The Biblical Creation myth and science

Svt4Him · Mar 11, 2004

Arikay said:
And how honest do you think it is for them to put scientists on the list that died before the middle of the 1800's?

Well, if they said they were still alive, it wouldn't be terribly honest. There are links to check out the some. But why is it that it's dishonest to assume that someone reading would know that some of these people are dead? Is it that it's too complicated to figure out? And if that's all you get from that, then so be it. But then make sure you don't quote scientists who use methods created by those scientists, cause that wouldn't be honest would it? But if your strawman is to say some are dead, then you're right, it's all wrong.

Arikay · Mar 11, 2004

No, I was saying that because they died before the 1860's they didn't have the evidence to make a choice.

I could say that Newton was a spontaneous generationist, but the reason for that was most likely because he had not seen the evidence falsifying it. Just the same, Newton was a creationist but he had not seen the evidence falsifying it.

It just seems kinda dishonest to me to put people on the list who never got a chance to have a more educated opinion like we have today.

Jet Black · Mar 11, 2004

MinDach said:
You are using a theory about what size the stars are, i am saying that our sun is the largest. You nor I have never been there. My point would be if all these stars you call Suns were the same as our sun, then all of space would be in full light, and another theory the is no end for light. I know more about human nature, then about the stars, why a certain question would be asked. If people are really searching for God and Jesus, or what are they really looking for?

no, but we can measure the sizes of stars through a number of different means. The diameter of betelgeuse was measured in the early 20th century, and this star is significantly bigger than our own. Also by examining the black body spectra of stars we can measure their surface temperature. This Surface temperature then relates to their size, since the hotter they are, the larger they are, because of the increased amount of Nuclear Fusion in their core. This increased heat leads to them being blue. So the large red giant stars and the hot blue stars are significantly bigger than our Sun, which is actually quite a standard, boring star.

The reason that space is full of light, is because the universe is not infinitely old, and space is not infinitely big. Therefore we only see the light from stars that are close enough to be seen.

ThePhoenix · Mar 11, 2004

Svt4Him said:
Well, if they said they were still alive, it wouldn't be terribly honest. There are links to check out the some. But why is it that it's dishonest to assume that someone reading would know that some of these people are dead? Is it that it's too complicated to figure out? And if that's all you get from that, then so be it. But then make sure you don't quote scientists who use methods created by those scientists, cause that wouldn't be honest would it? But if your strawman is to say some are dead, then you're right, it's all wrong.

It would be about as intellectually honest as citing scientists who believed in Newtonian mechanics prior to Albert Einstein's revolutionary theory. Sure Newton (to name one) believed in the mechanics, but there was no alternative that better explained the evidence, and there were many facts lacking. So we could say that classical mechanics was believed by Galileo, Kepplar, Newton, Edison, Tesla, and many others, but that doesn't make the statement intellectually honest.

Meatros · Mar 11, 2004

Jack_Racz said:
Well, seeing as you didn't read the thread... the arguement was that the sun created life.

Ah, an assumption on your part...

In this case you are incorrect; the point I'm making is that Genesis says that plants were created before the Sun was. Which, I'm sure you'd agree, is impossible. Right?

Jack_Racz · Mar 11, 2004

Meatros said:
the point I'm making is that Genesis says that plants were created before the Sun was. Which, I'm sure you'd agree, is impossible. Right?

You are right that God created the sun after making plants. But light was made the first day.

Svt4Him · Mar 11, 2004

ThePhoenix said:
It would be about as intellectually honest as citing scientists who believed in Newtonian mechanics prior to Albert Einstein's revolutionary theory. Sure Newton (to name one) believed in the mechanics, but there was no alternative that better explained the evidence, and there were many facts lacking. So we could say that classical mechanics was believed by Galileo, Kepplar, Newton, Edison, Tesla, and many others, but that doesn't make the statement intellectually honest.

Strawman? Not all those cited are from the age of dinosaurs. I would think that signs of evolution were just as visible then as now, but I could be wrong. Heck, some may have even be going through it at the time.

May I ask though, which one there's a problem with, as what they did may be relevant today.

toff · Mar 11, 2004

Jack_Racz said:
No it's not. There is no sound proof that evolution even occurs.
Animals and people adapt, not evolve.

This post is completely false. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, repeatedly seen in both laboratory and in the wild. Even creationist institutions like ICR and AIG acknowledge this.

Svt4Him · Mar 11, 2004

Oh here we go again.

toff · Mar 11, 2004

Svt4Him said:
Oh here we go again.

Yup. As long as people post falsehoods and lies like "evolution doesn't even happen", I'll keep correcting their falsehoods and lies.

Jack_Racz · Mar 11, 2004

Ok... I am game, convince me otherwise

toff said:
Evolution is an observed phenomenon, repeatedly seen in both laboratory and in the wild.

State the cases.

Arikay · Mar 11, 2004

Jack, how much have you studied evolution?

toff · Mar 11, 2004

Jack_Racz said:
Ok... I am game, convince me otherwise
State the cases.

You want a hundred and fifty years of scientific research condensed for you and posted in here?

This is one of the things that irks me. Creationists state "evolution is false" and when you correct them, they say "show me the evidence that it isn't." There are libraries full of evidence, books upon books, writings over the last hundred and fifty years...and they want that evidence encapsulated and presented for them, easy to digest and able to be read in less than five minutes. Why don't you do what all of us (who actually know something about the subject) have done, and do your own research? Go read any of the myriad books on the subject, instead of expecting to be spoon fed in here.

Of course, the answer is (in most cases) they don't WANT to learn about the subject, or they would already have done the research. They have decided (based on creationist tracts or whatever), and are not in the least interested in actually gaining an understanding of evolutionary theory - or they would have done so.

Jack_Racz · Mar 11, 2004

So wait... so one book (the bible) is absolutly wrong with it's statements? Well at least compared to 150 years of "proof".

toff said:
Of course, the answer is (in most cases) they don't WANT to learn about the subject, or they would already have done the research. They have decided (based on creationist tracts or whatever), and are not in the least interested in actually gaining an understanding of evolutionary theory - or they would have done so.

That's a very biased point of view. I have done research into it. For the longest time I thought the bible was just a book with good stories in it, so I searched for what I believed. I've read huge amounts of evolution texts in high school and college, I did papers on why it occured and all that. Then I really thought about it... There is 150 years of research on the topic (your words), while there is over 4000 years of research on one book. So I picked it up and found my truth. Don't call me ignorant.

Arikay · Mar 11, 2004

I agree, There are boat loads of information on evolution, even a search on this very forum would give tons of evidence for evolution. It would be nice if someone would come here and ask questions before they started making statements.

A search at www.pubmed.com for "evolution" returns 139,304 papers.

Jack_Racz · Mar 11, 2004

I was just curious if you had anything defining...

Arikay · Mar 11, 2004

So, I guess that means when the bible says rome taxed the entire world, they also taxed china, right?
Or maybe not all of the bible is literal.

A quick question, since you have studied the theory of evolution, can you please give us a basic explination of the theory of evolution?

Jack_Racz said:
So wait... so one book (the bible) is absolutly wrong with it's statements? Well at least compared to 150 years of "proof".

That's a very biased point of view. I have done research into it. For the longest time I thought the bible was just a book with good stories in it, so I searched for what I believed. I've read huge amounts of evolution texts in high school and college, I did papers on why it occured and all that. Then I really thought about it... There is 150 years of research on the topic (your words), while there is over 4000 years of research on one book. So I picked it up and found my truth. Don't call me ignorant.

Jack_Racz · Mar 11, 2004

Arikay said:
A quick question, since you have studied the theory of evolution, can you please give us a basic explination of the theory of evolution?

Yeah sure.

Evolution- The idea various types of animals and plants have their orgins in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications over time and breeding.

Was that ok?

Ishmael Borg · Mar 11, 2004

Jack_Racz said:
I was just curious if you had anything defining...

Just curious... By what mechanism did species diversify from the basic 'kinds' aboard the ark? I hear there was a cat 'kind' from which all modern cats derive. How did it happen, and in such short time, and without anyone noticing (after all, I think you said that it's never been observed)?

toff · Mar 11, 2004

Jack_Racz said:
So wait... so one book (the bible) is absolutly wrong with it's statements? Well at least compared to 150 years of "proof".

That's a very biased point of view. I have done research into it. For the longest time I thought the bible was just a book with good stories in it, so I searched for what I believed. I've read huge amounts of evolution texts in high school and college, I did papers on why it occured and all that. Then I really thought about it... There is 150 years of research on the topic (your words), while there is over 4000 years of research on one book. So I picked it up and found my truth. Don't call me ignorant.

Yes, the bible is absolutely wrong with many of its statements - for example, the creation myth of genesis (when read literally). This, of course, says nothing whatsoever about how correct its spiritual claims are.

Sorry, but if you say that there is no proof that evolution occurs, you ARE ignorant. As well as simply wrong.

The Biblical Creation myth and science

Legend

HI

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

The Meat is in the Middle!

Paid For By His Blood

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Paid For By His Blood

HI

Well-Known Member

Paid For By His Blood

HI

Paid For By His Blood

HI

Paid For By His Blood

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency