Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

Those are the laws of the universe we live in still isn't saying clearly that your discussion about the origins of the universe was to do with the laws of speed of light specifically etc.

Natural selection is the primary observable mechanism for biological evolution. It's distinct from the artificial selection in eg dog and horse breeding - though the outcomes from both are subtly different organisms per generation.

What proof would you deem adequate for evolution, Pickled?

FrustratedBaker, sorry I missed your last post to me! I don't know the answer to that, I don't give them much head-space when they get unpleasant.

I rather see insults and unkindness as commensurate with the behaviour of bullies, and of course we've all heard the old saying that "bullies are cowards".

The trouble is there simply cant be proof because we weren't there; it's in the past and therefore not observable and testable science.

That's why evolution is a belief.

PickledInAJar so you'd argue that there never was a Roman Empire and nor was there an Adam & Eve or a Jesus?.

"The trouble is there simply cant be proof because we weren't there; it's in the past and therefore not observable and testable science.

That's why evolution is a belief."

Was it you saying earlier that Jesus and the prophets were actually known to be real people?

I don't quite get your contradiction of the bible comment

The only reason I can think of why the small changes would not keep going is that you don't want them to because it would contradict the bible. By what mechanism would the small changes stop when they'd gone as far as acceptable?

Backonlybriefly, in the same way as you presumably accept that Atheists believe different things but are in agreement with the non existence of God, I am happy to accept that Christians also have a variety of views but believe in the existence of God.It is maybe a bit rich trying to suggest what a 'true believer' looks like. You are basically saying that the only way to read an ancient text is to take every word literally and believe it,as opposed to actually studying it and studying the context and studying what Genesis and Isaiah,other Bible texts and Jesus himself says about creation and then trying to work it all out.
CoteDAzur,I understand that most scientists think the world is millions of years old. There are some scientists who have studied the evidence and believe it is not as old as that.They believe that dinosaurs might have been around 40.000 years ago or even more recently,therefore,as C14 dating can work for up to 50-100,000 years old (depending who you ask), what can possibly be the harm in trying unless you are afraid of what you might find. I am not being thick and I am not sure why you keep repeating the limitations of C14 dating, and I am not sure why you keep throwing in 4,000 years and Egyptians.I have never mentioned figures or said I am a 'young earther'.You are actually just proving the point that people who are so convinced that dinosaurs are millions of years old point blank refuse to even consider alternatives to the point of being obstructive. The whole thing re soft tissue discoveries is interesting.It was always accepted that soft tissue could not survive millions of years so dinosaur fossils were not dissected because why would they be? Then suddenly,all sorts of people start finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones.Instead of thinking,I wonder if this could mean they are not as old as I think,they set about researching how soft tissue can survive millions of years.Why not look at both.To me it seems like the theory that dinosaurs are millions of years old is unquestionable and no theory should be unquestionable.I have read some background.And why do you keep saying 4,000 years.Have I anywhere said I believe earth to be 4,000 years old?
Other evidence for dinosaurs being around more recently is things like this:- www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/supai.html
and dragon 'myths' and Leviathon mentioned in the Bible.
This is also curious.
apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2416

BackOnlyBriefly - I haven't said anywhere that small changes in natural selection stop!

Only that natural selection doesn't prove evolution because it is "like" kind; a dog stays a dog and a horse stays a horse.

Which by the way fits the biblical model of God creating animals, each of their own "kind".

vdbfamily your argument is with PickledInAJar who considers you lukewarm, diluted, ineffective and possibly even an active conspirator in league with the evil atheists.

But let's all watch as you carefully avoid saying anything directly to her about it.

/sits back and waits

Pickle, of course you are saying that the small changes stop. You are saying they stop if there's any danger that it might no longer be recognisable as a dog.

Do you suggest natural selection actually alter dogs so much so that they become unrecognisable as dogs? Hilarious. I've never heard that one.

And as for your attempt to stir up trouble between me and vdbfamily, it's not going to work so you might as well give that one up now.

Careful, pickled -by your rules that post is almost rude enough to be reported........

Backonlybriefly,when I read your comment about young earthers being the only true believers I thought for one minute I was getting really confused and that you were indeed a Christian passing judgement on me chosing to be open minded about what might have happened at the start of 'life'. I actually checked back over your posts to reassure myself that you were indeed Atheist. My next reaction was to puzzle over why you find it unacceptable to accept that Christians engage their brains about stuff like this and do not have a herd mentality where they believe whatever they are told.I am getting the impression from this thread (which is not something I had previous thought) that it is more normal for Atheists to not engage brain and grapple with all these difficult questions because 'if it cannot be proved beyond question,I will not worry myself about it'. This is of course a view that people are free to have but don't criticise those who are trying to grapple with it. It is a choice after all.
I am not aware that Pickledinajar and myself have disagreed on anything yet but am perfectly happy for her or anyone else to challenge directly anything I say.I am not sure why you think we would avoid that.

Go ahead. Be my guest. Mumsnet are sensible enough to ignore you if they see fit.

As it happens all the four posts I have reported today have all been deleted. Not my rules, but Mumsnet.

So maybe lets all be careful, hey?

Do you suggest natural selection actually alter dogs so much so that they become unrecognisable as dogs? Hilarious. I've never heard that one.

You have never heard of evolution? I thought you mentioned it yourself?

vdbfamily will give you a full answer to that in a few mins. Meanwhile searching the page for 'dilute' will take you to some bits you may have missed.

No BackOnlyBriefly, you have twisted my words. I have heard of evolution but have not heard anyone try to claim that evolution has changed dogs to become unrecognisable as their own "kind", i.e; a dog.

And for some reason you have also tried to twist my earlier post to make out it is somehow an attack on vbdfamily, which it isn't. I didn't mention any single person but christianity broadly, just as you were also using christianity broadly. It is obvious that in the same way vbdfamily has not had any argument with me, I have no axe to grind with vdbfamily and have actively suggested she has been treated unfairly along the way and have supported many of her contributions.

With respect, Pickled, I think that's dodging and misrepresenting how scientific testing can occur.

First, microevolution can be observed in the lab, and looks and changes within species but that may be precursors to the origin of new species.

The evidence of macroevolution comes from what can be drawn from the fossil record and DNA rather than direct observation to reconstruct how various species may be related. For all the historical sciences, hypotheses can still be tested.

They are tested by whether they accord with phyiscal evidence (fossils, DNA), and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about things that are yet to be discovered.

I'm going to draw on the Scientific American here:

For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should notand does notfind modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

That's the end of the Scientific American bit.

So my question is - what evidence base would you accept for any of the historical sciences if you will only accept direct observation as scientific proof?

PickledInAJar I wasn't suggesting you were aiming it directly at vdbfamily, but she seems to be in the group you were contemptuous of.

vdbfamily

Okay, here we go. I said "Evolution is mostly accepted by Christians" because it can be shown to be happening now."

PickledInAJar responded with this:
The bible predicts that many christians will become lukewarm, diluted, ineffective. They believe in God but prefer to run with the crowd and ditch the unpopular parts of the bible. Most people don't actually bother to research for themselves, they just stare wide eyed at the TV and accept everything they're spoon-fed

She did add 'most not all' but clearly referring to Christians who accept that the bible isn't literally true about creation.

I then said this:

vdbfamily, I'm tempted to say that only young earth creationists are true believers. The rest have abandoned the bits as they were proved wrong, which is not the act of a true believer. which you take exception to.

You are entitled to do so, but it's interesting that you don't take exception to the original remark.

Now, here's the thing. From where I'm sitting the whole idea of making up a story and then choosing to believe it is ludicrous. However I realise that most modern day Christians didn't write it themselves. They are believing what they were told as kids.

Consider this. If the religion handed down to you is from the creator of the universe who personally asked all all humans to believe and obey him then sticking to that in the face of opposition shows determination and loyalty.

On the other hand you have modern day educated Christians who keep coming across bits that they find ridiculous in the bible and rejecting them. They also come across disgusting ideas which their more advanced morality finds unacceptable. Some become atheists and others decide that these things must be mistranslations etc so they stop following them.

The modern day Christian is more my kind of person and I'm happy for you to increase in numbers, but the fundamentalists are really the true believers. They don't let facts or moral questions get in the way of their loyalty to the creator.

If you think you were being insulted then you are not paying close enough attention

oh and PickledInAJar, "Argument" doesn't mean "Row". I see where you got confused now.

"your argument is not with the local council, but with the central government" doesn't mean you were screaming and shouting at the staff in the local office.

The bible predicts that many christians will become lukewarm, diluted, ineffective. They believe in God but prefer to run with the crowd and ditch the unpopular parts of the bible. Most people don't actually bother to research for themselves, they just stare wide eyed at the TV and accept everything they're spoon-fed. Most, but not all.

I assumed this wasn't aimed as me as I am quite obviously asking questions and not just blindly accepting the evolution line that we are all taught at school. I totally agree that many Christians meet that description because,as we discussed on a previous thread,secularism seeps in and it is absorbed by everyone in some way or another.I know that we lead a far more secular life than my parents did.

I would have to add that many modern day Christians are not just accepting what they were told as kids.My husband was raised an atheist and became a Christian at Uni. His family are so anti-Christian,they refused to come to our wedding and disinherited him because he was marrying into a Christian family. I have Christian friends who are converted Muslims and friends who grew up in agnostic/atheist homes.It is naive to suggest that only brainwashed kids become Christians. Here are some out of date figures for China
The rate of conversion to Christianity in China is staggering. There were about 2 million Christians 30 years ago. Today there are between 23.5 million (the official statistic taken from state-run churches) and 130 million (including house churches) according to China Aid, a Christian charity working in China. Though the latter figure is debated, if it's in the ballpark it means the number of Christians outstrip Communist party members (78 million) by tens of millions.
www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/20/christianity-china/#ixzz1C4VtwqL4

Oh! just found the reboot thread and you're already 150 posts in.

Most people don't actually bother to research for themselves

Curious to know what pickled means by 'research for themselves' exactly, especially in the context of some of the discussion in this thread.