[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[felix]

That really is not evidence. It is a statement.

"How" were they put there?
I understand you use your belief and the bible as the first piece of evidence.
My stance (first piece of evidence) is that god used the laws of the universe he created to place the things (here plants) where they are. That is always my first piece.

You say god went "poof" there it is. And I say he used laws that anybody anywhere could "see" for themselves. I say god shows everybody, through observations, that they can understand how he did it weather they believe in him or not.

Now we have to see which stance is more reasonable.

What is your evidence that plants where in place before thesun? You used the bible. What is your second piece of data?

Have you ever asked your Dad for evidence that your are his child? Hence, I don't have to ask my Father for any evidence of Him creating me. So, which is reasonable? asking your dad for evidence that you are his child?

 

[lordkalvan]

In this case, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that the vast range of independent, consilient evidence was faked, esp., on creation of God.

I take it then that you lack the ability to demonstrate what is necessary to support your assertions. As to your rephrasing of my point in an attempt at redirection, I would first need to see this alleged independent and consilient evidence that makes God's existent any more likely than Odin's, Zeus's or Lord Brahma's.

If it is verified, why is there no new species observed?

Speciation has been observed, so your point is moot.

 

[lordkalvan]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Capt James Cook - I have heard that name. Don Bradman - who is he?

Oh dear, and you an Australian too. Only perhaps the greatest batsman ever. I am asking whether you find the evidence for these individual's existence as improbable as you find that for Darwin's?

An experiment-less conclusion is not science. It is not even a theory but speculation.

So because we can't create an experiment to replicate the interior of a star, then any denial of our understanding of the interior of a star is entirely valid?

 

[Arch Angle]

Felix,

you are missing the point again.

It is not about asking my dad, or what we believe here. It is about addressing how things got to where they are. I believe in god, and youbelieve in god.

Now we have to address how god did it.

It is about listing your observations and drawling aconclusion based on that list.

What is your second piece of evidence that god put the plants in place before the sun?

 

[Arch Angle]

by the way. The dadthing.

My dad claims I am his son. I claim he is not my father.
We then list the observations we have.

Mom's testimony, facial features, and blood type. When then draw a conclusion the best we can.
We then ask people that don't believe what we believe to review the data and see what they come up with.

Yes, we can never be 100% sure. Do you need to be 100% sure?
maybe that's the real issue here.

 

[felix]

Er, yes, they are. They would certainly be admissible in a court of law seeking to establish identity.

Then you postulate fraud on the part of local government officials tasked with recording such information. Do you are any evidence to support this accusation of fraud? No? Let's move on then.

Whether personal papers contain 'truth' or not is irrelevant to determining whether they were written by the person in question or not. Also, those personal après were in the possession of members of Darwin's family who seem to have believed that ther husband/father wrote them and, according to their individual experiences, believed that he existed, cared fr and lived them. Do you have any evidence that any of these observations are false, that his family manufactured his existence and wrote his papers? No? Let's move on then.

Well, they are consilient with an array of other evidence that indicates they are. Do you have any evidence that that indicates otherwise? No? Let's move on then.

Well, lots of them have been identified by role who ostensibly knew him or met him as being of Darwin. Do you have any evidence that these many people were mistaken or liars? No? Let's move on then.

Although newspaper editors and journalists may indeed be mistaken in things they write or even just make stuff up from time-to-time, your postulate requires systematic, prolonged and widespread fraud. Do you have any evidence of such massive fraud? No? Let's move on then.

In which case you postulate extensive fraud on the part, not just of scientists and teachers, but of clergymen as well. Do you have evidence of such fraud? No? Let's move on then.

Absent evidence of the widespread fraud required to invalidate this evidence for Darwin's existence, the parsimonious expanation is that he did, indeed, exist. Should you wish to contest this understanding, you would need to present he extraordinary evidence to support such an extraordinary claim.

Well, ask yourself whether or not you find similar 'evidence' for the existence of Odin, Zeus or Lord Brahma persuasive and why this is or isn't the case and you will have your answer.

Charles Darwin doesn't have a birth certificate. Without his Birth certificate, his identity is in question.

Secondly, you are providing "individual experiences" of people as evidence. What a shame!

Newspaper can print anything, by whoever controls it. Newspaper print is not any evidence. Even the news about Darwin in newspapers is not world wide but local.

No, we don't have to move on because, he doesn't exist. Neither his identity is clarified.

Let's take your statement:

Absent evidence of the widespread fraud required to invalidate this evidence for Darwin's existence, the parsimonious expanation is that he did, indeed, exist.

Do you have evidence of widespread fraud in writing Scriptures by Prophets or existence of God? Hence, Absent evidence of the widespread fraud required to invalidate the evidence for God and His Scriptures, the parsimonious explanation is that God did, indeed, exist.

So, using your own logic, I did prove God exists. Interestingly, you want to use your logic only to prove your point. How unscientific and fraudulent?

 

[felix]

I take it then that you lack the ability to demonstrate what is necessary to support your assertions. As to your rephrasing of my point in an attempt at redirection, I would first need to see this alleged independent and consilient evidence that makes God's existent any more likely than Odin's, Zeus's or Lord Brahma's.

I am not speaking about idols who cannot even speak or hear. But I am speaking about God the Creator who made the heavens and earth and everyone including you.

Speciation has been observed, so your point is moot.

No it is not. Name the species that is being newly created by "evolution".

 

[Arch Angle]

hey lord,

I can make a case for 'god". But you would have to dump the notion thatreligions define god.
I also don't make up definitions then move to prove definitions wrong.

I like doing observations with an understanding that I am not 100% sure ofanything. And that I understand that myway of thinking has gaps. I like gaps ... It means I have something to learn.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, the hopeful speculation is actually done by radiometric dating methods, hoping that the cosmic radiation is constant throughout ages, even though there is no evidence.

So you are unable to show us anything to support your claims concerning RM dating, but instead simply repeat them as if repetition is all you need to do to establish their validity.

 

[lordkalvan]

Charles Darwin doesn't have a birth certificate. Without his Birth certificate, his identity is in question.

You are quite right. However, the parish records from the Parish Church of St. Chad's record his christening on 15 November 1809:

'Darwin Chas. Robt. Son of Dr. Robt. & Mrs. Susannah his wife/born Febr. 12 th'

Secondly, you are providing "individual experiences" of people as evidence. What a shame!

That would be 'a shame' in what sense? In the sense that, in the particular instances referred to, his family attest to his existence?

Newspaper can print anything, by whoever controls it. Newspaper print is not any evidence. Even the news about Darwin in newspapers is not world wide but local.

Again, if you assert what the newspapers reported is fraudulent, you need at least some grounds to support your accusation. Professor Alvar Ellegard studied 115 British newspapers published between 1859 and 1872 and found 107 of them with comments on the issues raised by Darwin. Good luck with showing that even just this relatively small sample was just the result of newspapers printing 'anything'.

No, we don't have to move on because, he doesn't exist. Neither his identity is clarified.

If you don't want to believe he existed, feel free to, but the weight of evidence overwhelmingly indicates he did. Would you like to dig up his tomb in Westminster Abbey and see whether there is really a body in there?

Let's take your statement:

Absent evidence of the widespread fraud required to invalidate this evidence for Darwin's existence, the parsimonious expanation is that he did, indeed, exist.

Do you have evidence of widespread fraud in writing Scriptures by Prophets or existence of God? Hence, Absent evidence of the widespread fraud required to invalidate the evidence for God and His Scriptures, the parsimonious explanation is that God did, indeed, exist.

Really? And this is independent, consilient evidence for God's existence how, exactly? Are analogous writings attesting to the reality of Ra, Zeus, Odin and Allah equally convincing to you? If no, why not?

So, using your own logic, I did prove God exists. Interestingly, you want to use your logic only to prove your point. How unscientific and fraudulent?

Nope, I want to use relevant, appropriate and consilient evidence to establish the existence of a scientist you seem to have taken it into your head to deny the existence of. Writings attesting to the existence of a supernatural divinity whose existence is an a priori assumption on the parts of those doing the writing is not generally regarded as evidential, otherwise the Sacred Vedas, the Qur'an and the Egyptian Book of the Dead are all equally evidential.

 

[lordkalvan]

I am not speaking about idols who cannot even speak or hear. But I am speaking about God the Creator who made the heavens and earth and everyone including you.

And to a believer in Odin, Zeus or Lord Brahma, your claim rings as hollow as theirs' does to you.

No it is not. Name the species that is being newly created by "evolution".

All of them.

 

[lordkalvan]

hey lord,

I can make a case for 'god". But you would have to dump the notion thatreligions define god.
I also don't make up definitions then move to prove definitions wrong.

I like doing observations with an understanding that I am not 100% sure ofanything. And that I understand that myway of thinking has gaps. I like gaps ... It means I have something to learn.

That's cool with me. I am not really into contesting God's existence per se, but rather the anti-science fulminations of those who claim to have a better understanding of Earth's origins and history based on no more than what they allege to be God 's word and their uniquely correct interpretation of it.

 

[felix]

That would be 'a shame' in what sense? In the sense that, in the particular instances referred to, his family attest to his existence?

If "personal experiences" of Darwin's family is a convincing evidence for you to believe in the existence of Darwin, why not the "personal experiences" of Christians not an evidence at all?
What makes you think Darwin's family is saying the truth and Christians are speaking lies?

 

[felix]

So you are unable to show us anything to support your claims concerning RM dating, but instead simply repeat them as if repetition is all you need to do to establish their validity.

No, I did. I actually showed you radio isotope generation is not a constant.

 

[Sparkey]

That's cool with me. I am not really into contesting God's existence per se, but rather the anti-science fulminations of those who claim to have a better understanding of Earth's origins and history based on no more than what they allege to be God 's word and their uniquely correct interpretation of it.

Greetings LK,
How do you say so much with three well chosen words? "Uniquely" "Correct" "Interpretation".

Personally I wonder what Job might reply to your thought about fulminations. God basically asked him "Where were you?" That's a rebuke sounding thing if I've ever heard it. My thought: I would do well to apply the question to myself and answer uprightly. The Lord's question to Job doesn't settle or answer the "debate" that is so well rehearsed in the minds of men, but it does put the Christian in the hot-seat. I do know the answer to that question.

Here it is, in all it's glory:

New International Version (©1984)
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
Where were you when I established the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

International Standard Version (©2012)
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of my earth? Tell me, since you're so informed!

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me if you have [such] insight.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have understanding.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth ? tell me if thou hast understanding.

Young's Literal Translation
Where wast thou when I founded earth? Declare, if thou hast known understanding.

To understand the cause of things, man should have been present at their origin. The finite creature cannot fathom the infinite wisdom of the Creator (Job 28:12; 15:7, 8).

hast-"knowest."

understanding-(Pr 4:1).

;) Okay, I'm just talking to a friendly face here, LK, not trying to make a point toward you but instead saying something that your comment stirred in me about "us".

 

[Arch Angle]

No, I did. I actually showed you radio isotope generation is not a constant.

yes, C-14 concentrations do change.

but thats all you have shown. C-14 pointsto an earth that is older than 6000 years. But we can mess around with the number a bit, that's true. You will have to address the Ice core problem. That being how much it has changed over time. You also have to come up with how your c-14 understanding changes how rock strata form.

be that as it may.

Can you offer your second piece of evidence that"god" put flowers here before the sun? I say "god" put the sun in before flowers.

 

[felix]

yes, C-14 concentrations do change.

but thats all you have shown. C-14 pointsto an earth that is older than 6000 years. But we can mess around with the number a bit, that's true. You will have to address the Ice core problem. That being how much it has changed over time. You also have to come up with how your c-14 understanding changes how rock strata form.

be that as it may.

Can you offer your second piece of evidence that"god" put flowers here before the sun? I say "god" put the sun in before flowers.

I already addressed the ice core problem. I have no problems with older earth as long as the creation days are 7 days and each day had exactly only 1 morning and 1 evening. The first 4 days are without the sun and they are not 24 hrs, since God allowed man to use times and seasons, days and years only after 4th day. All that I am arguing regarding radiometric dating is only related to "life esp. life of animals (not even plants)".

What piece of evidence is required for which god? For the God of the Bible creating plants before Sun , evidence is clear as written in Genesis.

 

[lordkalvan]

If "personal experiences" of Darwin's family is a convincing evidence for you to believe in the existence of Darwin, why not the "personal experiences" of Christians not an evidence at all?

They provide substantive evidence (letters, papers, photographs, newspaper interviews, books, official documents, etc) independent of and consilient with other independent evidence of his existence.

What makes you think Darwin's family is saying the truth and Christians are speaking lies?

Mistaken beliefs honestly held =/= lies.

 

[lordkalvan]

No, I did. I actually showed you radio isotope generation is not a constant.

However, you provided no evidence as to what the variation might be, no evidence of how it might affect RM dating metrics and no evidence that scientists fail to take such potential variation into account when carrying out dating procedures. Indeed, in the case of Carbon 14 calibration, all the evidence shows that scientists are aware of variations in atmospheric Carbon 14 over time and do take them into account.

 

[lordkalvan]

Greetings LK,
How do you say so much with three well chosen words? "Uniquely" "Correct" "Interpretation".

Personally I wonder what Job might reply to your thought about fulminations. God basically asked him "Where were you?" That's a rebuke sounding thing if I've ever heard it. My thought: I would do well to apply the question to myself and answer uprightly. The Lord's question to Job doesn't settle or answer the "debate" that is so well rehearsed in the minds of men, but it does put the Christian in the hot-seat. I do know the answer to that question.

Here it is, in all it's glory:




;) Okay, I'm just talking to a friendly face here, LK, not trying to make a point toward you but instead saying something that your comment stirred in me about "us".

Thanks for those thoughts, Sparrow. I have Christian friends and relatives who, according to some Christian YECs I have encountered on various boards, are doomed to burn in the fires of Hell because they accept the evidence that supports evolution and evolutionary theory and therefore cannot be 'true' Christians. This is what I was thinking of when I wrote about 'fulminations' and 'uniquely correct interpretation'.