(December 19, 2014 at 5:22 am)Godschild Wrote: Evolution, no, it has no proof, you might claim it does but we both no better, unless you're that brain washed by people looking for things in all the wrong places. So you can get off your high horse about myself and science, I used it when I worked, every day.

GC

Dishonesty GC Dishonesty is it so hard to use the internet?
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

(December 19, 2014 at 5:22 am)Godschild Wrote: Yes I'm going to say it, I told you so, you refuse to look at evidence that Christ is real just as scripture says. You get mad and close your mind and toss your despite for us around like it's some kind of truth, when you're actually letting something get away.

GC

GC, all of your evidence for Christ and the resurrection come from the Bible. There are a few obscure sources that possibly refer to a person named Jesus but even if those are actually referring to the Jesus of your beliefs it still doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever concerning the resurrection, miracles, his claim that he was the son of god, or anything else. Zero eyewitness or contemporary accounts are recorded. The fact is that all of the "evidence" available to support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth comes from the Bible, which is not a reliable source. It just isn't. I was a history major as an undergraduate, and I would never support a paper's thesis with a single, unreliable source. I certainly wouldn't support a belief system with it.

Quote:You seem to believe I do not like science, well you're wrong I like it just fine, I'm very interested in many things and accept much of what science has to say. Evolution, no, it has no proof, you might claim it does but we both no better, unless you're that brain washed by people looking for things in all the wrong places. So you can get off your high horse about myself and science, I used it when I worked, every day.

GC

There is a wealth of evidence, GC. Young Earthers don't want to accept this evidence, nor do many apologists. Their denial to acknowledge it doesn't disprove it though. There are human fossils from hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago that show the progression and changes in humans. There is more evidence, but I'm not going to go over the details as it is all available online and explained much more thoroughly and scientifically than it would be by me. All of this information is available to anyone through the Smithsonian and its websites. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Still done no evolution research huh? Shame. Hiding from it won't make it go away.

(December 19, 2014 at 5:22 am)Godschild Wrote: Evolution, no, it has no proof, you might claim it does but we both no better, unless you're that brain washed by people looking for things in all the wrong places. So you can get off your high horse about myself and science, I used it when I worked, every day.

GC

Care to explain all of the actual evidence then? You know, the constant genetic links we find that recapitulate our morphological links? The fossil record that abounds with transitional forms? The live, direct observation of evolution we have, under both laboratory and natural conditions? The still preset morphological redundancies in numerous animals that point to their evolutionary past? The germs that are evolving immunities to our drugs even now, necessitating the development of new drugs to combat them? I'm talking about the entirety of modern biology here; do you have a theistic explanation that can deal with all that?

Oh, and since you're so hot on science and proof, I'll be expecting some from you too. So if you're going to present a theistic explanation, rather than just a monument to your own ignorance, you're first going to have to prove that your god exists, and then that he does all the stuff you're undoubtedly going to make up, assuming you don't outright ignore me for asking the hard questions that you can't answer.

Either way, I expect that evolution will be vindicated from your completely baseless dismissals very soon.

Where are the citations and examples of the "miraculous alignments of ancient buildings? If you make such a claim you should back it up.

(December 19, 2014 at 10:55 am)Strider Wrote:

(December 19, 2014 at 5:22 am)Godschild Wrote: You seem to believe I do not like science, well you're wrong I like it just fine, I'm very interested in many things and accept much of what science has to say. Evolution, no, it has no proof, you might claim it does but we both no better, unless you're that brain washed by people looking for things in all the wrong places. So you can get off your high horse about myself and science, I used it when I worked, every day.

GC

There is a wealth of evidence, GC. Young Earthers don't want to accept this evidence, nor do many apologists. Their denial to acknowledge it doesn't disprove it though. There are human fossils from hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago that show the progression and changes in humans. There is more evidence, but I'm not going to go over the details as it is all available online and explained much more thoroughly and scientifically than it would be by me. All of this information is available to anyone through the Smithsonian and its websites. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Don't think I haven't see those things and don't think I pass them off, I want to know what scientist believe they have found to compare to what I believe. I do know that dating things by any method starts to fall apart at 50,000 years, my pastor is a nuclear engineer and his son is also a nuclear engineer of the extraordinary kind. So you see I have access to extreme knowledge, they both believe in creation and a young earth, not 6,000 years young but not nearly what some say. I know fossils can't be dated other than the layer of soil they are found in, which is not reliable because of what weather can do to the earth. There's a lot of science that says the earth is young but I do not have the time to explain, go to Christian web sites where reputable scientist work and find out what they have discovered. I also know a scientist who works for the Oak Ridge Nuclear Labs an incredible place if you've never been there. He has proven that long times are not necessary for carbon based material to become coal. He also believes in creation and a young earth, he's also shown the possibility of other processes to happen much quicker than the long times others believe. So, I say again, I have lots of knowledge to go to and like to watch science explore what God has made and discover the wonders that he designed into His creation. I'm not by any means deficient in science, I just see through the eyes of a creator.

GC

(December 19, 2014 at 2:02 pm)Godschild Wrote: Don't think I haven't see those things and don't think I pass them off, I want to know what scientist believe they have found to compare to what I believe. I do know that dating things by any method starts to fall apart at 50,000 years, my pastor is a nuclear engineer and his son is also a nuclear engineer of the extraordinary kind. So you see I have access to extreme knowledge, they both believe in creation and a young earth, not 6,000 years young but not nearly what some say.

Actually, you're thinking of carbon dating, not radiometric dating in general. Carbon decays such that it can't be used to date things past around 50,000 years, but carbon dating isn't the only kind. Uranium 235 dating, for example, is good for many millions of years, and there are other isotopes that cover intermediate periods of time between those two extremes.

It seems you weren't presented the whole story, there.

Quote: I know fossils can't be dated other than the layer of soil they are found in, which is not reliable because of what weather can do to the earth.

You can date fossils using radiometric dating too, using the additional isotopes that are good for doing that. But even if you were right here- you're not, as the effects of weather on the geologic column can be determined by examining the strata on its own, so we'd know if there had been some weather related upheaval there- what you'd have is an argument from ignorance: even if you've demonstrated we didn't have a reliable tape measure for fossils, that doesn't mean the scientifically accepted dates are wrong, or that your proposed dates are right.

Quote: There's a lot of science that says the earth is young but I do not have the time to explain, go to Christian web sites where reputable scientist work and find out what they have discovered.

Links? Because every christian web site I've been to does not contain reputable scientists.

Quote: I also know a scientist who works for the Oak Ridge Nuclear Labs an incredible place if you've never been there. He has proven that long times are not necessary for carbon based material to become coal. He also believes in creation and a young earth, he's also shown the possibility of other processes to happen much quicker than the long times others believe.

Just because something can happen quicker, doesn't mean that it exclusively happens quicker.

(December 19, 2014 at 2:02 pm)Godschild Wrote: There's a lot of science that says the earth is young but I do not have the time to explain, go to Christian web sites where reputable scientist work and find out what they have discovered.

GC

Esquilax covered the points I wanted to make quite well so there's no need for me to rehash them.

Also, "reputable scientists" and "Christian web sites" don't belong in the same sentence. I'll stick with sites and sources that do not have an inherent bias. Of course, Christian sites are going to claim the contrary in regards to evolution and the age of the planet because to acknowledge evolution and the age of the planet as scientific fact casts a shadow of doubt over the creation story, which is the very foundation of Christianity. If the foundation crumbles, the rest of the structure follows suit fairly quickly.

(December 19, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The germs that are evolving immunities to our drugs even now, necessitating the development of new drugs to combat them?

This is the one I always point to in arguments like this. I can understand why some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around macro-evolution. The timeframes involved, the misunderstanding that evolution isn't about climbing some sort of ability/capability ladder rather than simply excelling in a niche ("why are there still monkeys?"), etc. It's hard for a lot of lay people to believe when they don't see it happening, even though they believe their magic sky daddy went "hocus pocus" instead.

But, antibiotic resistant bugs? That's something that every patient is aware of. It's the reason why doctors are now real hesitant about prescribing antibiotics. And since the equation is clear - over prescribing antibiotics and patients not fully taking their prescribed regimen leads to more resistant bugs - it shouldn't require much of a leap for them to say "wait... that's evolution! And if it's happening there, maybe it's happening with other things, too!"

Who knew MRSA could be the possible gateway to understanding?

(December 19, 2014 at 2:42 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: This is the one I always point to in arguments like this. I can understand why some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around macro-evolution.

Macro and micro are two different things in their minds. They mostly accept micro, but the distinction between macro and micro is of their doing in the first place. It's non existent, it simply is evolution.