|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Investigation of Biblical science errors | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
Excellent stance, DarkStar!!
Don't let anyone take you down for remaining skeptical. You are, indeed, one of the wisest posters on here, because you are not so gullible as to swallow "certain evidence" like a Spring bear, starving for ANYTHING that moves. I applaud your firm stance in favor of being OPEN until you are personally satisfied by the evidence in one direction or the other. I agree with you whole-heartedly that Evolution is NOT proven, nor is it even nearly so, regardless of how loudly, or how often some people love to repeat that it is SO. What we really have, rather than a lack of evidence, is the lack of what you are stating already -- a tremendous lack of objective reasoning. If people really did not CARE whether there was a Creator or not, we would have much more objective research, rather than this emotional cry on every side for THIS opinion, or THAT "conclusion". Even if it is just between you and I, (those who insist on closing their minds to either side could be ignored) we could share what arguments make it difficult for us, personally, to accept either Creation or Evolution as viable. I have seen a tremendous amount of evidence that can truly be called Evidence in the scientific meaning (having to be observable, repeatable, and predictable), and I have also seen a great deal of "evidence" that is based on pure faith. If you are interested in discussing this sort of issue with me, I am delighted to engage. However, I must warn you that I am a mother of small children, and much of the information I have come face-to-face with is quite complex, and I will not have much time to go into this data in detail in my own words. This does NOT mean that I have not studied it to my own satisfaction. The only links or books that I will suggest are things that I have looked into deeply enough to believe, with no doubts left, that this is scientifically-documented data, that is NOT based on blind faith, but is truly scientific in the most thorough sense of the term. If you are open-minded enough to seek out links with such data, and look for (and study) books that I may point to, as excellent sources of deep research by scientists, like yourself, who have refused to accept others' "conclusions" and done some impressive research on their own, I believe you will, at some point, come to an understanding of the universe that will facilitate a decision, and that your OWN decision (which I will, by the way, never try to push)will be totally satisfying to you. Since YOU are the person who needs to be totally satisfied with this decision, YOU will be (at least between you and me)the ONLY one who will make it. Frankly, I do not care WHAT you decide, or IF you decide anything at all. MY STATED GOAL here is to point you to DOCUMENTED DATA, much of which is censored or twisted, to make sure that I have done everything I know possible to help YOU come to a satisfactory position FOR YOURSELF. Again, I wish to express my open admiration of you because you refuse to crunch yourself into following ANY of the propaganda from ANY POSITION. You are in a very special position, because you ARE, in fact, open-minded. Only the open-minded can see what is truly there to be seen. All others "see" what they CHOOSE to "see". So, are you up to it? Shall we face TRUE evidence head on? Waiting for your reply. Respectfully Yours, Reina
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
Glad to hear from you again!! I do wonder what you are and aren't familiar with already -- your signature at the end of your last post reflects my own feelings exactly (that "Micro-evolution" is certainly viable, but "Macro-evolution" doesn't stand a chance).
Please give me some idea of what evidences you are familiar with concerning both facets of evolution (Macro- & Micro-), and what counter-evidences you have found, also for both. Perhaps, if you are already satisfied with a decision concerning Macro-evolution, you will prefer to discuss only Micro-evolution. I leave it entirely up to you, as to how narrow or broad you wish to develop this research. I am more than glad to discuss any part(s) or the whole package(which is pretty big, but we could tackle it in bits and pieces, according to your preferences). One thing I have learned in my approx. 30 years of discussion experience -- I have the privelege of sharing evidence and truth with many people, but my responsibility and joy ends with having offered "clean, cool water" to people (sympbolically "horses"). As soon as I have done the work of carrying the good "water" to any "horse", it is then the choice of the "horse", whether he will drink or not. If he is not thirsty, I move on to the next, and on, until I have offered water to all the "horses" around me. I do not get frustrated with "horses" who are not thirsty -- rather, I get frustrated with those other "water" carriers who try to MAKE "horses" drink. So, I am sorry about all who try to co-erce others into drinking their "water". Someday, maybe more people will finally realize that each must come to their own conclusions, in their own way, in their own time. Any other way of coming to a conclusion is forced, and thus false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
I was addressing DarkStar. But I will honor the interruption:
"Evidence" has power to convince, only as the person considering the "evidence" places value on it in his OWN MIND. I have seen a great deal of "evidence" that brings me to a certain conclusion, with no shadow of a doubt to be found. However, if I were to show this same "evidence" to you, you may very well not find it convincing in the least. The road to Truth not only depends on the person's choice of a route, but also on the presence or absence of preconceptions in one's mind as to what Truth IS. Example: When Copernicus and Galileo showed "evidence" that the Earth rotated around the Sun, rather than the Sun rotating around Earth, he received great criticism and persecution, even though they had ample data to prove the viability of this theory.This bad reaction of the public came from the firm belief that the Bible was literal in the stories of Joshua and Hezekiah, in which time stood still or even went backwards. The people believed that because the Bible said "sun stood still", that this had to be "proof" that the sun is the one that moves, rather than the Earth. In each person's mind is a life-time (short or long) of back-ground messages and lessons by which he/she measures every new experience or piece of information. In short, each person makes his own decisions as to What he believes, and Why, based on his own pre-formed understanding of life in general, and who is trustworthy, or who is lying through their teeth. I suggest that, if you wish to observe this discussion between myself and DarkStar, you may do so without getting involved. Otherwise, you and I may open a separate discussion where You have the choice of what will be discussed. This one as is, is between DarkStar and myself. Sincerely for Truth and Free Expression of Ideas, Reina
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
The only Science I deal with is the exact synonym of TRUTH. Since Science means "knowledge", it would be null to speak of "knowledge", if the "knowledge" is not true. We would be making a study of myths and fairy tales.
My definition of Science and Truth must be completely compatible and interchangeable. In your post, it seems that you take Truth to be what people THINK is true. This is not what I am looking for. If this sort of "truth" were my goal, it would change constantly, as people are changeable, while Truth is not. Rather, I hold Science to be solid, recognizable, repeatable Truth, as immutable as the laws that govern Mathematics. When a scientist enters a laboratory, planning to make a formula with some purpose in mind, he doesn't have to experiment again and again to find what the correct combination is for the day -- he simply gathers certain specific ingredients and combines them in the exact amounts and ratios -- because the behavior of each element in nature remains the same, no matter how many times you test them ... When a farmer plants a crop, he can rest assured that the plants will sprout and grow according to the same patterns that they have always done since time began (that Man knows about, anyway); and it really steps over the line of documented Science to make any statement based on a belief that, somehow, things worked differently at some point in time, or on some other planet, when there is no witness or documentation to suggest that this might be so. In conclusion, Truth that can be tested, measured, and repeated is Science, pure and simple. But "Truth" that is stated as such, because someone wishes it to be so, is not Truth at all, but Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
Very Well, Crashfrog,
I am about to give you some "evidence" that one of your assumptions is erroneous. We shall see how "open-minded" you are -- "Why is it that the so-called "evidence" of creationism only "convinces" those who are already convinced?" Here are a few people who were not "already convinced", but who changed their views radically after making some careful scrutiny: Dr. Grady McMurtry --Connection Magazine, The Premier Good News Publication www.connectionmagazine.org Michael J. Behe, Michael Denton, William A. Dembski, & several others: Forbidden Please do not continue with an illusion that Everybody who believes in Creation has always been "already convinced".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
My understanding is that "Micro-Evolution" involves adaptations for survival within a species (such as the changes of beak size and shape -- in the Galapagos Finch);
while "Macro-Evolution" refers to the theory that one species might evolve into a totally different species (like a dog becoming a bear, or a lizard turning into an alligator).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
O.K., DarkStar.
That arrangement suits me just fine -- and don't worry about answering immediately, because I have very limited time, myself (three young children, and the computer is my dad's). So, answer at your leisure, so as to enjoy the discussion more fully. I am likely to ignore the trolls, since I've heard all their "stuff" before, countless times and in varying shades and shapes. However, I may feel like answering from time to time, but nothing tremendously heavy -- folks who truly yearn for the truth on any matter, can generally do a whole lot of research on their own, but they prefer to cling to their former beliefs, because it "hurts to think", and especially to realize that you were wrong about something, or that you had believed a lie. So, everybody in the saddle, and CHARGE !!! Time to Party !!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
What about Dembski?? He was convinced that an Intelligent Being had to have designed DNA well before he became a Christian. What about all the others in the world that have become Christians AFTER being convinced that spontaneous generation and evolution were terribly impoverished as true evidence is concerned ...?
There are millions who are NOT Christians who believe the world was created by Someone. Why would they believe Creation even in their continued state of "unbelief" in Christ?? Is there, just maybe, enough evidence out there to make "teachable" folk be convinced ...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
I disagree that one finch developing into another type of finch is "macro-evolution". We are still dealing with finches. We have not gone anywhere outside the basic structure of the finch.
As soon as you have some evidence of a finch turning into a starling or a kite, let me know. That will be "macro-evolution".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024