"Evolution isn't science"

uruk, I wouldn't necessarily trust your friend's judgment on the KJV. From a literary point of view it's the best thing out there. As far as the "original" texts, there really isn't such a thing. Most of the important variations among modern English translations are due to different choices of texts.

Just a couple of important examples. The original Jewish Bible was not in Hebrew, but in Greek. It's called the Septuagint (literally, "seventy") and was assembled by seventy-two Jewish scholars around 300 BC. The definitive Hebrew text was not assembled until around 1 AD and it differs considerably.

Although the New Testament books were written in Greek, some manuscripts in Coptic are older and are believed to be translations of older, less altered versions of the original texts.

And on and on...
Thank's for the info!
That friend of mine was going to become a pastor but he and his wife had a falling out with the church and are now new agers.
Possibly he misunderstood my question or I missunderstood his answer.

I looked at few bibles that were side by side compliations of translitteration, KJV, GN, and one other that I don't recall at the moment. I was able to see the differences. Some were subtle some were glaring.
 
I strongly suspect that Jesus Freak mean 6000-10,000. All Young Earth Creationists (YECs) that I've encountered use a number somewhere in that range.


And yet the Bible itself is rather quiet on the age of the Earth, strange really that they are happy making a claim not found in their "book of literal truth".
 
And yet the Bible itself is rather quiet on the age of the Earth, strange really that they are happy making a claim not found in their "book of literal truth".
Don't they base it on counting the generations and named ages of people or some claptrap?
 
I think one of my major problems is this...how did life come into existance...according to evolution some where down the line non living things had to evolve into life no matter how simple.

This quote shows that you don't actually know what the theory of evolution states. I recommend ten minutes on wikipedia so you can *understand what you're talking about*

If you honestly think that the theory of evolution has anything to do with non-living things becoming alive, then you should probably have taken the five minutes beforehand to grasp the concept.

I bet you still think it has something to do with "survival of the fittest" literally.
 
And yet the Bible itself is rather quiet on the age of the Earth, strange really that they are happy making a claim not found in their "book of literal truth".

Except that the claim is an obvious consequence of the detailed chronology presented across the Bible.

For example, Genesis 1 is quite explicit that man (Adam) was created on the "sixth day" of creation, and we are informed exactly of how long Adam lived (Genesis 5):

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 ¦ And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

How can you claim that the Bible is "rather quiet" on the age of the Earth?
 
Last edited:
Ok here is a quick one I found!
What was observed:
In certain parts of England, before the 1850's, the majority of Pepper moths (but not all) were light coloured. (left typica or typical) Then for about 100 years, the melanic (left: carbonaria, dark coloured morph) numbers of the moth rose to become the majority and the typica became few in number. Presently the frequency of the melanic is decreasing. This change is one of the most famous proofs of evolution used this century and is in virtually every school textbook. This change certainly does not demonstrate evolution (change between kinds) because we have the same cross fertile moth before and after. We have the numbers of dark and light moths change, not their physiology or genetics. For example, rabbits, bears, dogs, cats and rodents of the same breed come in black and white variation. Polar bears and grizzlies are a single "kind" (able to cross breed) with two different colour fur living in two very different habitats with different physical structures, claws, fur type, the blubber lining and other physical characteristics that make them slightly different from each other. This difference is not evolution, but variation within one kind of animal. While minor anotominal differences clearly exist between black bears and grizzlies and polar bears, they are cross fertile. When a child has a breeding pair of rabbits that are both black and white spotted, a typical litter of 8 will have 6 that resemble the parents and one all-black, and one all-white rabbit. This too is not evolution. We are dealing with skin, fur and eye colour variables in all these. In the end this is all the Pepper Moth demonstrates. Genetic variability that has always been present in Pepper Moths to produce the typica and melanic variations with every possible shade in between! So Next time your professor brings up the pepper moth as proof of evolution remember this: moths, bears and rabbits!

You know that that particular example was used to show the power of natural selection *NOT SPECIATION*. Andi it does demonstrate natural selection. Originally the moths came in both colors due to their genetic variability (caused, in part by mutation) , but manmade selection pressures selected in favor of the dark moths. Thus there are more of the darker ones now. The example shows *exactly what it was supposed to*. In other words, the point flew abut fourteen thousand feet over your source's head.

Also, there is no such thing as a biological "Kind".
 
Except that the claim is an obvious consequence of the detailed chronology presented across the Bible.

For example, Genesis 1 is quite explicit that man (Adam) was created on the "sixth day" of creation, and we are informed exactly of how long Adam lived (Genesis 5):



How can you claim that the Bible is "rather quiet" on the age of the Earth?
Haven't we've discussed this before and disagreed on our conclusions? I've nothing new to bring to the table so it would just be a re-hash.
 
That was uncalled for.
i apoligize if it offended someone, i just really cant stand these types of religious people... i dont understand what hes doing on a science forum pushing his religious beliefs, ive never been to a religious forum, but id like to assume that there are no evolutionists there telling them that they are wrong, let them believe what they want, but i just really have a problem with religious types who try to push their religion on others
 
i apoligize if it offended someone, i just really cant stand these types of religious people... i dont understand what hes doing on a science forum pushing his religious beliefs, ive never been to a religious forum, but id like to assume that there are no evolutionists there telling them that they are wrong, let them believe what they want, but i just really have a problem with religious types who try to push their religion on others

Some do, but religious forums are a lot less tolerant than freethinking forums, and evolution supporters get banned a lot more quickly. Also, "evilutionists" are more mature than religious people, and are less like to go out of their way to tell someone they are wrong.
 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10586-lizard-isles-reveal-natural-selection-at-work.html

'Lizard Isles' reveal natural selection at work

Natural selection, the keystone of evolution, can switch direction in a matter of months, a novel experiment on lizards reveals.

Jonathan Losos at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, and colleagues visited a dozen tiny isles in the Bahamas. They tagged hundreds of tiny Anolis sagrei lizards, which show natural variation in the length of their legs.

In half of the islands, they introduced a larger lizard species, Leiocephalus carinatus, which preys on A. sagrei.

The tiny islands are each about 750 square metres (around the size of a baseball diamond) and located only about 100 metres away from land where L. carinatus naturally live.

These predatory lizards regularly colonise the tiny islands, but routinely die out because they are entirely ground-based and can be wiped out when hurricanes cause flooding. For this reason, Losos says it is ethically acceptable to introduce the L. carinatus onto the islands for experimental purposes.

Out of reach

The team predicted that introducing the predatory species would initially lead to a greater number of A. sagrei lizards with slightly longer legs, which would enable them to run faster than their shorter-legged peers, which would get caught and eaten.

However, they hypothesised that after a certain amount of time, selective pressures would shift to favour lizards with shorter legs, because such animals can climb trees better, and evade the L. carinatus in that manner.
Given time, A. sagrei would somehow learn to escape death by climbing, the researchers reasoned. “These lizards are no dummies,” Losos says.

Natural shift

In fact, all of these predictions came to pass. When the researchers returned to the islands after six months and counted the A. sagrei lizards that survived, they found a greater number had long legs. After a further six months, another survey showed that natural selection had shifted to favour lizards with short legs.

And there was a huge increase in the proportion of A. sagrei lizards that chose to dwell in trees. Normally, about 60% of these lizards are found in trees – and this was the case on the islands with no predator lizards. But in the six experimental isles, which had the introduced predator species, more than 90% A. sagrei were found in trees after one year.

Not only does the study illustrate how swiftly natural selection can act, says Losos, it also shows that the process can be experimentally induced, given the right circumstances.

Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1133584)
 
Here is what I have read about the flood chronology

1) In the 600 hundredth year of Noah (2nd month 10th day) Noah entered the ark.(Ge 7:4,10,11)
2)in the 600th year of Noah(2nd mo. 17th day) the flood began(Ge 7:11)
3)the waters flooded the earth for 150 days(5 30 day months)including the 40 days and nights of rain(Ge 7:12,17,24 and 8:1)
4)in the 600th year of Noah(7th mo. 7th day)the waters began to recede.(Ge 7:24,8:1)
5)the waters later receded to the point that the ark rested on Ararat.(600th year 7th mo. 17th day) (Ge 8:3,4)
6)the waters continued to abate so that the tops of the mountains were visible.(600th year 10th mo. 1st day)(Ge 8:5)
7)forty days later(600th year 11th mo. 10th day) Noah sent out a raven and a dove(Ge 8:6) over the next 14 days Noah sent out two more doves(Ge 8:10,12) In all this took 61 days or 2mo's. and 1day.
8)By Noah's 601st year on the first mo. and first day the water had dried up.(Ge 8:12,13)
9)Noah waited one month and 26 days before he disembarked in the second mo. the 27th day of his 601st year.
FROM BEGINING TO END THE FLOOD LASTED ONE YEAR AND TEN DAYS

Adapted from a couple of posts on alt.atheism of a few years ago:

If the Earth was completely covered by water, then the water must have been the depth of at least 8850 metres (the height of Mount Everest).

If that happened over 40 days and nights, then the rain must have fallen at an average rate of 221.25 metres per day, or 9.21 metres per hour, or 15 centimetres per minute. That's a rainfall of six inches per minute!

Everything on the planet -- trees, houses, huts, Noah, his ark, the penguins traipsing their way from the Antarctic, the polar bears trudging from northern Baffin Island, any whale that came up for a breath -- would have been crushed flat.
:boggled:

Pull my other leg. :eye-poppi
 
Everything on the planet -- trees, houses, huts, Noah, his ark, the penguins traipsing their way from the Antarctic, the polar bears trudging from northern Baffin Island, any whale that came up for a breath -- would have been crushed flat. :boggled:

Pull my other leg. :eye-poppi
Well, except for the part about Noah and his ark, that isn't going to bother a biblical literalist. The point of the flood was to destroy all flesh.
 
Here we go with about 50 questions and point for me to answer and rebut against.
First sorry I did mean I think the age of the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old...probably closer to 6000.
Second maybe my point isn't clear enough...I do believe in evolution to the point of for example a horse to a donkey...not from a horse to say a rabbit...I know it's an extreme but the fruit flies always produced fruit flies and finches always produce finches.
I think that it is very well documented on how inaccurate cabon dating is but if not here http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm and yes I am well aware that it is a Christian site but I think it makes my point.
Obviously I do not agree with your statement of 6000 year old or older civilizations, but can you give me some examples?
 
And yet the Bible itself is rather quiet on the age of the Earth, strange really that they are happy making a claim not found in their "book of literal truth".
Have you read it?...doesn't sound like it.
evilutionists" are more mature than religious people,
Yep Duck has proved that.
Adapted from a couple of posts on alt.atheism of a few years ago:

If the Earth was completely covered by water, then the water must have been the depth of at least 8850 metres (the height of Mount Everest).

If that happened over 40 days and nights, then the rain must have fallen at an average rate of 221.25 metres per day, or 9.21 metres per hour, or 15 centimetres per minute. That's a rainfall of six inches per minute!
Alot of assumptions here like the earth was like it is now before the flood...I think the earth was mostly flat and all the water softend the earth and caused the shifting of the plates...Im not sure of the exact number but I think if the earth was flat now there is enough water to cover it 12,000 feet deep, so the water is still here. Oh and also it clearly says that the water not only came from above but below the earths surface as well, so no crushing accured...It's like God knew what he was doing or something huh?
 
I think that it is very well documented on how inaccurate cabon dating is but if not here http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm and yes I am well aware that it is a Christian site but I think it makes my point.

Unfortunately that site is horribly broken, and it should be obvious why. They state that tree rings are calibrated using 14C dating, and the reverse. This should readily be deduced to be nonsense since radiocarbon dating is simply not accurate to within 1 year, but trees produce 1 ring per year. Knowing that any one ring is "between 50 and 75 AD" just doesn't help. We use tree rings to benchmark 14C. Once that benchmark is established, we may use it to date other trees. But the whole process starts with 8000 years of bristlecone tree rings, and strongly supports that the decay rates and average production of 14C have not significantly changed during the useful history of 14C dating.
 

Back
Top Bottom