Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God's Place In Evolution
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 25 of 190 (604789)
02-14-2011 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by goldrush
02-14-2011 10:55 PM


Speciation
All creatures differs little from their parents, but what hard evidence do we have that one species or kind became another?
There is a lot of evidence for speciation, both from modern studies and studies of the past.
Are you suggesting that speciation didn't happen?
And if so, what is the basis for your suggestion?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 10:55 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 11:01 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 27 of 190 (604791)
02-14-2011 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by goldrush
02-14-2011 11:01 PM


Re: Speciation
goldrush writes:
No, I'm simply asking the person claiming speciation to explain it and present evidence.
There is evidence all through the scientific literature.
Whole floors of major libraries are devoted to peer-reviewed journals filled with evidence for evolution and speciation.
Seems to me that anyone disputing that evidence should bring some pretty convinving evidence of their own. Their position is not mainstream. Fact is, it's pretty fringe.
And your evidence is...?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 11:01 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 11:27 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 31 of 190 (604795)
02-14-2011 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by goldrush
02-14-2011 11:27 PM


Re: Speciation
If evidence is as abundant as you say, surely you shouldn't have a problem presenting at least one piece.
Sure, no problem.
29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
The image of those skulls is a representation of the intermediates, between chimpanzee and modern human.
That shows speciation quite clearly.
What is your dispute with that evidence (and all the other evidence for speciation)?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 11:27 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 60 of 190 (604899)
02-15-2011 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by goldrush
02-15-2011 4:24 PM


Accurate knowledge?
Let's reexamine the concept of accurate knowledge for a moment.
OK, here's one for you.
The global flood, which biblical scholars place ca. 4,350 years ago, has been shown by science to not have happened.
It is so easy to disprove the Genesis flood story that even my own archaeological research has done so.
Does this give you any doubts, or do you just ignore all of this evidence?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 4:24 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 10:21 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 66 of 190 (604911)
02-15-2011 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by goldrush
02-15-2011 10:21 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
The combined evidence of these legends corroborates the Bible's ancient testimony that all humans descend from the survivors of a flood that destroyed a world of mankind.
The genetic information does not show that. There was no genetic bottleneck about 4,350 years ago.
The archaeological information also refutes the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago.
Look at it this way: if there was a global flood at that time, the evidence would be found globally. That means it would be in your back yard. Because of the recent age, 4,350 years ago, you will be dealing with soils rather than geological formations. It is a simple matter to go and check to see if there are either flood sediments or massive erosional features at that time period. You can check your back yard yourself with a little archaeological training or some knowledge of soils.
Here are two refutations from my own work:
I have tested over 100 prehistoric sites, and in none contained either flood sediments or massive erosional features at that time period. Rather we find continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, depositional sequences, and mtDNA.
In one site we radiocarbon dated a skeleton at 5,300 years ago. The mtDNA from that individual matched that of still living individuals in the same area. If the flood had killed everyone at 4,350 years ago that would not be possible. Further, the mtDNA was one that developed some 20,000 years ago in Beringia (Alaska during the last Ice Age).
Archaeologists and soils experts all over the world have found the same thing: no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago.
(And no, radiocarbon dating is not in error. Sorry.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 10:21 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 78 of 190 (604939)
02-16-2011 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
02-16-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Humans And Dinosaurs
There is the on/long-going debate regarding co-existent dino human footprints.
Nonsense.
There are claims from fundamentalists which are disproved by scientists. The claims are then repeated over and over in spite of being disproved.
If you call that "on/long-going debate" you are fooling yourself.
Link added:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Edited by Coyote, : Added link

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 10:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 190 (604963)
02-16-2011 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by goldrush
02-16-2011 12:23 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
Really the testimony of this common legend should behoove one to reconsider the falsifying "physical" evidence.
So you want to just "hand-wave" away the evidence I posted above? Or ignore it entirely?
Why don't you try to address it instead?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by goldrush, posted 02-16-2011 12:23 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 102 of 190 (605079)
02-16-2011 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Buzsaw
02-16-2011 8:09 PM


Re: Lo And Behold The Legends and other nonsense
Nonsense.
Legends are a dime a dozen (a little more now due to inflation).
The issue was the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago.
--On one hand we have a lot of non-specific flood legends. There is no reason to believe that they all described the same flood at all! And lots of reasons to believe they don't. The descriptions vary and the times are non-specific.
--On the other hand we have hard evidence, the evidence of archaeology and the soils. We can see evidence of floods if they were there! Google "channeled scablands" and take a look at the post-glacial evidence for floods in the Pacific Northwest. Here is a good link:
http://www.uwsp.edu/...ticipants/dutch/vtrips/scablands0.htm
Evidence for a global flood 4,350 years ago would be a third the age and spread all over the world (including your back yard). If it was there it would be easy to find.
--On the gripping hand we have the evidence of genetics. That was explained to you in a post upthread (for at least the dozenth time).
And against this hard evidence that can be verified by anyone, even you if you dared to face it, you want us to accept myths!
Get a grip!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 8:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 10:37 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 110 of 190 (605089)
02-16-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Buzsaw
02-16-2011 10:37 PM


Re: Lo And Behold The Legends and other nonsense
Sea fossils are everywhere in the US that I've been, from Ca To the heights of the Wind River Mountain Range in Wy to SC, to NY They're pretty much global.
As for the dating, you know my arguments about that. I don't buy the conventional and you don't buy the Biblical, so no use in debating that.
Buz, you are showing yourself to be incapable of learning.
You have made your mind up and no amount of evidence will persuade you to the contrary.
What a waste of a mind!
And what a waste of time trying to show you the evidence you clearly want to deny--no matter what.
This is worse than ignorance, as ignorance can be cured if the person is willing to learn. You are clearly unwilling.
Again, what a waste of a mind.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 10:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 135 of 190 (605241)
02-17-2011 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Buzsaw
02-17-2011 9:49 AM


Re: The Flood Debate Another Topic
Buzsaw writes:
Jar, your message delves into a new topic so as to derail this thread. I don't have the time to debate the flood in debth. My time on line is too limited to go into in depth debate in multiple directions.
Buz, you can't debate the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago.
That issue has been settled based on the evidence. It was settled just about 200 years ago, and since then the evidence has continued to pile up. There was no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago.
The only thing you could do is tell us of your unsupported beliefs, and to totally ignore the evidence we present which shows those beliefs are incorrect. That's not a debate--that's a catechism lesson.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2011 9:49 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 142 of 190 (605366)
02-18-2011 7:39 PM


Goldrush, are you ever going to deal with the evidence I posted in Message 66, upthread?
That evidence completely refutes the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago. A lot of it is from my own archaeological research.
Or are you going to continue to try to ignore it?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 02-18-2011 7:56 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 149 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 6:11 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 145 of 190 (605370)
02-18-2011 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by jar
02-18-2011 7:56 PM


That light at the end of the tunnel...
jar writes:
One of the really great things is that a whole bunch of unrelated lines of evidence refute the Biblical Flood.
  • The evidence you present
  • All of geological evidence
  • The fact that many societies continued right through the fictional flood.
  • The lack of flood damage within structures that would have existed before and after the fictional flood.
  • The existence of many haplotypes that existed before and after the fictional flood.
  • The lack of the genetic bottleneck markers.
Any one of them is sufficient to refute the Biblical Flood, but what we find is that many totally unrelated lines of evidence all, each individually and collectively, refute the story.
The Biblical Flood never happened.
Exactly.
It is not hard to refute the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago (I try to be very precise in my terminology on this).
It is so easy that even my archaeological research in a limited area of the western US has refuted the idea of a global flood at that time.
And of course my evidence just adds a little more to the body of evidence produced for the past 200 years from an ever-increasing range of professions.
But what amazes me is the grounds on which creationists attempt to refute this evidence, and what just staggers me is those creationists who try to ignore it completely.
That is so foreign to how things are done in science that it is incomprehensible.
To me that is akin to ignoring a freight train headed right at you and saying, after it has flattened you, "It didn't leave a scratch."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 02-18-2011 7:56 PM jar has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 157 of 190 (605542)
02-20-2011 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by goldrush
02-20-2011 6:11 PM


To many unknowns?
The reason I didn't deal with it is because it was based on radiocarbon dating which assumes too many unknowns.
Sorry, that is incorrect.
There may be too many unknowns for creationists, but for scientists the radiocarbon method works just fine and is based on just a few well-documented assumptions.
(Note: "Assumption" does not equal "wild guess, almost certainly wrong" as creationists like to imply.)
If you are interested, here are some links to study:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Tree Ring and C14 Dating
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.
If you have any specific questions, let me know and I'll see about answering them for you.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 6:11 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 158 of 190 (605543)
02-20-2011 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by goldrush
02-20-2011 6:36 PM


More on radiocarbon dating
The validity of radiocarbon dating rests on the assumption that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion).
The ratios in the atmosphere over time are determined by use of tree rings. Count back 12,000 years or more using tree rings and radiocarbon date every tenth ring. This establishes a curve which corrects for atmospheric fluctuation. (That problem in radiocarbon dating was identified by de Vries in 1958, and has been dealt with since then.)
Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown.
Incorrect; see above.
The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination. What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.
Contamination is a possibility, but most sources of contamination make the sample younger not older. There are a few that make things older, such as dating organisms from the ocean or from limestone-rich streams. Those are easy to account for. One method of dealing with marine samples is to check the C13 and N15 ratios. That can identify materials with high percentages of marine organisms in the diet. One skeleton I dated returned a measured age of about 5800 years, but after correcting for a large percentage of marine organisms in the diet and calibrating for atmospheric fluctuations, the date was about 5,250 year BP (before present).
Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth's magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.
That is why the tree ring calibration is used to establish a calibration curve. This would eliminate any of the problems you are citing if they even occur. (Much of what you cite would have no effect on the radiocarbon process.)
Better learn something about the radiocarbon method before you accept that creationist websites know more than scientists. Those creationists have been lying to you.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 6:36 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 170 of 190 (606699)
02-27-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by goldrush
02-27-2011 9:23 PM


Nonsense start to finish
goldrush writes:
My convictions are not contingent on scientific analysis and findings, although I do find it interesting when the Bible and science agree with each other. I view God as the highest authority, and I trust the Word of God over any man's conclusions, methods, or thoughts. Time and experience has proven that God's Word is superior to man's.
In other words, you will ignore the evidence from the real world in favor of the voices in your head and ancient tribal texts. (Hint: don't bet the rent money on the latter.)
The dating methods are based on our best current scientific understanding of things, which is likely to change the more we learn. Scientific understanding is never perfect, that's why our technology and medical treatments very often simultaneously create side effects and problems with their solutions. Scientists are human, always working with limited knowledge in ways they don't realize and therefore cannot fully understand where they may be wrong, or forsee all possibilities and implications of their work.We never know when we'lldiscover something new or better to help us realize facts we never knew we didn't know in the first place.
Dating methods have indeed changed, but they have become increasingly in agreement with one another and increasingly in disagreement with interpretations of ancient tribal texts. The young earth belief has been totally disproved, for example.
Another good example is the creationists' claim that the speed of light is decreasing. That is only the case if you cherry-pick the data, which is a standard creationist tactic. In actuality, the speed of light is closing in on a value which is increasingly more precise.
What you are really doing with this argument is claiming that science is horribly wrong and doesn't know it. And you base this on non-scientific data--ancient tribal myths. Sorry, your religious belief doesn't constitute evidence of any kind.
What is found to be true scientifically is mutable, but God's Word never changes. God does not have to search for the answers or the truth, He already knows. All we have to do is listen to Him and trust Him to guide us.
Which god, and which interpretation of his word and TRVTH? There have been or are probably tens of thousands of god-claims. Are you saying that there is evidence that one of these is accurate and all others are false? How can you tell, empirically, that any are accurate?
This is not to say science is pointless, it has many useful applications. It's just not the highest form of truth, knowledge and wisdom.
How very condescending. And how very wrong.
Science is limited to that for which it can provide evidence. Would that religious beliefs and claims could be so supported. But I guess that's why there is such an emphasis on belief and faith--there is a lack of evidence.
And no, all evidence does not point against a flood as I have previously explained. And BTW, I am not a YEC. I simply believe in a Creator and creation.
The global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has been disproved totally. That evidence comes from multiple fields, beginning with geology some 200 years ago. Since then the evidence against the flood myth has become overwhelming.
My own archaeological research has shown that there is no evidence in some 100 sites I have tested for a global flood some 4,350 years ago. I have genetic results that show the same thing. If I can come up with this kind of disproof in the small area in which I work, pretty much anyone can.
Even you can! If there was a global flood at that time it would have included your back yard. All you have to do is some excavation and you can find out if there is evidence for a flood at that time or not. You might have to study some archaeology or sedimentology, and learn something about dating, but this is a test you can do yourself!
Or you can look up a local archaeological group; most major universities have one. Go out on an excavation and see what the soils at about 4,350 years of age look like. Any evidence of major deposition or erosional features? Or is there continuity of Native American cultures, fauna and flora, and mtDNA?
How about it? Are you up for this test? Or are you afraid of what you might find?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by goldrush, posted 02-27-2011 9:23 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024