Author Topic: I'm a Christian Open to Questions  (Read 35295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6207
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #696 on: January 23, 2011, 01:47:53 PM »
I have not heard any of the evolution-deniers address my main piece of evidence, that I believe is strong enough to constitute something close to "proof": the science based on the theory of evolution works. This has been the case for over 100 years and is getting better the more we know.

If the theory was false, or full of holes, or easily disproved, or without logical foundation,  or completely made up out of nothing, etc, how could the science based on it possibly work? How else could doctors match blood types for transfusions, choose organ donors for transplants, create vaccines to prevent rapidly changing flu viruses? Throw darts at a board?

We are talking about entire fields: medicine, genetics, epidemiology, botany, agriculture, veterinary science, biogeography, pharmacology. We are talking about the ability to treat conditions like cancer, cure diseases like malaria, eradicate horrible epidemics like smallpox. It is science based on evolution-- and has no doubt saved the life of everyone on this board at some time or another.

The rabies vaccine alone has saved million of pets from a terrible fate-- if you don't care about human beings, at least think of all the puppies and kittens.  &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jedweber

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3791
  • Darwins +19/-0
  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #697 on: January 23, 2011, 02:50:54 PM »
Here's a partial list of creationist hoaxes and lies, taken from a thread here: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=536&m=1

Ron Wyatt
Noah's Ark
Ark of the Covenant
Chariot Wheels from Pharaoh's army
Sodom and Gomorrah
The real Mt Sinai
Noah's house
The tablet of the 10 commandments
Actual BLOOD of Jesus!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/

Carl Baugh
Fossilized Hammer Found in 100-Million-Year Old Rock
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/carl_baugh.htm#hammer

Carl Baugh
Giant Human Skeleton
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/carl_baugh.htm#giant_human_skeleton

Clifford Burdick, William Meister
Trilobites in footprints
http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/antelope.php
http://toarchive.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

Duane Gish's "Bullfrog argument"
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/bfrog2.htm

Duane Gish
Various falsehoods.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

Missing Day hoax
http://www.creationtips.com/long_day.html

Elizabeth Hope
Darwin deathbed recantation hoax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope

Peppered Moth 'hoax' hoax
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth/

Woolly Mammoths snap frozen during the flood
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1640/

The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/

Darwin's quote about eye evolution in Origin of Species.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/darwin_eye_quote_revisited.htm

Intelligent design as a hoax
http://www.textbookleague.org/id-hx-1.htm

Buddika's 300 Creationist Lies Index
Kent Hovind
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html

Radiocarbon test dates freshly-killed seal as 1300 years old
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

^ And there are many more, this is just from page 1 of a 5-page thread.

Science is constantly correcting itself and discarding erroneous hypotheses. On the other hand, many creationist websites and publications keep using the same arguments and recycling the same factually-incorrect claims long after they have been definitively refuted.

Given the much smaller size of the "creation science" community vs. mainstream science, it would seem that the amount of fraud and dishonesty is proportionally much larger there. 

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #698 on: January 23, 2011, 03:12:45 PM »
Science is constantly correcting itself and discarding erroneous hypotheses. On the other hand, many creationist websites and publications keep using the same arguments and recycling the same factually-incorrect claims long after they have been definitively refuted.

Given the much smaller size of the "creation science" community vs. mainstream science, it would seem that the amount of fraud and dishonesty is proportionally much larger there.

My bold.

You noticed that too?

Great point. Of course their fraud is okay because they're already sinners and they've been forgiven, while we claim that we're not and we're doing bad things that will send us to hell. Big difference. And he can prove it. To his standards. I'm sure.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #699 on: January 23, 2011, 03:35:46 PM »
Science is constantly correcting itself and discarding erroneous hypotheses. On the other hand, many creationist websites and publications keep using the same arguments and recycling the same factually-incorrect claims long after they have been definitively refuted.

Given the much smaller size of the "creation science" community vs. mainstream science, it would seem that the amount of fraud and dishonesty is proportionally much larger there.

My bold.

You noticed that too?

Great point. Of course their fraud is okay because they're already sinners and they've been forgiven, while we claim that we're not and we're doing bad things that will send us to hell. Big difference. And he can prove it. To his standards. I'm sure.

I would think that with all of "tens of thousands of documented samples and proven striations........." (post #602) that you would have at least come up with something convincing by now. Still, you have failed to demonstrate that there is proof (by your own definition) for any of the events in the timeline you presented.

Instead, you continue to try and defend your position by turning the conversation in a completely different direction towards the failing of Christianity.....when I've never even ONCE implied that it was without faults.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4401
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #700 on: January 23, 2011, 03:38:57 PM »
^^^^^ Just the facts man just the FACTS ....of which you have NONE.....epic FAIL
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #701 on: January 23, 2011, 03:39:28 PM »
The Fraud of Evolution

This one seemed promising to me by the title, got halfway down the first page and call FAIL. Once again, a person confuses abiogenesis for evolution. Once someone has done that, it discredits them for not knowing the first thing about what they are talking about.

If you fail to acknowledge any overlap with evolution and abiogenesis, then you are the one who is failing here. Do some research and you will find that there are more than a few scientists who would disagree with you.

You probably also subscribe to the "there is no micro or macro evolution...it's all just evolution" crowd, too??

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4401
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #702 on: January 23, 2011, 03:44:58 PM »
All THEORIES have gaps that still have to be filled because of the lack of found evidence......which it is why it's called a theory.......where as your story is so full of holes its not even legible
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10560
  • Darwins +264/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #703 on: January 23, 2011, 03:47:59 PM »
If you fail to acknowledge any overlap with evolution and abiogenesis, then you are the one who is failing here. Do some research and you will find that there are more than a few scientists who would disagree with you.

Abiogenesis explains how life started
Evolution explains how life evolved
These are VERY different processes
EDIT: The only "overlap" is that they are both related to life. However, as I have mentioned, very different processes

You probably also subscribe to the "there is no micro or macro evolution...it's all just evolution" crowd, too??

It IS all just evolution. Same as an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist are all atheists
« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 03:52:05 PM by Blaziken_rjcf »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10560
  • Darwins +264/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #704 on: January 23, 2011, 03:51:11 PM »
All THEORIES have gaps that still have to be filled because of the lack of found evidence......which it is why it's called a theory.......where as your story is so full of holes its not even legible

To clarify: Scientific theories explain scientific FACT, such as gravity and evolution. Obviously, with our current level of technology (not to mention countless attempts to slow down science) we cannot explain everything since we don't know everything. Those are the "holes"
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Larissa238

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Darwins +12/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #705 on: January 23, 2011, 03:53:35 PM »
The Fraud of Evolution

This one seemed promising to me by the title, got halfway down the first page and call FAIL. Once again, a person confuses abiogenesis for evolution. Once someone has done that, it discredits them for not knowing the first thing about what they are talking about.

If you fail to acknowledge any overlap with evolution and abiogenesis, then you are the one who is failing here. Do some research and you will find that there are more than a few scientists who would disagree with you.

You probably also subscribe to the "there is no micro or macro evolution...it's all just evolution" crowd, too??

Abiogenesis is "how life started." Evolution is "what happened to life after it started." There are Christians who believe in both creation and evolution- they just take abiogenesis and replace it with "goddidit."

And please, do educate me. What is the difference between microevolution (natural selection) and macroevolution (natural selection)? I want proof (peer-reviewed studies in well-known and respected publications without bias [creationsist journals don't qualify- they have an agenda]- wow! I just defined what proof is to me! is it that hard for you) from scientists who say they are 2 different things- they must have a degree of Biology or something closely related. Physics, Chemistry, and other sciences are not acceptable, since they don't study evolution.

Please cite the articles (from peer-reviewed respected journals without a creationist bias) regarding (1) abiogenesis being the same as evolution (or "overlapping" as you put it), and (2) that "microevolution" is somehow different from "macroevolution".

I have admitted on this site that I have been wrong about things before. I have no shame in admitting it. If you can't admit you are wrong, you are not doing science.
On why Christians and non-Christians have the same rate of divorce:

He would rather it that they worship Him, instead of spending their time on family.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #706 on: January 23, 2011, 04:03:10 PM »
I would think that with all of "tens of thousands of documented samples and proven striations........." (post #602) that you would have at least come up with something convincing by now. Still, you have failed to demonstrate that there is proof (by your own definition) for any of the events in the timeline you presented.

Once you accept a standard of evidence that would qualify to you as "proof", then surely he will come forth and give it.  Groundwork first, if you want an actual discussion.

Of course, since you don't, and never have...

Instead, you continue to try and defend your position by turning the conversation in a completely different direction towards the failing of Christianity.....when I've never even ONCE implied that it was without faults.

That's not what he's doing.  You're not stupid enough not to realize what he was really doing.  And that means that you're just dishonestly playing dumb here.  Yawn.


Oh, by the way, remember that debate you forfeited against that University Pastor guy?  The one where he was showing you that you need not be a YEC to be a Christian?  Yeah, why'd you forfeit that, anyway?  Seems you're backtracking now.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6856
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #707 on: January 23, 2011, 05:03:13 PM »
Looks like those schema are showing.

Now, critical thinking, and learning, are relative to one's ability to compare one's schema, objectively, to new information one is exposed to and modify one's schema accordingly.

Have you read up on research in the fields of science related to evolutionary theory? Can you summarize that somehow? A booklist might work.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 06:22:00 PM by Ambassador Pony »
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Dkit

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2113
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Nemesis Ridiculii
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #708 on: January 23, 2011, 05:21:04 PM »
Biblestudent,

Not many will spend time reading a dozen links in order to find out what it is you are trying to convey.  Please take a few moments to summarize the information which you feel supports your position.

Thanks.
"The Bible is a Banquet table not a snack tray!" - Anonymous Facebook User

Offline Asmoday

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Darwins +14/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #709 on: January 23, 2011, 05:25:45 PM »
You probably also subscribe to the "there is no micro or macro evolution...it's all just evolution" crowd, too??
BibleStudent must be one of those folks who says 1 plus 1 may equal 2, but you could never reach 10 if you just keep adding 1s.
Absilio Mundus!

I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #710 on: January 23, 2011, 05:32:35 PM »
I would think that with all of "tens of thousands of documented samples and proven striations........." (post #602) that you would have at least come up with something convincing by now. Still, you have failed to demonstrate that there is proof (by your own definition) for any of the events in the timeline you presented.

First, I made a mistake. I used the word striations when I meant stratigraphy. Forgive me. There are striations, and I can certainly talk about them, but it was the stratigraphy that I was referring to. But that's minor.

First you will want to read this and click on the links. It talks briefly about the age of planet, what the interior of earth looks like and discusses the atmosphere too. That's a bonus. Do tell me if this overview of the history of our planet is too much for you.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/guide12-s02.html

Then read this little ditty on how the earth is dated via various radiation methods of not only earth rock but moon rock and meteorite rock as well. If that sounds crazy, keep in mind that if the earth formed out of the same material the moon and meteorites formed out of, they should be about the same age. I am also ignoring the theory that moon was formed when our planet and other collided, kicking a lot of debris out into space. Some of which coalesced and formed the moon. But that's neither here nor there. The age is the same.

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.html

So here. Read this article and tell me how it is wrong. Look at the illustrations that show the many layers of strata in the Kansas area and tell me how it backs up anything in the bible and how it is inconsistent with crap-ass scientific theory. This is a region that scientists say was at times an inland sea and at other times dry. Over and over again. And that is the process by which the alternating layers of shale and limestone came to exist. Provide an alternative if you don't believe this one.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/guide12-s02.html

By the way, these layers aren't guesses. They dug holes. People who are curious do such things.

If you don't like Kansas, how about near Dorset, England. Very nice drawing of the layers at the bottom of the page. And great photos of the very complex layering and folding of the rock in the area. All quite consistent with a planet that has been around a long time and that is very dynamic. (Dynamic means something that is characterized by constant change. Let me know if you need other words defined as well).
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/Stair-Hole-Lulworth.htm

Speaking of dynamic, how about continental drift, which I'll toss in as a bonus. Sadly this is a .pdf, which confuses some folks who don't believe in them since they aren't mentioned in the bible. But download and read it anyway. Look at the evidence the seems to indicate that indeed the continents used to be joined and that they have moved slowly apart. The North and South American continents are now moving to the west at about 1 cm (4/10's of an inch) per year. That doesn't sound like much, but it is impressive. And don't worry, satellite measurements have confirmed this movement. Anyway, that's a good 6 miles or so per one million years. And we've had lots of one million year periods, so we've had lots of time to get here.

http://www.sci.csuhayward.edu/~lstrayer/geol2101/2101_Ch19_03.pdf

Each of the above links explains something about the science of dating the earth and such. I know there is a lot more to explain to you as per the confusing table I provided about how long ago different things happened. Go easy on yourself if you are overwhelmed by actual information. I didn't mean to toss these tiny tidbits at you too fast, but you kept insisting.

If you were in a good college, you would be spending thousands of dollars for this information and have to take tests too. I'm providing it for free. Hope you appreciate that. And, as I know you will do anyway, feel free to tell me I'm full of sh*t. That's what Jesus would do.

The research used to draw the conclusion in the above articles is the sort of thing we see as "good evidence" that these things did happen. None is treated as absolute proof, but the combination of sources that all indicate similar histories and age are a pretty good sign that we're on the right track. New discoveries might cause scientists to alter a timeline or a physical method of change, but I doubt you'll see any major changes to this overall view of our planet.




Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #711 on: January 23, 2011, 08:05:01 PM »
The research used to draw the conclusion in the above articles is the sort of thing we see as "good evidence" that these things did happen. None is treated as absolute proof, but the combination of sources that all indicate similar histories and age are a pretty good sign that we're on the right track. New discoveries might cause scientists to alter a timeline or a physical method of change, but I doubt you'll see any major changes to this overall view of our planet.

Thank you for clarifying that your timeline is based on “good evidence” rather than “proof.” I don’t mean to come across as narrow-minded and intent on dissecting every word that is said. However, when it is asserted that there is “proof” for certain aspects of the evolutionary timeline, I am anxious to see this so-called “proof” ….just the same as you might want to see “proof” for a creationist claim. “Proof” is a strong word.

Offline Doctor X

Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #712 on: January 23, 2011, 08:10:35 PM »
Biblestudent STILL cannot answer the questions or rebut the evidence.

--J.D.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #713 on: January 23, 2011, 08:14:12 PM »
Abiogenesis explains how life started
Evolution explains how life evolved
These are VERY different processes
EDIT: The only "overlap" is that they are both related to life. However, as I have mentioned, very different processes

Where did evolution begin ?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #714 on: January 23, 2011, 08:15:07 PM »
Biblestudent STILL cannot answer the questions or rebut the evidence.

--J.D.

What question(s) are you referring to ?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #715 on: January 23, 2011, 08:19:12 PM »
Thank you for clarifying that your timeline is based on “good evidence” rather than “proof.” I don’t mean to come across as narrow-minded and intent on dissecting every word that is said. However, when it is asserted that there is “proof” for certain aspects of the evolutionary timeline, I am anxious to see this so-called “proof” ….just the same as you might want to see “proof” for a creationist claim. “Proof” is a strong word.

I take this to mean that we're both right, we just don't agree.

I said in an earlier post that the word proof was too strong.I shouldn't have used it.  I thought we'd gotten past that part. Silly me.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #716 on: January 23, 2011, 08:20:30 PM »
... “Proof” is a strong word.
Only when used as you've insisted on using it.  As generally used, "prove X" simply means "convince me that X is true".  If your friend claims to be holding a baseball, and you say "prove it!", and she holds out a baseball to you, then you would most likely accept that as an adequate response.  Of course, she wouldn't have "proven" that she was holding a baseball.  She cannot deductively prove that anything in the natural world is real at all.

There was no reason for you to assume that PP was using "proof" in the absolute sense that you were taking him to mean it.  It's as silly as taking "Whew, I'm starving!" before a meal to mean that the person was literally on death's door due to deprivation of food.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Doctor X

Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #717 on: January 23, 2011, 08:31:20 PM »
What question(s) are you referring to ?

Rather assumed you had read the thread.  No matter, start by demonstrating why the time-line is wrong.

--J.D.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #718 on: January 23, 2011, 09:21:51 PM »
... “Proof” is a strong word.
Only when used as you've insisted on using it.  As generally used, "prove X" simply means "convince me that X is true".  If your friend claims to be holding a baseball, and you say "prove it!", and she holds out a baseball to you, then you would most likely accept that as an adequate response.  Of course, she wouldn't have "proven" that she was holding a baseball.  She cannot deductively prove that anything in the natural world is real at all.

There was no reason for you to assume that PP was using "proof" in the absolute sense that you were taking him to mean it.  It's as silly as taking "Whew, I'm starving!" before a meal to mean that the person was literally on death's door due to deprivation of food.

You are incorrect.

The statement that was made contained the word "proven" which is an adjective defined as:
  • shown to be true beyond any doubt....or....having been demonstrated or verified without doubt.

The context in which the statement was made clearly attempted to convey that the matter was settled.

Offline Doctor X

Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
« Reply #719 on: January 23, 2011, 09:30:18 PM »
    • shown to be true beyond any doubt....or....having been demonstrated or verified without doubt.

    Which you still have not shown to be incorrect in the case of the time line.

    Suggest you cease stonewalling.

    --J.D.

    Offline Asmoday

    • Reader
    • ******
    • Posts: 1309
    • Darwins +14/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
    « Reply #720 on: January 23, 2011, 09:40:10 PM »
    The context in which the statement was made clearly attempted to convey that the matter was settled.
    That very much depends on what your position is.

    The matter is not settled in such a way that science would not be open for new evidence which might shift things on the timeline. As an example we can look at mammals. Mammals appeared around 200 million years ago. That's what the current evidence says. If they found fossils of mammals significantly earlier than that, it would of course cause a change in the time line.

    But if you look at it with the question "Is Genesis true or not" in mind, then yes, the question is indeed settled.
    Is it possible that events on the time line may shift up or down with new evidence? Yes.
    Is it possible that all the events and the whole time line may be wrong (wrong as in "it never happened that way and the bible has it right")? No
    Absilio Mundus!

    I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

    Offline Doctor X

    Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
    « Reply #721 on: January 23, 2011, 09:42:37 PM »
    The matter is not settled in such a way that science would not be open for new evidence which might shift things on the timeline.

    Which, as you know, Biblestudent has, for some strange reason, refused to provide.

    --J.D.

    Offline Azdgari

    • Laureate
    • *********
    • Posts: 12210
    • Darwins +267/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
    « Reply #722 on: January 23, 2011, 09:47:45 PM »
    ...
    The context in which the statement was made clearly attempted to convey that the matter was settled.

    If you asked for proof that someone had a baseball, and they presented a baseball to you, then wouldn't that "settle" it?

    It would not settle it with respect to "proof" as you have chosen to use the term.
    It would settle it with respect to how people actually use the word outside of abstract logic or mathematics.

    As it turns out, PP has clarified what he meant, and you had misinterpreted him.  You were apparently alone in that.  Curious, eh?  Have you considered that it was you, rather than everyone else, who made a mistake in your interpretation?
    The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

    Offline BibleStudent

    • Reader
    • ******
    • Posts: 1572
    • Darwins +10/-66
    Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
    « Reply #723 on: January 23, 2011, 10:57:21 PM »
    The matter is not settled in such a way that science would not be open for new evidence which might shift things on the timeline.

    Which, as you know, Biblestudent has, for some strange reason, refused to provide.

    --J.D.

    Okay. Let' start with this one:

    • 200,000 years ago: humans started looking like we do today

    This is based on a hypothesis. Not sure which model ("Replacement Model" ??) the poster was referring to but the timeline is still widely contested and lacks any sufficient evidence to make it factual or supported by the heavy and convincing evidence the poster says exists. The science is all over the place on this one and some of the more recent "scientific" findings suggest that humans appeared sometime within the last 100,000 years. The popular models that are used in the hypotheses are complicated by inconsistencies in the fossil record.

    The bottom line is, there is no hard evidence pointing to a verifiable time when homo sapiens first "evolved." In other words, no one really knows.



    Offline ParkingPlaces

    • Professor
    • ********
    • Posts: 6125
    • Darwins +689/-3
    • Gender: Male
    • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
    Re: I'm a Christian Open to Questions
    « Reply #724 on: January 23, 2011, 11:04:20 PM »
    One of BibleStudent's early problems in this discussion was that we atheists ask for proof of a god while we don't ask the same high standard of our scientists. I go to thinking about this and came to this conclusion.

    If the earth is 4.6 billion years old or 5.1 billion years old is not too important. It is interesting, thinking that we have a good answer is nice when one is looking at our overall knowledge base about reality, but being off 10% or whatever is of little consequence.

    However, if there is a god and I'm doomed to damnation (no idea if that is BibleStudent's take, but certainly many christians feel that way), then actual knowledge of what is real would be very nice. God's can't be theoretical and effective. Either the bible god exists or he doesn't. There is no being 10% off on the subject. So if someone is going to tell me I'm cooking in a pit of fire for eternity if I don't believe in the dude, and I happen to be someone who is unable to conjure up the faith stuff, is it unrealistic to ask for actual proof?

    That, BibleStudent, is why I ask for proof of your god. If believing in him is as important as I assume you think it is, you've got to give me a heck of a lot better list of reasons to believe than I do about the Devonian Period.

    I'm claiming science is doing a good job of figuring things out, but it's no biggie if they are wrong. Well, it matters in the field of medicine and it matters when dealing with explosives and such, but not ancient geology.  Christians are claiming its s do or die (so to speak) situation and if they are unable to get their point across, billions suffer needlessly.

    That's why I ask for proof. Real live proof. Just thought I'd mention it.
    Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.