Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Terry wrote:

Evolution explains the entire fossil record and predicts the kinds we might find in any given layer of rock.

It predicts that there should be millions of transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion. But they aren't there.

The absence of living transitional forms is also a huge problem. If evolution is occurring today, then transitionals should be the overwhelming majority of species. But they aren't there either.

Terry wrote:

The Bible fails to explain why God created animals, killed them off, created slightly different models, killed them off, tried a new design, killed them off, and kept revising his creation over and over and over until he came up with the present assortment - but still isn't happy with the virulence of pathogens and has to keep changing them to create even more suffering on earth.

Could the reason that the 'Bible fails to explain' this be that it didn't happen that way?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Terry wrote:
Evolution explains the entire fossil record and predicts the kinds we might find in any given layer of rock.

It predicts that there should be millions of transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion.

Unless the precambrian biosphere was composed in large part of soft bodied creatures which didn't fossilize well. Which they probably were. Too bad RL, there goes that little objection.

real life wrote:

The absence of living transitional forms is also a huge problem.

There is no absence of living transitional forms. Everything that lives is a transitional form. Just because the future doesn't exist yet doesn't mean evolution has stopped.

real life wrote:

If evolution is occurring today, then transitionals should be the overwhelming majority of species. But they aren't there either.

Not only do we expect that existing forms will continue to evolve, making them transitional, but we also expect that each new form will tend to out-compete it's progenitor. And this is exactly what the fossil record shows in a vast majority of cases.

Evolution continues to not only match the world we see around us, but make useful predictions, revealing more and more about how biology works.

What does creationism teach us about biology? Can it help us grow more crops for an expanding population? Can it explain pesticide resistance in insects? Can it help us in medicine to understand antibiotic resistance in staph infections?

What does creationism teach us?

0 Replies

This may be posted elsewhere, but it's great reading in any case.

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html

Quote:

THE GUARDIAN
January 1, 2008

Second thoughts on life, the universe and everything by world's best brains

The changes of mind that gave philosophers and scientists new insights

James Randerson, science correspondent

They are the intellectual elite, the brains the rest of us rely on to make sense of the universe and answer the big questions. But in a refreshing show of new year humility, the world's best thinkers have admitted that from time to time even they are forced to change their minds.

When tackling subjects as diverse as human evolution, the laws of physics and sexual politics, scientists and philosophers, including Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Paul Davies and Richard Wrangham, all confessed yesterday to a change of heart.

The display of scientific modesty was brought about by the annual new year's question posed by the website edge.org, which drew responses from more than 120 of the world's greatest thinkers.

Edge's publisher, John Brockman, asked the intellectual cream what they had changed their mind about and why. "Science is based on evidence. What happens when the data change? How have scientific findings or arguments changed your mind?" said the brief.

A common theme in the responses is that what distinguishes science from other forms of knowledge and from faith is that new ideas can rapidly overturn old ones as new evidence emerges. So there's nothing to be ashamed about in admitting an intellectual switch. Some responses, such as Dennett's change of heart on how the mind works, resist paraphrasing in 100 words, but here is a selection of the rest.

I've been browsing through the responses for a couple of hours already.

Fascinating stuff.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

baddog1, while you are listing all of the scientific findings in the Bible let's not forget this one.

Angular momentum

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

To which, in response:

baddog1 wrote:

mesquite wrote:
baddog1, while you are listing all of the scientific findings in the Bible let's not forget this one.

Angular momentum

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Thanks mesquite - you're correct. BTW: Joshua 10:13 is a favorite of mine.

Not intending to jack the thread, but if you enjoy the passage as well, you might enjoy this read:

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/index.html

Isn't it great - the enormous amount of goals that God's word has provided and will continue to provide for science? :wink:

That one zipped right over his pointy little head, Mesquite . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

mesquite wrote:
baddog1, while you are listing all of the scientific findings in the Bible let's not forget this one.

Angular momentum

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

To which, in response:

baddog1 wrote:
mesquite wrote:
baddog1, while you are listing all of the scientific findings in the Bible let's not forget this one.

Angular momentum

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Thanks mesquite - you're correct. BTW: Joshua 10:13 is a favorite of mine.

Not intending to jack the thread, but if you enjoy the passage as well, you might enjoy this read:

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/index.html

Isn't it great - the enormous amount of goals that God's word has provided and will continue to provide for science? :wink:

That one zipped right over his pointy little head, Mesquite . . .

How's that?

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

Terry wrote:
Evolution explains the entire fossil record and predicts the kinds we might find in any given layer of rock.

It predicts that there should be millions of transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion. But they aren't there.

The absence of living transitional forms is also a huge problem. If evolution is occurring today, then transitionals should be the overwhelming majority of species. But they aren't there either

Yawn, RL's getting quite boring in his mantra. "No transitional fossils exist, No Transitional fossils exist". I guess were just going to have to ignore all these transitional fossils that do exist.
Meanwhile, back in the Creation Labs we have ((((absolutely nothing)))) going on. I wonder why. In the time that has elapsed since RL has joined in these discussions, the ICST (Int Commission on STratigraphy Timescale) has , in 2004, redefined the "Cambrian Explosion and has created an entirely new Sub Cambrian Era called the Ediacaran. It was created simply to recognize that in the 88 my prior to the base of the Cambrian, Ediacaran life had been moving right along with about 50% of the subsequent phyla having been developed. Prior to that , in the 3 lower levels of the Proterozoic that extend all the way back to just beyond 2.5 BY, Bp, wherein life was seen to exist and develop just like Darwin predicted.
Transitional fossils, weve gotem, youre just too afraid to modify your worldview to accomodate same.
Any new conflicting finding in evolutionary theory is not serious to the theory. It just brings out the organizers who will modify the theory to fit the new data. Any new findings, to the Creationists, is devastating to their "belief first" system. Hence RL's constant denial of transitional fossils is not really surprising. Its quite in character. Too bad its hopelessly bankrupt.
For those who wish to get some free downloadable data on earth time and the position of the Ediacaran (EE -DEE-AK'-ER-ANN) visit this web site. beautiful colorsGEOLOGIC TIME SCALE

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

If evolution is occurring today, then transitionals should be the overwhelming majority of species. But they aren't there either

Maybe its just my nonsense of humor but I found this statement really funny. One cant really call any species "transitional" except in retrospect. If I were RL, Id have thought more about that statement before saying it out loud

0 Replies

my new years resolution is that I am going to ignore rl completely from now on, since that is precicely what he does with anything that doesn't fit in his strange model of reality. He is contemptuous of others in that he ignores the objections to his ramblings that people put time and effort into posting, and when that fails he resorts to attempts at ridicule which only backfire against him, even though he thinks he's being real clever.
If you've not figured this out, you will. It's only a matter of time.

So I've stopped wasting my efforts. Maybe it's evolution... :wink:

(Btw, I realize that this post could be said to be offensive to the one it talks about and could merit moderation. That would be so if not for the fact that everything it says is true.)

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
mesquite wrote:
baddog1, while you are listing all of the scientific findings in the Bible let's not forget this one.

Angular momentum

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

To which, in response:

baddog1 wrote:
mesquite wrote:
baddog1, while you are listing all of the scientific findings in the Bible let's not forget this one.

Angular momentum

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Thanks mesquite - you're correct. BTW: Joshua 10:13 is a favorite of mine.

Not intending to jack the thread, but if you enjoy the passage as well, you might enjoy this read:

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/index.html

Isn't it great - the enormous amount of goals that God's word has provided and will continue to provide for science? :wink:

That one zipped right over his pointy little head, Mesquite . . .

How's that?

Your linked drivel, as one example of what they and you don't get, speaks of the seas sloshing over onto land. The potential energy of arrested angular momentum would release so much energy if the rotation of the earth were suddenly stopped that the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers would boil away, not simply slosh around. In fact, any action which reduced to rotation of the earth upon its axis even within as "long" a time as a few days would have similarly diasterous results. Your linked source attempts to dance around this, but the facts of physics are unavoidable for such a circumstance--and that is what went right over your head, and the heads of whoever wrote that drivel at your linked site.

The result of the release of the potential energy of angular momentum if the earth's rotation were to be suddenly and completely arrested would be that any object not firmly attached to the surface, including not simply humans, animals and bodies of water, but all surface soils, scree, rock slides, moraines, trees, grasses, etc., would be thrown off the surface at a velocity of thousands of miles per hour. In fact, as already noted, the release of potential energy would be so large that almost all combustible materials would burst into flame, and bodies of water would boil.

Reducing the effect of the release of potential energy from angular momentum by stipulating a slowing down over a period of even several days would only reduce the velocity at which objects were thrown from the surface. Joshuah and his bloodthirsty Jewish murderers, as well as their opponents, would all have been thrown off the surface, and if they didn't actually burst into flame themselves, their clothing likely would, and any metal objects of soft metal such as copper or bronze would likely melt on the spot. Your boys at the linked web site can dance to their heart's content--they are peddling bullshit in an effort to explain away (unsuccessfully) the inevitable results of the release of the potential energy, or they are so ignorant, that they aren't even aware of the probable results of either a sudden stop of the earth's rotation, or even a slowing which occurred as rapidly as within a few days time.

In fact, in reading that linked page, i saw no evidence that they addressed the subject of angular momentum at all.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your linked drivel, as one example of what they and you don't get, speaks of the seas sloshing over onto land. The potential energy of arrested angular momentum would release so much energy if the rotation of the earth were suddenly stopped that the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers would boil away, not simply slosh around. In fact, any action which reduced to rotation of the earth upon its axis even within as "long" a time as a few days would have similarly diasterous results. Your linked source attempts to dance around this, but the facts of physics are unavoidable for such a circumstance--and that is what went right over your head, and the heads of whoever wrote that drivel at your linked site.

The result of the release of the potential energy of angular momentum if the earth's rotation were to be suddenly and completely arrested would be that any object not firmly attached to the surface, including not simply humans, animals and bodies of water, but all surface soils, scree, rock slides, moraines, trees, grasses, etc., would be thrown off the surface at a velocity of thousands of miles per hour. In fact, as already noted, the release of potential energy would be so large that almost all combustible materials would burst into flame, and bodies of water would boil.

Reducing the effect of the release of potential energy from angular momentum by stipulating a slowing down over a period of even several days would only reduce the velocity at which objects were thrown from the surface. Joshuah and his bloodthirsty Jewish murderers, as well as their opponents, would all have been thrown off the surface, and if they didn't actually burst into flame themselves, their clothing likely would, and any metal objects of soft metal such as copper or bronze would likely melt on the spot. Your boys at the linked web site can dance to their heart's content--they are peddling bullshit in an effort to explain away (unsuccessfully) the inevitable results of the release of the potential energy, or they are so ignorant, that they aren't even aware of the probable results of either a sudden stop of the earth's rotation, or even a slowing which occurred as rapidly as within a few days time.

In fact, in reading that linked page, i saw no evidence that they addressed the subject of angular momentum at all.

Speaking of drivel - this post outdoes all of your previous piles of. Drunk

There are more "would's" in this stack than a Hillary speech - and about as much evidence.

And as per your usual - not a source one.

0 Replies

Your troglodytic political opinions, and the insults which you derive from them have no place here. The word "would" occurs on so many occasions because it is a conditional--the condition referred to is either the abrupt cessation of the earth's rotation, or the "slowing" of earth's rotation in a matter of days. That you haven't sufficient command of the English language to understand the necessity for the use of the conditional is not a valid argument against what i have written.

However, since you seem to want to educate yourself (yeah, right--since you're obviously very slow on the uptake, that was sarcasm), here is a page from Voyages: Debunking Pseudoscience which lists the major debunkers of Immanuel Velikovsky. Sadly for you, you would actually have to find these book titles, and actually read the books. If, however, you do, you'll find very detailed descriptions of the effects of the potential energy of angular momentum if the rotation of the earth were arrested, and then started back up again. These sources are important in this context because these are not a group of atheists ridiculing the bible, they are scientists who are debunking the catastrophism of Velikovsky.

However, while you're slinging snotty remarks around, why don't you tell us just what scientific credentials you allege are possessed by the cretins who created the web site you linked?

What a maroon.

0 Replies

I do not always agree with setanta's views and opinions.
But I've come to realize that when he provides information he usually knows what he's talking about.

baddog
your incomprehension is your own.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

baddog
your incomprehension is your own.

Bingo . . .

What is sadder here is that BD apparently believes that because he can find this drivel online, he has established a reliable source, and that simply linking such nonsense constitutes providing evidence, which can be relied upon unless and until it is refuted. For my part, although i am not obliged to refute anything that someone contends if they haven't provided proof, i avoid linking sites with an obvious atheist agenda, and a penchant for ridiculing scripture. I don't accept the drivel of religionist web sites, and i don't intend to offer diatribes from atheist web sites in rebuttal.

0 Replies

very understandable.

0 Replies

As a old mate of mine used to say " well! that's that then " Very Happy

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Terry wrote:
Evolution explains the entire fossil record and predicts the kinds we might find in any given layer of rock.

It predicts that there should be millions of transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion.

Unless the precambrian biosphere was composed in large part of soft bodied creatures which didn't fossilize well. Which they probably were. Too bad RL, there goes that little objection.

Uh, ros.................

..............transitional means 'in-between'.

What was 'in-between the soft bodied critters that 'didn't fossilize well' and the Cambrian creatures that appear fully formed and functional with different body plans including lots of hard parts.

Did the hard parts just 'show up' one day?

Didn't they 'evolve' gradually over llllllllllllllllllllooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggg ages and mmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyy generations?

That's the transitional fossils we're talking about. And all we can do is talk because we can't look at them since they are not there.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
The absence of living transitional forms is also a huge problem.

There is no absence of living transitional forms. Everything that lives is a transitional form. Just because the future doesn't exist yet doesn't mean evolution has stopped.

I seem to remember a thread that you started looking for living transitionals, and the pickins were mighty slim.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2779989#2779989

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

Did the hard parts just 'show up' one day?

Didn't they 'evolve' gradually over llllllllllllllllllllooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggg ages and mmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyy generations?

The chemistry of the environment has a lot to do with the evolution of "hard parts". ANyway, why does a mollusc with a shell not owe its derived body structure to its EDacaran ancestor?. RL, your ignorance (Ill assume its purposely displayed because nobody can be that dense after all the "assistance")is astounding.

Hard parts, in your parlance , seem to equate advanced. Since the entire fossil record(if ya stand back and look at it objectively) displays gradual increases in diversity and complexity (AS one would expect were DArwin correct).

Your argument has consistently been something like'The fossil record is skewed in that more advanced animals (which RL is certain were created at the same time as everything else), never left fossils until some time in the distant future when it was their time to leave fossils" I personally find that funny and , although frightfully misinformed, it has almost a quality that could make a good mythology about a capricious god who endows you with a brain, and then consistently tries to throw you off the hunt.

If you wish to believe that there are no transitional fossils anywhere
is a quaint notion and shows that you are a "soldier" of your cause. Admirable I suppose ,were your point actually true. However, when you have to rely upon mischaracterization and untruths as you do, it doesnt make your overall belief system look like its having any impact on you. SHouldnt truth be a prerequisite for a Christian life?

PS, your post of ros's' old thread shows how you prefer to twist information rather than discuss it from an honest position. Ros's entire thread was based upon a question that asked whether any founder species remain with their taxonomic descendants, it had nothing to do with transitional fossils. Ros wouldnt ask such a dumb question.

0 Replies

The base of the CAmbrian has always been a "lithostratigraphic" horizon. Its been defined as tha base of the time series where creatures with "hard parts" first appear. Its not an arbitrary point where complex life suddenly began. The International STratigraphic Commission, because of recent finds in Australia, Canada, Greenland And South America. In 2004,The Commission has tried to reconcile the fact that, for almost 80 million years prior to the Cambrian Base, life was evolving nicely and was becoming complex. Many phyla, originally thought to be found only at the base of the CAmbrian, are now known to exist as precursor ancestral forms included within this geologic interval. Theyve even created anew System period of the "Proterozoic" and named it the Ediacaran. The Ediacaran stretches from (approximately) 630 to 542 my BP (542 mya is when normal chronistratigraphy, magnetic resonance, and Polarity data converge on a point that corresponds to the part of the stratigraphic record wherein "hard parts" make their introduction.

However molluscans, (precursors to) brachiopods, pre- chordates, (precursors to) arthropods except without shells, annelids, and bryozoans can all be argued to have first appeared in the Ediacaran . WHile none of the Ediacaran fauna made it through the Cambrian base un-modified, recent detailed fossils clearly show their relationship (as transitionals) to their descendant phyla.

However, in all that time of Ediacaran assemblages, we dont see any evidence of one mammoth, mosquito, or moose. (I suspect these were hiding among the trees that also didnt leave fossils at that time) Your god is one sneaky dude. Hes got the rest of us fooled to work with all these tools that weve discovered, yet only you know that theyre false.
You do realize how ridiculously naive your position sounds dont you?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Mornin' Farmer;

I'm a little taken aback by the claim that "NONE of the existing data refutes."

Did I miss something?

Of course, I have not had MY coffee yet. . .

Setanta wrote:

Maybe you do need some coffee--that's the principle of falsifiability. If any portion of a theory can be shown to be false, based on the data, then the theory must either be revised to account for all the data, or discarded. A theory is only viable so long as none of the data refute the statement(s) which constitute the theory.

It took me a while to find this. I guess I should have turned on email updates.

What I was asking about has to do with existing data having to do with the theory of evolution.

So evolutionary scientists are claiming that "NONE of the existing data refutes." the hypothesis of evolution?

I have taken note of the corresponding asseverations vis a vis the story of creation.

0 Replies

neo

Quote:

So evolutionary scientists are claiming that "NONE of the existing data refutes." the hypothesis of evolution?

NONE of the existing data /evidence refutes the THEORY of evolution by nat selection. Almost Every piece of evidence refutes Creationism, and hardly ant even comes close to supporting it.

0 Replies

Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know