[nolidad]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I'm going to ignore your first three points because they are already sufficiently refuted by the numerous world-renowned scientists that support evolution. I cannot possibly hope to exceed or even approximate their refutations.



I do not know if you are misunderstanding me or just not being clear. You cannot prove or disprove science. Science is a framework for understanding the world. Whether it is the correct framework or not is more a philosophical question than anything else. There is no way to prove or disprove any framework for understanding the world. Any such proof would have to be inside some framework for understanding the world. Since this is obviously circular recursive, the best you can hope for is to prove a framework's internal consistency or to prove one framework in terms of another (like if a religion taught that science was infallible and you believed that religion, you would therefore have "proof" that science is infallible, but of course you would have no way to prove your religion correct except inside some other framework, which you would also have no way to prove correct except inside some other framework, which... [repeat ad infinitum]).

What you can prove or disprove is scientific theories, but, and this is vitally important, only within the framework of science.

If your definition for science includes the possibility of supernatural events, then we are never going to get anywhere because we are working off different definitions of science. Nor, I should point out, will you get anywhere with the majority of people who call themselves scientists, because their definitions of science will also not include the supernatural.

---

UPDATE

I should also point out that if you want to disprove evolution, you have to do it from within the framework that scientists that accept evolution are using. If you cannot accept that restriction, then you *cannot* disprove evolution. What you can attempt to discredit (not disprove) is that science is the best framework from which to understand the world, but you aren't doing that by arguing against evolution. You are going to do that by arguing against science as the ultimate answer. You are missing the forest for the trees if you focus on evolution. Convincing someone that science isn't the ultimate answer will automatically convince them that evolution isn't the ultimate answer, but convincing someone that evolution isn't the ultimate scientific answer is impossible unless you enter the scientific framework. Your only two options are to disprove evolution from within science or to disprove science, but you don't seem to be interested in doing either, so, like I said, you aren't going to get anywhere. No one will accept an explanation from outside their framework. If someone believes science (science defined to exclude supernatural events) is the ultimate answer, they are never going to accept a supernatural answer to any question.

On the flip side, since you and I accept Christianity as the ultimate framework for understanding the world, it is just as pointless when people try to disprove our viewpoints by pointing to science. Science cannot disprove creation. The only way for someone to disprove creation is to do so from within the Christian framework or to disprove the Christian framework altogether. Of course, my understanding of Christianity doesn't exclude the possibility of evolution, but that's not the point.

The point is that whatever I accept as true because of my Christian perspective CANNOT be disproved by science, and whatever scientists accept because of their scientific perspective CANNOT be disproved by Christianity.

I think if people would just understand this, the pointless debates and name-calling (not from you, from others) would come to end.

---

Of course, I should add in closing that it's perfectly possible that your framework for understanding the world allows for the possiblity of cross-framework proofs and that I will, therefore, not get anywhere with you.

Wellwe shall try to keep to Science to disprove the tenets ofevolution then.

1. Science is in agreement of my point 3 nearly all mutations (the theorized mechanism for mutation) are eithwer neutral or harmful almost 100% of the time.

2. As to dating methodologies- I would advise you to read the RATE research report that empiracally shows that dating methods are flawed

3. The missin glinks are still missing! Produce the series that shows the change from gill to ling. Or limbs to wings, or scales to feathers or mouth to beak. or fins to feet, or austrolopithecus to hominid. I could add other supposed proven vertical evolutionary traits but these will suffice. I keep track of fossils, and the scales to feathers produces ^maybe^one fossil in China that may have protofeathers but can`t be independently confirmed.

How about reptilian solid bone to avian hollow bone.

Give empirical data (not the formula of the theory) that actually shows that soemfo the radio darting methods actually measure billions of years. No scientist can they have only been dating things like this for around 55-60 years and they have continually testd these methods to prove the accuracy of the theorized constants.

If we have millions of years between the six days of creation there would be death and suffering in the perfect world before Adam & Eve. In order for evolution and creation to work we would need death and time between the six days of creation. Thus making the perfect world with death and suffering. It just contradicts Gen. 1.

Also remember that teh day age theory falls apart under reality bees and plants have a symbiotic relationship without bees plants do not pollinate well so if plants existed for ?yearess before insects then there is an enormous problem in the continuation of their kind.

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own
See, here's the thing... I'm not convinced that hard-core creationists (by which I mean the ones like Ken Hamm and Convicted Tax Fraud Kent Hovind, the ones who hang all of Christianity on six-day creationism) really are accepting Christianity as 'the ultimate framework for understanding the world.' They're actually letting modernism and the Dawkins/Pinker view of science (SCIENCE IS ALL; ALL IS SCIENCE) run the roost. The end result is a Christianity that bends knee to science rather than the other way around.

WEll first shall we track down all fraudulent or convicted evolutionists andpost their names here to distract from the issue and try to hijack the argument because one man did wrong? You should be better than that kind of base slander.

But as to the issue- Y/E creationists let the bible run the roost and do their research and study based on teh truth of Scripture letting it speak for itself and understanding whe it is allegorical, parobolic, apocolyptic etc. Literal understanding does wonders! Genesis 1 and 2 are to be accepted as literal transcriptions of the history of creation- as well as genesis 6-11. They give the most accurate depiction of the formation of everything and how the modern world came to be. Even the archeological, geological aned palientological evidence agrees. You see ,excluding the dinosaurs when you skeletize today enormous bio diversity- you can actually recreate the entire supposed chain of evolution. So what has existed today has always existed (sans dinosaurs) with just variant forms.

We cannot even prove that mutation is the answer, natural variation within species can account for allthe variants we see inteh fossil record. Take homo sapien sapien, We have large head, small head, tall, short, stooped, erect, neanderthal type skeleton, large hand small hand large feet small feet. If you take the extremes of normal for man and look a ththeir skeltons they would match nearly all the supposed hominid line of ascent with theexception of the skulls and bodies that are in reality extinct ape.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by nolidad

WEll first shall we track down all fraudulent or convicted evolutionists andpost their names here to distract from the issue and try to hijack the argument because one man did wrong? You should be better than that kind of base slander.

It's not slander if it's true. And it is a fact that Kent Hovind is in a Federal Correctional Institution serving a 10 year sentance for being guilty of 58 counts of some kind of tax evasion, either outright tax fraud or cash transaction restructuring. I'm not attempting to hijack anything, simply stating facts.

I shall try to keep to Science to disprove the tenets ofevolution then.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Guitarman121319]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Let's assume you're right for a moment. Let's suppose Adam is walking in the garden one day, and a Big Giant Rock from Acme falls on his head. What happens to Adam? Do the laws of physics simply not exist in Eden?

The bible says it was a good world. How can it be good with death pain suffering extinction etc.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Guitarman121319

The bible says it was a good world. How can it be good with death pain suffering extinction etc.

'Good' doesn't mean the laws of physics don't apply. Can you answer my question, please?

[Guitarman121319]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

'Good' doesn't mean the laws of physics don't apply. Can you answer my question, please?

Yeah, I am sorry.

The bible says good so rocks did fall, but not on people or animals.

We cannot fully comprehend a good world because we don't live in a good world. We live in a world after the fall.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

'Good' doesn't mean the laws of physics don't apply.

True, otherwise eating the fruit is impossible.

Can you answer my question, please?

I'll take a stab at it.

Sure, he'd die.

But the pronouncement of the curse of death with the fall must have affected life, especially spiritual life, somehow; and there was the curse on the ground which had its own changes for the worse. It may have been that some physics changed; though I obviously don't know what that would entail, or what it would've been like, or what it means if it were not physics.

But IIRC, you don't believe that Adam was a real, historical person like St. Augustine or Julius Cæsar. If I am not mistaken, you think he's more like an ancient fable, like our Pinocchio or Jacky Draper. So, what are you trying to accomplish? Hardly a defensible position unless the Gospels' genealogies are wrong -- in the sense of giving historical account of lineage, which was the point of keeping them.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by athanatos

True, otherwise eating the fruit is impossible.

Eating anything would be impossible if there were literally no death. Just to put that out there. I'm sure it's crossed someone's mind already.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Eating anything would be impossible if there were literally no death. Just to put that out there. I'm sure it's crossed someone's mind already.

You mean cell death, when they no longer metabolise because of being broken down for consumption?... How far do you think this reaches?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by athanatos

You mean cell death, when they no longer metabolise because of being broken down for consumption?... How far do you think this reaches?

Not sure what you're getting at with "cell death." I don't suppose you meant apoptosis? Either way, I'm mainly raising a question. What is meant by "death"?

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Not sure what you're getting at with "cell death." I don't suppose you meant apoptosis? Either way, I'm mainly raising a question. What is meant by "death"?

Honest, I really do wonder if what all that "death" means is spiritual deadness that comes with separation by sin. "Dead in sin, alive in Christ" kinda language. Because of Adam's sin, all are spiritually dead and need to be raised (rom 5). This also makes clear the immediacy of the repercussion: "for when you eat of it, you will surely die" ... (gen 2:17)

But that interpretation not traditionally held, IIRC.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Honest, I really do wonder if what all that "death" means is spiritual deadness that comes with separation by sin. "Dead in sin, alive in Christ" kinda language. Because of Adam's sin, all are spiritually dead and need to be raised (rom 5). This also makes clear the immediacy of the repercussion: "for when you eat of it, you will surely die" ... (gen 2:17)

But that interpretation not traditionally held, IIRC.

Death means death, but I am fairly certain plant death is not in view. I am pretty sure I have never seen the word for death applied to a plant in Hebrew. I have seen the word for withered used...

This is of course not conclusive, but I think we need to be careful not to use an anachronistic idea of death.

And I am not certain how good could mean a rock wouldn't fall on your head.

I have my problems with most everybody's point of view here. (mostly because I am trying to be painfully honest with the text and the world we know.) I think I fall in the middle.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by Guitarman121319

Yeah, I am sorry.

The bible says good so rocks did fall, but not on people or animals.

We cannot fully comprehend a good world because we don't live in a good world. We live in a world after the fall.

Are predator/prey relationships natural? In other words, in your opinion, did they exist before the fall?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

This is of course not conclusive, but I think we need to be careful not to use an anachronistic idea of death.

Yes. That's why I asked. I don't read Hebrew.

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Are predator/prey relationships natural? In other words, in your opinion, did they exist before the fall?

I was just browsing a literal creationist site and their theory was that there was a miraculous change in behavior and dentition following the fall. Also that harmful radiation was suddenly "turned on."

[Guitarman121319]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Are predator/prey relationships natural? In other words, in your opinion, did they exist before the fall?

I am in a hurry so I can't find the verse... But I THINK it says something like and they will eat meat. I wish I had time to find it or see if it is even there. lol

[David Carnes]

I haven't read all the posts so somebody may have put these resources up. Below are two links for six-day creationist websites that have some very good materials answering arguments put up by evolutionists.

The Institute for Creation Research
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics