Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 12:01 PM
35 online now:
dwise1, edge, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (10 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,050 Year: 5,087/19,786 Month: 1,209/873 Week: 105/460 Day: 47/58 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Why is it Evolution versus Creation?
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 45 (368353)
12-08-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 12:26 AM


"There is enough of a discrepency to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such sustantional agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction" Craig L. blomberg, PH.D., Craig Blomberg is widely considered to be the one of the country's formost authorities on the biographies of Jesus.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:26 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2006 7:34 AM geatz has not yet responded

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 45 (368354)
12-08-2006 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 12:32 AM


I'll take it to someone if I don't understand the science, I just want to see the mathematics really.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 12:32 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:49 AM geatz has responded

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 45 (368355)
12-08-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:46 AM


I'm going to bed
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:46 AM geatz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:49 AM geatz has not yet responded

  
geatz
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 45 (368356)
12-08-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:49 AM


goodnite all
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:49 AM geatz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Admin, posted 12-08-2006 8:43 AM geatz has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3400
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 35 of 45 (368360)
12-08-2006 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by geatz
12-07-2006 11:14 PM


The real question is: Why do creationists attack science?
If you all think ID may be true, then why do you think it shouldn't be taught in schools? Wouldn't learning all the theories help us to find the truth. Why do evolutionists attack those that look for holes in their theory? Without these attacks, science would be meaningless. It's people like the creationalists that help us to find the real truth because they question that which is believed to be true. The idea that man came from beast is an old belief dating back well before the time of christianity, it just got a great publicist in the 1800s.

The problem is that those "creationalists" are lying. They misrepresent what science says. They misquote their sources. They use deceptive arguments (eg, semantic shifting, false dichotomies) to deceive their audiences. And despite their errors and falsehoods having been exposed and explained literally for decades (ie, most of the common false claims that are still popular with creation science's new suckers (eg, the earth's slowing rotation, moon dust, the "shrinking sun", protein comparisons, transitional fossils, Niagara Falls) date back to around 1980 and were refuted back then), they continue to circulate claims that they know to be false. What "evolutionists" (do define that term, please) are doing is responding to those lies, showing them to be false.

To demonstrate that it's not a case of "evolutionists attack[ing] those that look for holes in their theory", I'll refer you to an article by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey, leading debate opponents to creation science. From my page at http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.html:

Professors William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey teach in the Biology Department at San Diego State University (NOTE: one is now deceased), where they used to run a true two-model course, in which half the lectures were given by creationists, but they had to discontinue it after protests by Christian clubs. In 1977, they pioneered the successful debating strategy of researching creation science claims beforehand and then presenting what the evidence really showed or what the misquoted source had actually said.

In 1993, they announced their retirement from the fray and described their very last debate on 1993 April 29. The description of the debate was preceeded by a summation of their experiences in those 15 years, of what they had hoped to learn, and of what they had learned. They had entered into debates with the hope and expectation that:

"... a creationist would dig up a real biological paradox, one that would prove to be an interesting brain-teaser for the scientific community. We hoped that we could use the creationists to ferret out biological enigmas much as DEA agents use dogs to seek out contraband. ... While we had discovered that every creationist claim so far could easily be disproved, we still had hope that there was a genuine quandary in there somewhere. We just hadn't found it yet."

What did they discover after those 15 years? Complete disillusionment with the creationists. None of the creationists ever presented any real paradoxes or genuine quandaries. The creationists had no actual case to present.
(Thwaites, W., and F. Awbrey 1993. Our last debate; our very last. Creation/Evolution 33:1-4.)

So instead of attacking those who point to "problems with evolution", what's really been happening has been defenders of science and truth responding to the false and deceptive claims being made by those "creationalists".

I would assume that you're familiar with the leap-second claim, which says that the earth's rotational rate is slowing down at such a large rate (they say by about 1 second every 18 months, which is roughly how often a leap second needs to be added to the day) that it would have been rotating impossibly rapidly in the past if the earth were really millions and billions years old. Hovind says that 70 million years ago the dinosaurs would have been flung off the earth's surface. Billions of years ago, the earth would have flattened out like a gigantic pizza. What do you have to say about that claim?

Hovind claims that at the rate that the sun is "burning its fuel", it's losing five million tons of its mass every second. He ties this in as a mechanism to support the "shrinking sun" claim, expanding upon it by claiming that if the sun were really 5 billion years old, it would have sucked the earth in with its immensely greater gravity. What do you have to say about that claim? Do the math; it's simple. What would the sun's mass have been five billion years ago if it's losing 5 million tons of its mass every second?

A corollary question would be what effect that five million tons of solar mass lost each second would have on the "shrinking sun" claim. In particular, the part that says that the sun derives a sizeable portion of its energy from gravitational collapse. HINT: to answer this question, find out what the significance of that 5 million tons per second rate is and how it was arrived at.

Also, something that really puzzles me. Why do you keep talking to yourself?

Edited by dwise1, : Added corollary question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by geatz, posted 12-07-2006 11:14 PM geatz has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 36 of 45 (368376)
12-08-2006 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:45 AM


"There is enough of a discrepency to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such sustantional agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction" Craig L. blomberg, PH.D., Craig Blomberg is widely considered to be the one of the country's formost authorities on the biographies of Jesus.

That was Simon Greenleaf, according to every google search I tried.


Also: Please don't spam the board with replies to yourself as additions to your previous post. Simply edit the post you wish to add somethng to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:45 AM geatz has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12589
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 37 of 45 (368389)
12-08-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:49 AM


Hi Geatz,

Here at EvC Forum we limit threads to 300 posts so that there is always a clear end to discussion, so because each discussion can contain only a limited number of posts it is important that they not be used up by unnecessary messages such as this:

geatz writes:

goodnite all

We do have a chatroom if that is your preferred format, you'll see a link for it at the top of the page. You can invite people into chat by posting to the Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC thread.

A couple people have already mentioned the reply button, but it's worth mentioning again. If you click on the little reply button immediately beneath the message you're replying to, then the fact that you've replied to that message is recorded in the form of visible links, and if the person has selected email notification he is notified via email that a reply has been posted to his message.

About the topic, the current discussion concerning the age and authenticity of the gospels and of the historicity of Jesus seems unrelated to the opening post asking why there is a debate about creation/evolution. If issues related to the historicity of Jesus are something you'd like to pursue then would you (or anyone sufficiently motivated) propose a new topic for it? I'm requesting that this thread limit discussion to the issues causing there to be a creation/evolution debate.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:49 AM geatz has not yet responded

    
DemonScythe
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 45 (368491)
12-08-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by geatz
12-07-2006 4:16 AM


quote:
Christians don't have to debate whether evolution occured or not; let scientists figure out if it happened.

It's already been "figured out to happen", the thing is that people don't accept it.

quote:
I hate that evolutionists are pushing evolution as a fact simply because they don't want to believe in something higher than themselves.

It's your own fault because you are just perceiving us as that, Evolution would not mean we are the highest, it would mean we are all equal lifeforms, and creation would mean we "dominate over the other species".
quote:
It has prevented me from validifying their scientific discoveries because I believe there is alterior motive.

As I said, alot of people don't accept Evolution, and when there is more proof for it, people would twist it in their minds as "frauds" or "hoaxes".
quote:
Arguing evolution vesus ID is like me arguing reality with my nintendo.

And that's an analogy because?

quote:
Who am I to argue a billion years of evolution didn't occur in a single day when I am restricted by time and he is not.

You already stubbornly assume he exists, and that he is not in time, which would actually be impossible, or it would mean he is uneventful and still, if you stick to things like that, I'm afraid I can't help you.

quote:
You should be forming mathematical proofs to prove that 0=1 instead of arguing with christians

The thing is, 1 =/= 0. And I'd gladly stop my "arguing" if christians don't try to force their religion down my throat and in our schools.

quote:
whom are going to believe in creation whether evolution is fact or not.

As I said, just don't get in the way of Science, and all would be well.

quote:
Why not try arguing why our ancestors evolved instead of arguing if they evolved.

It aided in survivability, so of course they evolved.

quote:
The fact that so many evolutionists are still arguing "if" leads me to believe you aren't so confident in your findings.

No, we're not, the thing we debate upon is not whether Evolution happens or not, it's how and when different species evolve.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by geatz, posted 12-07-2006 4:16 AM geatz has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3400
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 39 of 45 (368511)
12-08-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:07 AM


geatz writes:

iceage writes:

geatz writes:

If scientists are going to overlook evidence for Jesus then why should people not overlook the holes in evolution. How can someone believe in evidence as to one subject and then ignore it on another.

This statement needs to go up on some quote board around here.

Just how do scientist overlook the evidence of Jesus? Are scientist also overlooking the evidence of Muhammad? Are they overlooking the evidence for the book of Mormon? And what the heck does that have to do with overlooking the "holes in evolution"


ahh the sarcasm begins, humor for the weak.

No, not at all. iceage posed a very pertinent question, one that drives at the very heart of your statement and, it appears, of your position. One that you very much need to answer.

Just what do questions about any particular religion's historicity have to do with science? You appear to be fixated on the idea that it has everything to do with science, whereas nobody else can see that it has anything to do with science. Just exactly how do you propose that scientists are supposed to incorporate Jesus is doing their lab work?

I suspect that you are proceeding from the same false premise that the false theology of the God of the Gaps is based on: that scientific evidence for something is evidence against God. That science can disprove God or at least is antithetical to the idea of God. Which leads naturally to the paranoia that science is attacking God or at least rejecting Him. Which I keep seeing in your posts.

So then, do please answer iceage's question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:07 AM geatz has not yet responded

    
rrammcitktturjsp012006
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 45 (368628)
12-09-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by geatz
12-07-2006 4:16 AM


Point of View
Hi,

I just wanted to reply to this message for a couple of reasons.

1. It sounds like you are not looking for an objective answer becuase your belief is already tainted that evolution and those who adhere to it are not confident in their findings. And if the confidence is not there, then truth is questioned. All it comes down to is personal peference, do we go with blind faith and accept something that can not be proven, or do we go with something that has many facts backing it up? Our personal perferences will dictate whether we can openly accept or even consider the other side of the debate. It seems to me that the mindframe you are working from is from a non-evolution paradigm and once that point of view is taken, then no matter what responses are responded to this message, objections will arise not out of scientific backing or logical reasoning but out of personal conviction.

2. Secondly there are times that 0 can = 1. It merely takes redefining the number system. Fascinating stuff mathematics. Perhaps the reason I am sharing this, is the hopes that you will redefine for yourself what you are looking for and considering in neither mindframe of evolution vs anythings else. I guess what I am saying to truly understand something, one has to be open-minded and not swayed to either position on a given topic. I understand that is hard becuase we seem to thrive on the polar opposites in everything we try to relate to.

3. With regards to the last sentence, I want to say simply this, are you confident in that last sentence and why? Do you have any findings to back up that last sentence in the orginal posting. What I am trying to say, if you wish to let scientists and evolutionist to present all the findings to represent their point of view to where you can be confident either way, then why do "Christains" get their dander up when we ask for the same courtesy of them? It seems to me, I would rather have some doubt with factual documentation pointing in a general direction then blind faith.

Good post by the way.


Rhiannon M. Moynihan-Flippin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by geatz, posted 12-07-2006 4:16 AM geatz has not yet responded

  
rrammcitktturjsp012006
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 45 (368630)
12-09-2006 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by iceage
12-08-2006 12:00 AM


Wow,

Great response, I could not have said it better. Thanks for the laugh I needed one this morning.


Rhiannon M. Moynihan-Flippin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iceage, posted 12-08-2006 12:00 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3067 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 42 of 45 (368941)
12-11-2006 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by geatz
12-07-2006 11:14 PM


Here's a deal!
Here is what I know. The Bible's historical inaccuracies every year are becoming accurate.

Here's an offer for you.

For every historical 'inaccuracy' in the Bible that you 'know' has been confirmed as accurate, I'll post five that have been shown to be still inaccurate.

So, can you give one example of an alleged inaccuracy that is now deemed as accurate.

What can be said without any fear of contradiction is that since 'archaeology' began in the Near East around the mid 19th century, the problems for many biblical narratives have become unsurmountable.

Looking forward to your example of an alleged inaccuracy that is now no longer considered inaccurate.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by geatz, posted 12-07-2006 11:14 PM geatz has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3067 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 43 of 45 (368942)
12-11-2006 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by geatz
12-08-2006 12:20 AM


but the concensus does not believe this to be so.

So, concensus equals true?

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by geatz, posted 12-08-2006 12:20 AM geatz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 12-11-2006 10:51 AM Brian has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 44 of 45 (368981)
12-11-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Brian
12-11-2006 7:22 AM


Brian writes:

but the concensus does not believe this to be so.

So, concensus equals true?

Leaving aside the issue of to what degree "consensus equals true", Geatz was responding to Crash about the dating of John's gospel. I had missed that he'd said this, so even though this is a reply to you, I'm actually addressing Geatz.

Hi Geatz,

You believe John is an early Gospel written by an eyewitness shortly after the death of Jesus, and you are claiming that that is the consensus opinion. It may be the consensus of those who sit with you in your pew at church, but the consensus opinion of scholars on John is the opposite of what you're claiming. The majority scholarly opinion is that it is relatively late, dating to around 100-110 AD.

Christian fundamentalist scholars date John just as you say, but since they represent a minority of all Christian scholars, their opinion does not represent a consensus.

I'm guessing that Brain's question about whether "consensus equals true" is an indirect way of stating that it is the actual evidence we should examine, rather than just conducting a census of scholarly opinion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Brian, posted 12-11-2006 7:22 AM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Miketmbt, posted 12-11-2006 3:11 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Miketmbt
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 45 (369058)
12-11-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
12-11-2006 10:51 AM


I dont really understand how there could be an argument against evolution. Anyone can see it every day. We have different human races, domesticated animals have changed in our recent history, the wide variety of insects based on where the live. Its nothing more than adapting to your environment and eventually changing phisically as a result. It just puts our ancestry far beyond Adam and Eve. And shows that you cannot go by a literal interpretation of Genesis (aside from its many other "literal flaws).

Edited by Miketmbt, : No reason given.


“I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”
--GOD.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 12-11-2006 10:51 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019