"Evolution isn't science"

Foster Zygote said:
Yes, I have a couple: Are you aware that the KJV is based on some very questionable translations? Wouldn't you expect the original Hebrew and Greek texts to be the most accurate?
Click to expand...

Not to lend Jeseus freak any undue support, I asked a friend of mine who went through divinity school in which he learned Greek, latin and Hebrew (so that he could read the untranslated texts) which version of the bible was most accurately translated. I was shocked and suprised when he said that, for an english translation and all the problems associated with translating one language to another, the KJV was the most accurate. That is when compared to other english versions of the bible.

Nothing is more accurate then the untranslated text. The trans-litteration versions are little dodgy because they do not take into account vernacular and differences in grammer.

What is really questionable about the bible is the heavy editing done with the original texts. There are alot of sections within the original scrolls and texts which are not in the KJV and present versions of the bible.
 
jesus_freak said:
FROM BEGINING TO END THE FLOOD LASTED ONE YEAR AND TEN DAYS
Click to expand...

Damn, I'd like to know where all the water went.

seems to me that you are vary faithfull like...then these plants and trees showed up...sorry but I really do find that way less beleivable than God speaking them into exsistance.
Click to expand...

You find something whose very concept is contradictory, that defies the laws of logic and physics and that contradicts everything we know about history to be more believable ?

Fine. Go right ahead.
 
If the Earth is only 4,000 years old, and Noah lived for 600 years, then he lived for 15% of the Earths current existence. That is impressive. How long did Adam live?
 
Ge 7:11-8:14
Click to expand...

I boobed - I said you'd redefine the length of the flood to be when Noah got off - which you did. Silly me. I almost didn't catch that. Very carless.

Now perhaps you'd like to try that again but only dealing with the actual flooding? And I sure as hell would like to see your calculations.

Oh and I should remind you that we're calculating days - since the whole point is the disparaty between the days stated for the length of the flood and the dates. You do get that right?
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
I think one of my major problems is this...how did life come into existance...according to evolution some where down the line non living things had to evolve into life no matter how simple.
Click to expand...

Evolution says nothing about the emergence of life itself. Or haven't you been paying attention ?

yes PLEASE! there are so many questions that I have heard no rational answers for...like non living becoming living
Click to expand...

That's because you try to make the living far too distinct from the non-living than is called for.

the evolution of the heart or eyes, what evolved first our muscles, skeleton,lungs,nose,brain,eyes,why would we lose our tails, from as far as I know there are no transitional fossils that are proven true.
Click to expand...

Wrong. EVERY fossil's a transitional fossil.
 
Ok here is my response. I BELIEVE IT IS TRUE! do you believe that slavery back then was different than say a few hundred years ago?
So you condone slavery ?

Quote:
Nope I am just saying scientifically proven lies
If they are scientifically proven then why would the theory continue to be used, eh ?

Quote:
so how do you believe the earth was formed?
Not a matter of belief.

Quote:
My stance and argument is that the Bible is 100% true and to be taken litteral.
Which parts ? Two of each animal or seven ? Which of the two creation stories is correct ? Since you believe the thing is inerrant, I assume you've read all of it.

Quote:
The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966
Mayhap you should stop living forty years in the past.
__________________
Click to expand...

ok here we go again with a list of questions.

1)No!
2)Thats my point
3)OK how do you KNOW?
4)Which parts?...all of it
2 of each animal or 7...the extra six pairs of clean animals were to be used as sacrafice.
Which of the two creation stories are correct...the only one I assume you are talking about the summerization as the second "story"
I assume you have read all of it...Yes a few times
 
Do I need to keep doing this?
I boobed - I said you'd redefine the length of the flood to be when Noah got off - which you did. Silly me. I almost didn't catch that. Very carless.

Now perhaps you'd like to try that again but only dealing with the actual flooding? And I sure as hell would like to see your calculations.
Click to expand...

2)in the 600th year of Noah(2nd mo. 17th day) the flood began(Ge 7:11)
3)the waters flooded the earth for 150 days(5 30 day months)including the 40 days and nights of rain(Ge 7:12,17,24 and 8:1)
4)in the 600th year of Noah(7th mo. 7th day)the waters began to recede.(Ge 7:24,8:1)
5)the waters later receded to the point that the ark rested on Ararat.(600th year 7th mo. 17th day) (Ge 8:3,4)
6)the waters continued to abate so that the tops of the mountains were visible.(600th year 10th mo. 1st day)(Ge 8:5)
7)forty days later(600th year 11th mo. 10th day) Noah sent out a raven and a dove(Ge 8:6) over the next 14 days Noah sent out two more doves(Ge 8:10,12) In all this took 61 days or 2mo's. and 1day.
8)By Noah's 601st year on the first mo. and first day the water had dried up.(Ge 8:12,13)
Click to expand...
 
jesus_freak said:
ok here we go again with a list of questions.
Click to expand...

Please learn to use the quote function.

So you condone slavery ?
Click to expand...

1)No!
Click to expand...

God does, Heretic!

3)OK how do you KNOW?
Click to expand...

I don't. I follow the evidence.

4)Which parts?...all of it
Click to expand...

Even the ones that are mutually exclusive ?

2 of each animal or 7...the extra six pairs of clean animals were to be used as sacrafice.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Read the relevant chapters. There are two distinct flood stories. In one, only TWO of each animal is taken aboard the ark. Not seven PAIRS, TWO of EACH. How do you reconcile the two DIFFERENT stories ?

Which of the two creation stories are correct
Click to expand...

...the only one I assume you are talking about the summerization as the second "story"
Click to expand...

No go. The second chapter of Genesis is not a summary of the PREVIOUS chapter. It's a different tale. Man and woman aren't even created in the same way.

Yes a few times
Click to expand...

And you haven't spotted the contradictions ?
 
If the Earth is only 4,000 years old, and Noah lived for 600 years, then he lived for 15% of the Earths current existence. That is impressive. How long did Adam live?
Click to expand...
1)I think the earth is 6000-1000 years old...please don't put words in my mouth...THANK YOU
2)930 years
 
jesus_freak said:
Do I need to keep doing this?
Click to expand...

Do you understand what a calculation is?

It is quite simple really. What you do is you calculate the DAYS based on the age of Noah and the DAYS based on the stated various ebbings and flowings of the flood. Do you understand or not? I don't see any totals there for days.
 
jesus_freak said:
yes PLEASE! there are so many questions that I have heard no rational answers for...like non living becoming living, the evolution of the heart or eyes, what evolved first our muscles, skeleton,lungs,nose,brain,eyes,why would we lose our tails, from as far as I know there are no transitional fossils that are proven true.
Click to expand...

Basically, the reason you haven't heard "rational answers" for many of these is because you haven't looked in the right places. Talkorigins.org has a number of detailed, scientifically accurate answers to a lot of them.

For example, not only are there transitional fossils, but there are a lot of them, covering all sorts of transitions.

Darwin himself presented a description of how the eye evolved, a description that has been the subject of much research since.

Et cetera.

If you really want to find rational answers to your questions, I'd suggest looking here first. Because most of the arguments you've presented -- such as the peppered moth -- have already been addressed and discredited.
 
jesus_freak said:
Minnesota

I think one of my major problems is this...how did life come into existance...according to evolution some where down the line non living things had to evolve into life no matter how simple.

yes PLEASE! there are so many questions that I have heard no rational answers for...like non living becoming living, the evolution of the heart or eyes, what evolved first our muscles, skeleton,lungs,nose,brain,eyes,why would we lose our tails, from as far as I know there are no transitional fossils that are proven true.
Click to expand...

I think you are questioning the wrong theory. Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life, just the origin of species. That's why Darwin titled his book, Origin of Species. You seem to have a problem with the theory of Abiogenesis. The law of gravity does not explain electricity. That does not invalidate gravity. You are making a similar error. No scientist ever claimed that Evolution explains the origin of life.
 
jesus_freak said:
Ok here is a quick one I found!
Click to expand...

A link back to your source would be polite to them and us.
What was observed:
In certain parts of England, before the 1850's, the majority of Pepper moths (but not all) were light coloured. (left typica or typical) Then for about 100 years, the melanic (left: carbonaria, dark coloured morph) numbers of the moth rose to become the majority and the typica became few in number. Presently the frequency of the melanic is decreasing. This change is one of the most famous proofs of evolution used this century and is in virtually every school textbook. This change certainly does not demonstrate evolution (change between kinds) because we have the same cross fertile moth before and after.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. The frequency of the genes for the melanic form are certainly changing in the above example, hence that population of moths can be said to be evolving. What is more, it was demonstrated fairly convincingly that the change in allele frequency was due to differential predation of the two forms of the moth. In other words, the evolution was due to natural selection.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

We have the numbers of dark and light moths change, not their physiology or genetics. For example, rabbits, bears, dogs, cats and rodents of the same breed come in black and white variation. Polar bears and grizzlies are a single "kind" (able to cross breed) with two different colour fur living in two very different habitats with different physical structures, claws, fur type, the blubber lining and other physical characteristics that make them slightly different from each other. This difference is not evolution, but variation within one kind of animal.
Click to expand...

And if the variation is controlled by genes, and if the frequency of these genes changes over time, that is also evolution.

Your example confuses evolution with speciation.
 
The experiments that tried to prove the melanic selection with the peppered moth were horribly flawed. They were not representative of real world situations and had poor controls. That being said, suppose the experiments were done well it it was true that the soot had created a selective advantage for the dark morph, that would prove the same principles of evolution that are proven by antibiotic resistance in bacteria which all but the most stubborn creationists accept.

Polar bears are very closely related to brown bears (which includes grizzlies) and they are in fact in the same genus. Scientists are aware of the problems with the definition of species as reproductive compatability (which also describes a kind), there are several schools of thought on how it could be changed but none are airtight.

The rabbit example is just simple genetic variability, if there were a selective pressure for one color over another then that would certainly qualify, but again that is no different than selecting for resistant bacteria.

I think one of my major problems is this...how did life come into existance...according to evolution some where down the line non living things had to evolve into life no matter how simple.
Click to expand...
The theories of abiogenesis and evolution are separate theories and the success of one does not depend on the success of the other. I don't know what process other than a chemical one could bring life into existance since all living things are chemical in nature. Evolution simply deals with life once it has come to be by whatever process and it does not depend on any particular process of origin to be successful.
 
jesus_freak said:
1)I think the earth is 6000-1000 years old...please don't put words in my mouth...THANK YOU
2)930 years
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth and I apologize if I made you think I did. 4,000 years is a common estimate used by Young-Earth Creationists. So using your longest estimate, 6,000 years, Adam lived for about 15.5% of the Earth's age and Noah lived about 10%. Interesting.

I think we can narrow your range down somewhat. It's been 2,000 years since Jesus was crucified, right? I mean, the Earth has to be more than 1,000 years old. Otherwise, Adam only died 70 years ago.
 
jesus_freak
1)I think the earth is 6000-1000 years old...please don't put words in my mouth...THANK YOU
2)930 years
Click to expand...


I just want to say thank you to everyone who has replied to jf, I for one have learned alot :D and I also want to thank jf for reminding me of why I started lurking on these forums and for reinforcing my aversion to some forms of Christianity :eye-poppi she really shows the truth of christians:)

gypsey
 
Belz... said:
My new motto is : "Arguing against reality is ultimately futile."

There has been human civilisation for far longer than 6000 years. How do you explain that ?
Click to expand...

One explanation I've heard:

6,000 years ago, God created a 4-billion-year-old Earth.

He can totally do that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom