Evolution vs. Creation

[The Dude]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> You know zero about the Christian God Ted.

He's read the Bible, you've read the Bible. God is an unobservable undetectable invisible supernatural entity that exists somewhere beyond spacetime as we know it.

In other words, you don't know a single thing more God than any other person on this entire planet, period.

Sorry about that.

[Double Fine]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Physics yes. Darwin evolution as it reelates to macro change aat macro levels. No. it is assumption.

Then explain the geologic column. Explain the fossil record. Explain the dates of the older fossils. And then formulate a theory to fit all facts in.

Then, give us a new theory of teconics and isostacy. Our current one can predict tsunamis and find raw materials like gold, diamonds, iron, platinum, etc. Formulate a theory that works better.

[The Dude]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Physics yes. Darwin evolution as it reelates to macro change aat macro levels. No. it is assumption.

You're lying. It can't be a simple assumption when it's the underlying concept of biology. It works. I **demonstrated** it works. You did not debunk it. You did not even address it. You have not falsified it. You ran away from it because you are utterly ignorant of science.

lightbeamrider wrote:

OK.
<quoted text> If you use scientific method for supernatural claims then you only arrive at your original conclusion. Science is limited to what normally happens in time and space.

Then we agree that your claims are unscientific and no more demonstrable than the ancient myths of the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Incas, Mayans or Vikings.(shrug)

[Coca-Cola Fan]

Touchy subject.

[The Dude]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"Insertional mutations can occur naturally"
Can occur. Not does occur.
I CAN win the lottery but I have not won the lottery yet. And insertion mutation CAN occur but hasn't yet either.

You're lying.

You don't address the evidence, you ignore it.

[The Dude]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
No I do not speak for God that's all.

That's right, you don't. Neither does anyone else.

Still doesn't stop you idiots from claiming who knows God more and who's hellbound or not.(shrug)

Ego's a big thing with you.

[The Dude]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text>
Charles Guigenebent (Professor of History at Sorbonne)...The epistles of Paul were sifficient to prove the historical existence of Jesus.''(Under Greco-Roman Pagan sources, last paragraph. Also under Pliny the Younger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...
Bible contains multiple sources. So yes you can use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Then you can use Sherlock Holmes to prove Sherlock Holmes. London is real therefore Sherlock Holmes is true.

[The Dude]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Just saying it doesn't make it so! What evidence can you make up that would support your delusions of grandeur?

Life.

What evidence can you provide that demonstrates Adam and Eve existed?

[The Dude]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> The fact you associate Scripture with Mother Goose is beneath contempt.

The fact you associate biology with mere assumption is beyond ignorance.

So who is more foolish? One of us can demonstrate our claims, the other cannot. You've got a 50/50 chance of getting this right.

[The Dude]

Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:

What if we are all an alien experiment??

We still don't care.

[The Dude]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
You well never get the chance.
Sorry but only those in heaven will be in lightened.

I pray for you, even if it's only to save your spelling.

[The Dude]

freethinker1957 wrote:

<quoted text>
But why you linking to a religious site instead of a per review science site

Because Prof X is a fundie liar for Jesus.

[The Dude]

Coca-Cola Fan wrote:

I was raised very religious andater going through Anthropology classes in college, I would say that there can be evolution and a way for people who are religious to look at it is that God is the one creating the evolution process. This way everyone is happy.

Sorry, but there are MANY religions, and ALL must be catered for if we were to go with your proposal. Yours only gives one religious view. It also has nothing to do with science classes.

If the schools had time and money, a comparative religions class that gave all religions equal time WOULD be allowed.

But the fundies would never allow it.

[The Dude]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> DH is a joke.
Liberal scholars committed to theological naturalism.
Not one iota real hard evidence exists for any of it.
19th century notions of ancient literacy completely refuted by archeological evidence.
http://ukapologetics.net/docu.htm

Your link is a fundamentalist religious Young Earth site, with links to, among others, ICR, AIG, and Conservapedia.

[The Dude]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Non believers make anti supernatural assumptions in all places at all times. It does not make it reality at all times. Supernatural claims does not ignore science.

Of course it does. Indeed that is the very POINT - to ignore reality for the sake of convenience when something extraordinary is needed when one has zero evidence to back it up.

lightbeamrider wrote:

Supernatural events are by definition rare and not what normally happens.

Not for (a) God. Supernatural events are the norm. In fact so prevalent they were in ancient history, to ALL cultures, but not so much now.

That does not mean however that the amount of modern claims have been diminished...

lightbeamrider wrote:

Science deals with what normally happens.

Yup. At ALL times.

lightbeamrider wrote:

Your conclusion. It has to be one or the other is false. To question anti supernatural assumptions is not the same as rejecting Science.

Of course it is. The supernatural is by definition non-falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. If it can't be objectively demonstrated, it's not science.

lightbeamrider wrote:

Physics does not depend on Darwin Evolution for its validity. Much of the Sciences stand on their own absent Darwin assumptions. In other words Physics does not need Darwin Evolution.

Actually you are incorrect. If evolution is wrong then geology is wrong. Which means we can't use geology to find the oil which made the plastic for your computer you're using right now. If geology is wrong then chemistry is wrong and physics is wrong.

Just because you're ignorant of science that does not make it a valid criticism of science.

[The Dude]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> The very early Christians believe Christ rose from the dead and conducted themselves accordingly. Even agnostic historians admit this. If you can show us where one expert in ancient history claims the resurrection of Christ is every bit as verifiable as Egyptian myths then you might have something. Historians reject resurrection as actual history because of an anti supernatural bias.

So you're saying I might have something, but then you already know experts who disagree with you anyway. And you would dismiss them anyway because they have an anti-supernatural bias.

And as I pointed out, so do you.

Your admission that you have no evidence is noted.

lightbeamrider wrote:

If they accepted resurrection then they would become Christians. That is the dividing line. One event which either happened or it did not.

And neither science nor historians can verify it. Just as they can't verify the supernatural claims of the Egyptians.

[The Dude]

Coca-Cola Fan wrote:

Touchy subject.

For fundies, yes, it is.

[TedHOhio]

forreal wrote:

<quoted text>are you saying there are no miracles done by scientists?LOL When she died the dead from the graves arose and yet not one question it why are you!

Scientists have done some things we like to call 'miraculous', but are they the same as the alleged miracles from your biblical stories? Not even close.

The rest of your post is drivel, I can't understand it. Try English.

[TedHOhio]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Things like virgin birth is impossible through natural means.(Probably?) There is the Sodom and Gomorrah tape. As it relates to sources like the ICR. Folks sometimes use that excuse becuause they cannot argue with the information and don't care for it so they discredit the source. That is a logical fallacy. Forget the name. Science is limited and cannot, for the most part be used to prove or disprove things of supernatural nature. You guys make anti God assumptions and drag Science in to make your personal assumtions legit. To argue with your personal assumptions is to argue with Science. It is a con game.

You are nearly right in some of your comments ... science cannot prove or disprove things of a supernatural origin ... but are you making claims of a supernatural origin?

What you are doing is making are assumptions of a supernatural origin for events that science has explained. So in other words science is tearing down your assumptions, not addressing anything supernatural.

So when you claim that a Deity did something, all science has done is offer an alternative explanation ... the real difference comes in the evidence. When science forms an explanation, it is based on the evidence. When you offer an explanation you are making an unsupported assumption and when your assumptionws come crashing and burning down around you, you blame science for attacking the very idea of God. Science has never addressed the idea of if there is or is not a God, nor has it attacked anything God may have done ... you are the one making claims and claiming the involvement of a deity, science simply proves your assumptions are unsupported and therefor worthless.

Listen to your own arguments, the logical fallacies abound. You use the Bible to claim the infallibility of the Bible because it says so in the Bible! Do you know would happen to a scientist who used such poor logic skills? Well let's just say his next job would involve the statement 'Do you want fries with that!'

Think before you post ... and really think. Just don't knee-jerk a reaction because you feel your belief set is threatened. If there is a threat to your belief set, you might examine why it's threatened. It's your claims that do more damage than anything I can say.

[TedHOhio]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> I don't know how one could produce evidence for an event which happened in some remote town in Israel 2000 years ago as it relates to virgin birth. Other than accounts. Regarding Resurrrection of Christ. Do you have any evidence from History the event did not happen? All you have is your anti supernatural fixed bias.
<quoted text> I played a tape where Dawkins admits Jesus existed which refutes his writings in God Delusion. He recanted.
<quoted text> Not really. Your statements were more ambiguous.

Do you have any evidence that it did happen? You need to understand, the burden of proof is on you. You wish to make claims, you get the chance to support those claims. So far, you have failed miserably.

I addressed the issue, and offered another quote of Dawkins. Just because someone named Jesus may have existed doesn't validate the stories told about him several hundred years later. No proof of miracles, no proof of virgin birth, no proof of rising from the dead. Nice stories, but stories aren't evidence.

You can also not waste oyur time pointing out real places mentioned in the Bible, that's not support for miracles and such. I mean just because Tom Clancy mentions real places and real people does mean his books are non-fiction, right?