What Would Change Your Mind

[Johnv]

The Bible is significant evidence of this (that the earth os only 6000 years old).
You're using the Bible for a purpose that it wasn't written. If we were to use the Bible in the manner you suggest, then we'd be asserting a belief in a flat earth and a geocentric universe.

While I expect that you would reject this resource out of the box, please read the article and tell me why you think I should.
How's about the fact that the fossil records does not tell us that animals all existed on the earth at the same time in the past.

The dating proved the authenticity of the ossuary. It was the inscription that was concluded as a hoax.
I'll give you that. But since carbon dating is inaccurate, according to you, why do you believe that it really is from the time of Jesus, even if the inscription is a hoax? Do you also believe, then, that the Shroud of Turin is possibly authentic, since it's too, was radio carbon dated?

If you’re still having problems naming these hominid fossils try reading in the Bible, the part about the Tower of Babel and how “the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
The Tower of Babel concerns contemporary humans, just as the story of Noah does. It has nothing to do with homo neanderthalis, homo erectus, homo ergaster, or homo habilis.

Scientists have been known to disagree with each other, it happens even in my line of work.
Science often disagrees with the models that are developed from the evidence, but no with the evidence per se.

I doubt you will give much thought of this since in your opinion Genesis is a fairytale anyway.
I consider it allegorical truth, not literal fact.

However, I’m sure trading was conducted between the two, maybe not W. Africa, maybe S. Africa and the animals migrated to the area, well before the discovery of these bones.
Trading between Africa and South America is relatively recent. Even if you assume that the animals came to South America from Africa via trading in the last few hundred years, then they must have evolved since then, because the animals on the two coasts are dissimilar enough to not be of the same species.

Actually, secular-dating methods when used properly and the data not massaged to fit the evolutionists belief system would work just fine.
That pretty much accounts for most of the secular data now.

Basically, from what I’ve read and since it’s coming from mainly Bible believing creationist, I’II take their word before anyone else’s.
Creation science is a misnomer. Creation scientists don't consider evidence that contradicts a 6 day creation to be valid evidence. (I refer you to the OJ trial for that kind of thinking) Traditional science, otoh, will change its models to fit any new evidence that is discovered.

Why should scientists consider the flood?
Before considering the flood, we need to find evidence for such a flood.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
The Bible is significant evidence of this (that the earth os only 6000 years old).
You're using the Bible for a purpose that it wasn't written. If we were to use the Bible in the manner you suggest, then we'd be asserting a belief in a flat earth and a geocentric universe.

No. I am not. Please cite the passage in the Bible that says these things... explicitly, not interpretatively or figuratively.

While I expect that you would reject this resource out of the box, please read the article and tell me why you think I should.
How's about the fact that the fossil records does not tell us that animals all existed on the earth at the same time in the past.

The article isn't about fossils. It is about radioisotope dating.

The fossil record also doesn't tell us that animals never existed on the earth at the same time. It tells us that fossils are found in pockets. How they got there and why they are divided to the extent that they are is a matter of interpretation... largely based on assumptions.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Actually I think we are talking about regular evolution, not evolution that atheists would subscribe to (I didn't know there was a difference).

As I understand it, one of the distinctives of a theistic evolutionist is acceptance of God as the prime cause.

So this "atheistic" evolution postulates a cause?

It does or else it does not use the scientific method you beat me up over on another thread. All effects have causes- although a cause may not have an effect as it rest in potential.

In other words their is no distinction between the "atheistic" evolution and abiogenesis?

I would say that this brand of atheism depends on abiogenesis or else faces the significant problem that life must be eternal in an extraordinarily hostile environment.

...then it would indeed need to know the "cause",

It does need to know a cause. That is its distinctive claim. For every effect we see now, there must be a naturalistic cause in the past.

...but since it doesn't combine the two theories and it is not dependent on explaining abiogenesis, this is quite a big difference between "atheistic" evolution and scientific evolution.

Not really. To complete the model, there must be an explaination of what started it all. It is disingenuous at best to avoid this problem. Apparently many in the field agree as they continue to struggle with the same problem.

So should we give credence to *every* possibility, no matter how improbable?

No. We should consider evidence with full awareness of our paradigms and their inherent uncertainties. We should not declare things scientific fact when a great portion of the proof is assumption. We should cease to consider something a possibility only when catagorically disproven by logic or evidence. By logic, evolution comes dangerously close to being impossible if it cannot identify the its prime/first cause.

Should I actually have to take into consideration other creation theories, such as the ancient egyption's idea of creation?

Arguing the absurd doesn't make your point for you. It would be similar to someone saying "Should I actually have to take all evolution's assumptions into consideration, such as Darwin's black box?" Modern creationists have as little or less in common with the ancient Egyptians as modern evolutionists do with Darwin- scientifically and philosophically.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Johnv:
If we were to use the Bible in the manner you suggest, then we'd be asserting a belief in a flat earth and a geocentric universe.

Sorry, but the Bible doesn’t teach that the earth was flat. There were just a handful of scholars who claimed to represent the church that held to a flat earth and somehow made it into early history books.

In fact, the New Encyclopedia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopedia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989). Have taken steps to properly present the fact that Christianity did not invent or promote a flat earth.

The Bible of course teaches that of a round earth. Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…” and Luke 17:34-36, which depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

Now, in your opinion is Luke’s account depicting a round earth or is this just another one of your allegorical truths?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Johnv:
But since carbon dating is inaccurate, according to you

Where did I say carbon dating was inaccurate? I believe I said, “Actually, secular-dating methods when used properly and the data not massaged to fit the evolutionists belief system would work just fine.”

Again they have to know just a little about the time period their dating to. Kinda hard to guess accurately what the environment was like a million yrs ago. You agree?

The Tower of Babel concerns contemporary humans, just as the story of Noah does. It has nothing to do with homo neanderthalis, homo erectus, homo ergaster, or homo habilis.

Again the Tower of Babel is the answer to your, I can’t even pronounce the names, but anyway Dr. Henry Morris writes and I’m paraphrasing from
(The Genesis Record p. 176).
As each family and tribal unit migrated away from Babel, not only did they each develop a distinctive culture, but also a distinctive physical and biological characteristic. They could only communicate with family members of their own family unit, therefore inbreeding was necessary for several generations, therefore until the genes had time to settle out, such inbreeding will cause distinctive characteristics of skin color, height, hair texture, facial features, temperament, environmental adjustment etc, could come to be associated with particular tribes and nations.

Is it even remotely possible that these homo (?) could be what was described above, before their genes had time to settle out? Does the evolutionary community accept the Tower of Babel account of Gen. 11?

 

[Johnv]

Kinda hard to guess accurately what the environment was like a million yrs ago. You agree?
In some cases, yes, in some cases, no. Not only do we often have fossils of animals, but we also have fossilized plant remains, which tell us a lot about environmental conditions, such as soil and atmosphere content. Also, one can identify different types of land conditions in earth layers. Meditteranean climates leave a specific type of layer, marshlands leave a specific layer, and savannah's, desserts, lake beds, etc etc, all leave specific layers.

Is it even remotely possible that these homo (?) could be what was described above, before their genes had time to settle out? Does the evolutionary community accept the Tower of Babel account of Gen. 11?
There's no evidence that the Tower of Babel account put forth by Dr. Henry Morris is responsible for varying homonids. Hence, a person's views on the T of B narrative are irrelevant. If, however, evidence can be found to show that these different homonids migrated from one central location, the correlation of the T of B narrative should be taken into account. But to date, there's no evidence of such migration among different hominids. Contrary to Dr Morris' conjecture, there has been some evidence of modern human migration out from a central point, which may correlate to the T of B events, but also contradict Dr Morris' views.