Looking for all the missing links

[SkyWriting]

This is a letter that evolutionary theory should send out:

"To whom it may concern,

I'm looking for a chain. ​

Your seeking a chain of provable historical events. Science cannot deal with
History well. It hard enough using the Scientific method to support ideas
about things that actually happen.

Anytime you reach to the past you are making all kinds of assumptions about
the past which become less and less reliable. I draw the line at events that
can be supported by human written history. Before those records, there is no
eye witness account to back up any scientific fantasies.

Not to say that all written history is correct, but that's my line in the sand.
Any scientific speculation without eye witness accounts is outside of the
scientific method and can't be repeated. Unless you can repeat the event
of course. Otherwise historical events assume to much.​

 

[NailsII]

Your seeking a chain of provable historical events. Science cannot deal with
History well. It hard enough using the Scientific method to support ideas
about things that actually happen.

Anytime you reach to the past you are making all kinds of assumptions about
the past which become less and less reliable. I draw the line at events that
can be supported by human written history. Before those records, there is no
eye witness account to back up any scientific fantasies.

Not to say that all written history is correct, but that's my line in the sand.
Any scientific speculation without eye witness accounts is outside of the
scientific method and can't be repeated. Unless you can repeat the event
of course. Otherwise historical events assume to much.

Eye witness accounts are among the least reliable sources of information.
And that really is a fact.

 

[Split Rock]

If God can breathe error, He wouldn't be much of a god, now would he? By His very nature He must be be inerrant, therefore His words given to us must be inerrant too. If any part is in error, how would we know any of it all to be true?

One cannot use a fallible tool to make an infallible document. If man is fallible, then anything he writes, transcribes, translates between languages, and then interprets is also fallible.

You were the one who said "we have all the characteristics of apes", of which I showed you we do not.

No, you showed we have some unique characterstics, not that we do do have ape characteristics. Just as chimps and gorillas have unique characteristics, but are still apes, so do we. A bulldog has unique characteristics not shared by greyhounds and cairn terriers, but it is still a dog.

Are we mammals? Are we primates? Are we vertebrates? Yes or no, please.

Also, no apes MAKE tools, they may use tools, but they don't MAKE tools. Breaking off a stick to forage for ants does not qualify as tool making.

Yes, breaking off a stick, or removing its leaves, counts as tool-making. That is why I differentiated the fact we use tools to make other tools.

If the ideas are proven wrong. The problem becomes how those tests are created. If I have a stick that is actually 12 inches long, but I have marked on it in equal sections 13 inches, everytime I measure something, it will always measure 13 inches. It doesn't matter the number, if it is not correct, it is not correct. I truly believe some tests of the scientific community are just that, wrongly marked. I recently read somewhere that if scientists find an artifact (rock or fossil or something along those lines) that "they know to be of a certain age", they have a way of "washing off" any carbon 14 or uranium (or whatever) that "may have leaked into the item" before they date it. That means that potentially they are stripping away information from that whatever that would give them a much different date than if they tested it straight away.That would mean that there so called conclusive dates are not coming to the correct conclusions! It may never be falsified because it is assumed that it is correct from the beginning!

You need to stop getting your information from creation-ministry websites. The dating methods geologists use ARE reliable, but the techniques are not simple and are not for amateurs. Geologists are not stupid. The same methods are used for science journals that are used to find petroleum. Petroleum companies are not going to use techniques that don't work. Besides, we already established that you reject transitionals because of your religous dogma, not because of the physical evidence.

I thought God was not falsifiable, or were you just talking about creationism? Where are all those transitions again? Shouldn't there be far more than what we have at present?

Of course I'm talking about creationism. I already indicated I have no problem with matters that require faith. I'll ignore the last part after all the transitionals I already showed you.

Reality screams there is a God who designed all we see. Only a fool (and I don't use that term lightly or mockingly) would say this is this is random. There was even that one guy who wrote that book called "the Blind Watchmaker" His conclusions were that everything had evolved to such a point that it looks like it was designed for it's environment. Who is living in denial of reality?

If reality screams there is your god, then it also screams for Shiva, Odin, Ishtar, Quetzalcoatl, and Zeus. Yet, you reject all of these and more. Who is the fool?

No one claims that "all this" is random. The universe has rules or laws and everything must interact in ways that follow thoses rules or laws. Indeed, evolution (for example) does "design" organisms, but it does it unintelligently, not randomly.

When I say you are in denile of reality, it is because you reject the combined scientific understanding of the universe of our species. That understanding may not be perfect (and it surely isn't), but it is the best we have. I reject the concept that you can gainsay ANY of it, with your interpretation of scripture alone.

 

[verysincere]

.... are all "non peer reviewed creationists" who don't count for any kind of scientific voice so anytime we yell it's ignored.

1) It is not ignored. My evidence for that? Virtually ever such "creation science" claim has been thoroughly examined and debunked in countless books and websites. That is the VERY OPPOSITE from being ignored. Disagree? Then show me EVIDENCE that I'm wrong. Show me a "creationist discovery" which everybody has ignored. Even one.

2) Moreover, it is disingenuous for "creation science" activists to "cry wolf" thousands of times and upon investigation no wolf is found---and then complain that "nobody listens to me as much as I wish!"

3) "anytime we yell" is part of the problem. Real scientists don't simply start yelling "Look over here! I have proven evolution wrong!" They follow the scientific method and they publish their results for careful scrutiny by their peers. It is not enough to simply shout dogma and meaningless mantras. If real evidence is provided, respect and a fair hearing will follow. But don't blame the scientific community that foolish rants and dishonest quote-mining aren't convincing---and certainly aren't science.

3) Consider the fact that "non peer reviewed creationists" who don't count for any kind of scientific voice so anytime we yell it's ignored is directly analogous to "complaining that non peer-reviewed astrologers don't count for any kind of scientific voice so anytime we yell it's ignored by astronomers."


So truly, it is FAR MORE SURPRISING that creationists who are yelling, as you have so aptly described, get any attention and serious investigation for their claims at all.

.

 

[good brother]

So if it can be shown that god did/said something immoral, then is he immoral? Or, because he is all good is everything he said moral as he is the moral lawgiver?

If you lied, that would make you a liar. If you commit murder that makes you a murderer. If you cheat on your spouse you would be an adulterer. So yes, if God were to do something immoral, then He would be immoral. Since He is holy, then He must be wholy holy and no deception or error or immorality dwells within Him.

Part of the bible being wrong doesn't make the rest wrong, that is of course a logical fallacy.

But one could never trust the entirety of it if part of it was wrong. Did you ever hear the story about the farmer who kept having watermelon stolen out of his watermelon patch? He tought he could stop those thieves by being sneaky. He went out one night and placed a sign in the middle of the patch warning that "one of these watermelons is poisoned. eat at your own risk" though he hadn't done anything to any watermelon. The next day he went out and counted his watermelon, all of them were there. He felt so smug that his little trickery had worked until he noticed his sign had been changed. The thieves had come in the night and now the sign read "TWO of these watermelons are poisoned. Eat at your own risk" The farmer had only lied when he had said that one watermelon was poisoned, but were the thieves telling the truth? He could not risk it. He did not want to die so he let all of the watermelon patch rot.

I'll pass on that one.
At least the conversations would be more intersting in the other place.....

The devil has sold you a lie you will regret forever if you think Hell will be enjoyable.

Running around the question but not answering......
If your sole aim in life is to get to heaven, what is the point in living to old age?

How did I not answer? I am anxious to go but for the sake of winning others to Jesus I would rather toil here on Earth.

So if I was created, I could never create anything - as I would then become a creator myself?

God created the Earth and the universe around us. If you create something that big out of nothing before hand, then you could be a creator. As it is right now, you and I merely rearrange what God has already made. Like a baseball bat. The wood or the aluminum was already in existence, all we did was rearrange the order of it.

got any examples?

Haekel's drawings were in my high school text book in the 1990's and they were proven dishonest back before 1910.


In Christ, GB

 

[verysincere]

I truly believe some tests of the scientific community are just that, wrongly marked.

I have no doubt that you DO "truly believe" that. But more important than your personal beliefs are what the evidence from science tells us about the tests. And that is why geologists disagree with your "belief".

I recently read somewhere that if scientists find an artifact (rock or fossil or something along those lines) that "they know to be of a certain age", they have a way of "washing off" any carbon 14 or uranium (or whatever) that "may have leaked into the item" before they date it. That means that potentially they are stripping away information from that whatever that would give them a much different date than if they tested it straight away.That would mean that there so called conclusive dates are not coming to the correct conclusions! It may never be falsified because it is assumed that it is correct from the beginning!

Thanks. I don't have that one in my catalog of YEC arguments. Great example! It fascinates me because it helps us see the wide gulf that stands between an informed scientists view of the world and an uninformed amateur who gets his factoids from Ken Ham et al. If what you are claiming were to be true, all sorts of congruities seen in a wide variety of UNRELATED tests and observations wouldn't "fit" as perfectly as they do. (But you have no knowledge of them. So you have no idea how ridiculous a counterclaim sounds.)

That kind of thinking reminds me of how casually the Jason Lisle types fail to understand that if their speculations about the speed of light and decay constants changing over time were valid, all sorts of other phenomena would not align with them. [Of course, I'm being politie and avoiding speculation about dishonesty and bald-faced lies.] They don't seem to understand (or they simply outright ignore) the fact that there are many dozens of radiometric dating methods, dendrochronologies, ice core studies, parallax measurements, spectral data, and countless other phenomena which can be compared to develope an "integrated understanding" of the universe and the processes within it. These kinds of "arm-chair science" musings represented in your paragraph quoted above reveal a LOT more about the amount of actual science which "creation science" activists fail to understand than some alleged defect in standard scientific procedures.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect continually amazes me. But perhaps much more amazing is that "ministry entrepreneurs" like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, and Ray Comfort have made MILLIONS profiting from the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon. Real scientists have to go to a great deal of work to establish that they have a solid hypothesis. All a Jason Lisle or Answers in Genesis have to do is come up with a collection of bogus claims which sound "reasonable" to a gullible layperson who has little knowledge of science (and perhaps even less about the Bible.) Indeed, they can use the same long-ago debunked argument for decades without any concern that it makes them look ridiculous to anyone except the choir they are preaching to. (Only the donors and buyers of the books/DVDs matter.)

.

 

[verysincere]

Eye witness accounts are among the least reliable sources of information.
And that really is a fact.

Yes indeed. I have always found it fascinating that non-scientists place the MOST emphasis on the two "analysis of evidence" methods which scientists know to be the LEAST trustworthy:

1) Eye-witness testimony.

and

2) Intuition (sometimes known as "common sense")



Need I review a few of the most popular "intuition examples" from the very long list of silly conclusions that people reach by means of "common sense"?

One of my personal favorites is "The last five times I flipped this coin produced heads. Therefore, this time it is almost SURE to come up tails! That's just common sense!" However, Bayesian mathematics and the classic Monty Hall Problem is my favorite example of one where even many trained scientists get diverted from the mathematical reality. Intuition feelings can be almost overpowering. Yet they often lead us to error.

.

 

[juvenissun]

Are we mammals? Are we primates? Are we vertebrates? Yes or no, please.

If A, then B. It does not mean if B than A. I am a mammal, it does not mean a mammal is me. Your question has both logic and definition problem.

Are you a human? Can you tell me what is a human? I bet you can not, even you resort to DNA.

 

[SkyWriting]

Eye witness accounts are among the least reliable sources of information. And that really is a fact.

I'd be glad to review said facts. Often facts come with some kind of supporting evidence or really professional opinion or statement. Or something. Anything.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes indeed. I have always found it fascinating that non-scientists place the MOST emphasis on the two "analysis of evidence" methods which scientists know to be the LEAST trustworthy:

1) Eye-witness testimony. <snip>

LOL Scientific research IS Eye-Witness testimony! Just written down......ha.....ROF lol!

Now tell me the ministry is 100% dependent on cold hard facts without testimony. Eager to hear that one.

Then tell me my 30 years in science has no bearing on my views. Your inability to read people is stunning.

 

[good brother]

I have no doubt that you DO "truly believe" that. But more important than your personal beliefs are what the evidence from science tells us about the tests. And that is why geologists disagree with your "belief".




Thanks. I don't have that one in my catalog of YEC arguments. Great example! It fascinates me because it helps us see the wide gulf that stands between an informed scientists view of the world and an uninformed amateur who gets his factoids from Ken Ham et al. If what you are claiming were to be true, all sorts of congruities seen in a wide variety of UNRELATED tests and observations wouldn't "fit" as perfectly as they do. (But you have no knowledge of them. So you have no idea how ridiculous a counterclaim sounds.)

That kind of thinking reminds me of how casually the Jason Lisle types fail to understand that if their speculations about the speed of light and decay constants changing over time were valid, all sorts of other phenomena would not align with them. [Of course, I'm being politie and avoiding speculation about dishonesty and bald-faced lies.] They don't seem to understand (or they simply outright ignore) the fact that there are many dozens of radiometric dating methods, dendrochronologies, ice core studies, parallax measurements, spectral data, and countless other phenomena which can be compared to develope an "integrated understanding" of the universe and the processes within it. These kinds of "arm-chair science" musings represented in your paragraph quoted above reveal a LOT more about the amount of actual science which "creation science" activists fail to understand than some alleged defect in standard scientific procedures.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect continually amazes me. But perhaps much more amazing is that "ministry entrepreneurs" like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, and Ray Comfort have made MILLIONS profiting from the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon. Real scientists have to go to a great deal of work to establish that they have a solid hypothesis. All a Jason Lisle or Answers in Genesis have to do is come up with a collection of bogus claims which sound "reasonable" to a gullible layperson who has little knowledge of science (and perhaps even less about the Bible.) Indeed, they can use the same long-ago debunked argument for decades without any concern that it makes them look ridiculous to anyone except the choir they are preaching to. (Only the donors and buyers of the books/DVDs matter.)

.

I really don't think you understand at all. I did not get any of that from ANY creationist. I don't remember if it was an article or if it was (possibly) a show on the Discovery channel. Whatever it was, it was certainly done from a very staunch evolutionistic point of view. There was not a hair of a creationist anywhere near the statements they were making about washing off any contaminants.


In Christ, GB

P.S. Actually, just thinking about it right now, I am pretty sure it was an article online attempting to debunk some creationist argument about a recent volcanic eruption and the volcanic rock that was tested from it was found to be millions of years old even though it was known to be from an eruption that was less than 50 years ago. The site talked about how the creationists that gathered the rock failed to do it properly and all sorts of "contaminants" were on it. They also said that there was this process to remove outside elements from the rock that was never done which resulted in this faulty dating. If I can find the website, I will more than certainly post it though I am not sure what it was and I have cleared my web history since then. I will just have to do some thinking back to see if I can remember it.

 

[good brother]

LOL Scientific research IS Eye-Witness testimony! Just written down......ha.....ROF lol!

No fair, I was gonna say that! What a great point that will probably be glossed over.

In Christ, GB

 

[Guy1]

No fair, I was gonna say that! What a great point that will probably be glossed over.

In Christ, GB

On the contrary. I will rebut by urging you both to try conducting an experiment with eyewitness testimony and one using scientific methods. Tell me which works out better and then we talk.

 

[SkyWriting]

If what you are claiming were to be true, all sorts of congruities seen in a wide variety of UNRELATED tests and observations wouldn't "fit" as perfectly as they do. <snip>
.

They don't fit well at all. Just how does one date a fossil anyway?
(Try and answer without looking it up first, just this one time.)

 

[Guy1]

They don't fit well at all. Just how does one date a fossil anyway?
(Try and answer without looking it up first, just this one time.)

Radiometric dating, checking the strata it was found in. There you have two right off the top of my head.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Genesis denies the theory of evolution" argument out of what the Biblical text actually says.
.

It says about Evolution:

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. ... “Blessed
are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. ...
//bible.cc/matthew/5-5.htm - 15k
Psalm 37:11 But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great ...
But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace. ... But the meek shall
inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace. ...
//bible.cc/psalms/37-11.htm - 15k
Zephaniah 3:12 But I will leave within you the meek and humble ...
But I will leave within you the meek and humble, who trust in the name of the LORD. ...
//bible.cc/zephaniah/3-12.htm - 15k
Psalm 25:9 He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them ...
... The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. ... The meek
will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. ...
//bible.cc/psalms/25-9.htm - 15k
Zephaniah 2:3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, you who ...
... Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek
righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the ...
//bible.cc/zephaniah/2-3.htm - 16k
1 Peter 3:4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the ...
... But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even
the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of ...
//bible.cc/1_peter/3-4.htm - 17k
Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am ...
... Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly
in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. ...
//bible.cc/matthew/11-29.htm - 16k
Numbers 12:3 (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than ...
... Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people
who were on the face of the earth. ...
//bible.cc/numbers/12-3.htm - 15k
Matthew 21:5 "Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See, your king comes ...
... Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek,
and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. ...
//bible.cc/matthew/21-5.htm - 16k
Isaiah 11:4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with ...
... but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek
of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and ...
//bible.cc/isaiah/11-4.htm - 17k
Isaiah 29:19 Once more the humble will rejoice in the LORD; the ...
... The meek shall obtain fresh joy in the LORD, and the poor among
mankind shall exult in the Holy One of Israel. ...
//bible.cc/isaiah/29-19.htm - 15k
Psalm 147:6 The LORD sustains the humble but casts the wicked to ...
... The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground. ... The LORD
lifts up the meek: he casts the wicked down to the ground. ...
//bible.cc/psalms/147-6.htm - 15k

 

[SkyWriting]

Radiometric dating, checking the strata it was found in. There you have two right off the top of my head.

Can not do that. Sedimentary layers cannot be tested.
Why do Creationists have to teach this stuff?

 

[Guy1]

Can not do that. Sedimentary layers cannot be tested.

We use radiometric testing on igneous and volcanic rocks Sky.

Checking the strata it was found in, comparing it to all the other fossils who's ages are known and fitting it into the lineage.

Why do Creationists have to teach this stuff?

I don't think you get to call yourself that when you accept the concept of evolution (As you have admitted in one of my threads).

 

[NailsII]

If you lied, that would make you a liar. If you commit murder that makes you a murderer. If you cheat on your spouse you would be an adulterer. So yes, if God were to do something immoral, then He would be immoral. Since He is holy, then He must be wholy holy and no deception or error or immorality dwells within Him.

So ordering the butchery of whole towns, including childen and pregnant women, could never be immoral if god ordered it.

But one could never trust the entirety of it if part of it was wrong. Did you ever hear the story about the farmer who kept having watermelon stolen out of his watermelon patch? He tought he could stop those thieves by being sneaky. He went out one night and placed a sign in the middle of the patch warning that "one of these watermelons is poisoned. eat at your own risk" though he hadn't done anything to any watermelon. The next day he went out and counted his watermelon, all of them were there. He felt so smug that his little trickery had worked until he noticed his sign had been changed. The thieves had come in the night and now the sign read "TWO of these watermelons are poisoned. Eat at your own risk" The farmer had only lied when he had said that one watermelon was poisoned, but were the thieves telling the truth? He could not risk it. He did not want to die so he let all of the watermelon patch rot.

Never heard that story, but it is an interesting one.
If the book of revelation were shown to be a complete and utter forgery, merely the rambling of a man with a mental illness, would it take away any of the other bible stories?

The devil has sold you a lie you will regret forever if you think Hell will be enjoyable.

OK.
I'm just curious as to why god relies on faith and satan relies on evidence....

How did I not answer? I am anxious to go but for the sake of winning others to Jesus I would rather toil here on Earth.

lol.
Talk about wishing your life away.

God created the Earth and the universe around us. If you create something that big out of nothing before hand, then you could be a creator. As it is right now, you and I merely rearrange what God has already made. Like a baseball bat. The wood or the aluminum was already in existence, all we did was rearrange the order of it.

If I created something ex nihilo, then I would be a creator.
This means that I could not be created.
Right or wrong?

Haekel's drawings were in my high school text book in the 1990's and they were proven dishonest back before 1910.

Same argument here as we have earlier about the bible - if some are wrong (forgeries if you like) then are they all wrong by default?
What if 80% are right?
95%?

LOL Scientific research IS Eye-Witness testimony! Just written down......ha.....ROF lol!

Verifiable testimony - that is the difference.
Sit down with an old friend, and write down independantly something that happened to you both in your youth.
There will be some massive differences, and that is the way our brains form memories - we do not record every single moment accurately, or recall them sequentially.

When someone writes a scientific paper, they do not do so purely from memory to reduce these errrors.
Others replicate the research to eliminate these errors.
This replication also highlights any lies, deception etc.

Now tell me the ministry is 100% dependent on cold hard facts without testimony. Eager to hear that one.

Eyewitness testimony is compelling evidence, but it is not reliable.
Even in our legal system it is noted that a jury believes witnesses over other forms of evidence - even though it is likely to be the least reliable.

Then tell me my 30 years in science has no bearing on my views. Your inability to read people is stunning.

#if you really have 30 years ion science then you wouldn't be asking the questions that you do.
You would know that science is not personal testimony, unless you have 30 years in astrology or chinese medicine.

 

[SkyWriting]

We use radiometric testing on igneous and volcanic rocks Sky.

Checking the strata it was found in, comparing it to all the other fossils who's ages are known and fitting it into the lineage.

Igneous and volcanic layers contain few if any fossils. There are no "fossils who age is known" if we can't test them or the layer they reside in. Its true though, that we can guess.

I don't think you get to call yourself that when you accept the concept of evolution (As you have admitted in one of my threads).

You may think what you please.
Even Young Earth Creationists fully understand natural selection and it's effects on populations.
Study up guy.
Institute for Creation Research

It happens that I am more conservative than YEC's in that I do not add the man made idea of a "young earth" into the scriptures.

Any person who believes in a God of any kind outside of the natural world can be a Creationist. Should be in fact.
Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
That goes double for Christians:

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.