 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
larryjf
Tiger
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 848
Location: boothwyn, pa, usa
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:37 pm Post subject: Over 400 Scientists Convinced... |
 |
|
Interesting article titled...
Over 400 Scientists Convinced by New Scientific Evidence That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient
CHECK LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
golfjack
Lion King
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 1136
Location: arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:30 pm Post subject: reply |
|
|
You're right, Evolution is junk science.
May God bless, golfjack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Steve Project wrote: | | Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. |
Number of scientists named Steve that support evolution that have signed thus far: 640.
| Clergy Letter Project wrote: | Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth. |
Number of clergy that understand that evolution should be taught that have signed thus far: 8,582.
Many of the scientists that signed the Discovery Institute's letter later stated that they regretted doing so, as they feel they have been misrepresented. In addition, few, if any of the scientists were evolutionary biologists.
And golfjack, if you have any actual reason to believe that evolution is junk science, you're welcome to make a thread about it. Some of the posters on this board actually understand what it is and how it works, and we'd be happy to teach you.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
So you don't care to back up your assertions, golfjack?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | So you don't care to back up your assertions, golfjack? |
I'm sure he would really like to, but caring and being able to are totally different things.
Also popularity is no meassure of something's accuracy. After all, I'm sure at least 400 people believe leprechauns and unicorns exist, and there's no proof they ever existed at all other than a large number of old books detailing their comings and goings, and 'a large number of books' is a lot more than you can say for some things which even more people believe.
_________________
"The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job." - Sam Harris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
larryjf
Tiger
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 848
Location: boothwyn, pa, usa
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Some of the posters on this board actually understand what it is and how it works, and we'd be happy to teach you. |
Why not just list out the proof of evolution?
I always hear people talking about how much evidence there is, yet none ever list it out.
If you were to list out the proof of evolution then the discussion could proceed from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| larryjf wrote: | Why not just list out the proof of evolution?
I always hear people talking about how much evidence there is, yet none ever list it out.
If you were to list out the proof of evolution then the discussion could proceed from there. |
Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Have fun reading it, it's pretty long.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
larryjf
Tiger
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 848
Location: boothwyn, pa, usa
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CHECK LINK
So one of the "proofs" is that all species have DNA?
It may prove a commonality between species, but to move from that to proof of macro evolution is quite a stretch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| larryjf wrote: | | So one of the "proofs" is that all species have DNA? |
Well hooray for reading comprehension.
"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
larryjf
Tiger
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 848
Location: boothwyn, pa, usa
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Well hooray for reading comprehension.
"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" |
I'm not sure why the attitude.
You haven't even talked about one of the evidences, are you suggesting that i should talk about all 29+ or nothing at all? While all the while you don't talk about even 1?
CHECK LINK
They list Archaeopteryx as a dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossil.
(From http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=321)
Ninety years ago, with reference to Archaeopteryx and to two other ancient birds, Ichthyornis and Hesperornis, F.E. Beddard declared, "So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains." (F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1898, p. 160)
During the years since publication of Beddard's book, no better candidate as an intermediate between reptiles and birds has appeared, and so, in the eyes of its beholders, Archaeopteryx has become more and more reptile-like until it is now fashionable to declare that Archaeopteryx was hardly more than a feathered reptile. In 90 years, Archaeopteryx has thus evolved from a creature so emphatically bird-like its reptilian ancestry was barely hinted at into a creature some evolutionists declare to be nothing more than a reptile with feathers!
Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it. It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds, had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and an especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it being a powered flyer. No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!
It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. When the cranium of the London specimen was removed from the limestone and studied, it was shown to be bird-like, not reptile-like. Benton has stated that "details of the brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem." In this same paper, Benton states that the quadrate (the bone in the jaw that articulates with the squamosal of the skull) in Archaeopteryx was singleheaded as in reptiles. Using a newly devised technique, computed tomography, Haubitz, et al, established that the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds, rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton.
L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of dinosaurs. John Ostrom, a strong advocate of a dinosaurian ancestry for birds, had claimed that the pubis of Archaeopteryx pointed downward—an intermediate position between that of coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which points forward, and that of birds, which points backward. A.D. Walker, in more recent studies, asserts that Ostrom's interpretation is wrong, and that the pubis of Archaeopteryx was oriented in a bird-like position. Further, Tarsitano and Hecht criticize various aspects of Ostrom's hypothesis of a dinosaurian origin of birds, arguing that Ostrom had misinterpreted the homologies of the limbs of Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs.
And much more on that site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| larryjf wrote: | | I'm not sure why the attitude. |
Because the title of the page says evidences, not proofs.
| larryjf wrote: | | You haven't even talked about one of the evidences, are you suggesting that i should talk about all 29+ or nothing at all? While all the while you don't talk about even 1? |
Because you said this: | larryjf wrote: | Why not just list out the proof of evolution?
I always hear people talking about how much evidence there is, yet none ever list it out. |
While I'm not going to be so bold as to claim the evidences listed as proof, they are nonetheless evidence. You asked for a list. Stop shifting your goalposts.
| larryjf wrote: | | They list Archaeopteryx as a dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossil. |
Talkorigins on Archaeopteryx as a transitional. | Quote: | 1. "Transitional" does not mean "ancestral." It means that the transitional fossil shows a mosaic of features from organisms before and after. It is wrong to say that Archaeopteryx was ancestral to modern birds. But it is also wrong to say that it is not transitional. It is indisputable that Archaeopteryx is intermediate between dinosaurs and modern birds. That makes it transitional and gives evidence of the relatedness between dinosaurs and birds.
2. Several other recently discovered dinosaur, bird, and intermediate dinosaur-bird fossils are starting to fill in the gaps and are providing further evidence that the interpretation of Archaeopteryx is correct. |
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
larryjf
Tiger
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 848
Location: boothwyn, pa, usa
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
While I'm not going to be so bold as to claim the evidences listed as proof, they are nonetheless evidence. You asked for a list. Stop shifting your goalposts.
|
I didn't ask for "evidences", i asked for "proof".
I didn't ask for a link to a list. I asked for you to list the "proof"...
| Quote: | | If you were to list out the proof of evolution then the discussion could proceed from there. |
Talk about shifting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
larryjf
Tiger
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 848
Location: boothwyn, pa, usa
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is indisputable that Archaeopteryx is intermediate between dinosaurs and modern birds |
I posted that Archaeopteryx is a bird, not an intermediate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
larryjf
Tiger
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 848
Location: boothwyn, pa, usa
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Definition of Proof - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| larryjf wrote: | I didn't ask for "evidences", i asked for "proof".
I didn't ask for a link to a list. I asked for you to list the "proof"... |
You ask the impossible. Proof exists in math, not in reality. If I asked you for proof that your God exists, what would you give me?
| larryjf wrote: | | I posted that Archaeopteryx is a bird, not an intermediate. |
Why archaeopteryx is not a bird.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
