When science contradicts the Bible

Originally posted by whodey
After all, he was NOT attacking the theory of evolution.

You quoted him as saying:
"But there is no dynamic pro-Darwiniian evidence in the fossil record."
That has been shown to be false.

And:
"Neither the fossils nor the variety of life that surrounds us provides any PROOF of one species changing into another,"
Again, I have stated that this has been observed and that observation constitutes solid proof. So again he is lying. So if outright lies are not "attacking" then what is?

Yes, even the most educated people will tell lies to support their beliefs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As scottishinnz said, he is obviously not a particularly good scientist. There are a number of documented cases of one species completely changing into another new species. As for the actual changing process it is evident in every life form at all times. Only someone totally ignorant of biology would deny that the total gene pool in any given species is changing constantly.

A new definition of FAITH borrowing from Hebrews 11:1:

Now faith is the conviction of links hoped for and the assurance of fossils unseen.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You quoted him as saying:
[b]"But there is no dynamic pro-Darwiniian evidence in the fossil record."
That has been shown to be false.

And:
"Neither the fossils nor the variety of life that surrounds us provides any PROOF of one species changing into another,"
Again, I have stated that this has been observed and that observation constitut en what is?

Yes, even the most educated people will tell lies to support their beliefs.[/b]

As I said before, if he were attempting to debunk evolution then I might think he was lying by this oversight, however, he does not attack evolution in the book and neither would it have changed the point he was trying to make had he included it. Therefore, I can only assume that it was an oversight. There are those of us who are prone to error unlike yourself.

Originally posted by whodey
As I said before, if he were attempting to debunk evolution then I might think he was lying by this oversight, however, he does not attack evolution in the book and neither would it have changed the point he was trying to make had he included it. Therefore, I can only assume that it was an oversight. There are those of us who are prone to error unlike yourself.

Anyone writing such a book had better get his facts straight even if, as you say, it was basically an aside, not related to his main theme. If he screws up basic fossil evidential reporting, since he is such an educated person, odds are he knew he was obfusicating at the minimum and outright deception at the max for purposes of the political denounciation of evolution by a backhanded stroke. I don't buy the argument it was a typo or some such. If he can't stand the heat, he should not enter the kitchen. Those with higher educations are held to higher accuracy standards specifically because of what I mentioned. If he just did a boo-boo as you think, then how can the world at large trust what he has to say on his main theme? If that was presented as his Phd thesis, and he had to defend it, how could he making statements that have been proven to be false, even in an aside? You cannot cut someone like that ANY slack because he is known to be a creationist and therefore anything he says will be tainted by that. He has to be accountable for his statements. Period.

Originally posted by jaywill
A new definition of FAITH borrowing from Hebrews 11:1:

[b]Now faith is the conviction of links hoped for and the assurance of fossils unseen.[/b]

Get out of town with your garbage.

More fossils come in everyday.

Originally posted by jaywill
A new definition of FAITH borrowing from Hebrews 11:1:

[b]Now faith is the conviction of links hoped for and the assurance of fossils unseen.[/b]

Its a deal, lets usurp the old definition of faith and use yours and make the old definitions punishable by life imprisonment by any of its adherants.

Originally posted by sonhouse
odds are he knew he was obfusicating at the minimum and outright deception at the max for purposes of the political denounciation of evolution by a backhanded stroke.

Not at all. In fact, he says that he has no objections to the scieintific findings of evolution. Perhaps you should read the book before making such claims?

Originally posted by whodey
Not at all. In fact, he says that he has no objections to the scieintific findings of evolution. Perhaps you should read the book before making such claims?

You believe everything everyone says?? Pat Robertson probably claims to be "the voice of the people", but do you believe that??

Go watch some "House", if you need educating on what people say, vs the truth.