Christian dun believe in Darwin's

Shotgun SG

First of all, let me say, I do not claim that u are wrong. So please do not use statements like "You are wrong." This topic is up for discussion, and we discuss. On my part, i will refrain from doing that too.

Back to point

In your own words. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"

Evolution is a theory that has not been observed at all, and not been repeatedly confirm. Hence it is a very fallible theory. And still a theory.

What do fossils tell us? Fossils really just tell us, these creatures have existed, and died. Thru carbon dating methods, they supposedly tell us when they existed. But the carbon dating methods themselves have been fallible, since the rate of decay C14 may actually differ.

An example is a "fossilised" miner's hat, that was carbon dated to be a couple of thousands of years old.

Fossils just tell, animals of that species once existed.

Next point. Again, u are making a theory BASED on a theory. First theory of assumption is that the earth is indeed millions and millions of years old. And u base the next theory species takes millions of years to "evolve." U get what i mean? An unproven theory based on a previous unproven theory.

Heres an article from wiki links my prev two points.

Calibration

The raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the assumption that the level of 14C absorption remains constant does not hold true in practice. The level is maintained by high energy particles interacting with the earth's upper atmosphere, which may be affected by changes in the earth's magnetic field or in the cosmic ray background, e.g. variations caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks; and changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities -- it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present -- the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation.

The BP dates are therefore calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates with other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).

The difference between the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar can be ignored, because it's insignificant compared to the measurement uncertainty.

The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11000 to 10000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating is lower for samples originating from such plateau periods.

It has been noted that the plateau itself can be used as a time marker when it appears in a time series.

Now, first of all, we do not really know what other factors scientist could have used to arrive at the age of objects carbon dated. Already seen from the articles, the age that carbon dating produces are shall I say, "moderated" to give dates that Fall in line with "theory of evolution."

Its like a charlie brown cartoon i once saw, where charlie brown shoots an arrow, then runs to where the arrow lands to draw a bullseye.

3rd point. U rather believe man's mathematical prowess in the past to be mythical than the creation of life itself? Why?

4th point. Again, there have been variations in dna, but no new dna was found that could cause an inter-species evolution. Of course ur answer would be, it takes millions of years for species to evolve and etc. I will refer u back to my first point on Theories based on theories.

Cheers, please do not be offended, nor annoyed. I just like to argue the case for creation. In fact, I really find a lot of ur posts to be very educating! =D

UandMe SG

lots of people who loved and embraced God still suffered from tragedy or are leading miserable lives.

A pastor contracted and died from Sars while praying for a person, Philippines which is a Catholic country is suffering from all kinds of problem, many christians are killed by terrorists all over the world... where is God? why is he so selective in his help. Out of so many christians who are suffering, he choose to help someone who had committed a deadly sin and cured him of Aids?

I guess God has his plan and reason again, the universal answer when questions couldn't be answered.

Icemoon SG

yah .. but I'm sure you know about the young earth vs. old earth debate .. the problem is in the definition of a "day".

There r record of "generations of people" right after adam. They even publish their longevity in the bible. Tracing them all back it is about 6000 years. The bible do states tat earth is 6000 years.

You are assuming the creation week is really a week. If it was not a week, then the 6000 years is wrong.

Com'on.. there were history book recording events tat time and they don't even include walking dead ? How believable do u think tat is ?

I'm not sure how Roman historians wrote their history, but if they write history like Sima Qian, who actually travelled to the countryside to prepare his magnum opus, they might pick up a thing or two.

I do't know why u say tis but clearly tis is totally denying wat the bible is writing. U might as well say tat adam is not the man like u and me or the god in the bible is not the god tat u believe.

You don't think critically enough.

There is possibility the world means a localised region 'cos to all civilization, their whole world is only their region. Just like in China they always say "tian1 xia4" even though China is not the world.

Icemoon SG

We don't have to look at what is happening today.

Just read the bible. Stephen was stoned by God's favourite apostle. Almost all the apostles were martyred. John the Baptist was executed blah blah.

Christianity is not a life of roses. It never was. Be prepared that it won't be.

By the way, let's not read too much into the account. Don't involve God in everything we read. The account needs to be verified.

Shotgun SG

Woops, forgot to reply about the sharks thing.

(informatioN: Great Whites hunt with a unique technique that defeats a the seals ability to detect and escape)

My point was that, someone came up with a theory that in the process of evolution and seperation, the great whites in australia didn know how to hunt seals.

The theory was accepted until proven wrong.

Conclusion, not all theories should be readily accepted as facts.

Icemoon SG

Actually what happened ah? I though Abraham pleaded with God not to kill them?

UandMe SG

wat about the possibility that these stories are written by the group of people who founded christianity so that christians will not question so much about why God is not helping those who loved him and in need of his help...

Shotgun SG

I agree with studidissmart that when the bible said a day, it meant a day.

Yes i know that there is a later verse in the bible in Peter that says, "thousand years is like a day in your courts " or something. But thats just a statement describing God's greatness rather than providing a definition of time.

The bible was written FOR man's understand, and the terms used would be terms Man is familiar with.

stupidissmart SG

In your own words. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"

Evolution is a theory that has not been observed at all, and not been repeatedly confirm. Hence it is a very fallible theory. And still a theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. [b]It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. [/b]

Simply put, it is a FACT tat evolution had occured. The theory which u r debating is only the mechanism on how EVOLUTION had occur.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

Evolution is a FACT. If u think tat most biologist and all their studies r wrong. Fine.

Icemoon SG

I think this is no more Bible discussion liao. You're actually discussing the problem of evil. Greatest stumbling block in Christianity.

Big can of worms also.

Icemoon SG

It was really a day, just that we dunno whether it was God's day or human day. Furthermore note that Genesis 1 was written from God's perspective. wahha .. didn't the Jewish Einstein introduce this idea to the world?

The bible was written for man's understanding .. precisely .. we need to take the human language into consideration. I wouldn't bet all my $$ that "world" refers to the whole world.

stupidissmart SG

What do fossils tell us? Fossils really just tell us, these creatures have existed, and died. Thru carbon dating methods, they supposedly tell us when they existed. But the carbon dating methods themselves have been fallible, since the rate of decay C14 may actually differ.

An example is a "fossilised" miner's hat, that was carbon dated to be a couple of thousands of years old.

Fossils just tell, animals of that species once existed.

Carbon dating is a method on which an object age can be found. As said in your attached website, it is found to be accurate if it was matched with calibrated data. In fact it is foudn to be accurate within the 58,000 and 62,000 years, which was already far longer than the bible 6000 years. It is an accurate method of assessing age and it is the absolute chosen method in he field of archeology.

And another point is, u have underestimate the knowledge tat can be gathered from fossils. The fossils found, according to their age, it can portray, lets say, the evolution sequence of the cat. It can be seen tat after the years the fossils found become more and more, lets say like the cat u see. If however, the fossil of a modern cat is found in older years , then it will debunk the whole theory of evolution. Tentatively no such evidence was found. I mean, u rather believe tat there used to be a few thousand more variation of the cat tat suddenly extinct in the times or tat the cat is evolving Rolling Eyes

I don't see from the article tat states "moderated" to give dates that Fall in line with "theory of evolution." . Please substantiate your claim. I think tis is really a wild accusation. It sounds to me tat your impression of scientists had become some people who had played some dirty games to cover up real knowledge of the world from mankind Rolling Eyes

3rd point. U rather believe man's mathematical prowess in the past to be mythical than the creation of life itself? Why?

I use the word "mythical" i because I think u have overhype the mathematical capability of ancient egytians. I didn't state anything about the creation of life or anything to be mythical or tat mens mathematical prowess in the past is more mythical than creation of life. Why do u say I believe in tat ?

4th point. Again, there have been variations in dna, but no new dna was found that could cause an inter-species evolution. Of course ur answer would be, it takes millions of years for species to evolve and etc. I will refer u back to my first point on Theories based on theories.

I say before and I say it again. Why should dna have to be completely "brand new" ? Then "brand new" dna was found tat was completely different from the other species of animal, then it is an evidence for creation, not evolution.

Shotgun SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[b]Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. [b]It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. [/b]

Simply put, it is a FACT tat evolution had occured. The theory which u r debating is only the mechanism on how EVOLUTION had occur.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

Evolution is a FACT. If u think tat most biologist and all their studies r wrong. Fine.

[/b]

I sense a conclusion to this discussion.

Well think about, how can evolution be a proven fact, when it has to be observed and repeatedly confirmed? No scientist was present 250 million years ago. No human witnessed the ocean 3.6 billion years ago.

The evolution theory we have today are based on theories upon theories which majority has remained as theory. True, theories are supposed to be based on some laws. But in the case of the evolution theory, all the theories developed were developed based on the original evolution theory, or another sub-theory. Hence, evolution itself has gotten lost in its own theory.

Ask a few different evolutionist scientist on their theory of evolution, and u will be likely to hear a few different explanations. The evolution theory itself has so many school of thoughts that there are constantly different theories that debunks the previous theory. So how can we call evolution a fact?

And yes, perhaps many biologists today are really mislead by this whole evolution thing.

However, the evolution theory, is perhaps the only way to explain how life on earth, and how earth came about, without the existence of a being of Supreme Intellect and powers.

About whether its God's 1 day or man's 1 day. It is definitely man's 1 day. The word was originally passed to man to record. And then handed down by word of mouth until a time there were scribes to record.

Any theologists here can confirm this?

ha8n SG

Touched by *od

Then bao qi by gfod >> exorcisim of emily based on true story

stupidissmart SG

yah .. but I'm sure you know about the young earth vs. old earth debate .. the problem is in the definition of a "day".

In the bible a "day" is used as any other day. U can flip to other pages in the bible tat uses the word "day" and it really means tat a "day", is really meant as a "day". In the genesis is already explicitly mention a day to be a sunest and sunrise. I don't see why anyone has a problem with the definition of a "day".

If u doubt the way roman write their history, then u might as well don't believe in history since u can doubt all the historian in their manner of writing.

The bible is suppose to be god inspire and the god is suppose to be all knowing. He explicitly say "world". Unless u tell me tat god don't know about other regions like china or nepal, then the fact still stands tat the bible is wrong about a flood tat cover the whole world up till the tallest peak.

Woops, forgot to reply about the sharks thing.

(informatioN: Great Whites hunt with a unique technique that defeats a the seals ability to detect and escape)

My point was that, someone came up with a theory that in the process of evolution and seperation, the great whites in australia didn know how to hunt seals.

The theory was accepted until proven wrong.

Conclusion, not all theories should be readily accepted as facts.

I don't knwo where u get to watch tis documentary but frankly speaking it really proves nothing as even men was attacked by shark even though men is suppose to be strange to them (men don't live inside sea) And frankly, I am pretty confident tat the "theory" by the documentary is not the same as the "theory" use in scientific field. Scientifically and technically speaking, the person probably came out with a hypothesis and not a theory.

Actually what happened ah? I though Abraham pleaded with God not to kill them?

God still kills them. In the end he kill the sinners because of their sins.

Icemoon SG

wah .. you seems very sure leh. how come? you were there when God made it happen? Mr. Green

Icemoon SG

I never said it doesnt mean a day. Or claim that one day == 1 thousand years. I said it might be a day from God's perspective. Exactly how many human days is another matter.

The Jewish Einstein did highlight us to this possiblity. The twin paradox .. remember?

The sunset and sunrise is even trickier. Erev and Boker .. the Hebrew words for them .. can mean other things too. All the more when they are used in some literary sense.

If u doubt the way roman write their history, then u might as well don't believe in history since u can doubt all the historian in their manner of writing.

Ah .. when did I doubt them? I merely pointed out that absence of evidence != evidence of absence. It remains "unproven" historically. It has to be taken by faith by the xtians.

At that time, their model of the world was their region. Probably some of the prophets were given revelation of this country called China .. bwahaha .. but the people were most probably ignorant of any land beyond mesopotamia.

God still kills them. In the end he kill the sinners because of their sins.

Don't get it. Didn't Abraham challenged God .. or was it God challenged Abraham? .. to find even 50 righteous people?

Shotgun SG

As mentioned in the article. You can read up the process of carbon dating's calibration at your own leisure. The calibration process of raw BP dates itself is the moderation of the dates. Perhaps it is indeed justified to take in account of the 1950's increase in radioactivity levels and etc. But how can they justify calibration of pre-history data? And the fact is they do, in order to produce results closer to the benchmark called evolution.

Overhype? Well, perhaps I did if they ancient egyptians had aids such as our modern day PC or cray super computers.

Hmm, how should explain the new DNA thing... First i suggest a read up on how DNA works, on how different creatures have different DNA. Note, I did not say variation of DNAs, but different. In layman's terms, an "X" 's variation can be blue, green or red font, but "Y" itself is different from X. Y is different from X, and not a variation of X. This is just an example and has no co-relations to chromosones. =D

The difference from one species to another requires differences in the set of DNA creature have. Tho some species may have similar DNAs, remember that many creatures on this planet share similar characteristics with us too. Eg, many creatures have blood, bones and teeth.

The difference between a poodle and wolf maybe a variation of DNA, but the difference between a canine and a feline requires a differences in the set of DNAs.

Okay, perhaps to make thing clearer. Rather than "new DNA" , lets just call it, "new instructions" for the DNA. A variation of instruction vs a new set of instructions.

stupidissmart SG

Your arguments is basically revolving on the use of the word "theory". U choose to ignore how the scientific field defien the word "theory" and u also fail to see tat many textbook science we study now, like atomic structure and gravity r really just theories as well. U also seemed to be thinking that a whole field of scientists, namely biologist r really bullsh!tting and know nothing about evolution. I don't think it is fair to say tat the works of a field of scinetist tat had been extablished for many years to be totally crap and rightly so because u don't seems to offer any evidences at all. I mean, talking and coming out with your own hypothesis is easy. U have to back up with evidence. Biologists back theirs with evidence. If u wanna say they r wrong, prove them otherwise. In fact u can't even explain why r whales with legs found. Why don't u try to answer tis with a explanation tat does not involve any form of evolution ?

stupidissmart SG

I have pretty much strong argument tat says a "day" is a normal day

1. from genesis 1:5

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day

Tis definition is really the definition of how common men mark a "day". From here, we can see tat the definition of men's day is the same as the god definition of a day.

2. It can be shown repeatedly throughout genesis one on its emphasis on the passing of one morning and night to form a day.

3. It can be seen in the bible throughout tat usage of the word "day" is really meant as a day

If u claim tat it is god's idea of day, then u have to show me why do u think so. Did genesis 1 ever says tat it is the god standard of day ? If not then we have to take the literal meaning of wat a day really is... a morning and a night. If u still wanna argue, then show me more evidence from the scipture tat the day is not a day but meant any duration of time u deems fit to follow science

« Previous Page Next Page »