9
3:51 AM
@Atheist - I definitely don't want to discourage you from commenting or questioning. I would like to point out that more often than not on this site, we need to answer as if we believe that God exists, the Bible is true, etc. For a example, on another SE site, see this question: scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/5977/… I seriously doubt that the asker or the answered believes that Sauron is a real being, yet the question and answer are valid for the site. The same applies here. You can call it "willing suspension of disbelief" if you like.
Also, @Atheist - Are you absolutely sure there is no evidence that God exists? paranoidrants.blogspot.com/2011/10/… Are you positive that the assumptions you base your beliefs on aren't flawed? paranoidrants.blogspot.com/2011/10/… You sound an awful lot like I did years ago. I post this not to argue, but because someone out there refused to give up on me. You can hate me for even posting this, but I still have hope for you. If you do care to debate, feel free to do so on my blog or email, not here.
@Atheist - I'm watching the videos you linked to as well... currently, this one: youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3 Just so you know I'm looking at your views as well. I was aware of Descartes and his Meditations on First Philosophy already... Pretty much the opposite of the approach I mention in that first link. Anyway, we should probably move this conversation away from comments on this site.
Cool. I've never used chat before. I'm watching that second video now,but I did not say that science is on equal footing with faith. That's a distortion of my position. What I did say is that* neither the Creationist view nor the Naturalist view can be tested with the scientific method.* They can only be understood by interpreting the evidence, and then I go on to show how the evidence can support either view, and that much of the evidence supports the Creationist view.
I once held your views, or views very much like them. I'm surprised to have you be so willing to discuss it without resorting to the usual hostility that I deal with. Thank you so much for that! And for the record, I realize neither of us is likely to budge, but it's fun to discuss these things.
I can see where you're coming from. Hmm. maybe this is a better way for me to state it. Give me a minute to think.
I'm going to actually ask the question instead of assuming I know what your answer will be, which is why i simply asked the above.
I know about the difference between a scientific theory and the layman's definition of it. A scientific theory is base don evidence and observation, tested with the scientific method...
Taken from the article: As the gas from the explosion cooled, various physical forces caused particles to stick together. As they continued to cool, they slowed down and became more organized, eventually growing into stars. This process took about a billion years.
This is a classic example of a statement put in there as fact with no evidence or attempt to explain the statement. In observation, dust and gas don't stick together in a vacuum. A wild statement like one stating that "enough dust stuck together to create planets and start", or even to produce enough gravity to attract other matter is counter to what is observed in nature. if this is stated as fact, we need a reference explaining how. It's a faulty initial assumption.
Anyway, have you also addressed the problem of the difficulties with angular momentum in the rotation of the planets and galaxies?
I'm still looking for an online definition of a vacuum. I forgot the exact physical laws, name, but if gas or matter is introduced into a vacuum, it dissipates and fills the vaccum evenly.
OK, back to the gas and dust don't stick together in a vacuum, they disperse. I should have stated it as "Gas and dust don't stick togther in a vacuum. Gasses expand in a vacuum to fill the space available." as demonstrated here: mcrel.org/whelmers/whelm21.asp
No, science doesn't. the NATURALIST worldview does. That's what I'm saying! I gree with that last statement 10000000000%
Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, that the universe is a mere product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically.
Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world.Oxford English Dictionary Online [http://www.oed.com/ naturalism]
Subscription needed, possibly via a library. Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, that the universe is a mere product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically.
Note that the term "na...
Which states that natural selection favors the stronger, weaker organisms die out, favorable mutations survive and propagate in the gene pool... Am I missing anything there?
Anyway, back the gasses, the big bang theory, and the fact that an expanding universe means a cooling universe means that the universe was hotter when the stars formed. The article I linked to explains that hotter means faster dispersion, not clumping....
The fossil record doesn't prove it. It lacks transitional forms, which Darwin predicted. Fossils are found inthe wrong orer in the "geologic coumn"
Modern medicine would operate just fine without the theory of evolution. Similar structures, similar DNA - all can be of use to science without trying to explain that it came about via evolution.
It's exactly the same things I say about the creation argument. It applies equally well to both.... And in my blog post, I don't have even 1% of all knowledge there is to have, so I would be a FOOL to say the fossil record disproves evolution. What I said is it can't be used to prove evolution.
I should jump back and make a clarification. the Berkley article is talking about what I would call "microevolution". Changes within limits. I would never be as stupid as to claim that microevolution doesn't exist.
And that's all I'm saying. there is no proof. And, a lot of the evidence can be taken equally well both ways.
I didn't say it could prove Genesis. I said it the evidence could be "taken both ways" meaning "the evidence can be interpreted to support either view". As for the apes, I don't think so. the differences are not as minor. I also don't think an Eagle and an Owl likely had a common ancestor. I think the limits are based on the DNA.
I know you'll laugh at the link I'm about to post, but it does include references to a source you'd likely accept. answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna#fnMark_1_1_1
But again, similarity is not proof of common origin. My 1981 firebird could swap parts with my best friend's Camaro because they shared a common designer.
I also would say I don't know where the limits are in animals - how far the variations are possible.
I believe that the limit is on whether new information needs to be added to the DNA to "make the jump" from one type to another.
Hang on. I'm going to get links for this from sources you'll accept. The picture you posted contains known frauds, debunked, not by creationists, but by secular scientists. Those can't be used as evidence for macroevolution.
OK. Java Man, for example, was made up from a few bone fragments. Namely "a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. " The rest of the skeleton was "made up" to fill in the blanks. A more complete skeleton was found later, but still not enough to complete the skull...
OK. The gray/black/white moths argument isn't even used any more because it was both (a) incorrect and (b) faked. The truth is both were there at the same time, and when the trees got darker, the birds could see the lighter ones and at them, changing the population dynamic.
I'll drop the "faked" for the sake of time, but here's the Wikipedia article about the moths. the fact remains that both species existed before the Russian revolution and after. That the ratio of dark to light changed had more to do with camouflage and which ones the birds could easily pick off. no mutation occurred. No variation. not even micro evolution. It's no different than a sniper trying to pick off people in blaze orange and people in camouflage.
:-) and really, thank you. This is actually fun for me. I hope it's fun for you, too, and we're still in the spirit of friendly debate.
but neither moth changed. Neither one evolved. Not in the least. I'm not saying any of this proves creation, and apparently, this article isn't either, but it is listed as an example of micro-evolution. This isn't even that. the moths didn't change.
Even if the natural selection were carried through to the end, we'd have one less type of peppered moth, not one more.
Yes, carbon dating is only good for a few thousand years. Potassium-argon and u32-Lead is "better for longer periods" due to the longer half-life....
I don't act as if there is no consensus. My main argument about indoctrination is about how the consensus is biased toward evolution and naturalism. I fully agree with the factthat there is a consensus out there.
But back to the article. Your statement shows that simply because the author believes in God, he can't be a real scientist. The source shouldn't matter if the material, evidence, and facts are accurate.
I'm sorry. You haven't given me one single piece of evidence that is based on anything other than faith, or that can't be interpreted either way so far.
Yes, I understand that you question his motives. I don't dispute that. But the content of the article aside from his motives?
How about evidence for the flood? I assume you've read up on that? Geologic features that dispell the idea that the layers of the earth prove millions or billions of years>
My wife has gone to bed and is annoyed with me. I'd like to keep going, but she takes precedence. If you'd like to take this up later, let me know. I'll blog about the geological evidences I mentioned, so you can take the time to refute them.
6 hours later…
11:38 AM
@DavidStratton I would like to join that conservation and clear some things up. For example you showed common misconceptions about several things
what you describe as atheism, is defined as strong atheism, "there is no god", it's also described as gnostic atheist
gnosticism is only about knowlegde, in this case gnostic atheist means that one knows that there is no god
people are not biased in believing in evolution, the same you aren't biased if you believe in gravity
like gravity, evolution is a model to explain the diversity of species on our planet with scientific methods
and yes, it might be possible that some invisible gnomes are pushing things down, but thats equally unreasonable to believe
evolution is confirmed by many different branches of scientists, therefore it's commonly known as a fact
i don't know how many times I have repeated that now, macroevolution is nothing different than microevolution
if a microevolution is one small change than macroevolution is just more than one microevolution chained together
and then they dismiss evolution on the basis, that macroevolution does not simply happen, can not be observed or other theories
we agree that change of species does not happen and it cannot be observed, but thats not how evolution works
if you take a picture every day in our live and look at picture 999,1000,1001 you'll see usually no change, altough we aged a day (microevolution)
every picture you make will not be different from the one you made before or after it, altough we aged a little bit
you don't are a baby at one day, and on the next you're a teenager and at some later point you're suddenly an adult
if you would do that with pictures of your father, grandfather, grandgrandfather and so on, we would see no difference (in the sense of human similarites) between your father and your 100 ancestor, they would still look like a human
but if we go back a thousand generations, according to evolution, we maybe see some slight differences, a different form of skull for example
you can go back 10000 generations and maybe your ancestor is now ape-like (I really don't know the timeframe ;) ) and still, consecutive pictures of your ancestor will be look the same, but now the difference between this ape-like human and you is big
according to wikipedia, "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."
wolves, dogs and foxes are examples of microevolution you said before, but according to usual definition of macroevolution (that is still wrong) this would be one
macalester.edu/~montgomery/GrayWolfExtra.html this site shows the common ancestors of dogs, wolves and foxes and they belong tho the family of canids
8 hours later…
next day → last day (15 days later) »
Transcript for
Oct '114
Oct5
Discussion between Atheist and David …
Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
