Understanding Evolution ~ Making a Rational Critique of Science

[secularfuture]

To understand the general context of the Big Bang theory you need to first have an advanced understanding of quantum mechanics. To understand the general context of Evolution you need to first have an advanced understanding of chemistry and biology. Without proper knowledge of a subject, one is not in the position to make any comments against it. “But my bible tells me that they are both wrong!”

~

The bible, one of the best written books in history (I’m a secularist and I still read the bible), contains stories which involve the supernatural. The concept of “supernatural” came to be when people didn’t know how to explain, or comprehend, the world around them using naturalistic terms. They didn’t have a Hubble Telescope, Pentium powered computers, or very advanced science during the ancient times to properly interpret the world. And when they couldn’t properly interpret things around them, they made wild assumptions. “God makes the rain fall” “God is moving the Sun around our world” And so on…

In my personal opinion, the bible is not to be taken too literally, because there is NO proof for anything of a supernatural nature. And if you have proof for the existence of anything supernatural, you can win $1,000,000 TODAY! Please check the link: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html 

~

Some people say the world is not over 6,000 years of age, even though radiometric dating has shown differently. “Noah’s flood is messing up the radiometric dating results!” If you believe this, how do you explain the radiometric tests results for some Mars & Moon rocks, and space debris; most have tested far over 6,000 years of age?

Again – if you know nothing about radiometric dating, you have no right to criticize it. 

~

My questions:

* Why don’t you believe in Evolution? You can believe in both God and evolution, and you will not go to purgatory for doing so.

* Why don’t you believe in Big Bang theory? God could’ve been the trigger behind the “great bang”. 
 
~

If you have any further questions about evolution, you can visit the links below for details.

What is Evolution?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evo...definition.html

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 

~

Note: Evolution DOES NOT talk about where everything came from. By definition, it only explains the changes that have happened over time.

 

[secularfuture]

Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible by Gerald L. Schroeder

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553354132

 

[eldermike]

That is a very good book, I have that one and one other of His books. Very well written.

Have you read it?

 

[secularfuture]

Originally posted by eldermike
That is a very good book, I have that one and one other of His books. Very well written.

Have you read it?

Most of it, not all of it though.

 

[secularfuture]

Why are people ignoring this post?

 

[eldermike]

He also wrote "Science and God" (I think thats the title) another very good book. I have read both and used some of His stuff in college work, He is very useful as a quoting resource.

 

[secularfuture]

ahh.... I just love quoting resources! 
ah-te-hehe

 

[secularfuture]

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.


How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

 

[secularfuture]

 

 

[secularfuture]

 

 

[secularfuture]

  COME ON!! DEBUNK ME SOMEONE!!

 

[andybell]

http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolutionTEXT.htm

 

[secularfuture]

Originally posted by andybell
http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolutionTEXT.htm

Ahh - thats not debunking. Thats just annoying. Please read the first post.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by secularfuture
Ahh - thats not debunking. Thats just annoying. Please read the first post.

Of course it is debunking. So is this:

http://www.rae.org/index.html

You're not going to agree or accept either, so what's your point, other than bumping your own post ad nauseum?

 

[chickenman]

lets have a link war, thats productive!

I'll link every journal I know that deals with biology, and you can post your creationist links


then we can count them, the one with the most links wins!

 

[Chris H]

This thng is getting into a flame war, which I personally don't like.

Nick, while we may differ on our understanding of the world and it's history I want you to now that I consider you a brother in Christ and I enjoy reading some of your posts.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Also, Nick, I respect your right to be a young earth creationist.

Sec Future...as to the supernatural, I'm not really going to prove the supernatural be rational scientific means. So I'm not interested in debating the second part of the first post in this thread.

Chris

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Chris H
Also, Nick, I respect your right to be a young earth creationist.

Thanks. I don't know if I'd call myself a YEC, but if you want to think of me that way, it's ok. I also respect your right to disagree, regardless.

 

[lithium.]

I believe that everything is like this.

1. the world coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago.

2. the earth developed a crust about 3.9 billion years ago.

3. crude, primitive forms of life appeared shortly thereafter.

4. species have been evolving ever since.

5. dinosaurs became extinct many tens of millions of years ago, long before the first humans evolved.

 

[secularfuture]

Originally posted by seesaw
I believe that everything is like this.

1. the world coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago.

2. the earth developed a crust about 3.9 billion years ago.

3. crude, primitive forms of life appeared shortly thereafter.

4. species have been evolving ever since.

5. dinosaurs became extinct many tens of millions of years ago, long before the first humans evolved.

Ahh - you're no fun!
But you're absolutely right though.