Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Creationists, explain to me why humans and dinosaurs....

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
joeyjock wrote:
I think what we are arguing here is the process of Scientific investigation rather than if Creationism is true science or not...

Yes ... you can investigate if fairies truly exist or not
but the first step in your investigative analysis will have to include a basis for further investigation in the form of some concrete evidence
..you can't say "well I feel that fairies exist because the woodlands are too complex for them not to be there"

The reason the Scientific community will not listen to the ID people is for this aspect alone
If they came up with something that looked interesting and could lead to further study...by all means -- have at it


I am in full agreement.
Back to top
Refused
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 247

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://www.grisda.org/origins/14033.htm


hmm.. it may be a footprint with a dinosaur footprint.. hmm..
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Refused wrote:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/14033.htm


hmm.. it may be a footprint with a dinosaur footprint.. hmm..


You mean like the original Pauluxy River footprints?
Back to top
CustomFordGirl
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 446
Location: Greensburg, PA

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the Earth was created in 6 24-hour days, as is described in Genesis. For one thing, how can there be "evening and morning" if on the first day there is no horizon?
I cannot, however, believe that we are descended from apes, who evolved from fish, who evolved from single-celled organisms in the water, who just spontaneously appeared one prehistoric day.

It takes a lot of faith to believe in a Creator. However, it takes a lot more faith to believe we're accidents of nature.. especially when there is no evidence to prove either.

My theory: a "day" in Genesis is an era.. millennia.
The dinosaurs lived on the earth in the fifth and sixth "days", and died off before man came along.
This theory lives hand-in-hand with non-creationist thinking, in how things came to exist.

Day 1: "Let there be light." The "Big Bang."
Day 2: The Earth comes to settle in its orbit around our sun.
Day 3: Plant life develops. (Interchangeable with Day 4)
Day 4: The moon falls into orbit around the Earth.
Day 5: Aquatic creatures develop.
Day 6: Land creatures develop. Man is "born"
Day 7: Science takes over. Smile

Since nobody was there, and since science cannot tell us how it all came to be, why not accept Genesis's story? It's as good as any other culture/religion's story.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why not accept Genesis' story? Because sometimes it's better to admit when you don't know. Just because someone can't prove it wrong does not mean it is true.

If everyone takes the genesis story as fact then we will no longer have people out there searching for real answers.

P.S. The moon didn't exactly 'fall' into orbit, so much as a meteor hit the still molten earth and an equal body to the meteor was spewed out the other side, this soon cooled down and settled in orbit around the cooling earth.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
<sigh>... those footprints are NOT human foot prints
they have been studied extensively over the years and are sauropod footprints
...again ... and I repeat there WERE NO humans around when the dinosaurs were here on earth
unless you managed to get some amber with a mosquito that happened to have bitten a dinosaur 3 million yrs ago....HEY wait a minute..! Smile
Back to top
CustomFordGirl
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 446
Location: Greensburg, PA

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
Why not accept Genesis' story? Because sometimes it's better to admit when you don't know. Just because someone can't prove it wrong does not mean it is true.

If everyone takes the genesis story as fact then we will no longer have people out there searching for real answers.

P.S. The moon didn't exactly 'fall' into orbit, so much as a meteor hit the still molten earth and an equal body to the meteor was spewed out the other side, this soon cooled down and settled in orbit around the cooling earth.


And you know this moon story to be factual? We can't prove it wrong..
I can counter you with the same circle logic if you want.. I can say that just because you can't prove it's true doesn't mean it's wrong.

Do you believe King David lived? What about the prophets Elijah and Elisha? Moses?
We have further evidence of Daniel's life, being historical texts from Babylon. We have evidence that Jesus really did walk the earth, being Josephus and related texts from the time.
If we found Noah's Ark, would you believe the story surrounding it? And if you believed the story of Noah's Ark, would that then lead you to believe other stories from Genesis?

These are questions.. meant to probe, and get a feel for your attitude surrounding the Bible and Genesis in particular.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No, we can prove it wrong, if there happened to be some material on the moon that was not the result of a meteor and does not exist on the earth then we would know the hypothesis to be false. Thats what a good hypothesis does, it explains *all* the facts, and it is testable.

I am no authority on the subject, I would have to see the evidence behind David, Elijah, Moses, Noah and so on. I'm pretty sure Noah didn't live to be six hundred, and I'm fairly certain that the earliest reference to jesus was a good 40 years after his death. I'm absolutely positive that the current bible was strung together by a bunch of people who organized crusade type churches when they decided they better get on story together, so they sat down and they, these mere mortals, decided which works were god's words and which were not.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There has been a flood parable in almost every single civilzation that has walked the earth since the dawn of man ...
predating the time of the supposed Moses
...and that's what it is people a PARABLE
a story that you're supposed to gain insight from
if you really believe that there actually was a world wide flood and a man and his family placed every living animal on a raft without plants mind you
then we got more serious problems than I thought
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CustomFordGirl wrote:
I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the Earth was created in 6 24-hour days, as is described in Genesis. For one thing, how can there be "evening and morning" if on the first day there is no horizon?
I cannot, however, believe that we are descended from apes, who evolved from fish, who evolved from single-celled organisms in the water, who just spontaneously appeared one prehistoric day.

It takes a lot of faith to believe in a Creator. However, it takes a lot more faith to believe we're accidents of nature.. especially when there is no evidence to prove either.

My theory: a "day" in Genesis is an era.. millennia.
The dinosaurs lived on the earth in the fifth and sixth "days", and died off before man came along.
This theory lives hand-in-hand with non-creationist thinking, in how things came to exist.

Day 1: "Let there be light." The "Big Bang."
Day 2: The Earth comes to settle in its orbit around our sun.
Day 3: Plant life develops. (Interchangeable with Day 4)
Day 4: The moon falls into orbit around the Earth.
Day 5: Aquatic creatures develop.
Day 6: Land creatures develop. Man is "born"
Day 7: Science takes over. Smile

Since nobody was there, and since science cannot tell us how it all came to be, why not accept Genesis's story? It's as good as any other culture/religion's story.


The last part of your post here is a bogus though increasingly popular interpretation of scripture, at least in popular culture. The first part, describing the scientific aspects, is completely ridiculous and reveals much misunderstanding on your part.

I'll deal with the science first. There are no such things as "accidents" in nature (or human history for that matter). Things just happen because of certain reasons, some of which are more prevalent than others. We have plenty of evidence that Earth's early atmosphere could produce the necessary ingredients for life. We know that much for sure. How? We've done it ourselves. Refer to the Urey-Miller experiment in the 1950s, which simulated the early atmosphere of our planet and produced things like nucleic and amino acids, critical building blocks for that single-cellular life that you don't believe in. The comment about there being no evidence just evokes ignorance on the issue; there is still much that we don't know about how life on Earth precisely started, but we've got the general idea down fairly well. Furthermore, evolution is just about one of the easiest things in the world to believe in, simply because there is so much evidence for it. It almost should be common-sensical at this point; evolution seems more obvious and real to me than the tv screen I'm watching.

Now to address your theory about the days implying "eras" in Genesis. This is a very "interesting" point and one that comes up often among either creationists or people who try to reconcile creationism with modern geological and evolutionary thought. I am not going to dispute your interpretation because people can and do fiddle with scripture all the time, but I will offer a historical argument that renders your statements sociologically irrelevant. For most of their history, Christians generally believed that the Earth was very young, something like a few thousand years. If you went back to the year 1700 and asked typical European Christians about the age of the Earth, that's what they would say: five, six, maybe ten thousand years, but no more. At the time, even more inquisitive, scientific minds trying to discover the secrets of geology would have given relatively young lifespans for our planet. It's not until later scientific work showed that the Earth was clearly much older than what the Bible stated, or what people thought the Bible stated, that views began to change, however gradually. As a result of all this, there now are people like you, attempting to reconcile statements in the Bible that a long time ago would have seemed normal but today are idiotic with the same scientific findings that you purportedly do not care about. Quite an odd (or maybe not) phenomenon.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
The logic of modalities has its derivation through philosophers and scientist from ontological arguments "proving" the existance of God. The ontological arguments for God are still argued in philosophical circles, but from the "study of the the existance of God" science has gained the development of modal logic.

Yes, the Intelligent Design hypothesis has no basis in reality and, IMO, is utterly false. But, the study of anything - even of unicorns popping into existence - could lead to lines of thought and reasoning that ultimately extend our knowledge.

Now, if someone finds value in studying the problem of unicorns popping into existence willy-nilly, hey, more power to them. I mean other people find value in studying the possiblity that life on this planet poofed into existence by an Intelligent Designer.


A total misconception of what's going on. One of the main problems with intelligent design is that it's not a new or unique proposition; these types of positions have been held by people, in one way or another, for centuries. ID doesn't offer anything new and these latest attempts to blend its "findings" into scientific jargon have been justly struck down by the courts, who have recognized the movement and the "theory" as fundamentally religious. Modal logic was sparked by lucid, original thought and analysis. The two situations are not comparable in the way you want them to be.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
Modal logic was sparked by lucid, original thought and analysis. The two situations are not comparable in the way you want them to be.


If it wasn't philosophy and ontological arguments, then explain the science that sparked Modal logic. In a search for God, philosophers struck on the concept of modal logic. What I have been arguing here is the idea that science does not preclude seeking answers by any means, it can't. Science accepts what is the most plausible, logical solution to a theory.

What science does not do, a priori, is dictate what can not be studied, which, unfortunately, it seems many people on this board seem to be doing. There have seen a plethora of posters stating, with apparent complete certainty, that ID can not lead to any scientific validity. While I am inclined to agree with that, it is impossibility to prove it - because you can not prove a negative.

That is my argument, people here claim to be open to the scientific process, but then seem to wall off any study of ID whatsoever. Science does not do that - the ICR does that (if you look at it's charter, it states that the acceptance of the existance of God is a requirement in any line of study)

The requirements of the ICR on its study mean, IMO, their methods are flawed and no valid assertions will likely come from them - the ICR. However, that doesn't mean that someone could not attempt to logically study the assertions of ID, with no a priori bounds. Will something come of it? Personally, I seriously doubt it, but I am not so omniscient to make a claim that science can not make - 100% certainty. That is not the way of the scientific method.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You did not really address what I said. My commentary was directed at your argument that sometimes the study of a specific subject could lead to new lines of thinking. That's true and you gave modal logic, quite correctly, as an example. The point is that intelligent design is a subject that has already been studied, and studied thoroughly too. The vast majority of ID propositions coming out now have been made, in one way or another, by people living centuries and even millennia ago. And where they haven't, it is because ID simply "borrowed" evolutionary explanations to sugercoat its suppositions.

Beyond that, there are various philosophical schools relating to science that argue, among other things, that science cannot, in fact, study certain topics. The vast majority of professional scientists also take this stance; no serious scientist would actually try and dabble with something like "god" in formulating theories and models. Basic assumptions by most scientists around the world include the Universe as a (largely) mechanistic and materialistic entity. "Logical" does not always mean physically correct, hence why speak about the "nomological" instead; that is, the laws of physics and the laws of logic as they relate to each other. If you try to make the matter simply one of logic, you will get bogged down eternally for why this or that argument about how "god" may have done it works or doesn't work. Modern science generally dismisses that rubbish outright....and actually, the scientific community, if you are speaking about sociological dynamics, tries to accept what it thinks is ontologically correct given the available evidence, not what is "plausible." Science in modern times has often and vigorously crushed "plausible" solutions at every chance where the evidence intervened decisively in one way or another.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Intelligent Design I agree is not NEW...It's religion masquerading as Science
Science does not ascribe fundaments to a higher power
because if it did so ... why go on to study any further?
The Big Man up in the sky made the Earth shake...The Big Man in the sky made your baby sick Mrs Jones...
and that is the danger of Intelligent Design - Creationism
Science requires that you PROVE your hypotheses...with evidentiary facts and figures and for too long the ID people have been using the Scientific rules which shy away from stating something as Fact....
But evolution is FACT and the age of the earth/universe is FACT
and because it directly goes against Religious dogma... the zealots become very frightened...alla Galileo and the Vatican
If you want to live in the Modern world with all its benefits
...good medical treatment
technology...etc
then live in it instead of trying to bring back the thirteenth century
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
Science in modern times has often and vigorously crushed "plausible" solutions at every chance where the evidence intervened decisively in one way or another.


This is the point that I have been making and that we agree on - "where the evidence intervened decisively in one way or another." I have been stating throughout this that what science does not do is vigourously crush "plausible" solutions before there is any evidence one way or the other.

ID has been shot down as psuedo-science, in some fashion or another, throughout the ages. Fine, it is shot down, but when you hear people claiming "nothing will ever come from the study of <insert topic>", I immediately get skeptical of the speaker. Science can never know everything, that is the nature of Science. Science can only end when we stop questioning.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 5 of 10

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites