Bread_of_Life Posted May 30, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Old Timer Nebula, observable evidence and speculation (theory) regarding that evidence are two different things. From this description of what you think a "theory" is, one would imagine that just about anything that scientists can write down on the back of a packet of cigarettes suddenly counts as a new theory because they wrote it. Actually, this is not the case, a hypothesis regarding evidence must meet very stringent criteria to become a theory. It must: a) Explain the available evidence. b) Be open to falsification c) Make testable predictions and retrodictions d) Have made at least one prediction that has been proven true. In the case of evolution, it has made a great many predictions that have proven true, and it is in fact the only explanation we have yet come up with for much of the evidence (in other words, not only does it explain the evidence, it is as yet the only thing we can think of that possibly *could* explain the evidence!!!) So evolution isn't some sort of speculation that scientists brand truth. Rather, it is a scientific theory that has a huge ammount of evidence behind it, and keeps on making predictions that are proven right. Evolution will not do that because, in this case, there are only two suspects; evolution or creation. Firstly, this is factually incorrect, evolution has changed several times, often quite radically, because of new evidence. Secondly, creation isn't a scientific alternative in the abstract, because it fails to make testable predictions and explain the available evidence. Thirdly, biblical creationism, which does make concrete predictions about the state of the evidence, is not an alternative because it has been disproven. What all this means is that, if evolution were disproven, we would simply be left without an explanation of origins, there would be a vacuum of scientific explanation. Of course, many theologians would then argue that this meant we would have to look in other places than science for an explanation, such as in theology. I would argue back that, if we always labelled our ignorance "God", we wouldn't have gotten very far, would we? Evolution teaches that we (man) are on the way up. We are evolving to better and better things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobTriez Posted May 30, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 84 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,478 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/23/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1972 Share Posted May 30, 2004 "People are much more susceptible to the big lie than to the small one, for they already tell little lies every day. They cannot imagine that someone would actually fabricate a colossal lie." - Adolph Hitler And how about this one ? If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, after a while it may become believable in the minds of those to whom the propaganda is directed Guess who this one is by.....yep; the same as the first. There's no proof of evolution, and in fact there is proof of the opposite. SA, go get two books - "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel and "The Signature Of God" by Grant R. Jeffrey. Both very good...if you are as objective as you claim to be, you'll check them out ( my guess is you won't - so prove me wrong ) Blessings, Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGR Posted May 30, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 512 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 8,601 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/16/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1973 Share Posted May 30, 2004 ...evolution has changed several times, often quite radically, because of new evidence. However, God hasn't changed. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Why does a "perfect" theory such as evolution have to change? It just goes to show that in time, scientists might disprove it! (although God has done a great job of that!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 30, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 30, 2004 http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.p...opic=8919&st=15 Original discussion on coaelacanth is here. I'm actually not sure what Nebula's point was to be honest. In any case, I think she stopped debating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 31, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2004 That'd be ridiculous, since we find about 250 million years worth of trilobite fossils. Fossilisation happens when an animal dies in the right place, with the right set of conditions to become fossilised. Like conditions during a flood. It is quickly covered by sediment and dies before it has the chance to rot or be eaten by scavengers. These are very specialised conditions, and they don't occur often, not often at all. I agree. Therefore, if we find a lot of fossils of a particular creature, it doesn't mean that there were very few around (an extinction) but quite the opposite - that they were thriving - because fossilisation is so rare that you need great numbers of creatures to live and die to get one lucky enough to be fossilised. Agreed. So, then, you may be wondering - how do scientists find out about extinctions in the fossil record? Well, lets take trilobites as an example. There are fossils of trilobites from the lower Cambrian (543 mya) to the upper Permian (248 mya). Then, at the end of the permian, suddenly, there were no more trilobite fossils. Anywhere. Ever. In fact, about 96% of all fossils found before the 248 million years ago simply and suddenly disappear after. They're never found again. Why? Because at the end permian, there was the greatest extinction of all recorded time in the fossil record. Animals that were thriving and leaving many fossils suddenly stop leaving fossils at all. They're wiped out, never ever to return to leave a fossil again. That's how we find out about extinctions in the fossil record, and indeed, it's happened several times (the most famous of which is the K-T extinction that killed off the dinosaurs, as well as many other creatures). But above you say the chance of fossilization doesn't happen often. I agree. The conditions have to be pretty specialized, as you say. Therefore, just because you don't find trilobite fossils, doesn't mean they stopped living. Maybe they lived through these 'eras' and were never fossilized. Possibly much like the coealacanth. Coealacanth is special in one way - in that it differs very little from it's fossil antecendants - that is, it's evolution has been in a long period of stasis (it hasn't evolved much, for whatever reason). I can think of a few but because they don't fit with your beleif system, you will dismiss them. However, as we can see above, no scientist claims that because we find fossils it means that a species has died out - therefore the fact that we find fossil coealacanths is no problem for evolutionary science - it just means that there was a thriving population back in those days too! Could be the same situation with many creatures they believed to be extinct way back when. Fossils are only a clue - nothing more. Too many assumptions made. They're simply making educated guesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 31, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2004 The coealacanth is only one species. Among the scientific community it was a suprise and a wonder. But it is absolutely no threat whatsoever to any argument or proposition that "evolutinists" have stated. Hey, flukes happen! Can you provide evidence that this discredits the fossil record interpretation and was not a fluke? There are 'flukes' or anomalies of many kinds. Of course, there will never be anything that scientists admit discredits evolution! If this ever happened and scientists all agreed that evolution was wrong, what alternative would there be? God created the earth? You think that's going to happen? So, please tell me again then how this argument discredits "evolutionary theory" or disrupts the interpretation of the fossil record? I am thinking our trains of thought on the fossil record are not on the same track. I am thinking that I asked you, after this much time, what 'stupid' theories have we put forth that were quickly squashed? In any case, it shows that scientist are making educated guesses and certainly proof can show these theories to be wrong. Scientists have been proven wrong through evidence. The coealacanth didn't die out millions of years ago. Many of the hominids have been thrown out. One was a pig's tooth? Just because there is 'evidence' today, doesn't mean that new evidence found tomorrow will prove today's theories wrong. In fact, this does happen all the time, so they get out and rewrite their theories once again. They don't all agree on these theories either because the evidence is subject to intrepretation and philosophies. No, I used to be a hard core, six-day literalist. My views took a transformation through my science and Biblical history classes. Sounds like you've pretty much made up your mind that evolution happened. If I didn't believe Christians were making themselves look like idiots in front of the scientific community, I wouldn't even bother with this. You seem to keep neglecting the fact that creation scientist are SCIENTISTS. They are a threat to evolutionists and that is why they will not debate them publicly. Ask SA why he won't debate them publicly. The problem is I have seen how much they see Creationists' arguments totally misrepresent what they are saying, but instead providing arguments based on emotionalism and relying on this concept of "faith" which means absolutely nothing to them, and totally disregarding points of evidence which they propose - as I have seen many of SA's points of evidence having been disregarded (as I have seen him point out on several occasions). Start reading the technical articles at AIG. As long as we don't need a few years to study what SA is talking about, we're quite willing to discuss what he says. This is why I question interpreting Gen. 1 as if it were a science textbook account of Creation. Nothing fits and we make ourselves look like idiots. Nobody said Genesis is a science textbook. Most Christians maintain that it is truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 31, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2004 SA: I think you're purposely avoiding the question again. I think you know exactly what I am looking for but you are purposely generalizing. Okay, we're all related and are one big happy family. All evolutionists can agree on that and there is a lot of proof for that, so you say. Now, can you name a single 'family tree' or evolutionary lineage that all evolutionists agree on? Please, be specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Timer Posted May 31, 2004 Group: Soapbox - Members Followers: 2 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 962 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 52 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/11/1932 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Nebula, if you are truly interested in reconciling you faith in Science and in Religion may I suggest you read this interview of Dr. Gary Parker. He has several science degrees, admission to Phi Beta Kappa, written several scientific books and taught biology at the college level. Dr. Gary Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts