What's enough evidence?

[holycaveman]

Quiz for you guys/gals. First of all I emplor you. Study carbon dating. Second of all Take any science book and read the author. Now.... Look at where the author got his info from. Then take that info, find the author, and see where he gets his info from.....etc..

I did a reasearch on this and its endless. Most all thease selfproclaimed scientests don't do much work for themselves, they just read other scientests books which you are also doing. The fact is that you know nothing for yourself, you onlyknow what you read in the school books.

Carbon dating is a THEORY. Look up the definition of a theory. Basically its not PROVEN!

People use the evolution THEORY, because they can't believe a book that hasn't changed in over 2000 years, that has all types of geographical, ecoligical, proof.

Sounds kinda odd doesn't it. Scientists use theory, the bible has proof!!

Actually to be an evolutionists you have to have quite alot of faith!!

 

[Nightson]

Quiz for you guys/gals. First of all I emplor you. Study carbon dating. Second of all Take any science book and read the author. Now.... Look at where the author got his info from. Then take that info, find the author, and see where he gets his info from.....etc..

I did a reasearch on this and its endless. Most all thease selfproclaimed scientests don't do much work for themselves, they just read other scientests books which you are also doing. The fact is that you know nothing for yourself, you onlyknow what you read in the school books.

Science builds upon itself. That's the point, there's no need to research everything from the begining with each new scientist.These things were proposed, the were researched, they could have been falsified, they can still be falsified. Plenty of scientists do indeed do their own research, and everything verifies evolution. Without evolution, nothing in biology would make sense. The evidence for evolution can be looked at by anyone.

Carbon dating is a THEORY. Look up the definition of a theory. Basically its not PROVEN!

Nothing is proven, evolution just happens to have every piece of evidence towarsds it. As well as having been the foundation of an entire field of science. But because you asked me to look up the definition...

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

People use the evolution THEORY, because they can't believe a book that hasn't changed in over 2000 years, that has all types of geographical, ecoligical, proof.

Many people believe both, they are not contradictory.

Sounds kinda odd doesn't it. Scientists use theory, the bible has proof!!

Evolution and the Bible are easily reconciled.

Actually to be an evolutionists you have to have quite alot of faith!!

Actually evolution doesn't really require much faith at all. Would you mind answering the original quetion?

 

[michabo]

Second of all Take any science book and read the author. Now.... Look at where the author got his info from. Then take that info, find the author, and see where he gets his info from.....etc..

I did a reasearch on this and its endless.

You are a liar. Sorry mate, but I gotta tell it like it is. I don't think you did any research on this at all - you are just making it up.

You can start with Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" or Greene's "The Elegant Universe" which are meant to popularize science - just about as far removed from genuine science as it is possible to get. These aren't even textbooks! And still, they are citing primary sources!

Read Gould, who has written several books aimed at a lay audience where he goes back to the primary sources, even if they are several hundred years old and in other languages.

Or better yet, pick up Nature or Scientific American which are still general, but are all written by the authors of the original studies. If you want to get very technical, go to your library (may have to go to a University library) and pick up the Journal of Applied Physics or any of the other hundreds of journals, all of which will be filled with peer-reviewed primary sources.

Any school kid can discover this simple fact out. If you did "a research", you would have learned this, but you didn't, did you?

Most all thease selfproclaimed scientests don't do much work for themselves, they just read other scientests books which you are also doing. The fact is that you know nothing for yourself, you onlyknow what you read in the school books.

You must be thinking of the creationist works, which consist of quote mining real scientists, navel-gazing, and dreaming up ways to obfuscate their ideas so that no real scientist can ever pin them down to a genuine prediction.

I confess that my BSc is not in physics. I have only taken one year of Physics in University, but even then I conducted many experiments of my own to test theories. I have one friend with a BSc in Physics, and another with a PhD in Solid-State Physics, and I can tell you from them that it is a lot of hard work and they are expected to do their own experiments and not rely on books.

Carbon dating is a THEORY. Look up the definition of a theory. Basically its not PROVEN!

Are you a troll, or do you really believe this stuff? Who taught you about science - a pastor?

 

[holycaveman]

No Nightson, you have answered the questions already for me about yourself!


Realy I don't like to debate about trivial things like evolution. we are just typing lines on the net.

The CREATION of the world has always been obvious. As God says "The things that I have made are evident, so that every man is without excuse"

The truth is that scientists will never and havn't proven evolution. And creationism can not literely be proven now either. Otherwise you wouldn't have an argument about it. Christianity is based on faith. You either have it or you don't.

No more argument from me, just remember "every man is without excuse"

 

[Nightson]

No Nightson, you have answered the questions already for me about yourself!

Wesley: You're trying to trick me into giving something away. It won't work.
Vicini: It has worked! You've given everything away!

(couldn't resist)

so no answer to my original question.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Rant cut short...

Okay, could you name a few books you read in your research?

Could you give me the scientific definition of "theory"?

Could you not confuse science with atheism? Your fellow Christians might not like being called atheists.

 

[Beastt]

this is a misunderstanding of faith.
It is not opposed to reason but is built on reason and yet exceeds it.
it is not supposed to be irrational but extrarational.
So evidence is important and necessary except it is not sufficient.

....

This kind of word-play is quite common. But in the end, it really doesn't present an argument. "Extrarational"? Exceeds reason? How do you exceed reason? The only things which might be said to "exceed reason" can't be reasonable or they would simply fall within reason and not exceed it. Hence, only that which is not reasonable could be said to "exceed reason". But of course, that's the premise you're attempting to discredit.

The same thing goes for "extra-rational". Rational isn't some point short of rational. Therefore if you go beyond rational, you're not rational anymore. Terms like "extra-rational" are simply an attempt to present that which isn't rational as somehow superior to rationality. Perhaps the next time you take a multiple choice test and fail, you should try suggesting that your answers weren't opposed to correct, they were beyond correct, extra-correct or exceed mere correctness and see how many fall for the word-play.

 

[Beastt]

Some of the transitional fossils mentioned on that site have been refuted here-

Argument: The fossil record supports evolution- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter8.asp

The links are missing- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp

Those fossils are a problem-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.…
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Professor Stephen Jay Gould,
The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp.179-181.​

"On the fundamental level it becomes a rigorously demonstrable fact that there are no transitional types, and that the so called missing links are indeed non-existent."

Wolfgang Smith Ph.D.,
"Teilhardism and the New Religion". Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., p. 8
​

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material.

The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson,
Botanist and evolutionist, Lund University, Sweden​

"It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material.
The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."​

N. Heiribert-Nilsson,
Professor, Lund University, Sweden. Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species)

​

Before offering anything from Answers in Genesis as evidence of anything, you need to understand the premise from which they operate. This is right off their website and it tells you everything you need to know about their conclusions.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

That's pretty straight-forward. What is says is that no matter what evidence exists which is contrary to scripture, they automatically accept the claims of scripture over the evidence. They deem perfectly sound evidence as invalid, simply on the basis that it doesn't agree with scriptural presentations.

If I were to study fire, with the preconception that heat was not a primary element of fire, and that any evidence which suggested that it was is automatically wrong, how much do you suppose I'm going to learn about fire?

Answers in Genesis isn't dedicated to learning, science or even honesty. Their only true goal is to prove the Bible correct, even if it means, (and it does), throwing out irrefutable evidence, simply because it challenges their goal.

If I were to enter into a debate with you about anything, and my primary premise is that anything you present which refutes my point is, by virtue of the fact that it refutes my point, wrong; how much chance is there that you're going to convince me of anything? How much honesty am I practicing by using such a presupposition?

In short, AiG has no interest in facts. Their only interest is in attempting to prove the Bible right, even if that means throwing out inerrant evidence to the contrary.

 

[corvus_corax]

If I were to enter into a debate with you about anything, and my primary premise is that anything you present which refutes my point is, by virtue of the fact that it refutes my point, wrong; how much chance is there that you're going to convince me of anything? How much honesty am I practicing by using such a presupposition?

Why, Beastt, you'd be a liar. Or at least BLATANTLY dishonest.
Sadly, many will miss that point.

 

[Grengor]

Not if you point it out to them that that's exactly what he'd be doing.

 

[corvus_corax]

Not if you point it out to them that that's exactly what he'd be doing.

In that case, many will purposefully IGNORE the point and play the "that doesnt apply to ME" card
Sad but true.

 

[TrueCreation]

Accept evolution to be the best explanation based on the evidence for the origin of species, irrelevant to the origin of life or the universe, and not touching on the question of whether God guides evolution or not.

ok, well I then I 'accept evolution' in this context.. Nevertheless I am not an "evolutionist" (or a creationist). I accept that Evolution is the most well founded scientific explanation for life on earth and is rightly the consensus of scientists as the prevailing paradigm. Nevertheless I can and will continue to entertain young earth ideas without breaching scientific error.

-Chris Grose

 

[wagsbags]

Funny how have actually answered the OP. And yes I have personally studied radiocarbon dating. I'm a nuclear engineer so I've learned how half lives work and I've done the calculation to estimate the age of the earth. 20 or so different methods all come up with the same 13 billion (or whatever it is) years. I've studied it so I know that all the arguments against it are from ignorance, usually willful ignorance.

 

[TrueCreation]

Funny how have actually answered the OP. And yes I have personally studied radiocarbon dating. I'm a nuclear engineer so I've learned how half lives work and I've done the calculation to estimate the age of the earth. 20 or so different methods all come up with the same 13 billion (or whatever it is) years. I've studied it so I know that all the arguments against it are from ignorance, usually willful ignorance.

....what? Are you sure you've studied these subjects?

-Chris Grose

 

[wagsbags]

....what? Are you sure you've studied these subjects?

-Chris Grose

Well my notes were right upstairs last I checked so unless I'm horribly mistaken then yes, I'm sure.

 

[TrueCreation]

Well my notes were right upstairs last I checked so unless I'm horribly mistaken then yes, I'm sure.

Well you might want to know that (1) there are hardly 20 radioisotopic dating systems that can be applied to estimations of the age of the earth on the basis of (a) half-life and (b) the maintenance of closed-system behavior. And (2) 13 Ga is approximately the age of the universe determined by non-radioisotopic dating techniques. The estimated age of the earth from radioisotopic dating (of chondratic meteorites in particular) is approximately ~4.55 Ga.

Perhaps its been a while since you checked your notes

-Chris Grose

 

[wagsbags]

Well you might want to know that (1) there are hardly 20 radioisotopic dating systems that can be applied to estimations of the age of the earth on the basis of (a) half-life and (b) the maintenance of closed-system behavior. And (2) 13 Ga is approximately the age of the universe determined by non-radioisotopic dating techniques. The estimated age of the earth from radioisotopic dating (of chondratic meteorites in particular) is approximately ~4.55 Ga.

You're right I was thinking age of the universe. My bad. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page.%2016 about 3.6 for a rock from greenland. talkorigins.org gets 4.5 for the earth, remember these are lower limits.

20 was a guess from memory, the list in that link contains 12 so I only remembered wrong by a factor of two. Notice the very close agreement between the estimates. This is why creationists need to resort to changing half lives for them to still agree but be "wrong."

Perhaps its been a while since you checked your notes

-Chris Grose

Well it is summer

 

[Calminian]

Creationists, what would you consider enough evidence for you to accept evolution? Basically, tell us what you think would convince you. What one or multiple pieces of evidence it would take?

I think the question shows a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the debate.

1) Christians see the Bible as a very reliable testimony of history. (IOW it's a reliable source of evidence)

2) The Bible speaks of miracles that are somewhat outside the realm of scientific investigation.

I believe evolution is the best natural explanation available if there is no God and natural processes are never changed or added to. But when the question of God and the supernatural comes into the equation, other forms of evidence must be examined.

In order for me to embrace the evolutionary theory of origins, one would have to first show the Bible is unreliable.

 

[wagsbags]

So then you accept that the picture nature paints for us is a deception from God?

 

[nvxplorer]

1) Christians see the Bible as a very reliable testimony of history. (IOW it's a reliable source of evidence)

Of course, there is much debate among Christians as to the details.

I believe evolution is the best natural explanation available if there is no God and natural processes are never changed or added to. But when the question of God and the supernatural comes into the equation, other forms of evidence must be examined.

But we cannot examine the supernatural. The Bible only makes claims. It is not a supernatural entity unto itself.

In order for me to embrace the evolutionary theory of origins, one would have to first show the Bible is unreliable.

Many scientific theories have shown certain interpretations of the Bible to be unreliable. You can choose to accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution and reconsider your interpretation, or you can blind yourself to science.