> Off Topic Discussions
A science debate
aqrinc:
To discuss this subject on a somewhat even platform, we need to have some background.
1. What was Darwin claiming with his theory of evolution; what evidence did he use.
2. What does the evidence today show; that he did not have access to in his time.
3. What is the signifance of The Burgess Shale Fossils as it relates to Scripture Timelines.
Ok that is a little bit of research that individuals need to do, to even be in the discussion
in a positive way. Ray has done much of this work already so go back and check out the
Nashville 2008 Conference audio, video and transcripts.
This may seem pointless to some, so be it; remember Ray spent a lot of time doing this
work at a very painful time in his life. Science is catching up to where The Scriptures have
always been in some areas. That is part of the preparation required by all those who would
be saviours.
If The Scriptures say it, and they are properly translated; then we need to brain dump
anything that does not accord with The Scriptures.
BTW: honest Science does accord with properly Translated Scripture.
Luk 5: 36-39 (MKJV)
36 And He also spoke a parable to them: No one puts a piece of a new garment on an old garment. Otherwise, both the new will tear, and the old does not match the piece from the new.
37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskin will perish.
38 But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved together.
39 Also no one having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, The old is better.
george. :)
Stevernator:
This is a response to George. Please provide evidence that honest science supports a literal, authorative, creationist interperation of the scriptures. I would like to note that religous authorities have many times been behind the scientific community in regards to age of the earth, shape of the earth and heliocentrism. Many creationists are criminals or dishonest such as Harun Yahya (holocaust denier, allegations of sexual coercion and blackmail), Kent Hovind (tax fraud, deceptive claims) and Ken Ham from AnswersinGenesis (young earth creationism). According to wikipedia, Michael Behe, proponent of intelligent design: "During this testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well" Alternatively Kenneth Miller is a noted evolutionary scientist who is a Roman Catholic. I think that biologists are much more honest and furthermore, their credibility is at stake in peer reviewed journals.
1. What was Darwin claiming with his theory of evolution; what evidence did he use.
Organisms have evolved from a common ancestor. It does not explain how life started. The process of evolution involves random variation, selection for a beneficial physical characteristic and heredity of information. This was very impressive for his time since he did not have access to the knowledge of genetics.
Some of Darwin's evidence came from observing finches on the Galapagos Island and how they adapt to get food. You can read more here http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm
2. What does the evidence today show; that he did not have access to in his time.
The evidence today shows that during copying of genetic material there are errors such as additions, deletions, substitions etc of nucleotide base pairs. A particular mutation may or may not alter the phenotype of the offspring. The mutated genotype is passed onto offspring and if it confers an adaptive phenotype then they will have a competitive advantage.
The evidence is enormous and has been growing as science progresses and includes comparative morphology (physical anatomy of organisms), similarity in genetics (humans/chimps have 99% of DNA, is that a coincidence??), the consistent fossil record that has hundreds of transitional forms between reptiles/birds, reptieles/mammals fish/ amphibians, amph/reptiles but none in cases which violate the tree of life. . Most species are now extinct.
We share several similar characteristics to mammals. According to wikipedia.org/mammals, Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate animals whose name is derived from their distinctive feature, mammary glands, with which they feed their young. They are also characterized by the possession of sweat glands, hair, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain. They have live birth except for 3 species. All of the biological evidence supports a tree of life classification.
Also, ostriches have bones that birds have which have air pockets in them but these bones are counterproductive to life on lands. Similarly, since bats are mammals they have solid bones (which are bad for flight). Whales have the genes for making tails (in fact some humans have tails), chickens have genes for making teeth, etc. If Intelligent Design were true these details would be unlikely. If any scientist could disprove evolution, they would be a nobel prize winner. Animals have vesitgal features leftover from ancestors which are not useful at all to them which shows evidence of evolution instead of ID.
Most of the information from the previous paragraphs are from this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63LRfLyR-JU I believe this information is backed up from the science record since he has a evolutionary biology degree but if it contradicts information in a peer reviewed journal, let me know.
Also, since the process is over billions of years it should be suspected that there are gaps in the evidence.
3. What is the signifance of The Burgess Shale Fossils as it relates to Scripture Timelines
I am not sure what that has to do with scripture as scripture doesnt directly suggest anything conclusive far before the creation of Adam 6,000 years ago but maybe this is what you are talking about. Taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale
Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life, published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more diverse than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct. He suggests that this interpretation supports his hypothesis of evolution by punctuated equilibrium. Gould's interpretation of the diversity of Cambrian fauna relied heavily on Simon Conway Morris' reinterpretation of Charles Walcott's original publications. However, Conway Morris strongly disagreed with Gould's conclusions, arguing that almost all the Cambrian fauna could be classified into modern day phyla.
In response to Dave in Tenn, it is true that many mutations are not beneficial, but these have no impact or have a negative impact. So if the mutation hurts the organsim, it will be less likely to survive and reproduce. This is how natural selection removes organisms with inferior fitness.
musicman:
I don't know if human tails can be considered vestigal organs or not. After all, there are other anomolies in some that probably wouldn't be in our evolutionary past. For instance, my nephew was born with an extra finger on one hand. Where does that fall on the tree. How about the little girl in India who recently was born with 8 arms. Perhaps the octopus is closer to us than previously thought. After all, the eye of the octopus is more similar to ours than those of many mammals. Which brings me to punctuated equilibriam. Don't hear much about this hypothesis any more. Why? Probably because it goes totally against Darwinism and isn't any more possible. The idea was that species evolved in small seperate groups from the others. This provided abundant incest which is conducive for mutations. Evolution would happen so fast that the smooth transitions expected would not be observed in the fossil record. Now, if what Iv'e heard about mutations is correct (1 in 10,000 or even 100,000 presents a possitive survival gene) then the group would wipe itself out way before any real adaptave change can take place. It appears to me, that punctuated equilibrium is a cop out to answer for all of the problems in the fossil record.
But before punctuated equilibrium took science, there was the short lived "hopeful monster" hypo. You know, where a dinosaur or something layed an egg and a bird hatched out? (they'd probably feed it to the other younguns) But perhaps this octogirl is an example of this. Perhaps she has added information in her genes that give her 8 arms and this can be passed on. Perhaps there is a small chance that she could give birth to another octokid. First off, for such a thing to be likely, she would have to mate (she'd have to do it octopus style though) with another who by ridiculous odds has the same mutated genes. This would be her only chance in nature because nobody else would come near some octowoman beast (would you?). So, would that have happened in nature? Or would having 8 arms present such difficulty that octothing dies shortly after birth? By the way, there are problems with the evolutionary tree concerning homolgous features in animals alive today. And I don't believe Darwin's finches are an example of mutation.
Evolution evidence is a good challenge and I hope this post continues.
aqrinc:
Stevernator,
Please read my entire post on this subject in this thread, see below. I am not trying to prove anything.
if you wish to disprove it go ahead. I did provide links to a couple bits of information, anyone who wishes
can access google and get the same information with a little work.
Buying and reading all the journals is another matter, #1 is my current research and reference material.
1. Gerald L Schroeder: Genesis and the Big Bang, The Science of GOD, and The Hidden Face Of GOD.
2. Rays entire series from The 2008 Nashville conference
3. Emmanuel Velikovsky: Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos, plus others i can't recall right now.
3.1. Probably 30 or more large boxes of books my wife wants me to throw out or give away.
Countless hours searching online or in libraries and friends book collections.
I am not trying to convince anyone to believe anything, we are free to believe however until GOD Says Enough.
Sorry if that is a bit abrupt, but if you have evidence that contradicts the information then put it out for discussion
or point me to the source.
My number one focus now is:
The Kingdom Of GOD And HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS; that i will defend with All i have been given.
george. :)
I said
--- Quote from: aqr on March 19, 2009, 02:59:46 PM ---
To discuss this subject on a somewhat even platform, we need to have some background.
1. What was Darwin claiming with his theory of evolution; what evidence did he use.
2. What does the evidence today show; that he did not have access to in his time.
3. What is the signifance of The Burgess Shale Fossils as it relates to Scripture Timelines.
Ok that is a little bit of research that individuals need to do, to even be in the discussion
in a positive way. Ray has done much of this work already so go back and check out the
Nashville 2008 Conference audio, video and transcripts.
This may seem pointless to some, so be it; remember Ray spent a lot of time doing this
work at a very painful time in his life. Science is catching up to where The Scriptures have
always been in some areas. That is part of the preparation required by all those who would
be saviours.
If The Scriptures say it, and they are properly translated; then we need to brain dump
anything that does not accord with The Scriptures.
BTW: honest Science does accord with properly Translated Scripture.
Luk 5: 36-39 (MKJV)
36 And He also spoke a parable to them: No one puts a piece of a new garment on an old garment. Otherwise, both the new will tear, and the old does not match the piece from the new.
37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskin will perish.
38 But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved together.
39 Also no one having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, The old is better.
george. :)
--- End quote ---
Deborah-Leigh:
Well we are just children, you know. He calls us children all the way through the Bible. John is one that liked to refer to the church as little children, not even just children, but ‘little’ children.http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,5312.0.html
I think it was Hosea Ballou, Pastor of the Universalist Church and society of Rockberry, and a writer back in 1700s or some time ago. But I think it was Hosea Ballou who came up with the analogy and it’s a very fine analogy. He said God is Like the rays of the sun and Jesus is, like I mentioned yesterday that Jesus is the Son of God, but not only the s-o-n, but the s-u-n of God, the brightness of the sun, you see. So we liken God to the rays of the sun, this bright radiant warmth that gives light and heat and causes things to grow and all these wonderful things from the rays of the sun.
But ironically in the evening, when the sun goes down it gets colder and towards morning it gets damp. There’s often times dew on the grass, wet, damp and cold. Aha, I think I have God figured out now. When the sun is up, it’s not damp, it’s not wet, it’s not cold, it’s not dark. When the sun goes down it’s cold, damp and dark. Therefore the sun is the cause of dampness, cold and darkness. How do you like that? Cause when the sun’s up you don’t have those things, and when the sun goes down you have them. Therefore this darkness is caused by the sun. No, that’s wrong. That’s the way some people understand theology.
It’s when the sun is gone the automatic results is, it’s dark, cold and damp. The sun didn’t cause it. It’s when the sun comes up the sun takes it away. It’s not when the sun goes down it causes it to come. It always been there, it’s the sun that takes it away, it’s not the sun causes it to come and that’s the way God is.
When God removes His beams of light from mankind they become cold and damp and dark. Is that hard to understand? Automatically. God does not have to supernaturally make it dark on one side of the earth when the sun is on the other side. God doesn’t have to do that it’s automatic, and God doesn’t have to force anybody to sin, it’s automatic.
Yes God brings about the circumstances, “Wherefore God gave them up…” yes He did, He’s behind it. http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3709.0.html
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version