Is evolution a fact or theory?

[GenemZ]

Yep. The Earth is billions of years old, and it has nothing to say about any of those things. They are all true, and we know this for other reasons. But an ancient Earth has nothing to say about any of that.

Its very old..... But, billions? Was that age made up to fit some evolutionary theory model?

 

[The Barbarian]

Its very old..... But, billions? Was that age made up to fit some evolutionary theory model?

No. It was because of the discovery of ionizing radiation. Suddenly, the source of all that heat was understood, and calculations quickly determined the ages of rocks in the billions of years. It came from physicists, not biologists.

 

[GenemZ]

Well then..If that is accurate.. all those prehistoric periods that have been determined by science by means of fossils, had quite a long time going along until we got to the current created world we now find ourselves living in.

I guess angels are slow learners then. Took so long for them to learn their lessons God was teaching them via the classrooms of each period. Jurassic was an interesting one. No?

Notice how each period that replaced the last was a bit more complex than the one that preceded that. Science says its because of "evolution." I am sure you might find an exception to disagree with me on that one. But, like even we find with our school system, as graduation from one class led to another, the lessons of the next became more involved.

Then it ended.

Then post graduate work was assigned to angels.

For, man had been created in God's image. Real advanced materials for angels to learn from. And, there have been some very interesting courses being offered ever since.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well then..If that is accurate.. all those prehistoric periods that have been determined by science by means of fossils, had quite a long time going along until we got to the current created world we now find ourselves living in.

It was only partially determined by fossils. And keep in mind, the sequence of periods is not the same thing as the ages of these periods.

I guess angels are slow learners then. Took so long for them to learn their lessons God was teaching them via the classrooms of each period.

Never heard an angel discuss the Earth's geologic history. Where did you hear that?

Notice how each period that replaced the last was a bit more complex than the one that preceded that.

You think pterosaurs are less complex than birds, velociraptors are less complex than wolves? How did you measure that?

Science says its because of "evolution."

You've been misled about that. Evolution doesn't mean complexity has to increase. In some cases, it results in simpler things. Mammal jaws, and shoulders, for example, are more simple than those of reptiles.

I am sure you might find an exception to disagree with me on that one.

I'd be pleased to see where Darwin said that evolution must lead to increasing complexity. What have you got?

 

[GenemZ]

Never heard an angel discuss the Earth's geologic history. Where did you hear that?

You need to get out more often... There is a big world out there with many facets of knowledge to be learned.

Some choose to only worship at the altar of collecting scientific data. Its not the answer. Its only an integral part of finding the answer.

In the mean time.. Science has been helpful for Bible study of Christians who have open minds. Too bad the street is not running both ways.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Never heard an angel discuss the Earth's geologic history. Where did you hear that?

You need to get out more often... There is a big world out there with many facets of knowledge to be learned.

Don't know of even one? No one else does, either. Isn't that an important clue?

Some choose to only worship at the altar of collecting scientific data.

Some build straw men, accusing people of worshiping science. The fact is, what science has made clear, is in no way contradictory to what God tells us.

But where did He tell us that angels discussed the geological history of the Earth? I'd really like to hear about that.

 

[GenemZ]

Angels are real, sir. Are we here to solely discuss geology without showing its interaction with God's Word?

The more hunger we have for knowledge of Scripture the more information one can think with and would gain enabling to discover truths that leave evidence that angels had a large part in the function of prehistoric periods..

One gigantic clue is that at one time angels used to be called 'morning stars.' And, Lucifer (means bearer of light) used to herald in the mornings. God since then has replaced their previous function with the inanimate sun, moon, and stars. You will find in Genesis One that first first three days "light" took place without the sun.

In Genesis One.. in the Hebrew... God does not "create" the sun, moon, and stars. They were originally created (bara) without bearing light. He merely caused them (asah -made them) to become bearers of light at that point.

It was a shock to see by the arrogant angels who used to think life on the planet could not exist without their light.

 

[2tim_215]

le.le. Nd's

No. It was because of the discovery of ionizing radiation. Suddenly, the source of all that heat was understood, and calculations quickly determined the ages of rocks in the billions of years. It came from physicists, not biologists.

Not sure that even that cuts the mustard as far as earth age is concerned. Radiation explains how mutations occur, but is not evolution (in it's normal sense) and I don't think really gives us a good fix on earth age. It's still pretty theoretical. Once again, earth age doesn't really tell us anything as to God's existence or the truth of the Bible. Neither does it change anything regarding Biblical doctrine or affect the way a Christian is supposed to live. Even though the eye color of a fruit fly might change (mutate) it's still a fruit fly.
Radiometric Dating
Assumptions of Radiometric Dating – REVOLUTION AGAINST EVOLUTION
Radiometric Dating
Ionizing Radiation and Evolution on JSTOR

It's interesting that someone pointed out that the person who started this thread has disappeared and I believe has not even responded to any of the responses of anyone. The Bible says as believers we are to:
Titus 3:9 (KJV) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
and 2 Timothy 2:23-26 (KJV)
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks again:
Some build straw men, accusing people of worshiping science. The fact is, what science has made clear, is in no way contradictory to what God tells us.

But where did He tell us that angels discussed the geological history of the Earth? I'd really like to hear about that.

Angels are real, sir.

Pleased to have you admit it. But my question was "what support do you have for angels discussing the geological history of Earth?" Since you've repeatedly declined to say, I'm guessing that you don't have anything.

Are we here to solely discuss geology without showing its interaction with God's Word?

Apparently, you are. I've asked twice, now.

 

[GenemZ]

Barbarian asks again:
Some build straw men, accusing people of worshiping science. The fact is, what science has made clear, is in no way contradictory to what God tells us.

1. Hockey is a religion in Canada.
   
   
2. Politics are a religion to him.
   
   
3. Where I live, high school football is religion.
   
   
4. Food is religion in this house.
   

 

[The Barbarian]

1. Hockey is a religion in Canada.
   
   
2. Politics are a religion to him.
   
   
3. Where I live, high school football is religion.
   
   
4. Food is religion in this house.

So your argument depends on misusing a word. Got it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. It was because of the discovery of ionizing radiation. Suddenly, the source of all that heat was understood, and calculations quickly determined the ages of rocks in the billions of years. It came from physicists, not biologists.

le.le. Nd's
Not sure that even that cuts the mustard as far as earth age is concerned.

It works very, very well. Would you like to know how we know that?

Radiation explains how mutations occur, but is not evolution

Radiation can cause mutations, but so can many other things, including random chance. This is about how the age of rocks is determined; it has nothing to do with evolution.

It's still pretty theoretical.

It's very well understood. And it works. Would you like to see some ways we can be sure?

 

[2tim_215]

Barbarian observes:
No. It was because of the discovery of ionizing radiation. Suddenly, the source of all that heat was understood, and calculations quickly determined the ages of rocks in the billions of years. It came from physicists, not biologists.



It works very, very well. Would you like to know how we know that?

Yes.

Radiation can cause mutations, but so can many other things, including random chance. This is about how the age of rocks is determined; it has nothing to do with evolution.

I agree on that. Yet the evolution question is what I thought was the crux of this thread rather than the earth's age. No need to deviate from that. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of other threads disputing earth age. Even though I agree that it appears that the earth is significantly older than 6000 years, any dating method is limited as far as accuracy is concerned and there's plenty of scientific evidence to support that argument. Personally, I'm more interested in the argument of whether Evolution is a Theory or Scientific
fact, rather than on how old the earth really is, which is in my opinion, rather difficult to prove one way or another.

Age of the earth - creation.com
Of course, the above is put out by Christian scientists but still I think many of their arguments are based on valid scientific evidence.

 

[GenemZ]

So your argument depends on misusing a word. Got it.

Those were examples. Not misuse. Definition of RELIGION

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
It works very, very well. Would you like to know how we know that?

="2tim_215, post: 72656767, member: 401929"]Yes.

Start here:
Clocks In Rocks -- Page 1 of 17

You can actually try it out.

Then for real life applications that actually test the ideas and how they are checked with other methods of dating:
Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[The Barbarian]

Personally, I'm more interested in the argument of whether Evolution is a Theory or Scientific
fact,

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. The Modern Synthesis (Darwinian theory plus genetics) is the theory that explains it. An idea only becomes a theory after it has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Hence gravity and evolution are theories, not hypotheses, because they have been experimentally confirmed.

They are stronger than laws, because laws only predict things, but do not explain them. "Theory" is as strong as it gets in science. This is often puzzling to a layman, who may be used to people using "theory" as something like "educated guess."

 

[GenemZ]

Evolution is an observed phenomenon.

Adaptive changing is an observed phenomena. Its not applicable to all animals.

A man developing calluses on his hands from hard work is not evolving. Yet, if he were the first man to do hard work and develop calluses someone could hypothesize that is was evolution. When people living in a climate of little sun, migrated to a sunny region.. When they begin to tan for the first time? Someone could hypothesize its evolution.

All these "evolutionary changes" were designed in the creature from the beginning. They were embedded in the DNA and just waiting for the moment when the right external stimulation would trigger this latent ability. God's omniscience is revealed in the creation in this way. Just one example.

 

[GenemZ]

They are stronger than laws, because laws only predict things, but do not explain them. "Theory" is as strong as it gets in science. This is often puzzling to a layman, who may be used to people using "theory" as something like "educated guess."

Theory can simply be an attempt at explaining things.

Natural laws require no explanation. They are self evident.

 

[The Barbarian]

Theory can simply be an attempt at explaining things.

No, that's wrong. You're confusing "hypothesis" (idea that has not been confirmed by evidence) and "theory" (idea that has been confirmed by evidence)

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia

Natural laws require no explanation. They are self evident.

Wrong. Newton's Laws of motion weren't actually known until the 1600s. Before that, people would have argued against them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Adaptive changing is an observed phenomena.

Evolution is a directly observed phenomenon. What is evolution? It's a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Its not applicable to all animals.

It happens to every animal population ever studied.

A man developing calluses on his hands from hard work is not evolving.

Because it's not a change in allele frequency in a population over time. If you don't learn anything else, remember, populations evolve; individuals don't.

Yet, if he were the first man to do hard work and develop calluses someone could hypothesize that is was evolution.

Nope. See above.

When people living in a climate of little sun, migrated to a sunny region.. When they begin to tan for the first time? Someone could hypothesize its evolution.

Nope. See above. But if over time, those with more melanin were healthier from resisting strong sunlight, there would be a change in allele frequency, leading to a population with a darker skin. That's evolution.