Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[1213]

That is not true at all. Here is how science works. One makes observations. One tries to think of an explanation. One makes that explanation in the form of a testable model. ...

But, the explanation is not the same as evidence. Explanation can be wrong and rejecting it is not the same as rejecting the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But, the explanation is not the same as evidence. Explanation can be wrong and rejecting it is not the same as rejecting the evidence.

That can be true. But you do not seem to understand that only one side is supported by evidence. The fact that there is no evidence for creationism is the fault of the believers in creationism. In other words, when it comes to the evidence there is only one answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical flood would have caused many different layers, because it carried lot of different stuff and there is no reason to assume the original continent was homogeneous.

Sorry, but now you are just handwaving. Do you know what it takes to have evidence in the sciences? One has to be much more serious. One needs a testable model. A model that can be refuted if it is wrong. If one cannot be honest enough to say "Here is my model, it predicts this, if we see this it is wrong" then one has no evidence by defintion.

The sediments were softer, because of the flood water. And the flood water also cooled things. And the possible heating cased water vapor and the heavy rain for 40 days.

No, sorry, that does not take care of the heat problem. The heat that would be released by attempted creationist models would have melted the crust. The oceans would have been steam.

Sorry, cola fields are secret, hold by Coca cola company, I meant coal.

All living things died from the surface of dry land. Much of it was mixed into the sediments and that organic material then later became oil, gas and coal.

And again, this is just hand waving. You need testable models.

Can you tell me how many times the flood dried up? Was it once? Maybe two or three times? Or even more?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I say there is no intelligent reason to believe in 3.7 billion years.

I know, we can know that it was at least 3.7 billion years ago. Do you want to know how we know that? For you there may be no "intelligent reason" but you have almost no education in the sciences. Others are not held back by that lack.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But, the explanation is not the same as evidence. Explanation can be wrong and rejecting it is not the same as rejecting the evidence.

It is if you do not have an explanation. And your explanation has to explain all of the evidence, And be testable to boot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I don't believe that. And I think it goes against everything that can actually be observed in nature, like for example erosion.

How so? You do not seem to understand that we can measure the rates of erosion in different environments.

Really, difficult to believe that. How can we see something that allegedly takes millions of years?

There is no "allegedly" about it. You have to deny all of science to deny the many millions of years that the Earth has existed. You actually have to claim that God is a liar to deny that as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That could as well be the result of creation. If the data is correct, it is nice collection, but what it means is just a subjective opinion, not scientific evidence for evolution.

Oh that is so wrong. We need to go over the concept of scientific evidence since you clearly do not understand it.

 

[Brian2]

I gave you two examples of terribly failed prophecies. So they are clearly not all "spot on". Why don't you do a little homework?

Let's take Daniel as an example.

"Dating[edit]
The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.[49]

So the stopping of the prophecy or exclusions from the prophecy show when the prophecy was written? I suppose with the presumption that prophecy is rubbish and for people who think that, that might be the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#cite_note-FOOTNOTECollins1984101-54

Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.[50]"

So Daniel not having been quoted is evidence it did not exist. But Sirach did not quote others also, eg Ezra. He seems to be nationalistic and did not quote from those outside of Israel.
Daniel was not seen as a prophet of Israel but a seer I am told and also that many Jews don't count prophecy outside of Israel also.
So I guess those reasons for Daniel being written after the fact are not valid unless you want to believe that Daniel's prophecies were rubbish. Then you have dates to slot Daniel into and ignore the evidence to the contrary.

Book of Daniel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Please note, the Jews themselves knew it was no a book of prophecy. The "canon of the prophets" was closed around 200 BCE and Daniel was not in it. It was as the article shows written after that date. The Jews would have known when it was written.

Not seen as prophet but as seer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really, difficult to believe that. How can we see something that allegedly takes millions of years?

Let me tell you the story of Pluto.

It was discovered on february 18 in 1830. So that is 193 years ago.
A "pluto year", so the time it takes to orbit the sun once, is 248 years.

How do you think do we know it takes 248 years? After all, a single human lifetime isn't long enough to observe a full orbit. In fact, since it was discovered only 193 years have passed, so it is not even enough to observe a full orbit over multiple generations of astronomers.

Yet, we know it takes 248 years.

Consider how we know that. It might give you a clue as to how we know how long it takes for a certain geological formation to form.

 

[Brian2]

They are unverifiable claims of magic. What do you expect academics to do with such claims aside from rejecting and ignoring them?
What do you propose they do with them?

I expect prophecy to not be used to say a book was written after a certain date. That is dishonesty, since they are not being used in neutrality, but are used as lying prophecies, after the fact prophecies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. I say there is no intelligent reason to believe in 3.7 billion years.

Aside from all the solid science, that is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the flood happened as told in the Bible, it would not cause similar formations uniformly around the planet.

Floods are floods. Geologists are well aware what evidence floods leave behind.
Granted, the biblical flood was a magical one, so who knows....

For example in some areas it would expose "older" structures of the planet and in some areas it would cover them, which would make it look like there is different times and events.

You should stop before you embarass yourself even further. Someone here just informed you that he's a geologist with over 50 years of experience in the field.
You might want to shut up and learn a thing or two instead of pretending to know better when all you have is just mere belief in ancient mythology stolen from the even older Babylonians.

And the bottleneck, I think nature looks exactly what it would be after the flood. What do you think the bottleneck should look like?

And now, you are also exposing your extreme lack of knowledge concerning the basics of biology and genetic variation. Someone with a somewhat basic knowledge of these subject would not ask such stupid questions.

You might want to read up a bit before continuing this charade...

I can only repeat myself: there is no universal bottleneck in species dated to the same period. Or any other period for that matter.
The most recent bottleneck in humans for example, dates back to some 70.000 years ago and coincides with the toba volcano eruption, so presumably that was the cause of the severely reduced population size. It reduced human population to a few thousand individuals.

So even that bottleneck is a LOOOONG way from the "8 individuals" your mythology claims.
Also, and I add this as a funny FYI,... generally in biology a population of 200 is considered the bare minimum to have a viable population. Anything below that has a very high chance of going extinct due to the lack of genetic variation and inevitable inbreeding.

8 people, of which most are even closely related? Doomed to extinction. 0 chance of long-term survival. 0. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

 

[shunyadragon]

I expect prophecy to not be used to say a book was written after a certain date. That is dishonesty, since they are not being used in neutrality, but are used as lying prophecies, after the fact prophecies.

The prophecy is not used to date the book. Actual evidence of the existence of the book is used to date the book.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That could as well be the result of creation.

No, actually. That would make no sense at all. To purposefully design like that would be incredibly ineficient and wasteful. There is zero reason to do so.
Why would the "designer" for example give the same broken GULO gene to all great apes?

If an engineer at sony would develop products that way, he'ld be fired on the spot for being an idiot.
The "designer" would have to go out of his way to make his products fall into such a pattern. There is no reason for it at all.

So it's the very last pattern we would expect from an engineering standpoint.
Meanwhile, it is the ONLY pattern that evolution could result in.

So either you can simply accept and follow the evidence ...
Or you can assume that your god is a wasteful engineer who deceptively goes out of his way to make it look as if everything evolved from common ancestors

If the data is correct, it is nice collection, but what it means is just a subjective opinion, not scientific evidence for evolution.

The nested hierarchical pattern is a prediction of evolution theory.
The data matches the prediction.

It doesn't get any better then that with scientific evidence.

You have just exposed that you don't actually understand what scientific evidence actually is..............................



As I expected, you are in serious denial mode.

 

[shunyadragon]

But, the explanation is not the same as evidence. Explanation can be wrong and rejecting it is not the same as rejecting the evidence.

The evidence for scientific explanations is redundant and extensive and based on objectively verifiable evidence. Dating the history. of life and our universe uses many scientific sources to come up with the results.

You have made many statements claiming evidence of the world flood, and I challenged your claims and you did not respond with an 'explanation.'

Please respond to post #224, and give an explanation based on the evidence of how limestone hundreds of feet thick and forms in a flood.

I have degrees in geology and over fifty years of experience for providing you a science-based explanation against your explanations based on an ancient tribal scripture

Again . . . What is your education in science to come up with your explanations?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I expect prophecy to not be used to say a book was written after a certain date.

It isn't.

That is dishonesty,

You know what else is dishonest? Doubling down on a blatant strawman.

since they are not being used in neutrality, but are used as lying prophecies, after the fact prophecies.

You start with a false assumption. This only leads to false conclusions.
GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

[Brian2]

The prophecy is not used to date the book. Actual evidence of the existence of the book is used to date the book.

I'm not sure what book you are talking about. But yes evidence of the existence of the book is a method used to date books.

 

[shunyadragon]

Biblical flood would have caused many different layers, because it carried lot of different stuff and there is no reason to assume the original continent was homogeneous.

The sediments were softer, because of the flood water. And the flood water also cooled things. And the possible heating cased water vapor and the heavy rain for 40 days.

Sorry, cola fields are secret, hold by Coca cola company, I meant coal.

All living things died from the surface of dry land. Much of it was mixed into the sediments and that organic material then later became oil, gas and coal.

Please res[pnd to post #224 and explain how limestone hundreds of feet thick can form under world flood conditions or any type of flood conditions. The strata of the earth are not homogenous (?). They are in layers formed in natural environments like those we see today as new sediment layers are forming.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure what book you are talking about. But yes evidence of the existence of the book is a method used to date books.

First, the texts of the gospel reference to the destruction of the temple are dated well after the destruction of the temple.

As far as I know, no scripture text is dated based on prophecy.

 

[Brian2]

First, the texts of the gospel reference to the destruction of the temple are dated well after the destruction of the temple.

So.

As far as I know, no scripture text is dated based on prophecy.

Daniel 11 prophecy is dated with the idea in mind that the writer did not know about the death of Antiochus IV and so the prophecy must have been written before it happened.