 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Google Hugh Ross... and you'll have your answer. He is a prominent OEC... very popular with some Theistic Evolutionist types. |
Ok, you win this round. But can you find me someone who believes in special creation who has respect for the scientists supporting TOE? |
No... I think I'll bask in the joy of victory here for a while.. 
OK... all done.
Define respect first and I might be able to dig up a citation or two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Define respect first and I might be able to dig up a citation or two. |
Hard to define. I can give you an example of disrespect: the belief that the millions of man-hours spent by thousands of scientists researching marcroevolution were all a complete waste of time based on nothing more than an interpretation of ancient holy scriptures.
Can you find me someone who believes in special creation or YEC who doesn't fit this description? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6816
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I can give you an example of disrespect: the belief that the millions of man-hours spent by thousands of scientists researching marcroevolution were all a complete waste of time based on nothing more than an interpretation of ancient holy scriptures. |
Can you give me a documented citation that people believe this?
As I see it, those who disagree with macroevolution simply disagree with it, they assert that it is based on conjecture (guesses) and not in any irrefutable, undeniable, realistically demonstrable proof. I've found very few that assert that the study of such was a 'complete waste of time'.
It seems to me that you want to keep the coin, but only one side of it. You assert creationists are disrespectful of scientists, but that scientists are not disrespectful of creationists...
Oh... wait.... you HAVE admitted that scientists are disrespectful of creationsist, but you claim they are within their rights to be so...
Respect:
. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
dis·re·spect
–noun
1. lack of respect; discourtesy; rudeness.
So, you would have us to accept that creationists should respect scientists for the work they do in evolutionary theory and respect their work becasue they have spent milliions of man hours working in that field? BUT, scientists are well within their rights to disrespect creationists (theologians) because they have spent millions of hour in THIER field? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5844
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | As I see it, those who disagree with macroevolution simply disagree with it, they assert that it is based on conjecture (guesses) and not in any irrefutable, undeniable, realistically demonstrable proof. |
Because their interpretation of scripture outweighs the otherwise convincing evidence in their mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6816
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Because their interpretation of scripture outweighs the otherwise convincing evidence in their mind. |
Actually, many (myself) included understand that while microevolutionary processes are demonstrable, the inference that microevolution would lead to macroevolutionary changes given enough time (eons and eons which cannot be proven, only assumed) is simply unprovable, has yet to be proven, and is based solely on conjecture. Creationism need not be a factor in understanding that science assumes something will or did happen with no indisputable, observable, repeatable, demonstrable proof to support that assumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5844
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Actually, many (myself) included understand that while microevolutionary processes are demonstrable, the inference that microevolution would lead to macroevolutionary changes given enough time (eons and eons which cannot be proven, only assumed) is simply unprovable, has yet to be proven, and is based solely on conjecture. Creationism need not be a factor in understanding that science assumes something will or did happen with no indisputable, observable, repeatable, demonstrable proof to support that assumption. |
Well, okay. Find me someone that doesn't accept macroevolutionary change that doesn't have a religious bias.
There is plenty of convincing evidence that macroevolutionary change occurs. Creationists refuse to accept it because of the presupposition that God created the Earth in a specific time period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6816
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've never once accepted macroevolutionary change although I have rejected the idea of creation.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Actually, many (myself) included understand that while microevolutionary processes are demonstrable, the inference that microevolution would lead to macroevolutionary changes given enough time (eons and eons which cannot be proven, only assumed) is simply unprovable, has yet to be proven, and is based solely on conjecture. |
You're denying the considerable evidence from the fossil record. Despite what creationists want to believe, a sufficient number of gaps have been filled to convince even the most skeptical honest critic that there is no doubt.
The only way to deny macroevolution in the face of this evidence is by either
a) Being ignorant of the evidence, or
b) Being dishonestly skeptical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6816
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OR
One could sincerely beleive that the 'gaps' have not been adequately 'filled' and that the 'conclusion' of macroevolutionary change is still based on assumption of the unproven.
I know it is a shocking realization to come to, but; just because you accept something as truth and believe it religiously does not mean everyone is convinced of the same.
I would guess that you would assert the same to people of faith and somehow be dumbfounded that the same can be said to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | RevJP wrote: | | As I see it, those who disagree with macroevolution simply disagree with it, they assert that it is based on conjecture (guesses) and not in any irrefutable, undeniable, realistically demonstrable proof. |
Because their interpretation of scripture outweighs the otherwise convincing evidence in their mind. |
Couldn't be the fact that perhaps the 'evidence' isn't all that convincing... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | You're denying the considerable evidence from the fossil record. Despite what creationists want to believe, a sufficient number of gaps have been filled to convince even the most skeptical honest critic that there is no doubt.
The only way to deny macroevolution in the face of this evidence is by either
a) Being ignorant of the evidence, or
b) Being dishonestly skeptical. |
This is just wrong P...
This is what the fossil record consists of:
1. 95% of the fossils (by number) consist of shallow marine organisms (e.g. corals, shellfish)
2. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils (including the coal) and all the other invertebrate fossils (e.g. insects)
3. 5% of the 5% (or 0.25% of the entire fossil record) are the vertebrate fossils (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)
4. only 1% of this 0.25% (or 0.0025% of the entire fossil record) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! (e.g. there are only about 2,100 dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums.)
And you want to tell me that the fossil record provides enough evidence, or that we are not being honestly skeptical? That is simply ridiculous. The fossil record is far from complete or conclusive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
One could sincerely beleive that the 'gaps' have not been adequately 'filled' and that the 'conclusion' of macroevolutionary change is still based on assumption of the unproven. |
Only if one has not received a proper scientific education AND on top of that has an a priori belief in an interpretation of the Bible which rules out macroevolution. Unfortunately this is a completely unscientific reason for not believing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
This is what the fossil record consists of:
1. 95% of the fossils (by number) consist of shallow marine organisms (e.g. corals, shellfish)
2. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils (including the coal) and all the other invertebrate fossils (e.g. insects)
3. 5% of the 5% (or 0.25% of the entire fossil record) are the vertebrate fossils (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)
4. only 1% of this 0.25% (or 0.0025% of the entire fossil record) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! (e.g. there are only about 2,100 dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums.)
And you want to tell me that the fossil record provides enough evidence, or that we are not being honestly skeptical? That is simply ridiculous. The fossil record is far from complete or conclusive. |
All of the creationist arguments against transitional fossils are garbage, and are completely rejected by real scientists.
The 'numbers' argument above is particularly silly because it makes it sound as if we have very few fossils. This is not true; we have millions of ANIMAL fossils, and when you put them all together into the evolutionary tree, they paint an incredibly convincing picture by any reasonable standard of skepticism.
Wikipedia even has a nice page listing all sorts of transitional fossils (note that this is a very incomplete list):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Even if you JUST look at the evidence for human evolution from lower primates, the evidence is totally compelling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6816
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P123... wrote: | | Even if you JUST look at the evidence for human evolution from lower primates, the evidence is totally compelling. |
Perhaps to you, but not to all.
Your argument that the evidence isn't compelling to some because they have some a priori belief in an interpretation of the Bible which rules out macroevolution, is simply unfounded.
I know of many who have viewed the evidence objectively, with no religious bias and are not compelled to accept it as adequate. I also know of a few who have viewed said evidence and have been turned to scriptural belief because of its uncompelling nature.
Additionally, you said:
| Quote: | | Only if one has not received a proper scientific education |
I think this is the key to the bias argument. If you had stated that a simple viewing of the evidence is compelling, then you may have a leg to stand on, but you acknowledge that an indoctrination in evolutionary dogma is necessary for one to be compelled by said evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | P123... wrote: | | Even if you JUST look at the evidence for human evolution from lower primates, the evidence is totally compelling. |
Perhaps to you, but not to all.
|
Ah, but it is compelling to the EXPERTS, and more than anyone else, they know what they're talking about (which is why we call them experts). Their opinions are worth more than those of non-experts, and we should listen to them.
Let's say you're having chest pains and you go to the cardiologist. While in the waiting room, you talk to the janitor, and he says it's probably a heart attack and that you should get a transplant. Then you go and see the doctor. He checks you out and says, "Don't worry; it's only heartburn. Go eat a Tums." Whose advice do you follow?
It's the same with evolution. The vast majority of the EXPERTS all say that macroevolution really did happen and that there is ample scientific evidence for it, and that there is no scientific evidence against it. And among the critics of evolution, there are virtually no experts. In fact, a huge number of them have no idea what TOE even says!
Who are we supposed to listen to? I assert that the scientists supporting evolution are like the cardiologist (ie. they are experts who know what's going on), and the evolution nay-sayers are like the janitor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
