The nature of evidence

[Papias]

The most recent common ancestor of a chimp and a human looks a lot like a chimp. Compare the first two skulls (one from a modern chimp and one from an australopithicene anscestor of humans). They look similar.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1


I try not to object to a creationist saying "chimps evolved into humans". Yes, a more accurate statement is that "ancient chimps evolved into humans", but the MRCA of chimps and humans, if around today, would be pretty much a chimp.

Papias

 

[Papias]

ML wrote:

Well thanks for educating me about all the things I am living in denial about ;-)

You are welcome. I hope we agree now that evolution is well established without the need for any genetic evidence, or otherwise, without the need for any fossil evidence.

Regarding the article , the age is an assumption based on other assumptions, there is no way to provide definitive evidence that crystallisation and recrystalisation of the salt crystal had not occurred.

No, it isn't. The age is based on measured radioisotopes. If the salt had recrystallized, these would be different. You do understand that their are dozens of dating method, that use different methods, and still all agree with each other, right? Because they use different methods, you can't say that the agreement has anything to do with assumptions.

In other words, if you think there is a problem with dating methods, you need to answer this question:

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll all "just happen to" give the same "wrong" answer.


I disagree with all the credibility of the othere evidences you find so convincing also-

OK, which do you want to discuss? Maybe start with reviewing some of it here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent


ML wrote:

Papias wrote:

you might want to start a thread on things like angular unconformities, paleosols, fossil distribution, the white cliffs of dover, and thermal crystallization sizes, explaining how each could form in a flood. (because in all those cases, geologists, including thousands of Christian geologists, are in agreement that a flood can’t do that). Hey, it must be more of that creationist magic water, huh?

​

Both the creation event and the flood events were at the hand of a God fully capable of all these things you list in a very rapid period of time. If not the flood then creation itself. How one can describe the effects of each of these events when they are analagous to nothing in our immediate experience is the act of hubris here.

​

Geologists understand how these formations form. Are you saying that the whole field of geology, which includes thousands of Geologists who are Christians and see no evidence for Noah's flood, are wrong? And you are accusing *me* of hubris? You do know that it was Christians, who in the 1840s, finally tossed flood geolgy in the trash bin of history, right? Do you know the story of the Rev. Adam Sedgwick?

You mean non functional, non focused on survival I suppose. These stupidities testify to a Creator and Sustainer of reality who more than any other decides who lives and who dies, how and when.

No, I mean harmful designs. For instance, sea turtles are fully aquatic, yet have to come on land to lay eggs. Whales are fully aquatic, yet breathe air. Humans urethra goes through, instead of around, the prostate, and many more. Saying all these stupid designs were put in place by a micromanager God is saying that God is either cruel or stupid. It's much more pious to realize that God is so powerful that he can create a creation that can then fill in the details itself. This makes for a more powerful God at the same time as avoiding blasphemy.

​

​

Is that what you see?

​

Not just me, but the thousands of geologists, including a large chunk of Christians, who know these fossils better than you or I.

I see fossils formed in originally wet sedimentary rocks which leave a only a shadow of their original forms, corroded and warped by time and a million variables we cannot account for let alone measure.

Are you a geologist who has looked at even a tiny fraction of them, such as just 2,000 of the millions of fossils that have been studied? How can you say you see anything?

I see a herd of scientists copying each others assumptions and nodding in tune to their group song and accepting without question the assumption of development from one type to another and take each sample as evidence of a step along these pathways.

How can you possibly know that? Have you been to their conferences? Are you an expert in any of the fields of geology, paleontology, anatomy, physiology, or genetics, all of which independently show not just evolution, but the same family tree of descent found by evolution? And *you* accused *me* of hubris?

I see creatures God made dug up from their graves to bear witness to an atheistic world view that stands in opposition to the realities in which they were created and lived.

You are aware, I hope, that the majority of the support for evolution comes from Christians, not from Atheists, right? They are bearing witness to a model not just fully consistent with Christianity, but one that supports the key doctrines of Christianity.

​

​

Again the style of Genesis is literal historical and so probably many of the things that you interpret metaphorically are things I would not interpret as being metaphors.

​

Is not the style that of a hebrew poem, complete with puns and plays on words?

You've refuse, for three posts, to answer the simple question of whether or not there are metaphors in Genesis. So I ask, in light of Gen 3:15, could you direct me to the verse in the new testament where satan bites Jesus' foot? Or is that a metaphor?

I trust the scriptures and regard the debates about which understanding is closest to the original as irrelevant to all major theological doctrines.

If you see the debates about which understanding is closest to the original as irrelevant to all major theological issues, then why are you writing posts in support of one of those understandings (creationism)?

​

​

Jesus used parables and there were deeper meaníngs to all his signs and teachings. Perhaps you would like to explain your notion of metaphor here.

I mean a metaphor where the literal words don't mean their literal meaning, but instead point to a deeper and more glorious meaning. From the new testament, Jesus says he will destroy and rebuild the temple in 3 days. Of course he never literally did that. He was using a metaphor for his body. Similarly, a literal reading of genesis gives an absurd description of the world that doesn't match the evidence from many fields. Jesus is again using a metaphor to point us to the deeper meaning that Jesus created the world.

Papias

 

[marktheblake]

You've refuse, for three posts, to answer the simple question of whether or not there are metaphors in Genesis.

The fact that the Bible including Genesis uses a vast range of figures of speech does not make the text poetry, mythology, accommodating, fiction, or any other style one might want to ascribe to it.

 

[Mallon]

Geologists understand how these formations form. Are you saying that the whole field of geology, which includes thousands of Geologists who are Christians and see no evidence for Noah's flood, are wrong? And you are accusing *me* of hubris?

Gotta love it, eh? Hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world dedicate countless hours and dollars studying in great detail the geology of the earth, only to be told by some joe-schmoe YEC that they don't know what they're talking about. And they're the ones accused of hubris.

 

[matthewgar]

Gotta love it, eh? Hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world dedicate countless hours and dollars studying in great detail the geology of the earth, only to be told by some joe-schmoe YEC that they don't know what they're talking about. And they're the ones accused of hubris.

Heh don't forget the arrogance of claiming the truth based on evidence, when claiming the truth based on quiet possibly bad interpetations of the bible is not arrogance....bleah.