Creation vs. Evolution II

[6days]

Roth is misleading you.

I think what you mean is that he can't be right, because then you would be wrong? You better take your argument up with geosociety.org

 

[6days]

Have you got anywhere wirth the mechanism that would affect the dating of the earth, masts and meteorites by the same amounts, despite the thoroughly different conditions they experience?

I think we have gone over and over this before. We can once again discuss assumptions involved in the extrapolations.
We can also discuss why secular journals usually (not always)publish only the results consistent with evolutionary beliefs. Sometimes though journals will admit to discordant results. Ex...Article titled "Isotopic variations in the rock-forming elements in meteorites" from Transactions of the Royal Society of London .....Or, article titled "Isotope fractionation in the solar system" from the International Geology Review .

 

[Hedshaker]

So...??? You think hyperbole helps sell your beliefs? It was you who said "Theory of a dead guy coming back to life after being clinically dead for three days ...." Once again...Christ rising from the grave is a belief based on the evidence of inerrant truth in God's Word.

So your evidence is, you believe it to be true? The existence of Bible-God is also a faith belief so how does one faith belief support other faith beliefs written in the Bible? Sounds like turtles all the way down.

I think we are agreeing.... Beliefs about the past are not science.
If you are saying that "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."...Then that is a definition consistent with beliefs of Biblical creationists. Changes in characteristics is determined by PRE_EXISTING genetic information and processes.

No, I support the scientific Theory of Evolution, as do all but a tiny few of the science community. If you don't like that you must take it up with them. Your evidence free, magical religious beliefs are something entirely different.

No...you mentioned things from the past, that you don't believe because it's inconsistent with the present. Confirmation bias is when you start with your conclusion(Rejecting the Creator), and then interpret evidence to fit those preexisting beliefs
So... be consistent with your own arguments and deny that life came from non life.

You mean "things about the past" like a talking snake, the clinically dead coming back to life and a gravity defying walk on water? Well you've had plenty of chances to present your sound, testable, falsifiable evidence that these things actually happened. We can only assume by the fact that you haven't presented any is because you have none. But then we already knew that.

And yet again, your faith beliefs are not evidence.

 

[gcthomas]

I think we have gone over and over this before. We can once again discuss assumptions involved in the extrapolations.
We can also discuss why secular journals usually (not always)publish only the results consistent with evolutionary beliefs. Sometimes though journals will admit to discordant results. Ex...Article titled "Isotopic variations in the rock-forming elements in meteorites" from Transactions of the Royal Society of London .....Or, article titled "Isotope fractionation in the solar system" from the International Geology Review .

None of those propose a mechanism that would have THE SAME effect in a variety of locations and fundamentally different thermal, gravitational, pressure and chemical environments.

Can you not come up with a mechanism that has THE SAME EFFECT in all these situations? You haven't even tried, so far.

 

[gcthomas]

I think what you mean is that he can't be right, because then you would be wrong? You better take your argument up with geosociety.org

Can you not understand enough to argue the case?

 

[TIPlatypus]

if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it.

Even if Adam and Eve and the Talking snake are real, original sin would still be a myth. Sure, Adam and Eve were the first to sin, but the reason why the whole of mankind die is because they know the difference between good and evil. Surely that is clear from the story. One could almost say that to be anything other than childlike is a sin, because anyone who knows the difference between good and evil should not be allowed to live for ever. Of course this is before Jesus comes in.

"Jesus’ major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin. Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist)Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.

No, no, and no. Jesus' died to save us from our own sins, not Adam and Eve's sin. We are unworthy of salvation because we ourselves have sinned, but we get it anyway. All people (above a certain very young age) are sinners. If they weren't then they would still be children.

"All we are asking is that you take what you know into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it."[/I] (Quote is from 'evangelical' atheist... trying to persuade Christians to compromise)

I don't trust the Bible as a source of unambiguous literal truth. In many cases it is not literal (such as parables), and it is often ambiguous, imo because there are far fewer words in ancient Hebrew and Greek than in English. Don't get me wrong, I love the Bible, believe it is true, and use it as a basis for my whole morality.

Also: Just because some people didn't sin in the same way as Adam, does not mean they didn't sin at all. Or maybe it does . Rather ambiguous no?

 

[patrick jane]

Even if Adam and Eve and the Talking snake are real, original sin would still be a myth. Sure, Adam and Eve were the first to sin, but the reason why the whole of mankind die is because they know the difference between good and evil. Surely that is clear from the story. One could almost say that to be anything other than childlike is a sin, because anyone who knows the difference between good and evil should not be allowed to live for ever. Of course this is before Jesus comes in.

No, no, and no. Jesus' died to save us from our own sins, not Adam and Eve's sin. We are unworthy of salvation because we ourselves have sinned, but we get it anyway. All people (above a certain very young age) are sinners. If they weren't then they would still be children.



I don't trust the Bible as a source of unambiguous literal truth. In many cases it is not literal (such as parables), and it is often ambiguous, imo because there are far fewer words in ancient Hebrew and Greek than in English. Don't get me wrong, I love the Bible, believe it is true, and use it as a basis for my whole morality.

Also: Just because some people didn't sin in the same way as Adam, does not mean they didn't sin at all. Or maybe it does . Rather ambiguous no?

You poor lost soul

 

[TIPlatypus]

Do you understand the meaning of "Theory" in scientific terms?

Yes, but I was using the word "Theory" as it is used in common speech. Certainly I wouldn't give evolution the title "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. You cannot test it by repeated observation.

Think of a scientific "theory" as the explanation of natural events based on the available evidence

Well, that is not good enough. Scientific theory is more specific. You can get away with anything generalising like that. Indeed, from the wiki article you linked in the first paragraph:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed...

The thing with the theory of gravity, is that you can always test it again by seeing if objects fall to the floor or not (sure there are better-defined ways of testing it)
With germ theory, you can repeatedly see the effects of germs, and you can always check in a microscope to see if they are there. Emphasis on the word "repeatedly".

The difference between these and the theory of evolution is that you cannot repeat the conditions of the whole of evolution again (at least not realistically). If such an experiment were to take place, and for some reason I am still alive in a few hundred thousand years to see the outcome, then sure I will accept it for good.

Please remember that I think the theory is quite sound. I just think it is untestable.

thanks.

 

[6days]

So your evidence is, you believe it (Bible)to be true?

You are being silly. How is any historical manuscript*judged to be true?*
**

*******
No, I support the scientific Theory of Evolution

And I support science, and the scientific method.
*

****
And yet again, your faith beliefs are not evidence

You can keep repeating that...I will keep agreeing. Beliefs about the past are not science. (Both yours and mine)

 

[6days]

I don't trust the Bible as a source of unambiguous literal truth.

Yes...I noticed.
As you are judging what God tells us, how do you judge when He is telling the unambiguous literal truth, and when He isn't? Surely you must not believe in the virgin birth, since secular opinion says that is not possible?

 

[6days]

Can you not come up with a mechanism that has THE SAME EFFECT in all these situations? You haven't even tried, so far.

I think what you are saying is that you believe various radiometric dating methods provides consistent dates...except when they don't? GC... Help me out on this, because it seems the radiodating biz is rigged (Sort of like the US election). Evolutionists ignore things like isochron discordances and largely ignore articles where otherevolutionists express surprise at results. Evolutionists ignore how dates from the lab are ignored and things simply assigned a date to fit belief systems. Evolutionists dismiss evidence and results that disagree with your beliefs. Evolutionists ignore evidence of accelerated decay in helium retention in zircons. (And many other similar things). It seems even in isochron testing, the researcher ignores points that don't fit the pattern she expects. It would be interesting to compare results from a truly double blind test... and not just from a area that is expected to 'behave' IOW... Evolutionists seem to accept the results that fit their beliefs and ignore all others. Are there double blind tests showing what you are saying? (Where the result is not rigged?) I think not, but not sure. I don't know enough about radiometric dating, but I see even It seems even in isochron testing, the researcher ignores points that don't fit the pattern she expects. It would be interesting to compare results from a truly double blind test... and not just from a area that is expected to 'behave'secular researchers sometimes criticizing methods. I don't have an easy offhand answer why meteorites date often at 4.5 billion. However, there are journal articles from creation scientists / geologists who do answer this... https://answersingenesis.org/astron...meteorites-v-isochron-ages-groups-meteorites/ (Perhaps I can look at this next weekend).

I'm sure you don't see the humor in this, but it is funny to hear evolutionists admit that for complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence. External evidence? That means reject lab results of 100 million years when tools are found in the samlpe area. If the data doesn't jive with the belief... dismiss the data, seems to be part of the radiometric game.

 

[Hedshaker]

Do you understand the meaning of "Theory" in scientific terms?

Yes, but I was using the word "Theory" as it is used in common speech. Certainly I wouldn't give evolution the title "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. You cannot test it by repeated observation.

Well, that is not good enough. Scientific theory is more specific. You can get away with anything generalising like that. Indeed, from the wiki article you linked in the first paragraph:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed...

The thing with the theory of gravity, is that you can always test it again by seeing if objects fall to the floor or not (sure there are better-defined ways of testing it)
With germ theory, you can repeatedly see the effects of germs, and you can always check in a microscope to see if they are there. Emphasis on the word "repeatedly".

The difference between these and the theory of evolution is that you cannot repeat the conditions of the whole of evolution again (at least not realistically). If such an experiment were to take place, and for some reason I am still alive in a few hundred thousand years to see the outcome, then sure I will accept it for good.

Please remember that I think the theory is quite sound. I just think it is untestable.

thanks.

I'm afraid you are clueless so clearly see there is no point in continuing. Of course something will fall if you drop it but that does not explain the "Theory" behind gravity, you know, General Relativity and what not. Dunce! Of course Gravity happens as does Evolution.... but it's the Theory that attempts to explain it.

Get a grip.....

 

[gcthomas]

However, there are journal articles from creation scientists / geologists who do answer this... https://answersingenesis.org/astron...meteorites-v-isochron-ages-groups-meteorites/ (Perhaps I can look at this next weekend).

Snelling has agreed to a statement of belief:

(iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
(iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."​

This means that he WILL NOT accept any evidence that contradicts his prior creationist beliefs, no matter how much evidence there is.

I'm sure you don't see the humor in this, but it is funny to hear evolutionists admit that for complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence. External evidence? That means reject lab results of 100 million years when tools are found in the samlpe area. If the data doesn't jive with the belief... dismiss the data, seems to be part of the radiometric game.

The scientists' beliefs relate to previously empirically demonstrated theories, not arbitrary book based belief.It is different.

And it is interesting that you have come out as a political conspiracy theorist. It fits with your other beliefs and explains some oddities.

 

[Jonahdog]

And I support science, and the scientific method.
*

Well, except when it conflicts with the interpretation of your Holy Book that your level of fear requires.

 

[TIPlatypus]

I'm afraid you are clueless so clearly see there is no point in continuing. Of course something will fall if you drop it but that does not explain the "Theory" behind gravity, you know, General Relativity and what not. Dunce! Of course Gravity happens as does Evolution.... but it's the Theory that attempts to explain it.

Get a grip.....

Seeing as you have not replied to the contrary on any of my points, I will just assume you agree with me .

 

[TIPlatypus]

Yes...I noticed.
As you are judging what God tells us, how do you judge when He is telling the unambiguous literal truth, and when He isn't?

For that matter, how do you make that judgement? Surely, everyone who becomes a christian judges for themselves that Jesus is alive and our saviour? As for the question, have I not already answered that? Everything after Noah is literally true, except where the Bible says it isn't (i.e Jesus' Parables) and possibly the Book of Job (I am undecided). When reading them, I do assume they are true, as far as they show us the nature of God and men.

Surely you must not believe in the virgin birth, since secular opinion says that is not possible?

Since when has this got anything to do with anything. I do believe in the virgin birth. I don't care all that much for secular opinion either, in case you haven't been reading my other posts in this thread just now.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, but I was using the word "Theory" as it is used in common speech. Certainly I wouldn't give evolution the title "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. You cannot test it by repeated observation.

First, we can test evolution by observation. We see populations evolve all the time. We see them evolve new traits, genetic sequences, and species.

Second, you seem to be under the impression that the only way to scientifically test whether an event occurred is to observe it directly. Before we go on, is that really your understanding of how science works?

 

[Jose Fly]

Help me out on this, because it seems the radiodating biz is rigged

Ah, the entire field of geochronology is a conspiracy. Hilarious.

Evolutionists ignore things like isochron discordances and largely ignore articles where otherevolutionists express surprise at results. Evolutionists ignore how dates from the lab are ignored and things simply assigned a date to fit belief systems. Evolutionists dismiss evidence and results that disagree with your beliefs. Evolutionists ignore evidence of accelerated decay in helium retention in zircons. (And many other similar things). It seems even in isochron testing, the researcher ignores points that don't fit the pattern she expects. It would be interesting to compare results from a truly double blind test... and not just from a area that is expected to 'behave'

You're lying again, and it's trivially easy to demonstrate. If "evolutionists ignore" all these discordant results, how is it that anyone is even aware of them? If they are deliberately conspiring to ignore and cover up these results, one has to wonder just how you came to be aware of them. Did you hack into their computers? Did you break into their labs and steal their documents? Did you carry out undercover sting operations?

Of course we all know the answer....you didn't do anything of the sort. Instead, the only way you're even aware of any geochronology results is because they're written up and published in scientific journals.

IOW, we have Shrodinger's results....covered up and ignored while simultaneously published in scientific journals for all to see.

That you didn't even spot this fundamental flaw further illustrates your lack of thinking and how you can only discuss these subjects at the memorized soundbite level.

IOW... Evolutionists seem to accept the results that fit their beliefs and ignore all others.

Your hypocrisy is also noted.

 

[TIPlatypus]

First, we can test evolution by observation. We see populations evolve all the time. We see them evolve new traits, genetic sequences, and species.

Second, you seem to be under the impression that the only way to scientifically test whether an event occurred is to observe it directly. Before we go on, is that really your understanding of how science works?

Certainly it is how it should work. Here is a definition of the Scientific method straight from the Oxford English:

"A method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

I would like to draw emphasis to "systematic observation, measurement and experiment". Any theory concerning the past can do none of these. Then it becomes a historical theory. I believe it is legitimate to say, "something happens today that we can test, therefore something similar has happened in the past." But watching certain populations evolve is no guarantee that the whole of nature has followed these rules.

Can I please remind you that I believe evolution is true, but that it does not hold the unassailable position everyone seems to think it does.

 

[Jose Fly]

I would like to draw emphasis to "systematic observation, measurement and experiment". Any theory concerning the past can do none of these.

You're simply wrong on this. If what you said were true, we wouldn't be able to convict anyone of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. Every jury would simply say "We are unable to reach any conclusions about the crime because it happened in the past and it is impossible to conduct any tests on past events".

Of course most of realize how ridiculous that is and understand that scientists conduct tests of past events all the time. Take archaeology for example....let's say someone hypothesizes that prior to European settlement, the Cheyenne Tribe traded and intermingled with the Chinook Tribe. According to you, we can never tell, right?

But in the real world there are lots of ways to test the hypothesis. We can carry out excavations of Cheyenne Tribal sites and look for Chinook artifacts. We can examine their languages and see if there are any indications that they influenced each other. We can examine the DNA of existing members and look for specific types of shared sequences that would indicate interbreeding.

That's how science works. You should educate yourself further on this before continuing to make very ignorant claims about the basics of science.

Can I please remind you that I believe evolution is true, but that it does not hold the unassailable position everyone seems to think it does.

Irrelevant to the question at hand.