@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.
Feel free to point them out.
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.
Accretion is the opposite of what's observed...
Anyway, have you also addressed the problem of the difficulties with angular momentum in the rotation of the planets and galaxies?
Hang on - reading your posts... Don't want to ignore them.
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.
Yes, there is cosmic background radiation... It exists. That tells me nothing of how it got there.
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...
that depends on which theory of evolution you subscribe to. To which are you referring?
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"
DNA similarity necessarily doesn't mean a common origin
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.
I agree with your statement! Nothing has disproved evolution! I agree with that....
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 would agree that the dog, the coyote, the wolf, all have a common ancestor.
I would agree that the various species of finches all had a common ancestor.
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.
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...
You're getting ahead of me. :-)
You're talking about the Gypsy moths?
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'm sorry, I meant peppered moths.
LOL You type so fast i can't find the references and keep up.
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.
OK. Make me "get it". that's why I'm staying up.
:-) 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.
So does the Creationist view, go on....
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.
Again, we get back to the age of the earth and the physics behind it.
Go on. I'm sure you read my article on those. If I'm wrong, I'm open.
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?
I couldn't quote a single scientific proof of either side. Mine or yours.
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>
Theonly ones I said were faked were te peppered moth (which I retracted) and the Java Man.
My spelling is going kaput.
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.
This has really been good. In spite of the fact that neither of us changed our minds, and I'm sure I frustrated the heck out of you, I really like a good debate. You did throw some new things at me. take care!
And keep posting your questions! I think it's good for those of us who DO still believe to have challenges. The challenges will either make us leave our faith or make it stronger. (Natural selection in action.)