Let's clear this up once and for all

[Hespera]

AV sez...

1. Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
2. Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
3. Genesis 1:1a --- (first four words of the Bible) --- pwns abiogenesis.QUOTE//////

Hespera sez.........And AV can say it and sy it and SAY it and it STILL isnt true.

 

[Sophophile]

Originally Posted by gaara4158

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
​

I use it as a synonym for "refutes".

Hi AV1611VET

The quote is from the movie (and book) The Princess Bride.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Its a very funny movie and above quote is from a very memorable scene. I highly recommend seeing it.

Cheers
S.

ETA: By the way, evolutionary theory most definitely does require a timeframe of billions of years. Darwin was immensely bothered by the fact that the age of the earth estimated by scientists in his time was about 100 million years, which he thought to be far too short to allow for the macroevolution of modern life.

S.

 

[Alunyel]

~4.5 billion years*

The time frame he was bothered about was the 6000 years of Biblical chronology, that was accepted as how old the Earth was back then.

Darwin started out as a creationist, because the ToE didn't exist whilst he was growing up, and he thought all of this evolution occurring in 6000 years would've been impossible. It's was one of the reasons he was reluctant to voice his then-hypothesis of evolution, because back then the Church was very powerful, and such claims wouldn't've gone down well.

 

[AV1611VET]

ETA: By the way, evolutionary theory most definitely does require a timeframe of billions of years.

Yes --- that's why I said this:

But those changes are much too slow.

For macroevolution to work, it needs massive amounts of time to transpire.

And drew criticism for saying it --- (but don't worry - I'm sure you won't).

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin started out as a creationist, because the ToE didn't exist whilst he was growing up..

Wrong.

...It's was one of the reasons he was reluctant to voice his then-hypothesis of evolution, because back then the Church was very powerful, and such claims wouldn't've gone down well.

Not.

The Theory of Evolution was hotly debated long before Darwin was ever born.

The thing is, no one could "prove" it.

Enter Darwin, who invented the breakthrough theory called Natural Selection that gave the theory its credibility.

 

[Cabal]

Wrong.Not.

The Theory of Evolution was hotly debated long before Darwin was ever born.

The thing is, no one could "prove" it.

Enter Darwin, who invented the breakthrough theory called Natural Selection that gave the theory its credibility.

Citation urgently needed.

And before you say it, that shoehorning of evolution into Solomon's writings doesn't count.

 

[AV1611VET]

Citation urgently needed.

From The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart, pp. 84-85:

Darwin was not the originator of the idea of the evolution of species; quite a few persons had postulated that theory before him, including the French naturalist, Jean Lamarck, and Charles's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. But these hypotheses had never gained the acceptance of the scientific world, because their proponents were unable to give convincing explanations of the means by which evolution occurred. Darwin's great contribution was that he was able to present not only a mechanism - natural selection - by which evolution could occur, but also a large quantity of convincing evidence to support his hypothesis.

 

[Cabal]

From The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart, pp. 84-85:

Indeed.

So there wasn't an extreme reaction from the religious when he published then?

 

[AV1611VET]

So there wasn't an extreme reaction from the religious when he published then?

Beats me.

I see someone started a thread about Ken Ham not taking questions, overlooking the fact that --- well --- I'll just quote it ibid. from my last post:

Darwin himself took no part in the public debates on his theories.

 

[Naraoia]

If the development of the first cell is under evolution, then so is the formation of the earth and universe.

Are you surprised if I don't agree?

Darwin started out as a creationist, because the ToE didn't exist whilst he was growing up, and he thought all of this evolution occurring in 6000 years would've been impossible. It's was one of the reasons he was reluctant to voice his then-hypothesis of evolution, because back then the Church was very powerful, and such claims wouldn't've gone down well.

I'm not sure that's quite accurate.

First, a ToE didn't exist, but the idea of evolution had been around, if not widespread, before Darwin (the "historical sketch" in the preface of the 6th edition of Origin is quite interesting).

Second, I'm not sure precisely how reluctant he was to voice his hypothesis. Back in February, there were various Darwin Week lectures at my uni, and one of them was on that subject*. It's been half a year and I didn't take notes, but IIRC the main point of the talk was that Darwin didn't sit on Origin for twenty years because he was afraid or reluctant. He had many other projects to work on (several fat volumes on barnacles, for example), plus he had to refine ideas and collect a book's worth of evidence for his theory of natural selection itself.

As for the 6000 years, I think by the time he began to form his evolutionary ideas, it was a pretty established scientific fact that the earth was more than a few thousand years old. In Origin itself (at least in the first edition), there is no sign that he was worried about time. He may well have been, but the only mention of the time problem that I know of is its refutation.

From the chapter On the Imperfection of the Geological Record:

I have made these few remarks because it is highly important for us to gain some notion, however imperfect, of the lapse of years. During each of these years, over the whole world, the land and the water has been peopled by hosts of living forms. What an infinite number of generations, which the mind cannot grasp, must have succeeded each other in the long roll of years! Now turn to our richest geological museums, and what a paltry display we behold!

This paragraph concludes a section that estimates the time since the Cretaceous at over 300 million years and starts with pointing at Lyell's Principles of Geology.

*If you are interested enough, you can watch it or download the slides here. It's the "Mind the gap" talk right at the top. I thought it was very interesting.

 

[Cabal]

Beats me.

I see someone started a thread about Ken Ham not taking questions, overlooking the fact that --- well --- I'll just quote it ibid. from my last post:

I'm sure they both had public lectures where they didn't answer questions.

I suspect the similarities between Ham and Darwin, however, end there.

 

[Gracchus]

Citation urgently needed.

From The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart, pp. 84-85:

"Darwin was not the originator of the idea of the evolution of species; quite a few persons had postulated that theory before him, including the French naturalist, Jean Lamarck, and Charles's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. But these hypotheses had never gained the acceptance of the scientific world, because their proponents were unable to give convincing explanations of the means by which evolution occurred. Darwin's great contribution was that he was able to present not only a mechanism - natural selection - by which evolution could occur, but also a large quantity of convincing evidence to support his hypothesis."
​

An "idea" put in a testable form is a "hypothesis". Only when sufficient evidence has been presented, does it become a "theory", that is, and explanation.
Since Darwin's explanation of evolution is the only one that has been repeatedly tested without being falsified it is justly and conveniently referred to as "the theory of evolution".

I know that AV1611VET has been told this many times before, and I am wondering if he is having problems with his memory. That would explain a lot.

 

[Washington]

I know that AV1611VET has been told this many times before, and I am wondering if he is having problems with his memory. That would explain a lot.

Nah, AV will say just about anything to get people to talk. Hence the repetition and goofy comments.

 

[tansy]

Course, you never know, the Theory of Evolution, that is ever evolving with new discoveries and fresh insights...could, given enough time and even more discoveries, evolve into the scientific knowledge needed to validate the claims of Genesis

 

[Hespera]

Course, you never know, the Theory of Evolution, that is ever evolving with new discoveries and fresh insights...could, given enough time and even more discoveries, evolve into the scientific knowledge needed to validate the claims of Genesis

That would involve completely falsifying the entire theory of course.


But sure, it COULD happen. Despite claims to the contrary, it sure has not happened yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Course, you never know, the Theory of Evolution, that is ever evolving with new discoveries and fresh insights...could, given enough time and even more discoveries, evolve into the scientific knowledge needed to validate the claims of Genesis

I couldn't agree more with this, Tansy.

I personally don't believe [true] science and the Bible conflict at all.

I believe science is hostile to God --- but obedient.

One of my favorite examples is in the area of geology.

Although rocks can't "talk" --- Jesus made this doosey of a statement:

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

I believe that [true] geology would conclude that the rocks "speak" of Jesus.

And while I'm on record as saying that there is no scientific evidence of God this side of the Creation* --- I would love to be proven wrong.

* With the exception of God's Word, which I believe to be the only supernatural object in existence in this dimension --- that and possibly angels.

That's why I always tell these guys: "keep looking".

 

[Alunyel]

Science would love to prove you wrong, also. It would just as equally love to prove you right.

Yes, science is hostile to God, but science is also hostile to everything else without reasonable evidence. Why should science be any less hostile to God than Allah, or Braman/Shiva/Vishnu? Science works of of critical thinking. It makes no assumptions either for or against God's existence.

 

[Hespera]

I couldn't agree more with this, Tansy.

I personally don't believe [true] science and the Bible conflict at all.

I believe science is hostile to God --- but obedient.

One of my favorite examples is in the area of geology.

Although rocks can't "talk" --- Jesus made this doosey of a statement:I believe that [true] geology would conclude that the rocks "speak" of Jesus.

And while I'm on record as saying that there is no scientific evidence of God this side of the Creation* --- I would love to be proven wrong.

* With the exception of God's Word, which I believe to be the only supernatural object in existence in this dimension --- that and possibly angels.

That's why I always tell these guys: "keep looking".

You are in a funny way not too far off. Just reverse everything, most especially the "keep looking".

You give the impression that your mind snapped shut like an Oneida -Newhouse #3 some time ago: you wont be doing any more looking, and you definitely would not love to be proven wrong.

 

[Alunyel]

I'm sure if he was proven wrong he'd still deny the existence of the evidence.

"God is real, this proves it beyond all reasonable doubt!"

"NO! You're wrong, there is no evidence of God's existence."

 

[Cabal]

Course, you never know, the Theory of Evolution, that is ever evolving with new discoveries and fresh insights...could, given enough time and even more discoveries, evolve into the scientific knowledge needed to validate the claims of Genesis

Ever considered that direct empirical proof of God would destroy any notion of faith?

For such a self-professed "faithful" bunch, I've never seen a group so keen to prove the Bible right than fundamentalist Christian creationists.