Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

quote:

---

The Bible isn't a novel. It is history. Some challenge it. So every archaeological discovery adds to its truthfulness. Archaeology is evidence. You know they found Jericho and the evidence was that the walls came down like the Bible said.

---

what evidence are you using for your jericho information?Kenyon demonstrated that the fall of jericho happened no later than 1300 bce, which was at least, and this is being generous, 70 to 100 years before the bible said it could have happened. her findings were based on evidence found at the site. if you are citing the reports on jericho from the 1930's and not paying attention to any subsequent discoveries, then i would say you are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.what archeological evidence supports the OT conquest stories? or the exodus? or anything in the OT for that matter?my point--the bible is not inerrant. science is also subjected to mistakes and outright hoaxes or biases. there is one big diference between the two--science is self-correcting.sometimes objectively gathered evidence, or any scientific hypothesis or theory for that matter, can be subjected to bias based on the subjective ideas of archeologists or scientists or whomever. however, unlike your biblical inerrancy, science has peer review. if hoaxes, like piltdown man, or mistakes, like nebraska man, occur, review and experimentation by others will root these falsehoods out. science is inherently self correcting. these corrections might take some time, but they are found.evolution is a good, no, incredibly robust theory for many reasons. one being that in the 150+ years since darwin published on the origin of species, no one has refuted the theory. it is not like anyone has not tried either. sure, mechanisms are continuously debated in scientific circles, but that is how science works. lively and ongoing peer review is a hallmark of science and not a sign of weakness. how many times do we have to erroneously hear that "many scientists cannot agree on evolution, so it must be wrong"? that is such BS!the development of the theory of evolution has a great story. an incredibly arduous journey through all that is good and sometimes bad in the scientific community. it tells a story about the development of life on Earth and how we got here. there is a huge difference between the story of creation and the story of evolution, though. creationism doesn't change according to the evidence, it exists in spite of evidence. evolution grows and changes based on evidence. if the evidence doesn't support part of the story, it is changed. evolution doesn't exist b/c of some dogmatic impulse of the scientific community. it exists b/c it is backed by mountains of evidence that cannot be covered up by your fountains of the deep or your firmament

why do i even try? maybe its the teacher in me, but recess is over willowtree.

quote:

---

Whatever scientific evidence that I have posted is my scientific evidence against evolution.

---

ok, so it is your evidence. it was played with and the game did not go your way. so, you want to throw a fit and cry "foulplay"?nah-un, yah-hun, nah-un, yah-hun, blah, blah, blah...also, will people stop saying that evolution is athiestic. it is science. science is areligious. it makes no claims on religion one way or the other. personal beliefs and philosophy make you a theist or an atheist or a deist or a polytheist or whatever. one track minds leave no room for other trains. so, we will get nowhere.

quote:

---

So the exodus - I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for there. They left egypt. So you want campsites or something? I suppose they'd be big enough to leave some evidence I guess. Once you found where they were.

---

you are right. we need campsites. we need something that shows that they were in egypt in the first place. no where in egyptian records does it show that a ton of isrealites were enslaved in egypt. the isrealites, however, occupied a tiny area at the far northern end of the egyptian kingdom at its greatest extent.

sorry if that bothered anyone. maybe my idea of topic is too broad. just thought to spread some objectively gathered info. just like what we do in science. can we parallel stuff from outside the topic to make a point about the topic? sorry if i did not tie in what i said about objectively gathered evidence refuting a biblical account. i will be more direct next time.added by edit...people use biblical "evidence" to try to refute evolution, cosmology, geology, etc. my point was that another major bible myth was just that, a myth. i'll stop trying to hammer the point home now. sounds like its been overdone already.[This message has been edited by hitchy, 02-07-2004]

Willowtree,WTF!?! You have not put forth anything that hasn't already been dealt with and found lacking. So evolutionary theory excludes the actions of a "supreme being"!?! So what? Show me how you can objectively say that E=mc2 includes a creator! Or gravity! Or the germ theory of disease! Or, or, or...Science limits itself to nature and natural phenomena. It excludes the supernatural b/c it has no method to test or falsify it. Science knows its limitations and sticks to them. I suggest you do the same.Also, you are putting forth the fallacy of false alternatives when you say it is either evolution or Christian "biblical" creation. What about the other creation myths?So, from your post I can deduce that you are one of three things: 1)an ignorant Christian (I am not saying that all Christians are ignorant), 2)a brainwashed and misled Christian, or 3)a frickin' liar!