|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith | |||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
But he didn't provide any evidence. He told them the story of the resurection, sure. But a story is not evidence.
Overall, Paul was explaining WHAT his message was (this is what they asked him to do), and providing only some evidence for WHY it was true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Flyer75 writes:
I'd be surprised if they did. They'll assume millions of years ago, because all evidence points to dinosaurs having lived in that period and not after. Now, about your predator "assumption". I doubt that very very much. There are other possible explanations. A local flood for example (say, a tsunami), a volcanic eruption, a forest fire. Without additional data (Like footprints from the actual predator), I don't think any scientist will state that it had to be a predator.
Take this crude example: Tons of dinosaur foot prints are found running in the same direction. The evolutionist automatically assumes that millions of years ago followed by a theory that the dinosaurs were running from predators looking to eat them. The creationist automatically assumes thousands of years ago followed by a theory that the dinosaurs were running from a global catastrophic flood, Noah's flood.
Again, why couldn't it have been a forest fire, a predator, voldcanic eruption. If that's really what the creationist assumes, he's assuming something without any evidence for it. Not mentioning the fact that a global flood would probaly have wiped the footprints clear from the mud they were made in.
Who's right?
About the date? The scientist. About what they were running from? In your example, neither one. I will say that I doubt a scientist will draw that conclusion based on just footprints, however.
Neither side can absolutley prove their theory...
Of course not. Does that mean we should ignore the evidence we have got?
but both came to the table with a presupposition opposite of the other.
Poor ones at that. Again, I'd like to note that I find it highly doubtful a scientist would conclude it had to be a predator if all he has is some prints.
Both can agree that something happened to the dinosaurs in this specific case, both can agree that the dinosaurs were running from something looking to wipe them out, but the conclusion is different.
Only one is supported by the evidence though (in case of the date, in your example), and in case of the cause, both are unfounded.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what he is trying to say in the post.
I tried some corections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hadn't even thought of that.
Anyway, Flyer75, I hope this illustrates that scientists don't just assume things when there is no evidence for them. Unlike it seems, the creationist in your example. I mean, you're a creationist, so I'm safe to assume that's the conclusion you would draw, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello again Flyer75,
Others have answered about the dating stuff, and I'd suggest you take their advice and take it to another thread to discuss it further, so as not to derail this one (which should be about wheteher or not science is based on faith rather then data). Some comments:
Flyer75 writes:
Think this argument through though. What about a murder? Say, for example, nobody was around to see it, can nobody be convicted for the act then? Do you see the flaw in this argument? Things leave evidence, the evidence these things leave is what science bases itself on.
No human was supposedly around to observe any of it, right? I start with an assumption that the Bible is true, that Noah's flood did occur...
But science doesn't take any assumptions like that. It bases itself on things that are shown. You're rebuttal "But things could've been different in the past!" isn't really much of a rebuttal at all. First of all, the dates are in correllation, meaning that different isotopes with different decay rates (this is important) still give the same dates for the same rocks. This would mean, that if they were different in the past, there wouldn't have beeen a set change in decay, but the rates would have to have changed proportionally. And untill this is shown to have happened, why should we act like it did? But like I said, this would be better suited to a "dates" thread. Also all someone has to do to counter a "what if?" argument is say "well, what if it's not?". You're stuck then. This is why science asks you "Ok, you say things were different/you say this happened, where's the evidence for your claim?". As long as you can't provide evidence for your claim, why should we consider it? I think I know why you assume the bible is true (that's because of your belief in it's accuracy, right?). But let's look at it in a different light. Why should we teach something as fact simply because you believe it is true? What about the Hindu creation myths? Or the Norse, or the Egyptian? Should we teach them as fact, or consider them seriously in science simply because there are people that consider these things to be true? Can you see how important evidence is to science now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Flyer75 writes:
What about the Iliad then? We have evidence for much of that as well. Why do you not believe in Zeus? Do I have to take certain things on faith? Of course, but because I, and it can be proven through the things I listed in my previous post, have evidence of much of the Bible, why should I not logically believe all of the Bible. Note: This is not some cheap shot, Flyer, think the implications through. You claim you believe the bible because "much" is evidenced through the archaeological finds (how much is a debate for another thread), then why do you not believe all of the Iliad on the same principle? We have uncovered the entire city of Troy! Is that not enough right there? Edited by Huntard, : Typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Flyer75 writes:
Have you read the actual study, or the article from which the quote is lifted (from Yale daily news)? There's another quote in there:
Scientists have faith, not blind faith, that if they can answer a "problem" such as this, New Study Contradicts Flower Fossil Dates | The Institute for Creation Research. Now, I don't think this article by any means brings down evolution but there is an admitted problem here by a scientist who certainly isn't a creationist. quote: And another:
quote: So they're not even sure their methods are correct. I find it very weird why ICR would then go and conclude that this "find" dicredits somehow the evolution of plants. Also, 75 million years isn't exactly a long time geologically, and plants often lack "hard parts" that fossilize easily, which is why plant fossils are quite rare. All in all, this isn't a very convincing "hole".
He thinks there is a problem here. The rest of the story not told is that he probably believes that an answer will be found at some point to this little problem so he has faith that this doesn't impact his thoughts on evolution.
This won't impact evolution. Not one bit. Like the scientist said in the Yale paper, either his methods are wrong, which means they'll need to do more testing, or the fossil record is wrong (I doubt he said this, he probably meant "incomplete"). Either way, there is no doubt plants evolved. This is not based on faith, but on previous knowledge though.
My point was, science is changing at an enormous pace. What students were taught 25 years ago even is not what would be taught today, at least some of it. What YEC believe about the Bible and 3,000 years ago won' t change, it hasn't changed and it won't. That's all I was referring to as far as that point goes.
But don't you think that this change is a good thing? When new things are found out, should we not change what is taught? Should we simply have said "Well Mr. Einstein, that's all nice and dandy, but if you expect us to drop Newton, you can go pull the other one". Now look at what YEC's do. By your own admission, it will never change. It doesn't matter what evidence we show them, they'll maintain they are right, and the evidence is wrong. Don't you find that a strange way to go about things? Edited by Huntard, : Added second quote
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024