Darwinism Benefits Scientific Method?

"Very small rocks! Churches! CIDER!!!"

Semen?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ice?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're lucky. I have to read all the bloody things I write. Sometimes I wish I was Vallich and could just ignore my sparkling wit and insightful analysis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Goo" is whatever supposedly was the "primordial ooze" which Darwinists dream to have morphed into the wide variety of creatures which we see.

 

What's your alternative belief?

 

Six days of creation, no "primordial ooze" needed to morph into creatures, both of which would be supernatural, obviously. You have your faith, I have mine.

 

True, but your faith has absolutely no evidence to back it up as fact or even start to form a theory (unless you count a story book). As such your belief in the six days of creation should be of no consequence or interest to anyone other than you.

 

The are multitudinous evidences that history is as the Bible says, just because you hide from them doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

Has God ever been shown to do miracles? Amino acids can catalyze their own polymerization, which is more work than God, Jesus, or any of your deities have ever been shown able to do.

 

God can make a brain turn into goo.

 

No objective scholar takes the Bible as an accurate record of history, even though there are a few historical facts in there that can be verified.

 

The Bible was (and is) so highly thought of in archaeological circles that it was (is) used as the primary reference for archaelogical work in the Middle East, and no find has controverted the facts in the Bible, so what you say is terribly understated.

 

Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology, William G. Dever writes:

Until about a generation ago Biblical achaeologists spoke confidently about William Foxwell Albright's "archaeological revolution". It would assuredly enhance our understanding and appreciation of the Bible and its timeless message-which was thought to be absolutely essential to our cherished Western culture condition. The Bible and the "Christian West," as formerly conceived, are fighting for their lives. Not only has modern archaeology not helped to confirm the earlier tradition, it appears to some to be part of the process to undermine it. This is a not-so-well kept secret among professional archaeologists.
The failure of the "archaeological revolution" means tryng to occupy the beleaguered middle ground, neither extreme skeptics or naive credulists. The clock cannot be turned back to the time when archaeology allegedly "proved the Bible." Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the "larger than life" portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence. Some of Israel's ancestors probably did come out of Egyptian slavery, but there was no military conquest of Canaan, and many, if not most, of the Israelites throughout the Monarchy were polytheists. Monotheism may have been an ideal of Bible writers. Archaeology cannot not decide what the supposed events described in the Bible mean. That decision is left up to each individual. Archaeology cannot decide this question; it can only sharpen our focus.[4](Dever, 2006)

 

The known evidence does confirm, not contradict, the Bible, and the historical statements in the Bible do not need to be analyzed for "what they mean," they are what they are.

He says "did not" and then "probably did not" about Canaan, Solomon, etc., so which is it?

And Solomon is reflected in place names (Zalamena) of the ancient mining district near the Rio Tinto of southern Spain, and the geologic record does confirm that most of the Canaanite cities were subdued by the Israelites who took their land between about 1400 B.C. and 1000 B.C., and new findings continue to corroborate the Bible, so get real here.

 

You get real, science usually reveals probabilities not certainties. Some archeological evidence supports certian biblical tales, others do not.

I am totally certain that you only listen to the dumdamentalist interpretations.

 

He says "did not" and then "probably did not," a quote for everybody!

 

Where did you read that?

Hey maybe you and Joel777 can have a nice chat.
http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=26618

 

You know they found the ancient city of Jericho, about where the bible said it would be.

Except it still had walls.

 

Walls which had fallen outward, as I recall.

 

You ever see any pictures?
They unearthed it, with the walls still standing.