What's enough evidence?

Illuminatus · Aug 22, 2005

SackLunch said:
God told us in the Bible that He created the universe and mankind directly, without evolution.

This, quite frankly, is a lie. Unless I've missed the verse in Genesis where God specifically and explicitly noted that he didn't use evolution. Maybe it's in the footnotes.

UniversalAxis · Aug 22, 2005

there are no footnotes, they're assuming more than is in the book of genesis; which is what they do.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Aug 22, 2005

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

And I think your post shows a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how a good proportion of Christians think.

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

No. The group of people who think this are not "Christians", they are "some Christians". It's an important distinction. Personally, I don't think there's much of what we moderns would call History prior to at least Samuel and Chronicles. I'm of the party that leans towards the belief that when the book of the law was "found" whilst spring cleaning the temple, the ink wasn't fully dry.

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

Yes, but we've been round this particular mulberry bush before, haven't we? We don't reject a miraculous six day creation because it's scientifically impossible; we reject it because it's scientifically falsified. Very different.

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.

And when the physical evidence falsifies the possible conclusions of those other forms of evidence - by which you mean Genesis 1-3, if "those other forms" are taken as literal history, what then? Do we let reality guide our conclusions, or do we insist the conclusions must be right and to hell with reality?

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

No, just accept Genesis 1-3 as being non-literal. Perfectly reliable for the purposes for which it was written, but not scientifically accurate.

Jet Black · Aug 22, 2005

TrueCreation said:
Nevertheless I can and will continue to entertain young earth ideas without breaching scientific error.

what justification do you have for entertaining young earth ideas?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 22, 2005

TrueCreation said:
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

There are young earth idea that don't breach scientific error?? What pray tell would those be?

FB

mikeski52 · Aug 22, 2005

I guess true transitional forms, with pictures, might sway me. Tho the only site I've found with pictures was a creationist website that showed some trilobyte (sp?) fossils that only showed microevolution and not macroevolution. keep in mind it wouldn't change my stance with God, so if that's what you're after then give it up.

random_guy · Aug 22, 2005

mikeski52 said:
I guess true transitional forms, with pictures, might sway me. Tho the only site I've found with pictures was a creationist website that showed some trilobyte (sp?) fossils that only showed microevolution and not macroevolution. keep in mind it wouldn't change my stance with God, so if that's what you're after then give it up.

I don't think anyone here is trying to get you to give up God. If they're like me, they just want to teach evolution. Evolution is not equal to atheism, and there are a lot of Christians who accept evolution as the best scientific theory of explaining the diversity of life.

Personally, I try to teach evolution (and science) because it's a wonderful tool used to study God's creation.

Link with pictures:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/buckna/eight.htm shows stegosaurs transitionals.

I'm sure more people here can point towards better pictures.

mikeski52 · Aug 22, 2005

random_guy said:
I don't think anyone here is trying to get you to give up God. If they're like me, they just want to teach evolution. Evolution is not equal to atheism, and there are a lot of Christians who accept evolution as the best scientific theory of explaining the diversity of life.

Personally, I try to teach evolution (and science) because it's a wonderful tool used to study God's creation.

Link with pictures:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/buckna/eight.htm shows stegosaurs transitionals.

I'm sure more people here can point towards better pictures.

I'm not quite sure I can accept these stegosaurus transitionals as true transitional forms. Firstly, the first one, Scelidosaurus, doesn't seem to have quite the same build as the other two; for instance, the neck curves up much more sharply than the other two (please refute this reasoning). Secondly, these don't show me enough steps of the evolutionary path to side with it. Fig 2, Huayangosaurus, does look like a mix between Fig 1 and Fig 2 (Stegosaurus), tho much much closer to Stego than to Scelid, yet this does not show that they are in fact the same creature at different points in evolutionary time. They could have been genetic cousins, like humans and apes. The way I see it, someone should be able to find a creature from 159.1 mya (166.1+152.1 / 2) that's a mix between Huayangosaurus and Stegosaurus. Also, Fig 2 and Fig 3 could be signs of microevolution, tho I don't know enough about microevolution to say that for sure.

Maybe I just need more transitional forms that show a more fluid/continuous path. How many more? I don't know.

AirPo · Aug 22, 2005

mikeski52 said:
I guess true transitional forms, with pictures, might sway me. Tho the only site I've found with pictures was a creationist website that showed some trilobyte (sp?) fossils that only showed microevolution and not macroevolution. keep in mind it wouldn't change my stance with God, so if that's what you're after then give it up.

Is that the scientific or creationist definition of macroevolution?

mikeski52 · Aug 22, 2005

AirPo said:
Is that the scientific or creationist definition of macroevolution?

Since it was a creationist website, it was probably the creationist definition I really don't know, it seems strange there'd be two separate definitions

Calminian · Aug 22, 2005

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

This is the basic flaw in logic I see so often in these forums. Just because one is deceived, doesn't prove he was deceived by someone else. When you break down this argument it is, in essence, saying all miracles are deceptive. This is very poor reasoning.

wagsbags · Aug 22, 2005

Poor reasoning? Looking at the evolution without a scriptual bias it very much looks like evolution happened. If God made everything then god made it look like evolution happened. If god made it look like it happened and it didn't then he is deceiving us. Pretty simple. Despite what creationists say the evidence is clear, god created a very strange world indeed if he made history look like it does and the earth is actually 6000 years old.

Calminian · Aug 22, 2005

nvxplorer said:
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.

Classic circular reasoning. Scientific theories cannot shed any light on the reported miracles of Genesis or any other biblical book. If the miracles indeed happened (and I believe there is much corroborative evidence they did) scientists working under naturalistic assumptions will misinterpret the evidence they find today. The debate is over presuppositions (a natural beginning vs. a supernatural beginning) which cannot be proven scientifically.

AirPo · Aug 22, 2005

mikeski52 said:
I guess true transitional forms, with pictures, might sway me. Tho the only site I've found with pictures was a creationist website that showed some trilobyte (sp?) fossils that only showed microevolution and not macroevolution. keep in mind it wouldn't change my stance with God, so if that's what you're after then give it up.

I was assuming that this was your conclusion.

mikeski52 said:
Since it was a creationist website, it was probably the creationist definition I really don't know, it seems strange there'd be two separate definitions

Not really. Creationists are not interest in presenting the fact accurately, but in presenting them in a way to support their position.

AirPo · Aug 22, 2005

Calminian said:
Classic circular reasoning. Scientific theories cannot shed any light on the reported miracles of Genesis or any other biblical book. If the miracles indeed happened (and I believe there is much corroborative evidence they did) scientists working under naturalistic assumptions will misinterpret the evidence they find today. The debate is over presuppositions (a natural beginning vs. a supernatural beginning) which cannot be proven scientifically.

To the extent that supernatural miracles affect the natural world, they can be, and have been, shown to be false.

Calminian · Aug 22, 2005

nvxplorer said:
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.

Classic circular reasoning. Scientific theories cannot shed any conclusive light on the reported miracles of Genesis or any other biblical book. If these world-wide miracles indeed happened (and I believe there is much corroborative evidence they did) scientists working under naturalistic assumptions will misinterpret the evidence they find today. The debate is over presuppositions (a natural beginning vs. a supernatural beginning) which cannot be proven scientifically.

This is not to say current scientific knowledge cannot contribute anything to the debate. But the real debate is over presuppositions which are only arrived at philosophically and by examining other types of evidence.

Calminian · Aug 22, 2005

Illuminatus said:
This, quite frankly, is a lie. Unless I've missed the verse in Genesis where God specifically and explicitly noted that he didn't use evolution. Maybe it's in the footnotes.

Wow that's a pretty easy one. In Genesis 1 he associates days with numbers which always means literal days. He also explains they consisted of days, nights, mornings and evenings. Morning and evening is especially significant as they don't represent time-periods but the close of time-periods. Evening (end of the day) and morning (end of the night).

But to remove all doubt, Moses adds an unequivocal footnote in Exodus 20.

8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 12

He gives us a frame of reference for the meaning of day in the jewish work week. As far as the author's intent goes, the debate is over.

Calminian · Aug 22, 2005

wagsbags said:
Poor reasoning? Looking at the evolution without a scriptual bias

If you don't have a scriptural bias then you have another bias be it some other religious/philosophical explanation or a naturalistic one. In spite of what Dan Rather tells you everyone has a bias. Problem is some refuse to admit it.

wagsbags said:
it very much looks like evolution happened.

If you come into the debate believing the universe had no miraculous beginning, yes it does appear evolution might be the best explanation. Im not a scientist, so cant say for certain. Some atheists believe aliens were responsible for much of earths creation. Ever listen to Art Bell? He's no baptist.

wagsbags said:
If God made everything then god made it look like evolution happened.

The classic flaw that never goes away. If Christ made some wine miraculously, naturalists would be fooled about its age. This doesnt prove Christ tried to deceive them. It only proves they refused to let go of a wrong presupposition.

wagsbags said:
If god made it look like it happened and it didn't then he is deceiving us.

Major flaw. God isnt obligated to put footnotes on rocks explaining how they were originally made. Yet he did so anyway in the Bible, and you choose to ignore it. If youre wrong, how can you blame anyone but yourself?

mikeski52 · Aug 22, 2005

wagsbags said:
Poor reasoning? Looking at the evolution without a scriptual bias it very much looks like evolution happened.

The exact same thing, but the other way around, can be said by creationists about evolutionists.

mikeski52 · Aug 22, 2005

AirPo said:
Not really. Creationists are not interest in presenting the fact accurately, but in presenting them in a way to support their position.

The exact same thing can be said by creationists about evolutionists.

Argh, I was hoping this would be a thread strictly about evolution, I guess I underestimated all the posters here.

What's enough evidence?

Draft the chickenhawks

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

with a Touch of Grey

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

with a Touch of Grey

with a Touch of Grey

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency