Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Explains Everything - Doesn't It


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#61 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:25 PM

Thanks Arch,

Since your going to ignore the post Adam provided as well,please refer to the "Young Earth Age Correlations" thread.

Way more info. than you'll ever need and i'm not finished with it yet.

#62 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:32 PM

Well done mate. All you did with this post was say "no it isn't, no it isn't, that's an interpretation, no it isn't".

View Post


Yes, I refuted error, and I was correct in my refutation.

It's all well and good to shoot down ideas (it's so good it's even part of the scientific method), but it's much more difficult to replace something with a better idea.


In science this is true, but science isn't the only field of ideas, is it?

Do you have any evidence for shooting down Kieth's proposed ideas,


Yes. Be specific about a particular idea, and I will adress it. This forum i sfull of evidence on specific topics. I'm sure I/we could accomodate it.

and do you have something better to replace the ideas with?


Yes, In science....

Catastrophism is a much better idea as compared to uniformitarianism. This approach is growing in strength within the scientific field. Most scientists already beleive in global catastrophies, they just wouldn't consider a flood, because it is religious.

Biogenesis stands in opposition to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has no evidence, while biogenesis is a universal law. It's nothing more than philosophical faith that drives abiogenesis.

That's just two examples...I could go on....

Outside of science......

Biblical creation is a better idea, and has much support among the mainstream. It is supported by Chritianity, Judaism, and Islam. That's a much larger population than the science mainstream. (ad populum) :huh: Of course, that's why you joined this forum. To learn about thought processes that are outside of science. There are other logical fields of thought you know.


Regards,

Don

#63 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:35 PM

You should check this out:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=28586

View Post


Hey Adam, now that's some seriously interesting stuff. I'll be interested to see if any evolutionists respond to you in that thread.

This is the kind of response I was looking for. Some evidence that supports a 6000 year old earth, rather than just refuting what other evidence shows. Cheers :huh:

Regards,

Arch.

#64 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:35 PM

One of the simple facts about the fossil record is that there has been change through time of the dominant land fauna.  Amphibians were first, then reptiles, dinosaurs and finally mammals.  During each of these 'waves', the size of the largest creatures of each type increased through time because large size and strength favored survival.  Humans seem to have recently killed off most of the large animals on most continents - moas in New Zealand, giant kangaroos in Australia, mammoths in North America etc. 
Insects were the first species to fly and again grew as large as feasible, probably aided by higher oxygen concentration in the atmosphere.  With the evolution of birds, dragonflies and similar flying insects became prey and the giant forms became extinct.

You are also wrong in claiming that evolution predicts an 'upward and outward progression'.  Evolution predicts that species will adapt to their surroundings, which includes other species, but does not specify what that is going to involve.
Since abiogenesis is thought to have produced the simplest possible single cells, there is certainly a tendency for some species to become progressively more complex.
The other factor to consider is that the history of life on earth also involves some extinction events.  These tend to remove the larger species - like the dinosaurs - and leaving vacancies for the survivors to fill.

View Post

Keith,

I have never seen someone simply tow the party line the way you do. I haven't pinpointed one occasion where we are engaged in any meaningful conversation. You just want to get as much of Darwin's rhetoric out as possible. You exhausted Bruce with your approach. Consider a dialogue. You're nice enough but your continued parroting of evolution orthodoxy as if it should be shaking our world is underwhelming. :huh:

#65 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:38 PM

Thanks Arch,

Since your going to ignore the post Adam provided as well,please refer to the "Young Earth Age Correlations" thread.

Way more info. than you'll ever need and i'm not finished with it yet.

View Post


Nice assumption there Jason. Hopefully you'll notice further down I've responded to Adam. I don't ignore information as long as it's relevant.

#66 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 July 2009 - 07:24 PM


Well done mate. All you did with this post was say "no it isn't, no it isn't, that's an interpretation, no it isn't".


Yes, I refuted error, and I was correct in my refutation.


You refuted what Keith called a 'fact' by saying it's an interpretation. While you are correct, you didn't actually offer anything to the argument.


It's all well and good to shoot down ideas (it's so good it's even part of the scientific method), but it's much more difficult to replace something with a better idea.


In science this is true, but science isn't the only field of ideas, is it?

View Post


What 'other fields' are you referring to? Below you mention Biblical creation. Am I right in assuming you mean this?

Alone the Biblical creation is just a story. There is nothing special or even particularly interesting about it. It only becomes interesting when you try and apply science to it to try and prove it actually happened.


Do you have any evidence for shooting down Kieth's proposed ideas,


Yes. Be specific about a particular idea, and I will adress it. This forum i sfull of evidence on specific topics. I'm sure I/we could accomodate it.

View Post


"Amphibians were first, then reptiles, dinosaurs and finally mammals."

Do you actually disagree with this, or just that Keith stated it as a fact rather than an interpretation?

"Yes, of course, and that's why dinosaurs evolved into sparrows and humming birds. laugh.gif Get real!"


Do you have proof or just opinion?

"I'd like to see those birds devouring those giant 4' wingspan dragonflies laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif"


Simply mocking without actually offering anything. Again, please offer something to the conversation rather that just rejecting things outright.

"Please reread what you just wrote. You said it not me. "But does not specify (predict) what is going to evolve.""

Specifying and predicting are two different things. Specifying is saying something will be, predicting is only saying it might be.

and do you have something better to replace the ideas with?


Yes, In science....

Catastrophism is a much better idea as compared to uniformitarianism. This approach is growing in strength within the scientific field. Most scientists already beleive in global catastrophies, they just wouldn't consider a flood, because it is religious.

View Post


Really? I'm not aware of these global catastrophes that are believed by most scientists. Could you throw me a couple of examples?

Biogenesis stands in opposition to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has no evidence, while biogenesis is a universal law. It's nothing more than philosophical faith that drives abiogenesis.

That's just two examples...I could go on....

View Post



Law of Biogenesis

Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is referred to as the law of biogenesis, which asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
- wikipedia

Umm...that's not a law. :huh:

Outside of science......

Biblical creation is a better idea, and has much support among the mainstream. It is supported by Chritianity, Judaism, and Islam. That's a much larger population than the science mainstream. (ad populum) rolleyes.gif Of course, that's why you joined this forum. To learn about thought processes that are outside of science. There are other logical fields of thought you know.

View Post


True, that is why I joined. I wanted to see how people believed them to be 'logical fields'. Could you explain to me how they are logical fields, without using science? Or would you agree that without some kind of scientific backing they are reduced to nothing more than stories?

Regards,

Arch.

#67 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 July 2009 - 08:03 PM

[quote name='performedge' date='Jul 9 2009, 04:25 PM']Wrong!  This is not a fact.  It is an interpretaltion of gelogical layers and fossils.  That's all.  Please don't confuse facts from interpretations of facts.  [/quote]
One of the 'facts' which goes with geological layers and fossils is the ages of the rocks (determined by dating of volcanic rocks and ash found in and above the rock formation containing the fossils).
No interpretation is required to establish the major changes in both plants and animals over geological time - no rabbits in the Cretaceous.
If creation were correct, and the Cambrian explosion marked the creation events in Genesis, then there really should be rabbit fossils in the Cambrian rocks.

[quote name='performedge' date='Jul 9 2009, 04:25 PM']
Please reread what you just wrote. You said it not me. "But does not specify (predict) what is going to evolve."
Better than just re-reading, I can paste it:-
"You are also wrong in claiming that evolution predicts an 'upward and outward progression'. Evolution predicts that species will adapt to their surroundings, which includes other species, but does not specify what that is going to involve. "
As I stated, evolution does not specify what precise changes will take place. In fact, not evolving and becoming extinct is always a possibility.

#68 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:23 PM

"Amphibians were first, then reptiles, dinosaurs and finally mammals."

Do you actually disagree with this, or just that Keith stated it as a fact rather than an interpretation?


Refuted in post#42

Really? I'm not aware of these global catastrophes that are believed by most scientists. Could you throw me a couple of examples?


"I was taken by a Turkish friend to visit a cliff section in Upper Cretaceous sediments near Sile on the Black Sea coast. ...what I in fact saw was the familiar white chalk of north-west Europe with black flints and old fossil friends such as Micraster and Echinocorys. What I was looking at was identical with the ‘White Cliffs of Dover’ in England and the rolling plateau of Picardy in France, the quarries of southern Sweden and the cliffs of eastern Denmark. …We have long known, of course, that the White Chalk facies of late Cretaceous times extended all the way from Antrim in Northern Ireland, via England and northern France, through the Low Countries, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Georgia in the south of the Soviet Union. We also knew of the same facies in Egypt and Israel. My record was merely an extension of that vast range to the south side of the Black Sea. …Nevertheless, there is even worse to come, for on the other side of the Atlantic in Texas, we find the Augstin Chalk of the same age and character, and...found in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. And most surprising of all, much farther away still in Western Australia, we have the Gingin Chalk of late Cretaceous age, with the same black flints and the same familiar fossils, resting – as in north-west Europe – on glauconitic sands." …Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies pp.1-2 "...in north-west Bulgaria, again the basal conglomerate is largely composed of exactly similar purple quartzite pebbles (resting on Permian breccias also like those of midland England) Even if one postulates continent-wide uplift to produce the conglomerate in such widely separated places, it is very difficult to explain why the source rock is also so remarkably similar from one end of Europe to the other. …It is well known that the Newark Group of the eastern seaboard of the United States is exactly like the Trias of north-west Europe.. The similarities are almost laughable.. ...we still have to account for a general facies development in late Carboniferous times that extends in essentially the same form all the way from Texas to the Donetz coal basin, north of the Caspian Sea in the U.S.S.R. This amounts to some 170º of longitude, and closing up the Atlantic by a mere 40º does not really help all that much in explaining the remarkable phenomenon." The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, pp.6-7.


If uniformitairianism is the answer or based on any evidence at all,then please show us deposition of this magnitude from every geologic era.

Then try finding deposition approaching the magnitude of the Tapeats Sandstone.

The only answer any Atheist has ever given is "What,i did'nt understand the question".LOL

#69 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:30 PM

One of the 'facts' which goes with geological layers and fossils is the ages of the rocks (determined by dating of volcanic rocks and ash found in and above the rock formation containing the fossils).
No interpretation is required to establish the major changes in both plants and animals over geological time - no rabbits in the Cretaceous.
If creation were correct, and the Cambrian explosion marked the creation events in Genesis, then there really should be rabbit fossils in the Cambrian rocks.


Refuted in post#44

If you have to cherry pick dates that agree with your assumptions,then perhaps it's time to find a new hobby.

We expect to find organisms fossilized in their corresponding ecological nitche.We could no more expect to find rabbits in marine sediments,than we could expect to see whales living in the desert.

Does being an Atheist mean you have to reject ecology as well?

#70 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:22 PM

Refuted in post#42

View Post


Hey Jason,

I read through your info in post #42 again and didn't find what I was looking for.

One chunk talks about the grand canyon and the other about nautiloids fossils. The video doesn't work.

Perhaps I missed it, could you give me the direct quote that refutes the claim:

"Amphibians were first, then reptiles, dinosaurs and finally mammals."


If uniformitairianism is the answer or based on any evidence at all,then please show us deposition of this magnitude from every geologic era.

Then try finding deposition approaching the magnitude of the Tapeats Sandstone.

The only answer any Atheist has ever given is "What,i did'nt understand the question".LOL

View Post


I read through this article and I have to admit it didn't make a lot of sense to me. It's getting near the end of the day (and it's a Friday here) so it's probably just that my brain is frazzled. Would I be asking too much for you to give me a couple of points summary in your own words?

About the only useful thing I got out of it was this quote:

Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies


I don't believe he actually gave such an explanation, at least not in what you linked?
What global catastrophe is he trying to link this in with?

Oh, and I'm still hoping you'll give me an explanation of how Creationists date things. Would really appreciate that.

Regards,

Arch.

#71 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 July 2009 - 03:13 AM

Hey Jason,

I read through your info in post #42 again and didn't find what I was looking for.

One chunk talks about the grand canyon and the other about nautiloids fossils. The video doesn't work.

Perhaps I missed it, could you give me the direct quote that refutes the claim:


Arch,

It does'nt have a direct quote that refutes the claim.It was corroborating evidence that refutes the OE geologic column and supports the YE catastrophic column.

Heres something i like to do.I pick a single location where i can track a layer using geologic correlations instead of circular reasoning.Here at the Grand Staircase we can do that.

Posted Image

Creationists consider organisms to be sorted by their ecological location during the flood.The deepest parts of the ocean would be the bottom of the column and as you move up you should find fossils that correspond to the ecological level.

It should be busted up,randomly sorted due to other hydrolic factors,etc.But,we should see them all fully formed and showing no evolutionary lineage.

The bottom of the Grand Canyon we find cambrian fossils,which would be the bottom of the ocean containg benthic and encrusting organisms,such as non-photosenthetic corals,trilobites,bryozans,etc.

Next we should find organisms that can swim,but live off of the bottom and swim slower than fish.In the mississipian redwall limestone we find orthocone nautiloids,just as predicted.

Now we should have no doubt about this being the result of slow gradual geologic time or sudden catastrophe.

And here again is the evidence verifying the catastrohic predictions made by creation.

Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.

Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.



http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm - 5k -


So the rules of evolution do not have any evidence supporting it.According to evolution,there must be a time gap of 160-200 million years between these layers and we can easily tell they formed suddenly and contemporaneously because the layers are interbedded and the mass kill of orthocone nautiloids.If we extrapolated the current rates of erosion the entire continent would be leveled in just 14 million years.

In fact,we can find bird tracks down below in the Grand Canyon,way before Hadrosaur fossils up above at Bryce Canyon.

why aren't there at least a few bird or mammal tracks in Paleozoic sediments? It appears that there may be a few. In carboniferous deposits in Nova Scotia tracks were found that "superficially ... resemble the tracks of some of the wading birds, but of course there is little probability of their having been made by birds" (Sternberg 1933) (Figure 3). If these tracks had been found in Cenozoic deposits it seems likely that they would have been described as bird tracks. Another interesting track was found in the Permian Hermit Shale of the Grand Canyon (Gilmore 1927). It looks precisely like a bird track, but since birds are not thought to have evolved until the Mesozoic, this Permian track is just listed as an "unidentified track" (Figure 4).


http://www.grisda.or...igins/09067.htm - 17k -

I read through this article and I have to admit it didn't make a lot of sense to me. It's getting near the end of the day (and it's a Friday here) so it's probably just that my brain is frazzled. Would I be asking too much for you to give me a couple of points summary in your own words?


Derek Ager is an Atheist,but he believes the geolic column is catastrophic based on all of his years of field work.In no other geologic period is there any chalk cliffs of this global scale and he noticed they are not forming in that magnitude today,so he was only able to conclude catastrope as the likely explanation.

Oh, and I'm still hoping you'll give me an explanation of how Creationists date things. Would really appreciate that.


I told you it is'nt possible to date a fossil,if you get a chance to watch the video you will see that experiments show that we can longer assume that fossils on the bottom were actualy buried first.


Enjoy.

#72 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 11 July 2009 - 10:20 AM

One of the 'facts' which goes with geological layers and fossils is the ages of the rocks (determined by dating of volcanic rocks and ash found in and above the rock formation containing the fossils).

View Post


The age of any "old" rock is not a fact.

It is a fact that rocks are dated using radioisotope dating methods.

It is a fact that different methods yield different dates on those same rocks.

It is a fact that generally only one date is chosen from those different methods.

No interpretation is required to establish the major changes in both plants and animals over geological time - no rabbits in the Cretaceous. 
If creation were correct, and the Cambrian explosion marked the creation events in Genesis, then there really should be rabbit fossils in the Cambrian rocks.


Oh really? Just how many land animals have been discovered in the Cambrian?

None?

Well could it possibly be logical that Cambrian layers are related to water dwelling creatures?

You are just parroting evo babble. If you would use the brain God gave you, you would realize that your whole argument is fallacious.

Rabbits don't exist in Cambrian layers, because these layers were created in an area of underwater life, not land dwelling life. Cambrian layers are very rare. They don't exist everywhere.

As I stated, evolution does not specify what precise changes will take place.  In fact, not evolving and becoming extinct is always a possibility.


Exactly, that's why I quoted you exactly. Evolution doesn't specify or predict anything. It only accomodates data as it finds it. For instance DNA. When this was discovered, it was realized that it "must have evolved". Then we discovered that there was much DNA that appeared not to be needed (junk DNA). That also "must have evolved". So the dogma was made that this "junk DNA" was evolutionary baggage that was just turned off. Then we learned that it isn't turned off, but this "useless DNA" is very usefull. So it "must have evolved". In each case Biologists will make no predictions regarding DNA. Instead they just accomodate the data by just saying that "it must have evolved".

There is no other theory in science that is like evolution. That's why most creationists think it is religiously motivated.

#73 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 11 July 2009 - 11:31 AM

Specifying and predicting are two different things. Specifying is saying something will be, predicting is only saying it might be.

View Post


Arch, I really hope you mistyped something here. Please do a little research on scientific predictions. You will find that you are 100% wrong on this.

Really? I'm not aware of these global catastrophes that are believed by most scientists. Could you throw me a couple of examples?


Let me help open your eyes just a little bit....

The great dino extinction is now believed by "mainstream science" t be a global asteroid/ meteor shower event. Would that qualify as global catasrophism. I would logically think so.

How about Ice ages? Large portions of the globe frozen? Glaciers carving out land formations in the past, where glaciers don't exist today. That my friend are just two example of global catastrophism that are dogmas of mainstream science. The origination of these stories comes from the minds and pens of men.

The flood story likewise was penned by the hands of men. I believe with supenatural help. However, it is a global catastrophic story just like the ones above.

Law of Biogenesis

Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is referred to as the law of biogenesis, which asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
- wikipedia

Umm...that's not a law. :mellow:


Umm...Your citation entitles it a law, and then it refers it as law. Upon what basis do you think it is not a scientific law?

If you would read your own citation you would realize that this citation is references

http://aleph0.clarku...y/CE8/B-Ab.html

I will ask that you read it thoroughly. Thomas Huxley, the great "bulldog of evolution" declared the theory of biogenesis to be a universal law of nature. Since 1870, not one exception to this law is known.

Only the assumption of the axiom of naturalism allows the study of abiogenesis. Not one piece of evidence can be presented that suggests that life comes from non-life.
However, life exists. And with that fact combined with naturalism, a naturalistic explanation must be available. That is the definition of faith. It is religious at it's core. It is based on philosophical naturalism, which is an axiom that cannot be proved. Just like creationism is based on the biblical story, that cannot be proved. The axiom must be accepted first, then evidence to support the story can be found.

True, that is why I joined. I wanted to see how people believed them to be 'logical fields'. Could you explain to me how they are logical fields, without using science? Or would you agree that without some kind of scientific backing they are reduced to nothing more than stories?


There are a "million" logical(/reasoning) fields.

Science is a good one. The underlying philosophy is naturalism. The reasoning process is the scientific method. The evidence is empirical.

Creationism is another. The underlying philosophy is acceptance that the Bible is the word of God. The reasoning process uses the scientific method to see if the Bible can be confirmed. The evidence is empirical and testimonial (the Bible)

The Legal system is another. The underlying philosophy is a set of rules or laws. the reasoning process is based on the presentation of evidence and argumentation.
Evidence may be empirical or testimonial. Emotion and argumentation are allowed. Decisions are based on the mind of one person (a judge) or on the consensus of a group of people (jury).

Religions are another. The underlying philosophy is a set of teachings form the past. Evidence may be empirical, testimonial, and anecdotal. Decisions to adhere to these teachings are based on the logic of the individual.

I personally have an engineering background. I also am religious, and a creationist. My faith is based on empirical evidence (science), testimonial evidence (the Bible), and anecdotal evidence (my experiences through life). Some rely on the last two more heavily, and some rely on on the last one. However, for me, If I thought that the evidence didn't stack up in favor of the Bible, I wouldn't stick around.

As a Christian, the life promised by the scriptures is one of sacrifice, suffering, and blessing. The blessings however are often not realized until after death. Christianity is self sacrificing. It certainly is not something that would be "naturally selected". But as I have experienced (anecdotal evidence) the life of self sacrifice, the blessings are real, often material, and very personally rewarding.


Science is a very limited paradigm based on the philosophy of naturalism. If the supernatural exists, it cannot be found in science by definition. People are always locked into paradigms. But my theory is, that as you open your mind to alternative paradigms, you will grow closer to the truth.

For instance, there are many christian thoughts regarding baptism. My church has a certain set of teaching on this. Other churches have different sets of teachings on this. But we all have the Bible! How can we have such diversity? I have discovered that by studying all the certain sets of teachings I have found Biblical accuracy and error in each of them. My axiom is that the Bible is true. So I have opened my mind to all the sets teachings, and accept those that agree with the scripture, and I reject those that logically don't agree. I believe that this is the best way to find the truth on any subject.

If you will open you mind beyond the paradigm of naturalism, you just may find additional truth.

Regards,
Don

#74 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 July 2009 - 05:43 PM

Arch, I really hope you mistyped something here. Please do a little research on scientific predictions. You will find that you are 100% wrong on this.

View Post


Good point, but maybe we should go back and read the original statement again:

Evolution predicts that species will adapt to their surroundings, which includes other species, but does not specify what that is going to involve.


In this case the prediction is species adapting to their surroundings. We see this happening all the time.
However what this change is specifically, is not defined.

I think you are correct that specify and predict, at least in regards to scientific predictions, are the same thing. In this case however, they are referring to two different things.

The great dino extinction is now believed by "mainstream science" t be a global asteroid/ meteor shower event. Would that qualify as global catasrophism. I would logically think so.

How about Ice ages? Large portions of the globe frozen? Glaciers carving out land formations in the past, where glaciers don't exist today. That my friend are just two example of global catastrophism that are dogmas of mainstream science. The origination of these stories comes from the minds and pens of men.

View Post


Thanks performedge, these are good examples. This is my mistake, I thought you were referring to global disasters that had happened in the last 6000 years.

Umm...Your citation entitles it a law, and then it refers it as law. Upon what basis do you think it is not a scientific law?

View Post


Mostly the use of the word "assert". I'm confused though, if we know it to be a law, why are there so many scientists seeking to disprove this? Aren't laws meant to be the closest thing science holds to a "definitely right"? It just seems to be extremely premature in calling this a law, when so much research is being done that contradicts it entirely.

I'm still reading the link you provided. I imagine it'll take a little while to get through, it's pretty darn big :blink:

Only the assumption of the axiom of naturalism allows the study of abiogenesis. Not one piece of evidence can be presented that suggests that life comes from non-life.

View Post


No, the truth is we haven't made the final jump from non-life to life. To say there is no evidence at all would be incorrect.

Creationism is another. The underlying philosophy is acceptance that the Bible is the word of God. The reasoning process uses the scientific method to see if the Bible can be confirmed. The evidence is empirical and testimonial (the Bible)

View Post


So the only way we can be sure the Bible is not just a story devised by man is to back it up with science?

The Legal system is another. The underlying philosophy is a set of rules or laws. the reasoning process is based on the presentation of evidence and argumentation.
Evidence may be empirical or testimonial. Emotion and argumentation are allowed. Decisions are based on the mind of one person (a judge) or on the consensus of a group of people (jury).

View Post


So law is mostly based on evidence and testimonial (observation), with evidence almost always winning out of testimonials. I think this is your best example of another field of logic, however even this contains science.

Religions are another. The underlying philosophy is a set of teachings form the past. Evidence may be empirical, testimonial, and anecdotal. Decisions to adhere to these teachings are based on the logic of the individual.

View Post


And how does the individual come to their 'logical' conclusion. By accepting or rejecting the history. History is another form of science.

I personally have an engineering background. I also am religious, and a creationist. My faith is based on empirical evidence (science), testimonial evidence (the Bible), and anecdotal evidence (my experiences through life).

View Post


Let me try rewording this sentence, and let me know what you think of my changes.

I personally have an engineering background. I also am religious, and a creationist. My faith is based on empirical evidence (science), testimonial evidence (history), and anecdotal evidence (observation).

Again, sounds rather scientific. To clarify, I think this is a good thing.

Christianity is self sacrificing. It certainly is not something that would be "naturally selected".

View Post


I disagree. You can find many animals in nature that will sacrifice themselves for another; children or partners. These animals do so without religion. Self sacrificing is not specific to Christianity.

Science is a very limited paradigm based on the philosophy of naturalism. If the supernatural exists, it cannot be found in science by definition.

View Post


I agree with you on this point. If the supernatural exists, I can't see how science will ever find it. Now, I don't think science will ever find it because I don't think the supernatural exists, however you obviously do.

Can you tell me how one should go about finding the supernatural?

So I have opened my mind to all the sets teachings, and accept those that agree with the scripture, and I reject those that logically don't agree. I believe that this is the best way to find the truth on any subject.

View Post


Perhaps it is just the wording here, but I don't think reading an age old book and rejecting things that don't fit into it is the best way to find truth in any subject. I think it would be wiser to look outside of this very old book.

Regards,

Arch.

#75 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 11 July 2009 - 07:03 PM

Good point, but maybe we should go back and read the original statement again:
In this case the prediction is species adapting to their surroundings. We see this happening all the time.
However what this change is specifically, is not defined.

I think you are correct that specify and predict, at least in regards to scientific predictions, are the same thing. In this case however, they are referring to two different things.

View Post


It doesn't matter. Evolution doesn't predict a thing. To say that the "prediction is species adapting to their surroundings" is nothing more than predicting what is and has been known long before the TOE. That's an observation not a prediction. The prediction of evolution is clearly that all species will change over time as they adapt to their environments. But stasis is the rule, not evolution. Evolution is the exception. TRex for instance, spans a 20 million year Evo time frame with no apparent changes in body structure. Yet man evolved from an apes in less than 5 million years in evo history with enormous physical and mental differences. TOE accomadates the evidence, it doesn't predict a thing as a theory

Mostly the use of the word "assert". I'm confused though, if we know it to be a law, why are there so many scientists seeking to disprove this? Aren't laws meant to be the closest thing science holds to a "definitely right"? It just seems to be extremely premature in calling this a law, when so much research is being done that contradicts it entirely.


First, we absolutely know this to be a law of nature. It will scientifically stand a s a law of nature until such a time that life is demonstrated to have come from non-life.

The reason that so many scientists are researching abiogenesis is that modern day science is atheistic by definition. Therefore, scientists seek to discredit religious beliefs/teachings. This happens every day. Abiogenesis is a philosophical faith. It is not based on evidence. It is based on the axiom of naturalism. The only evidence is evidence that supports the axiom, not evidence that supports abiogenesis. The amount of evidence against abiogenesis though is overwhelming! Yet it is ignored, because of the axiom.

I'm still reading the link you provided. I imagine it'll take a little while to get through, it's pretty darn big :blink:


I sincerely hope you do read it. It is a historical record of how two opposing theories fought it out, and biogenesis won.

No, the truth is we haven't made the final jump from non-life to life. To say there is no evidence at all would be incorrect.


I disagree. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that suggests that life can be generated from non-life. Scientists have made hypotheses (stories) of how this happened from a naturalistic viewpoint. They are nothing more than myths. They have mystical characters called pre-life, simple life, proto cells, ancient life, primordial life etc. They rely on mystical environments like thermal vents and ponds and clay. They all rely on unknown powers of nature like natural selection within the chemical world. It is philosophical faith as Thomas Huxley declared in that address you are reading.

So the only way we can be sure the Bible is not just a story devised by man is to back it up with science?


The Bible is backed up by science. There are many scientific facts that were not scientifically discovered until the last 400 years or so. How could those sheep herders know such things?

So law is mostly based on evidence and testimonial (observation), with evidence almost always winning out of testimonials. I think this is your best example of another field of logic, however even this contains science.


First, you know little about the law. You can have all the circumstantial scientific empircial evidence of guilt that you can imagine, and it only takes the testimony of one credible eye witness to discredit all of it.

Secondly, I used science in all the fields of logic. Science is a great thing, and it is just an evo babbling strawman to even suggest that religious people are against science. We may be against evolution. But is it because of scientific evidence that we are against TOE.

Let me try rewording this sentence, and let me know what you think of my changes.

I personally have an engineering background.  I also am religious, and a creationist.  My faith is based on empirical evidence (science), testimonial evidence (history), and anecdotal evidence (observation).

Again, sounds rather scientific. To clarify, I think this is a good thing.


Quite frankly, I don't get what you are saying. I certainly am not opposed to science. I work in a scientific field. I produce medical devices. I use science every day at work. But I don't believe in naturalism. It is that simple.

I disagree. You can find many animals in nature that will sacrifice themselves for another; children or partners. These animals do so without religion. Self sacrificing is not specific to Christianity.


Good try, but this would absolutely destroy TOE.

These are Darwin's very words....

Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structures of others. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other animals, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.


I agree that there are many symbiotic relationships that exist in nature. And I also agree that every one of these relationships involve some form of self sacrifice. However science argues that in every case the being that is sacrificing is recieving a benefit in return which make it selfish, not self sacrificial. If self sacrifice exists in nature, then TOE is dead as a theory.

I agree with you on this point. If the supernatural exists, I can't see how science will ever find it. Now, I don't think science will ever find it because I don't think the supernatural exists, however you obviously do.


Again, that is your faith based on your axiom of naturalism.

#76 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 11 July 2009 - 07:14 PM

I agree with you on this point. If the supernatural exists, I can't see how science will ever find it. Now, I don't think science will ever find it because I don't think the supernatural exists, however you obviously do.

Can you tell me how one should go about finding the supernatural?

View Post


I would be glad to. But before I do, will you answer this question? Do you believe that non-material forces exist in the universe?

#77 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 July 2009 - 11:57 PM

It doesn't matter.  Evolution doesn't predict a thing.  To say that the "prediction is species adapting to their surroundings" is nothing more than predicting what is and has been known long before the TOE.  That's an observation not a prediction.  The prediction of evolution is clearly that all species will change over time as they adapt to their environments.  But stasis is the rule, not evolution.  Evolution is the exception.  TRex for instance, spans a 20 million year Evo time frame with no apparent changes in body structure.  Yet man evolved from an apes in less than 5 million years in evo history with enormous physical and mental differences.  TOE accomadates the evidence, it doesn't predict a thing as a theory

View Post


Actually evolution predicts many things. There's even a forum on this website dedicated to showing such predictions. I'm having troubling finding it again, but I'll post you a link if I can. Otherwise just Google "evolution predictions". I'm sure you'll find a couple.

One example off the top of my head was the fused chromosome in humans. The exact chromosome suspected to be fused was predicted by our association with monkeys. The prediction was spot on.

First, we absolutely know this to be a law of nature.  It will scientifically stand a s a law of nature until such a time that life is demonstrated to have come from non-life.

View Post


Sorry but we don't know it to be a law of nature. If we knew it to be a law we wouldn't be spending so much time and money trying to find the exact opposite.

The reason that so many scientists are researching abiogenesis is that modern day science is atheistic by definition.

View Post


The majority of people in science (in the world actually) have some sort of religious belief. Science itself has always been atheistic, lest we claim "God did it" and leave it at that.

Therefore, scientists seek to discredit religious beliefs/teachings.  This happens every day.

View Post


No one is seeking to discredit religion. Yes it happens every day, but it is an unfortunate by-product of this research, not the intended goal.

Abiogenesis is a philosophical faith.  It is not based on evidence.  It is based on the axiom of naturalism.  The only evidence is evidence that supports the axiom, not evidence that supports abiogenesis.  The amount of evidence against abiogenesis though is overwhelming!  Yet it is ignored, because of the axiom.

View Post


There has been plenty of research and successes in the study of abiogenesis in recent years. Again, there is a forum here dedicated to learning more about this.

New developments in Abiogenesis

Although the ultimate goal has not been achieved yet there has been plenty of success in this field.

I sincerely hope you do read it.  It is a historical record of how two opposing theories fought it out, and biogenesis won.

View Post


I do apologise, I still haven't had the chance to read it, but since you are keen for me to I will find the time :lol:

I disagree.  There is absolutely no scientific evidence that suggests that life can be generated from non-life.  Scientists have made hypotheses (stories) of how this happened from a naturalistic viewpoint.  They are nothing more than myths.

View Post


When there is so much lab evidence to support abiogenesis being a possible way for life to have appeared I can't comprehend how you can call it a myth. I can only assume you aren't up to date with the latest happenings?
Hopefully the above link will put you on the right path.

They rely on mystical environments like thermal vents and ponds and clay.

View Post


Mystical environments? Performedge these environments exist today. There is nothing mystical about them.

The Bible is backed up by science.  There are many scientific facts that were not scientifically discovered until the last 400 years or so.  How could those sheep herders know such things?

View Post


An interesting question, but not relevant to the point I'm trying to make and I'd like to keep this on topic if possible. The point is that you believe the Bible is backed up by science, so we agree on this point.

#78 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 July 2009 - 11:59 PM

continued...

First, you know little about the law.  You can have all the circumstantial scientific empircial evidence of guilt that you can imagine, and it only takes the testimony of one credible eye witness to discredit all of it.

View Post


I've spent about half an hour looking for something that verifies this, and this quote is the closest I can get:

The legal standards addressing the treatment of eyewitness testimony as evidence in criminal trials vary widely across the United States on issues ranging from the admissibility of eyewitness testimony as evidence, the admissibility and scope of expert testimony on the factors affecting its reliability, and the propriety of jury instructions on the same factors.


Could you please show me where the law states a single eye witness can trump all other evidence?

On this note, I'd suggest Googleing "eye witness testimony" and briefly reading over some pages. There is a wealth of information saying eye witness testimonies are incredibly inaccurate.

Secondly, I used science in all the fields of logic.  Science is a great thing, and it is just an evo babbling strawman to even suggest that religious people are against science.

View Post


I never suggested religious people were.

Quite frankly, I don't get what you are saying.  I certainly am not opposed to science.  I work in a scientific field.  I produce medical devices.  I use science every day at work.  But I don't believe in naturalism.  It is that simple.

View Post


I'm going through all the examples you gave in your previous post and trying to show you the only logic we truly take into account is that which is backed up by science.

Good try, but this would absolutely destroy TOE.

These are Darwin's very words....

Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structures of others. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other animals, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

View Post


Firstly, Darwin's ideas are pretty old now. They're good starting places but don't hold them on a pedestal.

Secondly if you notice the part in bold you'll see Darwin was referring to changes that only benefit another species. This does not exclude the possibility of it happening, as long as it benefits the selected species also.

That aside, I was referring to self sacrificing within a species, or even a lower level of individual families. There are plenty of species where the mother or father will fight to the death to protect their young. I deem this to be self sacrificing.

I agree that there are many symbiotic relationships that exist in nature.  And I also agree that every one of these relationships involve some form of self sacrifice.  However science argues that in every case the being that is sacrificing is recieving a benefit in return which make it selfish, not self sacrificial.  If self sacrifice exists in nature, then TOE is dead as a theory.

View Post


If you're going to define 'self-sacrificing' as the giving of ones self (eg. life) for the good of another without any benefit for ones self then I'd happily argue no creature (including humans) do this. There is always some personal gain.

Regards,

Arch.

#79 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2009 - 12:22 AM

Hi Jas, sorry I've taken so long to respond. Had a lot of leg work to cover with Performedge :lol:

I feel as though you're starting to understand where I'm coming from with my questioning. If it's okay with you I'd like to concentrate on those aspects of your post if I may?
Although the geological stuff you've presented is incredibly interesting, it's a little removed from the point I was hoping to make. I just want to make sure you don't think I'm ignoring it. If you like I'm happy to discuss that section of your post once we've cleared up the rest of this stuff.

Derek Ager is an Atheist,but he believes the geolic column is catastrophic based on all of his years of field work.In no other geologic period is there any chalk cliffs of this global scale and he noticed they are not forming in that magnitude today,so he was only able to conclude catastrope as the likely explanation.

View Post


My original question to this was whether or not Ager managed to come to any serious conclusions. As I quoted before he wrote:

Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies


I hate to be so picky, but did he actually say a catastrophe was the best explanation? Or are we reading between the lines here? It seems to me he's saying there must be an explanation, he just doesn't know it.

I told you it is'nt possible to date a fossil,if you get a chance to watch the video you will see that experiments show that we can longer assume that fossils on the bottom were actualy buried first.
Enjoy.

View Post


Ah yes, you did say that. Does this inability to date fossils extend to other sources, such as the geological record?

What I'm ultimately trying to get out of you Jason, isn't whether or not the current methods are refutable. I want to know if you know of a method that is trustworthy. Do you believe we have any technology today that can effectively date parts of this world?

Regards,

Arch.

#80 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 July 2009 - 06:42 AM

Ah yes, you did say that. Does this inability to date fossils extend to other sources, such as the geological record?

What I'm ultimately trying to get out of you Jason, isn't whether or not the current methods are refutable. I want to know if you know of a method that is trustworthy. Do you believe we have any technology today that can effectively date parts of this world?

Regards,

Arch.


I already referred you to one thread,but heres another one for you.

Pinned:
Carbon 14 - A Serious Problem For Old Earthers · * ...
http://www.evolution...hp?showforum=21 - 80k -

As far as dating the rocks,which can't be dated using C-14,try this link.

http://creationwiki....elium_diffusion - 35k -

Helium diffusion is one type of nuclear decay dealing with the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a biproduct of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.


The models differ by a factor of 100,000,so there is no fudging the issue,it fits one or the other.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users