young creation?

[Bread_of_Life]

Jenbe

Theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypothesis. A theory can also be a concept that is not yet verified, but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory.

That would be a good explanation, although I would need to know what you meant by "verified". It's true that a theory has not be proven true for absolute certain, in that case theories are unverified. But in the sense that they have to have evidence for them, and get predictions right, they are verified. So it depends on what you mean by that word!

Of course what I should have said was.."The theory of evolution.....and the Unproven Fact OF Creation..bourne out by Faith in the Creator Himself.

Yes, that would have been a more accurate way of representing your views. Not exactly sure how a fact would be bourne out by a faith, given that faith necessarily lacks evidence and therefore cannot really bear anything out, but I'll leave that for another discussion.

But if you want just a straight answer to your question... it might come out ahead in the cleverness stakes... but I think it would lag woefully behind in the care factor.

That may well be true Jill. Evolution is a very wasteful, and some would say cruel process. It involves at its heart a lack of resources, death, and a whole lot of trial and error. In fact, it is a process of continual trial and error.

Botz

What this shows me is that they may well regurgitate some things that have been debunked or are 'old hat' or proven to be misquotes...but there are many other points they can make to back up their claims and they do not just rely on one aspect to make a point...

Does it make you wonder how accurate or well researched their "other points" are? After all, since you are no expert in science, you have to make a judgement call on these people based on how much you trust them, how careful and credible you think they are.

Also, doesn't it worry you that, rather than presenting the fossil evidence directly, many use the argument from authority, by mentioning D. Raup? It sure as heck worries me!

What I hope is that you will be absolutely sure in the future to look up quotes you hear, especially if they sound too good to be true - and also to look up any "facts" or "evidences" you hear from creationists, on the same basis. Also, if you don't know where to look, you now have someone to ask!

In one of the sites I looked at ....what was most revealing was when an evolutionist in California was trying to get the school board to teach the theory of evolution alongside the theory of creation...but was shot down by his own side because they were so strongly against any hint of Creationism.

Yes, there are even misguided evolutionists. I didn't notice this site in my search though, which was remiss of me, could you link me in?

because a Christian is meant to have come into a direct personal relationship with the Living G-d

Does that mean you're sure of it being true, or is this just another type of evidence? If it is simply a type of evidence, some sort of personal experience, then surely it is not immune (as no evidence is) to other contraindicating evidence against it?

Are you sure you're not using this sort of vague evidence as a proxy or smoke-screen for putting too much trust in your belief, where the evidence does not merit it? Being deliberately vague and using words like "relationship" often indicates to me that someone is trying to avoid categorising the reason they believe as a type of evidence, so that they have some sort of mental justification for ignoring other types of evidence, or even ignoring the idea that their type of evidence (personal experience) may be open to scrutiny or flawed.

Well I am not keeping the good Creationists under my bed that is for sure  ...I will have to invite you to our Church down in Brighton next time Ken Ham puts in an appearance...

I don't count Ken Ham as a "good" creationist I'm afraid, although I'm more than happy for you to bring up things he's said so that I can do specific expose's.

[nebula]

because a Christian is meant to have come into a direct personal relationship with the Living G-d

Does that mean you're sure of it being true, or is this just another type of evidence? If it is simply a type of evidence, some sort of personal experience, then surely it is not immune (as no evidence is) to other contraindicating evidence against it?

Are you sure you're not using this sort of vague evidence as a proxy or smoke-screen for putting too much trust in your belief, where the evidence does not merit it? Being deliberately vague and using words like "relationship" often indicates to me that someone is trying to avoid categorising the reason they believe as a type of evidence, so that they have some sort of mental justification for ignoring other types of evidence, or even ignoring the idea that their type of evidence (personal experience) may be open to scrutiny or flawed.

I'm sorry, SA, but responses like this are highly offensive to Christians.

Although I can appreciate your position as a debator - responses like this come across as if you are saying we are either lying or delusional.

You cannot believe God is real because you have "no evidence;" therefore, anything anyone else says about having a real experience, a real encounter with the LORD, in your mind is a bogus claim.

It's getting tiring.

And you will not succeed in convincing the majority of Christians with your position with such statements that come across as complete insults like this. I am sure a gracious, patient and intellectual person such as Botz will let it slide. The vast majority, though, will not.

If you want to win the Christians over, you need to show much more respect to our beliefs than and our testimonies than this.

[Old Timer]

Nebula, in response to S.A. you said,

"If you want to win the Christians over, you need to show much more respect to our beliefs than and our testimonies than this."

Win Christians Over? Over to what, pray tell? Over to what you believe about evolution and the book of Genesis? Do you think it would be good if S.A. won Christian over to that?

[Bread_of_Life]

Nebula,

Sorry I offended you, of course this was not my aim. However, I stick by my statement that I do suspect that when people use things like "relationship with God", as if it were some sort of certainty rather than another sort of evidence in the "intangible personal experience" category, especially when they use it as a justification for dismissing the primacy of evidence to belief, it does make me suspicious as to their (subconscious) reasons for doing this.

That doesn't mean that Christians are all liars. They're clearly not. Many Christians really have convinced themselves that their "personal relationship" with God means that they can dismiss or re-interpret other evidence.

I also not saying that all Christians are delusional (although I suppose by the strict meaning of the term, that they are experiencing something whose source is internal but believe that its source is external, many are). Remember, I did not comment on the reliability of this "personal experience" evidence (I can if you like, but I didn't here), I merely commented that it *was* evidence, and not any other thing, and therefore that beliefs based on it were based on evidence, and therefore subject to evidence. My point was purely definitional, I wasn't commenting on the epistemological value of internal experience as evidence of something external.

I also didn't claim that Botz was bogus in his assertion that he believed he had a relationship with God. I'm sure Botz really does believe this. Of course, I believe that he has a relationship with an invention of his subconscious mind, but that is essentially by-the-by in my point. My point isn't that Botz's evidence is wrong, or that my interpretation of the evidence is right, my point is that it is a type of evidence after all.

Also Nebula, how surprised are you really in my beliefs? Given that I am an atheist, there are only two explanations for religious experience. Either those who experience it are all liars (which is very unlikely), or there are a portion of them who really believe in it but are essentially incorrect, their relationship is illusory. This is an obvious conclusion of atheism. I don't see how this can be contraversial or particularly offensive that I should believe in this - especially considering that you probably believe the same of me - that I am either lying about my atheism, or that I am kidding myself as to God's obvious existence. Why should either of us be offended by these conclusions, I am not!

The vast majority, though, will not.

That is unfortunate, but people can always choose not to discuss things with me, or simply ignore what I say. Many already do, and that's fine. I can't force people to talk with me, or read what I say - I can only hope they take what I say as a comment on the fact of the matter, and not a personal commentary on their own characters.

[jenbe]

SA

That would be a good explanation, although I would need to know what you meant by "verified". It's true that a theory has not be proven true for absolute certain, in that case theories are unverified. But in the sense that they have to have evidence for them, and get predictions right, they are verified. So it depends on what you mean by that word!

OK, In the original post, in place of the word "Verified," put the word "Established," then italicize the word "If" and you will soon grasp my meaning.

But if you want just a straight answer to your question... it might come out ahead in the cleverness stakes... but I think it would lag woefully behind in the care factor.

That may well be true Jill. Evolution is a very wasteful, and some would say cruel process. It involves at its heart a lack of resources, death, and a whole lot of trial and error. In fact, it is a process of continual trial and error.

Ah, but you are getting muddled up with your own questions. If you plough your way back, you will realise that you and I were not talking about evolution... but the Lord being the Potter. Therefore cleverness versus care does not allude to evolution, but to the Creator.

Jill

[jenbe]

SA,

Would you please tell me, why the Phylogenetic Tree was replaced with the Cladogram.

I know what I have read, which is , the replacement took place because Scientists realised there were unbridgeable gaps in the Fossil record, ie.....Fossils used to be placed in a line of supposed sequential evolution using the Phylogenetic tree, but is now presented in Cladogram charts as relationship to each other.

If this is anything like your understanding of it, then how do the Cladogram charts fit in with Darwins theory of Natural selection, because surely acceptance of the Cladogram, implies rejection of Darwins theory.

Going back to the Phylogenetic tree, could you also explain how evolution brought about the first living cells.....other than billions of years ...atomic collisions.. etc.

I know that Proteins and Nucleic Acid could have evolved first....but where is the proof that they could have evolved from Non life?

I would appreciate it if you would not blind me with Science, but reply in simple laymens terms that I can get my head around.....

Jill

[Bread_of_Life]

horizoneast

This is the problem with quoting out of context, you end up with out of context quotes

If you want to discuss transitional forms, or the fossil record, or the cambrian explosion, then do start a topic on them and we can discuss them in depth. However, I'm not going to respond to a selection of carefully cut quotes which misrepresent famous people's views on the subjects at hand, however tempting that might be.

[Bread_of_Life]

Jenbe

Would you please tell me, why the Phylogenetic Tree was replaced with the Cladogram.

Sorry, you've lost me slightly. A phylogenetic tree *is a type* of Cladogram, it's just one in which the length of lines represents the hypothesised timescale, whereas an ordinary cladogram does not represent time on any axis, but merely shows relationship without timescale.

If this is anything like your understanding of it, then how do the Cladogram charts fit in with Darwins theory of Natural selection, because surely acceptance of the Cladogram, implies rejection of Darwins theory.

Sorry, Cladograms are charts that show the evolutionary relationship between organisms, how could they possible therefore imply a rejection of evolution?

Going back to the Phylogenetic tree, could you also explain how evolution brought about the first living cells.....other than billions of years ...atomic collisions.. etc.

This has less to do with evolution, and more to do with abiogenesis. Evolution is as darwin termed it, a theory to do with the origin of species, not the origin or life itself. Therefore it would be very difficult to represent or link abiogenesis back to a phylogenetic tree, because any type of cladogram, including a phylogenetic one, must involve speciation.

There is also an assumption made here that cells were the first living things. Of course, it depends on how you define life, but it is almost certain that cells were not the first things to evolve, and therefore not the first things to self-replicate.

Also, cells definetely did not come together through random collisions of molecules, even simple prokaryotic cells are too complex to be explained through random collision of atoms and molecules.

I know that Proteins and Nucleic Acid could have evolved first....but where is the proof that they could have evolved from Non life?

Well, it's almost certain that nucleic acids of some sort did evolve prior to cells, and once again it's probable that these were not the first things to evolve.

However, unfortunately, this part of science is mostly hypothetical. There are several hypotheses that give options as to how replicating entities may have come about by themselves, but it is not possible to test which of these really happened, if any.

In some cases, it is possible to test the viability of these hypotheses, whether they could have happened or not, but without going back in time, it is hard to think how any of them could ever be verifed as the right one. It is also possible that they are all false, that it is something we havn't thought of, or even, if you're a theist, that God was involved in the process of starting off life, although this is more a theological question.

However, as I have said, none of this has to do with the theory of evolution, which is about change and speciation in life once it exists, not how life came into existence in the first place. Unfortunately, also, I'm no expert on abiogenesis, I have never actually studied much on this, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask for details. Sorry!

I would appreciate it if you would not blind me with Science, but reply in simple laymens terms that I can get my head around.....

Well, I've certainly tried - although I must say that "cladogram" and "phylogenetic" are not in of themselves layman's terms!!!

[Botz]

Botz what this shows me is that they may well regurgitate some things that have been debunked or are 'old hat' or proven to be misquotes...but there are many other points they can make to back up their claims and they do not just rely on one aspect to make a point...

Does it make you wonder how accurate or well researched their "other points" are? After all, since you are no expert in science, you have to make a judgement call on these people based on how much you trust them, how careful and credible you think they are.

Also, doesn't it worry you that, rather than presenting the fossil evidence directly, many use the argument from authority, by mentioning D. Raup? It sure as heck worries me!

What I hope is that you will be absolutely sure in the future to look up quotes you hear, especially if they sound too good to be true - and also to look up any "facts" or "evidences" you hear from creationists, on the same basis. Also, if you don't know where to look, you now have someone to ask!

Yes SA Everything we have discussed at least makes me realize that some of the supposed evidence that comes from the Creationist Camp is not necessarily as water-tight as I might have first supposed. Thanks for being there for me when I need a solid Evolutionary view.

In one of the sites I looked at ....what was most revealing was when an evolutionist in California was trying to get the school board to teach the theory of evolution alongside the theory of creation...but was shot down by his own side because they were so strongly against any hint of Creationism.

Yes, there are even misguided evolutionists. I didn't notice this site in my search though, which was remiss of me, could you link me in?

Sorry I should have marked the site but I didn't...I have just spent ages trying to get it but with no joy...in future i will be careful to have them available when I quote...and if I find it I will post it for you anyways.

because a Christian is meant to have come into a direct personal relationship with the Living G-d

Does that mean you're sure of it being true, or is this just another type of evidence? If it is simply a type of evidence, some sort of personal experience, then surely it is not immune (as no evidence is) to other contraindicating evidence against it?

Are you sure you're not using this sort of vague evidence as a proxy or smoke-screen for putting too much trust in your belief, where the evidence does not merit it? Being deliberately vague and using words like "relationship" often indicates to me that someone is trying to avoid categorising the reason they believe as a type of evidence, so that they have some sort of mental justification for ignoring other types of evidence, or even ignoring the idea that their type of evidence (personal experience) may be open to scrutiny or flawed.

What I was saying is that a Christian is utterly convinced of the existence of G-d and also of the veracity of the Bible...therefore he works from a basis of knowing...whereas an Evolutionist works from a basis of not knowing and stumbles in the dark to a much greater degree than a Christian when it comes to trying to discover the workings of the Universe.

No this was in no way meant as some sort of smoke-screen...just me being frank with you...even if you suspect my 'relationship with G-d' is an experience of my own 'sub-conscious'...actually I think I used to say virtually the same thing myself to Christians before I believed. I took no offence and the benefit was that Nebula said some uplifting things about me so thanks to both of you.

I don't count Ken Ham as a "good" creationist I'm afraid, although I'm more than happy for you to bring up things he's said so that I can do specific expose's.

Thanks I will take you up on that if and when I need to...by the way what do you find wrong with old Kenny and his teaching in a nutshell? I believe he gets about 15,000 hits a day on his website...and is usually very succinct and entertaining...and most of the time I understand what he is on about.

[jenbe]

SA

Sorry, you've lost me slightly. A phylogenetic tree *is a type* of Cladogram, it's just one in which the length of lines represents the hypothesised timescale, whereas an ordinary cladogram does not represent time on any axis, but merely shows relationship without timescale.

Sorry I didn't make myself clearer. You still haven't answered the question I wanted an answer to, so I will write it out in greater depth and in the process hopefully make myself clearer.

My understanding from what I have read is as follows.......

The Phylogenetic Tree is meant to show visually how simple life evolved, ( according to Darwins theory of natural selection) into the plants, animals and humans we have today.

So, for instance the variations we see today in horses could add up over time, allowing some of these horses to change to the point that they are no longer horses.

The Cladogram is a sidestep from this. Because Scientists realised there were unbridgable gaps in the fossil record,the idea of gradual transition from one species to another had to be reconsidered.....So.......Where as fossils were placed in a line of supposed sequential evolution, using the Phylogenetic Tree,they are now presented as Cladogram charts, as relationship to each other.

Is this correct?

Sorry, Cladograms are charts that show the evolutionary relationship between organisms, how could they possible therefore imply a rejection of evolution?

Again my understanding is as follows.....

Acceptance of Cladogram charts implies rejection of Darwins theoryof natural selection, because they do not show gradual change as an evolutionary mechanism.

Is this correct in your opinion?

However, unfortunately, this part of science is mostly hypothetical. There are several hypotheses that give options as to how replicating entities may have come about by themselves, but it is not possible to test which of these really happened, if any.

It is so encouraging to know that even the Scientists themselves have to admit that there are parts of their theory that are largely hypothetical... Of course they could always try asking a Creationist... they will soon give them the correct answer!

Well, I've certainly tried - although I must say that "cladogram" and "phylogenetic" are not in of themselves layman's terms!!

You are absolutely spot on....Cladogram and Phylogenetic are not of themselves layman's terms......but they are the correct names and as such I used them.

There is a big difference between using the correct name for something , and a convoluted explanation...so I would ask again, that you please keep your reply to a level that matches my understanding.

Jill