[The Phantom Mullet]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

And it is here where we must separate knowledge from agenda.

Alright.... So both sides are clearly pushing what you might call an 'agenda.' Point?

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

yes. But we know that jesus was telling a story there.it says in genesis that god created the heavens and the earth. It is making a statement of fact. It doesn't mention where the line is drawn at which it goes from that to a story.

It says God created the heavens and the earth. Correct. It also isn't all that specific about how he did it....

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

my biggest problem with evolution is that it 1 defies genetics,physics,and entrapy. among other part of science.

Call me ignorant, but how does evolution define physics?

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

2nd. it is the cause of sexism,racism,and nazziism.

This is absolutely incorrect. At BEST, you can say it is A cause. And still you'd have to explain your reasoning. Religion can also be called A cause for all of those things....

[The Phantom Mullet]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

1of them was that all life is competing for survival. this is true only within a spicies.

How do you figure?

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

And it is here where we must separate knowledge from agenda.

There isn't some big scientific conspiracy to destroy God.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

yes. But we know that jesus was telling a story there.it says in genesis that god created the heavens and the earth. It is making a statement of fact. It doesn't mention where the line is drawn at which it goes from that to a story.

I don't dispute that God created the heavens and the earth. How He did it is the question.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

well if it's that bad i would assume that by now they would have been disproven on many levels. But as long as they have been around there arguments have yet to see a disproving argument.

My guess is that they aren't going to print disproving arguments on their website. I'm sure if you looked you'd find refutations online, I used to know where they were but I haven't really cared in years.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

but it does. How do you know that God exists?

Jesus said God exists. Reason tells me that God exists. In the past, people used to think that God caused the rain but we don't think that anymore. We now know that rain is caused by a series of physical events. We need to move away from this placeholder God we've created and worship the actual God.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

They do a good job of explaining how it might work but I have yet to see an example of it. even dawkins couldn't think of one when asked.look here.

The question is, can you give an example of an evolutionary or genetic process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome. Addition mutations (addition of a single genetic base into a gene) are seen all the time. Duplication mutations (a gene or area of the genome) is seen all the time. Most of the time they cause disease. An evolutionary process would be mitochondria (which have their own genome) which they hypothesize began as bacteria which were taken up by cells. The genes of the mitochondria have with time moved and incorporated into the nuclear genome.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

1st off. gravity is a fact. it is a law. if you drop something it will fall.

Gravity is a theory.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

second is that we still don't know that the earth is even that old. if I say to you we weren't around 10,000 years ago to see if adam and eve were real after God created the world. what can you say against that?

I can say that you weren't around either. Scientists use the evidence they have (and they have considerable evidence).

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

science doesn't have anything to do with which parts of the bible are physycal or not.as for the rest that you mentioned I'll just ask. why trust a flawed man to tell you what it says? how do you know that he know?

There are approximately 8,000 Protestant denominations (according to Wikipedia), each with a different interpretation of the Bible. Some believe that sex is wrong, some believe that contraception is wrong, some believe in predestination, some believe in free will, some believe that everybody goes to heaven, some believe that everyone should speak in tongues and some believe that if you are filled with the Holy Spirit you'll be able to hold poisonous snakes without dying.

How do you know which denomination is true? How do you know which interpretation is right? We trust flawed man because at the moment we have nothing else unless God comes down and tells us exactly which interpretation is right. David says that God knits us together in our mothers wombs. How do you know that that is symbolic? I know that it is symbolic because scientists have discovered the cellular processes of conception and development.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

but how do you know that when it mentions God and satin it's not just symbolic of your every day iner struggles?

It might be, I don't know. Whether Satan exists or not doesn't really change the central message of the Gospels.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

but if what genesis says isn't physically true then how do we know that the rest of the bible is physically true?

The rest of the Bible isn't physically true. Much of the Bible is metaphorical and allegorical. Some of the Bible is historical. We use science, history, etc. to determine.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

yet it does depend on those things. it wouldn't work any other way.

But it is still important to get terms right.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

and it's abiogenesis and it isn't even a theory any more. it was dis-proven a very long time ago.

I'm not sure what experiment you're talking about. I know they determined that certain hypotheses were wrong.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

my biggest problem with evolution is that it 1 defies genetics,physics,and entrapy. among other part of science.

It does not defy any of those. I know you will ask me to prove that but the burden of proof is on you (you're arguing the positive) to explain how it defies genetics, physics and entropy.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

2nd. it is the cause of sexism,racism,and nazziism.

And Christianity is the cause of sexism, racism and crusades. The effects of believing evolution do not determine its truth just as the effects of Christianity do not determine its truth.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

I would like to see this evidence. In all my life I have never actually seen any for evolution but then I haven't looked that far into the topic.

That's a silly statement. Pretty much everything in biology is evidence. Most don't prove evolution by themselves (what has been proven with a single piece of evidence anyway?), but there are clear chains to establish it.

That said: your request is overly general. At least a precursor "wikipedia" search or the like would be appropriate before asking someone here to explain an entire field of biology to you ad-hoc.

But what was the evidence? And how do God and evo fit in the same world to your understanding? I mean as far as I know the whole reason Darwin had his brain fart was to destroy God.

You appear to be rhetorical there. Do you have an assertion you would like to defend, a retort to someone else's assertion, or a topical question regarding an assertion?

Well I am interested now. what is untrue about what the Bible says?

Ask Galileo.

For evangelism no. But why not teach it as science? It's about as much science as evolution is. neither of them have fact based proof as far as I know. There is some historical fact to the creation story.

Sigh. Where to begin.

You should start by understanding what a science actually is. Scientific principle requires disprovable hypothesis. What predictions does ID make that we can test for to disprove it?

The answer, of course, is "none". Even if ID were actually true, it would still not be science as it cannot be tested.

As far as dress and all that goes you have a point. But as for political views and science, a believer in God should have certain views based on what the Bible tells us.

John Calvin and Martin Luther felt the same way you do... so you are in good company.

Of course, they were adamantly convinced that the Bible clearly proved that the sun moved around the Earth.

The 1st time it was a shock but I do know you guys are out there now. I do wonder why you believe this way though. Have you ever read anything by AIG?

I have... it reminds me of Alien abduction stories but with less grasp of reality.

You are making an assumption here. Lets try not to state anything as though it is fact until we have put forth proof. Since most of you who have posted take the evolution side I will ask you to prove your point 1st.ok.

Um... no.

There are three reasons why "no".

1) You've established above that you don't know what "science" actually is. I doubt you'd know a proof either.
2) You've not done any groundwork. You are asking a broad an open-ended question without even bothering to take a look at the basics.
3) You've not laid down basic assumptions. Are we to accept physical evidence only or is Biblical evidence inviolate? What happens when the two conflict? Whose interpretation of the Bible? There could be a whole discussion on what it is the Bible actually says, and if you are going to argue creation vs evolution, you should have a clear idea what creationism actually claims.

well if it's that bad i would assume that by now they would have been disproved on many levels. But as long as they have been around there arguments have yet to see a disproving argument.

Did you think AIG would post its own disproofs?

Try: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Or do a search on previous CvE threads here.

Though it's still unclear whether you are wanting to discuss CvE or "does the Bible claim Creation".

but I have yet to see an example of it

Read my FAQ

1st off. gravity is a fact. it is a law. if you drop something it will fall. second is that we still don't know that the earth is even that old.

You are back at not understanding what words mean and yet using them anyway...

And yes, the minimum age of the Earth is known at about 4.5 billion years.

my biggest problem with evolution is that it 1 defies genetics,physics,and entrapy. among other part of science.

2nd. it is the cause of sexism,racism,and nazziism.

1) Remember that part where you said people shouldn't assert facts without supporting them? Well, you just asserted several facts.

2) Same problem... plus a few.

Have you read the bible on the role of women? They are property of men in the OT... and God's opinion of races other than the Jews... well, how are the Hittites doing these days?

It's funny how you blame evolution, which appeared a couple hundred years ago, for problems which have been going on for millennia. It's funnier still how that dichotomy eludes you.

As to the Nazis (and BTW, you just lost the argument per Godwin's law (something else you should look up on Wikipedia)): that was, like so many other struggles, simply about power and "us-vs-them". Hitler's "Aryan race" actually came more from Scandinavian religions than anything else.

Finally, regarding problems with point "2": it is am "appeal to consequence" fallacy. Something cannot be shown to be untrue because the consequence of its truth is undesirable.

You should really trim down your argument. Pick a single, specific point and make your case. You are all over the board here.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

But what was the evidence?

See below.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

And how do God and evo fit in the same world to your understanding?

God as Creator, who used evolution as a process to bring about His will.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

I mean as far as I know the whole reason Darwin had his brain fart was to destroy God.

Heh. Quite a claim. Source?

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

Well I am interested now. what is untrue about what the Bible says?

Woah. I never said that, nor did I imply it.

I suggested that what YEC (Young Earth Creationists) propose is untrue. I'm guessing that you think that whatever YECs say is Biblical because they say so?

I think OneHope summed this up pretty well.


In any case, if you want an example of where YEC goes wrong, I'd suggest reading up on the age of the earth. YECs insist on a 6k-10k year old earth, of which there is no scientific support, and much support for an much older earth.

Take marble for example. Marble is a metamorphic rock, which means it was once another kind of rock, but has been pushed down far enough in the earth's crust to undergo significant change from the pressure and heat. The thing is, marble used to be limestone. Limestone is a sedimentary rock, meaning that it consists of material deposited and consolidated into rock, and must be formed at or near the surface (much limestone seems to be formed at the bottom of a body of water).

The process for limestone to form, for geological events to bury the limestone, for it to be metamorphosed into marble, and for it to make it's way back to the surface will definitely take much longer than 10,000 years. Not only is this demonstrable with limestone/marble, but geology in general will make no sense at all if you adopt a young earth model.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

For evangelism no. But why not teach it as science?

Because it isn't science. Science uses inductive reasoning to examine, question, test, and attempt to explain the world around us. Nothing in science is for certain (or anything that uses inductive reasoning). Theories and ideas are disposable as they are demonstrated to be wrong or better ones replace them (such as Newton's law of universal gravitation made obsolete by Einstein's theory of relativity).

On the other hand, creationism doesn't have disposable theories. They put up a set of 'truths', and set out to prove them. That isn't science. If that were science, we'd still believed the earth was flat and that the sun moved about it.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

It's about as much science as evolution is. neither of them have fact based proof as far as I know.

In that light, you can't prove much of anything. Can you prove I exist? Can you prove the earth is round? When dealing with science, proofs are nearly impossible because again, science deals with inductive reasoning (trial, error, observation) rather than deductive reasoning (based on self-evident truths and rules, e.g. 2+2=4). Because of this, nothing is concrete, and as such, even Newton's law of gravity was able to be proven incorrect.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

There is some historical fact to the creation story.

Source?

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

As far as dress and all that goes you have a point. But as for political views and science, a believer in God should have certain views based on what the Bible tells us.

Such as...?

The world is flat?
The sun moves around us?
That a bat is a bird?

The Bible is an incredible text, but it isn't a science book.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

Well you seem very sure that the creation story of the Bible isn't as true as some might say. I am wondering what convinced you of this.

It was a process. I used to be a YEC like you. In fact, if dig far enough in my CGR posts (old apologetics forum especially) or google my username, you'd find where I defended creationism much like you're doing now.

In any case, as I realized the earth was older than several thousand years old, the rest of the evidence just came naturally. I've come to appreciate science more, but also logic and philosophy. They are all connected in a strange sort of way. Creationism, as it conflicts with science, also conflicts with those other areas, that cause creationism to not make any sense at all.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

The 1st time it was a shock but I do know you guys are out there now. I do wonder why you believe this way though. Have you ever read anything by AIG?

Yes. I used to cite their articles in debates.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

You are making an assumption here. Lets try not to state anything as though it is fact until we have put forth proof.

Isn't this a little backwards? I've already demonstrated that science can't be "proven"... so I guess we shouldn't even be talking about science at all?

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

Since most of you who have posted take the evolution side I will ask you to prove your point 1st.ok.

Heh.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

so how do you tell which parts of the Bible are parable and which parts are not?

This is actually a good question, and it's question I'm seeking the answer to.

That doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist...

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

the firts 4 words of genesis 1:1 are in the beginning God. do you take that as parable or as physical/real truth?

Whether you take the creation story as word-for-word literal, or figuratively true, you can't deny that God, who exists, created the earth.


Simply because it contains an obvious literal truth (to us Christians), that doesn't make the entire thing literal truth. (see Fallacy of Composition)

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

But is does change the fact of Gods existence.

Huh?

Either God exists, or he doesn't. Am I forgetting something important about metaphysics?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tht00

Because of this, nothing is concrete, and as such, even Newton's law of gravity was able to be proven incorrect.

To be fair, and like most supplanted theories, it wasn't "wrong" as much as "incomplete".

If the objects aren't too massive, or too small, or moving too fast, or too deep in a gravity well, then Newton is close enough to work.

[jesus_for_me]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That's a silly statement. Pretty much everything in biology is evidence. Most don't prove evolution by themselves (what has been proven with a single piece of evidence anyway?), but there are clear chains to establish it.

Genetics by itself makes evolution imposable. That is just 1 part of biology. Ecology also has a few bones to pick with evolution as do many mutualistic relationships.

That said: your request is overly general. At least a precursor "wikipedia" search or the like would be appropriate before asking someone here to explain an entire field of biology to you ad-hoc.

I don't really trust wikki. After all it is edited on an hourly basis.lol.

You appear to be rhetorical there. Do you have an assertion you would like to defend, a retort to someone else's assertion, or a topical question regarding an assertion?

It's kind of all of those.

Ask Galileo.

what does he have to contribute?

Sigh. Where to begin.

You should start by understanding what a science actually is. Scientific principle requires disprovable hypothesis. What predictions does ID make that we can test for to disprove it?

suppose I ask you the same question. what would your answer be? what parts of evo can be tested?

The answer, of course, is "none". Even if ID were actually true, it would still not be science as it cannot be tested.

your argument here is faulty though because evolution can't be tested either.

John Calvin and Martin Luther felt the same way you do... so you are in good company.

I don't really like being compared to a man who translated the Bible so that common folk could read it and then killed them for doing what it says.

Of course, they were adamantly convinced that the Bible clearly proved that the sun moved around the Earth.

I have... it reminds me of Alien abduction stories but with less grasp of reality.

Wow. fact reminds you of sci fi and you take sci fi as though it was fact. That is very interesting.

Um... no.

There are three reasons why "no".

1) You've established above that you don't know what "science" actually is. I doubt you'd know a proof either.

I never said I didn't know what science is. I did say that I didn't study science much.

2) You've not done any groundwork. You are asking a broad an open-ended question without even bothering to take a look at the basics.

I've looked at the basics and they don't make any sense of evolution. That is why I asked a more broad question.

3) You've not laid down basic assumptions. Are we to accept physical evidence only or is Biblical evidence inviolate? What happens when the two conflict? Whose interpretation of the Bible? There could be a whole discussion on what it is the Bible actually says, and if you are going to argue creation vs evolution, you should have a clear idea what creationism actually claims.

if you can show me evo in the bible then by all means. if you can't then just give me what actual fact based proof you do have. I know what creationism claims. But do you? Do you even know what evolution claims?

Did you think AIG would post its own disproofs?

A google search would have brought me to something and yet it's not there.

Try: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

I've actually looked at this before. it doesn't actually answer any questions. More just try to explain away the facts.thats the thing about AIG. They only deal with Facts.

Though it's still unclear whether you are wanting to discuss CvE or "does the Bible claim Creation".

either or. They both fit together.

Read my FAQ

You are back at not understanding what words mean and yet using them anyway...

And yes, the minimum age of the Earth is known at about 4.5 billion years.

I understand full well what the words mean.

1) Remember that part where you said people shouldn't assert facts without supporting them? Well, you just asserted several facts.

2) Same problem... plus a few.

Have you read the bible on the role of women? They are property of men in the OT... and God's opinion of races other than the Jews... well, how are the Hittites doing these days?

woman were to be treasured. read it again. also. God isn't so worried about people groups as much as their sin. please keep the bible in context.

It's funny how you blame evolution, which appeared a couple hundred years ago, for problems which have been going on for millennia. It's funnier still how that dichotomy eludes you.

the idea that one people group is a higher group then another is evolution and it has bin around since after noah.

As to the Nazis (and BTW, you just lost the argument per Godwin's law (something else you should look up on Wikipedia)): that was, like so many other struggles, simply about power and "us-vs-them". Hitler's "Aryan race" actually came more from Scandinavian religions than anything else.

and it was all based on the idea that a people group with nothing but recessive traits is a better fit and more human then others.

Finally, regarding problems with point "2": it is am "appeal to consequence" fallacy. Something cannot be shown to be untrue because the consequence of its truth is undesirable.

see it's funny that you say this. an agnostic coworker of mine who believes some aspect of evolution told me that what he thought was that if evolution was proven to be an absolute fact(note that he didn't see it as such already) racism,sexism, and nazziism would be rampent.

You should really trim down your argument. Pick a single, specific point and make your case. You are all over the board here.

well pick a point you want to discus and I will focus on that. then we can move on from there. it would be easier.

Originally Posted by mulletman

How do you figure?

wolves do not hunt people because they want to be at the top of the food chain. they will though, if they are old or injured. wolves do compete with eachother though to be the "top dog".lol.

Originally Posted by mulletman

Alright.... So both sides are clearly pushing what you might call an 'agenda.' Point?

what are each sides point?

It says God created the heavens and the earth. Correct. It also isn't all that specific about how he did it....

Look again. It says he spoke it all into existence.

Call me ignorant, but how does evolution define physics?

A certain theory (that evolution completely relies on to be true)about the earths origins defies physics and entrapy among other things.

This is absolutely incorrect. At BEST, you can say it is A cause. And still you'd have to explain your reasoning. Religion can also be called A cause for all of those things....

and with religion it is not justified. see by explaining how they are OK with science(i.e. facts) those very things are justified.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

Genetics by itself makes evolution imposable. That is just 1 part of biology. Ecology also has a few bones to pick with evolution as do many mutualistic relationships.

Again I refer you to your position that claims should be supported. A logical paradox is the easiest of all proofs to show. Please support your claim.

I don't really trust wikki. After all it is edited on an hourly basis.lol.

Your statement is non-Sequitor and unresponsive. You've failed to do basic background work before engaging in a very generalized discussion. It's unreasonable to make such a broad demand.

It's kind of all of those.

What is "all of those"?

what does he have to contribute?

Not much, as he's decomposed. His story is interesting however. He lived in a time when every major Biblical scholar I am aware of (Martin Luther and John Calvin come to mind) was adamant in saying that the Bible claims that the sun moved around the Earth. He and Copurnicus both asserted this to be wrong.

From what I can tell: the geocentricist arguments of yore looked an awful lot like the creationist arguments today.

suppose I ask you the same question. what would your answer be? what parts of evo can be tested?

The list is tremendously long. But I'll gladly give an example of a prediction made and tested.

When midochondria, and midocondrial DNA was discovered, we suddenly had something we could test that showed how things were related (we have it to a slightly lesser extend in general DNA, but the nature of sexual reproduction vs fission reproduction makes midocondrial DNA better).

So evolution made a prediction. If evolution were true, we should see relationshps in midocondrial DNA in direct proportion to evolutionary divergence. To put it another way: If we are related to dogs, then our midocondria should be similar; and if we are more closely related to apes, our midocondria should be more similar in a quantifiable way.

So we started testing midocondria of all sorts of things to find out how the midocondria indicated they were related: comparing these results to the evolutionary tree whe had determined through morphology (which itself had been compared to fossil record, and later to protien composition).

The prediction tested true: midochondrial DNA between two organisms shows a level of divergence proportional to the time since a common ancestor.

your argument here is faulty though because evolution can't be tested either.

Your statement is simply false. I gave an example of a real test which was done in the 20th century (and continues to be validates as this is the new normal method of determining relationships) above.

I don't really like being compared to a man who translated the Bible so that common folk could read it and then killed them for doing what it says.

Your slanderous commentary on (I presume) Luther is irrellevent to the point at hand.

Wow. fact reminds you of sci fi and you take sci fi as though it was fact. That is very interesting.

That statement, much like your previous one is pure rhetoric. I can only assume that you lack any substantive response to the issue.

I never said I didn't know what science is.

Nor did I say that you said so. I said that you have established that you don't know what science is.

I did say that I didn't study science much.I've looked at the basics and they don't make any sense of evolution.

Again I call on you to actually support this factual claim.

That is why I asked a more broad question.

You obviously did not follow my recommendation to read my FAQ, nor to search on previous CvE threads to ask that question.

if you can show me evo in the bible then by all means. if you can't then just give me what actual fact based proof you do have. I know what creationism claims. But do you? Do you even know what evolution claims?

If you are asking what the Bible says as a thread topic, you should post in Theology rather than science.

A google search would have brought me to something and yet it's not there.

I've actually looked at this before. it doesn't actually answer any questions. More just try to explain away the facts.thats the thing about AIG. They only deal with Facts.

Odd. You tell me rebuttals are not on the web because you can't find them on Google and then tell me that you've already read rebuttals on the web which you just claimed don't exist.

I can personally refute most anything on AIG, though it would only be useful if you actually could defend the asserted AIG position. If you had that ability, you would have opened with it. Regurgitating AIG claims will just have me cut-n-pasting retorts from TalkOrigins or the like or... more likely... dismissing your arguemnt as a non-argument (based on the lack of being your own position, per my Discussion 101 thread: another suggested read).

either or. They both fit together.

Too broad to make a useful thread. Might as well start a thread to discuss "stuff"

I understand full well what the words mean.

An interesting conversation.

A: How many legs does a typical dog have?
B: Four?
A: Correct. If we call the head a leg, how many legs does a typical dog have?
B: FIve?
A: Wrong. It's still four. Just because we call something something-else doesn't make it so.

Similarly: your claim that you understand the vocabulary doesn't make it true. Either you don't understand the vocabulary or, worse, you are pretending to not understand it.

woman were to be treasured. read it again. also. God isn't so worried about people groups as much as their sin. please keep the bible in context.

A demonstrably untrue statement, but also terribly off-topic. Your claim that understanding evolution causes behaviors that predate the understanding of evolution is paradoxically disproven at best and specious at worst.

the idea that one people group is a higher group then another is evolution and it has bin around since after noah.

and it was all based on the idea that a people group with nothing but recessive traits is a better fit and more human then others.

The most basic version of evolution entered the western consiousness in the 19th century. The idea of castes (and a hiarchy of value for people) goes back into antiquity. A simple easy example would be ancient Rome.

But again: this is irrellevent to whether evolution is true or false. It's an appeal to consequence, which is a logical fallacy.

see it's funny that you say this. an agnostic coworker of mine who believes some aspect of evolution told me that what he thought was that if evolution was proven to be an absolute fact(note that he didn't see it as such already) racism,sexism, and nazziism would be rampent.

I cannot fathom why you would be saying "this guy I know said" as an argument. It's actually tempting to point out why that's not even a completed thought, but I think that would be too much "feeding the troll". Your anticdote has no bearing. If you could prove the claim true, then you could make a proof-by-deduction; but you cannot.

well pick a point you want to discus and I will focus on that. then we can move on from there. it would be easier.

OK. Assuming that reality is as we percieve it through out generally accurate senses:

The creationist timeline is inconsistant with observed reality as it claims a Earth <10,000 years old. Uranium spiral fracture dating can be used to establish teh age of a large amount of material as orders of magnitudes older.

Since said daiting sets a minimum age of the Earth far in excess of 10,000 years; the claim that the true age is less than 10,000 is false.

Would you like me to save you some time? Assuming you even attempt a rebuttal of the claim, you are first going to recite AIG claims over other types of rock dating (Ka-Ar dating for example) or worse non-rock dating (Carbon-14 dating for example). I'm going to point out that you've not addressed the mechanism I was discussing, and then, if you are still on the topic, you will start asserting that God created the Earth with "the appearance of age", which cannot be tested and is counter-inductive... in doing so you've moved out of anything resembling proof (as you can offer no material support) and into simple claims of miracles and the topic becomes apologetics.

And you'll still not have supported your wild and vague accustions that evolution is contra-indicated / paradoxical.

[Akshay]

son a little history might help you out here. I don't know much in the way of science but I do know lots about history. and darwin was in a seminary and was picked on by many of his fellow students. He also had a very strained relationship with his father and these all led up to him viewing God in the very same way that richard dawkins sees God. Darwin was not a scientist(now that I think about it neither is Dawkins).
he was a philosopher of sorts and he came to hate God and any stories of his deathbed recantation you've heard are a very big lie I can tell you that much. people who were actually there for his death said it wasn't true.

There is a reason that the vast majority (read as upward of 95%) of scientist accept the theory of evolution, it is not some conspiracy made out to disprove God's existence. The theory of evolution has developed over many years due to observations made by thousands of people. I always find a bit annoying that amateurs in the field of Biology talk of the theory of evolution as if they were experts in the field due to what they have read in a book that was written from a historical perspective not a scientific perspective.

If you are convinced that the theory of evolution is false then take a class on Evolutionary Biology (at the college level) and examine the evidence presented yourself. At the moment your belief that evolution is false doesn't have many legs to stand on.

Genetics by itself makes evolution imposable. That is just 1 part of biology. Ecology also has a few bones to pick with evolution as do many mutualistic relationships.

Genetics is what allows evolution to be possible. Due to mutations in genes we have a huge amount of genetic diversity and it provides the framework for evolution to happen. Ecology (and God) is what directs evolutionary changes to take place.

if you can show me evo in the bible then by all means. if you can't then just give me what actual fact based proof you do have. I know what creationism claims. But do you? Do you even know what evolution claims?

JerryLove is an atheist so that'd be kinda ridiculous for him to do

But to answer your question, The Bible isn't a Science book, neither is it a book on Architecture, Medicine, Husbandry, or Computer Science. There are lots of things the Bible doesn't talk about, like computers. Does that mean computers can't exist?

the idea that one people group is a higher group then another is evolution and it has bin around since after noah.

You have a huge misunderstanding of evolution on a fundamental level. Evolution doesn't create a higher group or superior species. Evolution isn't goal-oriented.

see it's funny that you say this. an agnostic coworker of mine who believes some aspect of evolution told me that what he thought was that if evolution was proven to be an absolute fact(note that he didn't see it as such already) racism,sexism, and nazziism would be rampent.

How so? First of evolution takes millions of years to occur and it would require a great deal of work to artificially engineer a "super"-human through evolution. Also the theory of evolution doesn't have this idea of a superior organism. Animals don't evolve to become superior, they evolve because it makes them better adapted to their environment.

A certain theory (that evolution completely relies on to be true)about the earths origins defies physics and entrapy among other things.

Unrelated theories. I believe in the Theory of Evolution but not in the Big Bang Theory. It would be a fallacy to equate the two and reject one on the merit of the other.

[Akshay]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Would you like me to save you some time? Assuming you even attempt a rebuttal of the claim, you are first going to recite AIG claims over other types of rock dating (Ka-Ar dating for example) or worse non-rock dating (Carbon-14 dating for example). I'm going to point out that you've not addressed the mechanism I was discussing, and then, if you are still on the topic, you will start asserting that God created the Earth with "the appearance of age", which cannot be tested and is counter-inductive... in doing so you've moved out of anything resembling proof (as you can offer no material support) and into simple claims of miracles and the topic becomes apologetics.

I just have to say that I found that very funny to read. It shows that you've been in this debate one too many times

[The Phantom Mullet]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

the idea that one people group is a higher group then another is evolution and it has bin around since after noah.

Wrong. The idea that an individual who is stronger is thus more likely to survive, and produce offspring with similar genetic traits is evolution.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

wolves do not hunt people because they want to be at the top of the food chain. they will though, if they are old or injured. wolves do compete with eachother though to be the "top dog".lol.

Alright. Consider the following situation. There is a wolf, and there is me. We are both starving to death. There is a large quantity of food placed between us. How are we not competing with each other for survival?

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

what are each sides point?

Perhaps you can tell me. You were the one who asserted that one group had 'an agenda.'

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

Look again. It says he spoke it all into existence.

Alright. Good. That seems massively vague. I'm certain that he could have spoke, and things would have happened by way of an evolution-like process.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

and with religion it is not justified. see by explaining how they are OK with science(i.e. facts) those very things are justified.

Not really. If I can scientifically explain the cause for something, that does not mean I endorse it, agree with it, or justify the moral correctness of it. All it means, is that I can explain why it happens.

[Demon_Hunter]

Originally Posted by mulletman

Alright. Good. That seems massively vague. I'm certain that he could have spoke, and things would have happened by way of an evolution-like process.


Not really. If I can scientifically explain the cause for something, that does not mean I endorse it, agree with it, or justify the moral correctness of it. All it means, is that I can explain why it happens.

Except that after God created it, he said it was good. I take that to mean that from the moment he spoke it, to the moment it happened that when it happened it was perfect to begin with. If something is perfect, it isnt still becoming more perfect.

But now creation is imperfect, and things are able to drift farther away from perfection as time goes on.

[ICTHUS]

jesus_for_me, you are dishonest and ought to be ashamed of yourself. Try a little thing called intellectual honesty. A five second search on youtube yielded a concise refutation of the "ZOMG DAWKINS WUZ STUMPED" video-edit done at the hands of dishonest Christians like you.

They do a good job of explaining how it might work but I have yet to see an example of it. even dawkins couldn't think of one when asked.look here.

Richard Dawkins was not 'stumped' by that question. He paused for eleven seconds because he was angry that a creationist had managed to obtain an interview with him - and he realized it at that second - and he was trying to collect his thoughts and think of a cohesive way to answer.

He gives an answer to the interviewer, in fact, http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RMoQf5...eature=related

Also. Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Where the hell are you getting your information, dude?

But as for political views and science, a believer in God should have certain views based on what the Bible tells us.

Like what?　De-facto Christian Zionism?

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

Except that after God created it, he said it was good. I take that to mean that from the moment he spoke it, to the moment it happened that when it happened it was perfect to begin with. If something is perfect, it isnt still becoming more perfect.

But now creation is imperfect, and things are able to drift farther away from perfection as time goes on.

I'm actually a fairly literal creationist my self, but I see on possible flaw with this point. When I read Gen. it appears a little time passed between when God created Adam and then said "it is not good for man to be alone". Did God see a need for improvement? Just because God said "it is good" does that mean He had no plans for improvement or change?

[jesus_for_me]

ok. according to genetics. only traits that already exist in an organisms genome can be passed on to offspring.if an organisms gene's are a's and b's then all that there offspring will have will be a's and b's.evolutions sates that a Q can somehow enter the sequence.according to genetics this is imposible.