Evolution? How?

El-Diablo wrote:

Quote:

How DARE I.... question ANYTHING.......EVER !! Especially if you say it ! Eeek!

Just because I doubt the validity of claiming that a group of people who have SURVIVED a flood would make up a story about themselves NOT SURVIVING a flood, yep I'm a baaaaaaaad guy.

You've dumbed the word down. He didnt say "question" he said "ridicule". The difference being when you ridicule something you really don't care if there's an answer or if it's given you will continue believing what you want.

Your assumption seems to be if someone gives me an answer that they believe to be correct, then that should end all further discussion, inquiry, thought, dissent or curiosity. Sorry I kinda outgrew that type of passivity in about the 3rd grade.

Think of all the scientists who would never have done their work if they had stopped and passively accepted, "Scientists agree that........"

real life wrote:

El-Diablo wrote:

Quote:

How DARE I.... question ANYTHING.......EVER !! Especially if you say it ! Eeek!

Just because I doubt the validity of claiming that a group of people who have SURVIVED a flood would make up a story about themselves NOT SURVIVING a flood, yep I'm a baaaaaaaad guy.

You've dumbed the word down. He didnt say "question" he said "ridicule". The difference being when you ridicule something you really don't care if there's an answer or if it's given you will continue believing what you want.

Your assumption seems to be if someone gives me an answer that they believe to be correct, then that should end all further discussion, inquiry, thought, dissent or curiosity. Sorry I kinda outgrew that type of passivity in about the 3rd grade.

No, no, that's not the point. The point is, that you have been given an answer that is far more scientifically valid than a world-wide flood, therefore that particular answer is more true than the world-wide flood.

Quote:

Think of all the scientists who would never have done their work if they had stopped and passively accepted, "Scientists agree that........"

Yes, but most of these scientists do their work when there is enough doubt to warrant trying something different and thinking down a different route. There isn't enough doubt with plate tectonics and geology to warrant trying to find a different theory.

The most doubt is within the biological aspects, and even then, it's more of a "do mutations accumulate, are suppressed and only expressed when a disaster forces them to evolve" or a "do they mutate and evolve slowly over time" question?

You're attacking the part of evolution where there is the least number of models.

In the biological side, we have a few models.

1. "Mutations accumulate over time, but are suppressed. They are only expressed when a disaster forces the organisms to adapt".
2. "Mutations occur over time, selected for natural selection over time, causing gradual evolution over time."

You may say, "Ah ha! This uncertainty over how it works proves that evolution is incorrect." However, I can counterargue that we don't know how gravity works correctly and there is some doubt over how it works. Does that mean gravity does not exist?

C'mon Wolf. You can do better than that.

Gravity is an observable phenomenon.

The comparison doesn't hold water at all.

Geologists want to postulate that massive sedimentary structures were laid down a little at a time, over long periods of time. In some cases this may be true or it may not.

To argue that it must always be true and that anyone who dares disagree is (fill in the blank) simply shows the tenacity of the proponent, but in no way strengthens his argument.

The argument is basically a circular one. "All scientists agree that X is true. X must be true because all scientists agree that it is so. "

I simply point out to you that your continued effort to support a contention that the bible is literal, revealed truth is beggared in so many ways. The Sphinx article was just by way of pointing out that there are many challenges to the traditional biblical dating such as was the basis of Ussher's exegesis. I note you sidestep entirely the very sound refutation found in the Catal Huyuk and Jericho sites. I know damn well you meant written history, and was at some pains to point out that there are sound archaeological bases for ignoring that petty criticism.

We've had all the rain we'll need for some time to come in the Ohio valley--and no more of your revealed truth smoke and mirrors is needed either. It is just pathetic to see someone intelligent try so hard not to see truths which contradict "revealed truth." Shame on you.

real life wrote:

C'mon Wolf. You can do better than that.

Gravity is an observable phenomenon.

The comparison doesn't hold water at all.

Evolution is also observable, but currently because of the shortage of our life, it is only observable to the extent of bacteria. However, we can extrapolate data from that to other organisms.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:

C'mon Wolf. You can do better than that.

Gravity is an observable phenomenon.

The comparison doesn't hold water at all.

Evolution is also observable, but currently because of the shortage of our life, it is only observable to the extent of bacteria. However, we can extrapolate data from that to other organisms.

When have bacteria ever been observed to evolve to anything but bacteria?

I accept the bible and believe in God because of overwhelming circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. That there is more than occasional archeological and historical supporting evidence is a plus, but not a deciding factor.

Geologists want to postulate that massive sedimentary structures were laid down a little at a time, over long periods of time. In some cases this may be true or it may not.

There are truths which appear to contradict "revealed truth", but contradict only misrepresentations of the truth. Do you think, as Frank does, that I am credulous to the point where I would believe without some form of verification? I accept the bible and believe in God because of overwhelming circumstantial and anecdotal evidence.

That there is more than occasional archeological and historical supporting evidence is a plus, but not a deciding factor. Think of all the folks believing in the existence of Pilate without archeological verification until an inscription bearing his name was found in Caesarea in 1961.

I am well aware of the apparent contradictions found in academic research and in certain interpretations of the scriptures, but have always found it interesting that when Jesus reportedly told Pilate "I have come to bear witness to the truth", Pilate answered "What is truth?"

neologist wrote:

I accept the bible and believe in God because of overwhelming circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. That there is more than occasional archeological and historical supporting evidence is a plus, but not a deciding factor.

You are kidding yourself.

I am one who was brought up in Christianity and was a deeply commited Bible Believing Christian. I was studying for the ministry and know the Bible from both a religious perspective (and now a non-religious one).

The fact is there is very little evidence for many events in the Bible. There are historical facts in the Bible, but this is not surprising seeing as it was written by folks who had knowledge of the history.

The reason I no longer believe the Bible is that is requires you to believe things that are completely illogical-- including...

1) Genocide is sometimes OK and even ordered by God.

2) People can come back from the dead.

3) At some point in our history, the Earth stopped spinning for a day... and then started spinning again. All of this didn't have the disasterous consequences that would be dictated by science.

4) Ghandi is comdemned to burn in Hell.

5) Tens of thousands of people lived in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, yet left no trace whatsoever.

No one who is objective is going to conclude that a belief in the Bible is at all supported by logic or evidence. And I should know,...

I was a Bible believing Christian who had the courage to step back and look at my beliefs objectively... and I think you know where that led.

real life wrote:

Geologists want to postulate that massive sedimentary structures were laid down a little at a time, over long periods of time. In some cases this may be true or it may not.

Ok real life, the difference between a geologist and someone on a chat line is that the geologist is .............

You (and your ilk) have no responsibilities ..............

Im sure you know better, its just that you wish to stand on a principal, no matter how silly.

Once more though. Sediment layers are environment specific. There are sed layers that accumulate quickly (landslides, turbidity currents in deep ocean mudslides, tsunami benches, earthquake talus). Then there are the vast majorities of sedimentary layers that accumulate at a rate of a few centimeters to up to a tenth of a foot per year...........

Other types , likeLacustrine silts and clays, varve deposits, fluvial deposits, cannel coals and peats, coal beds and palludal deposits all have their unique rates of average deposition .................

You seem to want a "one size fits all" mentality in sedimentary rocks.It doesnt work that way and , maybe the next geologist wont be so kind with you when you display your own special"geological analyses" on a chat line.

I know that the creationists are fond of not understanding basic geological principals ...............

Geologists want to postulate that massive sedimentary structures were laid down a little at a time, over long periods of time. In some cases this may be true or it may not.

So sedimentary strata may have been laid down quickly.......or they may not, if I understand your line here.

Hmmmmmm. I tot I ted da tame thing.

real life wrote:

Geologists want to postulate that massive sedimentary structures were laid down a little at a time, over long periods of time. In some cases this may be true or it may not.

I did ! I did ! I did tay da tame thing.

Sure , we use fancy tools but hell, theyre no more complex than an engine analyzer or a VTVM.

have no other recourse than to believe that you insist upon belief in the absence of any but putative circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. There isn't a shred of historical support for the existence of said Joshua the Rabbi which is not subject to a charge of historical interpolation. From the point of view of an historical analysis which doesn't make the automatic assumptions of the christian, the greatest likelihood is that said Joshua may in fact not ever have existed, but is rather a literary character created (cleverly) to convey to the wider world a distillation of the philosophy prevelant among Essene mystics of the Augustinian era. (That's Augustine as in Octvanian redux Caesar Augustus.)

Gravity is an observable phenomenon.

.

Your "debating technique" is pathetic.

Your assumption seems to be if someone gives me an answer that they believe to be correct, then that should end all further discussion, inquiry, thought, dissent or curiosity. Sorry I kinda outgrew that type of passivity in about the 3rd grade.

Think of all the scientists who would never have done their work if they had stopped and passively accepted, "Scientists agree that........"

I guess style is more important to some than others. Where I come from, if appearance takes precedence it's referred to as "All hat, no cattle"

Oh I should have looked at the picture.