Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 As I have brought up numerous times over the years, I bring it up again because it has relevence-The main evidence evolution relies on is the fossil record found in the geologic column. Of importance to biblical literalists is the flood and its destruction of the earth in Noah's day. If for instance, the flood really did cover the entire topography of the land as the bible claims, then the main evidence for evolution disappears entirely. The facts do show that at times in the past very large destructive events occurred including massive evidence of flooding and rapid deposits woeldwide of the which we do not see happening in our day. If a worldwide flood did occur in the recent past, then evolution is hit with a possible death blow to its evidence.Of importance to LDS and pretty much all bible believers, we have "faith" in a historical reality that includes-1. An intelligent Creator whose actions brought about life2. Adam who is fashioned from the direct image of God3. The fall which brought mortality into reality4. The flood which covered the entire earth.5. The resurrection which will come to allThese five major points are rejected by science but yet are staples of all bible believing folks far and wide.
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 And the difficulty is that not one time has macro-evolution ever been demonstrated. What I mean is not one line moving from one major organism to another has ever been observed. I would find it more convincing if we had at least one to point to. Until that point, the evidence that supports stasis is more persuasive to me. This is a flawed argument. Is it me asking you to provide the one letter in the bible that proves it true. There is not one to point to. Another example is the one stage in development when an infant turned into an adult. It occurs gradually, almost unnoticeable. There is no clear transition because at any moment in time, the person looks the same as it did the day before. Only when you observe the child over months and years can you discern change.
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 As I have brought up numerous times over the years, I bring it up again because it has relevence- The main evidence evolution relies on is the fossil record found in the geologic column. Of importance to biblical literalists is the flood and its destruction of the earth in Noah's day. If for instance, the flood really did cover the entire topography of the land as the bible claims, then the main evidence for evolution disappears entirely. Then how do you explain the many fossils found in river beds and under the ocean? Your argument is untenable.
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 So we are on the same page finally- because macroevolution is not seen then it is faith. I totally agree.Macro-evolution is observed through the fossil record. Faith is a belief in things that are not seen and that have no tangible evidence. Evolution is a scientific explanation of the evidence, it is not a belief system. One does not believe in evolution like one would believe in God or Santa Clause. It is a sound theory based on facts.
Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Then how do you explain the many fossils found in river beds and under the ocean? Your argument is untenable.A worldwide flood would of destroyed the entire earth, changed the entire system- rivers, mountains, valleys, etc. The mountain chains we now have were upthrust post flood.
Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Macro-evolution is observed through the fossil record. Faith is a belief in things that are not seen and that have no tangible evidence. Evolution is a scientific explanation of the evidence, it is not a belief system. One does not believe in evolution like one would believe in God or Santa Clause. It is a sound theory based on facts.The only thing observed in the rocks are what we see in them. Interpreting the rocks and what is found in them is a matter of debate. We cannot observe evolution happening in the rocks just as we cannot observe the Noahician flood. That is why we have "faith". I have faith in the belief for a worldwide flood. Scientific observation requires us to see and test and make predictions based on what is documented. Evolution on the macro scale is not one of those things we have ever documented. There are no observable facts concerning evolution on the macro scale. This fact is precisely why evolution is a belief, a theory and not a scientifically observable fact. Why cant scientists agree on that basic fact?
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 A worldwide flood would of destroyed the entire earth, changed the entire system- rivers, mountains, valleys, etc. The mountain chains we now have were upthrust post flood.CFR
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 The only thing observed in the rocks are what we see in them. Interpreting the rocks and what is found in them is a matter of debate. CFR We cannot observe evolution happening in the rocks just as we cannot observe the Noahician flood. That is why we have "faith" .Faith is a believe without any observable evidence. Evolution is not based on faith, it is an explanation of the evidence. The evidence of the fossil record. What is seen is a gradual progression on complexity. Not only is it that we cannot observe the flood, but there is no evidence that it ever occurred. The scientific evidence god left behind for us to discover tells us that there was no global flood. I have faith in the belief for a worldwide flood. Scientific observation requires us to see and test and make predictions based on what is documented. Evolution on the macro scale is not one of those things we have ever documented. We absolutely have observed macro evolution, which is change that occurs at or above the level of species. You need to learn about bacteria. Also, look into equidae. There are no observable facts concerning evolution on the macro scale. This fact is precisely why evolution is a belief, a theory and not a scientifically observable fact. Why cant scientists agree on that basic fact? A theory is not a belief. You are confusing theory with hypothesis. You seem to be suggesting that scientists are in disagreement about what a theory is. You are patently wrong on this point. As I pointed out with the example of bacteria, evolution has been observed.
Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 CFR .Faith is a believe without any observable evidence. Evolution is not based on faith, it is an explanation of the evidence. The evidence of the fossil record. What is seen is a gradual progression on complexity. Not only is it that we cannot observe the flood, but there is no evidence that it ever occurred. The scientific evidence god left behind for us to discover tells us that there was no global flood. We absolutely have observed macro evolution, which is change that occurs at or above the level of species. You need to learn about bacteria. Also, look into equidae. A theory is not a belief. You are confusing theory with hypothesis. You seem to be suggesting that scientists are in disagreement about what a theory is. You are patently wrong on this point. As I pointed out with the example of bacteria, evolution has been observed.For faith to exist and manifest itself all that is required is a belief or hope in something "not seen". Take supposed human evolution for example- it is a belief or hope that it truly happened without it actually being seen or documented to have happened. Learn the proper use of English. By all definition, evolution on the macro scale is "a belief". It is not a fact. As such, those who believe it place "faith" in the interpretations hoping they are correct.
Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 CFRRead the bible. If that doesnt suit you there are plenty of sites on the internet.
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 For faith to exist and manifest itself all that is required is a belief or hope in something "not seen". Take supposed human evolution for example- it is a belief or hope that it truly happened without it actually being seen or documented to have happened. Learn the proper use of English. By all definition, evolution on the macro scale is "a belief". It is not a fact. As such, those who believe it place "faith" in the interpretations hoping they are correct. Use property English? good grief. Macro evolution has been observed. A theory is not a belief. Get a dictionary.
Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Show that bacteria turns into something besides bacteria and then perhaps we can move on. This is the same thing as Darwins finches. We all know that species varry within their respective kinds. What is not known is if in fact these "kinds" are capable of drastic morphologic change. That is precisely why it is a theory and not a fact.
Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Use property English? good grief. Macro evolution has been observed. A theory is not a belief. Get a dictionary.Let me explain it on a more elementry level- Do you believe or not believe in evolution? If you do believe in it ad I presume then it is a fact that you have a "belief" in evolution. This is a simple fact.
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Read the bible. If that doesnt suit you there are plenty of sites on the internet. Sorry, references please. This is a copout.
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 So we are on the same page finally- because macroevolution is not seen then it is faith. I totally agree. 1
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Show that bacteria turns into something besides bacteria and then perhaps we can move on. This is the same thing as Darwins finches. We all know that species varry within their respective kinds. What is not known is if in fact these "kinds" are capable of drastic morphologic change. That is precisely why it is a theory and not a fact. Do you understand what bacteria is? Let me give you a hint, it is not a species. It is an order. For example, you belong to the order called primates.
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Read the bible. If that doesnt suit you there are plenty of sites on the internet.I know what the Bible says. It says that Pi is exactly equal to three. That the earth is flat. That the heavens are made of brass. That the sun goes around the earth. That snakes talk. Guess what the Bible is wrong when it comes to science.
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Let me explain it on a more elementry level- Do you believe or not believe in evolution? If you do believe in it ad I presume then it is a fact that you have a "belief" in evolution. This is a simple fact. Let me answer that question with a couple of questions. Is this earth observable, and measurable? Can we make accurate predictions of what will, or did happen?If not then there is no point to learning about this earth, and we're better off retreating to painting ourselves blue, and dancing naked around the trees, in order to please our tree Gods.
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Let me explain it on a more elementry level- Do you believe or not believe in evolution? If you do believe in it ad I presume then it is a fact that you have a "belief" in evolution. This is a simple fact. people believe in santa clause, they do not believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory based on observable evidence. A belief is a hypothesis based on no evidence. You have a belief based on no evidence, I have a theory based on evidence.I do not believe in evolution, it is not a religion. It is a scientific theory based on evidence. But if you want to call it a belief, then I would say I also believe in tectonic plates as well because it can be proven. You believe in creationism but unfortunately it cannot be proven. Evolution is evidentially verifiable. You do not even have support by your own church, you base your belief on a poor translation of the bible. Evolution has been proven, and this proof is applied to other data that shows the same evidential progression. There is no doctrinal or scientific support for creationism.
Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Let me answer that question with a couple of questions. Is this earth observable, and measurable? Can we make accurate predictions of what will, or did happen?If not then there is no point to learning about this earth, and we're better off retreating to painting ourselves blue, and dancing naked around the trees, in order to please our tree Gods.Please answere yes or no to tje following- Do you believe in evolution?
Rob Osborn Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 people believe in santa clause, they do not believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory based on observable evidence. A belief is a hypothesis based on no evidence. You have a belief based on no evidence, I have a theory based on evidence.I do not believe in evolution, it is not a religion. It is a scientific theory based on evidence. But if you want to call it a belief, then I would say I also believe in tectonic plates as well because it can be proven. You believe in creationism but unfortunately it cannot be proven. Evolution is evidentially verifiable. You do not even have support by your own church, you base your belief on a poor translation of the bible. Evolution has been proven, and this proof is applied to other data that shows the same evidential progression. There is no doctrinal or scientific support for creationism.Same question to you- please answer yes or no. Do you believe in evolution?
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Please answere yes or no to tje following- Do you believe in evolution? Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. To answer your question no I don't believe in evolution. I have outside confirmation to the reality of evolution. It is something I can observe, measure, and make accurate predictions about.
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Same question to you- please answer yes or no. Do you believe in evolution?I answered this question. According to your definition of belief, I do not belief in evolution any more than I believe in tectonic plates. It is a theory based on evidence, it is not a religion. Your definition of belief involves faith so I say that evolution is not a belief, it is a theory based on evidence. No faith is required because the evidence is undeniable. I am still waiting for a response to my post #82.
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Here is another way of putting it: I would not say I believe in evolution because my belief or non-belief is irrelevant. Science is not about personal beliefs and opinions, rather the scientific method attempts to validate its models by comparison with observable phenomena through observation, experimentation and analysis. Evolutionary theory is correct whether or not you believe in it. Believing or not believing in evolution does not change the fact that it is real. It is not the tooth fairy.
BCSpace Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Neither Talmage nor Roberts believed in evolution. Might as well have as they believed in pre Adamite races of man.
Recommended Posts