Evolution is Not Science

Jet,thats exactly what i was saying to you earlier and you just go on proving my point...YECs dont debate other people because they do not proceed under the assumption that people can honnestly disagree with their literalists view of the world and of their bibles. To you guys,for someone to disagree,he/she must be either stupid/deceived or they must be evil. None of the posts you made thus far is anything more than a ridiculous attempt to preach your chosen gospel but in case someone failed to mention this to you,this board is a DISCUSSION board,not a preaching parlor. If i ever feel bored enough,i may go to a church and listen to sanctimonious drivel for an hour but when i come here,i expect to hear ARGUMENTS...not bablings of biblical quotation to gospelize us to bordom

Well then Jet...lets take another approach,shall we?1-Myth: The world was formed within 6 days by an invisible,intangible,mysterious God some 6000 years ago.Fact: There is simply NO EVIDENCE whatsoever,of any kind imaginable that this was the case. There is nothing anywhere on this planet that can allow one to come to that conclusion...Hell,there isen't even any evidence that there actually IS a God...its purely a personal,spiritual choice for each individual to believe in God...meaning that since there is no evidence of God,people who dont believe in God like you or i CANNOT be faulted for it.2-Myth:6000 years ago,God created two people in a heavenly garden who were effectively immortal until they ate an apple....then,their longevity dropped to ~900 years and those two people fathered the entired human race.Fact: Not only is there no single shred of evidence anywhere that there ever was an Adam and Eve but it is medicaly impossible for people to life for 9 centuries and 2 people do not possess the genetic diversity required to engender an entire race. The characters of Adam and Eve come not from the hebrew but from an ancient Sumerian Myth,where the Gods(plural) created both Adam and his first wife Lilith AT THE SAME TIME from the dust of the earth. But in that story,Lilith would not submit to Adam's will as an obediant wife and left him for the company of Angels and Demons. Adam bitched about it to the Gods who then cursed Lilith,plunging her into the ocean and than fashionned a mild,obediant wife for Adam creating her from his rib to insure her devotion and called her Eve. The hebrew simply recycled that old legend,gave it a new twist,and Voila! we have the story of Genesis.3-Myth:At some point in the distant past,there was a water vapor/ice canopy around the earth,which disapeared at the Flood.Fact: The absurdity of this belief really confounds the mind and illustrates a clear ignorance in matters of astronomy and earth sciences. The fact is that any such bubble,weather is be water vapor or ice,would have been blown right off the planet by the solar winds in a matter of days,if not hours following the formation of the earth and appearance of the sun,since its not said to be part of the atmosphere but in fact is placed ABOVE the atmosphere by scripture,and thus,outside the protection of the ozone layers who break down the solar winds as they enter our atmosphere. Furthermore,the whole water bubble theory is born of the scriptural description of a FIRMAMENT set to separate the waters below from the water above. What this argument fails to take into consideration is that in the context of the Bible,firmament meant "solid dome" in which the stars were "embeded". This description is consistant with all other description of the world in the bible which illustrates clearly their belief that the world was in fact a small,immobile flat disk.More to follow later...

KP,You say that evolution fails to provide a begining for itself. Thats fair enough. How does creationism provide for its begining? What evidence could someone,who has never read a Bible and never even heard of God,use to determine that the world was made by God in 6 literal days? How can someone aquire this knowledge by observing the world we live in? Because science is about observation you know. We should be able to observe that the world is a young created world and the result of an all powerfull God. We should all immediatly jump to that conclusion from simply looking at the world just as we conclude that ice is cold by touching it. Do you see people who touch ice and conclude that its not cold to the touch? Well if that belief you hold about the world is so true,why is it not the self evident belief of everyone on the planet

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
thats the whole point of christianity. God will save if you can have faith in him even if there is nothing to have faith in. If it was based on something that could be constantly observed then you wouldnt have to have blind faith and without that blind faith you cant really prove to God that your devoted to him.

​

---

That makes no sense whatsoever KP. If you listen to the Christians,than only accepting Christ as God will save you...do you know how few people actually believe that this is the case? a few thousands AT MOST. The vast majority of Christians are catholics,who do not recognize Jesus Christ as God but rather as the SON of God. Literalist(and Young Earth Creationists) are a small insignificanty minority of the whole human race and they exist only in north america. What kind of a loving God would make up a rule to be "saved" that has ZERO chance of applying to more than a mere few thousands among 6 billions on the planet. And what of the people who,for geographic,language or cultural reasons have never even heard the words Jesus Christ now or in the past. What you literalists suggests amount to saying that God has allready pre-ordained 99.9% of the population of the planet to burn in hell for all eternity in his great plan. Only the most demented of insane mind could ever suggest that this is the policy of a just and loving Benevolent God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
He loves us enough where he knows he can trust is christians to spread the word of god to the world and save humanity. Christians are told to spread the word of God but we dont have to convery anyone. We just have to tell atheists about Jesus and his love for us and how you can be saved. I also think that God and Jesus assumed that people would not want to burn in hell for eternity, but that is their own choice in the end.

​

---

I think you missed my point entirely KP. First,as an exemple,how could the native americans be "saved" by converting to christianity BEFORE CHRISTIANS EVER CAME TO AMERICA? You do know that native americans have lived here thousands of years before the arrival of europeen settlers,dont you? So how could they even know that they faced an eternity of hellish suffering if no one could PHYSICALY be present to tell them before the 15th century or so? Wouldn't that be the text book definition of injustice...An omni potent,all powerfull God who plays favorites based on human geographic locations...the people of the mid east get to be saved but everyone else on earth gets to burn in hell forever until 1600 years later. Explain that one to me in the context of a "loving,benevolent God". Second,lets pretend that geography was never a problem and that christians could visit the entire planet and everyone on it 15 minutes after receiving the message from Jesus. Well,now you are faced with the problem of language and culture(created by God himself,according to the book of Genesis and for no reason whatsoever other than to be mischievous). By the time you conquer the natural mistrust of strangers,learn the language or teach them yours,then explain "the truth" to them and expect them to simply buy into that and forget everything they have been taught all their lived for thousands of years....see what i'm driving at here? That system has zero chance of working on anything but the smallest of scales. Hell,christianity itself is fragmented in to dozens of smaller sects who are each convinced that they others are going strait to hell unless they all accept THEIR version of christianity...and they are all basicaly christians. So imagine someone who was raised in different beliefs. You arrive,conquer their lands,murder their wife and children and then you tell them that you represent the son of God,who was born and raised as a Nazareth carpenter on the other side of the ocean and that they are supposed to recognize him as God or else they burn in hell...put yourself in their shoes for a moment and dare to tell me that you would believe your conquering "benefactors",no question asked. If what christians advance about God and how we are to be "saved" is true,then that means God is evil incarnate because he will only save those who grovel a his feet. Thankfully,no part of this nonsense is anywhere near the truth. Jesus said that the only way to God is through him,that is true...but what christians completely failed to get is what he actually meant by that...that since he was first and foremost a MESSENGER and that his message was that we should love one another as God loves us,then the logical conclusion is that the way to God is to love your neighbor as God loves you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Yep, the biggest problem with the Noachian flood (other than the fact that it did not occur) is the sorting of the fossils. Actually that is in error, the biggest problem (again, ditto) is where did the water come from and go, but that is a different debate."
--Oh G whiz, well your new here so I won't get skeptical about the skeptics. The water is in the oceans silly. And it came from polar glacier masses. Just had to comment on that one, you didn't really think you would just 'get away with' that assertion did you?

​

---

even if the glaciers all melted in their entirety,there wouldn't be enough water to cover the entire world...several highlands would still be jutting out

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"even if the glaciers all melted in their entirety,there wouldn't be enough water to cover the entire world...several highlands would still be jutting out"
--Must I repeat myself ludvan, plate tectonics, plate tectonics. You have not told me how this is not possible.

​

---

No,you are correct TC...i dont believe its impossible or even unlikely. It could have happened....show me that it DID...(evidence)

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No,you are correct TC...i dont believe its impossible or even unlikely. It could have happened....show me that it DID...(evidence)"
--Its in post #28 and #29 in 'Evolution in the Anarctic' there sir.

​

---

no tc...those post illustrate a model of what COULD have occured...show me evidence that it DID IN FACT OCCUR.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"no tc...those post illustrate a model of what COULD have occured...show me evidence that it DID IN FACT OCCUR."
--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past ludvan, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.

​

---

I am well aware of all that TC,as you well know. What i am asking,and i would really like a clear answer,is why i SHOULD find YOUR explanation MORE plausible than the explanations given by geologists who spend their life working on the subject and who,in 99.9% of the case,arrive at an explanation VERY DIFFERENT from yours. Please tell me what piece of geological evidence the geologists are missing or have simply missinterpreted and how can i verify that they did...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I am well aware of all that TC,as you well know. What i am asking,and i would really like a clear answer,is why i SHOULD find YOUR explanation MORE plausible than the explanations given by geologists who spend their life working on the subject and who,in 99.9% of the case,arrive at an explanation VERY DIFFERENT from yours. Please tell me what piece of geological evidence the geologists are missing or have simply missinterpreted and how can i verify that they did..."
--Open up any Geology text-book and go to the index and find 'Uniformitarianism' or 'Gradualism' and read what it has to say about it, you will soon find that all of mainstream geology is dependent on its validity, and is an underlying assumption. So, let us consider catastrophism, and my hypothesis.

​

LUD:I understand all that...you do not ned to convince me that there is an underlying assumption in geology. But what i'm wondering is when exactly was that assumption proven wrong...and when are the geologists gonna be presented that evidence you have that the basis of their scientific field is completely in error? Isen't it possible that other people smarter than you or i have allready considered and REJECTED an hypothesis similar to yours? Why do you assume that Uniformitarianism is NOT grounded on solid observations? As for Catastrophisim,my experience in historical study leads me to believe that this concept is far more founded on myths than actual science. Many culture sought divine explanations to floods,tornadoes,droughts,quakes,volcanoes,ect. I see no reason that would lead me to conclude that christian catastrophisim is any more grounded in truth than mayan,Norse or greek catastrophisim.

​

--A hypothesis must have expectations and thus, evidence. So we look at the evidence. The evidence is actually very basic, in order for my hypothesis to be right, there must be gradual sea-floor spreading and subduction occuring though many magnitudes slower than today. There must be magnetic variation on a large scale from a frantic outer-core. The outer core from such an increase in heat from radioisotopic desintegration and no where for such energy to yet be released through hot-spots, rifts or troughs, would greatly increase the activity of massive eddy currents and convection processes which control characteristics and properties of the magnetosphere and polarity. There must be old mountain zones appearing as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way. Continents must be able to relatively fit together like a puzzle and sea-floor spreading diversion must complement it. Even known scientific concepts such as increasing heat must result in lower viscosities to complement and result in more rapid mantle convection. The reason that continents are not being eroded away from underneath but being built upon (with the exception of upwelling magma and hot-spots) must be explained, which is explained by decreased temperature and a 'burn out' of radionucleic energy and leakage of asthenospheric and core heat by volcanic eruptions and lava flows, sea floor spreading, hydrothermal vents, etc. Continental masses must be less dense than oceanic basalt.

​

LUD:yes,i have read your hypothesis several times and still,i've never seen you present me with evidence that those events DID occur in the fashion you described and assembled all the elements required at the time needed for them to occur.

​

--All of this data is complemented and well explained by my hypothesis, is there anything I may be missing?

​

LUD:Yes...evidence that those events began taking place 4500 years ago.

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Thanks TrueCreation for your assistance.

​

"JM: Well, the fossils themselves are no mystery. The small mystery deals with why they appear when they do in the geologic record. As I mentioned, I have no clue why creationists accept the 'Cambrian Explosion since it poses more of a problem for them."

​

Whew! I was worried for a second that you were actually going to provide a "realistic" explanation for the explosion of diversity! How wrong I was. Instead you decide to say that the Cambrian fossils do not support Creation. Of course, I didn't even claim that the Cambrian fossils support Creation (whether or not they do). I claimed that the Cambrian explosion is an aspect of the fossil record that does not mold well with evolutionary theory.

---

I just love it what YEC complain about the "realism" of evolutionary explanations and theories when THEIR version of realism is an invisible God who seem to have all the power in the universe,save perhaps the power to give proof of its existance...oh and retreats before mortals in iron chariots...

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 03-24-2002]