I wish evolution was true ... because I would have Wings

River Jordan · Feb 13, 2014

Arnie Manitoba said:
What you are really saying is Hovind is not a real scientist
You only say that because his evidence (theory) does not agree with yours

No, I'm saying that he's misrepresenting the facts. Does that matter to you?

You and Bill Nye do the exact same thing .... if the evidence does not agree with you , you proclaim the evidence is not real evidence ,

Hovind made specific claims about specific formations. Are you curious to find out if his claims are accurate?

And I have no idea what your point is in posting about mudslides. No one here is arguing that mudslides don't happen.

aspen · Feb 13, 2014

Arnie - Hovid? Com'mon - he is the least creditable of all creationists - anyone, but Hovid......all he wants is to be right and clever....ugh. Seriously, the guy could not explain mitosis - painful.

Arnie Manitoba · Feb 13, 2014

River Jordan said:
And I have no idea what your point is in posting about mudslides. No one here is arguing that mudslides don't happen.

Gee .... I thought it was about silt layers .... everyone keeps changing disguises

aspen said:
Arnie - Hovid? Com'mon - he is the least creditable of all creationists - anyone, but Hovid......all he wants is to be right and clever....ugh. Seriously, the guy could not explain mitosis - painful.

Next thing somebody is going to tell me is Mount St Helen's does not even exist. I was there for a brief time in a UH1 helicopter (not as pilot) ... Canada sent us down to survey the damage and see if we could assist

Trouble is the fine ash ruined the turbine blades the first day .... $200 grand for a new engine and they did not let us go back.

River Jordan · Feb 14, 2014

No Artie, the only one who brought up mud slides was you. And you didn't answer the question....are you interested in finding out if Hovind's claims about Mt St. Helens are accurate?

UppsalaDragby · Feb 14, 2014

River Jordan said:
I've noticed this pattern you have where you start off by dipping your toe into science-oriented arguments, but as soon as I start to shoot them down you pull your toe out and yell "BIBLE!! I HAVE MY BIBLE AND THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS!!"

If you're going to try and make scientifically-based arguments, then you need to see them through even if it turns out they're wrong.

So far, every time you try and step into the scientific arena and argue from that standpoint, you do terribly and mostly show that you don't really know much about the subject matter. Given that, and your response to this question, I don't understand why you feel so obviously compelled to try and make a scientific case for your religious beliefs. Is it because you crave the credibility that comes with the label "scientifically valid"?

Don't flatter yourself! You haven't shot anything down, all you are doing is advocating a belief that scientists are correct about things that are beyond the scope of science. And why shouldn't I bring the Bible into the discussion? If the testimony of the Bible is true then it is totally compatible with science.

And right before that scripture hints at how God created those things....by "letting the earth bring forth".

So? Isn't that the environment where plants and trees thrive the best?

And what does earth have to do with this?

You can wave it away as "whining" all you want, but the fact is "kind" is an undefined term, and as such is meaningless.

The term doesn't need to be defined in order to make my argument valid. The biblical evidence supports separation of different kinds of animals at creation. In THAT CONTEXT the word kind is sufficient because it describes the traits of each kind separately. So... continue whining.

Please show for each of those:
1) How I was taught that they are "fact" (e.g., lecture material, textbooks)
2) How you know they aren't "fact".

1) Even childrens books simply state that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago, and you can hardly watch a documentary about natural history where things like that are just assumed to be true. We are all taught that life originated in some kind of primeval slime even though scientific evidence teaches us that life only comes from life. Now you can pretend that you were totally unaffected by things like that, but you are not going to gain much credibility.

2) Nice try. I didn't say I knew they were not facts. But as far as we are concerned they are NOT facts until they are proven to be facts.

You're still not answering the question.

I DID answer the question, so don't pretend I didn't because you are too lazy to go back and find it.

All I'm doing is going by what you've posted. You stated, "Not only is radiometric dating based on a uniformitarian presupposition, it DOES have inconsistencies across methods". Now you appear to be trying to say "I don't know much about radiometric dating".
Which is it? Are you knowledgeable enough in radiometric dating methods to be able to judge its validity, or are you ignorant of the subject such that most of what you say about it isn't meaningful?

I am knowledgeable enough to make the statements I made. The fact that you haven't shown anything to disprove what I said shows you aren't knowledgeable enough to do so.

Were you present when the rocks being dated were created so that you can VERIFY the things that the Tulane paper cliams?

YES OR NO!

Do you know for a fact that there is nothing unaccounted for in the Tulane paper?

YES OR NO!

Your posts are showing otherwise.

Oh really, how?

What forum is that?

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?act=idx

Every time I've brought up annual layering, you claim that Mt St Helens shows how "25 feet of finely layered sediment" was produced in "a single afternoon". But every time I try and get you to explain further, you refuse.

Explain what further? That fact alone shows that layers of sediment are not necessarily annual.

So far you have merely hinted that the location of these layers somehow refutes that, but so far you have said nothing more than that.
Why?

So how did you come to know about this in the first place?

I don't remember the exact page but I found this:

http://nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html

“ Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the north slope of the volcano. ‘You’d expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old,’ says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist, ‘but this was cut in less than a decade. ” (National Geographic, May 2000, p. 121)

Why do you ask?

River Jordan · Feb 14, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
Don't flatter yourself! You haven't shot anything down, all you are doing is advocating a belief that scientists are correct about things that are beyond the scope of science.

I've shown that evolution of new species, traits, abilities, and genes are repeatedly observed facts. I've shown that transitional fossils between broad taxa exist. I've shown that there is a statistical correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny. I've shown that evolutionary relationships provide a basis for determining genetic functions. I've shown that AiG's statements about radiometric dating are wrong. I've shown that some (so far) of the evidence alleged to be supportive of a young earth isn't what the YEC's make it seem.

Now, I realize that you will probably wave all that away, but that doesn't change the facts.

And why shouldn't I bring the Bible into the discussion? If the testimony of the Bible is true then it is totally compatible with science.

Because you're trying to have it both ways. You start to argue about the science, but as soon as the discussion starts to turn against you, you jump frames and start arguing from your religious beliefs. This allows you to switch back and forth to suit your needs and avoid confronting inconvenient information.

If you want to discuss the science, then let's do so and stick to that. But if whenever the science doesn't support your position you're going to wave it away and say "BIBLE! BIBLE! BIBLE!", then just say so and we can save ourselves a lot of time.

So? Isn't that the environment where plants and trees thrive the best?

And what does earth have to do with this?

We both believe God created the earth and everything in it. Scripture says God created life on earth by "letting the earth bring forth". That's consistent with an evolutionary framework.

The term doesn't need to be defined in order to make my argument valid. The biblical evidence supports separation of different kinds of animals at creation. In THAT CONTEXT the word kind is sufficient because it describes the traits of each kind separately. So... continue whining.

Oh my goodness....did you really just say that? :blink:

"Just because I use a term that has no definition doesn't mean my argument that centers on that term is invalid" Geeeeeeeeez :lol:

1) Even childrens books simply state that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago, and you can hardly watch a documentary about natural history where things like that are just assumed to be true. We are all taught that life originated in some kind of primeval slime even though scientific evidence teaches us that life only comes from life. Now you can pretend that you were totally unaffected by things like that, but you are not going to gain much credibility.

2) Nice try. I didn't say I knew they were not facts. But as far as we are concerned they are NOT facts until they are proven to be facts.

No, no, no. I asked you to "specify exactly what I was taught "as a fact" that isn't really a fact." You answered "That dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago. That man evolved from apes. That we all come from a common ancestor. That life came from non-life."

You need to demonstrate exactly how you know I was taught those things as "facts" and how you know they really aren't. If you can't, just say so and we can dismiss your claims about my education.

I DID answer the question, so don't pretend I didn't because you are too lazy to go back and find it.

Nope, sorry....I looked through the thread and I see you acting like a guilty defendant on the witness stand. You claimed that you had "spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say". All I'm asking you is what "sides" you were talking about. Shouldn't take you more than 10 seconds to type up an answer. But instead, you're putting far more time and effort into not answering.

I think I know why that is, but I'll give you one more chance to answer what is a very, very simple question.

I am knowledgeable enough to make the statements I made.

You are? How? What have you studied about radiometric dating methods? Please understand how your claim of being knowledgeable on this subject is pretty questionable, given that a straightforward university website explaining the basics was beyond your comprehension abilities. And I even "dumbed it down" for you and you still don't seem to be able to understand.

The fact that you haven't shown anything to disprove what I said shows you aren't knowledgeable enough to do so.

I showed that AiG's statement that the methods require assumptions of the amount of daughter element and no subsequent infusion are wrong.

Were you present when the rocks being dated were created so that you can VERIFY the things that the Tulane paper cliams?

YES OR NO!

Do you know for a fact that there is nothing unaccounted for in the Tulane paper?

YES OR NO!

Seriously? "Were you there?" I understand how that seems like a good "gotcha" thing for Ken Ham to teach elementary school kids to say to those evil scientists, but.....you? Are you really going there?

Oh really, how?

You claimed to be saying things you "KNOW" about. Except your knowledge of some of these subjects is pretty thin.

And thanks to the link to the forum. I'll check it out.

Explain what further? That fact alone shows that layers of sediment are not necessarily annual.

So far you have merely hinted that the location of these layers somehow refutes that, but so far you have said nothing more than that.
Why?

Except no one has argued that "layers of sediment are necessarily annual". So I guess I don't understand why you keep bringing up Mt St Helens as some sort of rebuttal of things like lake varves. Are you operating from the misconception that "layers" is just some generic term, and that all you have to do is show that non-annual processes can produce layering, and therefore claims about seasonal layers are invalid?

I kept asking about the location so we could see what processes and resulting layers you were talking about.

I don't remember the exact page but I found this:

http://nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html

“ Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the north slope of the volcano. ‘You’d expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old,’ says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist, ‘but this was cut in less than a decade. ” (National Geographic, May 2000, p. 121)

Why do you ask?

Do you think that webpage presents a valid case for YEC?

And I was just curious.

justaname · Feb 14, 2014

Convincing arguments on both sides...yet I tend to fall more in the young earth camp...I guess I "evolved" from the Darwinian perspective, being I was indoctrinated through the American public schooling system believing what they taught us. Although I can say my faith does not hinge on either method God chose in creating us.

Argument: The universe does not look 6,000 years old.
Answer: God created it to look the way it does with the light from stars already traveled the distance through space, in other words God created a mature universe.

Argument: Carbon dating dating proves millions of years.
Answer: This method of dating is based on the assumption of an equilibrium of atmospheric differences "millions of years ago" and is scoffed at in the scientific community as unreliable.

Argument: Darwinism is fact and evolution is proven.
Answer: Darwinism is a hypothesis of unfilled gaps that Darwin himself said should be scraped if the gaps were not filled within a generation of his lifetime.

I will be the first to admit, I am no expert in the scientific fields of study. Yet that which is being spoon fed in the public educational system is far from fact and is false as Christopher Columbus being the first european in the Americas.

aspen · Feb 14, 2014

horsecamp said:
its evolutions humming deer

Be careful, the same guys who like to present these kind of pictures also think that God made bananas specially, to fit human hands.....

UppsalaDragby · Feb 14, 2014

River Jordan said:
I've shown that evolution of new species, traits, abilities, and genes are repeatedly observed facts.

I'm not sure what you mean by new traits and abilities. How do you know that these are "new" and were not dormant abilities and traits that were designed in the first place?

I've shown that transitional fossils between broad taxa exist.

No, you absolutely have not.

I've shown that evolutionary relationships provide a basis for determining genetic functions.

Really? What do you mean by "evolutionary relationships"?

I've shown that AiG's statements about radiometric dating are wrong.

No, you haven't.

I've shown that some (so far) of the evidence alleged to be supportive of a young earth isn't what the YEC's make it seem.

Again, no you haven't.

Now, I realize that you will probably wave all that away, but that doesn't change the facts.

What facts?

Because you're trying to have it both ways.

Why shouldn't I? What is preventing me from having it "both ways"?

You start to argue about the science, but as soon as the discussion starts to turn against you,

You haven't demonstrated anywhere that the discussion starts to turn against me.

you jump frames and start arguing from your religious beliefs.

I haven't jumped any "fames". You are merely trying to create a false dichotomy between what the Bible says and science.

This allows you to switch back and forth to suit your needs

Where have I done anything that you haven't done yourself?

and avoid confronting inconvenient information.

I haven't avioded confronting anything.

If you want to discuss the science, then let's do so and stick to that. But if whenever the science doesn't support your position you're going to wave it away and say "BIBLE, then just say so and we can save ourselves a lot of time.

Wow, for a Christian you really seem to have a lot of contempt for the BIBLE. I discuss whatever I want to discuss. I don't need your permission to discuss scripture on a Christain forum, do I? If you want to make the claim that science disagrees with the BIBLE then just provide the evidence, but you will fail miserably, just as you have done so far. I'm sorry my belief in the BIBLE upsets you, but that's just the way it is. I see the Bible as the truth, and you haven't given me any reason whatsoever to doubt the validity of the biblical account. Quite the opposite, because that Bible predicted the fact that people would attempt to undermine its testimony by appealing to hollow and deceptive philosophy.

We both believe God created the earth and everything in it. Scripture says God created life on earth by "letting the earth bring forth". That's consistent with an evolutionary framework.

No, scripture does not say that. All it says is "Let the land produce vegetation". Nothing there about "life". In order to make such an assertion you need to point out where scripture defines vegetation as life, and THEN you need to demonstrate where there scripture defines a relationship between plants and animals. Good luck doing so. And simply claiming that something is consistent with whatever you want to squeeze into the Bible does not mean that there is scriptural evidence for it.

Oh my goodness....did you really just say that?

Sure I did. Just as YOU claimed that the word species can be defined depending on what context is used, I use the context given in the Bible - Plants and trees, birds, sea creatures, land animals and mankind. There's your definition. Try and weasle your way around that.

You need to demonstrate exactly how you know I was taught those things as "facts" and how you know they really aren't. If you can't, just say so and we can dismiss your claims about my education.

You need to demonstrate that I was talking specifically about what you were taught and not generally about what is being taught around the entire planet. You are perfectly free to explain how you, unlike that rest of us, were brought up isolated in a bubble and just came to the realization that evolution was true (too bad you weren't born before Darwin!). If that is that case then sure, I will apologize for not recognizing that such an extremely rare case like that could actually happen.

"Nope, sorry....I looked through the thread and I see you acting like a guilty defendant on the witness stand."

Well, keep looking then.

"You claimed that you had "spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say". All I'm asking you is what "sides" you were talking about. Shouldn't take you more than 10 seconds to type up an answer. But instead, you're putting far more time and effort into not answering."

Perhaps... but why should I answer something that I have already answered before? It might be worth my time not to answer. You have no way of determining my motives. It just might be that I enjoy reading your vain accusations and get tired of dancing aroung trying to answer your questions. What's in it for me?

"I think I know why that is, but I'll give you one more chance to answer what is a very, very simple question."

Only one more chance? Oh please, please, please give me more chances!! :lol:

"You are? How? What have you studied about radiometric dating methods?"

Why do I need to study radiometric dating in order to understand that no one knows what conditions existed in the unobservable past?

"Seriously? "Were you there?" I understand how that seems like a good "gotcha" thing for Ken Ham to teach elementary school kids to say to those evil scientists, but.....you? Are you really going there?"

YES OR NO?? Is that too hard for you to answer?

"You claimed to be saying things you "KNOW" about. Except your knowledge of some of these subjects is pretty thin."

I said:

"what I KNOW in this context is that NO ONE living today was present to test and verify the claims that ANY scientists has made about the origin of the earth or the universe! In that respect it is NOT testable, repeatable or observable science."

What in the above comment do you consider to be "thin"?

"Except no one has argued that "layers of sediment are necessarily annual".

Your argument seemed to be that since you had observed seasonal layers that existed in tens of thousands of layers that the earth must be older than a few thousand years. If that wasn't your argument then please let me know what it actually was.

"I kept asking about the location so we could see what processes and resulting layers you were talking about."

Why? Sounds like a red herring to me... unless you can demonstrate that none of the layers that you claim to have observed could not have been formed by such processes. But hey, you weren't there at the time, so I guess you are out of luck.

River Jordan · Feb 15, 2014

Uppsala,

Like I said, I realize you have to deny all those things, but that doesn't change the facts. I'm going to put up a post in the debate forum about some basic facts around this issue, because I'm kinda tired of repeating myself here.

Regarding jumping back and forth between arguing from your religious beliefs and the science, it would help greatly if you would clarify your position. Are you arguing that evolutionary theory is scientifically incorrect? I understand that you believe it is antithetical to scripture, but I'm not clear on your scientific POV.

No, scripture does not say that. All it says is "Let the land produce vegetation". Nothing there about "life". In order to make such an assertion you need to point out where scripture defines vegetation as life

Oh my....plants aren't life now? Um..... :blink:

THEN you need to demonstrate where there scripture defines a relationship between plants and animals

It doesn't, and I never said it did. The Bible doesn't say anything about God creating microorganisms either, but I'd bet we both believe He did. See, I'm not expecting Genesis to give a full scientific blow by blow presentation on the precise methods God used to create every life form. It's not a research paper.

And again, as long as you cannot offer any meaningful definition of the word "kind", then any arguments you make centering on that term are equally meaningless. I mean, I could just make up the word "Athocaine", and argue that young-earth creationism is wrong because of the athocaine factor. What does athocaine mean? Meh...doesn't matter, right? :lol:

You need to demonstrate that I was talking specifically about what you were taught and not generally about what is being taught around the entire planet.

Does this mean you're not going to say anything more about my education and experience? Are we done with that whole thing? If you're not making any claims about my education and experience, then say so and we can move on.

Perhaps... but why should I answer something that I have already answered before? It might be worth my time not to answer.

Ok, let's take a look....

Post #77: You said: "Why, if what the Bible says is true, should I avoid speaking about science?? I became aware of this debate years and years ago and decided to have a look at what was being said by both sides."

Post #79: You said: "I approached this subject with an open mind. I have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say."

Post #80: I asked: "What from the "science side" did you study? Give specific citations if you can."

Post #81: You said: "Why would I need to study the "science side"? If the truth of origins is beyond the scope of science then why would I need to do that?"

Post #86: I asked: "Earlier you said that you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say" (about things like the fossil record, natural selection, the evolution of aerobic bacteria). But when I asked you to specify what from the science side you studied, you answered, "Why would I need to study the "science side"?" Can you explain your answer in light of your previous claim that you "looked at both sides"?"

Post #93: You said: "I haven't looked at one particular "science side". I tried to look at it from all side. What's your point?"

Post #94: I asked: "When you said you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say", what "sides" were you talking about?"

Post #96: You said: "What I meant was from both sides of this debate."

Post #97: I asked: "You're still not answering the question. You said you had "spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say". What are the two sides you studied? "

Post #105: You said: "I DID answer the question, so don't pretend I didn't because you are too lazy to go back and find it." And from then on you've claimed that you've answered the question.

That's the entire exchange you and I have had on this question. So can you point me to where in the above, you specified what "sides of this debate" you were talking about?

Why do I need to study radiometric dating in order to understand that no one knows what conditions existed in the unobservable past?

Maybe I'm a little crazy here, but I always figure that if you're going to criticize a method, that you actually first understand how that method is used. But hey, if your main argument against radiometric dating is Ken Ham's "were you there", I'll let that speak for itself.

And regarding that, if you truly think the only way we can draw valid conclusions is if we were actually there to see something happen....then I guess you'll be lobbying for the release of all prisoners convicted of crimes for which there were no eye witnesses?

Your argument seemed to be that since you had observed seasonal layers that existed in tens of thousands of layers that the earth must be older than a few thousand years.

Yes, that's one of the arguments against YEC. Now can you please explain what Mt St Helens has to do with lake varves?

unless you can demonstrate that none of the layers that you claim to have observed could not have been formed by such processes.

What processes?

UppsalaDragby · Feb 15, 2014

River Jordan said:
Uppsala,

Like I said, I realize you have to deny all those things, but that doesn't change the facts. I'm going to put up a post in the debate forum about some basic facts around this issue, because I'm kinda tired of repeating myself here.

Regarding jumping back and forth between arguing from your religious beliefs and the science, it would help greatly if you would clarify your position. Are you arguing that evolutionary theory is scientifically incorrect? I understand that you believe it is antithetical to scripture, but I'm not clear on your scientific POV.

My position is this: The Bible is a book of truth. Science is simply a method for us to explore the physical world. It is an attempt to attain truth. Since science only deals with physical evidence it can only acknowledge natural explanations. That is a kind of blindness. The fact that such a huge scientific community must agree on such explanations, and that it only gathers evidence for naturalistic explanations makes it appear that there are "mountains of evidence" for what they conclude, with only the "anti-scientific" in opposition to that.

Oh my....plants aren't life now? Um..... :blink:

That depends on what definition you use. Just because we define life the way we do does not mean that God does. The Bible tells us that the life of a creature is in its blood. Since plants don't have blood God makes a clear distinction between plants and animals.

It doesn't, and I never said it did.

No, but according to the theory of evolution both plants and animals have a common ancestor, so unless you disagree with that you are saying that, aren't you?

The Bible doesn't say anything about God creating microorganisms either, but I'd bet we both believe He did. See, I'm not expecting Genesis to give a full scientific blow by blow presentation on the precise methods God used to create every life form. It's not a research paper.

I know it is not a research paper. And you are free to use your imagination as much as you want concerning things that are not written in the Bible, but don't call it "science" and don't try to wedge it into the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible even hint at there being a common ancestor for all life, and I don't see any reason to assume that there was. What we can OBSERVE today is consistent with the biblical account. What has been conjured up in the minds of evolutionists is not, just as I have pointed out.

And again, as long as you cannot offer any meaningful definition of the word "kind", then any arguments you make centering on that term are equally meaningless. I mean, I could just make up the word "Athocaine", and argue that young-earth creationism is wrong because of the athocaine factor. What does athocaine mean? Meh...doesn't matter, right?

I CAN give a meaningful definition of the word "kind" and I HAVE given one. The reason you ignore this is because you are forced to to defend your hollow philosophy. A kind, in the context of this discussion, is one of the following: birds, sea creatures, land animals, mankind.

Your "athocaine" analogy fails completely. Let's say scripture tells us that the ark of the covenant is not empty because it contains a bag full of athocaine. Not knowing what athocaine is, we not have a definition for the word. But we can STILL be sure of that what God said is true - that the ark of the convenant is not empty. Similarly, I don't need to have a definition of kind in order to understand that God created birds, sea creatures, land animals, and mankind separately.

Does this mean you're not going to say anything more about my education and experience? Are we done with that whole thing? If you're not making any claims about my education and experience, then say so and we can move on.

I never said anything specific about your education in the first place, so what exactly do you mean by "anything more"? But sure, let's move on...

Ok, let's take a look....
Post #77: You said: "Why, if what the Bible says is true, should I avoid speaking about science?? I became aware of this debate years and years ago and decided to have a look at what was being said by both sides."
Post #79: You said: "I approached this subject with an open mind. I have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say."
Post #80: I asked: "What from the "science side" did you study? Give specific citations if you can."
Post #81: You said: "Why would I need to study the "science side"? If the truth of origins is beyond the scope of science then why would I need to do that?"
Post #86: I asked: "Earlier you said that you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say" (about things like the fossil record, natural selection, the evolution of aerobic bacteria). But when I asked you to specify what from the science side you studied, you answered, "Why would I need to study the "science side"?" Can you explain your answer in light of your previous claim that you "looked at both sides"?"
Post #93: You said: "I haven't looked at one particular "science side". I tried to look at it from all side. What's your point?"
Post #94: I asked: "When you said you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say", what "sides" were you talking about?"
Post #96: You said: "What I meant was from both sides of this debate."
Post #97: I asked: "You're still not answering the question. You said you had "spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say". What are the two sides you studied? "
Post #105: You said: "I DID answer the question, so don't pretend I didn't because you are too lazy to go back and find it." And from then on you've claimed that you've answered the question.

That's the entire exchange you and I have had on this question. So can you point me to where in the above, you specified what "sides of this debate" you were talking about?

Sure, post #93.

Maybe I'm a little crazy here, but I always figure that if you're going to criticize a method, that you actually first understand how that method is used. But hey, if your main argument against radiometric dating is Ken Ham's "were you there", I'll let that speak for itself.

Do so, I don't care. It is the truth, is it not? The only one who was present when the universe was created was God. If you want to believe that scientists have accounted for all possible sources of error backwards in time then do so. I'll let that speak for itself.

Furthermore, I never said that I know everything, or even know much. I'll leave the boasting to you. All I have said is that I have listened to what both sides have to say in this debate and do my best to take it into consideration. There is a missconception that people like you tend to exploit in discussions like this. You seem to imply that the truth about origins is accessible through science, and that only by drilling deep down into the woodwork we can find that truth, but you haven't once demonstrated why this has to be be the case. Why would such evidence be hidden in the minute details rather than be apparant. Evolutionists have had 150 years to prove their claims and they still have nothing substantial.

And regarding that, if you truly think the only way we can draw valid conclusions is if we were actually there to see something happen....then I guess you'll be lobbying for the release of all prisoners convicted of crimes for which there were no eye witnesses?

No eye witnesses?? The same "eye witness" who was present when the universe was created is also present when these crimes are commited. The reason we have a law court to determine crimes is because that is the best thing we have - short of God. Similarly, the reason we have science to navigate the physical world is that it is the best thing we have - short of God!

Yes, that's one of the arguments against YEC. Now can you please explain what Mt St Helens has to do with lake varves?

I thought you said you were a scientist. Are you trying to tell me that the lake you were discussing has existed for tens of thousands of years?

What processes?

Processes that produce multiple layers... of course.

River Jordan · Feb 15, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
My position is this: The Bible is a book of truth. Science is simply a method for us to explore the physical world. It is an attempt to attain truth. Since science only deals with physical evidence it can only acknowledge natural explanations. That is a kind of blindness. The fact that such a huge scientific community must agree on such explanations, and that it only gathers evidence for naturalistic explanations makes it appear that there are "mountains of evidence" for what they conclude, with only the "anti-scientific" in opposition to that.

Your answer leads me to conclude that the whole evolution vs. YEC thing first and foremost is, and always will be, a faith issue for you. That's because when asked "are you arguing that evolution is scientifically incorrect", the first thing you say is "The Bible is a book of truth". That would seem to mean that even if scientifically, evolution is shown to be true and YEC false, your position wouldn't change because your framework is "The Bible is a book of truth".

If that's the case, then I am right in concluding that there's absolutely nothing to be gained by trying to discuss the science with you.

No, but according to the theory of evolution both plants and animals have a common ancestor, so unless you disagree with that you are saying that, aren't you?

Yes, just as I'm saying that bacteria exist, even though the Bible makes no mention of their existence, let alone their creation.

I know it is not a research paper. And you are free to use your imagination as much as you want concerning things that are not written in the Bible, but don't call it "science" and don't try to wedge it into the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible even hint at there being a common ancestor for all life, and I don't see any reason to assume that there was. What we can OBSERVE today is consistent with the biblical account. What has been conjured up in the minds of evolutionists is not, just as I have pointed out.

By using the Genesis creation accounts as your primary determinant of things like the validity of evolution, you are using it as a research paper. And your statement that we can't use science to address things that aren't in the Bible is just bizarre.

And given your previous clarification that your primary basis for everything related to this topic is "The Bible is a book of truth" coupled with your ignorance of much of the science, it's totally unsurprising to see you make such sweeping accusations against scientists...."conjured up", as if they're just making stuff up.

I CAN give a meaningful definition of the word "kind" and I HAVE given one. The reason you ignore this is because you are forced to to defend your hollow philosophy. A kind, in the context of this discussion, is one of the following: birds, sea creatures, land animals, mankind.

So what are amphibians?

Sure, post #93.

So your answer to my question about what sides you have studied is "all sides"? Do you seriously think that's helpful? Why do you have to play such evasive games?

Does "all sides of this issue" include science? If so, what specifically from science have you studied?

Do so, I don't care. It is the truth, is it not? The only one who was present when the universe was created was God.

Again, I really do appreciate you definitively and clearly explaining what this is all about for you.

There is a missconception that people like you tend to exploit in discussions like this. You seem to imply that the truth about origins is accessible through science, and that only by drilling deep down into the woodwork we can find that truth, but you haven't once demonstrated why this has to be be the case. Why would such evidence be hidden in the minute details rather than be apparant. Evolutionists have had 150 years to prove their claims and they still have nothing substantial.

Again you make a broad statement about the state of the science. Given everything above, I have to wonder, how do you know what the state of the science is? Have you actually looked to see if there is "anything substantial" within evolutionary biology? If so, where specifically have you looked?

No eye witnesses?? The same "eye witness" who was present when the universe was created is also present when these crimes are commited. The reason we have a law court to determine crimes is because that is the best thing we have - short of God. Similarly, the reason we have science to navigate the physical world is that it is the best thing we have - short of God!

So should scientists just stop what they're doing? We shouldn't have ever looked beneath the surface of the earth, measured isotopes, dug up fossils, sequenced and compared genomes, etc.?

I thought you said you were a scientist. Are you trying to tell me that the lake you were discussing has existed for tens of thousands of years?

Processes that produce multiple layers... of course.

I'm trying to figure out why you brought up Mt St Helens in response to my description of lake varves. Are you arguing that they're similar? If so, how? Is it merely that they show layering? If so, are you trying to argue that all geologic layering is the same?

However, if this really doesn't matter to you because no matter what the lake varves show, "The Bible is a book of truth", then I understand.

UppsalaDragby · Feb 15, 2014

River Jordan said:
Your answer leads me to conclude that the whole evolution vs. YEC thing first and foremost is, and always will be, a faith issue for you. That's because when asked "are you arguing that evolution is scientifically incorrect", the first thing you say is "The Bible is a book of truth". That would seem to mean that even if scientifically, evolution is shown to be true and YEC false, your position wouldn't change because your framework is "The Bible is a book of truth".

If that's the case, then I am right in concluding that there's absolutely nothing to be gained by trying to discuss the science with you.

The evolution vs YEC thing is a faith issue for you too, so I don't get your point. I have already pointed out that if evolution was shown to be true then I would accept that, but so far it hasn't, so you can keep your insinuations to yourself. I asked you earlier on a similar question about your faith in Christ and Jesus resurrection and you claimed that you would believe in what scripture said. A tad hypocritical, n'est pas?

Yes, just as I'm saying that bacteria exist, even though the Bible makes no mention of their existence, let alone their creation.

What does the existence of bacteria have to do with this? You might as well throw in the fact that kitchen sinks exist. The fact remains that the Bible refers to separate kinds created at different times.

By using the Genesis creation accounts as your primary determinant of things like the validity of evolution, you are using it as a research paper. And your statement that we can't use science to address things that aren't in the Bible is just bizarre.

Believing in the testimony of scripture is not using it as a research paper. A research paper is the result of research. The Bible is an account of what God said and what became. It is not a result of his research.

And I never made such a "statement", so please don't be so blatently dishonest. In fact, what I said was "you are free to use your imagination as much as you want concerning things that are not written in the Bible, but don't call it "science" and don't try to wedge it into the Bible."

And given your previous clarification that your primary basis for everything related to this topic is "The Bible is a book of truth" coupled with your ignorance of much of the science, it's totally unsurprising to see you make such sweeping accusations against scientists...."conjured up", as if they're just making stuff up.

I don't care whether or not you call me ignorant. I have shown you that the truth of origins is only available to the only one who was there at the time. Unless you acknowledge that then you have no business calling anyone else ignorant.

So what are amphibians?

There is no Hebrew word for amphibian and the taxonomies that we use today were not used in the Bible, so how should I know? And why would it matter? What is significant in this discussion is the fact that God says "according to their various kinds" 10 times in Genesis 1, and that it separates the creation of some of those kinds at different times during the creation week.

So your answer to my question about what sides you have studied is "all sides"? Do you seriously think that's helpful? Why do you have to play such evasive games?

The only one who is being evasive here is you. I told you exactly what I have done and you just keep harping on like a parakeet about this. Don't talk to me about playing games.

Again, I really do appreciate you definitively and clearly explaining what this is all about for you.

I like it. It's what I do... so what's your point?

Again you make a broad statement about the state of the science. Given everything above, I have to wonder, how do you know what the state of the science is? Have you actually looked to see if there is "anything substantial" within evolutionary biology? If so, where specifically have you looked?

What's wrong with making broad statements? You do so all the time. Why do you make broad statements?

I have repeatedly asked proponents of evolution to present "anything substantial" and just keep repeating the same kinds of things that you do, which is make assumptions based on your preconceptions of how life evolved from a common ancestor. You assume that similarities between animals are due to evolution. Is that "substantial"?

So should scientists just stop what they're doing?

No, but no one should be presenting the theoretical aspects of what they believe as if they were facts.

We shouldn't have ever looked beneath the surface of the earth, measured isotopes, dug up fossils, sequenced and compared genomes, etc.?

You see this is the kind of ignorance that really exposes what you are all about. Your constant exaggerations are a little boring.

I'm trying to figure out why you brought up Mt St Helens in response to my description of lake varves. Are you arguing that they're similar? If so, how? Is it merely that they show layering? If so, are you trying to argue that all geologic layering is the same?

You haven't demonstrated that what you "observed" were actually lake varves. Are you still trying to pretend that
the same lake has existed for tens of thousands of years?

However, if this really doesn't matter to you because no matter what the lake varves show, "The Bible is a book of truth", then I understand.

What? Where did I bring up the Bible in the discussion about lake varves? Or is this just another feeble attempt to mock faith in scripture?

BTW, have you signed up at the forum I referred to?

snr5557 · Feb 15, 2014

I think this is the best thread to put this into, since the original one was closed because there are already so many threads on here about evolution. If anyone thinks this should be in another thread on here let me know so I can move it there and delete this entry.

"Rather than repeating myself ad nauseum in multiple threads, I thought I'd go ahead and post a few things that are observed facts. So from here on I can just refer to this post rather than having to dig up the same things over and over.

There is a mix of technical articles and more layperson friendly material. If anyone wants additional information (or if some of the links don't work), let me know!

Fact #1 The Evolution of New Species

(keep in mind, "fish", "bird", "monkey" etc. are not examples of "species", and "a frog turning into a lizard" is not speciation....if you think it is, the problem isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it)

Finches

http://www.pnas.org/...1/12/0911761106

South Atlantic Island Finches

http://www.sciencema...t/315/5817/1420

Fruit flies

http://www.ncbi.nlm....2&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm....1&dopt=Abstract

Whiptail lizards (in the lab)

http://www.pnas.org/...108.short?rss=1

Cichlids

http://www.ncbi.nlm....5&dopt=Abstract

Cicadas

http://www.ncbi.nlm....8&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm....5&dopt=Abstract

Yeast

http://www.ncbi.nlm....6&dopt=Abstract

Bacteria

http://www.ncbi.nlm....7&dopt=Abstract

Goatsbeard

http://www.amjbot.or...tract/91/7/1022

Sparrows

http://onlinelibrary...5183.x/abstract

Apple maggot fly (in the process)

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.pnas.org/...02/suppl_1/6573

Hybrid speciation

http://scienceblogs....trikes_agai.php

Fact #2 The Evolution of New Traits, Abilities, and Genetic Sequences (i.e., "new genetic information")

(there are waaaaaaaaaaay more than this, but the following is sufficient to make the point)

Evolution of beneficial mutations, parallel evolution, and new traits

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17691099

Rapid evolution of structures in introduced lizards

http://www.pnas.org/...act/105/12/4792

Evolution of chimeric genes in yeast

http://mbe.oxfordjou...nt/15/8/931.pdf

Evolution of multicellularity in lab

http://www.ingentaco...000002/00171545

Experimental evolution of multicellularity in yeast

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595

Evolution of new genes

http://www3.uta.edu/...ublications.htm

http://www.nature.co...bs/nrg1204.html

Origin and evolution of new exons in rodents

http://www.genome.or...tract/15/9/1258

Fact 3# Transitional Fossils Between Taxa

(a "transitional fossil" is a specimen that shows a mixture of characteristics of different taxa, and again this is hardly a complete list but is sufficient to make the point)

Intermediate Fossils

http://www.asa3.org/...ces/Miller.html

Sinosauropteryx (4 complete skeletons)

http://www.nature.co...l/391147a0.html

Caudipteryx (5 nearly complete skeletons)

http://www.nature.co...l/393753a0.html

Protarchaeopteryx (2 specimens)

http://www.paleoglot...es/ji&ji_97.pdf

Theropod with avian lung features

http://www.nature.co...ature03716.html

Dilong

http://en.wikipedia....ilong_paradoxus

Mahakala

http://blogs.discove...rs-beyond-cute/

Pre-Cambrian to Cambrian transitional fossils

http://www.asa3.org/...-97Miller2.html

http://www.asa3.org/...3-01Morton.html

Pre-Cambrian proto-mollusk

http://www.ucmp.berk...kimberella.html

Cambrian transitional between halkieriids and wiwaxiids

http://www.sciencema...t/315/5816/1255

Reptiles to mammals

http://palaeos.com/v....html#Synapsida

Yanoconodon (transitional between reptiles and mammals)

http://www.nature.co...ature05627.html

Fossilized eye muscles showing transitional state

http://journals.roya...7m1711432025rn/

Fact #4 The Utility of Evolutionary Theory

(showing how using an evolutionary framework allows for accurate interpretation of data)

Using evolution to determine gene function

http://blogs.discove...ats-a-gene-for/

PLOS paper for above

http://compbiol.plos...al.pcbi.0010045

Evolutionary Genomics

http://www.genome.du...h/evolutionary/

Fact #5 Beneficial Mutations

Increase in life span and limited tumor growth

http://www.sciencema...3/5789/971?etoc

Evolution of resistance in HIV

http://scholar.googl... resistance HIV

Resistance in weeds

http://www.weedscien...ReferenceID=623

Resistance to male sex pathogen

http://www.sciencema...ct/317/5835/214

Evolution of “hyperswimmers” in bacteria

http://www.cell.com/...1247(13)00388-4

Fact #6 Mathematical Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Statistical Test of Universal Common Ancestry

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20463738

http://news.national...ingle-ancestor/

Fact #7 Many Christians Accept Evolution as True

http://theclergylett...hrClergyLtr.htm

I think that's enough for now. If I find myself repeating other things over and over, I'll add to this list."

River Jordan · Feb 15, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
The evolution vs YEC thing is a faith issue for you too, so I don't get your point. I have already pointed out that if evolution was shown to be true then I would accept that, but so far it hasn't, so you can keep your insinuations to yourself.

Yet at the same time you set up impossible standards before evolution can be shown to be true ("were you there"). So in the absence of time travel, it's a settled issue for you, isn't it?

I asked you earlier on a similar question about your faith in Christ and Jesus resurrection and you claimed that you would believe in what scripture said. A tad hypocritical, n'est pas?

Not at all. Christ's resurrection is exclusively supernatural, and is therefore purely a matter of faith. The diversity of life however is not exclusively supernatural. We see the processes going on today and its history has left behind very tangible evidences that we can draw conclusions from. Plus scripture teaches that God created by letting things happen, which points to a more natural process. It's the same as the origin of mountains and wind question. Even though scripture teaches that God creates mountains and wind, we can look at those things and figure out the natural mechanisms responsible.

What does the existence of bacteria have to do with this? You might as well throw in the fact that kitchen sinks exist. The fact remains that the Bible refers to separate kinds created at different times.

But it doesn't say they're not related in any way. Evolution holds that plants and animals arose at different times... so does scripture.

Believing in the testimony of scripture is not using it as a research paper. A research paper is the result of research. The Bible is an account of what God said and what became. It is not a result of his research.

When you rely on scripture as a rebuttal to scientific research, you are using scripture in that context....a context it was never intended to be in.

I don't care whether or not you call me ignorant. I have shown you that the truth of origins is only available to the only one who was there at the time. Unless you acknowledge that then you have no business calling anyone else ignorant.

There ya' go. Up above you said you would accept evolution as true if it was shown to be so, and here you show that the only way you'll accept is if you see it yourself. So please understand that I don't see any point in trying to discuss science much with you.

And ignorance is not a bad thing. We all have far more subjects that we're ignorant in than ones we're knowledgeable in. The key is recognizing which is which.

There is no Hebrew word for amphibian and the taxonomies that we use today were not used in the Bible, so how should I know? And why would it matter? What is significant in this discussion is the fact that God says "according to their various kinds" 10 times in Genesis 1, and that it separates the creation of some of those kinds at different times during the creation week.

But are amphibians water creatures or land creatures?

The only one who is being evasive here is you. I told you exactly what I have done and you just keep harping on like a parakeet about this. Don't talk to me about playing games.

Meh....

"I've studied both sides of the issue"

What sides?

"All sides"

What sides are those?

"I already told you"

Where?

"All sides"

Nah....no game playing going on there.

What's wrong with making broad statements? You do so all the time. Why do you make broad statements?

Do you think you're qualified to make broad statements about the state of evolutionary biology? If so, on what basis? If not, why do you make such statements?

I have repeatedly asked proponents of evolution to present "anything substantial" and just keep repeating the same kinds of things that you do, which is make assumptions based on your preconceptions of how life evolved from a common ancestor. You assume that similarities between animals are due to evolution. Is that "substantial"?

Given that for you this is a faith issue and that the only thing you view as "substantial" is "someone being there", the above is hardly surprising.

You haven't demonstrated that what you "observed" were actually lake varves. Are you still trying to pretend that
the same lake has existed for tens of thousands of years?

Before I could even really being to talk about that field work, you brought up Mt St Helens. So again....why did you bring up Mt St Helens in response to my description of lake varves? Are you arguing that they're similar? If so, how? Is it merely that they show layering? If so, are you trying to argue that all geologic layering is the same?

What? Where did I bring up the Bible in the discussion about lake varves? Or is this just another feeble attempt to mock faith in scripture?

Do you process the scientific conclusion of lake varves showing tens of thousands of years of history by first considering it through your interpretation of scripture only showing a 6,000 year history of earth?

BTW, have you signed up at the forum I referred to?

Not yet. I probably will though.

UppsalaDragby · Feb 16, 2014

River Jordan said:
Yet at the same time you set up impossible standards before evolution can be shown to be true ("were you there"). So in the absence of time travel, it's a settled issue for you, isn't it?

No, we have a reliable witness who was there and who has given his testimony about what happened. The fact that you prefer to believe in those who weren't there simply shows that you don't believe in him and don't listen to his voice.

Not at all. Christ's resurrection is exclusively supernatural, and is therefore purely a matter of faith. The diversity of life however is not exclusively supernatural. We see the processes going on today and its history has left behind very tangible evidences that we can draw conclusions from. Plus scripture teaches that God created by letting things happen, which points to a more natural process. It's the same as the origin of mountains and wind question. Even though scripture teaches that God creates mountains and wind, we can look at those things and figure out the natural mechanisms responsible.

The fact that there are processes going on today does not mean that creation itself was not exclusively supernatural. And you are still using scripture over and above what scientists say to determine your beliefs in one instance and doing the opposite in the other, all the while displaying contempt for those who go the whole mile. Furthermore, you are picking out one word to support your belief in evolution and ignoring the rest. Just as I pointed out the Bible separates the creation of different kinds of animals and describes their creation as separate events divided by intervals of days. There is nothing in the account that supports common descent, or that mankind shared his ancestry with apes. You have been deceived and exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

But it doesn't say they're not related in any way. Evolution holds that plants and animals arose at different times... so does scripture.

As well as the fact that it would be odd that God did not give the slightest hint of any relationship between plants and animals and so on, the time scales involved are vastly different. What you, and everyone else whose ambition is to manipulate scripture to make it agree with their own beliefs is to suggest that an "interpretation" is necessary rather that a simply plain reading of the text. It is the old "Did God really say" kind of deception at work again. You can fall for it if you want, but you will eventually have to give an account to him who created mankind in his image why you are trying to sow seeds of doubt into the minds of believers.

When you rely on scripture as a rebuttal to scientific research, you are using scripture in that context....a context it was never intended to be in.

Who told you there were contexts in which scripture should be ignored?

There ya' go. Up above you said you would accept evolution as true if it was shown to be so, and here you show that the only way you'll accept is if you see it yourself. So please understand that I don't see any point in trying to discuss science much with you.

The fact that science as a tool does not have the ability to provide what we need in order to determine the truth in this matter is unfortunate, but that is just the way it is. However, I don't even find the evolutionists explanations particularly convincing. In fact, I see it as an incredible leap of faith.

And ignorance is not a bad thing. We all have far more subjects that we're ignorant in than ones we're knowledgeable in. The key is recognizing which is which.

Exactly, and the problem is that not only that we don't know everything, in many cases we don't really know how much we know, because we don't know how much we don't know. People seem very impressed by how much scientists have been able to discover, and so am I, but there is a danger in letting the amount of knowledge amassed get thrown out of proportion. There is also a risk involved with the common notion that since science is "self-correcting" we are constantly moving closer and closer towards the truth. The fact however could be the exact opposite. The existance of one significant unknown detail could be enough to topple a countless number of "convincing" evidences.

But are amphibians water creatures or land creatures?

Probably water creatures, but as I said, there is no Hebrew word for amphibian, so it is impossible to tell.

Meh....
"I've studied both sides of the issue"
What sides?
"All sides"
What sides are those?
"I already told you"
Where?
"All sides"
Nah....no game playing going on there.

I don't get your point. Why does looking att all sides of this debate equate to playing games. Again, it is you who is playing games simply by doing what you are doing now - pulling quotes out of context and not even explaining what you are trying to get at.

Do you think you're qualified to make broad statements about the state of evolutionary biology? If so, on what basis? If not, why do you make such statements?

What particular broad statements are you talking about?

Before I could even really being to talk about that field work, you brought up Mt St Helens. So again....why did you bring up Mt St Helens in response to my description of lake varves? Are you arguing that they're similar? If so, how? Is it merely that they show layering? If so, are you trying to argue that all geologic layering is the same?

Where did I make the argument that all geologic layering is the same? You brought up lake varves, and you certainly seemed to be arguing that all the layers you saw were lake varves, so why are you trying to throw the burden back at me?

Do you process the scientific conclusion of lake varves showing tens of thousands of years of history by first considering it through your interpretation of scripture only showing a 6,000 year history of earth?

What scientific conclusion? All you did was make a claim - a claim that is full of holes. I don't consider that to be science.

Not yet. I probably will though.

Please let me know when you do.

aspen · Feb 16, 2014

oh dear.....

it really troubles me to watch Christians with their backs against the wall - really, no sarcasm intended ......makes me wonder if dismantaling a fundamentalist need for security serves the greater good. perhaps some people need a concrete narritive in order to invest in their sjanctification, River? i understand that demands for literalism may drive people away, but what about the people that need it?

i have

River Jordan · Feb 16, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
No, we have a reliable witness who was there and who has given his testimony about what happened. The fact that you prefer to believe in those who weren't there simply shows that you don't believe in him and don't listen to his voice.

So yeah....we're definitely done talking about this in any sort of scientific context.

The fact that there are processes going on today does not mean that creation itself was not exclusively supernatural.

Do you apply that reasoning to the formation of mountains? Scripture clearly says that God creates mountains, yet we see "processes going on today" that also create mountains. Using the logic you are applying to scripture and the creation of species, you must therefore deny volcanism and plate tectonics. Anything else is hypocritical.

And you are still using scripture over and above what scientists say to determine your beliefs in one instance and doing the opposite in the other

First, science doesn't say anything about the resurrection of Christ. Second, if we saw people resurrecting after being dead for 3 days, you would have a point.

Just as I pointed out the Bible separates the creation of different kinds of animals and describes their creation as separate events divided by intervals of days. There is nothing in the account that supports common descent, or that mankind shared his ancestry with apes. You have been deceived and exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

Just as there's nothing in scripture about amphibians or bacteria. So I guess their existence is also a lie?

What you, and everyone else whose ambition is to manipulate scripture to make it agree with their own beliefs is to suggest that an "interpretation" is necessary rather that a simply plain reading of the text. It is the old "Did God really say" kind of deception at work again.

All scripture requires interpretation. Even reading in the original ancient Hebrew is an interpretive art. Trying to say otherwise is just ridiculous. If you want a good demonstration of that fact, then explain how you reconcile a 100% literal reading of the two different creation accounts, without adding or assuming anything.

You can fall for it if you want, but you will eventually have to give an account to him who created mankind in his image why you are trying to sow seeds of doubt into the minds of believers.

I wondered how long it would be before you played the "You'll see when you stand before God" card. Took you longer than I thought.

Who told you there were contexts in which scripture should be ignored?

?????? I think you missed the point entirely. By using scripture as a means to rebut scientific research, you are putting scripture in a context it was not intended to be in. If the Genesis accounts were meant to be in that context, surely they would have made some mention of genetics.

Probably water creatures, but as I said, there is no Hebrew word for amphibian, so it is impossible to tell.

There ya' go. If a "clear reading of scripture" doesn't tell you what "kind" amphibians are, then we're left to try and figure it out for ourselves, aren't we?

I don't get your point. Why does looking att all sides of this debate equate to playing games. Again, it is you who is playing games simply by doing what you are doing now - pulling quotes out of context and not even explaining what you are trying to get at.

When you said you had "looked at all sides of this debate", I figured that would have included something from the "science side". So I asked you what specifically from the science side you had studied, and that's when you got all weird and was like "who said anything about science". I just wanted to know what specifically you had studied from science. That's all.

Please let me know when you do.

I'm in.

aspen said:
it really troubles me to watch Christians with their backs against the wall - really, no sarcasm intended ......makes me wonder if dismantaling a fundamentalist need for security serves the greater good. perhaps some people need a concrete narritive in order to invest in their sjanctification, River? i understand that demands for literalism may drive people away, but what about the people that need it?

That's a good question. I don't of what I'm doing as trying to have people give up the emotional security that comes from fundamentalism, as much as to try and get them to stop directly tying demonstrably false things to Christianity. But I realize there's a fine line between the two, and sometimes it can go too far.

Thanks for a very astute observation.

Quantrill · Feb 16, 2014

Evolutionist scientist G.A. Kerkut stated that evolution is based upon 7 basic assumptions which are unproven and unproveable.

1. that non-living thins give rise to living material.

2. that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3.that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled lilfe forms).

5. that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6.that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertabratres.

7. that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

One can google Kerkuts 7 assumptions and locate them in several places.

The faith of evolution.

Quantrill

River Jordan · Feb 16, 2014

That may have been the case over half a century ago, but believe it or not science has progressed a bit since then.

I wish evolution was true ... because I would have Wings

Well-Known Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus Christ

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads