The Dover trial

[Speedwell]

Astronomy is unrelated to evolution?

Astronomy is unrelated to evolution. Evolution is a theory of biology.

But what about the evolutionary notion of panspermia?

Panspermia is not directly an "evolutionary notion." I have even seen it touted by creationists as an alternative to naturalistic abiogenesis.

Anyone with any type of science degree would be exposed to evolution at the college level in a way far deeper than any liberal arts grad, or the general public.

No. Physical science majors typically do not study biology at the college level and there is no reason to suppose that they know any more about it than a high school graduate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, a number of scientist in quite relevant fields disbelieve in evolution.

"50" ha?
Let's assume that they are active in relevant fields (they aren't, btw)

50 is nothing.
It doesn't even constitute 0.1%

Perhaps you should google "project steve".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Astronomy is unrelated to evolution?

Yes. Is it really news to you that an astronomy and biology, are 2 different fields?

But what about the evolutionary notion of panspermia?

That's an idea about how life ended up on this planet. It is not an alternative to evolution.

Anyone with any type of science degree would be exposed to evolution at the college level in a way far deeper than any liberal arts grad, or the general public.

So?

 

[HereIStand]

Yes. Is it really news to you that an astronomy and biology, are 2 different fields?



That's an idea about how life ended up on this planet. It is not an alternative to evolution.



So?

Evolution is much broader than biology. It's influenced fields a variety of fields, including computer science and economics. That a person of with a doctorate in any field could disbelieve evolution counters the secular notion that only the unwashed masses could believe in creation according to the Bible.

 

[Barry Desborough]

 

[Kenny'sID]

Fair enough that you have issues with others here, but the conversation you and I are having is not with other people. Your issues with others are with them, not me.

I was clear there. I have issues with others as well as your claim, and I still have no reason to believe you have proof of evolution. Again, I've been there and don't want to wast time on repeats.

Sounds like you'll do anything to not understand the facts and observations that underpin this entirely well supported scientific theory, but I'm willing to persist if you can swallow your pride and walk with me.

Pretending this is pride or any more than common sense in not discussing the same non proof over and over is not going to draw me in. Proof of evolution, as I asked for fro the start, will.

 

[Barry Desborough]

I was clear there. I have issues with others as well as your claim, and I still have no reason to believe you have proof of evolution. Again, I've been there and don't want to wast time on repeats.



Pretending this is pride or any more than common sense in not discussing the same non proof over and over is not going to draw me in. Proof of evolution, as I asked for fro the start, will.

Here you go, Kenny'sID. Viruses that prove common descent

 

[Kenny'sID]

Here you go, Kenny'sID. Viruses that prove common descent

So you draw me in with yet another deception, where within a couple of seconds I see things aren't as I was told?

Below is the second sentence from your link, and it is not proof. We can call anything evidence, I've seen so much of your so called evidence that is presented just as you presented this, as proof when now you are telling me it's evidence. IOW, there always seems to be deception involved somewhere, both in the presentation and the
"evidence".

Here's my FAQ on endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). They provide some of the best evidence for common descent.

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution is much broader than biology. It's influenced fields a variety of fields, including computer science and economics.

Only in an analogous way, but this discussion is dealing just with biological evolution.

That a person of with a doctorate in any field could disbelieve evolution counters the secular notion that only the unwashed masses could believe in creation according to the Bible.

That "secular notion" of yours is baseless slander. There are many serious religious scholars and even Christian theologians who reject the theory of evolution for various reasons which have nothing to do with the literal inerrancy of the "unwashed masses."

 

[joshua 1 9]

Theistic evolution is not generally refered to as creationism.
Instead, it is refered to as... well... theistic evolution.

There are many different creationism theories and TE is one of them. There is no conflict between true science and true Bible interpretation. They both keep each other honest. You really can not have one without the other.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Remarkably you fell early, resorting to ad hominem taunts without a single substantive point. Sad really...

Actually I should have told you that I was quoting Bill Clinton's Memorial Day Speech. I do not know of anyone that considers his presidency to be a failure.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What do you say to someone who claims black is white?

Black is created when all of the light is absorbed. White is created when all of the light is reflected. The additive and subtractive theories are just theories but we use them every day and they work. We use them every day for many different applications. For example I had a black car once. Never again because black absorbs all the heat from the sun and is very hot in the summer. Much better to drive a white car because they remain cooler.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hmm, I think most theists that support evolution as a whole don't consider themselves creationists, even when they do believe that the first life on this planet was created by a deity.

I have said many times that the whole discussion comes down to the dictionary definition that you use. In the end we will not use man's dictionary, we will use God's dictionary to define the words. For now we just argue over the meaning of the word "evolution". The meaning tends to change daily. I tend to take an expository approach to try to determine what the words really mean. Most of the words Moses uses in the book of Genesis would take a whole book to explain and define. Even all the science books in the world could not come near to explaining what Moses talks about in the book of Genesis.

 

[Astrophile]

Depends on which part of the Bible one chooses to believe. Evidently it can go many ways with some. I'm sure some toss Christ or even God as not real.

FWIW, I'm talking about Bible or semi Bible believers.

I was really asking about the arithmetic, not about the historical reliability of the Bible. Mark Kennedy said,

life was created about 2000 years ago.

However, Ezra lived during the 5th century BC, or 2400-500 years ago, and therefore at least 400 years before the creation of life. The same problem arises with Biblical figures such as Sarah, Miriam, Ruth, Bathsheba, Jezebel and Vashti, and pagans such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

 

[Astrophile]

Astronomy is unrelated to evolution. Evolution is a theory of biology.

Astronomy does provide evidence for the long time intervals required for evolution. To adapt the title of a famous paper, nothing in astronomy or geology makes sense without deep time. Also, stellar nucleosynthesis explains how the elements that form planets and living things were formed.

Panspermia is not directly an "evolutionary notion." I have even seen it touted by creationists as an alternative to naturalistic abiogenesis.

Panspermia is one of these ideas that have hung about on the fringes of astronomy and biology for a long time. It is an interesting speculation, but, so far as I know, there is no direct evidence for it.

 

[HereIStand]

Only in an analogous way, but this discussion is dealing just with biological evolution. That "secular notion" of yours is baseless slander. There are many serious religious scholars and even Christian theologians who reject the theory of evolution for various reasons which have nothing to do with the literal inerrancy of the "unwashed masses."

This discussion (as most do) has diverged far and wide.

The influence of evolution on other fields is broader than analogy, and more like reality. To note one example in the 1880s and 1890s in Latin America:

"Latin American positivism also absorbed the ideas of Social Darwinism, which posited a racial hierarchy in which whites were deemed superior to other races. In Latin America such doctrines relegated the majority of the population to an inferior status, and they were partly responsible for the attempts to encourage European immigration in many countries so as to whiten the population and improve the changes of progress." (The Penguin History Of Latin America)

 

[Kenny'sID]

I was really asking about the arithmetic, not about the historical reliability of the Bible. Mark Kennedy said,


However, Ezra lived during the 5th century BC, or 2400-500 years ago, and therefore at least 400 years before the creation of life. The same problem arises with Biblical figures such as Sarah, Miriam, Ruth, Bathsheba, Jezebel and Vashti, and pagans such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

I understand now... thanks.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Like sarah just said, when it's obvious it's obvious.

Honestly, this has always been one of the shakiest arguments I've ever heard for changing the Bible, so you do that if you want, I'll never buy your reasoning for it.

I'm not "challenging" the bible at all when I say that certain passages and stories have traits that indicate they likely weren't intended to be taken literally. Alternatively, there are passages which seem much more like they were intended to be taken literally that a lot of people choose to interpret as non-literal.

However, treating phrases that are well documented as idioms as if they are literal is flat out silly. If a character says to another character "It's been forever since I've seen you", you wouldn't take that literally, so why are you taking the Hebrew idioms literally?

 

[Speedwell]

This discussion (as most do) has diverged far and wide.

The influence of evolution on other fields is broader than analogy, and more like reality. To note one example in the 1880s and 1890s in Latin America:

"Latin American positivism also absorbed the ideas of Social Darwinism, which posited a racial hierarchy in which whites were deemed superior to other races. In Latin America such doctrines relegated the majority of the population to an inferior status, and they were partly responsible for the attempts to encourage European immigration in many countries so as to whiten the population and improve the changes of progress." (The Penguin History Of Latin America)

So what? The same "criticism" can be made of Christianity.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In the end we will not use man's dictionary, we will use God's dictionary to define the words.

Ha, what? The bible has a much more limited variety of words than most modern languages, and wasn't originally written in a modern language, making it unsuitable as a dictionary.

For now we just argue over the meaning of the word "evolution".

There's no argument here; the creationism vs evolution debate has one side be evolution as the scientific theory in biology. Any other definition of evolution other than that will inevitably lead one to incorrectly define the position as it pertains to this debate, and those will make opposing and supporting arguments weaker.

The meaning tends to change daily.

It sincerely does not. The only people I see on here that regularly have different definitions for evolution are the creationists in these debates. Mentioning things like "cosmic evolution" as if it's relevant to these debates, ugh.

I tend to take an expository approach to try to determine what the words really mean.

What they "really" mean? Evolution as a word has multiple definitions, but the biological theory of evolution only has 1. That is, it is the scientific theory that pertains to the origin of species and how they change over time and generations. No more, and no less.

Most of the words Moses uses in the book of Genesis would take a whole book to explain and define.

While ancient languages did tend to attach more meanings to individual words, most of the meanings were fairly similar, and most individual words not worth contesting the meaning of.

Even all the science books in the world could not come near to explaining what Moses talks about in the book of Genesis.

-_- most of what is important in the bible is pretty much irrelevant to science to begin with. Issues of morality are a matter of ethics and philosophy, not science. Spirituality also isn't a field of scientific inquiry, other than, perhaps, the psychology of it.