|
|
Valen
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4436
Location: Sydney
|
you misunderstand the quote
his "just so stories" is talking about some finer details of the process, the basic idea is the same, his issue is saying "x is because of y" rather than "x happened and it was good".
Evolution is a testable falsifiable theory, one which is probably missing great chunks of detail. Science means we are allowed to fill in that detail and in 100 years we will be teaching our children about the great supernova 2 billion years ago that sprayed mutating radiation over the planet causing an explosion of diversification, or something else entirely. Point is science changes based on what we understand, and can prove.
Fiction is made up words in a book. Really good fiction uses the world around us as a base then builds on it to achieve the authors goals. Only the author is allowed to change fiction, there is no requirement to be able to test the changes to fiction. (also known as the Anderson-"Phantom menace sucks" postulate)
If you can't test it its not science.
The parts of evolution we can test hold up, as such it is science.
Evolution is a model. All models are wrong, some are useful. _________________ Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets
|
Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:02 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane
|
You are entitled to your opinion. I was using the definitions contained in the quoted passage.
I do understand that people use the term religion in a different way. When people ask me if I am religious, I know what they are asking. When I am told that I don't seem religious, I think that is good.
G2356 θρησκεία threskeia (thrace-kei'-ah) n.
1. ceremonial observance
Paul contrasted religion with the promise made to the fathers. The whole idea of be good enough and earn a reward is absolutely opposed to grace. Grace (the promise made to the fathers) is undeserved, unmerited favour.
The criminal hanging on one of the crosses beside Jesus is a good example of undeserved, unmerited favour.
Matt 27:44 (ESV)
44) And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.
Luke 23:40-43 (ESV)
40) But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41) And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”
42) And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
43) And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
The criminal did no religious observance, but received grace. _________________ So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
|
Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:30 am |
|
|
|
|
Philip
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane
|
Thanks Sean.
The gentleman in the video seems to equate survival of the fittest with arrival of the fittest. The fact of natural selection is not under question. Both sides also agree that variation occurs within a defined range, for example, height variation. It is the morphological change that is disputed, for example, invertebrates becoming vertebrates.
While the video showed a gradual progression of drawings from one morphology to another, the actual fossil record is not so helpful. Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
Stephen still believes strongly in evolution, but, due to the lack of transitional fossils, proposed Punctuated Equilibrium.
I was not disputing C14 dating. I was saying that we can detect C14 in the deepest layers. The presence of detectable C14 limits the maximum age to tens of thousands of years not millions or billions.
I hope that the video's presenter doesn't think that organic material is never found in dinosaur fossils. He could do with reading about
Mary Higby Schweitzer's
discovery. _________________ So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:50 am |
|
|
|
|
Philip
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane
|
Sean,
C14
has a very short half life and is used to "date" items containing carbon. It is limited to tens of thousands of years. You will see in the Wikipedia article in the "Occurrence In fossil fuels" section, that C14 is found in coal and oil that is assumed to be much older. When the test results are inconsistent with the old age assumptions the assumptions win and the test results are discarded as being wrong.
Other types of radiometric dating give the vast "ages". As you mentioned, uranium-lead is one of these. This method is used in igneous rock. Fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Igneous rocks near by are sampled and their elements measured. We can measure the elements accurately. Then we assume the starting conditions of the rock and assume what has happened since the rock formed and interpret the result as a "date". If the date agrees with the assumed age of the fossil, the date is accepted as accurate. If the date disagrees with the assumed date of the fossil, the date is rejected.
Whenever rocks of known age are measured with this method, the dates from radiometric dating are much older than the observed dates. Such as, an eight year old sample from Mt St Hellens being dated at 1.7 Ma and 3 Ma.
The current age of the Earth is not actually from dating the Earth. It is from dating a metiorite. No, that is not a joke. Cut and paste from
this
page.
Most geological samples from Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of Earth from the solar nebula because Earth has undergone differentiation into the core, mantle, and crust, and this has then undergone a long history of mixing and unmixing of these sample reservoirs by plate tectonics, weathering and hydrothermal circulation.
Earth rocks are considered too inaccurate to give dates unless they agree with the uniformitarian assumptions.
I will look at the linked page in detail another day. This is already a mega-post.
I have heard the view that there are no missing links and humans are not even removed from monkeys. Other evolutionists disagree. Evolutionist Charles Darwin said in Origin of the Species:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
How do the Christians who don't believe in meaningful variance define the term? For example, according to the timeline of the Bible, humanity has diverged from three breading pairs within four and a half thousand years. We are different heights have different skin, hair and eye colour, for example. Is that meaningful variance? _________________ So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
|
Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:42 am |
|
|
Philip
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane
|
Miles, upon what do you base your statement that "[t]here is no evidence of the bible being a historical record." I have read that secular archaeologists use the historical sections of the Bible to help locate and date cities.
As for miracles such as the virgin birth, what precise evidence would you expect to find remaining? What test can we do now to test whether or not something happened in the past?
I grew up seeing healings and miracles. I have never had a problem with the miracles in the Bible. It would be difficult to comprehend if you have a different experience, I imagine.
It is true that our childhood teaching will shape the way we view the world around us. I was brought up a Bible believing Christian. I am biased towards the Bible. Equally, children are being taught atheist teachings. They are biased against the Bible. The question is not whether or not we are biased, but do we acknowledge our bias and try to see things from another person's perspective.
I was surprised by the previously quoted survey results on the ratios of people who believe in the GTE vs the people who believe in creation. We are all taught that the GTE (or at least the general vibe of the GTE) is true as children in school and in popular culture.
All people, homosexual and heterosexual, go to Heaven based only on belief in Jesus. In biblical terms, we are saved by grace through faith.
Eph 2:8-9 (ESV)
8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast. _________________ So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
|
Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:31 am |
|
|
|
|