penia

I don't see how one can prove evolution, no one was there. And I know that I can't prove that there is a God. Can anyone consent that evolution takes faith?

Vinnie

So "being there" is one requirement for "scientific proof" of something???

Do you have high confidence in the historicity of Jesus? Abraham Lincoln? How can anyone prove either of these figures existed? No one alive today was there! You must not be a big history buff! I mean, look at the arrogance of those people living today who think they can actually reconstruct their genealogies back several generations! Were they there? No. What fruitcakes!

Oh the joy that I could have with this..... I'll be nice--for now

At any rate, can you define "proof" and "evolution" ??? The latter because evolution has been observed today. I take it that you mean descent with modification?

Evidence can be brought forth which suggest the veracity of what virtually every scientist believes today (yup I am issuing an argument from authority as a primer and it is completely valid in this context!!!).

Vinnie

Vinnie

""""I know why I don't believe it. I have reasons...""""

No we are talking. W00+!

"""""""-I think the universe is way to complex to have to come from single cell organisms."""""""""

I take it you mean "life" instead of the "universe".

Can you elaborate on this a bit? What exactly are we talking about? Evolution couldn't produce the human eye? Origins or descent with modification in general? What?

"""""- And how did the single cell organisms come about? Walter L Bradley, an authority on the origins of life said that the probability of linking just one hundred amino acids to form one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the sahara desert - and doing so not once, but three times""""""

First off, you have not provided a reason for dismissing evolution.

*puts reductio ad absurdom cap on*

Suppose for an instant we go the Behe route:

God created the first cell and let things roll from there.

What do your problems--that all are solely with abiogenesis at this point-- have to do with humans and monkeys sharing a common ancestor?

Pointing out extant problems with origins-research does not disprove evolution. It has nothing to do with the broad spread of evidence supporting descent with modification.

What are they? You haven't stated any as it is fallacious to go from the premise " there are problems with origin of life theories" to the conclusion that "humans and monkeys did not share a common ancestor".

Vinnie

Steven Carr

Roger is quite right.

If we were born into that culture , we too would find normal the talk of talking donkeys, demons, angels, Heaven, Hell, a flat earth with pillars at each corner etc.

We would take for granted that if there was an ancient scripture saying that a donkey talked, then a donkey had talked.

Nowadays, of course, we no longer believe mental illness is caused by demon-possession, or that Heaven is just above the clouds etc etc.

We know better nowadays, and can smile amusedly at what people of 2,000 years ago took for granted.

Pliny the Elder writes in Book 7 of 'Natural History' that Cicero knew of a copy of Homer's Iliad written on a piece of paper small enough to fit in a nutshell. Pliny describes a model of a four-horse chariot made out a piece of ivory smaller than a fly's wing. He mentions a boy of eight who ran 75 miles in just a few hours. Pliny reports a man who could see for 135 miles. Book 7 Section 174 has a tale of someone who could leave his body and report things thousands of miles away.

Even educated people believed absurdities 2,000 years ago, yet we are supposed to assume that Biblical writers were free from the superstition, credulity and gullibility we find in all secular writers, and, curiously, in every single Christian writer whose work was not canonised.

Only the writers of works which made (at least one) canon were free from credulity, superstition and gullibility. Remarkable people - a tiny minority who rose above the culture they were steeped in.

CX

Greetings, Penia, and welcome to II

Let me just say that I think perhaps there are differing levels of critique based on differing levels of knowledge. While one should not necessarily accept a layman's opinion with regard to something technical like AMk's use of transitional "KAI". The average literate person is certainly capable of determining the plain meaning of simple passages and whether they contradict or not. If a simple contradiction, which is only a problem for inerrantists, requires mind bending rhetorical gymnastics and mental magic is it really the case that this demonstrates a specialized knowledge or a desperate apologetical stance? As far as Holding is concerned, don't waste your time. He has demonstrated again and again that his interest is solely in polemic, and dismissiveness rather than genuine debate.

CX

Certainly not. Rather I'd say based on your comments you have a profound lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory. I'd suggest taking your questions to the E/C forum.

CX

Could we please stay on topic for B,C&H? Any concepts and discussions related to evolution should be taken to E/C. Thanks.

CX

It should be noted that most biblical scholars are not atheists but Xians. Further, of this group of people qualified to make a determination, most do not consider the bible inerrant. Biblical inerrancy itself is a relatively new invention of fundamentalist protestantism. And so you won't be insulted again could you describe the course and nature of your biblical studies? Some of us here have studied the original language, text criticism, papyrology and so forth so attributing our failure to accept biblical inerrancy as "atheistic bias" could be considered just as insulting and, dare I say, a touch hypocritical. Incidentally, I personally did not become an atheist (I was raised protestant and my father is an Episcopal Deacon) UNTIL I carefully studied the Xian bible.

rmadison

Above investigation for what reason?

It doesn't matter if we were there or not. If the document from antiquity says that 2 + 2 = 5, then it's foolish to say that their statement is above investigation.

I didn't have to be there to know that Jesus couldn't have made his first, post-resurrection appearance in both Jerusalem AND Galilee.

It's one, or the other. Not both.

Contradictions demonstrate errancy.

It isn't "fault finding" Roger...it's "fact finding". And the fact is, many faults are found in the bible.

That is a fact. The bible does contradict itself, and is not inerrant.

It sounds as though you are saying, "Hey, it's an old document...why don't you guys just leave well enough alone, and quit picking on it!"

Nothing is above investigation Roger.

It's strange to me that so many theists think that some areas of thought should be "off limits" to questioning.

Depends.

Does the person asking the question really not understand it? Or, since he's asking, do you assume that he doesn't understand it?

I see this quite a bit. Folks say, "BFOS, you must not understand it, because if you did, then you wouldn't be asking such questions. If you really understood it..."

Alas...I may never be a true Scotsmen...

Doctor X

Penia:

Er . . . it is a continuous process that you can observe . . . just ask your friendly staphylococcus. . . .

On this point, wandereth over to the Evolution section for the "proof"--with no faith. They really do not bite there.

--J.D.