Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 6:32 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, JonF, Meddle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,000 Year: 5,037/19,786 Month: 1,159/873 Week: 55/460 Day: 55/91 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Investigation of Biblical science errors
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 121 of 138 (132008)
08-09-2004 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Reina
08-09-2004 2:30 PM


definitions of terms?
Please give me some idea of what evidences you are familiar with concerning both facets of evolution (Macro- & Micro-), and what counter-evidences you have found, also for both.

I think you'd have to define what is "macro" and "micro" evolution first. There are slightly used "official" definitions but since macro has been observed based on that definition you need to define what you mean.

I've seen a number of different creationists definitions so we'll have to have yours before we can know what you want.

If you use the word "kinds" in your definition you will have to define what a "kind" is as well. That seems to be generally undefinied in the creationsist community. At least we've never had someone post a useful definition here.

Perhaps you could use this thread to post your definition:

Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-09-2004 04:03 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Reina, posted 08-09-2004 2:30 PM Reina has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Reina, posted 08-10-2004 10:20 PM NosyNed has responded

Reina
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 138 (132362)
08-10-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
08-09-2004 4:35 PM


Excuse Me ?
I was addressing DarkStar. But I will honor the interruption:

"Evidence" has power to convince, only as the person considering the "evidence" places value on it in his OWN MIND.

I have seen a great deal of "evidence" that brings me to a certain conclusion, with no shadow of a doubt to be found.

However, if I were to show this same "evidence" to you, you may very well not find it convincing in the least. The road to Truth not only depends on the person's choice of a route, but also on the presence or absence of preconceptions in one's mind as to what Truth IS.

Example: When Copernicus and Galileo showed "evidence" that the Earth rotated around the Sun, rather than the Sun rotating around Earth, he received great criticism and persecution, even though they had ample data to prove the viability of this theory.
This bad reaction of the public came from the firm belief that the Bible was literal in the stories of Joshua and Hezekiah, in which time stood still or even went backwards.

The people believed that because the Bible said "sun stood still", that this had to be "proof" that the sun is the one that moves, rather than the Earth.

In each person's mind is a life-time (short or long) of back-ground messages and lessons by which he/she measures every new experience or piece of information. In short, each person makes his own decisions as to What he believes, and Why, based on his own pre-formed understanding of life in general, and who is trustworthy, or who is lying through their teeth.

I suggest that, if you wish to observe this discussion between myself and DarkStar, you may do so without getting involved. Otherwise, you and I may open a separate discussion where You have the choice of what will be discussed. This one as is, is between DarkStar and myself.

Sincerely for Truth and Free Expression of Ideas,

Reina


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 4:35 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2004 1:25 PM Reina has responded
 Message 124 by jar, posted 08-10-2004 1:39 PM Reina has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 138 (132367)
08-10-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Reina
08-10-2004 12:57 PM


However, if I were to show this same "evidence" to you, you may very well not find it convincing in the least.

Then how do you know it even exists? How can you make yourself sophistry-proof (to the greatest degree possible) without basing your conclusions on objective evidence; that is, evidence that has the power to convince any open-minded person?

When Copernicus and Galileo showed "evidence" that the Earth rotated around the Sun, rather than the Sun rotating around Earth, he received great criticism and persecution, even though they had ample data to prove the viability of this theory.

Yet, nobody could refute their evidence, and as a result, persons who were intellectually committed to having an open mind about evidence were convinced.

Why is it that the so-called "evidence" of creationism only "convinces" those who are already convinced?

I suggest that, if you wish to observe this discussion between myself and DarkStar, you may do so without getting involved. Otherwise, you and I may open a separate discussion where You have the choice of what will be discussed. This one as is, is between DarkStar and myself.

Then email him. This isn't a private message board for you two. This is a public message board, where anyone has the right to reply to messages, including me.

You don't have to reply, but I'm not going to stop addressing errors, inconsistencies, and outright falsehoods in your posts simply because you asked me to.

Sincerely for Truth and Free Expression of Ideas,

Unless, apparently, the Ideas being expressed are the ones you disagree with.

Get used to my avatar; you're going to be seeing it right under yours a lot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Reina, posted 08-10-2004 12:57 PM Reina has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Reina, posted 08-10-2004 10:08 PM crashfrog has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 124 of 138 (132373)
08-10-2004 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Reina
08-10-2004 12:57 PM


No Excuse
You bring up some very good points and one that completely defines why Evolution is Science and Creationism a myth.

"Evidence" has power to convince, only as the person considering the "evidence" places value on it in his OWN MIND.

There are many people who have already made up their minds and so will not be convinced by evidence, no matter how compelling.

The road to Truth not only depends on the person's choice of a route, but also on the presence or absence of preconceptions in one's mind as to what Truth IS.

Fortunately, Science does not deal with TRUTH. It is only those who have already decided that they know TRUTH that would make such a statement. If you have already decided what is TRUTH, then you have already precluded ever learning.

Example: When Copernicus and Galileo showed "evidence" that the Earth rotated around the Sun, rather than the Sun rotating around Earth, he received great criticism and persecution, even though they had ample data to prove the viability of this theory.

And the criticism came from those who knew the TRUTH. As throughout history, once again it was shown that those who knew the TRUTH, were just plain wrong.

History continues to show that those who know the TRUTH are most often wrong.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Reina, posted 08-10-2004 12:57 PM Reina has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Reina, posted 08-10-2004 9:38 PM jar has responded

Reina
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 138 (132550)
08-10-2004 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
08-10-2004 1:39 PM


Truth
The only Science I deal with is the exact synonym of TRUTH. Since Science means "knowledge", it would be null to speak of "knowledge", if the "knowledge" is not true. We would be making a study of myths and fairy tales.

My definition of Science and Truth must be completely compatible and interchangeable.

In your post, it seems that you take Truth to be what people THINK is true. This is not what I am looking for. If this sort of "truth" were my goal, it would change constantly, as people are changeable, while Truth is not.

Rather, I hold Science to be solid, recognizable, repeatable Truth, as immutable as the laws that govern Mathematics.

When a scientist enters a laboratory, planning to make a formula with some purpose in mind, he doesn't have to experiment again and again to find what the correct combination is for the day -- he simply gathers certain specific ingredients and combines them in the exact amounts and ratios -- because the behavior of each element in nature remains the same, no matter how many times you test them ...

When a farmer plants a crop, he can rest assured that the plants will sprout and grow according to the same patterns that they have always done since time began (that Man knows about, anyway); and it really steps over the line of documented Science to make any statement based on a belief that, somehow, things worked differently at some point in time, or on some other planet, when there is no witness or documentation to suggest that this might be so.

In conclusion, Truth that can be tested, measured, and repeated is Science, pure and simple. But "Truth" that is stated as such, because someone wishes it to be so, is not Truth at all, but Faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 08-10-2004 1:39 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 08-10-2004 9:59 PM Reina has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 138 (132555)
08-10-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Reina
08-10-2004 9:38 PM


Re: Truth
In your post, it seems that you take Truth to be what people THINK is true. This is not what I am looking for. If this sort of "truth" were my goal, it would change constantly, as people are changeable, while Truth is not.

And that is why you're unlikely to ever learn anything.

Science is simply trying to learn. We never quite get to TRUTH, but little by little we learn more. The knowledge we do gain is constantly changing. Often we find that we have been totally wrong. Then that happens, we throw out the old theory and search for a new, better explaination.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Reina, posted 08-10-2004 9:38 PM Reina has not yet responded

Reina
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 138 (132557)
08-10-2004 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
08-10-2004 1:25 PM


Convincing Evidence
Very Well, Crashfrog,

I am about to give you some "evidence" that one of your assumptions is erroneous. We shall see how "open-minded" you are --

"Why is it that the so-called "evidence" of creationism only "convinces" those who are already convinced?"

Here are a few people who were not "already convinced", but who changed their views radically after making some careful scrutiny:

Dr. Grady McMurtry --
http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_07/ts_evolutionist.htm

Michael J. Behe, Michael Denton, William A. Dembski,

& several others: http://www.creationists.org/switch.html

Please do not continue with an illusion that Everybody who believes in Creation has always been "already convinced".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2004 1:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2004 1:30 AM Reina has not yet responded

Reina
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 138 (132562)
08-10-2004 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by NosyNed
08-09-2004 5:00 PM


Re: definitions of terms?
My understanding is that "Micro-Evolution" involves adaptations for survival within a species (such as the changes of beak size and shape -- in the Galapagos Finch);

while "Macro-Evolution" refers to the theory that one species might evolve into a totally different species (like a dog becoming a bear, or a lizard turning into an alligator).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 08-09-2004 5:00 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by NosyNed, posted 08-10-2004 10:45 PM Reina has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 129 of 138 (132571)
08-10-2004 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Reina
08-10-2004 10:20 PM


Re: definitions of terms?
My understanding is that "Micro-Evolution" involves adaptations for survival within a species (such as the changes of beak size and shape -- in the Galapagos Finch);
while "Macro-Evolution" refers to the theory that one species might evolve into a totally different species (like a dog becoming a bear, or a lizard turning into an alligator).

That is, as I understand it, the biologists use of the terms. However, the dividing line is lower than your example might suggest. The biologists split between micro and macro is where a speciation occurs. So if the finches accummulate enough differences to stop interbreeding from occuring then that is a case of macro-evolution (even if we can't otherwise tell the difference between the two populations).

With this definition, of course, we have current examples of macro evolution.

The creationist have moved the bar up above the species level. But just where they have moved it too is a bit fuzzy. About family it appears. But then not all the time since they can't have humans grouped with anything else.

Of course, the higher you go the less and less likly it is we will see a "macro" evolutionary event in current times. New genera we have seen. However, once you are up high enough it becomes easier to see the steps of a macro evolutionary change occuring in the fossil record where we are very, very, very unlikely to see a simple speciation event. That is why we have inter class macro evolutionary changes tracked in the fossil record.

A question for anyone: Do we have fossil traces of inter family events? That would connect the two ends; one from fossils and the higher levels and one from current findings at the level of species and genus.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-10-2004 09:46 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Reina, posted 08-10-2004 10:20 PM Reina has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Reina, posted 08-16-2004 8:08 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 138 (132637)
08-11-2004 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Reina
08-10-2004 10:08 PM


Michael J. Behe, Michael Denton, William A. Dembski,

Well, its certainly inaccurate to describe these gentlemen as creationists; if you care to read their writings you'll note that they're very careful to distance themselves from the pseudoscientific buffoonery of groups like Answers in Genesis.

As for this guy:

Dr. Grady McMurtry --

The link you gave says it all:

quote:
He earned his science degrees as an evolutionist, but he did not become a biblical creationist until more than a year after he committed his life to Christ.

McMurtry is the precise example of what I was describing; individuals who would never have taken creationism on its own merits, but adopt it because they already hold Christian beliefs.

I am about to give you some "evidence" that one of your assumptions is erroneous.

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion.

Your links have strengthened it, not disproven it.

Please do not continue with an illusion that Everybody who believes in Creation has always been "already convinced".

Nobody who is a creation is so because of the evidence; they're creationists because of a religious committment to Christian dogma. Dr. Grady is the perfect example; thank you for providing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Reina, posted 08-10-2004 10:08 PM Reina has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by DarkStar, posted 08-16-2004 12:30 AM crashfrog has responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 138 (134228)
08-16-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
08-11-2004 1:30 AM


CF writes:

As for this guy, Dr. Grady McMurtry, the link you gave says it all...

He earned his science degrees as an evolutionist, but he did not become a biblical creationist until more than a year after he committed his life to Christ.

McMurtry is the precise example of what I was describing; individuals who would never have taken creationism on its own merits, but adopt it because they already hold Christian beliefs.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying here. This guy was an evolutionist, at some point he committed his life to christ but did not become a biblical creationist until more than a year had passed after his conversion into christianity. So for at least a year, he most likely studied the bible before he was finally convinced of the creationist viewpoint. I would have though he would have become a creationist immediately following his conversion but apparently this was not the case. Apparently, and this is only speculation on my part, he studied, learned, and then believed.

Are you suggesting that evolutionists first believe in the theory of evolution, and then study and learn what it teaches?

That is not how it worked with me. I studied and learned, eventually believing what the evidence truly showed, that microevolution has, is, and will continue to happen. That macroevolution is a myth, rooted in ancient beliefs, has been modernized to fit todays secularized methodology, and is taught as fact despite the overwhelming evidence against it.

How about you? Did you believe in evolution before studying or did you study before believing? Did you study the evidence before becoming a believer or did you simply adopt the teachings, accepting them as true because you already held to a belief in evolution?


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2004 1:30 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 08-16-2004 10:49 AM DarkStar has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 138 (134232)
08-16-2004 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Reina
08-09-2004 2:30 PM


For Reina
So glad to hear from you again. It is late, I have replied to numerous posts already and rather than attempt to begin our discussion at this late hour, I will wait until I am refreshed so as to seem a bit more coherent to you. My way of thinking is most definitely not what one would consider mainstream, neither from the evolutionist nor the creationist point of view.

As I am sure you have already noticed, it can be difficult to actually have a one on one discussion in this forum, as the neo-evo's love to perform their feeding frenzy for all to see. One post from anyone not totally in line with their way of thinking will garner a dozen replies, none of which have very much to say and are usually just endless repetitions of the same neo-evo dogma that they have been brainwashed into believing for the better part of their lives. For many of them, science is their god, the myth of macroevolution is their bible, and Darwin is their god.

Nevertheless, I have found that when a post is directed to a specific individual, it is not against any forum guideline to ignore pesty trolls who will undoubtedly inundate you with meaningless, repetitious responses. As long as you direct your posts to me and I direct mine to you, I see no problem in maintaining a one on one dialog. The neo-evo trolls, those perpetuators of the myth of macroevolution, will not like it but as far as I am concerned, either they can practice their feeding frenzy elsewhere or we can move our discussion into the free for all arena and ignore them to our hearts content.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Reina, posted 08-09-2004 2:30 PM Reina has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Reina, posted 08-16-2004 7:55 PM DarkStar has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 138 (134307)
08-16-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by DarkStar
08-16-2004 12:30 AM


Are you suggesting that evolutionists first believe in the theory of evolution, and then study and learn what it teaches?

When did I say that?

No, what I'm saying is that McMurtry is only a creationist because of an ideological committment to Christianity which supercedes, in his mind, the responsibility to come to conclusions supported by evidence.

If the evidence for creationism had convinced him, we would have become a creationist first and then committed his life to Christ.

Instead, the opposite occurred.

Did you believe in evolution before studying or did you study before believing?

As a former creationist, I was convinced by the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by DarkStar, posted 08-16-2004 12:30 AM DarkStar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Reina, posted 08-16-2004 8:02 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Reina
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 138 (134465)
08-16-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by DarkStar
08-16-2004 12:59 AM


For DarkStar
O.K., DarkStar.

That arrangement suits me just fine -- and don't worry about answering immediately, because I have very limited time, myself (three young children, and the computer is my dad's). So, answer at your leisure, so as to enjoy the discussion more fully.

I am likely to ignore the trolls, since I've heard all their "stuff" before, countless times and in varying shades and shapes. However, I may feel like answering from time to time, but nothing tremendously heavy -- folks who truly yearn for the truth on any matter, can generally do a whole lot of research on their own, but they prefer to cling to their former beliefs, because it "hurts to think", and especially to realize that you were wrong about something, or that you had believed a lie.

So, everybody in the saddle, and CHARGE !!! Time to Party !!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by DarkStar, posted 08-16-2004 12:59 AM DarkStar has not yet responded

Reina
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 138 (134467)
08-16-2004 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by crashfrog
08-16-2004 10:49 AM


Does One Person's Experience Say it ALL ??
What about Dembski?? He was convinced that an Intelligent Being had to have designed DNA well before he became a Christian. What about all the others in the world that have become Christians AFTER being convinced that spontaneous generation and evolution were terribly impoverished as true evidence is concerned ...?

There are millions who are NOT Christians who believe the world was created by Someone. Why would they believe Creation even in their continued state of "unbelief" in Christ?? Is there, just maybe, enough evidence out there to make "teachable" folk be convinced ...?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 08-16-2004 10:49 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019