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.