|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: QUESTIONS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7913 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quicksink you need to grow up or something i cant bear to read your posts. im not kidding. all you do is whine or something. the majority of the stuff you say has no supporting evidence and you dodge a lot of things. i also doubt if you know the evolutionary theory or have even looked at a bible.
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
why don't you give me an example...
it seems to me that you can't stand somone who is actually presenting facts. and ps i'll try ot grow up- give me a decade or so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Evidence for a young earth should be evident without reference to God at all. That is the whole point, and that is why Creation 'science" isn't science. Science is evidenciary in nature, not revelatory. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth" [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7913 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: id just like to show everyone this again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: do you have a response, or are you making a mockery of me... it seems you're more concerned with critisizing my debating than actually debating. your post in "atheism" is evidence that you prefer to make wild claims without any proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7913 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: well you guys dont think the bible is credible and i dont know too many other things that are an accurate history of Jesus's time. Also the other sources that we do present you falsify by making assumptions based on his credentials and whether or not their pro evolution. you guys dont want admit anything, and we usually will if you provide us undeniable evidence. so what if they bible did mean that the earth was flat, i dont know any christian that believes that just because they bible can be taken to mean that. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi [This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 03-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
once again, you are ranting, much like most creationists i've chatted with
"stop ignoring the evidence!" they say "you approach things with a narrow-mind and dismiss our evidence out of hand!" answer this simple question, kp- how did the flood organize the fossil strata like it did???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7913 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: since your dying to know ill try my hardest to come up with reasonable evidence for that. i dont believe that the flood organized the fossil strata. but then again you could call it luck.ps. ill try to come up with it tommorow. its just about bed time. :-) ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AARD Inactive Junior Member |
KP- well you guys dont think the bible is credible and i dont know too many other things that are an accurate history of Jesus's time.
We don't think the bible is credible as a source of scientific knowledge. But I think even most atheists would agree that many of the moral teachings have validity. Other than a few place names, I know of nothing in the bible that can be verified with scientific evidence. There is no evidence of Adam and Eve/garden of Eden. There is no evidence of the flood. There is no evidence of the Exodus. There is no evidence for the great age of the Patriarchs. There is no evidence for the great kingdoms of David and Solomon. Etc, Etc, Etc. Nor do we have any evidence for the myriad other religious doctrines from around the world. This is an essay to get to started. Its not too long and will give you a place to start your own search. http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm This one is another short essay you might find interesting: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm If you want a little more detail, try this site: http://www.bibleorigins.net/archaeologydatestexts.html None of this should cause you any grief as far as your religious inclinations go. But it should make you reflect upon YOUR particular interpretation of the bible. You are setting yourself up for failure by following the false dichotomy espoused by YEC. It is not an either/or proposition. On the other hand, we have very detailed evidence from other societies, that lived through the time of the flood. We have very detailed geologic evidence that a world wide flood never occurred. We have a very detailed sorting of the fossil record within the geology. We have observed evolution in action, about 100 unique speciation events in just the last 20 years. Etc, Etc, Etc. Now think about it, in the 150 years of evidence gathering, emergence of new sciences, and increases in our ability to measure, observe, and experiment, all this new knowledge has leant additional strength in the ToE. Not a single piece of evidence has been discovered that would cause the falsification of the theory (although adjustments have been made, good science). Therefore, the reasonable person (the scientist in this case), must conclude on the basis of current evidence, that the bible is not a reliable source of scientific evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: so hold on- you don't believe that the flood organized the strata, even though, according to creationists, it was responsible for the fossilization of all fossils today. and then you dismiss the whole thing as luck?!? so basically, whenever science presents some solid evidence, you dismiss it as luck???? well kp, please, think rationally here. you're saying that "luck" would so perfectly create the strata so that not one fossil is out of the ordinary or out of place... c'mon now- let's not be stupid now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
QS: Please tell me what you think the fossil record shows? I'm not being smart (read: sarcastic), I just want to understand your position so that I can respond properly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
primitive species are found lower in the strata, and more modern and "advanced" are found further up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
quote: The fossil record shows nothing. You make an assumption and seek to understand the fossil record in light of that assumption. Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale. Being completely honest, wouldn't you try to arrange them in some sort of evolutionary fashion - as though the big horse evolved from the smaller one? Now, given the assumption of evolution, that arrangement would come easy. The fossil record has not showed it to be true, it is merely consistent with your assumption. I mean, after all, the fossils could be related. But the fossils themselves do not teach us the relation. Would you admit that the assumption has to be made?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Yes, you are quite right its all about interpretation of data. Evolutionary theory is suported by the fossil record.The fossil record fits the facts, but was NOT the basis of evolutionary theory. In the 'Falsifying Creation' thread I have attempted to show thatthe YEC, literal interpretation of genesis, does NOT fit the observed fossil record. I beleive I have shown why this is the case. Without evolutionary or creationist theory super-imposed:: Fossils are found in geological strata. Organisms classified in biology as simpler (not in evolutionaryterms I hasten to add) are found lower. Certain types of organism are ALWAYS found below certain otherswithout exception. Animals which exist now are not found in that form in the fossilrecord (with one or two exceptions e.g. ceolocanths). We can say without interpretation or inference, that those fossilsat lower levels were burried earliest. We can infer from the fossil record that some animals, and typesof animals existed at times when others did not. That last statement is sufficient to invalidate a literalinterpretation of the creation in genesis. We must then seek some alternative explanation. We can observe that some animal forms are similar, yet subtelydifferent from those above and below them in the fossil record, and that these types never appear as contempories. It is NOT just about size as in your horsey example. It isskeletal similarity and apparent progression that tends to support evolutionary theory. And no, in all honesty I wouldn't put forward an evolutionaryscenario in the 2000 year example you give. I would (as modern archeologists do) seek evidence within the layers (and they would be layers in a mere 2000 years) which corroborated the age. Beyond that, I would seek the same sequence elsewhere, and if I could not find it, would not make any wild claims based upon a single observation. The fossil record is globally consistent, not just one or twoisolated examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: This is an interesting assertion. On what do you base it? What is your experience with the fossil record?
quote: Not really. You forget that there is history here. In the early days of geology, the fossil record was first observed. At that time, this was unexplainable. Then evolution came along, and there was a lot of the "why-didn't-I-think-of-that?" syndrome. Nowadays, yes, we use evolution as the basis for our interpretation. But remember it wasn't always that way, and if there were credible inconsistencies we would move on to another theory. This has not happened.
quote: Actually, not. Because they would be in the same strata. Also, this is not a good analogy because the various breeds you refer to were genetically engineered. In a natural system all horses would start to look alike unless some were genetically isolated and took on different characteristics. In that case, eventually, they would become a different species.
quote: Which would be valid, since it has been shown to work.
quote: Not a bad assumption, really. Evolution has been shown to work. It would be a justifiable to think that it would work in new situations as well. Now, does the assumption of evolution guarantee that we can make a correct interpretation of the evolution of the horse? Of course not. There is usually not enough data to be certain and future discoveries will clarify the picture. On the other hand, your scenario is not valid for the reasons stated.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024