The Bible

[Sleipnir]

So you're saying, Big Bang is not a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is also not a fact.

Either you seriously don't have a clue how science works or you genuinely trying to act clueless.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Sleipnir]

And the reason it can be easily revised anytime: the theory was built on an assumption.

And the old theory is debunked. Like the theory that, the universe had always existed.

It's replaced by either another assumption....or a conclusive fact.

Again, you seriously have no idea how scientific thinking works.

[Mighty AC]

So you're saying, Big Bang is not a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is also not a fact.

They're both assumptions, in other words. Or conjectures (another poster did mention that word somewhere here).

For the record, that's what you're saying.

Cyber has already covered this and besides you don't even believe what you are writing, so I will let it go. Instead I will ask you to support your assertions about evolution. Tell us why it is an assumption.

We have already established that you believe in evolution but with one addition to the theory. You believe that somehow gradual evolutionary change stops at some point, due to an invisible barrier, presumably supplied by your god. This "change barrier" limits evolution to be within a vague term called "kinds".

The problem is, your position appears to be indefensible. We have observed the formation of new species and confirmed the lineage with actual DNA tests performed on intermediate species. So we know the barriers do not exist. We also know that the Bible uses the term "kind" to refer to specific species so you cannot claim that it means classes of animals. It appears that there is no scientific or Biblical support for your position on evolution yet you continue to assert it. Why?

You don't take Genesis literally when it comes to our planet's age, Noah's flood or the stationary earth with an orbiting sun; so what is keeping you tied to your view on evolution?

[Sleipnir]

You don't take Genesis literally when it comes to our planet's age, Noah's flood or the stationary earth with an orbiting sun; so what is keeping you tied to your view on evolution?

I believe she already established that she accepts evolution as a fact.

[Mighty AC]

No, she believes in evolution within "kinds". For example new breeds of dog can be produced from Gray Wolves but they are still part of the canine kind. She presumably accepts that wolves, dogs, coyotes, etc share a common ancestor. This she would call microevolution.

However, she believes "change barriers" provided by god would not allow canine type animals to share a common ancestor with other carnivora like bears, hyenas, skunks, raccoons, foxes, etc. as they cannot breed. She would claim those same barriers would prevent ancestors of the wolf and jackal from changing to the point that they could no longer interbreed. Despite this already happening with the fox and others. This she would call macroevolution.

She asserts this position is true, but will not explain why she accepts it.

[Sleipnir]

However, she believes "change barriers" provided by god would not allow canine type animals to share a common ancestor with other carnivora like bears, hyenas, skunks, raccoons, foxes, etc. as they cannot breed.

Well that's her belief which doesn't reflect how it works in nature.

She would claim those same barriers would prevent ancestors of the wolf and jackal from changing to the point that they could no longer interbreed. Despite this already happening with the fox and others. This she would call macroevolution.

She has no idea what micro-macro evolution is - its sad that people like betsy are sprouting off gibberish with no understanding in the topic.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

Cyber has already covered this and besides you don't even believe what you are writing, so I will let it go. Instead I will ask you to support your assertions about evolution. Tell us why it is an assumption.

Never mind about what Cyber covered. I hardly read Cyber's. And never mind what I believe. I'm responding to what you said.

betsy, on 07 December 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

So you're saying, Big Bang is not a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is also not a fact.

They're both assumptions, in other words. Or conjectures (another poster did mention that word somewhere here).

For the record, that's what you're saying.

I'm asking you.

We have already established that you believe in evolution but with one addition to the theory. You believe that somehow gradual evolutionary change stops at some point, due to an invisible barrier, presumably supplied by your god. This "change barrier" limits evolution to be within a vague term called "kinds".

I don't have to explain myself since mine is based on faith. That's what you and Cyber don't seem to understand. You are equating faith and science as the same thing . Imagine Cyber throwing the same question at me as to anyone observing God create something out of nothing!

The problem is, your position appears to be indefensible. We have observed the formation of new species and confirmed the lineage with actual DNA tests performed on intermediate species. So we know the barriers do not exist.

Such as? What species? Exactly what intermediate species are you talking about? Be specific. Give your source.

We also know that the Bible uses the term "kind" to refer to specific species so you cannot claim that it means classes of animals.

Don't be too sure about that.

Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,” and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers” and “splitters.” “Splitters,” for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers” (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!

http://www.answersin...fl/species-kind

It appears that there is no scientific or Biblical support for your position on evolution yet you continue to assert it. Why?

It appears that you got quite a few things wrong...

You don't take Genesis literally when it comes to our planet's age, Noah's flood or the stationary earth with an orbiting sun; so what is keeping you tied to your view on evolution?

It's all about scientific EVIDENCE. I've told you....I can go where the evidences lead. You can't. If you're to remain an atheist, that is.

Edited December 8, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

If your belief is based on faith and that its nonsense to equate faith and science - why are you even saying science supporting the bible (which by the way, is a nonsense statement)?

[Sleipnir]

Never mind about what Cyber covered. I hardly read Cyber's. And never mind what I believe. I'm responding to what you said.

Translation: Cyber is right and I am wrong.

[Mighty AC]

I don't have to explain myself since mine is based on faith. [/Quote] The Bible doesn't even support the limits you choose to place on evolution...so what is it you have faith in? Please explain the passages in the Bible that require you to believe in this imaginary adjunct.

Such as? What species? Exactly what intermediate species are you talking about? Be specific. Give your source.[/Quote] You have been given sources for the Ensantia salamanders several times. http://evolution.ber...ticle/devitt_01

Additionally, some members of the canid family can no longer interbreed. Wolves, dingoes, dogs, coyotes, golden jackals, etc can interbreed with each other but can no longer produce viable offspring with other canids like south american canids, African wild dogs, foxes, raccoon dogs, etc.

Two species of Jackal (side striped and black backed) have evolved to the point that they have 4 fewer chromosomes than their jackal and wolf like relatives. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Canid_hybrid

[Mighty AC]

I don't have to explain myself since mine is based on faith.

I have no doubt that you believe. You have a belief so powerful it causes you to deny evidence and mistreat others. In your worldview the Bible is true and the only thing required to verify its truth is your own unproven belief. It actually resembles a domino balancing trick.

Please consider the source or root of your faith for a moment. You don't have to tell us about it. Maybe you were born into a Christian family and were taught to believe at a young age. Maybe later in life you were in need of answers and liked the self-assuredness and community feel provided by your church. Whatever your story happens to be, you were taught to believe at some point. Have you ever wondered if you were taught the truth?

Your belief system is solely propped up, confirmed and held together by your own faith; but that faith is simply rooted in the beliefs of others.

[betsy]

Mighty AC,

Never mind tap dancing all over the place.

You said:

AC

A scientific theory is not a fact itself. The theory is the explanation of the facts. Many people confuse the two concepts (sometimes deliberately) which is why I wanted you to watch the video. It succinctly explains what a theory is.

Therefore, you're saying, Big Bang is not a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is also not a fact.

They're both assumptions, in other words.

And so are all the rest of the baggage that go along with those! Since they're all supported by an assumption! An assumption how it all began!

I'm glad that's been resolved.

Now we wait and see what discovery - or debunking - happens next. See? It wasn't that painful, is it? You didn't have to carry on like as if you're getting dragged to the dentist's chair!

Edited December 11, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

This has been covered several times. Evolution is a fact, it is also the name of a theory based on facts. Cell theory, Theory of Gravity and The Big Bang theory are also theories based on facts. For someone who claims to be seeking truth with science you play a lot of childish games with terminology.

[Mighty AC]

The root of your denial of science and your discrimination is the Bible; which, you believe to be the truth because you have faith. Since your faith is simply rooted in the beliefs of others, have you ever wondered if you were taught the truth?

[GostHacked]

You claimed the Big bang as a scientific fact. So I ask the simplest and logical question:

Did anyone ever observe something coming out from nothing?

You claim the bible as scientific fact.

Did you observe god creating something out of nothing?

That logic is also very simple, and yet the answer for your question and my question are the same. The answer is no. By that creationism cannot be factually true.

A few post later, you seemed to have abandoned or had a change of heart about that so-called fact - otherwise you wouldn't be giving this other theory about re-births. And of course, you failed to understand that you still have to deal with the same question. With a little variation.

Did anyone ever observe something being born out of nothing?

I'm just following up what you said, Mighty AC. Make up your mind, will you?

It's the same question, no matter how you try to frame it. I know it allows one to coerce the conversation in a direction that will get the results you are looking for, but that is dishonest and deceitful. Makes baby Jesus cry.

[betsy]

This has been covered several times. Evolution is a fact, it is also the name of a theory based on facts. Cell theory, Theory of Gravity and The Big Bang theory are also theories based on facts. For someone who claims to be seeking truth with science you play a lot of childish games with terminology.

Ha ha ha No back-pedalling, MIghty AC....

Edited December 11, 2012 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Ha ha ha No back-pedalling, MIghty AC....

Can we expect the same of you?

[Mighty AC]

Ha ha ha No back-pedalling, MIghty AC....

From what?!

You can misuse terms, feign ignorance, cherry pick facts, avoid questions and quote mine science all you like; but, it doesn't make your position reasonable. People use these tactics to win meaningless political debates all the time and that's fine. The problem is you are attempting to justify your beliefs with this dishonesty. You can be deceitful with me, I'm just a random poster in cyberspace, but you can't lie to yourself.

Truth matters. My beliefs are backed by evidence and I don't claim to know the unknowable. You assert that the unknowable and unsupportable are true and support it with nothing more than your own faith. Unfortunately, that faith is just based in the beliefs of others.

[Mighty AC]

This 2 minute video combines Neil deGrasse Tyson and Minute Physics. That's awesome² and it fits with some recent discussion within this thread.