|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Use of Science to Support Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The evidence for a old earth is not as overwhelming as it looks. Others have already pointed out that it's actually more overwhelming that it looks. I just thought I'd add that it was deeply committed Bible-believing Christians who grudgingly came to the conclusions that the Earth is old and there was no global flood, before Darwin wrote any of his works. They came to those conclusions because the evidence for an old Earth and no global flood was overwhelming, even in the late 1700's and early 1800's when these geologists lived and worked. Since then we have examined hundreds of times more evidence, and all of it indicates that the Earth is old and there was no global flood. Creationists have found no evidence for a young Earth outside of their peculiar interpretations of the Bible. They have found one or two things that aren't fully explained yet, and might indicate an old Earth or a young Earth. Don't bet your life savings on that evidence indicating a young Earth when the chips are down. It's truly sad that you think that parroting claims from unreliable and prejudiced websites is discussion. You obviously know nothing about the subject and have not even thought about the subject; you just swallow whatever AIG feeds you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Your right i do swallow all they tell me. I thank them everyday for showing me the truth. Without them i would still have been an athiest with no truth with no purpose or meaning. More over evolution has got serious problems!...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5416 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
Hi Almeda,
I am trying to avoid being offensive so I hope this is taken as kindly advice: please be truly scientific and truly Christian when you post. Both can be accomplished. Most of the people posting here are decent enough to be excellent friends. If you can't love them then at least respect them. I am guessing that you became un-athiest through gentleness. You and I agree that there are problems with the theory of evolution but beating on people will not help. It appears that you are not a scientist - and I lack expertise in most fields. I learn a great deal here so I invite you to enjoy the reading. I am trying to locate a scientist with whom I can work on each of several topics which I think would, if established as fact, prove evolution impossible. So far, I have located only one but have not been able reconnect with him/her. I do want to point out that our fight is with poli-titions (people who set poli-cy) and not with scientists. Policy setters are the ones using the theory of evolution as fact - no one here will claim that the theory is fact. As I see it, we have choices: 1) fight the polititions, 2) work to prove evolution impossible, 3) wait until the Creator's return. We can do all three! Thanks for your patience,Bob, Alice, Eve
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Hi BAE,
Nice to read you once again. Are you seriously working on a study aiming to prove evolution impossible? Why not start with a smaller subject first. Denesha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
BAE,
I am trying to locate a scientist with whom I can work on each of several topics which I think would, if established as fact, prove evolution impossible. So far, I have located only one but have not been able reconnect with him/her. What did you have in mind that would prove evolution to be impossible? (Unscientific lexicon in italics). Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
BobAliceEve
Policy setters are the ones using the theory of evolution as fact - no one here will claim that the theory is fact. You are correct the theory is not a fact in the same way that a map is not the territory.Evolution is a fact {the territory} and the Theory of Evolution is the model {the map} The theory of evolution is our best framework to explain what actually exists as an event evident in our observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Damn, SI once again wakes up to throw the debate in Congress into termoil.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Does the fact that in todays observable world nothing cannot ever become something prove that evolution is impossible?.. I mean throwing around millions of yrs to give the impression that anything can happen with chance doesnt really change much does it? A creationists one said that its a bit like leaving your computer on without no operating system or software and hoping that one day or a million yrs the computer may do the calculations you would want it to do. (thx for any replies to this).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
almeyda
I mean throwing around millions of yrs to give the impression that anything can happen with chance doesnt really change much does it? If I understand you correctly you are talking about evolution and are yourself operating under the impression that evolution works by chance alone. This is a misunderstanding that is somehow constantly circulating even today. Evolution works through not just chance but also through natural selection.Natural selection is the enviroment surrounding a creature throughout its lifetime and includes hazards such as predators ,climate change,and any chance occurances that work tfor or against the creature reaching an age of reproduction.And,yes,this is sufficient to explain the process of evolution and all the wonderous diversity of life upon Earth. Chance by the standards you are operating on would be a little like the monkeys hammering out the works of Shakespear.By random process we would of course expect eons to pass before they could be expected to go from one end of reproducing shakespears works to the other with no errors in spelling.Natural selection though works by {taking our monkey authors and their keyboard hunt and peck methods} locking in proper combinations as they occur which rapidly allows Shakespear to be accurately reproduced.Let us take the phrase "to be or not to be" and for simplicity's sake we will condense it to "tobeornottobe". Now I will allow you to perform the experiment yourself.Go to your keyboard,close your eyes and rapidly punch in keystrokes randomly while counting to 20.Then go over the apparent gibberish and when you find the first "t" circle it then locate the next letter "o",circle it and proceed until you have found "tobeornottobe".Let me know how many letters you went through in all until you had the whole phrase. Fast and efficient isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
What your explaining is Evolution after its arise. What im asking about is the explaination of the beginning. How nothing became everything. Evolutionists have long taught that all life on earth originated from a single ancester cell. But 3 fundamental types of cells are thought by scientist to form the building block of life, actually evolved independently, not in orderly succession from a common ancestor. It seems like the hopeless task of explaining how one ancestor organism could arise from dead matter triples in difficulty. The simplest cell is considered super complexed. I take you back again to a quote i wrote in a different thread. "Prebiotic soup is easy to optain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constitutes of nucleotides evolved into a self replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative" - Dr Leslie Orgel
P.S - gjrjk"b"mdjj"r"majdnjdj"t""e"kh"o"akegf"n"nv"n"nmhbmamgkakjghkkmbfmskpep"o"kgha,lslkfkfaeij"o" taeanalug"r"ughvngerh"t"rwjhtj"t"kylkymklkjsjlmkjkukuiljyu"o"efafmek"t""e""b"klslmv;v bnkjlai"o" --- Must they be in order? Because i did reach the letters but i dont think in order
edited to add a space to break up long line of chars to fix page width - The Queen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 05-09-2004 11:01 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But 3 fundamental types of cells are thought by scientist to form the building block of life ...3 cells? I'm only familiar with two types of cells: plant cells and animal cells. What's the third? And moreover, don't you think the fact that all cells have essentially the same organelles is pretty clear evidence that they're related, somehow?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Let's look at your selected quote.
"Prebiotic soup is easy to optain[sic]. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constitutes of nucleotides evolved into a self replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative" - Dr Leslie Orgel Please read it fully.
quote: Here it says that the necessary beginning chemicals and state are easy to obtain. So that part should not be a problem.
quote: Here, it shows that the question next is to explain how that mix changed into something that was alive.
quote: And that there is evidence that suggests the change from inert to live might well happen. Many experiments certainly show things move towards increasing complexity.
quote: The last part. Just what does this sentence mean? The key word is tentative. Here. all that is said is that all of the results are not yet in. And that is correct. No one has yet demonstrated exactly how the chemical stew made the next transition from inert to living. But as he says, that is the direction that all the research seems to be pointing. So even the good Dr. Leslie Orgel seems to think that it is only a matter of time before the exact process itself is known, understood and demonstrated. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Does the fact that in todays observable world nothing cannot ever become something prove that evolution is impossible? Certainly not, because in today's observable world nothing becomes something all the time, as predicted by quantum mechanics and observed in literally thousands of ways. The observation that is easiest to understand is the Casimir effect.
I mean throwing around millions of yrs to give the impression that anything can happen with chance doesnt really change much does it? Of course, anything can happen with chance. Add a filter like selection and all sorts of things will happen. The claim that evolution is all chance is another creationist lie.
A creationists one said that its a bit like leaving your computer on without no operating system or software and hoping that one day or a million yrs the computer may do the calculations you would want it to do. The technical term for that is "strawman fallacy"; ignopring your opponent's real theory and making up a false theory that can easily be attacked. Evolution is nothing like that; selection makes all the difference. This message has been edited by JonF, 05-09-2004 08:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Your right i do swallow all they tell me. So you really are that gullible, you don't have any interest in truth or reality, and you really think that spreading lies is acceptable because you are doing it for Jesus. Pathetic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You said
I mean throwing around millions of yrs to give the impression that anything can happen with chance doesnt really change much does it? but that is not exactly how things work. First, there are changes and mutations going on all the time. These changes can be beneficial, neutral or bad. All three happen. The changes that are very bad are the changes that will not let that individual reproduce and so those changes very quickly get weeded out of the pool. The neutral changes are just there. They continue until something in the environment changes and they become either a good or bad change. Again, if they are very bad, the individual gets weeded out of the reproducing pool. The good changes are the ones that allow the individual to compete better in a given environment or to move into a new, less competitive environment. They help the individual reproduce. But remember, we are also talking about many individuals, not one individual. Consider the dice analogy. The odds of rolling one die and it coming up two are 6 to one. But if you roll ten dice, what do you think the likelyhood of one of those ten coming up two will be? This is a simple test that you can do for yourself. Just get ten dice and roll them. Record the number of times that one of the ten comes up two and repeat this experiment ten times. Let us know what happens. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024