Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

[Plain Old Bill]

Is evolution a 100% verifiable no foolin fact?Or is evolution a barely plausibble theory?What is your absolute proof?
I consider these fair questions to ask since they are the questions which are ask of YE folks.If the evolutionist cannot prove his/her position beyond any shadow of a doubt I suggest that all of his scientific sources are a bunch of liars.
From what I've read here the above is a fair proposal.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
Let's take your example. A group of reptiles changed into mammals.

Now this occurred over tens of millions of years.

About how many generations would that be, UTE?
One generation a year? Two? Three?

We can do a little math if you are willing. And the upshot will be, guaranteed, that evolution has not had enough time to do what you are claiming it did.

Tell us the alternate explanation.

I laid out the basics for whales pretty clearly. Give us the alternate scenario that explains all of the observations. Here is a more detailed thread on the topic if you need to know more.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/23.html

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I said:

Originally posted by AntennaFarmer:

"Your definition of a test is poor. Here you have only made a series of observations and then found a hypothesis to reconcile them. It is merely suggestive. That would not be satisfactory as a test in the hard sciences. "

then the reply:

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

"How exactly would you propose that we test a scientific theory then? It seems to me that making additional observations to see if they conform to the expectations of your theories to explain previous observations is the only way to go. Do you have another?"

The way to test a scientific theory is to do a controlled experiment. You must isolate the system then provide a known stimulus. The resulting data is observed to determine if it is consistent with results from similar experiments.

As a trivial example: We burn a candle in oxygen and observe that the products are heat, carbon dioxide and water vapor. We then burn wood and observe the same results. Our theory now is that the products of combustion are heat, carbon dioxide and water vapor.

So do we stop there? I hope not.

Next we burn graphite and observe that we only get heat and carbon dioxide. Then we burn hydrogen and only get heat and water vapor. Now our original theory can be corrected. The products of combustion depend on what is burned and are not always the same.

Here is the difference: For hard science the sequence is - observation, theory, experiment, theory, experiment some more.

For soft science the sequence is - observe, theory, observe, theory etc.

With evolutionary theory you can never do a controlled experiment to determine what has already happened. Yet you call it "science" and pretend it is the same as physics or chemistry. Maybe it is a kind of science but it never has the same degree of proof.

It isn't my purpose to disparage your work but merely to point out that it doesn't rise to the level of truth or proof achieved by hard science. And since the occasional flaw is found in hard science I must conclude that soft science can be flawed as well. None of your arguments address that.

Now, since I find Christ in the Scriptures (and my life depends on the truth of Christ) how can I doubt the Scriptures on the one hand and believe them on the other? When I am faced with a direct contradiction between a fallible and imperfect science and perfect Scriptures then I must hold to the Scriptures which contain the word of life. If that requires me to reject the works of man (which I know to be fallible) then I am willing to do it.

So It is unprofitable for me to discuss the specifics of your case. Even if you appear to prove each point of your facts they never compel your conclusions. And lacking proof for your conclusions I need not disbelieve mine.

God Bless,
A.F.

 

[UTEOTW]

I guess the short answer is that you are unable to provide an alternate explanation for the data. Since you are unable to do so, you have instead convinced yourself that the methods used to arrive at the conclusions are flawed therefore you do not even need to address the observations themselves. Convenient but insufficient.

"It isn't my purpose to disparage your work but merely to point out that it doesn't rise to the level of truth or proof achieved by hard science. And since the occasional flaw is found in hard science I must conclude that soft science can be flawed as well. None of your arguments address that."

Well, you wouldn't be disparaging my work in particular. But I think I did address this issue.

With any theory, the theory has been arrived at through observation and hypothesis. This can be a scientific theory or your opinion of folks who vote differently than you. It does not matter. You make observations and you try and explain them.

As you go along, you make additional observations. If they go along with your previous explanation, your accept your theory more strongly. If they contradict, you have more doubt and may even need to come up with a different explanation. So new observations may show that you were on the right track but that you need to make some minor changes.

With any theory, you are not likely to get every aspect right the first time through the door. It is subject to improvement. Sometimes whole theories are thrown out when something better comes along. Which is the opprtunity you have. I have asserted, and science supports, that common descent is the best and only way to explain out observations from biology and paleontology. If you have a better theory that fits the facts, present it.

"Here is the difference: For hard science the sequence is - observation, theory, experiment, theory, experiment some more.

For soft science the sequence is - observe, theory, observe, theory etc."

IMHO, "observe" and "experiment" are equivilent. In different areas these observations may take different forms, but they are all the same process.

Let's take an example. Gravity.

Way back around the turn of the 16th century, Kepler wnet out and observed the orbit of Mars as part of his responsibilities of working for Brahe. From these observations, he developed his Law of Planetary Motion.

Now here's the funny thing. Even though they are "laws" they were also wrong. Well, "wrong" is too strong a word. They were incomplete. They were based on his observations but something was missing.

Newton came along developed some ideas related to motion and to gravity. These were detailed enough that you could derive Kepler's laws from them and Newton was able to improve upon Kepler's work.

But this too was incomplete. Further observation showed that the planetary orbits did not match predictions.

Then along came Einstein and his theory of General Relativity. He had a new way of describing things. His theory made some predictions about how gravity behaves. One aspect was a new way of predicting the behavior of orbits. And observation was able to confirm these predictions.

Now, I'd guess that you have no problem with these observation, that you accept their findings and that you agree that this is good science. I'd also suggest that this is far closer to what goes on in evolutionary research than the specific model you provided above. You cannot exactly isolate a planet and subject it to a controlled stimulus.

And if you thought about it, I am sure you could come up with many other areas of science that do things this way rather than the way you suggested and yet you have no problem with calling them science. Weather? Study of the sun?

And now a cautionary addendum to our story. General relativity has had great success at explaining how things in out universe work. So has quantum mechanics. Yet these two theories that are the basis for much of modern physics are in conflict with one another. There will be a later theory that combines the observations of each into a single theory. Perhaps it will be string theory. Maybe not. But Einstien is increasingly being put to the test. Don't be surprised to wake up one morning and see in the paper where someone has found a deviation from general relativity. This story may not be over. Someone else may come along and improve the predictions again with a better theory.

"Even if you appear to prove each point of your facts they never compel your conclusions. And lacking proof for your conclusions I need not disbelieve mine."

Look. In the end, I can respect your position even if I disagree with it.

I find this subject very interesting, as you may have noticed. Occasionally there will be people who enter into discussion and it becomes obvious that they accept the literal interpretation of Genesis as an article of faith alone. I have no problem with that and have great respect for someone with strong faith and convictions. To these people I will sometimes suggest that we just agree to disagree.

My problem comes in to those who insist that the Creation itself supports a young earth. It does not. One reason I am so involved with this debate is because of how I got into it. I was YE. I went searching for YE material. The YE material convinced me that it could not be right and sent me searching for more information. As I dug, I found innumerable examples OF YE leaders misquoting scientists and misrepresenting their work. Some of it may have been accidental. Some may have been because they have deluded themselves. But the circumstances of many suggested deliberate deceit to me. I made me mad that folks would behave in such a manner and claim to be doing it in the name of God. As a result, I strongly object to those who say that the facts support YE.

If it is simply a matter of faith to you and you do not care about the other material available, then let's just disagree and go on. But if there is more to it than that, we really need those alternate explanations.

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

I find it odd that you only condemn YE leaders. The story of evolution since the time of Darwin has had many outright frauds as the Piltdown Man.

http://www.2christ.org/face/

The original question was whether you find the Bible or science more reliable.

You never seem to say the Bible is unreliable, but your faith in evolutionary theory is obvious.

Whenever someone believes the 6 day creation account in Genesis, you say that you do not agree with that interpretation.

You have written many long, detailed posts. Would you write one more?

Would you please go through the 1st chapter of Genesis verse by verse and explain how you interpret it?

Perhaps you can enlighten us. Perhaps we have been interpreting this chapter wrong.

Thanks.

 

[UTEOTW]

Afternoon, JWI.

Look, I understand that I am unlikely to change your opinion. And I realize that my opinion seems foriegn to you. I will continue the dialogue because there may be things to learn from each other even if no opinions change.

Now, you raise a few diffeent issues in your most recent post. If you don't mind, I'd like to answer them. We are getting close to kickoff, so I am going to take them one at a time and will get back to the others if I run out of time.

Let's start with the most important topic, the Bible.

"You never seem to say the Bible is unreliable, but your faith in evolutionary theory is obvious."

Thank you for noticing.

Often these discussions turn into slander very quickly. For some reason, many people start to doubt your faith if you do not agree with their view.

I think the Bible is very reliable. It is the word of God. But I also think that one must be careful with intent. The Bible is true and it is infallible. But you must apply it as intended.

And, in my opinion, that intent is ultimately salvation. Now the way this is done is to tell us about the relationship of Man with God through history. It involves a lot of instruction on how to live. There are also other topics suc has prophecy and poetry.

But mostly it is history. I do not think that it has any scientific interests. I also think that it was written with the worldview of the OT people in mind and since it was written by them, it has the imprint of their views as it has been filtered through them. One way that I sometimes demonstrate this is through geography. A little time with Google and you should be able to find that the people of the Middle East of the time thought of the world as a flat land, surrounded by a great sea and with a dome over the earth with windows to allow the rain to fall through from the water above.

Now look at the Bible. You see the firmament described in the creation account. It separates the waters below from those above. It also discusses the surrounding ocean (the deep). You see the reference to God sitting on the dome in tothr places. Daniel has a dream where the whole earth can see a tall tree. Jesus has a temptation from a mountain high enough to see the whole earth. Now none of this means that the Bible is wrong, just that some parts are filtered through the wordview of the author.

"Would you please go through the 1st chapter of Genesis verse by verse and explain how you interpret it?"

There is no need to go through the whole thing.

In my opinion, the creation account was meant to serve several purposes.

One, the people of the day lived in a land with many gods. Genesis establishes God as the one true God. The Creator of everything. Some of these false gods were sun or moon gods. Notice that Genesis 1 does not even mention them directly but only refers to two lights.

God also establishes in Genesis that He has a special relationship with man. We are made in His image. Now God is not an ape. It is not a physical image. We are given a soul, we are given the ability to tell right from wrong.

It is also clear that we are not perfect. We have in inherent notion to sin against God. And for this, we deserve death unless God saves us through His grace.

Now in my opinion, these things, and more, set the stage for the rest of the Bible. In my opinion, the results are the same whether these are literal or figurative. I realize others strongly disagree.

I think you should also consider some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 if you insist on a literal reading. One has God speaking things into existence. The other had God molding dirt and breathing life into it. Different names are used for God. In one the animals are created and then man. In another, man is created and then the animals in a search for a helper. And so on.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I find it odd that you only condemn YE leaders. The story of evolution since the time of Darwin has had many outright frauds as the Piltdown Man."

I don't think you really want to go down the road of comparing mistakes.

You will be able to give a few. But they will be mostly old and they will all demonstrate that the scientific method works. Occasionally scientists falsify data. Sometimes they create hoaxes. Or believe them. Sometimes they make honest mistakes. But the process corrects these. YOu will be unable to show any hoaxes or lies currently used to support evolution.

I on the other hand can demonstrate as many examples of this as you wish that are still in use. AIG, ICR, etc. They can all be fingered. With links to where they are still being used. Some are just mistakes. But some are obvious deceptions. An example.

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 146-147. (Here is a site that still uses this. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html )

Morris based this on a legitimate paper [Funkhouser, J. G. and J. J. Naughton, 1968. Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii. Journal of Geophysical Research 73(14): 4601-4607. ] that was doing testing on some rocks from a recent lava flow in Hawaii.

Now, when rocks are heated to a sufficiently high temperature and are melted, the argon in the rocks escape. When the lava hardens into rock, the potassium-40 begins decaying into Ar-39. By measuring the ratios, a date can be determined. Now if the rocks are not heated sufficiently, the argon does not escape and the rocks will date older than they really are.

Funkhouser and Naughton were purposely removing xenoliths from the rocks that did not melt to see how much older they would date. Of course they dated as old because they had not been reset by melting. They also tested the bulk rocks and found that the ages were zero, as expected.

So Morris takes the data that measured too old, ignores the known reason that it dated too old, and then claims that radiometric dating does not work. If he actually read the paper, he should know better. It was easy to see and was even the purpose of the work. He misrepresented the true results of the study. Properly selected samples dated correctly. Samples that the geologsts could tell did not fully melt did not date correctly.

 

[UTEOTW]

I'm back. It is always a great game when you can beat the Gators. Terrible injury there at the end. Where were we?

"[/]I find it odd that you only condemn YE leaders. The story of evolution since the time of Darwin has had many outright frauds as the Piltdown Man.

http://www.2christ.org/face/ [/i]"

One problem here is that often the claims of fraud are themselves, well, fraudulent.

Neanderthal

You source claims that they are "just plain ordinary people."

This is not true. They are not human in the same sense that we are. Physically, they have differences that are outside of the range of diversity that we see in human populations. Their bones are more robust and the long bones are curved. They have prominent brow ridges. The have a long low skull. They have an occipital bun.

Genetically, Neanderthals also test as not the same as us. [Ovchinnikov, I. V., Gotherstrom, A., Romanova, G. P., Kharitonov, V. M., Liden, K., GoodwinW. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404, 490 (2000).]

Java Man

Your source calls this a "hoax." Even claims that science agrees. And that the discover hid the remains.

Well, the remains were not hidden or kept secret. He published reports about the remains in Naturkundig Tijdschrift van Nederlandsch-Indie very soon after their discovery. So nothing was hidden.

The find itself is also no hoax. It is widely recognized as a H. erectus find.

Piltdown Man

Another hoax. But you source claims that "this fraud was used for over 40 years to prove to school children that evolution was a fact and all kinds of doctrinal dissertations were based on Piltdown man."

It was a hoax perpetuated by an amateur. It went on for a while, but was eventually uncovered by the scientific method.

But there are no known dissertations on Piltdown. Where did they get that information? And Piltdown, before it was found out, really did not fit in with the other evidence, so I am unsure how popular it was as support for evolution.

Nebraska Man

We have already been over this one. Not even the guy who made the mistake claimed it was a human ancestor. And outside of his group, it was not even widely accepted as primate.

Peking Man

You source claims that this was "monkey" skulls that had been "bashed in" to get at the brains for food.

The problem is this. The skulls found a H. erectus. They cannot be monkey skulls or even non-human ape skulls. The skull cap is twice as large as that of a male gorilla. If they were monkeys, or even apes, they had a brain that was only slightly smaller than that of modern man. I think that there were also about 14 skulls found in the cave along with some jaw bones and some skeletal bones.

No hoax or fraud here.

Lucy

Your source claims that Lucy is no different than "a rainforest Chimpanzee."

Except that several lines of evidence converge to show that Lucy was bipedal. Chimps are not. One key aspect is the location of the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull. In animals that walk upright, this is located at the bottom of the skull. Want to guess where Lucy's foramen magnum was located?

The leg bones also indicate upright walking. This was no chimp.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I guess the short answer is that you are unable to provide an alternate explanation for the data. Since you are unable to do so, you have instead convinced yourself that the methods used to arrive at the conclusions are flawed therefore you do not even need to address the observations themselves. Convenient but insufficient.

You are overly concerned with the "data." If you process it wrongly the data means nothing. Method and philosophy are what separates science from alchemy and astrology.

It is so simple you are having trouble understanding. GOD made it that way. It is simple as that.

You look at the fossils and see transitional species. I look at the data and see that GOD made different creatures with small differences between them.

You look at the fossil record and see a story played out. I look at the fossil record and see data that is undersampled in both space and time and corrupted by noise (some signal theory jargon there but I think you will understand). I see fragmentary data that is interpreted according to preconceived theories.



Actually I have many opinions about the specifics but keep them to myself for fear of your bountiful verbage. Then again, it serves no useful purpose to add my speculation to yours. There is a question on the table as to which is more reliable... My purpose here is only to address that question.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Sometimes whole theories are thrown out when something better comes along."

You make my point so well!

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
IMHO, "observe" and "experiment" are equivilent. In different areas these observations may take different forms, but they are all the same process."

No, they are not the same. "Observation" is passive but "experiment" is active. You observe the results of an experiment. However, observation is not equal to experimentation. The key is that you control the parameters of an experiment. For example: When a one year old plays with a ball he experiments with it. He manipulates it. He bounces it to where it goes next. That is vastly different from mere observation.

Consider the game of baseball: Some experts once argued that it was not possible to throw a curve ball. Then a simple experiment was done to prove how it was done. It seems that the experts observed but didn't believe what they saw because it didn't fit with their theory. Actually the theory wasn't wrong. It was just incomplete. That is where observation without experimentation gets you!

You need to study up on that a bit more.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You cannot exactly isolate a planet and subject it to a controlled stimulus."

If you are talking about planetary motion you can isolate it and do the experiment. That experiment was called "Sputnik."

Check your books. They talk of "Newton's Laws" and the "Theory of Relativity." Catch the difference there? Newton has been thoroughly verified for macroscopic bodies. Einstein has been partially verified. Quantum mechanics appears to be a bit of a mess. But - that is the nature of quantum mechanics!

Now, if you wish to isolate a planet and do an evolution study....That would be a bit difficult!

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
And if you thought about it, I am sure you could come up with many other areas of science that do things this way rather than the way you suggested and yet you have no problem with calling them science. Weather? Study of the sun?"

Yep. The weather man can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow. Solar science has yet to produce a satisfactory model of solar activity. On the other hand Newton tells me exactly how a steel ball accelerates if I drop it from my window. Can you think of better examples? Some things that are called "science" should be called "the study of." The word "science" literally means - knowledge.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
But Einstien is increasingly being put to the test. Don't be surprised to wake up one morning and see in the paper where someone has found a deviation from general relativity. This story may not be over. Someone else may come along and improve the predictions again with a better theory.

I don't think it will be me who disproves Einstein. Again, however, you illustrate my point.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
If it is simply a matter of faith to you and you do not care about the other material available, then let's just disagree and go on. But if there is more to it than that, we really need those alternate explanations.

It is a matter of faith. That faith is readily available to you too. Simply take GOD at HIS word. Trust GOD to do as HE says. Trust GOD to have told you the truth. But I am far from being a great man of faith. It may well be that your faith is greater than mine. However, I think that my faith in science is much less.

Science is fallible. Today's theory is sometimes taken out with tomorrow's trash. I have seen so many ideas that look good on paper but don't stand up to trial by experiment. This isn't an attack on science. Science is fine. You just have to understand that science isn't (and doesn't even claim to be) perfect. And you should also understand that if you don't verify with a controlled experiment even simple theories can go wrong.

One should also understand that science comes in various degrees of certainty. It isn't all the same. There are certain things that can be verified (such as Newton's Laws) and others that can't (such as evolution). I am asking folks to think about this.

But let me pose a question. How is it that we can't understand the plain Scripture but understand the "scientific evidence" perfectly?

Here is my summary again: The Scriptures are 100 percent reliable but science is less than 100 percent. Take your pick which one to follow.

 

[UTEOTW]

Please notice, and this is a key point, that we have yet to have anyone try and tell us why the observations that we make are the way they are if the world is young and common descent did not happen.

There are all manner of distractions and avoidance going on as the burden of proof tries to be shifted. But it is ineffective. No answer has been given because no reasonable answer is possible outside of common descent. They data is ignored or denied as best as possible, but it is never addressed.

But it is worth noting that even many of the leading IDers now no longer claim to doubt that common descent is a fact. (This is the sense in which evolution is known as fact.) They try and play around on the idea of how it happened and claim that it could not have happen the way biological theories say it did.

"You are overly concerned with the "data." If you process it wrongly the data means nothing."

THEN PROCESS IT CORRECTLY FOR ME!

There are plenty of opportunities to do this. I have given a nice, concise review of the highpoints of data supporting the evolution of the whales. Re-interpret that for me.

"It is so simple you are having trouble understanding. GOD made it that way. It is simple as that."

Then God went through enormous trouble to make every species have all of the characteristics that would be expected if they had been created through evolution.

No one here doubts that God created. The difference is in how.

"You look at the fossils and see transitional species. I look at the data and see that GOD made different creatures with small differences between them."

How convenient that you leave out the most persuasive parts of my argument. Strawman!

The best parts of the data are not the the fossil record. That is good and all, but the other data is much more concrete and convincing.

Let's stick with the whales. Tell me why genetic testing tells us that whales are most closely related to even toed ungulates just as the fossil record also tells us. Tell us why whales that were perfectly and recently created as marine mammals have a full set of deactivated genes for making the same sense of smell that land dwelling animals possess. Tell us why whales that were perfectly and recently created as marine mammals have the genes for making legs and sometimes do so. Tell us why whales that were perfectly and recently created as marine mammals have a developmental stage where they possess rear legs which are later reabsorbed. Tell us why whales have a vestigal pelvis and vestigal fingers, wrists, ulna and radius in their flippers.

Tell us why genetics shows us that rhinos and horses are closely related just as the fossil record tells us.

Tell us why genetic testing shows that birds and crocodiles are closely related just as the fossil record tells us.

"However, observation is not equal to experimentation."

I disagree. They are different means to the same end.

"If you are talking about planetary motion you can isolate it and do the experiment. That experiment was called 'Sputnik.' "

Wow!

I did not know that Sputnik data was around for Kepler and Galileo and Einstein when they devoloped their theories.

And are you sure that you can test the same parameters with a satellite of the earth as you can with a planet? I don't think you can.

"Check your books. They talk of 'Newton's Laws' and the 'Theory of Relativity.' Catch the difference there?"

Yeah I do. And it kind of blows out of the water the point another poster was trying to make a week or two ago about laws and theories. Einstein's theory better predicts reality than Newton's Laws yet there they are with that particular nomenclature.

"The weather man can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow."

Red herring.

What has that got to do with the study of atmospheric conditions and how weather works? Do you say that the study of the weather can never be "scientific" because we cannot control the weather? Doubtful.

And you may be unimpressed with your local weather forecast, but I think they nailed the hurricane forecast for this year, don't you?

And while we are on that subject, there are plenty of lab experiments that go on where the process of evolution are observed and experimented upon. So you cannot say that there is no science being done even in the method you advocate with relation to evolution. The only part that is not possible to be done in this manner is the very long term changes. Yet we still have good evidence for them.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Very well thought out. Would you say you are in agreement with macro-evolution?micro-evolution?
Science does progress,I remember when the atom had only proton,electron, & nucleus.Shoot I used to use a slide rule for calculations.Your last few entries have been some of your best.

 

[just-want-peace]

The only part that is not possible to be done in this manner is the very long term changes.

Well bust my buckles. Ute actually admits that the normal concept of evolution is not provable!!!

There's hope for this character yet.

If one believes something that is not provable, then he must believe by faith, right?

So once more the choice becomes, "Do you trust God or man"? (Either one is by faith!)

Yet we still have good evidence for them.

And here again, it's the preconcieved belief that makes it "good evidence" for evolution rather than just a matter of the Creationist's works. My preconcieved belief is that this evidence is just as God created it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
If one believes something that is not provable, then he must believe by faith, right?

I have no problem admitting that many aspects of evolution are not provable and must be believed with an element of faith. This is true for everything in science. Science is not about proofs like math or logic. All science includes an element of faith in the evidence and our ability to interpret that evidence. And it also leaves that interpretation open to being replaced by future evidence and interpretation of that evidence. Historically the sciences have shown themselves pretty good at describing the universe that God created.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Well bust my buckles. Ute actually admits that the normal concept of evolution is not provable!!!"

Quoting me out of context, again. Didn't you just do that on the last page?

Let's post the whole paragraph.

And while we are on that subject, there are plenty of lab experiments that go on where the process of evolution are observed and experimented upon. So you cannot say that there is no science being done even in the method you advocate with relation to evolution. The only part that is not possible to be done in this manner is the very long term changes. Yet we still have good evidence for them.

Now first it must be pointed out that nothing in science is even proven. So I don't think you will find me saying that anything scientific has been proven absolutely. Proofs are for math.

But if you look at the whole paragraph you will see a point being made. Most of the mecahnisms by which evolution happens can be directly observed and even experimented upon in the lab. The exception is very long term changes. We just do not live long enough. But there is overwhelming evidence that these changes take place based upon the evidence that we can observe in the present.

You separated the last sentence and in the process you made a strawman to knock over.

Is everyone unwilling to present an alternative to the whale evidence that I have presented that better explains the observations in YE terms and which does not depend on an arbitrary, ad-hoc, unfalsifiable assertion?

 

[just-want-peace]

Quoting me out of context, again. Didn't you just do that on the last page?

Pray tell how did I quote you out of context!
Your entire epistle (that you so eloquently write) need not be quoted to keep context. You had just finished saying ,
" And while we are on that subject, there are plenty of lab experiments that go on where the process of evolution are observed and experimented upon. So you cannot say that there is no science being done even in the method you advocate with relation to evolution."
and my quote from you was the next sentence. If you did not mean what you said, why did you say it? I was just accepting what you said as written; if you meant something else, I apologize, and ask that you be clearer next time.

You separated the last sentence and in the process you made a strawman to knock over.

M' friend, you are so hung up on trashing ANY opposition to a strictly evolutionists view that you aren't thinking clearly. This quote,

Yet we still have good evidence for them.

followed on the heels of the last one, and was obviously (if one read your post) the very next statement.

It seemed to me best, since I was commenting on each quote separately, to separate them; If this bothered you, again I apologize, but to me it was a logical move.

However, to pacify you please note the following:

And while we are on that subject, there are plenty of lab experiments that go on where the process of evolution are observed and experimented upon. So you cannot say that there is no science being done even in the method you advocate with relation to evolution. The only part that is not possible to be done in this manner is the very long term changes. Yet we still have good evidence for them.

(BOLD MINE)

Better? But my comments remain the same

You obviously are so steeped in this evolution nonsense, that it's fruitless to even discuss with you, so as of now I refuse to cast any more pearls. So no more worries about me quoting you "OUT OF CONTEXT" anymore!

Incidentally, your reference to a prior post of mine "QUOTING YOU OUT OF CONTEXT", is explained in the preceding "OUT OF CONTEXT" complaint.

I wish you and your four legged ancestors the best!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by just-want-peace:
If one believes something that is not provable, then he must believe by faith, right?

I have no problem admitting that many aspects of evolution are not provable and must be believed with an element of faith. This is true for everything in science. Science is not about proofs like math or logic. All science includes an element of faith in the evidence and our ability to interpret that evidence. And it also leaves that interpretation open to being replaced by future evidence and interpretation of that evidence. Historically the sciences have shown themselves pretty good at describing the universe that God created. </font>[/QUOTE]The problem is that naturalism limits explanations of the evidence by presupposition and not be evidence or reason.

The "faith... in our ability to interpret that evidence" is obviously where the problem comes in. That ability is even more greatly handicapped when a whole set of reasonable explanations are discounted simply because they don't conform to a naturalistic philosophical premise.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Please notice, and this is a key point, that we have yet to have anyone try and tell us why the observations that we make are the way they are if the world is young and common descent did not happen.

Helen and I have but it violates your preconceived parameters so you dismiss it with much hand waving and plentiful "verbage" as mentioned by the other poster.

It is young because God made it and ordained a non-uniformatarian natural history for it.

Common descent did happen from the original kinds. Ascent which is really what evolution teaches might have happened... but the chances are very remote since there isn't a natural mechanism for producing the dramatic increase in complexity from any natural gathering of chemicals to man.

There are all manner of distractions and avoidance going on as the burden of proof tries to be shifted. But it is ineffective.

I couldn't agree more. Your side throws out complex arguments that ultimately depend on your assumption of naturalism and uniformatarianism (when convenient) being true.

You never attempt to prove that your premise is reasonable. I say that it is unreasonable because of the evidence for God and the evidence for intelligence and the evidence of information held within natural laws and genetics.

No answer has been given because no reasonable answer is possible outside of common descent.

So please tell me why it is unreasonable to accept that God did it. As a Christian, explain what artificial restraint you have accepted that prevents the God described in both testaments from willing everything into existence just as it appears in a moment of time.

I have seen you argue that this would make Him dishonest since "science" says things look old. That my friend, is the question of where your faith goes. Is God faithful to tell you the truth about how He did it through special revelation? Or, are the interpretations of general revelation by a principle (naturalism) contradicted throughout scripture more authoritative.

They data is ignored or denied as best as possible, but it is never addressed.

The data is not addressed to your satisfaction since you will not accept any explanation that does not conform to naturalism and in fact, you will reject even naturalistic explanations that do not conform to other "facts" that are "proven" and accepted by evolutionists.

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

You have stated that you disagree with us YE's on the interpretation of Genesis 1.

I will agree that nobody understands the Bible perfectly, and all of us are capable of mistakes.

I have a passage of scripture that the way I interpret it probably does not agree with most here.

It concerns the book of Job and dinosaurs. Now, I believe the six day creation account. I believe these were normal, 24 hour days like we know today. I also believe the world to be about 6000 years old. So necessarily, I also believe the dinosaurs lived within the last 6000 years. And I think these verses in Job are describing a dinosaur. It is the passage about the "Behemoth".
I freely admit I could be wrong. Here are the verses.

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.

Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Job 40:18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.

Job 40:19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].

Job 40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

Job 40:21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

Job 40:22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

Job 40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

Job 40:24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Some believe this describes an elephant or other large animal, but I believe it is describing a large dinosaur like the Brontosaurus, now known as the Apatosaurus. Verse 40:17 describes this animal with a tail like a cedar which does not fit an elephant in my opinion.

Now, I could be interpreting the Bible wrong. But maybe not.

There is also the record from many civilizations throughout recorded history describing the Dragon. I have always thought the Dragon was simply a dinosaur. It is surely a large reptile. We know that God describes Satan as the Dragon, so surely these beasts must exist.

We can look at the modern country of China. Their symbol is the Dragon. It is not unlike many dinosaurs we know of today. And there are many records of Dragons all over the world until as recently as a few hundred years ago.

There is also scientific evidence that man and dinosaur lived at the same time. I am sure you have heard of the Paluxy River tracks in Texas.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Now, of course evolutionists have said these tracks are a hoax and fraud, but I believe they could very well be real. I believe that man and dinosaur once walked the earth together. And I believe God may have been describing a dinosaur in Job's time.

Without just simply dismissing this, what do you think?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JWI:
It concerns the book of Job and dinosaurs.

What you're doing is building upon the English word "behemoth". But the word in Hebrew is "behmowth", which is translated "water-ox". The water ox is what the OT isrealites used to call the animal we call the hippopatomus (though there has been some contention in the past as to whether it was a hippo or elephant). In fact, the NLT translates the word "hippopotamus", and the NIV footnotes it as a hippopotamus or elephant. The NASB likewise footnotes it as a hippopotamus. The Amplified Bible translates the passage as "the behemoth, the hippopotamus".

There need be no concerns from persons of a YEC belief, since understanding the behemoth to be a hippo does not in any way refute the YEC position, nor does it bolster an evolution position. Yet some YECers will require this to be a dinosaur as if it were gospel.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JWI:
There is also scientific evidence that man and dinosaur lived at the same time. I am sure you have heard of the Paluxy River tracks in Texas.

The "man tracks" of the Paluxy river are not a hoax. But they were not made by humans either. Since their discovery, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The footprints are not consistent with each other. Some of the individual "man tracks" have been demonstrated to be three-toed dinosaur footprints of both a front and hind print in the same track. A few of the tracks have simply eroded.

As far as I know, only one popular creationist still clings to the idea, and that is Carl Baugh. Baugh has been denounced by most of the YEC community as a fraud. He claims himself to be a "Doctor" despite the fact that he obtained his "degree" from a dimploma mill. He then tried to claim his degree was acredited, but it turned out that the diploma mill simply got acredited through an artifally set-up acreditation mill.