Evidence for Evolution

[Ken]

They are frauds because they promote themselves, not necessarily because they are creationists.

Yes, I meant precisely what I wrote.

You will notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that creationism is a fraud. What i have written is that it isn't science. And to try to present it as science is fraudulent. But as a belief system it isn't fraudulent. It is simply religious dogma like any other that requires faith rather than science to support.

So the whole thing is circular musical chair game of fraudulent credentials and claims.

You will notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that evolution of things like humans evolving from monkeys is a fraud. What i have written is that it isn't science. And to try to present it as science is fraudulent. But as a belief system it isn't fraudulent. It is simply religious dogma like any other that requires faith rather than science to support.

So the whole thing is circular musical chair game of fraudulent credentials and claims.

There fixed it for you!

Do you see the double standard you are playing Ken?

There's no double standard. Evolution doesn't claim that humans descended from moneys. Rather, it claims that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor in the distant past. And there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support this claim from a wide variety of fields: molecular genetics, biogeography, paleontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, and so forth. You may not find it compelling. But it is actual scientific evidence, there is a tremendous amount of it, and it all leads to the same conclusion.

By contrast, there is no scientific evidence to support young earth creationism of the type promoted by Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and others mentioned here. If you chose to believe in it, fine. But it is a question of faith, not science. There is no science that independently points to the young earth creation narrative. And you will not get there using science. There is only Genesis.

[Soloist]

Dinosaurs were not living creatures at the time of Noah. They went extinct during the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction 66 million years ago. At least all the big ones did. So the only traces of dinosaurs that would have existed during the time of Noah would have been the same fossils we have today. Not living creatures.

You are making a mistake, that’s not a lie. There are two world views displayed here. There’s a view of secularism, everything evolved, and the view that God created everything in 6 days. Those views are incompatible with each other. to say that he is lying for holding a view you don’t agree with doesn’t make it a lie.

Furthermore, Ham's book claims that dinosaurs survived the flood (since they were all on the Ark) and that the descendants of Noah were riding around on dinosaurs as he depicts on one of the pages that I posted.

This is speculative but it doesn’t make it lying.
Now when you invent a time machine and travel back 65 million years ago and discover nothing is there, then the two options is that you are wrong, or your time machine doesn’t work. When you do that let me know.
If your time machine doesn’t work maybe try removing the sunshades.

[Ken]

Dinosaurs were not living creatures at the time of Noah. They went extinct during the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction 66 million years ago. At least all the big ones did. So the only traces of dinosaurs that would have existed during the time of Noah would have been the same fossils we have today. Not living creatures.

You are making a mistake, that’s not a lie. There are two world views displayed here. There’s a view of secularism, everything evolved, and the view that God created everything in 6 days. Those views are incompatible with each other. to say that he is lying for holding a view you don’t agree with doesn’t make it a lie.

Furthermore, Ham's book claims that dinosaurs survived the flood (since they were all on the Ark) and that the descendants of Noah were riding around on dinosaurs as he depicts on one of the pages that I posted.

This is speculative but it doesn’t make it lying.
Now when you invent a time machine and travel back 65 million years ago and discover nothing is there, then the two options is that you are wrong, or your time machine doesn’t work. When you do that let me know.
If your time machine doesn’t work maybe try removing the sunshades.

No, I'm not speculating. I'm looking at all the Biblical and scientific evidence. And it all points in the same direction.

We can try to date the events related to Noah's Ark as depicted in Genesis 6. Many Biblical scholars have tried to do so over the ages using textual evidence within the Bible, and all other manner of archaeological and historical evidence from that region. Scholars have tried to date when the book of Genesis itself was written and how far back in time the flood occurred. Ken Ham most certainly does. Whether or not you believe it actually happened, we can try to date when the events depicted actually occurred. Thousands of scholars have attempted to do so over the centuries. You can look up the Biblical scholarship if you want. It is a very rich area of inquiry and I won't try to repeat it here.

We can also try to capture what kind of living biological communities of plants and animals existed during that time. Animals don't stand alone. They inhabit specific biological communities, ecosystems, and food webs. The Bible gives us clues, as do other writings from that time period from the Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, and others. And we have a tremendous amount of ecological archaeology that studies what kind of biological communities existed at various points in time. All of the evidence from both the Bible and science tell us that the events depicted in Genesis occurred in the Cenozoic or age of mammals, rather than the Mesozoic or age of dinosaurs. The Old Testament speaks of animals that are part of mammalian and bird ecology and food webs (lions, elephants, gazelles, Aurochs, camels, bears, deer, eagles, etc.) and not Mesozoic or dinosaur-dominated ecology and food webs. You don't get both at the same time. You either have mammal dominated ecological communities with lions, bears, and wolves as apex predators and hoofed herbivores as prey such as deer, gazelle, antelope, wild ox, etc. Or you have dinosaur-dominated ecological communities with predators like T-rex, velociraptors, and so forth, and dinosaur herbivores as prey.

So whether you are using Biblical evidence or scientific evidence or both, you don't get to the idea that there were living dinosaurs inhabiting the earth at the time of Noah and that the ark carried dinosaurs into the post-flood world. To date there have been over 700 different species of dinosaurs identified and described, all dated to the Mesozoic (251 to 66 million years ago) except for a few bird-like species. And none dated to the time of Noah. Although the notion that the ark carried 700 pairs of dinosaurs along with all their food (which would have been hundreds upon hundreds of more dinosaurs along with plant species that are also extinct) is curious to contemplate.

Regardless of what you believe about the Genesis story. There is absolutely no scientific or Biblical evidence to suggest there were dinosaurs on the ark and that dinosaurs survived the flood. Whether you take a scientific viewpoint or Biblical viewpoint or both, there is no evidence for it whatsoever. That is something that Ken Ham made up entirely out of thin air without the slightest bit of evidence of any kind to suggest it is even plausible, let alone true. When someone makes something up completely out of thin air without the slightest bit of supporting evidence of any kind. And lots of evidence to the contrary. And then claims in print that it is true? You can call it speculation if you want. Most people would not be so kind.

[NedFlanders]

Yes, I meant precisely what I wrote.

You will notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that creationism is a fraud. What i have written is that it isn't science. And to try to present it as science is fraudulent. But as a belief system it isn't fraudulent. It is simply religious dogma like any other that requires faith rather than science to support.

So the whole thing is circular musical chair game of fraudulent credentials and claims.

You will notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that evolution of things like humans evolving from monkeys is a fraud. What i have written is that it isn't science. And to try to present it as science is fraudulent. But as a belief system it isn't fraudulent. It is simply religious dogma like any other that requires faith rather than science to support.

So the whole thing is circular musical chair game of fraudulent credentials and claims.

There fixed it for you!

Do you see the double standard you are playing Ken?

There's no double standard. Evolution doesn't claim that humans descended from moneys. Rather, it claims that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor in the distant past. And there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support this claim from a wide variety of fields: molecular genetics, biogeography, paleontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, and so forth. You may not find it compelling. But it is actual scientific evidence, there is a tremendous amount of it, and it all leads to the same conclusion.

By contrast, there is no scientific evidence to support young earth creationism of the type promoted by Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and others mentioned here. If you chose to believe in it, fine. But it is a question of faith, not science. There is no science that independently points to the young earth creation narrative. And you will not get there using science. There is only Genesis.

Young earth? Your limited to time and so think on that level - God isn’t and doesn’t. Your perception is quite off and you are not understanding at all. When God made man He didn’t first make him a baby - he was young but yet still showed signs of age according to our perception. Likewise the earth he made was not a baby earth. It could be called an old earth showing all the signs of age (even if you want to believe it - billions of years) but yet is still young.

[Ken]

You will notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that evolution of things like humans evolving from monkeys is a fraud. What i have written is that it isn't science. And to try to present it as science is fraudulent. But as a belief system it isn't fraudulent. It is simply religious dogma like any other that requires faith rather than science to support.

So the whole thing is circular musical chair game of fraudulent credentials and claims.

There fixed it for you!

Do you see the double standard you are playing Ken?

There's no double standard. Evolution doesn't claim that humans descended from moneys. Rather, it claims that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor in the distant past. And there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support this claim from a wide variety of fields: molecular genetics, biogeography, paleontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, and so forth. You may not find it compelling. But it is actual scientific evidence, there is a tremendous amount of it, and it all leads to the same conclusion.

By contrast, there is no scientific evidence to support young earth creationism of the type promoted by Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and others mentioned here. If you chose to believe in it, fine. But it is a question of faith, not science. There is no science that independently points to the young earth creation narrative. And you will not get there using science. There is only Genesis.

Young earth? Your limited to time and so think on that level - God isn’t and doesn’t. Your perception is quite off and you are not understanding at all. When God made man He didn’t first make him a baby - he was young but yet still showed signs of age according to our perception. Likewise the earth he made was not a baby earth. It could be called an old earth showing all the signs of age (even if you want to believe it - billions of years) but yet is still young.

"Young Earth" is a term used by creationists. It isn't my term.

My point is simply that there is no scientific evidence for it. None. If we were to erase Genesis and simply use science to try to investigate questions about the age of the earth and the origin of all life on it. We would not wind up with the 7-day young earth creation narrative. Because there isn't any scientific evidence that points in that direction. Every bit of it points in the other direction.

Like I said, creationism and the Biblically literal interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't science. You will never get there using science. It is religious dogma and an article of faith. But that isn't just true of Genesis 1. It is true of all religion.

Honestly I think it is kind of pointless for religious conservatives to do battle with science. It is nothing new. Those battles have been going on since the middle ages and before. And I'm sure they will continue long after all of us are gone. But they are really two separate spheres and most people have no trouble reconciling the two.

[NedFlanders]

But Ken, the evolutionary model is called a theory. Scientists admit that much. A theory takes faith to believe - not science. It takes a certain amount of evidence or science - sure (the origin of the word science is simply from the word knowledge). Just like believing in God takes a certain amount of evidence. Read Hebrews 11:1. It states faith having evidence.

You separate the two like one is superior over the other. What Conservative Christians have going for them is they are humble enough to admit it takes faith even though we do have some evidence and some of it is scientific. The people who are so arrogant they forget that the evolutionary model is a theory, the ones saying they have the science - it is them (who think they know better) who are in fact losing out on such great blessing. I’m okay having less knowledge especially if God grants me greater wisdom. We don’t desire to defeat them in theory - we have compassion on their state of consciousness that lacks something and Someone so much greater than human reasoning - the One who gives peace that passes all understanding.

[Soloist]

No, I'm not speculating. I'm looking at all the Biblical and scientific evidence. And it all points in the same direction.

Yes you are. You assume and see things through your worldview. I see things through my worldview. I see evidence, you see evidence. But you are speculating.

We can try to date the events related to Noah's Ark as depicted in Genesis 6. Many Biblical scholars have tried to do so over the ages using textual evidence within the Bible, and all other manner of archaeological and historical evidence from that region. Scholars have tried to date when the book of Genesis itself was written and how far back in time the flood occurred. Ken Ham most certainly does. Whether or not you believe it actually happened, we can try to date when the events depicted actually occurred. Thousands of scholars have attempted to do so over the centuries. You can look up the Biblical scholarship if you want. It is a very rich area of inquiry and I won't try to repeat it here.

I don’t need to date it. As you pointed out aptly earlier, what God said don’t let man add to. God said how it happened, and I believe it.

All of the evidence from both the Bible and science tell us that the events depicted in Genesis occurred in the Cenozoic or age of mammals, rather than the Mesozoic or age of dinosaurs. The Old Testament speaks of animals that are part of mammalian and bird ecology and food webs (lions, elephants, gazelles, Aurochs, camels, bears, deer, eagles, etc.) and not Mesozoic or dinosaur-dominated ecology and food webs. You don't get both at the same time. You either have mammal dominated ecological communities with lions, bears, and wolves as apex predators and hoofed herbivores as prey such as deer, gazelle, antelope, wild ox, etc. Or you have dinosaur-dominated ecological communities with predators like T-rex, velociraptors, and so forth, and dinosaur herbivores as prey.

Speculative. Science also tells us a global flood didn’t happen. At least some science, other science says it did. You yourself don’t believe in a global flood. I do not believe God created dinosaurs let them run around, die out and then create man. God created dinosaurs during the six days. I don’t really care what the science community thinks, they are wrong. If God created an aged earth, all their data has inaccurate assumptions and they end with faulty results. The very foundation of paleontology rests upon several assumptions that are tied in a multifaceted circular logic.

So whether you are using Biblical evidence or scientific evidence or both, you don't get to the idea that there were living dinosaurs inhabiting the earth at the time of Noah and that the ark carried dinosaurs into the post-flood world. To date there have been over 700 different species of dinosaurs identified and described, all dated to the Mesozoic (251 to 66 million years ago) except for a few bird-like species. And none dated to the time of Noah. Although the notion that the ark carried 700 pairs of dinosaurs along with all their food (which would have been hundreds upon hundreds of more dinosaurs along with plant species that are also extinct) is curious to contemplate

Actually you do. If you can recall the argument the answers in genesis had over a volcanic rock, they sent off to several labs for testing and the results were wrong. The argument against it was that they started with the wrong information and that the test was invalid. This I use to make a point that a supposition was what they (lab) started from.
The result was invalid because they didn’t know when the rock was made. The scientists would look at a tree and say it was there for several years, God would tell them,
He just made it. They would look at Adam and say he had been alive for more than 10 years. Adam would say I was just born. If The opinion you start with is wrong or based on wrong theory you will come up with the wrong result.

Regardless of what you believe about the Genesis story. There is absolutely no scientific or Biblical evidence to suggest there were dinosaurs on the ark and that dinosaurs survived the flood. Whether you take a scientific viewpoint or Biblical viewpoint or both, there is no evidence for it whatsoever. That is something that Ken Ham made up entirely out of thin air without the slightest bit of evidence of any kind to suggest it is even plausible, let alone true. When someone makes something up completely out of thin air without the slightest bit of supporting evidence of any kind. And lots of evidence to the contrary. And then claims in print that it is true? You can call it speculation if you want. Most people would not be so kind.

Ken, you really just don’t get it. The evidence is there you just can’t see it.
Evolution and science starts with a foundational position. Decay rates = earth age
Creationists start with a foundational position.
God‘s word = earth age
We certainly can test the decay rates, but they have no way of knowing that the earth truly has been around that long.
A creationist can explain the decay rates and it’s logical meshing perfectly with creation.
What you call lies, I call truth. I believe in a literal six day creation, God created dinosaurs during this time. Did those dinosaurs die pre-flood? I don’t know. But dinosaurs walked on the earth when man did.
The evidence of scripture supports this. I have been fairly charitable about your views, I don’t believe a lie. You do. You however, are not a liar. And until you get the point that someone is not a liar for believing something you think it’s not true, you will continue to be offensive.

[temporal1]

.. you really just don’t get it.

not possible. without the blessing of the Holy Spirit, it’s not possible.
pray for blessings of the Holy Spirit. the smallest touch of Light is greater than all human reasoning combined.
human reasoning is not sufficient. it can be a false god.

Isaiah 64:6
Zechariah 3:3
Proverbs 3:5-6

[Ken]

But Ken, the evolutionary model is called a theory. Scientists admit that much. A theory takes faith to believe - not science. It takes a certain amount of evidence or science - sure (the origin of the word science is simply from the word knowledge). Just like believing in God takes a certain amount of evidence. Read Hebrews 11:1. It states faith having evidence.

You separate the two like one is superior over the other. What Conservative Christians have going for them is they are humble enough to admit it takes faith even though we do have some evidence and some of it is scientific. The people who are so arrogant they forget that the evolutionary model is a theory, the ones saying they have the science - it is them (who think they know better) who are in fact losing out on such great blessing. I’m okay having less knowledge especially if God grants me greater wisdom. We don’t desire to defeat them in theory - we have compassion on their state of consciousness that lacks something and Someone so much greater than human reasoning - the One who gives peace that passes all understanding.

In science there are many terms that have one meaning in a scientific context and another meaning in a non-scientific context. Some examples:

work
belt
family
significant
sensitivity
culture
cleavage
primer
moles
cell
confidence
control

And yes, the word "theory" is one of those terms. You are using the the term in a non-science context. Which is fine. But it isn't what science means by the word theory, whether we are speaking about Cell Theory, Germ Theory, the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, or any other scientific theory.

So what does the word "theory" mean in a scientific context? Don't take my word for it. Let's check a few sources:

From the America Museum of Natural History: A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

From the Field Museum of Natural History: A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

Here is a more detailed typical textbook definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... r_criteria

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, some theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts and/or other laws. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

So no. Theories do not require faith to believe. Faith is not a part of it one way or the other. Scientific theories are simply the best explanations for phenomenon observed in the natural world. And, as such, are subject to constant refinement as new information becomes available.

[Soloist]

You are right, he is using the wrong word. theory doesn’t accurately explain it. It’s someone’s bathtub idea.