You see, we can reach many consensus's, for that is what I have been saying all along. (What is plural of consensus???)

We differ in how forcefully we acknowledge it.
I have seen the scientific method for evolution at work.

Sure, not all of it is like the following but large parts of it are.

They find a small spliter of bone.
They examine, draw it, model it and anything else they can do to preserve it.
They carbon date it.
They get a team of experts together and discuss/argue about what it might be part of.
They use its age and what they believe what sorts of animals would be possible
From all of this data that they have extracted from their knowledge (their mind) they reconstruct the bone that the splinter might have come from. From that bone they reconstruct the skeletal framework that the animal might have been based on. From the skeleton they reconstruct what the body of the animal would have been and the way it would have looked. Then they place it into an environment and show how it lived, what it ate, who its enemies were and even how it died.

Notice how my presentation changed from "might have" at the start to "would have" in the middle and then definite statements at the end. That's exactly how the documentary goes. It starts out with what might have been and ends up with what definitely was.

Granted, their guesses are educated guesses but I wonder how many of these educated guesses are based on similar previous reconstructions. Meanwhile, drawings of this animal make it into the public sector and get slotted into evolutionary chains and presented as proven fact when in reality it all comes fom a tiny tiny little fragment of bone.

Another group of scientist will take fossil evidence of two species that they suspect to be related via evolution. And they go through a similar exercise as the first.
They discuss the steps that might have occured in its evolution from one to the other.
They look at totally unrelated animals to see what parts of the skelleton they can use to get from one to the other.
They make drawings of the proposed evolutionary process
Finaly they reconstruct the animals that led from one to the other.

Again these drawings make it into the public sector and inserted into evolutionary chains and used as evidence.
It is totally overlooked that these are drawings because there is actually no real fossil evidence for those intermediate steps.
In my view evolution takes a relatively small base of hard core evidence
and fills in the vast plethora of missing links (more like gaping holes) with
supposition and imagination and then uses those "derived facts" as though they are real.

Open to interpretation? Now there's an understatement.
I'm am not trying to proove that its not true, to you.
If you choose to accept it that's fine I cannot say you are wrong.

That is not how it works. First is the idea, correct. The first rough theory. But then comes the proof. What facts speaks for it, what facts against it. Where can i find more facts for or against it. How does that whole thing fit into what.

You label the previous knowledge wrong? And so the results that are based at it? But you overlook that even this previous knowledge has gone through the same procedure of proof and disproof. When a stone always falls down then there is a really big chance that there is gravity. So there is the theory of gravity. And now it gets tested. With models, with calculations, with everything that is able to proof or disproof this theory. That's how science works. Provable facts is what counts. And not imaginary things, might have or would have. Scientists doesn't conjure up a god out of their hat. When there is a doubt then they go on with proving the thing. When there is a chance to dive even deeper then they do.

An unproven theory will not survive very long. A theory that gets disproved even shorter. And even proven theorys are always under testing and changing when there are new facts. That is the difference between faith and science. Science doesn't say something is true, it tries to find out what is true

Hey, it was a scientist that said the earth circles around the sun

I think what makes it so hard to listen and trust to nowadays scientists is the fact that they live in their own world now. A normal guy isn't really longer able to understand what they are talking about. Not without closer explanation.



And here i totally disagree. You might ignore it, but the fossil evidences are there. It's your interpretation that differs here.

Again, when the species have noting to do with each other, how comes that we can find all the evolutionary steps drawn in stone? How comes that we can see all the steps from a sauropode to a bird for example?

Why when there is no change was just primitive live at the beginning, and more and more complex live towards nowadays? Wouldn't your world view of no change and intelligent design lead to the fact that the allocation of this fossils happens random across the ages? How does that fit to the order they show? Why no TRex at the age of 500 million years but just very primitive species? Why no Homo Sapiens at that point? Why no flowering plants at that point? Why no TRex nowadays?
Why when there is no evolution was science able to create something like a family tree? With all the fossils at the right places? In evolutionary order? Millions and millions of them, and not one that doesn't fit? Provable by everyone that is willing to?

Sorry, but that all points for me in the direction of evolution, not intelligent design

Well yeah, but Archeology isn't really as exact as it pretends to be though. A lot is opinion- and consensus-based, especially when it comes to theories related to social and other less tangible issues even when it concerns sites with plenty of archaeological information. Take the Meso-American area and all the colorful theories about Mayas, Aztecs, the Olmec and so on. Sure there's evidence that supports these theories, but at times biased assumptions are made.



Well yes you are right it probably looks like I jump to conclusions with bias here, however the 'four corner' thing is mainly a translation-related thing. The (probably original?) Hebrew word definitely means 'extremities' among many other things. It could be 'corners', but having 4 of them may also be an indication for wind directions.

For me it was more a matter of showing a different theory as a lot of people interpret these texts differently. To be honest I don't really know what the 'correct' translation ánd interpretation should be in this case, a lot of things can make sense.



Sounds like a description of the sky to me. Who's to say they think the four winds also come from the four corners of the earth? I'm probably biased again, but there's more interpretations possible here.

It's not like it must mean only one thing anyways. Just think of the 'Gods', 'spirit', 'beings' issue of the same nature. Sometimes the translations make you wonder what was meant, that's all I'm saying.

Cheers

Well, I think it is rather evident

Einstone proposes a non intuitive theory but based on evidences
Simplestone is happy about a superficial explanation
A round shaped yellow object could actually be a piece of cheese, at a first glance
Einstone admits that his theory is not complete, nevertheless he is right

The theory of creation is definitly intuitive but science is based on evidences
Intuition and common sense can be deceiving

This can make sense
The " punctual evolutionism " by S.Gould is something similar

However it is hard for me to beleive in a sequence of : creation - deluge -creation - deluge - creation...
But is is even harder for me to figure out a God, as " trials and errors " designer

Whatsoever you must refute a litteral interpretation of the Bible

This is good stuff, lots of healty debate


Tons of evidences for Evolution theory.

Well, is that true?
Lets see....Now I am going to count on the bible for supportive evidence.
well at least as many of them as I can call to mind as I write this.
I don't want to be quoting a myriad of bible texts at you so I wil paraphrase them.

1) The bible describes a sequence of events that lead up to the appearance of man.
- In essence, science agrees with this sequence.
Science goes into a lot more detail, the bible is not a science textbook.

2) The bible describes the earth as a single landmass surrounded by water.
- Science also agrees that the earth was once a single land mass surrounded by water

3) The bibles tells of Adam and Eve and how all mankind came from them.
- Science also agrees that we are all genetically related to each other.

4) The Bible tells how we were created to live forever and that at some stage there will be a cure for ageing and death.
- Science also agrees that there may soon be a drug that will enable us to stay younger for longer and live longer and who knows, maybe even forever.

5) The bible describes a blanket of water that surrounded the earth producing mild climate conditions.
- Science has made mention of a layer of water in the outer later of its atmosphere. Science also agrees that the eaths climate was once more mild and even.

6) The bible describes a flood where the blanket of water surrounding the earth fell to earth.
- The layer of water surrounding the earth mentioned by science is gone. Where did it go?

7) The bible tells of a man and his family that survived the flood
- Almost every race of man living on earth have a flood story remarkably like it. Maybe ALL of them are based on a real event.

8) The bible states that all mankind alive on earth today are descendents of Noahs 3 sons and their wives.
- All races of mankind alive on earth today are variations of 3 base races.Mongoloid,Negroid and Caucasian.

9) We can conclude then that all languages are derivatives of the language spoken by Noah and his family.
- Linguistic scientists have traced all languages back to a single language orriginating from.....guess where?

10) The bible made mention of a race that for a long long time was denied they ever existed.
- Acheoligists relatively recently discovered the Assyrians exactly where the bible said they were.

11) The bible descibes many many peoples and places.
- Archeologists have confirmed the existence of these people and places.
Many of which were discovered using the bible as a roadmap.

I could go on but thats enough.
All circumstantial and open to interpretation! YES....it is
But

I don't believe you.

No human can proove creation to any of you.
But creation can be prooven and you cannot understand the proof.

A human being has two basic needs.
His physical needs and his spiritual needs
Mankind was not created to exist apart from his creator.
He was created to have a personal relationship with God.
Anyone who truely nourishes and and feeds his spiritual side, knows that God exists.

Jesus said, If you are truely my disciplels, THEN you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

This is something that someone who denies his spiritual NEED can simply never understand.

If my confidence in knowing the truth comes accross as arrogant to you then I am sorry, I do not wish to be arrogant. But by the same token I will not allow my confidence to be erroded by half baked truths from mere imperfect error prone man regardles of how intelligent they claim they are.

If you have a problem with my confidence then I suggest you take it up with your maker. He will help you to see the truth if you really want him to.

Let's start with this one:



Why does Bible not mention aboriginies, why does the bible not mention chinese people, why does the bible not mention native americans? They are all human. The bible cannot mention them because the bible is manmade. And the people at that time period did not know about their existence.

That also explains why the bible mentions so many places and people. It is simple: they have really exist. The bible is an interesting book when it comes to archaeological facts. Lots of real facts gots written into it. The bible also mixes lots of ancient myths in the Genesis by the way. Myths that contains one or two grains of truth.

There are indeed text passages that can be proven by archaeology. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the bible is true. It is a religious book made to convince people to believe. And it collects everything to do so.

An example.

"I believe in the holy flowerpot, it is the one and only composter.
The earth is round.
Composting is the only way earth could be made."

It contains one sentence of truth. But that doesn't make the whole statement true, right?



This all is your interpretation. Not a single evidence. Give me the facts please

Hmm, just one ...



The Universe is made of water? Now how cool is that
And again an under and upper. The universe has three dimensions ...
This is a world picture of an ancient civilization. I think science has a different picture here nowadays ...

Fact is that the closer you look the more it turns out that the bible shows a picture of the world that is 5000-2000 years old. Like extreme patriarchat, slavery, etc. . Or places and people that are well known in that time period, but nothing else. It fits perfectly into this age. But doesn't longer fit into our time. The old men forgot to adjust the story again as they did before ...



A human being has more needs than that. It has also the need to know the truth. Give a human a riddle and he/she will try everything to solve it.

I have not seen a god yet, nor anything that points into an existance of a god. I have seen religious people doing insulting, violence and killing in the name of a god though. With words, with weapons. And they all say they know the truth, that they are the truth.



Turn off your brain and believe? I use my brain instead and rely at facts



Okay, i am a moron because i don't believe but search the truth. I can live with that. I will not allow to think old religious men for me. I think by myself. I am used to it



The bible is made of half baked truths. It is fixed in that state it had before 2000 years and unchangeable. Well, yeah, translations, the milleniums and some adjustments did a few changings. But that's basically it. Science searches for facts and tries to fill the gaps. It is alive and in constant movement. When a theory turns out to be untrue then it gots removed.

Again, when you think you can disprove the evolution theory then do so. Nobel price is waiting for you and for everybody else that is able to

Faith has to be faith and science has to stay science. Faith ends where knowledge starts.

Just for fun ...



Noah and his ark? Has somebody ever calculated how big the Noah's ark should have been just to carry all species of europe? There is not enough wood at the whole planet. Even when we let static out here so that Noah is able to build such a big ark. Yup, very true that story it seems ...

For the flood story, yes, could be true. Bible has collected lots of myths. And science has found more than one place where a flood cataclysm could have happened to a specific area. But that still doesn't proof the existance of a god. Just the existance of a flood cataclysm.



Explain to me. Two humans, Noah and his wife. Out of one race. Mmh, sounds like evolution to me to make three races out of them

Hmm, two persons only. Okay, three kids. So maybe the wife of Noah, err. Anyways. Tell me, what happens when you mix the same genes of a cow species again and again? Oh, wait, Noah even just carried one pair of each species ...



How big must a brain be to carry just the informations of a normal human life? Eternity is a bit longer than 500 years. There will never be a cure for death. No clue which scientist said that. But whoever said it, he was proveable wrong.

just thought i'd jump in here -- each of Noah's sons had their wife with them on the ark.

julz

Thanks for the correction

Would still be a pretty small gene pool not just for the humans but also for the animals ...