|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[B] quote: The book is 11 years old. I think that current books might talk a bit about panspermia.
quote: If you didn't read the whole book, then how do you know what is "running rampant" through it? How can you possible say, on the basis of a prefuctory skimming of a single 11 year-old textbook, that there is "blatant assumptivism that runs rampant throughout "science" textbooks." Give me a break. What other books did you skim, or was it just this one?
quote: OK, so now "everything a student has to do" in Biology class undermines their faith in God? Talk about hysterical paranoid conspiracy fantasies! Damn those heathen microscopes! May the pipettes and lab manuals and dissection specimins burn in hell forever!
quote: So, what about "scientists don't know what happened" don't you understand? My goodness. If someone's faith is so fragile and weak that a single sentence can destroy it... well, the problem is with the faith and not the single sentence, don't you think? Considering that there is no evidence that anything else happened, (much less the Christian Creationist's Biblical scenario) and there IS evidence that evolution at the molecular level happens... Well, call scientists crazy, but going with the evidence is the scientific thing to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B] quote: j: OK, but I think you are missing the more important point. How do we determine the veracity of a claim if we have no data? If you claim that we have non-natural data, explain what it is and how we can verify it. Reply:m: Admitedly, the veracity of the fact that "Godidit" will not be available in the sense you're suggesting until Jesus returns to the Earth and straightens all of the survivors out. I'm not saying that our textbooks should say "Godidit"; how about just not making our textbooks as proselytizing tools for the metaphysical desciples of naturalism, as I intimated above. quote: j: Without assuming things for which we HAVE NO DATA, this is correct. How do you get around the problem of not having any data? Reply:m: I believe my latter reply co.vers this. Also, that quote above is a poor paraphrase of the actual quote that I refer to below (after your final comment). quote: j: Empirical refers to data that we can sense, at least it is derived from such data. It is empirical. What you are proposing is NOT empirical. Reply:m: You might not have understood my position sufficiently well when you responded there. I'm just saying that it is more empirical to not assume, because we are limited to a study of nature, that nature is all that exists--a philosophy that is implicit to "science" textbooks (as I make reference to below). quote: j: This, I think, I've covered. Reply:m: Then, do you also have a problem with textbook tradition in the sense of what I intimate above (which is demonstrated further in my final referece below)? [quote][b]It is philosophical indoctrination. You disagree with this, don't you?[/quote] [/b] j: Not entirely. I understand your meaning but it doesn't get you around the problem of evidence or the lack of it. I think I've asked you before but if not I'll ask now. How without data do you distinguish true from false? Reply:My comments above take care of this question, right? quote: j: So make the case, in detail, please. Reply:m: First, consider a few basic predictions of creation and evolution. creation: stars "unchanging," life only from life, distinct kinds of organisms, no new kinds appearing, mutations: harmful, natural selection: a conservative process, fossil record: systematic gaps, no ape-human intermediates, etc. evolution: stars changing into other types, life evolving from non-life, continuum of organisms, new kinds appearing, mutations: beneficial, natural selection: a creative process, fossil record: "innumerable" transitions, ape-human intermediates, etc. The primary models (as defined in their most general terms) for evolution and creation would present predictions of this sort which could be modified by secondary assumptions to fit certain conditions. If the "predictions" of evolution were actually observed in the natural world, they would, of course, in every case be acclaimed as strong confirmations of evolutionism--this fact justifies the conclusion that these sorts of predictions are the BASIC predictions. The predictions of the creation model do fit the observed facts in nature better than do those of the evolution model. The data must be EXPLAINED (enter secondary assumptions) by the evolutionist, but they are PREDICTED by the creationist.
quote: j: But nothing here allows for rigid categorization and testing. If so, we could settle this issue in matter of years. This is just double talk. Reply:m: No, it's not double talk. It's not rigid, but it does provide some key perameters that may be compared to what exists in nature. I refer you to some applicable reasoning, maybe you can appreciate it (in the sense that it legitimately bolsters my reply here), maybe not: To see the situation clearly we must first distinguish two kinds of confirmation, general and specific. General confirmation is a matter of compatibility without definite corroboration of particular points. Much of what has already been discussed as explanation and illustration may be regarded as general confirmation. The picture fits the frame; the melody and the accompaniment are harmonious. The force of such evidence is cumulative. The more we find that items in the picture of the past presented by the Bible, even though not directly attested, are compatible with what we know from archaeology, the stronger is our impression of general authenticity. Mere legend or fiction would inevitably betray itself by anachronism and incongruities.
quote: j: Well, thousands of archeologists and palentologists disagree with you. reply:m: Yes, the sociological vortex of evolutionary doctrine is certainly entrenched, "and they are few, who fighting it, can cry once sharply of the essential greatness in man." quote: j: I anticipated this. We are a reflection of God and so our nature says something about God. As above so below and beyond I imagine. It is just about the only argument I can think of that makes any sense at all. I said nothing about weakness. Reply:I guess your term was limitation, was it. I view the terms as being synonymous in the context I shared it, but no big deal. By the way, I really like the sound of the part, ". . . the only argument I can think of that makes any sense at all." quote: j: Good. Where is your hard evidence? Reply:m: Please see my response (#348) to Schrafinator's #337. In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com) --Marty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Essentially then, we are left with faith of which there are many. How do we distiguish between these faiths before it is too late?
quote: You are mis-using the term 'empirical'. 'Empirical' refers to the senses. It is that simple. I think what you mean is that it is more rational to not assume. I can agree with that, but it leaves nothing of substance. Everything becomes ephemeral. One has to accept some assumptions-- start from somewhere and the only place to start is with the only thing we've got.
quote: I have a problem with textbooks being too dogmatic and inflexible. I do not have a problem with textbooks presenting conclusions based on the only evidence we have.
quote: Creation doesn't predict anything. It means different things to different people. old earth, young earth, theistic, hindu, etc. It isn't a model. There are hundreds of versions of creation and not one can be tested.
quote: Which the Bible does in spades, but through faith its believers are blind to that fact.
quote: yes, the conspiracy....
quote: In context, assuming God for the moment, it is. It is the only reason I can think of that God would design as we would. Of course, it is just as easily explained by our having created the concept of god. Deadlock. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: By taking a look at the evidence. There is much more evidence that Jesus lived than Caesar did. Take a look at the cities named. They existed. Corinth, Ephesus, Colossus, etc. There is also plenty of archaelogical evidence that the old testament is true-if you ever read David Rohl (a famous if not the most famous archaelogist in Britain)'s series A Test of Time-From Myth to History (and also the presenter of the series "Pharaohs and Kings" produced by Channel Four in the UK and Discovery in the US), you'll see what I mean. If you ever have the time, try looking for his books and reading them. Previously the argument that the old testament wasn't true was because of the incongruity of the chronologies of Israel, Assyria and Egypt; however, recently David Rohl has created a New Chronology which solves most if not all of the problems historians had with the Old Chronology. Try taking a look at just some of the evidence outlined in his book hereEvidence in there includes evidence for Joseph along with his palace and tomb, who was the Egyptian Vizier during the reign of Amenemhat III, Moses as a prince of Pharaoh Khanaferre, the step father of Moses accoring to Artapanus), evidence for the exodus, evidence for the bible story of Jericho and its walls, evidence for Solomon's wealth and high culture (with Solomon as the contemporary of Egypt's Haremheb, with archaelogical evidence supporting the bible which says Solomon married an Egyptian princess and built her palace on a hill, following the details of where it was described in the bible), letters from King Saul (aka Labayu as his Egyptian name) and the Amarna Tablets, equating the biblical Shishak as Ramesses, King David, evidence for Moses and the ten plagues in Egypt in Avaris, "The continuing archaeological discoveries here in the ancient city of Avaris mirror exactly the early Israelites revealed in the Old Testament. For two centuries no evidence was found for the Israelites when looking in the strata of the 19th Dynasty. Now that the chronologies have begun to be amended and the sojourn in Egypt placed in the 12th and 13th Dynasties, we have a wealth of archaeological evidence corroborating the biblical account." Seriously, just take a look around on the internet and search for David Rohl and new chronology. Then there are also biblical prophecies-some being fulfilled today, some recently, and some further back in the past. Just take a look at this site-100prophecies which has only 100 among the many other prophecies fulfilled. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002] [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Well, at least you took the question seriously.
quote: I'm sorry, but there is not. I am not aware of any evidence at all that Jesus actually walked the earth. Make me aware. I don't feel like arguing generalities. Prove this claim to me.
quote: Big deal. Many more cities are named in Egyptian mythology. Will you take that as proof that of the reality of the Egyptian pantheon? H.P. Lovecraft named city after city in his short stories. Does this prove the reality of Cthulhu?
quote: There is some evidence that a few of the stories in the Bible resemble reality. Again, it proves nothing. The Koran also resembles reality, probably by orders of magnitude more than the Bible. So ought we then to confess our faith in Allah?
quote: Ever notice that you can tell a lot about a person by looking at his web-site? No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nunki.net It doesn't fill me with confidence. The guy is a media hound. I find there is an inverse relationship between fluff and substance. Pretty fluffy site wouldn't you say? So no, I probably won't read his books. I prefer real archeology.
quote: Look, if you want to play defender of David Rohl, go ahead. Pick a specific instance and lets analyze it.
quote: Sorry, you have got ot be kidding?
quote: Did that. Looked it up within a few seconds of reading the name. So far it looks like hype. Lots of people claim to have proof that Atlantis existed too. Interesting.... bet those guys have the same publisher too.
quote: I took a quick look at it. Found my favorite fullfilled prophecy-- the creation of Israel. But I have to go to work now... ta ta... ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: You misconstrue. This is NOT an assumption of naturalism. The only real assumption of naturalism is that the natural world can be explained as coming about my natural processes. Some of those processes are rapid, some are slow. Naturalism DOES NOT assume that geological features formed slowly, or rapidly.
quote: Because we see them stacked successively in the geological record of several basins. We can also correlate between the geolgical columns of different areas and deduce that the reefs are of different ages. Furthermore there is a variation of the types of fossils found in coral reefs of different ages.
quote: Hmm, need I remind you that we convict people and punish them based on circumstantial evidence? Hey, it's just an INTERPETATION of the evidence, isn't it? The point here is that any explanation of the past, even in recorded history, is based on interpretation. It is ALL that we've got. We cannot know everthing between A and B. The question is the validity of the underlying premises. Moose has given us a very succinct and comprehensive list of mainstream geological premises, and maybe he could reproduce them here (I didn't copy them as I should have), so that you could refute them one by one. I dare say that your own scenario is heavily based on interpretation, also. So my question remains: What do you have that is better?
quote: Okay, then what is that 'something better'?
quote: So, you say that everyone just jumped because the siren call of evolution was too hard to resist! No one resisted the call to evolution! Hmm, that's not exactly what other creationists say. I mean we have all those creationist scientists in the past who stalwartly fought the urge to join the parade! Sorry, but this doesn't pass the giggle test. I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that perhaps the evidence seemed to weigh heavily in favor of evolutionary theory. There must have been something mystical about it.
quote: So you make your points by misrepresenting mine? Why not just make your case?
quote: No rush. I've been waiting a long time for an answer to this one.
quote: So, the real question is: Why is this person still an evolutionist?
quote: Perhaps I should say that the presence of Vendian organisms suggests the strong possibility of precursors. But you have executed a cute two-step here: I am also waiting for a credible example of 'out of place fossils.' I want to see human fossils or artifacts in Paleozoic or Precambrian strata; or something equally startling.
quote: Once again. I am patient.
quote: Ah, good! Now, here is the place where you can present us with some of that empirical data. Why not pick you favorite single piece of data and post it here, perhaps under a new thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Well, before dismissing David Rohl off as a joke why don't you go to a library and borrow his book "A Test of Time"? It really is a good book, and has so much archaelogical evidence in it (tablets, cuneiforms, use of hypocoristicons to show how Egyptian writers wrote Hebrew names and vice versa), Assyrian and Egyptian digs, evidence from Egyptian and Assyrian writings, his zillions of pictures and quotes. And as well as finding proof for the bible stories, he also has made numerous famous archaelogical digs and findings.
quote: What about cities? Well, if you take a look at the Qu'ran, NONE of the cities mentioned in it have ever been found. This has been a major source of embarassment for Muslims.
quote: Do you think Rohl would actually make that site? Most of the time he is somewhere or other making archaelogical digs. He simply doesn't have time to make that site (I don't think anyway). Other people made it, not him. Anyway, instead of taking a look at that site, why not take a look at this one.
quote: Instead of looking up just David Rohl, why not search for something such as "David Rohl "A test of time" Israel Egypt Shoshenk Shishak Joseph Moses David Saul Ramesses" and you will find better pages. Just click -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
From Edge (message 356):
quote: I presume this is what your looking for -from Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale - and, more specificly Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale : quote: One might also wish to use this sites "search" utility, to find other topics that Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time
Scale has appeared in. Cheers,Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Something weird is going on when I try to reply-quote to your post, so I am going to be brief.
I have been digging through archealogical data for decades now and I have seen nothing that supports what Rohl is saying. I see no evidence of any peer review and little evidence of actual data on the Rohl sites I've visited, but much inferrence that such data is there. Not a good combination. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Mmm? Well, even if you don't think his chronology is true, what about the conventional chronology? Well, anyway, if just for your own interest, next time you go to a library go and take a look at it. David Rohl, in his own words has "no religious axe to grind". He is not religious. He is a historian who wants to search for the historical truth. He is not Christian. So you can't argue he's biased!
quote: Well, anyway if you want some specific examples, here are some from the book which might make you interested to read it (has photos, archaelogical finds and digs, Hebrew letters, Hieroglyphs, etc) which proves Biblical stories and people-[from this site - there are links on the left for specific biblical stories and people] For Joseph- [quote]There is a rock-cut tomb in middle Egypt that dates from just before the time of Joseph. On the interior wall there is painted a scene of Asiatics entering Egypt carrying goods to sell to the Egyptians. There is text accompanying the scene. They wear colorful striped garments which numerous commentators have likened to Joseph's 'coat of many colors'. These were Midianite caravaneers like the ones who brought Joseph into Egypt. (pg 359-360) Joseph's administrative programs-
quote: Evidence for the 7 yr famine-
quote: Pharaoh gains control of Egypt-
quote: For Joseph's home in Goshen-
quote: Joseph's tomb and removal of the coffin-
quote: Statue of Joseph-
quote: You might be interested in looking at how this evidence supports the biblical text-The site puts the evidence on the right and the bible text on the left. His actual book has hundreds of pictures, hieroglyphics, artifacts, etc and is one of the best and well supported books I have ever seen (if not the best supported). If you want evidence for other people, click on the names on the left-there is just as good evidence for Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, and other kings of Israel. David Rohl is in the process of writing other books in the series- A Test of Time is one book in his series and it deals mainly with Genesis and Exodus-the first two books in the Bible-and also a bit up to Kings. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002] [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This is silly. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Nothing substantial because there wasn't the book to accompany it. Many diagrams, examples, maps, texts, artifacts, finds, all for you to look at in the book. But of course, if you want to see for yourself and so that you can judge the book by actually reading it, why not next time you go to a library and borrow it? It's worth the time I know from experience... I was quite doubtful, but once you read the book, it is quite convincing... and after reading it you can't doubt that he's a bloody good archaelogist/historian/egyptologist. All his photos are probably copyrighted as he's the one who took them Many of the digs shown there are ones dug up by he himself.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I'll pick up something on Atlantis and Lemuria while I'm there. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: lol... am I right in thinking that you currently think it's total rubbish?! Well, anyway, don't say afterwards that I didn't warn you that he's one helluva perfectionist archaelogist... it's a really long book... [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
quote: There is some evidence that a few of the stories in the Bible resemble reality. Again, it proves nothing. The Koran also resembles reality, probably by orders of magnitude more than the Bible. So ought we then to confess our faith in Allah? [/B][/QUOTE] then why don't you both do? Allah scored twice in this forum(the first one's in Free-for-All) right? ...sorry, can't resist the temptation to do that!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024