Pyramids

[JohnR7]

Can you actually show this, or is this another statement of faith?

It is a statement of faith. There is plenty of scientific evidence that shows the theory of evolution is null and void. Science itself does not deal with the basic premise of the Bible. Science can just show us if the history and facts recorded in the Bible are true or not.

It amazes me that people would want to reject the Bible when there is so much information in there that can be of use to science. There are not that many 3500 year old books. Esp books that we can translate and understand as well as we understand the Bible.

That is one of the nice things about population genetics. God has put a record in our DNA that goes back as far as 140,000 years, according to science.

We know from science that all of the people in the Middle East have a common ancestor that lived about 6,000 years ago. Science can not tell us that his name was Abraham, Noah or Adam. We learn that from the Bible. Science just confirms that a common ancestor did exist at that time in that place.

That does not seem to impress atheists very much. But for Christians it is more scientic evidence that the Bible is true.

 

[JohnR7]

So far, the core idea- that existing species are a result of descent from common ancestors with modification caused by natural forces- has been confirmed in the strongest possible way.

The Hebrew mystics say that whole universe started off the size of a mustard seed. Science picked this theory up and some call it the big bang. So would you consider that to be decent with modification?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Science is science and this is the exact same problem that science has with evolution. Research time and again shows that what they believed is not true.

...

Exactly, new facts constantly prove evolution to be wrong. That is why they call it neo-darwinism, because darwinism has been falsifed.

...

The problem with the theory of evolution is that it's basic premise is wrong.

Strike 1 ... strike 2... strike 3! John, you haven't shown us:

Any of this research (just some updated figures on how the Pyramids were built!)
Any of these new facts (instead confusing 'falsified' with 'proven false')
Or disproved the foundations of evolution (you don't even try to name them!)

I mean, come on. This is a new low.

We are now going though what they call a third wave or a third revolution in the theory of evolution.

I suppose you could allude that the first was Darwin's original theory, and the second was the synthesis with genetics, but what's this third? Is dad's golden moon-stick-city landing?

But for christians the errors are so blatant that we just can not overlook them.

Ah, I see you inherently cast out all 'Christians' you accept Evolution and the models thereby derived. Nice to see you look out for your own (unless they're not True™).

Esp the idea of random mutations that is so crucial to the theory right now.

And what, pray tell, is so blatently wrong with the concept of random mutation? As far as I am aware, it's a known fact, like the existance of the DNA itself.

As far as I am concerned as a scientific theory evolution has already been falsified.

Correct. However, Evolution and it's theories and models have survived (and indeed been bolstered by) every single falsification test put to it. Funny that.

But they do not have anything any better to replace it, so they have to go with what they got, even if it is false, while they wait for something better to come along.

OK, you're right here. Classical mechanics was the only explanation we had way back when, although we knew certain phenomena could not be explained by it (hence the need for Quantum mechanics).

Of course, you've yet to show any such phenomena that Evolution does not account for, so your statement becomes a tad moot.

We do not have this problem with the Bible. It has remained consistant and true for 3500 years now, ever sense Moses wrote the origional four books of the Bible. Nothing has changed in 3500 years.

Even ignoring the myriad of translations and copying errors, the Bible has been shown to be both inconsistent with it's own fictional universe (even basic mathematical errors exist) and with the real universe. So no, the Bible has not remained 'consistant and true'.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Hebrew mystics say that whole universe started off the size of a mustard seed. Science picked this theory up and some call it the big bang. So would you consider that to be decent with modification?

Science arrived at the 'Big Bang' idea independantly. And for the record: a singularity in the abscence of a/the spacetime continuum is a smidgen smaller than a mustard seed.

 

[JohnR7]

I suppose you could allude that the first was Darwin's original theory, and the second was the synthesis with genetics, but what's this third?

So you want me to teach you about evolution now? Evo-devo is considered to be the third revolution in evolution. Gould predicted it before he died.

Here are some of the more non technical books: "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" Carroll; "The language of live" Niehoff; "The Plausibility of life" Kirschner.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Evo-devo is considered to be the third revolution in evolution.

... no, it's not. It's the study of the consequences of long-term Evolution, sure, but it's hardly revolutionary.

I'm still awaiting answers to this, in case you forgot:

Science is science and this is the exact same problem that science has with evolution. Research time and again shows that what they believed is not true.

...

Exactly, new facts constantly prove evolution to be wrong. That is why they call it neo-darwinism, because darwinism has been falsifed.

...

The problem with the theory of evolution is that it's basic premise is wrong.

John, you haven't shown us:

Any of this research (just some updated figures on how the Pyramids were built!)
Any of these new facts (instead confusing 'falsified' with 'proven false')
Or disproved the foundations of evolution (you don't even try to name them!)

 

[FishFace]

Ah, but that is the problem.
It is pretty safe to assume that there were workers that built the pyramids.
The problem with the theory of evolution is that it's basic premise is wrong.

And what do you think is the basic premise of evolution?

We are now going though what they call a third wave or a third revolution in the theory of evolution. For you and a lot of people your attitude is that science is correcting its errors. But for christians the errors are so blatant that we just can not overlook them. Esp the idea of random mutations that is so crucial to the theory right now.

You have been given examples which you have been unable to refute. Stop lying.

We do not have this problem with the Bible. It has remained consistantly wrong for 3500 years now

Corrected.

 

[JohnR7]

Care to elaborate on this?

I think that Haeckel is a not only a prime example but a text book example of what we are talking about here.

The idea that human embryonic development recapitulates the evolutionary pathway has long been disproved but is still taught in some textbooks.
The idea that human fetuses have gill slits is a part of what was known as the Biogenetic Law. "The idea that the embryo of a complex animal goes through stages resembling the embryos of its ancestors is called the Biogenetic Law." This "Law", also known as recapitulation theory, (i.e., "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") was formulated in 1866 by Dr. Ernst Haeckel, an early scientific convert to Darwinism.

Yet there are people today that try to draw a comparison between Haeckel and evo-devo (developmental genetics).
Sense they are willing to do that, then that makes it easy for me to point out just how wrong evolutions can be in light of new information.

 

[flatworm]

The gate is the entrance to the city. There was no wall because the houses were built in a way that you would have to go though the gate or though a house to get in and out of the city.

What was the gate in, then?

 

[FishFace]

It is a statement of faith. There is plenty of scientific evidence that shows the theory of evolution is null and void.

Evidence that you seem to have a phobia of posting. Is it secret, John, is that it?

It amazes me that people would want to reject the Bible when there is so much information in there that can be of use to science.

Yes, such as that the world was created 6,000 years ago, or that God created the world in 6 days, or that there was an Exodus from Egypt, or that...

We know from science that all of the people in the Middle East have a common ancestor that lived about 6,000 years ago.

Stop lying. You're fooling noone. The study you cited doesn't support your opinion. You are being repeatedly dishonest.

Science can not tell us that his name was Abraham, Noah or Adam. We learn that from the Bible. Science just confirms that a common ancestor did exist at that time in that place.

The common ancestor was male only, and was too long ago to be Abraham. There was no common female ancestor at the same time; she existed much further back in time.

That does not seem to impress atheists very much. But for Christians it is more scientic evidence that the Bible is true.

What doesn't impress atheists is that you keep lying to try and get people to believe in your dogma.

 

[Avatar]

The common ancestor was male only, and was too long ago to be Abraham. There was no common female ancestor at the same time; she existed much further back in time.

A common male ancestor but not a common female ancestor at the same time? So does that mean this common male ancestor really got around?

 

[JohnR7]

What was the gate in, then?

The gate would be the only place you could enter the city between the houses. The gate of a city became a very important place. Everyone going in and out of the city had to go through the gate. So that would be a good place to set up your soap box if you wanted to give a speech hoping to influence people.

There are lots and lots of stories about the city gate and the different things that went on there. We are told in the new Jerusalem there will be 12 gates to the city.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think that Haeckel is a not only a prime example but a text book example of what we are talking about here.

Haeckel was one scientist who (at least partially) fabricated his data. Could you try painting with a broader brush?

Yet there are people today that try to draw a comparison between Haeckel and evo-devo (developmental genetics).

And I submit that these people are... you. As you said, Haeckel is a textbook example of a scientist gone awry, but is nevertheless merely an isolated extreme from the bulk of scientific integrity.

Sense they are willing to do that, then that makes it easy for me to point out just how wrong evolutions can be in light of new information.

John, everyone has been asking you for this information / research / facts / w/e that you keep saying blatently disproves Evolution... and yet you ignore any and all requests for it. Why?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Originally Posted by JohnR7
Sense they are willing to do that, then that makes it easy for me to point out just how wrong evolutions can be in light of new information.

Yes, PLEASE show us the new information?

 

[Freodin]

And John, for the xth time: it is "since", not "sense".

Of course, according to your logic, that only shows that all of your argument is wrong, because you present it with false words.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

The gate would be the only place you could enter the city between the houses. The gate of a city became a very important place. Everyone going in and out of the city had to go through the gate. So that would be a good place to set up your soap box if you wanted to give a speech hoping to influence people.

There are lots and lots of stories about the city gate and the different things that went on there. We are told in the new Jerusalem there will be 12 gates to the city.

John, this is utter nonsense.
Nain isn't set up like that. It's a small open settlement.
Furthermore, there's no settlement in the world which has this construction. Simply because it makes no sense and is impossible to construct.

City gates are build in city walls. The construction you just made up, has no precendence (unless you can show me otherwise).

It is more likely that Luke copied parts from the OT widows' son story. This story has certain obvious similarities and also contains a settlement which has a city gate.
It's obvious that Luke didn't know Nain as a settlement at all.

Lucy

 

[flatworm]

It is a statement of faith. There is plenty of scientific evidence that shows the theory of evolution is null and void.

Malarkey. Show us this evidence. You can't. It doesn't exist.

Science itself does not deal with the basic premise of the Bible. Science can just show us if the history and facts recorded in the Bible are true or not.

I agree. It shows that many of the historical and scientific claims in the Bible are false.

We know from science that all of the people in the Middle East have a common ancestor that lived about 6,000 years ago. Science can not tell us that his name was Abraham, Noah or Adam.

But the Bible requires that the Semitic people share a common male ancestor thousands of years later than 6000 years ago. According to the Bible, this most recent common male ancestor cannot be Noah or Adam. It must be Abraham... but the timing is wrong. This proves the Bible is in error.

Also the Bible requires a common female ancestor around 6000 years ago. The evidence does not back up this idea. It didn't happen.

We learn that from the Bible. Science just confirms that a common ancestor did exist at that time in that place.

It shows a common male ancestor existed at the wrong time for the Bible to be true. It also falsifies the idea of a common female ancestor.

Why do you keep on ignoring this?

The Hebrew mystics say that whole universe started off the size of a mustard seed. Science picked this theory up and some call it the big bang. So would you consider that to be decent with modification?

No, the Big Bang was posited as a direct consequence of General Relativity and the observed recession of distant galaxies.

 

[FishFace]

A common male ancestor but not a common female ancestor at the same time? So does that mean this common male ancestor really got around?

I guess so, but sometimes population genetics is a bit non-untuitive, so there could be another explanation.

 

[us38]

Does anyone else find it just a wee bit odd that the only area of science which is incorrect just so happens to be the one that JohnR7's holy book deals with? I mean, seriously, what are the odds of that happening?

 

[Avatar]

Does anyone else find it just a wee bit odd that the only area of science which is incorrect just so happens to be the one that JohnR7's holy book deals with? I mean, seriously, what are the odds of that happening?

Please, please stop whispering. It hurts my eyes.