Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,600 Year: 922/6,935 Month: 203/719 Week: 195/116 Day: 37/32 Hour: 4/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why does evolutionary science seem to be
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 107 (82019)
02-01-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Itachi Uchiha
02-01-2004 5:05 PM


Tim
In reality, and in spite of the much-parroted claims of evolutionists, the facts of science (i.e., the empirical data and natural laws known to man), when examined without the prejudice of a naturalistic, mechanistic philosophy/belief system, do not support evolutionary theory."
Ok, list some of those specific facts and give a different interpretation of them. Tim's interpretation needs to explain all the facts. Show the detailed logic. Thanks

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 02-01-2004 5:05 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 107 (82228)
02-02-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Itachi Uchiha
02-02-2004 5:22 PM


It doesn't seem Jazz, that there is all that much difference in the ideas does it?
You think that God made everything pop into existance in an instant and others think that everything popped into existance through quantum fluctuations in an instant.
I wonder how we would try to see if there are any differences between the two ideas???
Hmmm, how about one predicts the current expansion of the universe, the microwave background and the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium. And the other predicts? Well, you tell me how I would start with the other and arrive at predictions that I could check.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 02-02-2004 5:22 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 107 (82438)
02-03-2004 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 12:32 AM


Since the majority of Christians don't agree with you I don't see why I should pay any attention to what you have posted. If you care to suport your assertions in some detail you might convince me that other Christians are wrong about this.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 12:32 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 107 (82444)
02-03-2004 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 1:40 AM


heliocentric
helio -- sun, this is the sun centered view of the solar system.
Don't you think that the moral decay of sosciety is in part due to falling away from the Bible? Isn't that what evolution has done?
The only way that evolutionary theory could possible cause a falling away form the Bible is if someone made large numbers of Christians think that if some parts of the Bible (that have nothing to do with the true message of the Bible) were scientifically wrong then those believers would have to throw the whole Bible out.
For some reason there are actual people claiming to be men and women of God who actually make this claim. They seem to think that is the earth is not 6,000 years old then God doesn't exist. At least this is what they try to convince some poor Christians.
Then guess what happens. These false preachers get what they must have wanted in the first place. Some of these Christians relalize that the earth can not be that young and do, in fact, loose their faith.
It is hard to understand how these guys get away with this. Can you explain that?
Since about 40% of scienitists are believers it seems unlikely that they would be interested in doing this. And certainly you don't get more than a few atheists (Dawkins comes to mind) trying the same trick that these so-called preachers pull.
You may find it hard to believe but some of these characters actually have web sites attempting to do even more damage. The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research and answersingenesis being two of the bigger ones.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 1:40 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 107 (82455)
02-03-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by berberry
02-03-2004 2:04 AM


One of us is a bit long winded.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by berberry, posted 02-03-2004 2:04 AM berberry has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 107 (82775)
02-03-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 2:25 AM


But you can't think that people who believe in the Bible actually want to destroy Christianity - can you? Is that what you're saying? John Hagge wants to destroy Christianity?
Who can know what they really want? However, they are the ones doing the best job of subjecting God to actual tests which can possibly be failed.
The majority of Christians don't need scientific verification for their faith if this Hagge guy does then I guess his is a weak faith. Maybe very weak indeed.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 2:25 AM q3psycho has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by q3psycho, posted 02-04-2004 12:26 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 107 (82921)
02-04-2004 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by q3psycho
02-04-2004 12:26 AM


Who did that?
But you shouldn't use evolution to disprove religion either. That's where evolution goes wrong.
Where did anyone use evolution to prove religion wrong?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by q3psycho, posted 02-04-2004 12:26 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 34 of 107 (83020)
02-04-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by berberry
02-04-2004 1:15 AM


Some flaws
I think, Barberry, that there are some flaws in your post.
However, some Christians consider this doctrine so important that they have invented what they call "creation science",
The reason this was invented was to attempt to get around the separation of church and state. It is a purely political thing.
Until mainstream Christianity abandons this BI nonsense it will continue to drive thinking people away from the churches
Mainstream Christianity abandoned this nonsense a long time ago.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 02-04-2004 1:15 AM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2004 10:49 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 80 of 107 (85901)
02-12-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Jagz Beach
02-12-2004 6:51 PM


Jagz, it's this way.
Let's say that children take the same last name as their father.
And there are a group of people where each man has a different last name. Let's say there are 1,000 different last names.
Over generations will there always be 1,000 different last names? The answer is no. If in any one generation all the men with the same last name just happen to have no kids or all girls then that last name will disappear.
The story gets more complex if people make record keeping mistakes and new last names appear. If those names are long enough and the mistakes are small then you would be able to track the relationships of people even with different last names. That is closer to an analogy for the DNA.
If after a long time only one last name was left (with it's record keeping errors) then we would know that lines had died out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Jagz Beach, posted 02-12-2004 6:51 PM Jagz Beach has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 98 of 107 (86066)
02-13-2004 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Jack
02-13-2004 10:49 AM


quote:
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.
Which caused Rumsfeld a lot of trouble but was, once carefully unscrambled, saying something important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Jack, posted 02-13-2004 10:49 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 101 of 107 (86158)
02-13-2004 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Jagz Beach
02-13-2004 5:00 PM


Re: Assumptions assumptions assumptions
I suppose it is possible and I don't know if there is evidence one way or the other.
If there is no evidence what do you think the most likely true assumption would be?
H. Neanderthalis had a brain size about the same as we (perhaps a bit bigger). They are associated with some tool use and fire.(which is guess is, in fact, evidence) Why would any other assumption about their burials be reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Jagz Beach, posted 02-13-2004 5:00 PM Jagz Beach has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 105 of 107 (86266)
02-14-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Jagz Beach
02-14-2004 8:48 AM


Go to Dates and Dating Forum and browse there for the methods used and why they can be considered accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Jagz Beach, posted 02-14-2004 8:48 AM Jagz Beach 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 © 2025