Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
The fossil record has not proven evolution or long age theories of the earth either. The horse and whale evolutionary fossil chain was falsified and are not accurate. There have been no "fossil chains" found showing the gradual evolutionary development of different animal species. In fact there are many anomalies that are evidence against the millions of years evolutionary time frame such as the fact that dinosaur fossils have been found with DNA, red blood cells and soft tissue still intact, which should have decayed long ago if they were millions of years old. Animals and birds have been found alongside dinosaur fossils in the geological strata even though they are meant to have evolved millions of years after the dinosaurs and then there are so-called "living fossils" - animals that are alive today that bear a strong similarity (i.e. no anatomical variations or mutations) with fossils found of the same type of creature, such as the salamander, duck-billed platypus, crocodiles and squirrels. The Cambrien Explosion is also evidence that the millions of years, evolutionary time frame is incorrect. No primitive fossil forms of the animals have been found in the layers below and no advanced fossil forms have been found in the layers above. The Cambrian Explosion shows fully formed, complex fossil forms - where did they come from? Some evolutionists have even invented the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" to try and explain how fossil forms could be found fully developed without the evolutionary chain. But this is complete conjecture and a "rescuing device" used by evolutionary scientists to preserve their world view. Then there is the nature of fossilization itself - fossilization requires a rapid, catastrophic process in order for the body to be preserved - a slow process would not preserve everything such as feathers, skin, webbing, scales etc. Fossilization can also occur incredibly rapidly, depending on the size and porosity of the object. The Flood as recorded in Genesis is a much better explanation for the Fossil Record as it was indeed a rapid and catestrophic event and would explain why mammels and birds are found alongside dinosaurs, why fossils are found ontop of mountains, the Cambrian Explosion and why we have fossils in the first place. The problem with the whole "legend" of Genesis is that this is based on your worldview. Evolution and Deep time is completely coherent in an atheistic worldview, because atheism needs to explain the origin of life naturalistically without divine intervention or supernatural processes. No science is done with neutrality. Everybody has presuppositions. Once you accept that science should be done within a naturalistic (atheistic) paradigm then you begin to interpret the data as supporting evolution and deep time. When evidence is presented against the theory of evolution or deep time, that evidence is dismissed through "rescuing devices", where you apply conjecture to rationalize away the evidence in order to preserve your worldview. Thus when someone claims to be a creationist or to practice creationist science they are rejected and dismissed as "religious zealots or fundamentalists" not scientists or are criticized for not doing "true science" because they practice science within a Christian worldview. One of the biggest misconceptions about the creation account in Genesis is that it is myth. There are many Christians who now accept this as well. But, the genre of literature Genesis falls under is historical narrative not myth. Some claim that the creation account in the Bible is a refutation of Babylonian myths, which the Israelites came across centuries later while in exile in Babylon. But this theory is fallacious. The style of Genesis 1 & 2 is historical narrative, not Hebrew poetry like the Psalms (which has specific generic structures that Genesis 1 & 2 lack). The chronological markers of the days and nights are written in Hebraic historical narrative much like others places in the Bible which use the same generic structures such as Numbers. Secondly, the Babylonian creation myth is not so much a creation myth as it is a myth about their gods. The emphasis is on the war for supremacy between their many deities and gods, not how the earth and humanity was formed. It bears no similarity to Genesis 1 & 2. Hope my answers have been clear and thought-provoking :) . |
Re: Old Testament Creationism
I just want to add, I did not intentionally hijack the former discussion in the spiritual section, but if anyone would like to continue discussing this topic then I would be more than happy to oblige. :)
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
Ron |
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
|
Re: Old Testament Creationism
Ewen,
You taking exception to the claim of Old Testament Creationism being an utterly and verifiably false myth but letting pass similar statement regarding Shinto creation tale seems weird to me. |
Re: Old Testament Creationism
Quote:
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
Hermeneutically it is important to recognize the context of a certain text: Historical, linguistic, religio-historical. If you don't explore into that you won't hear, what the text was meant to say, but you will only confirm your preunderstanding. |
Re: Old Testament Creationism
Quote:
"They write books that contradict the rocks, then claim that I created the books and the rocks are lies." |
Re: Old Testament Creationism
Quote:
|
Re: Old Testament Creationism
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
Sure, there are reports of people detecting traces of collagen in T. rex fossils. Now scientists are faced with anomalous data - either T. rex went extinct much later than previously thought (theory A), or collagen in fossilized bones is degraded more slowly than expected (theory B). These theories can be compared to other scientific evidence. Fossil records shows strong evidence that T. rex did get extinct quite a long time ago, putting a dent in theory A. However, there is not much data on the decay rate of million-year old collagen in fossilized bones that can be used to falsify theory B. Ergo, theory B is considered to be more plausible. Here is a quote from the scientific paper where the collagen is described (emphasis added): Quote:
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
Quote:
Even if the Theory B hypothesis of collagen decay rates is correct, the decay rate may still be much shorter than needed for the evolutionary time frame. As for T-Rexs evolving into birds, mutation does not add the type of information necessary to create entirely new species. |
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html Example (Quote)- Bill: "God must exist." Jill: "How do you know." Bill: "Because the Bible says so." Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God." Any attempt to refute Scientific Theory is not by itself proof of the validity of ones own argument. William Hazen |
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
But thank you for confirming that evolution is a theory and not fact, and for implicitly recognising evolution`s limitations as an explanatory framework for life. If we cannot explain naturalistically how life first formed and as we now have far more information about the complexity of even a single cell and how incredibly improbable abiogenesis is, then surely consideration of alternative explanations is not unreasonable? Did the earth stop as in Joshua? Let me reply with a question of my own, where did the laws of physics come from in the first place? As for your low opinion of Genesis 1, if that is your worldview then that`s fine, just don`t state it as fact. |
Re: Old Testament Creationism
I'm not sufficiently schooled in logical argument but ...
If one god exists, then any number of gods must also be possible. If there are no other gods than "my" (and I don't have the delusion that there are any gods, hence the quotation marks) god, then which "my" god is it? That of the ancient Greeks? Ancient Romans? Viking gods? Raven (native American)? Ancient Egyptians? Judaeo Christian? Muslim? et cetera... My understanding of all this "god" stuff is that it's human beings, trying to explain things that they don't understand yet, so instead of actually trying to find out about "things" (e.g., scientific study), they wave their arms around and say "it must have been (the/a/my) god(s)" However, there's no arguing with the fully indoctrinated, as they're thoroughly trained at countering with "here's where that evidence is wrong and is refuted by this passage in that religious tract" Fun to read, though. |
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Quote:
|
Re: Old Testament Creationism
Actually I'd say the argument offered is more along the lines of argumentum ad ignorantiam. This usually leads to attempts to shift the burden of proof. Unfortunately, it is still a fallacious form of argumentation and does little to advance any particular idea. Unless, of course, you have taken a "leap of faith" and believe even in face of the absence of any sort of rigorous evidence.
As a guy who managed to get a degree in religious studies as an atheist, let me point out that these arguments have gone on for all time. Starting with whether the sun god really exists and whether the spirits of the crops are truly happy with the sacrifice. At this point one normally has to bring up Russell's teapot argument and recognize that some will believe what they believe. They are entitled to that but logic and proof are simply outside the discussion. We're talking about things outside of reality (and I mean that sincerely as supernatural beings) and as such are simply immune to proof but also immune to criticism by their very definition. Carry on... |
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
Edit.
Quote:
|
Re: Old Testament Creationism
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:47 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.