Amazing people of amazing faith, who believe so very much!

Percy, my comment was not meant to apply the Bible to science as you are mistakenly reading into it. It was meant to state that, yes we creationists interpret what is observed in science differently than evos, but that so do you people reject evidence we show to be historically documented as fulfilled prophecy by a broad or liberal interpretation of the prophecy. Now Percy, please explain to me how in the world my statement above can possibly be construed or spun to be declaring theories are, have ever been or ever will be proven?? Also please document where I've ever declared theories to be proven.You continue to miss my point, being that SINCE theories are never poven, and [i]SINCE[i] theories are: (to put in in your own words) [font color]tentative, open to change, modification, even replacement, in light of new information or improved insight.[/font], I say since theories are never proven, scientific theory requires an element of faith in any given theory, the amount of faith depending on the amount of evidence to substantiate/advance any given theory.This is also true with Biblical creationism and application of prophecy to history. The more historical and archeological evidence you have of fulfillment the less faith it takes to believe the theory to be reliable and worthy of acceptance. .........Or is it that I'm neither dumb, purposefully frustrating nor stubborn but that you continue to miss my point and put words in my mouth/post. What's the difference in saying "unproven theory" or "theory is not proven?" since it is subject to modification/change/upgrading/replacement? Is not all theory unproven theory? Yes or no? If yes, then where's the beef?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

MJ, faith is likely most often applied to religion, but the basid definition of it as applied to anything is to believe..For example, people often say "I don't have much faith in those steps. Why? One observes or inspects the steps to see how substantial they look. If they look reasonably sound and one sees others going up or down with no trouble, one has faith in them that they are safe to ascend or descend upon. This is how true Christianity works with faith. The apostle James says "faith without works is dead," and the apostle Paul, the same apostle who said "For by grace are you saved, through faith" also said to young Timothy, "Prove all things." No this is not a contradiction. It is how faith works. True reliable and safe faith is that which is based on evidence. The more evidence you have, the more faith. Why did Jesus perform miracles? He did so so as to provide evidence that the people could, by faith in both what he did and how he fulfilled OT prophecies about the coming Messiah, believe in him as the true prophesied Messiah.The Bible requires far, far less faith than Mohammed's Quran, simply because of the fulfilled propheces in the Bible and the far greater element of the miraclulous to substantiate faith in it.Thus my contention that since toe is theory/unproven any given claim by evolutionists must be BELIEVED to the degree of evidence which has been produced to support each and every given claim by evolutionist, the same that is required by me when I claim to have evidence of any given of the scores of Biblical prophecies. Some have more substantial evidence than others, as is the case with science.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Buzsaw, If you ever see Buzsaw at 30,000 feet I'll show you a hypocrite. Perhaps a tiny, tiny piece of tentativity isn't that bad after all?There is no faith, because the theory is the best explanation at the time, & scientists accept that theory could change. A faith based position doesn't. Good grief.Regardless, you are not addressing how the level of tentativity is derived. One piece of evidence = relatively high tentativity, two pieces of evidence = lower tentativity, lot's of evidence across multiple disciplines = tentativity so low that it can safely be ignored. This is where evolution is, Buz. The odds of the studies matching cladistics to stratigraphy across 300 tested cladograms occurring by chance approaches the number of fundamental particles in the universe to one.http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/publs/Benton/1999SystBiol.pdf

quote:

---

Stratigraphic Consistency Index

​

The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).

​

Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.

​

SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."

---

It's what we call a "smoking gun". And that's just two pieces of corroborating evidence.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-03-2004]

Buz, Theories are never proven, but some theories are so solidly supported that it is perverse to totally reject them.On the subject of theories, you do know that this 'unproven' stance applies to the historical study as well as scientific research?You should realise that there are theories applied to Creation, miracles, prophecy and the resurrection of Jesus.The resurrection of Jesus is just a theory that tries to explain where his body went to (and the associated events), therefore Jesus' resurrection is also never proven.Brian.

Buz, I understand what you're saying here (if maybe nobody else does) but what I find weird is your conception of faith in this context.Suppose you met a person who was a Christian, but said "I'll be a Christian as long as it makes sense, but the minute I find a better religion, I'm out of here!" Is that kind of fickleness indicative of "faith", in your opinion? Maybe you have a different idea of what faith is, but in my old church, faith was what you believed in spite of evidence, not because of evidence.Scientists are fickle. When a new theory comes around that better explains the data, we jump ship like that. It doesn't take faith to believe in Newtonian physics when it's the best explanation. Faith would be believeing in Newtonian physics in the face of all the evidence that points to Einstein's relativity.You've got a weird idea of faith, I guess. I think maybe you've confused "faith" and "trust".[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-03-2004]

You were replying to a passage from me that said there was no evidence for divine intervention in evolutionary history, and you even quoted it in Message 70 just above your reply. What Biblical evidence of divine intervention in evolutionary history are we rejecting? Evolutionists have the fossil record and contempory observational and experimental evidence of species change, and it's reinforced with the biological evidence of heredity. So, when constructing an explanation for fossils and their ages, and for the fossil progression through time and the geological column, scientists assume that the processes of mutation, selection and genetic change within populations we observe taking place today also took place in the past.What evidence do you have for divine processes taking place today? You must use this evidence to construct concise characterizations of these processes so that you can project them into the past to see how they could account for evolutionary history.If you want the Bible to be a scientific source then you have to put it on a scientific footing, which includes tentativity. Are you willing to do that? Instead of the Holy Word of God should the Bible instead be considered the Tentative Word of God?I'm not going to discuss prophecy in this thread - it's experienced enough drift already. You can believe you established the reliability of Biblical prophecy in other threads if you like, but it makes no sense to offer it as evidence of divine intervention in evolutionary history. "Faith" and "tentativity" are not synonyms. If one tentatively accepts the theory of evolution based upon the evidence, that is science. If one blindly accepts the theory of evolution regardless of the evidence, that is faith. Evolution follows the former course, and so is science.Creationists, on the other hand, accept Creationism regardless of the evidence. As the Reverend Billy Sunday once said, "When the word of God says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go to hell." Scientific concepts like rationality and evidence don't really enter into the Creationist mindset. For Creationists, the important considerations for Creationism are the same as for their religion: salvation and faith in God. Science isn't a priority.Crashfrog clarifies the distinction when he says in Message 80, "It doesn't take faith to believe in Newtonian physics when it's the best explanation. Faith would be believing in Newtonian physics in the face of all the evidence that points to Einstein's relativity."He also quite accurately says, "Scientists are fickle. When a new theory comes around that better explains the data, we jump ship like that." If you're to equate faith with tentativity it would mean you're ready to change your religious beliefs when you find a religion with more persuasive evidence. Then why, if you know this so well, in Message 20 did you say this, and I quote it in full because it makes clear that you're singling evolution out for criticism as being unproven theory, not all science: You have an incredibly nasty habit, that doesn't fool anyone and contributes to the frustration you cause and to the impression you give of disingenuousness and dissembling, that whenever something you say turns out to be very wrong, of claiming you actually meant something else. Wishing you would abandon your wicked webs and just say, "Whoops", I remain...--PercyPS - There's a preview button below the message reply text box. If you click on it it will show you how your message will actually appear, and it will also display UBB code errors in red so you can fix them. To change text color do this: [color=powderblue]This is the color powderblue.[/color]

Regardless, you are not addressing how the level of tentativity is derived. One piece of evidence = relatively high tentativity, two pieces of evidence = lower tentativity, lot's of evidence across multiple disciplines = tentativity so low that it can safely be ignored. This is where evolution is, Buz. The odds of the studies matching cladistics to stratigraphy across 300 tested cladograms occurring by chance approaches the number of fundamental particles in the universe to one.Mmmm, I like that tetativity argument. It would apply wonderfully to the prophecies of Jesus as set forth in the Olivet Discourse, as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Thanks Mark!

I'm glad you said some, Brian. The same admittedly applies to Biblical creation theories. Of course, to a point. but the fact that President Harding lived and died on certain dates in history is not theoretical history. It is provable history. Amen! Preach it. But don't forget the favorable tentatiivity factor to some!!

In my opinion, yes and no. The more solid, believable, genuine and legitimate faith is that which is based on the religion of the most evidence of validity. It would depend on what the new found faith had for substantial credence or evidence of credibility. No, such a faith is not necessarily fickle. I've needed to change my views on certain Biblical doctrines/theories a number of times over my 58 years since conversion. Each time increases my faith as I learn truth concerning the basis of my Christian faith. Hmm, Crashy, now I'm beginning to understand what happened to your former faith. It apparantly was foundationed on emotional "sinking sand" rather than the "solid rock" of doctrinal evidence. I pray for you.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Percy, you're spinning my words here. Please re-read the following opening statement in my post #70. It was an analogy of how your refusal to recognize Biblical evidence for the prophecies is as much of a problem for you as our/my problem with recognizing what you claim to be substantial evidence for toe.
Buz post #70 statement: Now pray tell, where in the above statement have I addressed "Biblical evidence of divine intervention in evolutionary history" that you are "rejecting?" See how you spin? Do you enjoy getting me into hot water here?

Buz, All you need is legitimate empirical evidence independent of the bible. The bible can't support itself, it gets circular, see? Therefore illogical & invalid.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Of course, any physical processes today concerning toe is not what you would expect a literalist creationist to believe so far as toe, but speaking for myself as well as a number of fundamentalists, there are some physical evidences of Biblical prophetic fulfillment such as weather patterns, phenomena see in the sky/atmosphere, social changes, industrial achievement, travel, monetary and government. These all are evidences we use for substantiating the validity of the Biblical record. We also conclude that if these are valid evidence for the supernatural, this evidence also lends credence to the creation account, for either the book of books is fable or factual. Though this thread topic was neither intended to focus in on evo vs creation or prophecy and religion, the topic requires some discussion on these, since it has to do with the faith factor, or lack of, on both subjects. Again, as stated above, I take issue with this spin of my statement. Biblical faith is certainly not blind as I have shown already documented, and imo, is superiour to toe so far as tentativity goes. Of course this is where the big debate comes and where we part ways ideologically. I dogedly refuse to allow the tentativity of my ideology to be undermined as it so often is in these forums by evolutionists. Thus my referals to the evidence of the supernatual [font color]where they apply[font] in these debates. Your barking up the wrong tree here, my friend with this creationist. Disprove my posted evidence thus far in these forums and I'm outa here so far as creationism goes, but God and creationism are still very alive and evidenced, imo. We have our back up/sudden flooding cut theory of the Grand Canyon, as well as this explanation for the column and you have yours, both based on the different interpretations of what is observed. We think we have the fulfilled prophecies to further bolster ours and you think your dating methods are valid for your -- so the debate goes on as to which factors the more on faith and belief. An off the cuff statement, likely the one with the lesser forethought than better ones of his, but nevertheless likely based on more substantive stuff like the power of the Holy Spirit evidenced in his revivals as well as prophecy. I could likely dig up some profound statements of this great preacher as well if I took a little time to do so. That depends. Science is quite a priority to some like Gish, Hovind, Ham and Morris. Nor does it take faith to look at history and some of Jesus's prophetic statements in the Olivet Discourse. It simply takes the matching of the prophecy to historical fact, unless, of course, if one applies enough bias to reject the fact that the prophecy was made well before the likely possibility of the fulfillment. (If someone wishes to refute this, please go to some threads where it's already addressed) You have an incredibly nasty habit, that doesn't fool anyone and contributes to the frustration you cause and to the impression you give of disingenuousness and dissembling, that whenever something you say turns out to be very wrong, of claiming you actually meant something else. Wishing you would abandon your wicked webs and just say, "Whoops", I remain...[/qs]Ok, Percy I get the message. You don't like me referring to the fact that no theory is proven as "unproven theory." Ok, this's your forum and I respect that. After this, I'll try to remember to stick to "theory is never proven." My apologies for failing to understand your frustration in this for so long, though I think you're being quite judgemental as to my motives.
Btw, so far as science goes theory is theory and fact is fact. It can be shown to be provable fact that under normal conditions fresh gasoline will always ignited if a lighted match is applied to it. Much of science is also of course theory.

Agreed. And of course, recent history becomes that empirical evidence.

No I'm not, Buzz, I'm discussing your topic, something you don't seem to want to do anymore. You ignored the main point, introduced a spurious topic, and now are once again trying to retroactively justify yourself: Pah! I better not say anymore.Getting back to topic, I've already very briefly described several times now the evidence for evolution, and you've not addressed the issue. And I've asked you several times about the Biblical evidence for divine intervention in evolutionary history, and the evidence for divine intervention today, and you haven't replied to that either.Others have described how if we're wrong in interpreting the evidence or wrong in thinking something is evidence, then we're wrong, not full of faith. You haven't addressed that either.There's also the point that faith and tentativity aren't synonyms. No response from you.I've asked how you feel about putting the Bible on a scientific footing, and you haven't addressed that either, avoiding the question by saying (yet once again) that you actually meant something else when I first raised this issue. Forget your weasel ways and address this very relevant point. How do you propose introducing the Bible as a scientific source if it doesn't satisfy scientific criteria like tentativity?The bottom line, Buzz, as people have been telling you from the very outset and that you've been doing you're very best to obscure, is that believing something in the face of less than 100% certainty is not an act of religious faith. The religious type of faith means accepting something when there is no evidence, or even contrary evidence. Science means only accepting that for which you have evidence. Naturalists up through much of the 1800's accepted the Biblical account, and it was scientific evidence that turned the tide against Genesis. Without evidence the theory of evolution would never have been conceived.I'm going to repeat advice that was given to you early last year, and that many have repeated since then - stop trying to discuss things you don't understand. Your obvious need to always be right combines with your constant errors to evoke behaviors from you that no one, not Christian or atheist, not Creationist or evolutionist, and especially not yourself, could ever be proud of.--Percy

You weasel! What a transparent attempt at revisionism! You're no champion of the principles of science, but one of the prime confounders here. The only time you ever bring this up is to imply that evolution is unlike other theories because it has no proof. You're absolutley wrong that I don't like you "referring to the fact that no theory is proven as 'unproven theory'." I would love it if you did that, but you never do, including this instance. Live with your words and stop insulting people's intelligence claiming they were misinterpreted.Pah! I don't trust myself to say anymore about this.Honesty is the best policy, Buzz. When you get something wrong just say, "Whoops." Remember when Ford freed Poland during a presidential debate. If he'd just said, "Whoops, guess I went overboard on that one," it would have blown over quickly. Instead he defended the indefensible and made things much worse. Sound familiar?--Percy