Creation doesn't stand the test of time

[Beemer]

First, an announcement:

Scope’s: The battle over America’s Soul.
Airs Wednesday April 12 @ 9/8c
http://www.historychannel.com/10days/
In the left hand menu click on Scopes

Some background reading on debunking:
Problems with a Global Flood

Here’s the whole Flood Geology debunking:
Flood Geology

And before you read the next link:

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

I presume you have just learned that there is no arrogance behind scientific means. Only a path to discovery, of the truth.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

It’s a pretty long read but skimming through the pages, you’ll find some interest I’m sure.

(This is very important to read)
One of the topics of argument that I’ve heard on this board:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

For anyone wishing to continue reading comments and links to various articles on Evolution in its correct context:
http://www.pandasthumb.org

[tony_j15]

I have problems with your "problems". just to pick at one:

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.

Noah actually had 100 years to complete the task. the story begins with Noah being 500 years old. The flood did not come until he was 600, ergo he had 100 years to build and load the ark. The other fallacy is in the misinterpretation of the word "kinds". When God said "bring two of every kind" that does not nessecarily mean two of everything. example: 2 clydesdales, 2 arabians, 2 belgians. It simply means "two horses." This greatly cuts down on the supposed time to load the ark.

[Beemer]

This is before the Flood.
Genesis 6:3

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."

After the Flood, in Genesis 11:10-13:

These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

You tell me....

[cyphen]

Are you trying to say God doesn't exist? Because if you are - good luck trying to prove it! (Hint - it's impossible to prove!)

Are you trying to discredit Christianity? If so, why?

Are you looking for enlightenment? I'm guessing ... no! Explanation? doubtful.

So what are you after, Beemer?

Dunno why you labled this "creation doesn't stand the test of time" without ever addressing creation!

There's a lot of symbolism in religion. If you took everything literally - you'd have to forgive someone only the first 490 times in sinning against us. (seventy times seven reference) numbers have significance in christianity and judaism. 3,6,7,12, a thousand... in the bible it says to God a day is as a thousand years. Is that literal. Does that mean the earth was created over 6 literal days? Or literally 6000 years? Or is it saying that a day to God is akin to eternity - as in - when you're eternal, time is irrelevent.

My view of creation is this - Physics is God's toolbox. God created the universe and wrote the rules. he created the world and man through physics. Why would God - who created the universe and its rules - then use means that he didn't create (so-called supernatural means) to create man, and the world. And why would he do so quickly - in 6 days - when he's eternal and time is meaningless.

I also believe that religion and science are in no way at odds. Specific views of it may be - like when people believed the earth MUST be the center of the universe... but that wasn't a religious view - that was a human view held by religious people.

gotta go for now - but i'd still like to know what it is you're after....

[Beemer]

Go & read.

[Theophylact]

Cyphen, rejecting Creationism isn't the same as rejecting God. It's just rejecting the unreasonable beliefs of one smallish segment of part of the Protestant segment of one religion known broadly as Christianity, itself a minority belief among all the world's belief systems.

The Dalai Lama has no trouble with evolution; neither does the Pope.

[sharder8]

Beemer ---

Before ya' go and get even more exited by your little findings . . . let's take a look at the meaning of one word that highlights what you're trying to say.

Theory (Scientific) :

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena, which originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

The term theoretical is sometimes used to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been adequately confirmed by observation or experiment. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed by experiment. If enough experiments and observations are made by many researchers, such a theory may become sufficiently verified to be considered thoroughly confirmed, and very dependable, and its premises may after that stage be termed laws.

(Reference)
Based on that definition, explain the relevance of the "theory" of evolution vs. the lack of a "law" of evolution.

Simply put, to many, theories aren't necessarily facts, and I'm not going to try to bring "hypotheses" into this discussion, even though what you're posting more closely follows the definition of a "hypothesis".



Harder

[chipbgt]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...hovind&pl=true

The Dalai Lama has no trouble with evolution; neither does the Pope.

The opinions of these two men (on this and many topics) mean absolutely nothing to a christian.

[Atomic Rooster]

And the Christianity bashing continues.

[Beemer]

This is as simple as I can make it for you sharder.

When Darwin was out making observations in the wild, he was developing a hypothesis. After 140 years of research based on his original hypothesis, evolution is now a fact. It's been going on all through history of this planet and there is plenty of evidence to back that up.
Working out the details and predicting is where theory is involved.

If you would care to read:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libra...nd-theory.html

or

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[sharder8]

This is as simple as I can make it for you sharder.

When Darwin was out making observations in the wild, he was developing a hypothesis. After 140 years of research based on his original hypothesis, evolution is now a fact. It's been going on all through history of this planet and there is plenty of evidence to back that up.
Working out the details and predicting is where theory is involved.

If you would care to read:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libra...nd-theory.html

or

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Don't need to read any more on it, as it is of only mild interest to me.

I agree that evolution has been going on since the beginning of time . . . in the aspect that everything living continues to adapt and change to conform with its surroundings and survival.

The part where I have a problem with evolution, is where someone claims that man evolved from ape or fish. Couldn't it be maybe, just maybe, possible that man evolved from man and continues to evolve?

Harder

[Chuckiechan]

I don't think you can take bible stories literally. They are stories told with greater messages in mind, told with a "Wink and a nod".

[Beemer]

So it's your original understanding of what we evolved from then. First of all we had a common ancestor, the monkeys and us. It has never been said that we came from apes.

Apes branched off into their own hominid group and man went his way.

Since Lucy, archaeologists have found 2 other earlier forms within the same area of Africa in different layers of sediments which give the temporal time line for each.

I predict that they'll find the common ancestor in the same area.

It's pretty tough to find fossils dating back millions of years. Not only do the original owners of bones have to not be eaten but then their fossilised remains have to stay intact. Erosion, earthquakes, fires, floods all can, and do, erase evidence.

I think these archaeologists are doing a bang up job of discovering our primitive ancestry.

[Evangelionn]

One question beemer what existed before the big bang? What caused it? What caused this planet to have a moon just the right size and it to be just far enough from the sun to support life? hwo do you explain it? The odds of it happening on its own are astronomical.

[Evangelionn]

religion answers these questions fills in what we as humans cant explain or understand. does god exist i believe he does whether u believe or not is your own problem u shouldnt force your views on other people.....

[JimRune]

The odds of it happening on its own are astronomical.

That's why it's called Astronomy. On a serious note, the size of the universe is unimaginably huge. With odds like that, you have to have coincidences. Besides, from findings so far, planets capable of life are very hard to find, so it's possible that any planet that is capable of supporting life (that we haven't found yet, obviously) will have life.

religion answers these questions fills in what we as humans cant explain or understand.

Well, maybe what you can't explain or understand.

[Beemer]

It never seems to fail that when religion fails to have the answer in light of some pretty heavy evidence, attack the guy who brought it to light. I guess that's what you're taught.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp

[sharder8]

attack the guy who brought it to light. I guess that's what you're taught.

But, isn't that exactly what you're doing Beemer?

Harder

[Evangelionn]

to much to read..... ZzzzZzzzz

[Beemer]

Nope! Just an observation.