variation was combined and re-combined through reproduction to create new phenotypes. And he controlled his experiments in such as way that natural selection was not given a chance to have an impact on the outcome. i.e. he controlled the environment carefully; he arranged for random mating; he culled sports and sickly plants.
Since the 1930s the theory of evolution has fully incorporated Mendels findings. And gone beyond them to see how they are impacted by genetic and environmental changes.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
nolidad said:
My opinion might be wrong... I have nothing but faith and reason to support them.
But's it going to take more than your own opinion to shake mine.
What does this have to do with the topic?
History.
Not incapable, but for His own reasons, chose not to dictate verbatim and use His inspired authors like mindless automatons.
God inspired men, He did not dictate a person-to-person letter. Men took God's idea (not necessarily the exact words) and expressed them as best they could.
This, as everything else, was part of God's plan... unless you're suggesting that the Bible was an exact word-for-word transcript of God's conversation with the Biblical authors... in which case you might be confusing the Bible with the Koran.
Well, if you want to dismiss the bulk of scientific knowledge as some sort of "snake oil" conspiracy, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to believe it is wrong.
I'm also entitled, some might argue obligated, to look at what was recorded of God's word 5,000 years ago and put it into a historical and social context... to neglect to do so would be to make the mistake of thinking that the Bible was written primarily for me or at least a 21st century audience, and overlooking how people recorded literature, even sacred literature, in anceint times.
First of all, a single question mark is sufficent. Incredulity doesn't support your point.
To answer your question... the sum total of Geology, Biology, Zoology, Astronomy, and Cosmology.
An objective observation of God's creation from several different angles invariably ends up at odds with a strictly literalist interpretation of the text. These unpleasant facts aren't going to go away anytime soon, so in order to reconcile what we know of God's words with what we know of God's actions (and admittedly, our knowledge of both is limited), we are forced to swallow our pride and admit that somethign is seriously wrong. It's far easier to believe that how we choose to read the record of God's word is mistaken, than to believe some massive Anti-God conspiracy has permeated every aspect of human learning.
Of course... It was wrong of me to mistake your feelings of persecution for self-pity. My bad.
Would you like to back this up with you ridea of facts or are you just going to keep writing no info one liners????
I will back up as necessary... But I see my fellow posters have already done so quite admirably... as they often do when debating If you were unwilling to listen to them, there is little more I can add.
And what, do you suppose, will happen then?
Go ahead, say it... I dare you.
You forgot two words at the end;; "as water"!!
I appreciate your attempt at humor... nice no-info one-liner... but I think I'll let my statement stand as is.
To paraphrase Rip Van Winkle:
Nope.... because it's completely irrelevent. Do the atrocities performed by people attest to the truth of a scientific idea?
If so, then every lynching ever performed "disproves" gravity.
Well I ahve been told in a debate by a phd in zoology that the taxonimical nomenclature are meaningless as well. So there!!
I'm sure you've been told a lot of things.... some of which might have meant something to you.
Does the word "kind" in the creationist sense even have a definition? Or is the the YEC flavor-of-the-week?
Seeing as how you've already established yourself as the final arbiter of truth, I don't see what else there is to add.
Not linguistic... cultural. You may be able to speak the lingo, but that doesn't mean you know the people... How did ancient civilizations thousands of years ago record and express important information?
Through straight-up factual recordings, or through combinations of history, poetry, allegory, and mythology?
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2006
- 6,762
- 1,269
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
rmwilliamsll said:
Well to simply define it-- variation is just a simple reordering of preexistent traits within the species. An example could be say hair color. A family has had black hair on both sides for multi generations but way way back there was a blonde. Well black would be the dominant trait and blonde a recessive trait. When a child is born with blonde hair ini that black haired family-- it is not mutation and selection, but just a recessed preexisting trait emerging.
Mutation is change by altering the genetic code or altering the physical structure. An example here would be say an ant born with only four legs and no antennae.
Ants are encoded for 6 legs, and antennae, there is no known species with out antennae and 4 legs so this is an altering of the genetic code which is called a mutation. That is why it is important to know that an alteration in a species is not from preexisting traits coming to the fore.
gladuas writes:
And the proven evidence to support this assertion is???
So let me get this straight. If evolution is true and divinely initiated, Go dknew that it took billions of years to get to the giving of the ten commandments. So He told the Isaelites to rest on the seventh day and don't do work becuase He said and I post a qoute:
Exodus 20:
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Now if
god knew that it took billions of years this is not a lie why????
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
