Dude, they have lizards evolving into lizards. it would be very irresponsible to extrapolate that out into lizards evolving into something other than lizards which is required by the grand theory of evolution.
This is called equivocation. You use the term evolution to mean change over time and show an example. You then claim that that proves evolution of one animal into another. It’s fallacious.
[/quote]
Lol This is not equivocation… This is evolution on a small scale…which I said. Do you broadly even know how evolution works? Animals don’t turn into other animals like a horse into a whale.this isn’t animorphs…
[/quote]
Okay, it’s bait and switch then!!(-;
And I agree with you, animals don’t turn into other animals. That’s why evolution is falsified.
However, if the evolution of all living things started out with a lowest common ancestor, then at some point one animal had to turn into another didn’t it?
[/quote]
It was never bait and switch… Again that is evolution on a small scale… Go find those lizards in a couple million of years and they will look completely different… Possibly you wouldn’t even be able to call them lizards… But it was small changes over millions of years to make them look different.
Yes we come from single cells (which you don’t probably believe) but no animals don’t just turn into other animals. It’s small changes like the lizards adapting to new environments over a vast amount of time. [/quote]
You’re extrapolating WAY past the data. Where do we observe what you are describing? And I mean actually observe, in real time, so as to be indisputable.
This is a great point Orion… A perfect example of this adding on top of whats originally there is the human mind or even the eye… The mind still has impulse even though it’s unnecessary and the eye Has the more important Parts towards the front
[/quote]
Are you claiming that the eye and the mind are the result of evolution?
Dude, they have lizards evolving into lizards. it would be very irresponsible to extrapolate that out into lizards evolving into something other than lizards which is required by the grand theory of evolution.
[/quote]
No, its not.
If a lizard evolved into anything other than a lizard, that would be a major problem.
In the same way, and this will blow your mind, a chicken is still a dinosaur, and on top of it it is also a bird and on top of that its a chicken.
You dont get to leave the categories you are already in, you at best add a new one on top of the ones already existing. [/quote]
Hahahahaha, a chicken is a dinosaur and a bird!! Right. Got any proof?[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
[i]Okay, I am not a ‘creationist’, but I want to play a little devil’s advocate in favor of the creationist side…
Supposedly the oldest human fossil known to date is about 200,000 year’s old. That being the case, there is no evidence of anything intelligent and self aware until about 4 century B.C.[/i][/quote]
… are you serious?[/quote]
I am serious and don’t call me ‘Shirley’…
What I am saying here is though we have a 200,000 year old human fossil, we have no evidence it was intelligent and self aware on any level. That does not mean he/ she wasn’t, I am saying we have no evidence for intelligent, sentient, self postulating morally apt being. We have bones that look like ours.
So we may have had the species, but there is no evidence they were anymore profound than monkeys. Again, I am say we don’t have evidence not that they weren’t necessarily.
But what it does do is beg the question, why not?
The historic record of humanity starts out with pretty impressive sophistication. Seemingly out of nothing. We go from cave drawings to cuneiform in pretty short order and that record is about 6000 years old.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :
"Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet…
[/quote]
Then the scientific view of the earth’s age is correct.
[/quote]
Man thinking he has this space/time/speed of light/expanding universe thing all figured out so that he can definitively assess what is “correct” or not in terms of the universe’s and earth’s age is grossly naive and the propensity to do just that relegates him to the arena of “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”[/quote]
Dealing with Kamui’s statement. If God brought a 4.5 billion year old Earth into existence, say, 6k years ago, the Earth would be 4.5 billion years old.[/quote]
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :
"Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet…
[/quote]
Then the scientific view of the earth’s age is correct.
[/quote]
Man thinking he has this space/time/speed of light/expanding universe thing all figured out so that he can definitively assess what is “correct” or not in terms of the universe’s and earth’s age is grossly naive and the propensity to do just that relegates him to the arena of “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”[/quote]
Dealing with Kamui’s statement. If God brought a 4.5 billion year old Earth into existence, say, 6k years ago, the Earth would be 4.5 billion years old.[/quote]
True.[/quote]
Admittedly, but then the evidence would point to a very old earth still and in the confines of the scientific method this is the answer you would get.
Also. if we are at the mercy of a deity that finds something like that entertaining, we might just take our ball and go home, because, whats the point?
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :
"Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet…
[/quote]
Then the scientific view of the earth’s age is correct.
[/quote]
Man thinking he has this space/time/speed of light/expanding universe thing all figured out so that he can definitively assess what is “correct” or not in terms of the universe’s and earth’s age is grossly naive and the propensity to do just that relegates him to the arena of “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”[/quote]
Dealing with Kamui’s statement. If God brought a 4.5 billion year old Earth into existence, say, 6k years ago, the Earth would be 4.5 billion years old.[/quote]
True.[/quote]
Admittedly, but then the evidence would point to a very old earth still and in the confines of the scientific method this is the answer you would get.
[/quote]
Yes, that’s what we’re saying. Well, with respect to what Kamui said.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m afraid misinterpretation of what those natural philosophers thought isn’t going to get you out of this one. The methods they used to study natural phenomena were not dependent on theology. They might have thought that the rational laws and rational explanations and the axioms required for gaining knowledge in natural philososphy/science were due to God but what Newton did is describe gravity in the fittest way that has ever been done to that point using rationality and naturalism.
I’m starting to think you’re confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.
Hell, as I’ve at least hinted at already in this thread, I posit that an intellect that knows everything natural and metaphysical and everything in all it’s totality is required and must be ontologically the same as us is required for us to know anything. But I’m using metaphysics with an epistemological foundation of basically faith for that, not science. I’m fully admit I’m a man of faith and I see no reason faith and science cannot exist. In fact, for science to first exist, faith must go first and I say we know anything because of that Intellect which I call God natura naturans. But all of this paragraph belongs in a totally different thread with a very different context. [/quote]
…that is evolution on a small scale… Go find those lizards in a couple million of years and they will look completely different… Possibly you wouldn’t even be able to call them lizards… But it was small changes over millions of years to make them look different.
Yes we come from single cells (which you don’t probably believe) but no animals don’t just turn into other animals. It’s small changes like the lizards adapting to new environments over a vast amount of time. [/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thank you =] How bout the question of whether they do it at all? Where do I find a demonstration of the random ascending complexity of bio information required for even bacteria to exist to say nothing of the human brain? Could you link me to that please?[/quote]
You are supposed to find it as fossils in different strata. That is, if you accept that your everyday notion of cause and effect spans across aeons. I could add God as a cause, but I would have to know what I mean by it. What god? You are convinced about the Abrahamic God, and the evidence is in the Bible, take it, as you do, or leave it. Personal revelations help, without a doubt.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a ‘kind of God’, by logical necessity there can only be one. Evolution is evidence for the existence of God, not proof against it. It may be proof against a literal interpretation of Genesis, but not God.[/quote]
I’m not trying to use the evolution theory as proof against God, God is used as proof against evolution and has been since Darwins unhappily named book was published. Maybe God gave the spark and supports us all the time (and in a metaphorical way it’s true), but it has no bearing on the theory.
I don’t know about necessity, but I know that people mean different things with the word god, even when it’s supposedly the same.[/quote]
You are right, there is a small faction of ‘Young Earth’ creationists who take the words of Genesis as a literal account, filtered through the paradigm of what they currently understand a ‘day’ to be.
As far as the definition of God, God is the ‘Necessary Being, Uncaused-cause, Prime Mover, etc’ , if you mean something else by the word ‘God’ you are not talking actaully about God, but something else and calling ‘it’ God’
People’s understanding does not change what things actually are. People are either right or wrong, but it doesn’t change what things are.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :
“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”
I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.
[/quote]
To answer this Kamui, I am going to copy what I posted on page 8. I think you will understand it perfectly looking at it this way:
[i]Okay, I am not a ‘creationist’, but I want to play a little devil’s advocate in favor of the creationist side…
Supposedly the oldest human fossil known to date is about 200,000 year’s old. That being the case, there is no evidence of anything intelligent and self aware until about 4 century B.C.
So say for instance, you divide creation into 6 periods. It could actually work.
So Day 1: God created heavens and earth. Ok, so this would be the theory of primordial soup, for instance.
Day 2: Let there be light! = Big ass Bang! - Light from darkness, objects separating the from the illumined and the void or unillumined.
Day 3: God separated the heavens from the watery expanse. The watery earth gets an atmosphere due to the ‘firing up’ of the earths magnetic field, which is what allows us to have an atmosphere and viola. We have an atmosphere! It’s magic!
Day 4: Let the water and the heavens gather in to one place and let dry land appear. - No longer the earth is a steamy place covered by cloulds and oceans. The water cools the crust and tectonics cause land to raise out of the water in places and the earth begins to cool from it’s beginnings.
Day 5: Let the earth sprout vegetation. Life, begins. Algee and simple single cell life begins, unto sea vegitaion, to tree plants and bushes…
Day 6: Let the earth bring forth creatures. Then lastly, man in His image. - Animal life begins and flourishes and evolves…Then at the end, Man to rule it all.
Forget about what you think of the Bible for a minute. And look at the order of the events. Whether you consider Genesis to be true or not, the order of event’s from the perspective of Earth dwelling creatures is correct.
The bible did not specify what a “day” was as indeed, in at least the first 2 ‘days’ there was no such thing as a ‘day’. And then from 3 forward what a day technically was varied quite a bit between then and now, if talking earth day. The bible didn’t specify ‘Earth days’ We just automatically jump to that assumption. And since time a space are a function of each other, what constituted a ‘day’ way back may be fractions of a second if we were to observe it from the outside.
While we may have evidences of early man, we have no evidence it’s sentience was beyond that of a dog. The world as we currently know it, is about 6000 years old. That’s not a fossil record perspective, that is what we know as our world, our history as a sophisticated, conscious, morally apt people is only 6000 years old as we know it and there is zero evidence of that beyond 6000 years old.
I would like to have come up with all this stuff myself, but it was actually an article posted by Jewbacca that got me thinking differently about Genesis and reconciling it with was found scientifically.
Genesis was written for early peoples, they don’t know quantum theory, they don’t know about the big bang or stars as being billions of light years away, they know they are here and there is a reason. [/i][/quote]
What do you mean by our history is only 6000 years old? Is there not evidence of older civilizations? Wouldn’t permanent habitation and agriculture count?
[/quote]
Could they read/ write display organized society and recognize right and wrong.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :
"Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet…
[/quote]
Then the scientific view of the earth’s age is correct.
[/quote]
Man thinking he has this space/time/speed of light/expanding universe thing all figured out so that he can definitively assess what is “correct” or not in terms of the universe’s and earth’s age is grossly naive and the propensity to do just that relegates him to the arena of “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”[/quote]
Dealing with Kamui’s statement. If God brought a 4.5 billion year old Earth into existence, say, 6k years ago, the Earth would be 4.5 billion years old.[/quote]
True.[/quote]
Admittedly, but then the evidence would point to a very old earth still and in the confines of the scientific method this is the answer you would get.
Also. if we are at the mercy of a deity that finds something like that entertaining, we might just take our ball and go home, because, whats the point?[/quote]
Technically, everything could have been created 5 seconds ago, complete with memories of a past that technically wasn’t and we would be none the wiser. It’s not a functional way to go through life, it’s just technically possible. The only thing that’s important about that, is that we are aware that it’s possible, because it helps us keep focused on what we can know vs. what we cannot.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Jesus Christ push, did you even read it?[/quote]
Don’t cherry pick and read and quote out of context. Faux pas on your part.[/quote]
Very interesting that you would say that when you edited out the very part of my post you were critiquing in order to have something to critique. In order to save some face in the future, maybe think twice before accusing others of intellectual dishonesty.
[quote]
Tell us what website you pulled that from. Tell us. Please.[/quote]
I think you mean to say where the website got it’s data, not me.
Here’s a pew research study, I wasn’t able to find the gallop poll. Nonetheless the results are the same. To save you time from having to search yourself, here’s the pertinent part
[quote]Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time â?? 87% say evolution is due to
natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists â?? that living things have evolved due
to natural processes â?? is shared by only about third (32%) of the public.[/quote]
[quote]
Now tell us if the polled scientists were asked what type of evolution they believed in.[/quote]
I couldn’t say.
What are the other types of evolution are you referring to?
[quote][quote]
True statement. Example, stem cells. Look at how many people have been unable to get care and progress to be made in this sort of therapy. One word: selfish.[/quote]
Non sequitur. You’re using the intellectually dishonest Bill Nye, the Irrelevant Guy’s tactics now, bud.[/quote]
I don’t think you’ve used ‘non sequitur’ properly. Let me reiterate, Stem cell research was interfered and held back because of the beliefs of the religious community, and in the eye of the public, has a stigma attached to it because of this.
[quote]
[quote] Intelligent design is not science, this has been established by the scientific community.[/quote]
Putting the type in bold and saying it emphatically does not make it so, my friend.
You DO remind me of an evangelist. Seriously.[/quote]
SHOULD I TRY WITH CAPS LOCK ON? ID ISN’T SCIENCE, AND HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT INVOLVES THE SUPERNATURAL. AND THAT AIN’T SCIENCE PUSH!
I hope this won’t come to me writing in CAPS LOCK AND BOLD, but if I have to push, I will.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
[/quote]
More circular reasoning. You are assuming that evolution is the reason for the similarities. You can’t then turn around and claim it as proof of evolution because you have assumed the very thing that you are setting out to prove.
[/quote]
Whats your explanation of the similarities?
[/quote]
To be honest, in the pic you posted the similarities were very tenuous. But similarities can just as easily be explained by a common designer, as Push has been trying to explain to you.
Matty, the problem is that you are missing the point of a lot of these posts (from ‘our’ side). We tend to be focusing on the Philosophy of science (epistemology or how do we know what we know) while you are focused on the evidence. The problem with your approach is that both sides have the same evidence but they interpret it differently based on starting position (presuppositions). So while you might see the fossil record as evidence of evolution, we see it as evidence of the creation model (the flood, specifically).
Do you understand? I can post a good link for you to read is you like but it’s from creation.com. If you really do have an open mind I think it would help you see ‘our’ point of view better.
[/quote]
First as Fletch pointed out, you’re not doing science, stay out of the science class rooms.
Second, I do have an open mind. I am open to the possibility of a God entity given the proper evidence. You and many others, start from the presupposition that God exists, and then you go from there. That doesn’t work for me. If you can agree with the scientific method, then we start with that as our premise and go from there.
There should be limited differentiation of interpretation if we start with the same premise(s).
From your posts, “whales into horses”, I’m not sure if you understand how evolution works or not. I may be wrong on this as you’ve been sharp in other areas.
That makes sense in as far as I understand what you’re coming from, and no matter which side were to try to argue it, both wouldn’t know what they’re talking about as it’s supernatural. This is probably one of my biggest points of contention in that Christians try to use the bible to explain the natural world while ignoring every other religious text that wants to have a say on the matter.
I’m going to presume that I can use scientific method instead of naturalism, okay? The scientific method has been a correct method to observe natural phenomena because of how it works. I’m sure you’re familiar but it goes something like this: question, observe/gather, hypothesize, predict, test/experiment, accept/reject/modify.
If you feel that this is somehow an insufficient way to observe natural phenomena, I’m open to hearing how you think it could be improved upon.
Also, Fletch, while we haven’t had any exchanges, I just wanted to say thanks for your input so far, your posts have helped me.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :
“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”
I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.
[/quote]
To answer this Kamui, I am going to copy what I posted on page 8. I think you will understand it perfectly looking at it this way:
[i]Okay, I am not a ‘creationist’, but I want to play a little devil’s advocate in favor of the creationist side…
Supposedly the oldest human fossil known to date is about 200,000 year’s old. That being the case, there is no evidence of anything intelligent and self aware until about 4 century B.C.
So say for instance, you divide creation into 6 periods. It could actually work.
So Day 1: God created heavens and earth. Ok, so this would be the theory of primordial soup, for instance.
Day 2: Let there be light! = Big ass Bang! - Light from darkness, objects separating the from the illumined and the void or unillumined.
Day 3: God separated the heavens from the watery expanse. The watery earth gets an atmosphere due to the ‘firing up’ of the earths magnetic field, which is what allows us to have an atmosphere and viola. We have an atmosphere! It’s magic!
Day 4: Let the water and the heavens gather in to one place and let dry land appear. - No longer the earth is a steamy place covered by cloulds and oceans. The water cools the crust and tectonics cause land to raise out of the water in places and the earth begins to cool from it’s beginnings.
Day 5: Let the earth sprout vegetation. Life, begins. Algee and simple single cell life begins, unto sea vegitaion, to tree plants and bushes…
Day 6: Let the earth bring forth creatures. Then lastly, man in His image. - Animal life begins and flourishes and evolves…Then at the end, Man to rule it all.
Forget about what you think of the Bible for a minute. And look at the order of the events. Whether you consider Genesis to be true or not, the order of event’s from the perspective of Earth dwelling creatures is correct.
The bible did not specify what a “day” was as indeed, in at least the first 2 ‘days’ there was no such thing as a ‘day’. And then from 3 forward what a day technically was varied quite a bit between then and now, if talking earth day. The bible didn’t specify ‘Earth days’ We just automatically jump to that assumption. And since time a space are a function of each other, what constituted a ‘day’ way back may be fractions of a second if we were to observe it from the outside.
While we may have evidences of early man, we have no evidence it’s sentience was beyond that of a dog. The world as we currently know it, is about 6000 years old. That’s not a fossil record perspective, that is what we know as our world, our history as a sophisticated, conscious, morally apt people is only 6000 years old as we know it and there is zero evidence of that beyond 6000 years old.
I would like to have come up with all this stuff myself, but it was actually an article posted by Jewbacca that got me thinking differently about Genesis and reconciling it with was found scientifically.
Genesis was written for early peoples, they don’t know quantum theory, they don’t know about the big bang or stars as being billions of light years away, they know they are here and there is a reason. [/i][/quote]
What do you mean by our history is only 6000 years old? Is there not evidence of older civilizations? Wouldn’t permanent habitation and agriculture count?
[/quote]
Could they read/ write display organized society and recognize right and wrong.[/quote]
I would think so, have you read about �?atalh�¶y�¼k before?
Edit: Whoa, that word got pretty butchered, its supposed to say Catalhuyuk with some dots and swiggles on some letters.