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.

There is rarely only one cause for anything like that, but I think you will agree that a staggering proportion of children with Muslim parents become Muslim rather than Christian and vice versa. If conversion were either a reasoned choice or the result of god's guidance then surely the religion of the parent would be irrelevant.

ackOnlyBriefly PickledInAJar I wasn't suggesting you were aiming it directly at vdbfamily

Yeah, you were actually. remember your post at 13:01?

BackOnlyBriefly Fri 24-Oct-14 13:01:38
vdbfamily your argument is with PickledInAJar who considers you……

And as for the word “row”? I haven’t used that word in the thread. Ever. So I don’t know where you got that treasure from.

BackOnlyBriefly PickledInAJar I wasn't suggesting you were aiming it directly at vdbfamily

Yeah, you were actually. remember your post at 13:01?

BackOnlyBriefly Fri 24-Oct-14 13:01:38
vdbfamily your argument is with PickledInAJar who considers you……

And as for the word “row”? I haven’t used that word in the thread. Ever. So I don’t know where you got that treasure from.

With respect, Jassy, I don;t think it's dodging or misrepresenting how scientific testing can occur. Microevolution which can be observed in the lab, and looks and changes within species isn’t proof of evolution at all. It is simply proof that the same species can alter and adapt, but it doesn’t evolve into something else completely different, it stays it’s own “kind”.

but that may be precursors to the origin of new species
That is wishful thinking and speculation. A belief, one might say.

Your scientific American bit (as you put it) suggests Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too! It’s interesting, and perhaps enlightening, to see they automatically open themselves to the belief that 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. It appears easier to believe there’s a possibility that aliens were involved rather than God created life on earth (or even particular species). I wonder why that is?

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?

That’s a really good question because I see you’ve clearly divided the two different types of science; historical and observable. That’s the part that gets terribly mixed up in a lot of people’s minds; historical science is based on guesswork because it is not observable science, which is difference because it is very, very believable. You can see it before your eyes. Evolutionary scientists come from the historical perspective which is quite different from observational science. Since historical science depends on a belief, I do not accept it. I will not confuse it with observable science, a very different animal.

Historical science perspective is a belief that says “I believe the world created itself but we can’t test it because it’s not repeatable or observable.

Christian historical biblical perspective is a belief that says “I believe that God created the world but we can’t test it because it’s not repeatable or observable.

Both are a matter of faith.

Sorry Bigdorrit,maybe Time magazine would suit you better.
time.com/3508291/china-underground-churches-catholicism-catholics-christianity-christians-kevin-frayer/

ErrolTheDragon, "by research for themselves" I mean read around the subject from both sides rather than stare at the TV and accept every programme that spouts off the word "evolution" in every other sentence without actually proving exactly why they reach those conclusions.

It's a common mistake, similar to believing something because you read it in black and white from a newspaper! "If it's in print it must be right" mentality.

What? A vacuum and oppression in an atheistic regime that bans God or any religious activity of any kind?

Whoever would have thought.

No BigDorrit, very different to that. As you might have already guessed.

Is that quite typical of you BigDorrit? Say someone and then within literally 5 minutes change your mind completely?

Glad you amuse yourself.

the world was created due to gravitational forces etc. is a belief because no one was there to actually see it happen, and it hasn't happened since.

"by research for themselves" I mean read around the subject from both sides
Right... well, that's what a lot of people actually do, but unfortunately when it comes to evolution, the other side is invariably religious websites.

Lets just transpose those posts and bold a bit:
Pickled: belief because no one was there to actually see it happen, and it hasn't happened since.

BD:historical science says, I think the world was created due to gravitational forces etc. etc., because we see evidence of that and can observe other astronomical bodies undergoing similar forces.

If it is a belief, its a rational one based on more than one source of sound scientific evidence - very different to the faith needed for any other explanation.

Read around the subject from both sides

It's a false dichotomy, When you say both sides you might as well be referring to evolution and the theory that pink fluffy unicorns created the universe four days ago and made us all complete with memories.

Yes - it must be surprising to meet people who are open to other ideas when presented with evidence.

At the moment, the evidence all supports certain, linked conclusions. There is no alternative theory that does so adequately.

If aliens came to earth and claimed involvement in the process of creating the fossil and DNA record, and provided evidence for that claim, then it's obvious the evidence base would have changed. That's the point of science - to constantly test hypotheses based on the available evidence to see if they're still valid.

You demand much more from science than you do from religion. I appreciate that's the point of faith - but I'm interested by the mental process behind demanding near-impossible levels of proof from one school of thought, but not from another.

I want to make it clear that I don't see a divide between the historical sciences and the observational - there is huge overlap in terms of how things can be evaluated and tested.

I assume you have no time for most of geology, climatology, astronomy and a good whack of cell biology and physics?

I know that we lead a far more secular life than my parents did

Could you give me some examples please vbd?

I think I am using 'secular' in it's literal sense of 'worldly' as opposed to 'spiritual' so there were lots of things we do now that I would not have done growing up as they would have been considered 'worldly'. These are things that embraced secular societys values over Christian values.So,we had no tv.We did not go to cinema/theatre/disco. We never shopped or did anything other than church/family meals/walks on a Sunday. We had daily family Bible study and prayer.We went to church several times during a normal week plus youthclub. Most of my parents close friends were Christians.
Our family life is not totally dissimilar but less rule bound and whilst I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, I feel we live a more 'worldly' life than my parents. I am not sure that will make much sense to anyone not a Christian though.
I guess one obvious example of where the Christians themselves have absorbed the prevailing culture is on the subject of sexual relationships.Whilst the churches teaching is still fairly clear, statistically a large proportion of Christians choose to ignore it and live their lives like everyone else around them. That to me is secularism seeping into the church.(not what you asked I know)

That's not what secular means though. It doesn't imply anything about morals or behaviour- it just means not involving religion.

Just catching up but wanted to comment on vdb's questions about soft tissue in dino bones.

It wasn't a case of opening up a bone and finding tissue - the fragments were demineralised in acid - normally the priority is to preserve, which is why this isn't an everyday occurrence, since the process destroys the fossil. There are explanations why the tissues may have been present - iron, environmental processes, contamination, biofilms, or it may be we simply do not yet understand enough about the process of fossilisation.

What we do know is that the fossil itself is not of a young age. We know this because the age of a fossil is determined by dating the surrounding rocks in which it was found, using isotopes with much longer half lives than C14 - many rocks are tested and cross referenced at different laboratories (to reduce the likelihood of human error) using different isotopes (uranium, potassium etc) to check results, and the results confirm each other - in this case 68 million years. This is why using C14 in this context is pointless - if a young age is given for organic material within the fossil all that tells you is that the organic material is not the same age as the fossil (draw from that what you will), or that C14 is unreliable in this application (which we already know), since all the other dating methods, direct and indirect agree.

vdb, is that really secularism creeping into the church, though, or is it the church moving with the prevailing cultural morality, which it has done for centuries?

Velvet, that is really interesting, thank you!