[_ Old Earth _] EVOLUTION - A BELIEVER'S PERSPECTIVE

[cupid dave]

I checked. It doesn't.

Oh....

Well I almost threw away my dino to chicken morps:

 

[cupid dave]

4-7 are your own additions and not characteristics stated in CI.

They are not mine.
Bohr specifically said "nothing is real until it has been observed."

That almost unavoidable conclusion, based on a rational and logical analysis of the Copenhagen explanation, is what is so bothersome to scientist who must accept that they, in essence, "proved scientifically" that God must exist.



Strange for a Bible Banger lke you to fight this one.

 

[Adam]

Well that is a start....

But all christians will saying that, the 22 names in Genesis genealogy which parallel the descriptions and paleontology of the 22 now extinct species of humans is an example of the amazing divine revelation of God.

This disclosure of the 22 links to modern man is so far out an idea, now long set in the stone of these scriptures, that no atheist can mock the reverence people have for the Bible.
.

What 22 names? There's alot more geneology in the bible that just 22 individuals.

Even if you could explain what these supposed 22 names are, it doesn't line up with paleontology. I've already explained to you that there are approximately 30 species of humans in the fossil record. I can list them for you if you don't believe me.

 

[Adam]

They are not mine.
Bohr specifically said "nothing is real until it has been observed."

That almost unavoidable conclusion, based on a rational and logical analysis of the Copenhagen explanation, is what is so bothersome to scientist who must accept that they, in essence, "proved scientifically" that God must exist.



Strange for a Bible Banger lke you to fight this one.

First, Bohr did not specifically say that nothing is real until it has been observed.

Secondly, I'm not talking about the existence of God, because CI is not relevant to that question.


Besides that, CI is not the accepted interpretation, anyway.


You are really grasping at straws.
I appreciate that you want to "prove" God, but you can't do it by distorting science to say what you want.


btw, you shouldn't be questioning my faith, when you are in so much doubt that you have to create evidence for what you believe.

 

[cupid dave]

First, Bohr did not specifically say that nothing is real until it has been observed.

Secondly, I'm not talking about the existence of God, because CI is not relevant to that question.


Besides that, CI is not the accepted interpretation, anyway.


You are really grasping at straws.
I appreciate that you want to "prove" God, but you can't do it by distorting science to say what you want.


btw, you shouldn't be questioning my faith, when you are in so much doubt that you have to create evidence for what you believe.

1) I do not question your faith. I applaud it.

2) I question your common sense that fight the science (CI) which ends up proving in its own discipline that God exists as the necessary observer of the earliest universe.


3) Einstein said, "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice."
Bohr, in response, said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."

 

[cupid dave]

First, Bohr did not specifically say that nothing is real until it has been observed.\.

What he said essentially was exactly that, albeit he meant at the nmost basic or quanum levels of observation.

But that is exactly the initial stateof the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang,... i.e.; everything was a quantum particle.


You said you agree with the first three items in the list I posted:


3)Bohr said that :According to the interpretation, what is passing through the split experimentis not a material wave at all, but is a 'probability wave'. ....That wavemerely contains the "probability" for what COULD be real.
It logically folows that:

4)Once the thing is observed, the wave function collapses and the photon, atom,and electron, (or the whole world becomes a reality)

 

[cupid dave]

What 22 names? There's alot more geneology in the bible that just 22 individuals.

Even if you could explain what these supposed 22 names are, it doesn't line up with paleontology. I've already explained to you that there are approximately 30 species of humans in the fossil record. I can list them for you if you don't believe me.

I am referring to the genealogy before the Flood of mankind out of Africa 40 thousand years ago.

These are the names associated with inordinately long life spans more appropriate to a species than an individual.

And, considering that the bible writers would have been unable to say these 930 years were actually thousands of year long, they hint to us, that a" day to the lord could be a thousand years."
This verse in the St Peter allows for making the claim these statements of longevity pertain to millennia.

 

[zeke]

Zeke, who has discovered that a minority of ornithologists think that dinosaurs and birds evolved from reptiles, promptly assumed most of them think so.

You miss the point - the point that the long-held *belief system* that promoted the notion that modern birds were descendants of meat-eating dinosaurs appears to be on the way out the door along with other Darwinian mythology. Darwinists really don't have a clue which species morphed into which species - just assertions and speculation. The answer is birds have always been birds---meat-eating dinosaurs were always meat-eating dinosaurs until they bit the dust via extinction.

 

[zeke]

I've already explained to you that there are approximately 30 species of humans in the fossil record. I can list them for you if you don't believe me.

I would be interested in reviewing your "30 species of humans" presented in the fossil record. Can you present all 30 on this thread via the scientific record? Which species did Adam descend from and was his father "after the flesh" a soulless "beast of the field" or was he fully human and God just forgot to include him in the record?

Dave thinks Adam's father was an ape with "Chromosome 2" deficiency, Barb doesn't have a clue as to Adam's pedigree (among other things) and Kalvan rejects anything and everything that has to do with God or the Bible.

"...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."​

 

[lordkalvan]

...and Kalvan rejects anything and everything that has to do with God or the Bible....

Nope, just the a priori claims and assertions based on your idiosyncratic, lieralist, minority interpretation of a particular version of the Bible that leads you to think story-telling by a pre-scinetific culture about creation is to be preferred to the evidence inherent in that creation itself.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Zeke, who has discovered that a minority of ornithologists think that dinosaurs and birds evolved from reptiles, promptly assumed most of them think so.

You miss the point - the point that the long-held *belief system* that promoted the notion that modern birds were descendants of meat-eating dinosaurs appears to be on the way out the door along with other Darwinian mythology.

You're wrong about that. Feduccia's position was stronger a few years ago, before we had molecular evidence linking birds and dinosaurs, and before it was known that dinosaurs had birdlike lungs before there were birds. Not surprisingly, fewer people accept Feduccia's idea that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common thecodont ancestor.

Darwinists really don't have a clue which species morphed into which species - just assertions and speculation. The answer is birds have always been birds---meat-eating dinosaurs were always meat-eating dinosaurs until they bit the dust via extinction.

See above. Surprise.

 

[Adam]

What he said essentially was exactly that, albeit he meant at the nmost basic or quanum levels of observation.

But that is exactly the initial stateof the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang,... i.e.; everything was a quantum particle.


You said you agree with the first three items in the list I posted:


3)Bohr said that :According to the interpretation, what is passing through the split experimentis not a material wave at all, but is a 'probability wave'. ....That wavemerely contains the "probability" for what COULD be real.
It logically folows that:

4)Once the thing is observed, the wave function collapses and the photon, atom,and electron, (or the whole world becomes a reality)

No, he didn't, essentially (before you said "specifically") say that, either.

And again the "whole world" is not a wavefunction.

 

[Adam]

I question your common sense that fight the science (CI) which ends up proving in its own discipline that God exists as the necessary observer of the earliest universe.


"

You do not understand what the Copenhagen Interpretation is, what it states, or what that statement implies, obviously.

 

[zeke]

Feduccia's position was stronger a few years ago, before we had molecular evidence linking birds and dinosaurs, and before it was known that dinosaurs had birdlike lungs before there were birds.

Tell it to the researchers at Oregon State University as I referenced earlier - they have made “a fundamental new discovery” about bird lung capacity related to flight and their findings indicate “it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs”. You are not an ornithologist – right? Surprise and learn for your errors.

In the real world were you ever a bench scientist?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Feduccia's position was stronger a few years ago, before we had molecular evidence linking birds and dinosaurs, and before it was known that dinosaurs had birdlike lungs before there were birds.

Tell it to the researchers at Oregon State University as I referenced earlier - they have made “a fundamental new discovery” about bird lung capacity related to flight and their findings indicate “it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs”.

For reasons we discussed earlier, most ornithologists aren't buying the story, which is about four years old. Science has moved on, and the number of people who accept Feduccia's story continues to fall. As you know, it took a huge hit when it was found that theropod dinosaurs had bird lungs before birds had them.

You are not an ornithologist – right?

I'm just pointing out what most ornithologists say. There's a small chance Feduccia is right, but the fact of bird lungs in theropods really makes it unlikely.

Surprise.

In the real world were you ever a bench scientist?

My clients thought so. I made a living at it. Earlier, my employers thought so. Probably because of the science degrees I got at various universities. And since we're sharing, it's time for you to show us your credentials as a scientist.

 

[zeke]

For reasons we discussed earlier, most ornithologists aren't buying the story, which is about four years old.

Prove that "most ornithologists aren't buying the story". You talk much but prove nothing. Again, you are obviously not an ornithologists. I will go with the researchers at Oregon State University - “it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaursâ€. Your argument is anemic.

My clients thought so. I made a living at it. Earlier, my employers thought so. Probably because of the science degrees I got at various universities.

What kind of bench work did you do in your daytime job?

And since we're sharing, it's time for you to show us your credentials as a scientist.

I already told you - I am a seeker of scientific facts and I find very few facts in Darwinism - most of what is presented in that materialistic worldview is circularity and pseudoscience.

The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence? ~ Phillip Johnson ​

 

[lordkalvan]

No hassle at all - just proving a point - thanks.

What point? Just curious.

And you have made your politics known many times before - unless you have recently recanted.

Can you tell me where I have made my politics known and what you know them to be? As it stands, this seems to be a rather underhanded means of poisoning the well regarding any comments I make on your various claims, assertions and misunderstandings.

 

[lordkalvan]

Prove that "most ornithologists aren't buying the story".

Why do you suppose that citing a four-year old article is sufficient to establish your implied claim that most scientists agree with it?

You talk much but prove nothing.

It seems unreasonable to criticise others for a trait that you seem to demonstrate extensively yourself.

Again, you are obviously not an ornithologists.

Are you?

I will go with the researcher at Oregon State University - “it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs”. Your argument is anemic.

So you agree with them that birds did, indeed, evolve then, but just not from any currently known species of theropod dinosaur? You do realise that this does not exclude the possibility that they evolved from an as yet unknown species of theropod dinosaur, or do you suppose that we have discovered all such species?

What kind of bench work did you do in your daytime job?

What about you? What's your day job?

I already told you - I am a seeker of scientific facts and I find very few facts in Darwinism - most of what is presented in that materialistic worldview is circularity and pseudoscience.

So that's no scientific qualifications at all, then.

The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence? ~ Phillip Johnson ​

And Philip Johnson's unsupported opinion about what evolution 'means' is relevant to the origins of birds how, exactly? By the way, can you refresh my memory, but doesn't Johnson also argue - in an effort to disguise the otherwise obviously religious nature of his agenda - that God isn't needed in the 'picture' of creation by intelligent designer, which might equally be the work of an alien culture unimaginably more advanced than our own? Do you agree with him about this as well?

 

[Barbarian]

(Zeke demands to know if Barbarian is a scientist)

(Barbarian affirms, and asks)
And since we're sharing, it's time for you to show us your credentials as a scientist.

I already told you - I am a seeker of scientific facts

So nothing, then. Isn't that a surprise? You made that clear by sprinkling your posts with all sorts of misconceptions about science in general and biology in particular.

and I find very few facts in Darwinism - most of what is presented in that materialistic worldview is circularity and pseudoscience.

But lacking any understanding of it, you have no way of knowing, do you?

The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence? ~ Phillip Johnson

You're citing a man who suggests that his "designer" might be a "space alien."

"For this purpose, it does not matter whether the intelligence is thought to belong to God, or to some alien race of intelligent beings, or to some entity we cannot yet imagine." (Phillip Johnson, posting in the ARN discussion forum)

Can you see why real Christians might not give him much credibility?

 

[Free]

And since we're sharing, it's time for you to show us your credentials as a scientist.

Agreed.

It's tempting to delete every post that follows until zeke posts his relevant credentials and what his day job is.