Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

[Ryan]

Thanks Si modo for some important insights, especially regarding Popper. I must admit I did not fully appreciate the points you were making when I originally responded to your post. My first post was a response to another post on the first page then I was kicked back to the last page and read the next 10 or 11 pages in descending order without as much care as I should have.

I now have a better understanding of what is meant by your statement that 'science doesn't prove anything it only falsifies. It seems to me categorization of thought or learning that incorporates the limited capacity of human knowledge toward any scientific theory. Often, I have come up with the right answer to a question but later learned it was based on faulty reasoning, my previous post might serve as an example.

 

[Ryan]

Isn't science just discovering god's blueprints? If not, why not?

Because Adam & Eve we're made in God's image and looked like modern man does today, the Bible goes completely against any sort of evolution because it leaves out dinosaurs and ancient man.

The Bible does not mention dinosaurs, that is true. The Book of Enoch (spoken about in the Bible) does imply where dinosaurs and other "mythical" animals originate. The Bible only touches into this "mating" in Genisis when it explains "nephelim".
Scientists could learn a lot from reading this book (if they aren't suffering from a god complex themselves). It explains how a lot of knowledge was taught and how it was used, for evil. The Book of Enoch is in religious libraries, and is part of the Apocryphia.
If it was made into a movie, it would beat Star Wars, the Exorcist and John Wayne all rolled into one.

Interesting, you must be referring to Genesis 6:1-4. I wonder if you are familiar with Zachria Sitchens translation of the term that was thought to be "giants"?

 

[logical4u]

Dear Moron,
The earth is Millions of years old and people did not inter act with dinosaurs
Read a book Science denier!!

Where does that "proof" exist?

from my understanding, science calculated deterioration of elements/gases...and dated us in this manner....moon rocks, similar to our rocks but with certain element deterioration or something like that....confirmed it to be over 4 billion earth years old...

i have no problem with such...since we have no idea what a ''day'' is, in genesis 1...we just know the SEQUENCE that we are told in genesis...what happened 1st-day 1, what happened 2nd-day 2, what happen 3rd-day 3 etc....that can be compared with evolution....

for the longest time, things seemed like they did not match up....but recent scientific discoveries, within the last decade or so, have brought life back to Genesis 1 and evolution debate imo, a revelation of sorts, and the accuracy of it, though written thousands of years ago.

even yesterday, on the documentary on The Universe, i learned something new to debate Shogun on, that he mentioned earlier on a post, of which i was stumped on....

all i ask, is that you keep yourself open to whatever is revealed....science is not the enemy, it is God given imo....and yes, it is not completely accurate and things that were once theories, sometimes get thrown out, or improved upon as we discover more or more is revealed to us...this is just part of the process.

I believe everything, through Faith....i do not need Science for proof, BUT OTHERS DO need this proof....so, if science ends up meshing with the Bible writen thousands of years ago, and this gives the true scientist reason to believe now....their own little awakening...then good!

Even our beloved doubting Thomas, needed proof....was Jesus really mad at him for it? NO, He accepted it and supplied him proof.

care

I understand what you are saying. The people that want to use science as fact use radio carbon dating as acurate (within thousands or millions of years depending on how far back you are testing). I am pointing out this is not accurate; it is a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess).
I don't have a problem with science that can be repeated and demonstrated to be accurate (measurements of light, gravity, etc). I refuse to let those that want to deny the Lord state scientific conjecture as fact. No one that lived before the flood is still alive. The stories that were passed from that time (because of religious association) are not acceptable to the scientific community. They want to invent a "scientific" "story" and selectively use "proof" that is not concrete or even close. If they want to state this is the story of life from _____ point of view, that is fine. To present modern "made-up" stories as fact is simply ... wrong.

 

[logical4u]

Because Adam & Eve we're made in God's image and looked like modern man does today, the Bible goes completely against any sort of evolution because it leaves out dinosaurs and ancient man.

The Bible does not mention dinosaurs, that is true. The Book of Enoch (spoken about in the Bible) does imply where dinosaurs and other "mythical" animals originate. The Bible only touches into this "mating" in Genisis when it explains "nephelim".
Scientists could learn a lot from reading this book (if they aren't suffering from a god complex themselves). It explains how a lot of knowledge was taught and how it was used, for evil. The Book of Enoch is in religious libraries, and is part of the Apocryphia.
If it was made into a movie, it would beat Star Wars, the Exorcist and John Wayne all rolled into one.

does the bible mention every animal and make claim to such? 93% of the animals and other creatures were extinct before man came on to the playing field?

what passage says that only the animals adam (man) named were the only animals that ever existed on earth?

The Bible does mention specific animals and is vague about other animal species taken onto the ark.
The Book of Enoch does imply that the animals made from the fallen angels mating with animal species fought each other or were destroyed by the flood (extinction?). Hard to believe that there is an explanation of what some scientists think marginalizes the Lord.

 

[Shogun]

6 fingered Nephelim have been mentioned. hilarious.

 

[logical4u]

Because Adam & Eve we're made in God's image and looked like modern man does today, the Bible goes completely against any sort of evolution because it leaves out dinosaurs and ancient man.

The Bible does not mention dinosaurs, that is true. The Book of Enoch (spoken about in the Bible) does imply where dinosaurs and other "mythical" animals originate. The Bible only touches into this "mating" in Genisis when it explains "nephelim".
Scientists could learn a lot from reading this book (if they aren't suffering from a god complex themselves). It explains how a lot of knowledge was taught and how it was used, for evil. The Book of Enoch is in religious libraries, and is part of the Apocryphia.
If it was made into a movie, it would beat Star Wars, the Exorcist and John Wayne all rolled into one.

Interesting, you must be referring to Genesis 6:1-4. I wonder if you are familiar with Zachria Sitchens translation of the term that was thought to be "giants"?

I am not sure about Zachria Sitchens translation, but I know that "giants" are one of the definitions of nephelim. I have done some online searches and found some really interesting information.
The Book of Enoch tells of giants that demanded so many horses a day from men to eat and when men couldn't supply the horses, the giants ate the men. It describes some of the sizes, but I have a tough time converting Biblical measurements (it was beyond my ability to comprehend the size).

 

[logical4u]

6 fingered Nephelim have been mentioned. hilarious.

Don't forget, they were double indentured also.

 

[Si modo]

Thanks Si modo for some important insights, especially regarding Popper. I must admit I did not fully appreciate the points you were making when I originally responded to your post. My first post was a response to another post on the first page then I was kicked back to the last page and read the next 10 or 11 pages in descending order without as much care as I should have.

I now have a better understanding of what is meant by your statement that 'science doesn't prove anything it only falsifies. It seems to me categorization of thought or learning that incorporates the limited capacity of human knowledge toward any scientific theory. Often, I have come up with the right answer to a question but later learned it was based on faulty reasoning, my previous post might serve as an example.

And thank you for bringing up some excellent points about human influence on the expansion of knowledge. So, there wasn't too much error at all in what you said, IMO. In fact, all of us must be diligent in recognizing these sorts of influences that you mentioned so that we can ensure as best we can that our sciences (both hard and soft) are as objective as possible. Without the ability to discuss these points, regardless of misunderstndings or not, we will rarely understand each others' views.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Isn't science just discovering god's blueprints? If not, why not?

Because the occult is "wishful thinking". There is no such things as spirits and ghosts.

Science is still leaning about the universe. One thing we know for sure, "Noah's Ark" is a fable and not a historical event.

Noah's Ark has been proven scientifically feasable. Not to mention the geologic and geographic evidence for the flood. Everything points to a flood and a 6000 year old earth you would just have to have your head in the sand not to see it.

 

[Diuretic]

Isn't science just discovering god's blueprints? If not, why not?

Because the occult is "wishful thinking". There is no such things as spirits and ghosts.

Science is still leaning about the universe. One thing we know for sure, "Noah's Ark" is a fable and not a historical event.

Noah's Ark has been proven scientifically feasable. Not to mention the geologic and geographic evidence for the flood. Everything points to a flood and a 6000 year old earth you would just have to have your head in the sand not to see it.

Do you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old?

 

[BigBarry]

Noah's Ark has been proven scientifically feasable. Not to mention the geologic and geographic evidence for the flood. Everything points to a flood and a 6000 year old earth you would just have to have your head in the sand not to see it.

So how many species did Noah take on his boat? Because there are over 1 million, and if you consider all the bugs that would have died in a flood, you're talking an extra 40 million or so. Plus all the food for the animals and the large shovels for all the crap.

What exactly points to a 6000 year old earth?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thanks Si modo for some important insights, especially regarding Popper. I must admit I did not fully appreciate the points you were making when I originally responded to your post. My first post was a response to another post on the first page then I was kicked back to the last page and read the next 10 or 11 pages in descending order without as much care as I should have.

I now have a better understanding of what is meant by your statement that 'science doesn't prove anything it only falsifies. It seems to me categorization of thought or learning that incorporates the limited capacity of human knowledge toward any scientific theory. Often, I have come up with the right answer to a question but later learned it was based on faulty reasoning, my previous post might serve as an example.

And thank you for bringing up some excellent points about human influence on the expansion of knowledge. So, there wasn't too much error at all in what you said, IMO. In fact, all of us must be diligent in recognizing these sorts of influences that you mentioned so that we can ensure as best we can that our sciences (both hard and soft) are as objective as possible. Without the ability to discuss these points, regardless of misunderstndings or not, we will rarely understand each others' views.

These 2 are a great example of real people, kudos for you're civility and intelligence.

 

[Ryan]

Thanks Si modo for some important insights, especially regarding Popper. I must admit I did not fully appreciate the points you were making when I originally responded to your post. My first post was a response to another post on the first page then I was kicked back to the last page and read the next 10 or 11 pages in descending order without as much care as I should have.

I now have a better understanding of what is meant by your statement that 'science doesn't prove anything it only falsifies. It seems to me categorization of thought or learning that incorporates the limited capacity of human knowledge toward any scientific theory. Often, I have come up with the right answer to a question but later learned it was based on faulty reasoning, my previous post might serve as an example.

And thank you for bringing up some excellent points about human influence on the expansion of knowledge. So, there wasn't too much error at all in what you said, IMO. In fact, all of us must be diligent in recognizing these sorts of influences that you mentioned so that we can ensure as best we can that our sciences (both hard and soft) are as objective as possible. Without the ability to discuss these points, regardless of misunderstndings or not, we will rarely understand each others' views.

These 2 are a great example of real people, kudos for you're civility and intelligence.

Right away Si modo recognized that I focused on one aspect of the post but responded with total class. How rare is that?

 

[Ryan]

The Bible does not mention dinosaurs, that is true. The Book of Enoch (spoken about in the Bible) does imply where dinosaurs and other "mythical" animals originate. The Bible only touches into this "mating" in Genisis when it explains "nephelim".
Scientists could learn a lot from reading this book (if they aren't suffering from a god complex themselves). It explains how a lot of knowledge was taught and how it was used, for evil. The Book of Enoch is in religious libraries, and is part of the Apocryphia.
If it was made into a movie, it would beat Star Wars, the Exorcist and John Wayne all rolled into one.

Interesting, you must be referring to Genesis 6:1-4. I wonder if you are familiar with Zachria Sitchens translation of the term that was thought to be "giants"?

I am not sure about Zachria Sitchens translation, but I know that "giants" are one of the definitions of nephelim. I have done some online searches and found some really interesting information.
The Book of Enoch tells of giants that demanded so many horses a day from men to eat and when men couldn't supply the horses, the giants ate the men. It describes some of the sizes, but I have a tough time converting Biblical measurements (it was beyond my ability to comprehend the size).

As a young lad stuying Hebrew, Sitchin, pointed out that the OT translated the tern Nefilim as "giants" when the correct translation is "Those Who Were Cast Down." I believe that much of Sitchen's life has been studying Sumerian culture. He does have a home page under his name but I'm not really recommending it. I do not like the implications of that horse shortage.

 

[gcomeau]

Noah's Ark has been proven scientifically feasable.

It most certainly has not.

Not to mention the geologic and geographic evidence for the flood.

Which is... none. Zero. Zip. No geologic evidence of a global flood exists, anywhere, ever.

Everything points to a flood and a 6000 year old earth you would just have to have your head in the sand not to see it.

Oh really? Do you actually want to have a serious discussion of that evidence by any chance? Because we can do that. Would you like to start or should I?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Noah's Ark has been proven scientifically feasable.

It most certainly has not.

Not to mention the geologic and geographic evidence for the flood.

Which is... none. Zero. Zip. No geologic evidence of a global flood exists, anywhere, ever.

Everything points to a flood and a 6000 year old earth you would just have to have your head in the sand not to see it.

Oh really? Do you actually want to have a serious discussion of that evidence by any chance? Because we can do that. Would you like to start or should I?

 

[gcomeau]

I fail to see the humor. I'm just going to take that as a "you start" since you apear unwilling to do anything actually involving the evidence in your response.

How about we begin with basic principles of radiometric dating? Fortunately I've had to explain this to people before so I have most of this stuff written already.

Carbon (C14) Dating:

C14 dating is used to date the remains of organic, air breathing organisms up to approximately 50,000 years old. While living these organisms breathe the atmosphere, which contains trace amounts of the radioactive isotope Carbon 14 that is constantly being produced in the upper atmosphere through neutron bombardment. So long as they are alive the C14 content of their bodies will remain in equilibrium with the C14 content of the atmosphere. When they die respiration ceases, along with the intake of any new quantities of C14. Over time the C14 decays with a half-life of 5568 years into N14. By measuring how much C14 remains un-decayed the time elapsed since the death of the organism can be determined.

A common mi-sperception of C14 dating is that it relies on the assumption that atmospheric C14 levels remained constant in the past so that we can know how much C14 an organism started off with. While this was an assumption made when the technique was first developed about half a century ago it has not been the case for several decades. Historical atmospheric C14 concentrations have been charted and calibrated using both dendochronology and lake varves which incorporate organic sediment in their annual deposition layers. One particularly good example of this is Lake Suigetsu in Japan where cores have been drilled to a depth of 45,000 annual layers. Because of the layering process we have an independent count of exactly how old every layer is… and because the layers incorporate organic material (the remains of a surface algae which dies off every year and sinks to the bottom of the lake) each layer can be C14 dated as well, and using these two data points the atmospheric C14 content can be charted all the way back for the entire time span encompassed by the varve core. This data (cross-checked against multiple other sites and methods) then allows us to apply C14 dating to other sites already knowing how fluctuations in atmospheric C14 concentrations in the past will effect the results… and allowing us to calibrate out error that would otherwise be introduced due to those past fluctuations.

Just one more note on C14 dating... once this calibration scale was applied it was discovered that previous C14 dates had been underestimating ages. By a few percent. There are also the occasional examples of C14 dates which have supposedly been wildly inaccurate. Many of these examples are the result of grossly improper applications of the method. For example, one I have encountered quite often is the "C14 dating of a living snail shell" that came back as thousands of years old... I believe this is one of Hovind's pet illustrations. The mollusks in question were extremely inappropriate subjects for C14 dating, which anyone familiar with the method would know. They form shells which are in equilibrium with the carbon content of the water sources in which they live... NOT the atmosphere. No C14 lab worth it's salt would ever date such an organism without warning the person requesting the test of the reservoir effect that would most likely render the test results invalid.

Longer Ranged Radiometric Dating:

There are a great many longer ranged radiometric dating methods using radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives than C14. I’ll quickly review a couple of them.

1. Argon-Argon (Ar40-Ar39) dating. Argon-Argon is a method closely related to Potassium-Argon, where the age of a sample is determined by measurement of how much of the potassium-40 in the rock has decayed into Argon-40. However, with the Argon-Argon method it is also possible to tell if there is any Argon-40 present which is NOT a product of the decay of the potassium in the sample. This is done by placing the sample to be dated in close proximity to a nuclear reactor for several hours. The resulting neutron bombardment from the reactor causes potassium-39 in the sample to be transformed into Argon-39. Argon-39 has a half-life of only 269 years, and is not found in nature… so any subsequently detected argon-39 is known to be a product of the decay of the potassium-39 in the sample. After this is done the sample is then put through an incremental heating process and the released argon-40/argon-39 ratios are measured at every stage. A sample that contains only argon-40 that is a product of the decay of the potassium-40 in that sample will release argon-39 and argon-40 in the same proportion at EVERY heating step. If there is parentless argon-40 in the sample that is not a product of the decay of that sample’s potassium-40 however the ratios will change at different heating stages. This eliminates the popular claim that excess parentless argon in a sample can cause that sample to date as older than it really is.

2. Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr) dating. Very useful for dating igneous rocks in particular. There are many different isotopes of Strontium (Sr-87, Sr-86, etc…). Rubidium-87 decays into Strontium-87. When magma first cools into an igneous rock formation all parts of the rock will have the same ratio of strontium-87/strontium-86 because the isotopes are freely dispersing through the molten rock prior to that time. However, once the rock hardens different parts of the rock will have different rubidium/strontium ratios than others since the atomic make-up of rubidium is larger than that of all the strontium isotopes and it will be incorporated into the structure of some minerals more or less easily than that of others. From that point on the rubidium will continue decaying into strontium-87… and the areas of the rock with higher initial ratios of rubidium/strontium will have their concentrations of strontium-87 increase at a higher rate than those with a lower ratio of rubidium-strontium. By taking multiple measurements from different sections of a sample and plotting their final ratios of strontium-87 to other strontium isotopes which, not being byproducts of the radioactive decay of other elements, have remained stable since the formation of the rock… the initial ratios of those isotopes throughout the sample can be determined and the elapsed time since the samples formation is established. Again, this method is highly resistant to any objections that we have to assume the concentrations of the isotopes in the samples being dated in order to date them. That is simply not the case. The initial concentrations are experimentally determined.

For further info on the various radiometric dating methods, and since (I believe) all the other participants in this discussion are Christians, I would highly recommend this page:

Radiometric Dating

Dr. Wiens goes into considerably greater detail than I have, there’s the added advantage of several visual aids, and he’s not a godless atheist like me for those that tend to distrust us as a matter of principle… just in case there are any of those reading along.

Constancy of Decay Rates

For my last point in this post I’ll address one more often-encountered claim. That we just assume that decay rates have remained constant over time. This is not true. The constancy of decay rates over time has been independently established by multiple tests. Among them the isotopic analysis of the byproducts of the Oklo Natural Fission Reactor at Gabon which establish that decay rates have undergone absolutely no detectable change for a minimum of the past 1.8 billion years. There is also an entire battery of interstellar observations that can be made that would detect a past alteration of decay rates since that would require a change of the fine structure constant of the universe… with quite readily observable effects. Effects which are never observed no matter how far away (and thus how old) the object is we are looking at.

And that is a summary of the “evolutionary” position on dating methods. The dates arrived at are accepted and used in establishing ancient evolutionary timelines, ages of fossils, etc... because there is extremely solid evidentiary support for the reliability of those methods.

Now, want to tell me what part of that is wrong? Or do you accept the above as accurate?

 

[logical4u]

I fail to see the humor. I'm just going to take that as a "you start" since you apear unwilling to do anything actually involving the evidence in your response.

How about we begin with basic principles of radiometric dating? Fortunately I've had to explain this to people before so I have most of this stuff written already.

Carbon (C14) Dating:

C14 dating is used to date the remains of organic, air breathing organisms up to approximately 50,000 years old. While living these organisms breathe the atmosphere, which contains trace amounts of the radioactive isotope Carbon 14 that is constantly being produced in the upper atmosphere through neutron bombardment. So long as they are alive the C14 content of their bodies will remain in equilibrium with the
...

in the samples being dated in order to date them. That is simply not the case. The initial concentrations are experimentally determined.

For further info on the various radiometric dating methods, and since (I believe) all the other participants in this discussion are Christians, I would highly recommend this page:

Radiometric Dating

Dr. Wiens goes into considerably greater detail than I have, there’s the added advantage of several visual aids, and he’s not a godless atheist like me for those that tend to distrust us as a matter of principle… just in case there are any of those reading along.

Constancy of Decay Rates

For my last point in this post I’ll address one more often-encountered claim. That we just assume that decay rates have remained constant over time. This is not true. The constancy of decay rates over time has been independently established by multiple tests. Among them the isotopic analysis of the byproducts of the Oklo Natural Fission Reactor at Gabon which establish that decay rates have undergone absolutely no detectable change for a minimum of the past 1.8 billion years. There is also an entire battery of interstellar observations that can be made that would detect a past alteration of decay rates since that would require a change of the fine structure constant of the universe… with quite readily observable effects. Effects which are never observed no matter how far away (and thus how old) the object is we are looking at.

And that is a summary of the “evolutionary” position on dating methods. The dates arrived at are accepted and used in establishing ancient evolutionary timelines, ages of fossils, etc... because there is extremely solid evidentiary support for the reliability of those methods.

Now, want to tell me what part of that is wrong? Or do you accept the above as accurate?

This does not prove accuracy in general. Your briefing stated the process used "experimentation" or interpreted methods to determine measurements. It can be used on "specific" items (or areas), but not for all items.
If the Biblical version is believed, it tells us the the Lord worked in "days", it also states there was a "void". It does not define the matter in the "void". Do you think it would be possible for a Being (that made light) to gather ancient pieces of rock together and make a planet, the "firmament" that parts would appear to be a lot older than the history implies?
You want to stick to the 6000 years when many Christians understand that they do not understand G*d's time. To assume our days are the same length of His days is naive.
You (as evolutionist) want to state (and pretend accurately) the times of our planet with no confirmed evidence (how can you confirm rocks are 2,000,000 years old were originally of this planet and not gathered space dust?). Your methods imply the climate has been similar to what it is now for all that time with a consistant growing season and no interuptions or changes.
I am just pointing out, that the evolutionists' theory has more holes in it than the Biblical version.

 

[gcomeau]

This does not prove accuracy in general. Your briefing stated the process used "experimentation" or interpreted methods to determine measurements. It can be used on "specific" items (or areas), but not for all items.

Ummm... so?

And what does not being able to use it on all items have to do with the measurement accuracy on the items it can be used on?

If the Biblical version is believed, it tells us the the Lord worked in "days", it also states there was a "void". It does not define the matter in the "void". Do you think it would be possible for a Being (that made light) to gather ancient pieces of rock together and make a planet, the "firmament" that parts would appear to be a lot older than the history implies?

This is not a matter of it "appearing" older. We're not talking about putting a nice worn finish on the rock for aesthetic purposes or something. What you are suggesting is that God deliberately fabricated the chemical composition of the materials the earth was made of to make it seem old.

For what purpose?

You want to stick to the 6000 years when many Christians understand that they do not understand G*d's time. To assume our days are the same length of His days is naive.
You (as evolutionist) want to state (and pretend accurately) the times of our planet with no confirmed evidence (how can you confirm rocks are 2,000,000 years old were originally of this planet and not gathered space dust?)

You either didn't read the post, or were incapable of understanding it. Please review the section on Rubidium-Strontium dating. Then give a good long think about how much MOLTEN "space dust" would be floating around the solar system.

Your methods imply the climate has been similar to what it is now for all that time with a consistant growing season and no interuptions or changes.

No, the C-14 methods imply there has always been seasons. Or, in other words, that the earth was orbiting the sun with an axial tilt. Are you seriously going to try to argue it wasn't sometime in the last few thousand years?

I am just pointing out, that the evolutionists' theory has more holes in it than the Biblical version.

You haven't pointed one out yet.

 

[Care4all]

Noah's ark existed, it says so in the bible.

There are over 100 myths throughout the world that have been passed down about the great flood...noah ain't the only story...not by a longshot. I'd place a bet that there was some sort of great flood that affected all these different countries and regions and the great city of Atlantis IS really in the bottom of the sea, somewhere!