the illusion of Evolution

[RageOfAngels]

It's funny how polarising this topic is, and how adamant either side is that they are right. I used to be an evolutionist (from a schooling point of view), but I moved to a creationist understanding thanks to the likes of Bill Cooper and others. I found, to me, the world makes more sense if it were young, rather than billions of years of evolution. However, I tend to just read posts rather than debate, as I don't think I've ever seen (apart from one occasion many years ago, when a theistic evoltuionist moved to be a YEC) anyone change their views.

 

[Torah Keeper]

You have an example of a species that is identical to a fossil species, millions of years old? Show us that.
That's not a rhetorical request. Show us an example.

BTW, even of one or more such species were to exist, it would not erase the many, many examples of change over time in the fossil record.

There are lots of them. Again, they are called "living fossils". Just look at any plant or animal that looks remarkably similar (identical) to it's supposed ancestor from supposedly millions of years ago.

 

[Torah Keeper]

and we will just ignore the fact that dinosaurs looked nothing like mythical dragons

Actually, they look identical to dinosaurs in many cases. Try looking at depictions of dragons in history, not modern fantasy movies.

but if death didn't exist then Adam being warned about his death if he ate the fruit would be completely meaningless to him.

This is just dumb.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Look here:

16 Animals That Are Living Fossils

This is a pro-evolution site, and even they say that some animals are living fossils, going back up to 450,000,000 years! Madness!

 

[Torah Keeper]

and we will just ignore the fact that dinosaurs looked nothing like mythical dragons

Fun fact: The word "dinosaur" was invented in the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that, these animals were called dragons.

Another fun fact: In other languages, the word for "dinosaur" is the same word for "dragon".

 

[SilverBear]

Actually, they look identical to dinosaurs in many cases. Try looking at depictions of dragons in history, not modern fantasy movies.

Wow...identical

This is just dumb.

death didn't exist so how can anyone be threatened by death

 

[SilverBear]

Fun fact: The word "dinosaur" was invented in the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that, these animals were called dragons.

by who?

Another fun fact: In other languages, the word for "dinosaur" is the same word for "dragon".

examples?

 

[Justaman0000]

Genesis 1:3-10 : God terraforms the Earth.

Genesis 1:11-12 God lets the Earth produce vegetation.

Genesis 1:20-22 Life began in the water. God created water dwelling and flying animals, possibly through evolution. He did not create a multitude in a day. They increased and filled the oceans and earth through reproduction according to this passage.

Genesis 1:24-25 God let the Earth produce land dwelling animals.

Genesis 1:26-28 God created Man Himself, in His image. They increased on the Earth through reproduction.

Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the theory of evolution, or rather evolution as a guided process started by God.

 

[coffee4u]

It actually has been, you just don't want to acknowledge it has because of your religious bias. You also shouldn't be pointing fingers at what doesn't have proof, you know genesis does not have any proof and you made a post as to why its not biggie to have no evidence/proof for scripture.

I said the science is built upon assumptions.
Assumption:
Cambridge Dictionary: something that you accept as true without question or proof

"Radiocarbon dating relies on the assumption that organic or inorganic materials were in equilibrium with the production of 14C in the atmosphere (Jull, 2018),
and that the 14C in the organism will decay, converting 14C back to 14N through beta decay, following the death of the organism."
Radiocarbon Dating - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

It relies on an assumption. something that you accept as true without question or proof

Explain how they can prove each one of those assumptions existed exactly as said during creation.

 

[coffee4u]

But its not made to for the purpose of explaining the physical universe and not all interpretation is from God. Yours is not. You do not use scripture to validate/invalidate science because its not used for that and you'll just end up making the Bible to be looked as false.

I would rely on scripture any day over fallen ungodly mankind who claims to know exactly how the world reacted at creation, yet by their own words are only assumptions.

 

[Cis.jd]

I would rely on scripture any day over fallen ungodly mankind who claims to know exactly how the world reacted at creation, yet by their own words are only assumptions.

We know that, obviously. But you can't just go "there is no proof" as a basis of yours to reject evolution when you also believe in a book that has no proof itself and is interpreted differently by millions through out time. It does show that you are speaking out of religious bias (or fanaticism) and have no care about knowing anything else other than it.

 

[Cis.jd]

I said the science is built upon assumptions.
Assumption:
Cambridge Dictionary: something that you accept as true without question or proof

"Radiocarbon dating relies on the assumption that organic or inorganic materials were in equilibrium with the production of 14C in the atmosphere (Jull, 2018),
and that the 14C in the organism will decay, converting 14C back to 14N through beta decay, following the death of the organism."
Radiocarbon Dating - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

It relies on an assumption. something that you accept as true without question or proof

Explain how they can prove each one of those assumptions existed exactly as said during creation.

It's not built on assumptions. A lot of it is studied, tested, and verified evidence gathered. You really don't care about that though and you are going to stick to a religious view that only has one book as a source with nothing verified due to millions of different views on it.

 

[coffee4u]

We know that, obviously. But you can't just go "there is no proof" as a basis of yours to reject evolution when you also believe in a book that has no proof itself and is interpreted differently by millions through out time. It does show that you are speaking out of religious bias (or fanaticism) and have no care about knowing anything else other than it.

The 'proof' is built upon a foundation of assumptions. Assumptions that can never be proved or tested because nobody can go back and see how God created, its an unknown.

Its utter arrogance for any man to think he can assume and know how God created things and say things were like 'this'. For all we know time was bent and all mankind's ageing methods are about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. Have faith in them all you like, I won't.

So is this the Catholic thing now, to question scripture? 'A book' no its a collection of 66 books that says it is breathed by God. Either you believe it was breathed by God or you don't. If you don't, you might as well toss the entire thing away and not bother with it.

 

[coffee4u]

It's not built on assumptions. A lot of it is studied, tested, and verified evidence gathered. You really don't care about that though and you are going to stick to a religious view that only has one book as a source with nothing verified due to millions of different views on it.

They are assumptions and every single field dealing with age of the earth admits to the assumptions, just like that page did there. That is their words. I can find plenty more, or do you think I whipped up that page just for you?

 

[Torah Keeper]

Wow...identical

death didn't exist so how can anyone be threatened by death

I see what you tried to do there. That is from a 16th century book called History of Animals and the author had never seen a live dragon and believed them to be rare or extinct by then. It was just his assumption of what they looked like.

I just typed in "ancient dinosaur depictions" in Duck Duck Go and was flooded with all sorts of images. Here is a tiny sample:
https://www.pinterest.com/prasit1053/ancient-dinosaur-depiction-ภาพโบราณรปไดโนเสาร/

I like the stegosaurus and the sauropods. If you think these are just coincidental imaginary art, you are fooling yourself. Again, this is but a tiny sampling.

by who?


examples?

Did you not read the part I wrote about the word "dinosaur" being invented in the 19th century? Are you one of those people that asks why the word "dinosaur" is not in the Bible? By the way, dinosaurs are described in the Bible too. Do you think every language on Earth was using a word invented by some Brit in the 19th century? Instead of assuming I am lying to you, why don't you try doing a 30 second web search, or are you too lazy?

 

[Cis.jd]

The 'proof' is built upon a foundation of assumptions. Assumptions that can never be proved or tested because nobody can go back and see how God created, its an unknown.

Its utter arrogance for any man to think he can assume and know how God created things and say things were like 'this'. For all we know time was bent and all mankind's ageing methods are about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. Have faith in them all you like, I won't.

So is this the Catholic thing now, to question scripture? 'A book' no its a collection of 66 books that says it is breathed by God. Either you believe it was breathed by God or you don't. If you don't, you might as well toss the entire thing away and not bother with it.

They are not assumptions and you know nothing about evolution other than random snippets off ignorant christian sites. Stop it. You are just being biased to your religious beliefs and do not have any interest in respecting anything that doesn't match it.

It's not questioning scripture, its just being honest. The book of Genesis has so many things that are factually wrong if taken literally. For example, the moon is described as a body light, just like the stars and sun is, but you know the moon is not an actual ball of light. With this you just wrote, you are forced to believe the moon is a star. If not, then you are just as "guilty" as I am with questioning scripture.

Catholics do not deny scripture is God breathed, but sadly man (such as yourself) use scripture to explain things it is not meant for and scripture is not a book that is made to describe and teach the natural world.

Its utter arrogance for any man to think he can assume and know how God created things and say things were like 'this'.

But you are doing the same, because rejecting the notion that evolution is part of how he created things is kinda assuming you know how he did/didn't do it.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? - St. Augustine

 

[coffee4u]

by who?

Sir Richard Owen came up with the name dinosaur in 1842. It was a combination of two Greek words. Deinos, which means “horrible” or “fearful,” and sauros menaing lizard.
The name meant: Terrifying lizard.

 

[sfs]

I said the science is built upon assumptions.

But you don't actually know what those assumptions are.

"Radiocarbon dating relies on the assumption that organic or inorganic materials were in equilibrium with the production of 14C in the atmosphere (Jull, 2018),
and that the 14C in the organism will decay, converting 14C back to 14N through beta decay, following the death of the organism."

Those are assumptions for the test, but they are assumptions that can be and have been tested. Actually, the decay of 14C isn't an assumption -- it's a conclusion based on a detailed understanding of nuclear physics that is well established and very well tested. The assumption that organisms were in equilibrium with their environment is based on everything we know about living things, and can be tested by dating tree rings and by dating events of known date.

We have many, many different ways of dating old objects from various time periods. They depend on different physical processes, make different assumptions about different things, provide numerous avenues for testing those assumptions, and all point consistently to the fact that the Earth is very old. When different methods are applied to the same objects, they give consistent results. You have provided no alternative explanation for why these tests give consistent results; your only complaint seems to be that you don't like the answer.

This is out of date but still contains much relevant material: Radiometric Dating. I suggest you read it.

 

[SilverBear]

I see what you tried to do there. That is from a 16th century book called History of Animals and the author had never seen a live dragon and believed them to be rare or extinct by then. It was just his assumption of what they looked like.

I just typed in "ancient dinosaur depictions" in Duck Duck Go and was flooded with all sorts of images. Here is a tiny sample:
https://www.pinterest.com/prasit1053/ancient-dinosaur-depiction-ภาพโบราณรปไดโนเสาร/

I like the stegosaurus and the sauropods. If you think these are just coincidental imaginary art, you are fooling yourself. Again, this is but a tiny sampling.

Lets see:

well I'm convinced

A 2015 piece by Jonas Wood and Shio Kusaka. WOW

Did you not read the part I wrote about the word "dinosaur" being invented in the 19th century?

given to the first few fossilized bones discovered in the years prior and named dinosaur by Sir Richard Own in 1841 Prior to that they were thought to be creatures related to the iguana.

Are you one of those people that asks why the word "dinosaur" is not in the Bible? By the way, dinosaurs are described in the Bible too.

no

Do you think every language on Earth was using a word invented by some Brit in the 19th century? Instead of assuming I am lying to you, why don't you try doing a 30 second web search, or are you too lazy?

you said that "In other languages, the word for "dinosaur" is the same word for "dragon"" and i asked what languages?[/QUOTE]

 

[SilverBear]

Sir Richard Owen came up with the name dinosaur in 1842. It was a combination of two Greek words. Deinos, which means “horrible” or “fearful,” and sauros menaing lizard.
The name meant: Terrifying lizard.

yes i know. I was asking just who was calling dinosaurs "dragons"