by czarofmischief 348 Replies latest jw friends
Abaddon,
Yes I chose the Angelfire site because it has links to many of the more impotant refutations of the Big Bang theory, such as:
http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
That you would judge the contents of a site in such an off the cuff and abrupt manner reveals volumes about you.
Cheers,
Love_Truth
My criticism of dating methods is not way out of date.
I agree with rem... it is. There are literally dozens of isotopes that are used for radiometric dating. When several methods are used and they all agree, we can be extremely confident that the date is accurate. The reasons radiometric dating may be inaccurate under certain circumstances are well understood, and those errors are weeded out by using other methods to date the same object. It is inappropriate to use carbon dating on rocks, for example, and it will produce wildly inaccurate results.
You may be interested in this article entitled "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective"
Unlike the angelfire home page (well known despositories of scientific truth!)
LMAO!! I was thinking the same thing! I would rather read new scientific information in a peer-reviewed journal or something written by Stephen Hawking, but I think I'll take a glance at that angelfire site for kicks.
drwatson,
First, thanks for the link- I'll take the information presented there into account. For the record, I'm not disputing the age of the Earth, Solar System, Universe, etc- just earthly artifacts and such that some conclude disprove Biblical accounts.
Second- If I posted a link regarding a scientific article, a link to which could be found on the "Cartoon Network" website, would that make the article any less accurate?
The reason I posted the angelfire site is that it has links to many good articles disputing BB theory. If you. Abaddon, or anyone else is disuaded from taking seriously links off of an angelfire or similar website, then do your own websearch, or look here:
http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
or here, if you like (oh, my God! It's an apologetics site! Noooooooooooooo!!!, Run away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305a.htm
and here:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0306ad1.htm
Happy reading,
Love_Truth
If I posted a link regarding a scientific article, a link to which could be found on the "Cartoon Network" website, would that make the article any less accurate?
Of course not! But it is better to post the link to the original source. To many of us it makes a big difference who is dispensing the information. There are a lot of crackpots out there, I'm sure you'll agree.
I'll take a look at the links you have provided when I get a chance.
Love Truth,
Of course there are different margins of error for different types of isotopes used in radiometric dating (going off memory here). The issue is that you are probably thinking of errors where a specific dating method was used in an inappropriate manner (e.g. K/AR used to date a rock younger than 50 million years old or so). The margin of error is much too large in K/AR to be used in such cases... but what do we find? Creationists trotting out this old gem stating that K/AR dating is inaccurate... I've seen it a million times. Do you have specific, recent examples not based on this fallacy?
Also, it seems you don't necessarily have a problem with Evolution, per se, but maybe you have issues with Science and Scientists in general. The reason I say this is because we were having a discussion about Evolution and now you've drug Cosmology into the mix. This shows you have very little understanding of what Evolution really is. Hell, the universe and the earth could have been created by god and he could have used Evolution - it's compatible with that cosmology. So why do you keep saying you have issues with Evolution? Please state what issues you have with *Evolution* - not cosmology.
We can, of course, discuss cosmology if you would like, but now we are going all over the place. Cosmology and Evolution are not interwoven the way you make it out to be. So do you really have issues with Evolution or just any scientific theory that threatens your bible-centric worldview?
I personally think it's silly to think that Evolution threatens a theistic world-view... that is unless you take the creation myths in Genesis literally. Repeat after me: Evolution is not inherently atheistic.
rem
Love Truth,
>>Physical laws factor into abiogenesis as well as evolution theory, thusly: One must at some point explain from whence came the ?primordial ooze? that produced life, if one believes such (I obviously don?t).
The Theory of Evolution does not even touch on this topic. You have again confused Evolution with Abiogenesis. We were not discussing Abiogenesis, but we can if you want to. This shows that you have grave misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution, which is why Abaddon recommended the test. The test is no longer necessary because you have just shown your hand. You really do need to study up on this topic with material from real evolutionary biologists if we are going to continue to have a productive discussion.
>>One must explain how things came to be. Creation is a much more believable explanation, IMO.
Evolution does not have to explain how things came to be. It is a theory that best fits the facts whether god created us or not. Methinks you do not have issues with Evolution, but rather with a caricature of Evolution that you have learned from some preacher man.
Creation is not a more "believable" explanation. It is a *non-explanation*. All creation says is "god did it". Nothing more. Evolution explains (if there is a god) "how god did it".
You are basically resting on a "god of the gaps" philosophy. Anything that science does not have an answer for (or any answer you reject due to presuppositionalist thinking) is answered by saying "god did it". Rainbows used to be explained that way. Today we know better. God of the gaps thinking historically has been a failure as science continually makes the gaps smaller. In the end, god turns out to be pretty unnecessary and impotent if his role keeps shrinking. After a while you have to figure "what is the point of a god did it non-explanation"? All it does is gives you warm fuzzies and doesn't add to our knowledge of the universe. Diseases aren't cured by positing "god did it".
>> I don?t think it's strange that fossils in the geological strata are ?so conveniently sorted, from the oldest, most primitive organisms at the bottom to modern ones at the top?. Why? Again, we can theorize that God was experimenting with more primitive forms of created life, and learning from that experience, to mmake increasingly complex ones (just one of many explanations).
Unfalsifiable theory. You might as well say that Unicorns individually placed each fossil where it lays. Logically, evolutionary theory is on stronger ground here since we know natural selection exists and we know genetics/heredity exist. We don't have evidence that one or many gods exist, so that hypothesis is already starting on shaky ground as far as Occham's Razor is concerned.
It's like saying we know the continents are moving apart very slowly and they look like they would fit together as one landmass if squashed together, but instead of accepting the more simple theory of plate techtonics as the explanation, we will posit an invisible being that created the continents where they are and gave it the illusion that they were once one landmass. Or the creator originally created the continents as one landmass, but changed his mind and moved them, then moved them again, then again, etc. In fact, he's still moving them today.
That theory, unfalsifiable as it is, completely breaks down under the guideline of Occham's razor and is no more ridiculous than the theory you just put forward.
rem
rem,
Evolution does not threaten a theist's world view. I've stated as much previously in this thread.
Cosmology is another area of interest for me as a Theist. I didn't mean to imply it was one and the same as evolution, and I don't see where I did so.
Physical Laws are yet another area that interests me as a theist.
So is biology, in how wonderfully higher creatures are made.
As a theist, these are some of the many things that convince me there is a Creator, a God.
That alternate theories exist as to how things came to be.is no shock to anyone in our day and age.
Yes, there are gaping holes in the fossil record. Anyone with eyes can see that.
There is no proof that one species ever became another. Hybrids, subspecies, polploidy, other mutations, adaptations, etc occur, yet these do not produce a new species, let alone a new Genus, Order, etc. It just can not be proven by the fossil record or any other means, including experimentation. It takes more faith, IMO, to believe in evolution in such cases than it does to believe in Creation.
You choose to take the evolution myths literally, I do not. I take the factual creation account of Genesis literally.
And I promise to stop calling evolution a myth if you'll stop belittling Creation. Both explanations can coexist side by side under the same level of scrutiny.
If you'd like to present to your evidence that you you believe shows inaccuracies iin the Genesis account, feel free to do so. But ridiculing someones belief in Creation by calling it a "myth" is small minded, and nothing more than appeal to ridicule.
Cheers,
Love_Truth
present to your evidence that you you believe shows inaccuracies iin the Genesis account
What about the order of creation according to Genesis? Do you believe it is logical and follows observed evidence?
Love Truth,
Excuse me if I regard accounts from a book that includes stories of talking snakes and global floods as myths. You've got to be kidding me. How intellectually dishonest can one be? Do you not regard the writings of Homer as myths? Is Zeus real just because someone wrote about him in an ancient book? Is the Hindu creation account not a myth? Have you read any of the other Judeao creation myths that didn't make it into the Bible canon? Can you say "special pleading"?
Remember, I used to believe in the creation accounts in the Bible. I did the research that showed they were flawed and mythical. It's not as if I don't know the stories like the back of my hand. They are inaccurate based on what we know about life and the Earth today.
The main difference between the Creation myths in the book of Genesis and the Theory of Evolution is that the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable, whereas creation myths are notoriously non-falsifiable.
In fact you have proved this by your plastic interpretation of "creative days". The creation myths in Genesis are falsifiable if you read them literally, but you would feel silly doing so. So you reinterpret the word "day" to some fuzzy time period. Then you can come up with a creative non-falsifiable solution to the problems with the order of creation as described in Genesis. Basically, you can twist the account to any extent you want so that it can never be proven wrong. A theory that can not be tested is worthless, and most probably wrong.
No one has ever observed a creative event, yet evolution is observed in laboratories every day. Speciation events have been observed in the wild and even in laboratories. Your ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.
Tell me, have you ever seen a mountain grow? Didn't think so, but they do - very slowly. That slow tiny change over geological times literally turns a molehill into a mountain. The same is true with Evolution. Tiny genetic changes over geological time periods changes ancient organisms into unrecognizable modern forms - groups we call new species and even up to new kingdoms! You don't have to literally see the mountain grow from molehill to Everest to understand how it happened. It doesn't take faith to understand how mountains are made - just a dispassionate acceptance of the facts. (And for the record, I've never seen a mountain specially created, either)
I seriously recommend you read Hume. The logic of extrapolating a creator god from what you see around you is quite easy to demolish. I'm not saying that that means there is no god or that you shouldn't believe - I'm just saying that it's not the objective proof of god that you seem to be implying it is.
Maybe if we want to talk about theories of biology or cosmology we should start another thread since we have really hijacked this one?
Gotta run!
rem
