"Evolution isn't science"

I love bats. I will not be answering any more of JF's posts until he has convinced me that he has read and understood the eye article.

Some of you others may have different articles or pages that you think do a better job, so feel free to bring them up.
 
jesus_freak said:
Here is some more proof of a Biblical flood. Enjoy!
http://www.lighthouseupc.org/flood.html
Click to expand...

That page is not evidence of a global flood. I'm surprised anyone would believe it is. Much of the page is evidence of plate tectonics geology. I'm not going to do a point by point analysis of their page here in this thread, but I can see serious problems with each point they claim supports a global flood,.

Since the flood, based on a literal and inerrant interpretation of the Bible shows the flood occurred 4354 years ago any living thing over that age is proof otherwise. If you concede the time spans listed in the Bible are inaccurate then the Bible is not inerrant.

A vast number of Christians believe the Bible is metaphorical and allegorical in nature and meant to describe the creation in poetic terms humans could understand. A large number of these believe evolution is fact.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/newsletter/can_a_christian.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/17/AR2005091700117.html
http://www.eauk.org/resources/idea/bigquestion/archive/2005/bq7.cfm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml
http://www.e-n.org.uk/54-Why-some-evangelicals-believe-in-evolution-(Bulldog-for-October).htm
http://www.christianforums.com/t2707607-christians-who-believe-in-evolution.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00068F43-E189-150E-A18983414B7F0000&colID=13
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
 
jesus_freak said:
Can you explain please?
Click to expand...

Yes... the Earth is billions of years old... in those hundreds of millions of years... what once was ocean is now mountain. The upheavel of land carried the fossils (embedded in rock) up to the tops of mountains.

Do you think a flood would deposit animal remains onto say shear cliff faces?
 
How about this:

I have the following theory:
"It is raining AND It is dry AND evolution did not happen". Obviously it can't be raining and dry at the same time. Therefore, my theory is false.

So "evolution did not happen" too is false. So evolution did happen. Hereby I have conclusively proven the existence of evolution.

Do you understand?
 
jesus_freak said:
1) How did the eye evolve?
2) How did our hearts evolve?
3) How about our lungs?
4) What evolved first our eye or the optic nerves or the brain to process the information?
5) what evolved first the skelital, muscular, nervous, respritory, digestive or digestive system?
Click to expand...

In random order:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/evolution_of_vascular_systems.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/the_eye_as_a_contingent_divers.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/10/evolution_of_sensory_signaling.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/development_medicine_and_evolu.php#more
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/evolution_of_hormone_signaling.php

And should that not answer some questions you might want to read:
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781592572588,00.html
If anything, you will learn how to spell those words in English.
 
ChristineR said:
I love bats. I will not be answering any more of JF's posts until he has convinced me that he has read and understood the eye article.
Click to expand...

*Gasp* I love bats too! So cute and fuzzy. In 1996 a new bat virus was discovered in Australia and has since killed two people.
 
jesus_freak said:
1) How did the eye evolve?
2) How did our hearts evolve?
3) How about our lungs?
4) What evolved first our eye or the optic nerves or the brain to process the information?
5) what evolved first the skelital, muscular, nervous, respritory, digestive or digestive system?
Click to expand...

If you really want the answers, you may consider taking courses in graduate level Biology. However, I'm sure you think you are challenging us to give answers for things you think we do not have answers to. But we do. Every one of those questions has a straight forward answer. Of all questions you could ask, these are now some of the simplest to answer - though I'll admit the first three stumped scientists for a long while.

I'd like to take on the quote in your signature.

jesus_freak said:
Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.
--- David Coppedge
Click to expand...

Science has always been about more than simple observation. Also, evolution has everything to do with observation. The theory came about because of observation. The theory has been modified and corrected over time because of observation. Because of the theory we have a much greater understanding of Biology - evolution theory does belong in the Biology lab.

Now I dare you to take on my signature quote! :D
 
jesus_freak said:
Also am I wrong in assuming that everyone here believes in Macroevolution...meaning a change in species?
Click to expand...

What is wrong is that you consider Macroevolution and Microevolution valid terms. There is no difference between the small changes you propose in microevolution and the changes that differentiate species. So, in truth, Microevolution=Macroevolution.
 
ChristineR said:
I love bats. I will not be answering any more of JF's posts until he has convinced me that he has read and understood the eye article.

Some of you others may have different articles or pages that you think do a better job, so feel free to bring them up.
Click to expand...

I've just given up hope with him. He's obviously not interested in a discussion. He just wants to spout and have us go "Oh, yes, Little Mr. Fundy. We're all lost and need JEEEBUS! Oh Laudy-Laud!"

Until he does show that he's taken whats been presented, and at least can give cogent arguments against it, I'm not interested in anything he's got to say.

Here...go play with a Dali.

dali_crucifix_mid.jpg
 
jesus_freak said:
here is another...http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide%20flood.htm
Click to expand...

You post these as if we've never seen these arguments before. They're extraordinarily tired and flawed attempts to reconcile the geologic record with a poor interpretation of the words of the Bible.

What is really amazing is that so many Christians discard the laws set forth in the Old Testament but cling to the metaphorical history.

By the way, the page you link gets almost all of its conclusions wrong.
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
here is another...http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide flood.htm
Click to expand...

Nope... no real science journal references. Plus, it gives numbers like they are references, but they don't go anywhere.

Interestingly, they reference the Megaflood... but very poorly. The references do not go to real scientific research, but their own institute in a bit of circular reasoning.

Good grief... get a decent high school textbook on geology!

Then answer this question: why is the Grand Canyon so completely different from the Palouse Canyon?
 
It's like me saying "I'm a multimillionaire" and showing you evidence by pointing to my nice TV, my most expensive suit, and my purebred dog, but claiming my checking account balance is irrelevant.
 
I have skimmed some of this, but couldn't finish all of it...just wanted to ask a few questions:

Why did God want noah to carry two of each animal. Why didn't he just allow them all to die and just recreate them after the flood? Noah and family wouldn't have to deal will all that poop and stuff.

Why did God make the universe appear to be 13.7 billion years old?...it seems quite tedious putting all those photons of light in all those places in the universe.

What's with the dinosaur bones too?

And why did God have to rest on the 7th day when he is omnipotent?

I have others, but good answers to these would be nice.

glenn:confused:
 
Glenn said:
Why did God want noah to carry two of each animal. Why didn't he just allow them all to die and just recreate them after the flood? Noah and family wouldn't have to deal will all that poop and stuff.
Click to expand...
And he could have recreated them in the right places, too, instead of making the poor bastards schlepp all around the globe.

~~ Paul
 
It's been done to death.

"I'm not usually a praying man, but if you are up there superman - save me" - Homer J Simpson

Good luck to you all
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
No, seriously, you should read something.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I'd even suggest he reread his Bible - with open eyes, reading it critically, watching for the obvious metaphor and allegory. When he's done reading that, he should pull up some of the historical documents that describe the compilation of the books in the Bible and why they were chosen. Then a perusal of World Myth is next to see the older works that the Bible echoes and imitates. Finally, if he needs to reconcile belief in God with the theory of evolution, he should look up the books that do so. There are plenty. Some are even good book! "Finding Darwin's God" would be a place to start.

I won't be surprised if he doesn't, though.
 
jesus_freak said:
here is another...http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide flood.htm
Click to expand...

From that website:
Three separate eruptions produced sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick. One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin laminations up to 25 feet thick 10,11,12 The third eruption was a lava flow, which turned into a hot mud-flow as it crossed the Toutle River. This mud flow not only diverted the river, but carved a 17 mile long series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours. They call it the Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River." 20,21,22 The mass media and popular "science" publications still (to this very day) have not told the public what happened. 23 For more on this see Mt. St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical Catastrophe.
Click to expand...


Funny, I've been over the Toutle River several times, visited the volcano and there was nothing like the Grand Canyon (which I also visited). So do a bit of searching, and look... they lied!

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html
  1. The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.
  2. ....
  3. The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.
Click to expand...


Have you even read a book on geology?

Didn't you do the 5th grade experiements with dirt and water to show erosion? Like here: http://lsc-net.terc.edu/media/data/media_000000000555.pdf

 
jesus_freak said:
Mr. Jesus_Freak, please answer my question:

Q: So, you agree that you don't "know" for a certainty what the term "servant" means in Titus 2:9 (Y/N)?

A:My NASB version say "bondslaves" and yes I think that is a direct refernce to slaves.Not sure what this has to do with evolution but nowhere in the New Testament does it condone or condemn slavery
Click to expand...

Please indulge me a little longer and I will explain what this has to do with evolution.

So, you (1) admit that the Bible is inerrant, and that (2) bondslaves means slaves.

Titus 2:9 (New American Standard Bible): "[Urge] bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative"

Q: Does Titus 2:9 instruct that slaves should obey their masters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom