Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Bust Nak]

I think evolution is true as well, but it's certainly not worth arguing with someone over.

Maybe it's not worth it, but it you want to argue, it's certainly a hot topic, and perharps uniquely its a hot topic where one side of the debate holds all the cards.

I'm quite certain that if you could just provide some substantial evidence for evolution, that you would convince a lot of people that evolution is true.

I would say most people don't care enough and would just go along with what scientists says anyway.

But there will still be those who deny that evolution is true. What is your reason for not allowing them to believe what they want to believe?

Because it is not simply a belief but something we can demostrate. As often repeated: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

Why do you try to smash their belief in God when you attempt to convince them of evolution? Perhaps, if you could incorporate a possibility of God into the evolution equation, you will find a lot more Creationists believing in evolution.

That's the creationists' own doing, they picked the wrong "battle ground" as it were. As you say there is no requirement to tie their belief in God to creationism, they have ruled out the possibility of theistic evolution, not us. In fact you would find many theistic evolutionist on our side of the debate.

While I might agree with you that truth matters, I think that many atheists are more concerned that their evolution adversaries believe in God. Their frothing at the mouth is less a result of their adversaries non-belief in evolution, but rather a result of their belief and faith in God. But that's just me and my very small opinion.

Perharps, I would like to think it's not the case for me. My personal journey into the God discussion first started from anti vaccine and homeopathy debate, it just so happened that there is a strong correlation for a distrust of science and religious fundamentalism.

I don't want to have to guess why theists reject evolution. I think that 'amateur psychology' fro the sidelines is not going the help. I'd only want to hear why theists reject evolution in their own words.

I am a Christian. It is not apparent to me that evolution absolutely occurs, however it seems to be a reasonable theory. Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive. They are completely compatible theories.

Here are the most common reasons I've seen: To accept evolution, is to call Jesus a liar. If there isn't a literal Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. To accept death and suffering existed before human existed, contradict the verse about wages of sin is death.

[keithprosser3]

But those reasons don't address my point: how can evolution not occur if mutation and natural selection operate?

[Ionian_Tradition]

Can you show me that over millions of years carbon dating is accurate? Can you please show me some valid evidence that carbon -14 decays at the same rate today as it did 1 million years ago? Please show me your evidence.

Radiocarbon dating is most reliable when used to determine the age of organic samples located within the top most sedimentary layers of the geological column (particularly specimens which contain atmospheric carbon-14 acquired through the ingestion of plant life, or through photosynthesis itself). For more than 6 decades, a multitude of blind tests have been used to demonstrate the reliability of carbon dating, the most persuasive of which involves a series of tests using artifacts of known age (established through historical reference and the use of an independent dating method known as dendrochronology, or "Tree-ring dating"). Following a serendipitous discovery which resulted in the development of a calibration method used to account for atmospheric variation, these wooden samples were carbon dated with astonishing accuracy to their known date. This and other subsequent tests, performed by hundreds of independent labs worldwide, has served to establish Radiocarbon dating as a useful and reliable method of dating artifacts up to 60,000 years in age.

Regarding the decay rate of radioactive materials in general, and carbon-14 in particular, scientists have subjected radioactive elements to a wide range of temperatures, and pressures, while also exposing these elements to electrical and magnetic fields of varying intensity. Regardless of the conditions to which these elements have been subjected, no change in rate of decay has ever been observed. In fact, it is due to our confidence in the stability of radioactive decay rates that we are capable of developing functional nuclear reactors which power space craft, naval vessels, and cities. It is also worth noting that were it the case that decay rates had accelerated in the past such that 4.5 billion years of apparent radioactive decay were to be made consistent with a 6,000-10,000 year old Earth (per the biblical chronology), the energy given off by these radioactive elements, in the form of thermal energy, would render the surface of the earth so unbearably hot that life would prove a veritable impossibility.

Now, you may be inclined to retort that current observations of decay rate stability, though persuasive, do not "prove" (conclusively) that decay rates were constant in the past. Yet a thorough consideration of the "weak nuclear force", a universal constant which governs both beta decay and the stability of nuclear fusion in every star (including the particular star which makes life on Earth possible), will prove sufficient, I believe, in addressing your cavil. Surely your own skepticism is not so radical that you would question the existent of a fundamental universal constant... In short Sanofason, the wealth of evidence we've amassed in support of decay rate constancy renders the completely unevidenced notion that decay rates are subject to fluctuation wholly untenable. If evidence is to inform our tentative conclusions (and in science it must), all the evidence we currently have available to us points to a world which is 4.5 billion years old. All else is theological conjecture which has yet to receive evidentiary support.

Bernie writes:

Carbon dating is only used to estimate the age of organic materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.

Other methods are used for longer time frames.

Do you care name those other methods, and prove that those methods are accurate?

Uranium-Unranium, Samarium-Neodynium, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, Uranium-Thorium, Argon-Argon, Lodine-Xenon, Lathanum-Barium, Lead-Lead, Lutetium-Hafnium, Neon, Neon, Rhenium-Osmium, Uranium-Lead-Helium to name a few. Would it impress you to discover that each of these separate and wholly independent methods of dating an object of known age are each consistent with each other (with negligible degrees of variance) and have been shown mutually consistent through thousands of tests performed by hundreds of independent labs world wide? Would it also impress you to learn that each of these studies are wholly consistent with an overarching contextual picture of our universe pieced together by independent findings made in Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Paleontology, Biology, and Chemistry?

[Sonofason]

Sonofason
And here is Young's Literal Translation

20 And God saith, Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Im not sure which version you used.

The King James Version is the version I quoted from. I believe it is a better translation than both that you cited. And that is the version I will use to draw my conclusions.

[Sonofason]

Sonofason
And here is Young's Literal Translation

20 And God saith, Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Im not sure which version you used.

The King James Version is the version I quoted from. I believe it is a better translation than both that you cited. And that is the version I will use to draw my conclusions.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 20 by Bust Nak]

Bust Nak wrote:

To accept evolution, is to call Jesus a liar.

How so? Did Jesus say there is no evolution of species? I don't think He did. Can you please provide a statement by Jesus that states that evolution is not true?

Bust Nak wrote:

If there isn't a literal Adam and Eve, there is no original sin.

Adam and Eve probably did literally exist. There is no reason to believe that they were not the first human beings on earth. And so there is no reason to dis-believe that they were the first human beings to disobey God.

Bust Nak wrote:

To accept death and suffering existed before human existed, contradict the verse about wages of sin is death.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the connection you are trying to make. Consider the laws as given to us through Moses:

Genesis 9:6 - Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Exodus 21:12 - He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Do you not see? The wages of murder is death. That is not to say that the wages of old age is not also death, but the wages of sin is death. If you get very old, you must die. If you commit murder, the appropriate wage for this act is death. If you commit murder, you ought to be put to death.

So please explain to me why or how that accepting the fact that suffering and death might always have been a part of life and survival contradicts the statement about wages of sin is death. I don't think it does. Where in the Bible does it say that animals did not die prior to the existence of Adam. Maybe they did. And maybe they didn't. What makes you think they didn't?

The wage of getting eaten by a big fish is death. The wage of getting very old is death. The wage of murder ought to be death.

Also, I have not seen one atheist on this site prove that evolution is true. Would you prove it for me, so that I can turn this page? I am still undecided.

[Nickman]

Sonofason
And here is Young's Literal Translation

20 And God saith, Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Im not sure which version you used.

The King James Version is the version I quoted from. I believe it is a better translation than both that you cited. And that is the version I will use to draw my conclusions.

Can you explain why it is a better version? What makes it better than the current editions we have that we are able to use the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ugarit writings and advanced scholarship to render better translations?

Could it be that this version says what you need it to say?

[Sonofason]

Sonofason
And here is Young's Literal Translation

20 And God saith, Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Im not sure which version you used.

The King James Version is the version I quoted from. I believe it is a better translation than both that you cited. And that is the version I will use to draw my conclusions.

Can you explain why it is a better version? What makes it better than the current editions we have that we are able to use the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ugarit writings and advanced scholarship to render better translations?

Could it be that this version says what you need it to say?

Youngs Literal Translation was published in 1862.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947.

So what are you talking about?

King James Version was translated by 50 experts of the time. I trust an expert of King James over any linguist of today. Besides, I'm always right. And that's what really matters.

[Nickman]

Sonofason
And here is Young's Literal Translation

20 And God saith, Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Im not sure which version you used.

The King James Version is the version I quoted from. I believe it is a better translation than both that you cited. And that is the version I will use to draw my conclusions.

Can you explain why it is a better version? What makes it better than the current editions we have that we are able to use the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ugarit writings and advanced scholarship to render better translations?

Could it be that this version says what you need it to say?

Youngs Literal Translation was published in 1862.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947.

So what are you talking about?

King James Version was translated by 50 experts of the time. I trust an expert of King James over any linguist of today. Besides, I'm always right. And that's what really matters.

I wasn't speaking about YLT. I am speaking about the wealth of more information we have today compared to what they had back then.

Why do you trust an "expert" from King James? Do you know their credentials? Did you know any of them?

Wow, your arrogance really shows. Unless you can show the superiority of the KJV over modern translations, I will chock your usage of it up to it saying what you want for your argument. There are much better translations. I can show you KJV is not reliable. You care to find out?

Actually, I will create a thread about. That way this thread is not derailed.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 28 by Nickman]

Nickman wrote:

I wasn't speaking about YLT. I am speaking about the wealth of more information we have today compared to what they had back then.

I don't believe you. I think you were speaking out of ignorance. Lets review what you said.

You (Nickman) said:

And here is Young's Literal Translation

20 And God saith, Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Im not sure which version you used.

Sonofason wrote:

The King James Version is the version I quoted from. I believe it is a better translation than both that you cited. And that is the version I will use to draw my conclusions.

Nickman writes:

Why do you trust an "expert" from King James? Do you know their credentials? Did you know any of them?

Yeah, nice try.

Why do you trust the translators of the dead sea scrolls? Why do you trust the translators who wrote the Young's Literal Translation version of the Bible? Do you know their credentials? Do you know any of them?

Quick, do a Google search, so you can pretend to know something about the credentials of the translators of the YLT version of the Bible.

Nickman wrote:

Wow, your arrogance really shows.

I'm glad you noticed. But did you also notice that I am once again, correct? I hope so. I little humility would do you good.

Nickman wrote:

Unless you can show the superiority of the KJV over modern translations, I will chock your usage of it up to it saying what you want for your argument. There are much better translations. I can show you KJV is not reliable. You care to find out?

I don't need to show anything. You can chock what ever you like. You can agree with whatever translation you like. It's not like you read them or anything. Do you?

If you'd like to waste your time, feel free to cite all the petty errors that have been found in the King James Version of the Bible. But I think you will be hard pressed to find anything significant. But by all means, start typing, I mean copying and pasting; because surely you wouldn't be able to find any errors on your own, without help.