PDA

View Full Version : Bush backs Intelligent Design



Pages : [1] 2 3

Falls City Beer
08-03-2005, 07:12 PM
But read carefully: Bush "backs" intelligent design but uses mouthpiece Marburger to appeal to the non-whacko Republican base. Pretty humorous.

Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 - A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools.

In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution.

Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Mr. Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

On Tuesday, the president's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Mr. Bush's comments while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news.

Mr. Marburger said in a telephone interview that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Mr. Marburger also said that Mr. Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes.

Intelligent design, advanced by a group of academics and intellectuals and some biblical creationists, disputes the idea that natural selection - the force Charles Darwin suggested drove evolution - fully explains the complexity of life. Instead, intelligent design proponents say that life is so intricate that only a powerful guiding force, or intelligent designer, could have created it.

Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe. Invigorated by a recent push by conservatives, the theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20 states, with Kansas in the lead.

Mr. Marburger said it would be "over-interpreting" Mr. Bush's remarks to say that the president believed that intelligent design and evolution should be given equal treatment in schools.

But Mr. Bush's conservative supporters said the president had indicated exactly that in his remarks.

"It's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing," said Richard Land, the president of the ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Land, who has close ties to the White House, said that evolution "is too often taught as fact," and that "if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists."

But critics saw Mr. Bush's comment that "both sides" should be taught as the most troubling aspect of his remarks.

"It sounds like you're being fair, but creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint, and intelligent design is a sectarian religious viewpoint," said Susan Spath, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education, a group that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. "It's not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint by calling it the other side of evolution."

Ms. Spath added that intelligent design was viewed as more respectable and sophisticated than biblical creationism, but "if you look at their theological and scientific writings, you see that the movement is fundamentally anti-evolution."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the president's comments irresponsible, and said that "when it comes to evolution, there is only one school of scientific thought, and that is evolution occurred and is still occurring." Mr. Lynn added that "when it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class."

The Discovery Institute in Seattle, a leader in developing intelligent design, applauded the president's words on Tuesday as a defense of scientists who have been ostracized for advancing the theory.

"We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biological origins," said Stephen Meyer, the director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture. "It's extremely timely and welcome because so many scientists are experiencing recriminations for breaking with Darwinist orthodoxy."

At the White House, intelligent design was the subject of a weekly Bible study class several years ago when Charles W. Colson, the founder and chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, spoke to the group. Mr. Colson has also written a book, "The Good Life," in which a chapter on intelligent design features Michael Gerson, an evangelical Christian who is an assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning.

"It's part of the buzz of the city among Christians," Mr. Colson said in a telephone interview on Tuesday about intelligent design. "It wouldn't surprise me that it got to George Bush. He reads, he picks stuff up, he talks to people. And he's pretty serious about his own Christian beliefs."

KronoRed
08-03-2005, 07:25 PM
I went to public school, got taught evolution, am a Christian and don't think it's horrible or evil that I was taught evolution.

I have no idea how it all works out..it's in my list of questions for when I get to heaven, right after "Why Skunks?!?"

;)

paintmered
08-03-2005, 07:31 PM
I was taught neither of them. My teacher didn't make a big deal out of it. It wasn't a big deal to me or any of my classmates either.

I lived.

creek14
08-03-2005, 07:36 PM
It's been so long since I was in school, I don't even remember what we were taught. Had a big effect on me.

westofyou
08-03-2005, 07:47 PM
It's been so long since I was in school, I don't even remember what we were taught. Had a big effect on me.

Duck and cover.... endorsed by all.

pedro
08-03-2005, 07:49 PM
Duck and cover.... endorsed by all.

http://www.conelrad.com/duckandcover/images/nfrc_margin_ad.gif

Unassisted
08-03-2005, 07:49 PM
Teachers probably won't have time to teach either of these if they don't appear on a state proficiency test.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2005, 07:53 PM
Teachers probably won't have time to teach either of these if they don't appear on a state proficiency test.

Or the ACT/SAT. It's one of the benefits of a disinterested scientific test. It cuts both ways. Trust me, the Princeton Review's going to tell these fruitcakes to go jump in a lake.

Caveat Emperor
08-03-2005, 08:44 PM
For a universe supposedly constructed on "Intelligent Design" there's a lot of stuff that just doesn't make any sense...

I tend to quote a bumper sticker I saw once:

"You promise not to pray in my schools
I promise not to think your church"

pedro
08-03-2005, 08:51 PM
How ironic.

creek14
08-03-2005, 09:19 PM
Duck and cover.... endorsed by all.
Oh yeah, I remember that. Even at age 8 I was wondering how in the heck that was going to protect us.

M2
08-03-2005, 09:37 PM
Being the science advisor to the Bush administration must be a little like being the Jewish community affairs advocate for the Spanish Inquisition.

traderumor
08-03-2005, 09:49 PM
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the president's comments irresponsible, and said that "when it comes to evolution, there is only one school of scientific thought, and that is evolution occurred and is still occurring." Mr. Lynn added that "when it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class."Speaking of irresponsible...that's Mr. Lynn's opinion, and yes, I said OPINION. Does he mean micro evolution or macro evolution? Does he have any scientific evidence that is occurring as we speak? Oh, that's right, we need millions of years, you can't actually see anything happening, but then I forgot the fossil record and the various missing link frauds that have been trotted out, but I digress.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2005, 10:10 PM
Speaking of irresponsible...that's Mr. Lynn's opinion, and yes, I said OPINION. Does he mean micro evolution or macro evolution? Does he have any scientific evidence that is occurring as we speak? Oh, that's right, we need millions of years, you can't actually see anything happening, but then I forgot the fossil record and the various missing link frauds that have been trotted out, but I digress.

I can't argue that Mr Lynn's point is an opinion. It is.

But what isn't an opinion is that the science used to help bolster the *theory* of evolution is based in rigorous scientific method and inquiry.

The "science" of intelligent design dispenses almost entirely with the scientific method and leaps to conclusions that only a religious kind of faith could brook.

That's the substantive difference. And that's not opinion.

Ravenlord
08-03-2005, 10:11 PM
But what isn't an opinion is that the science used to help bolster the *theory* of evolution is based in rigorous scientific method and inquiry.

The "science" of intelligent design dispenses almost entirely with the scientific method and leaps to conclusions that only a religious kind of faith could brook.yet i see the exact opposite of that.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2005, 10:13 PM
yet i see the exact opposite of that.

Could you be more specific?

M2
08-03-2005, 10:52 PM
Speaking of irresponsible...that's Mr. Lynn's opinion, and yes, I said OPINION. Does he mean micro evolution or macro evolution? Does he have any scientific evidence that is occurring as we speak? Oh, that's right, we need millions of years, you can't actually see anything happening, but then I forgot the fossil record and the various missing link frauds that have been trotted out, but I digress.

You act like there isn't this massive fossil record tracking every species on the planet. There is. Scientists can explain to you how rock hyraxes (which look like amped up guinea pigs) are really cousins of the elephant. Selective breeding of animals has caused evolution in those species. Selective breeding of Chinese people produced Yao Ming.

At the cellular level, they can absolutely show you where humanity has evolved over time. The classic example is the adaptation that allows your average caucasian to digest large quantities of dairy products. I can do it. The Indian (from India) guy I work with can't.

And there's a school of thought that humanity is going through a period of rapid evolution. Thanks to plentiful food and advanced medicine, we're growing by leaps and bounds (generation to generation). Ethnicity's also breaking down on the breeding front. We're all mutts, but that's combining the stronger traits of different ethnicities and winnowing many of the recessive boogeymen (e.g. Tay Sachs). On top of that, there's a theory that we're getting smarter. The sum total of human knowledge has been growing exponentially for a century and some think it's because we're able to keep pace with it in a way our ancestors couldn't.

What they've learned about evolution in recent decades is that species can undergo radical changes in thousands of years rather than millions if the conditions are right (or wrong). One which would seem like a big deal to us but isn't much of a big deal at the genetic level is skin color. It only takes a few thousand years to go from black to white. That's one they can track using DNA. Though, like I mentioned, bigger changes quite possibly could be afoot. In 5,000 years or so, it might be fairly commonplace to be a 10-foot-tall, supergenius human. If you were graphing it that's the direction the data points of that last 100 years would point you.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2005, 11:11 PM
Interesting Op-ed in the Boston Globe from earlier this year.

KENNETH R. MILLER
Remove stickers, open minds

By Kenneth R. Miller | January 22, 2005

ISN'T EVOLUTION a theory? Of course it is. So why did a federal district court judge last week order a board of education in Georgia to remove stickers from biology textbooks that seemed to tell students that evolution was just a theory? Is this a case of censorship? Is a closed-minded scientific establishment trying to keep evidence against evolution out of the classroom? Is a federal court telling educators that evolution is now federally protected dogma?

The answer is far simpler. The judge simply read the sticker and saw that it served no scientific or educational purpose. Once that was clear, he looked to the reasons for slapping it in the textbooks of thousands of students, and here the record was equally clear. The sticker was inserted to advance a particular set of religious beliefs -- exactly the argument advanced by the parents of six students in the district who sued the Cobb County Board of Education to get the stickers removed.

So what's wrong with telling students that evolution is a theory? Nothing. But the textbook they were using already described evolution as a theory, and I ought to know. Joseph Levine and I wrote the biology book Cobb County's high school students are using. Chapter 15 is titled "Darwin's Theory of Evolution." Hard to be clearer than that. So why did the Cobb County Board of Education slap a warning label inside a book that already refers to evolution as a theory? Cooper hit correctly he wrote that "by denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories."

Exactly. What the sticker said was that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." The problem with that wording is that evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact that living things in the past were different from living things today and that the life of the past changed, or evolved, to produce the life of the present. Recent news reports the discovery of a new mammalian fossil in China that has a small dinosaur in its stomach. This fossil is a fact -- clear evidence that some early mammals were able to prey upon dinosaurs, at least little ones. And it is just one of millions of fossils that support the fact that life has changed over time, the fact of evolution.

How did that change take place? That's exactly the question that evolutionary theory attempts to answer. Theories in science don't become facts -- rather, theories explain facts. Evolutionary theory is a comprehensive explanation of change supported by the facts of natural history, genetics, and molecular biology.

Is evolution beyond dispute? Of course not. In fact, the most misleading part of the sticker was its concluding sentence: "This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Think about that. The sticker told students that there was just one subject in their textbooks that had to be approached with an open mind and critically considered. Apparently, we are certain of everything in biology except evolution. That is nonsense. What that sticker should have told students is what our textbook makes clear: Everything in science should be approached with critical thinking and an open mind.

The forces of anti-evolution will pretend that the sticker case is an example of censorship and that the sinister forces of science have converged on classrooms to prevent honest and open examination of a controversial idea.

There is great irony in such charges. As conservative icon Alan Bloom pointed out in his landmark book "The Closing of the American Mind," one of the worst forms of intellectual intolerance is to promote a false equivalence between competing ideas. Acting as though all ideas (or all theories) have equal standing actually deprives students of a realistic view of how critical analysis is done. That's as true in science as it is in the cultural conflicts.

Judge Cooper saw this point clearly: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community." Does it ever. In reality, evolution is a powerful and hard-working theory used at the cutting edge of scientific inquiry in developmental biology, genome analysis, drug discovery, and scientific medicine. To pretend otherwise is to shield students from the reality of how science is done.

What the removal of the sticker will do is not to close a window but to open one that will let students see a science of biology in which all theories, not just one, are the result of constant, vigorous, critical analysis. A science in which evolution is at the centerpiece of a 21st-century revolution in our understanding of the grandeur and majesty of life.

So, what should be done with those stickers, now pasted into thousands of textbooks? I'd pass along a suggestion I received from a science teacher in Cobb County itself: Glue an American flag on top of each and every one of them.

Kenneth R. Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University and coauthor of "Biology."

Ravenlord
08-03-2005, 11:36 PM
Could you be more specific?for starters fossilization requires a quick and sudden pressure. otherwise, i wouldn't have grasshopper, oak leaf, and chicken bone fossils that i made when i was 10 years old. there also wouldn't be fossilized sea shells on Mount Everest.

the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, humanity is not, but the Earth is.

the Bible is very specific about how things come into being, and this is where it gets really fascinating to me.

In the beginning God created teh heavens and the earth.-Genesis 1:1.
note the word 'created'.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds" And it was so.-Genesis 1:11
note that it does not say 'God created vegetation." it says 'let the land produce vegetation.' evolving from the land comes the first plants.

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."-Genesis 1:20
again there is a lack of the word 'create' (though it does appear in the next verse if you have an NIV translation). and note the first animilian life appears in the water.

And God said, "Let the land prodcue lving creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.-Genesis 1:24
yet again, the word 'create' is absent.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that moving along the ground."
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.-Genesis 1:26-27.
now we have the word 'create' once again (and not just in the NIV this time 'round).

when i hear creation (which means evolution and intelligent design in my usage of it) theory being discussed, it usually involves just glossing over and saying "God created everything." when the Bible is very specific, God had things brought forth, except for the earth and mankind (water and sky, as well as night and day are ommitted because they're pretty static in their existance, however the former was 'made' and latter was 'spoke and it was so').

micro evolution is very real. there used to be just one species of coyote in North America. they were 20-30 pound dogs. now, coyotes east of the Missippi river are now becoming/have become two new sub-species. they are both larger than their western cousins. the first being called "Eastern Coyotes" for the time being. they are bigger and stronger, averaging 40 pounds. and the other subspecies has yet to be given a scientific name, but for the time being have been called "Primitive Wolves." they are graying in fur, are bigger then western coyotes, but have developed hunting pack instinct.

clear micro links of evolution are easy to find. in the coyote example above, it took less than 250 years, not thousands to go from one species to three species. just like those light colored English moths that turned dark as the trees darkened over a perido of 20 years.

there's lots of direct effect evolution, it just doesn't involve something rising up into being humanity.

i'd write more, but i'm really bloody tired (stupid 13 hour work day).

Falls City Beer
08-03-2005, 11:57 PM
for starters fossilization requires a quick and sudden pressure. otherwise, i wouldn't have grasshopper, oak leaf, and chicken bone fossils that i made when i was 10 years old. there also wouldn't be fossilized sea shells on Mount Everest.

the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, humanity is not, but the Earth is.

the Bible is very specific about how things come into being, and this is where it gets really fascinating to me.

In the beginning God created teh heavens and the earth.-Genesis 1:1.
note the word 'created'.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds" And it was so.-Genesis 1:11
note that it does not say 'God created vegetation." it says 'let the land produce vegetation.' evolving from the land comes the first plants.

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."-Genesis 1:20
again there is a lack of the word 'create' (though it does appear in the next verse if you have an NIV translation). and note the first animilian life appears in the water.

And God said, "Let the land prodcue lving creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.-Genesis 1:24
yet again, the word 'create' is absent.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that moving along the ground."
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.-Genesis 1:26-27.
now we have the word 'create' once again (and not just in the NIV this time 'round).

when i hear creation (which means evolution and intelligent design in my usage of it) theory being discussed, it usually involves just glossing over and saying "God created everything." when the Bible is very specific, God had things brought forth, except for the earth and mankind (water and sky, as well as night and day are ommitted because they're pretty static in their existance, however the former was 'made' and latter was 'spoke and it was so').

micro evolution is very real. there used to be just one species of coyote in North America. they were 20-30 pound dogs. now, coyotes east of the Missippi river are now becoming/have become two new sub-species. they are both larger than their western cousins. the first being called "Eastern Coyotes" for the time being. they are bigger and stronger, averaging 40 pounds. and the other subspecies has yet to be given a scientific name, but for the time being have been called "Primitive Wolves." they are graying in fur, are bigger then western coyotes, but have developed hunting pack instinct.

clear micro links of evolution are easy to find. in the coyote example above, it took less than 250 years, not thousands to go from one species to three species. just like those light colored English moths that turned dark as the trees darkened over a perido of 20 years.

there's lots of direct effect evolution, it just doesn't involve something rising up into being humanity.

i'd write more, but i'm really bloody tired (stupid 13 hour work day).

Okay. Even *if* I were to grant the Bible as a source of history/biological evidence, how does that show that the scientific method used by evolutionary biologists is less rigorous and thoroughly investigated than relying upon the authority of a single text? That's what I'm a little bleary on. Particularly in light of your contention that other life forms (non-human) HAVE evolved. Why the human exceptionalism? After all, we share 98% of our genetic material with chimps; is it absurd to suggest that there may be a connection?

M2
08-04-2005, 12:08 AM
the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, humanity is not, but the Earth is.

I'm sure the people lived on the Earth for tens of thousands of years before that would beg to differ.

One cincher is we know when the Bering crossing was open for business and it hasn't been in the past 10,000 years. Yet when the Euros arrived they found two continents with people on them.

You can tell me all the artifacts, fossils and mitochondrial DNA evidence supporting the Bering crossing are bunk, but I'd like a viable alternative with some supporting evidence if you're going to do it.

And let's not be using the Bible on this one because last I checked neither the Old Testament or New Testament makes any mention of the Americas ... which, if we're being pure literalists, theoretically means they don't exist.

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 12:42 AM
the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, humanity is not, but the Earth is.

Lucy says hi.

savafan
08-04-2005, 01:04 AM
I was taught both the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism in public school. I find that the two theories can co-exist, and that anyone who disregards either of them without strong consideration of both lacks vision.

ochre
08-04-2005, 01:44 AM
when i hear creation (which means evolution and intelligent design in my usage of it) theory being discussed, it usually involves just glossing over and saying "God created everything." when the Bible is very specific, God had things brought forth, except for the earth and mankind (water and sky, as well as night and day are ommitted because they're pretty static in their existance, however the former was 'made' and latter was 'spoke and it was so').


GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Formed reads as created to me. In this passage it would seem that god created beasts after man? Seems a little inconsistent to me.

RFS62
08-04-2005, 08:00 AM
I will never, ever understand why being spiritual depends on believing stories about a snake and an apple in a garden or an ark and a flood.

Insisting that stuff like that is literal brings into question all the beautiful things that the Bible contains. The essence of spirituality that flows through many, many religions and belief systems.

But nope, woman made from a rib. Animals from the dirt. That's what's important.

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 09:01 AM
Insisting that stuff like that is literal brings into question all the beautiful things that the Bible contains. The essence of spirituality that flows through many, many religions and belief systems.

I agree.

That said, I have no problem with schools teaching Creationism -- in a Social Studies class. It's not a science, and it shouldn't be taught in science class.

Caveat Emperor
08-04-2005, 10:07 AM
I will never, ever understand why being spiritual depends on believing stories about a snake and an apple in a garden or an ark and a flood.

Insisting that stuff like that is literal brings into question all the beautiful things that the Bible contains. The essence of spirituality that flows through many, many religions and belief systems.

But nope, woman made from a rib. Animals from the dirt. That's what's important.

Selective reading of the bible isn't new. I always find it terribly amusing how people who stomp on and on about their faith and the need for more faith never seem to quote the passages about Jesus ridiculing the Pharisees for their grand pronouncements of devotion to god, and telling his own followers to pray where nobody can see them...

...or the outright ignoring of the fact that Jesus professed a message of peace and non-violence (think he'd make an exception for suspicions of WMDs?)

...or the fact that it's quoted several times in the bible that to be a true follower of Christ, you are supposed to give up all your possessions to those who have none and follow him (think Jerry Falwell looks like he's missed many meals?)

I sometimes think people "Of Faith" find a need to latch onto the most ridiculous portions of the bible (the burning of sodom and gammorah as an indictment of homosexuality, the seven-day creation myth, the rapture and revelation) because if you talk loudly enough about that, it drowns out the deep fundamental discussion that could be had about all the OTHER parts they're ignoring.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 10:25 AM
I tend to quote a bumper sticker I saw once:

"You promise not to pray in my schools
I promise not to think your church"
:D

I LOVE that one.

DeadRedinCT
08-04-2005, 10:25 AM
right after "Why Skunks?!?"

What about the platypus? What the heck was He smoking when he came up with that one? :laugh:

registerthis
08-04-2005, 10:31 AM
I agree.

That said, I have no problem with schools teaching Creationism -- in a Social Studies class. It's not a science, and it shouldn't be taught in science class.
And there's the rub.

What people neglect to point out is that science makes no declaration or supposition as to the concept of "design" in the universe. There are a number of scientists who point to the intricate calibration of certain cosmological constants to show that, if this universe DID occur purely by chance, then that is a rather remarkable chance. There are others who argue that since we inhabit this universe, it stands to reason that this is the best universe that we could inhabit, and as such, it is the ONLY universe that could exist.

But, anyhow, my point is that science does not claim authority on the origins of the various cosmological principles and laws that exist in our universe, its purpose is merely to explain how they work. Religion takes over from there.

Intelligent Design is not without merit--in fact, I believe you could make a rather convincing case for it. I tend to believe in a creationism-evolutionary hybrid...only I leave the 'evolution" part to science and the 'creation" part to God, and make every effort not to mix the two.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 10:39 AM
Okay. Even *if* I were to grant the Bible as a source of history/biological evidence, how does that show that the scientific method used by evolutionary biologists is less rigorous and thoroughly investigated than relying upon the authority of a single text? That's what I'm a little bleary on. Particularly in light of your contention that other life forms (non-human) HAVE evolved. Why the human exceptionalism? After all, we share 98% of our genetic material with chimps; is it absurd to suggest that there may be a connection?
FCB, a little warning, because I see where this thread is headed.

The position the hardcore creationists will return to over and over and over again is the "holes" in evolutionary theory, which in their mind discredit all research/evidence compiled on the subject, leading to a conclusion that creationism *must* be the correct answer.

You can try arguing with reason, you can try arguing with facts, you can try arguing with observational evidence, but the response will be consistently the same: evolution can't be sceintifically "proved", therefore it *must* be invalid, because I interpret it to be at odds with my interpretation of Genesis. Creationists mistake religion for science (see the drive to have ID taught in science classes) consistently, no more so than in the evolution "debate".

So, whilst it is noble to fling around facts, evidence, and the logical position that if 99% of scientists believe that species-to-species macro evolution in some form occured on Earth it is a good reason for believing that it is true...it's not going to get you very far.

Caveat Emperor
08-04-2005, 10:42 AM
And there's the rub.

What people neglect to point out is that science makes no declaration or supposition as to the concept of "design" in the universe. There are a number of scientists who point to the intricate calibration of certain cosmological constants to show that, if this universe DID occur purely by chance, then that is a rather remarkable chance. There are others who argue that since we inhabit this universe, it stands to reason that this is the best universe that we could inhabit, and as such, it is the ONLY universe that could exist.

If you really want to blow your mind a bit, there is a school of thought out there, which bases itself on Hawkings postulate that the Universe will eventually collapse back on itself in a "Big Crunch" event similar to the Big Bang, that thinks the universe is unimaginably old and has gone through many multiple "Bangs" and "Crunches" that failed because the conditions weren't just right to form a stable and expanding structure...and possibly even a few that did work, existed for trillions of years, collapsed, and then re-expanded.

So, in theory, this could be like the 54th time some species has evolved on a planet, come up with baseball, and devoted a website to talking about the Cincinnati Reds (although only the 6th, 23rd, and 45th ever had to go to a reputation system).

Falls City Beer
08-04-2005, 11:18 AM
FCB, a little warning, because I see where this thread is headed.

The position the hardcore creationists will return to over and over and over again is the "holes" in evolutionary theory, which in their mind discredit all research/evidence compiled on the subject, leading to a conclusion that creationism *must* be the correct answer.

You can try arguing with reason, you can try arguing with facts, you can try arguing with observational evidence, but the response will be consistently the same: evolution can't be sceintifically "proved", therefore it *must* be invalid, because I interpret it to be at odds with my interpretation of Genesis. Creationists mistake religion for science (see the drive to have ID taught in science classes) consistently, no more so than in the evolution "debate".

So, whilst it is noble to fling around facts, evidence, and the logical position that if 99% of scientists believe that species-to-species macro evolution in some form occured on Earth it is a good reason for believing that it is true...it's not going to get you very far.

Trust me, I'm brutally aware of the argument ad ignorantiam belched by the fundamentalist line of thinking vis. "the holes" in evolutionary theory. "If it can't be explained, it must be God" isn't a theory; it's a default/defense mechanism.

I'm just trying a different tack--as I now see that arguing for the scientific method is falling mostly on deaf ears. Perhaps, I can catch one who concedes that science actually enlightens some corners of the universe (Ravenlord) and compel him to see where his argument falls apart.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 11:31 AM
If you really want to blow your mind a bit, there is a school of thought out there, which bases itself on Hawkings postulate that the Universe will eventually collapse back on itself in a "Big Crunch" event similar to the Big Bang, that thinks the universe is unimaginably old and has gone through many multiple "Bangs" and "Crunches" that failed because the conditions weren't just right to form a stable and expanding structure...and possibly even a few that did work, existed for trillions of years, collapsed, and then re-expanded.

So, in theory, this could be like the 54th time some species has evolved on a planet, come up with baseball, and devoted a website to talking about the Cincinnati Reds (although only the 6th, 23rd, and 45th ever had to go to a reputation system).
Ah, yes, the whole "broken clocks are right twice a day" theory.

Not implausible, either. I tend to blow my mind thinking about "infinity", or the Reds' FO unwillingness (thus far) so give Dunn a LTC. There are many things that blow my mind. ;)

Blimpie
08-04-2005, 11:42 AM
Best. Line. Ever.


This week, Georgia’s board of education approved a plan that allows teachers to keep using the word "Evolution" when teaching biology. Though, as a compromise, dinosaurs are now called "Jesus Horses."

Jimmy Fallon --SNL Weekend Update

M2
08-04-2005, 11:52 AM
Wow, lots of great posts here.

Following up on what RFS said, if you bog down on the details of Genesis you risk missing the bigger morals concerns it tackles. The story of Adam and Eve actually seeks to tackle the question of how complex beings tackle the concept of morality. We're not blessed with animal ignorance and that's something we've got to deal with. The story's telling you that life isn't going to be simple and that's a valuable lesson to keep in mind no matter what age you are.

traderumor
08-04-2005, 12:11 PM
And there's a school of thought that humanity is going through a period of rapid evolution. Thanks to plentiful food and advanced medicine, we're growing by leaps and bounds (generation to generation).

I would submit that is fulfilling potential rather than evolving. These are still human beings you are talking about, whether or not they are taller or living a few years longer due to medical advances. But there is no new species resulting, so where is the evolution? By that concept, cows with more meat due to improved feeding techniques would be considered to be "evolving."



Ethnicity's also breaking down on the breeding front. We're all mutts, but that's combining the stronger traits of different ethnicities and winnowing many of the recessive boogeymen (e.g. Tay Sachs).Someone like myself won't deny that at the molecular level within species, that the concepts of evolution do hold some water through mutation and variation in the gene pool. It's when you start talking about species' evolving into a species that never existed before through the process of evolution as a creative process that we will start to disagree.


On top of that, there's a theory that we're getting smarter. The sum total of human knowledge has been growing exponentially for a century and some think it's because we're able to keep pace with it in a way our ancestors couldn't.
Having more information does not make us smarter. Making discoveries does not make us smarter. We have more information than ever before, yet all it seems to lead to is building bigger, and sometimes better mousetraps. Yet, the world still has the same problems now, when you remove all the window dressing, that it always has. Men still are killing men at alarming rates, I guess they are smarter at that. There is still a HUGE problem with the allocation of resources among all humanity, one which goes unnoticed to many, many Americans because even the poor are comparatively rich. And not one man has been able to solve the sin problem that is at the root of all evil in the world. Getting smarter? No, we've just created technologically advanced ways to sin against God and all humanity.

M2
08-04-2005, 01:07 PM
I would submit that is fulfilling potential rather than evolving. These are still human beings you are talking about, whether or not they are taller or living a few years longer due to medical advances. But there is no new species resulting, so where is the evolution? By that concept, cows with more meat due to improved feeding techniques would be considered to be "evolving."

As that meatier body becomes part of the genetic code (largely due to ranchers favoring the meatier cows in their breeding practices) that is evolution at work. I think we might have hit at the core of it right here. Evolution's just a catch-all term for the gradual changes that occur in all species. Obviously the longer you take it out over the course of time, the larger the changes.

On potential, every species has the ability to get bigger or smaller dependent on conditions. The largest land-based mammalian predator we've so far found, the Andrewsarchus, was hooved, more closely related to sheep than lions. And, yes, these are still human beings I'm talking about, though substantially different human beings thanks to the process of evolution.


Someone like myself won't deny that at the molecular level within species, that the concepts of evolution do hold some water through mutation and variation in the gene pool. It's when you start talking about species' evolving into a species that never existed before through the process of evolution as a creative process that we will start to disagree.

This gets back to timeline, though let me stress here that evolution is an adaptive process not a creative process. It tracks the flow of the changes in the living world. Anyway, timeline. Obviously if you've only got 6,000 years to play with, the sum total of changes isn't going to be that radical. Yet take that "mutation and variation in the gene pool" out over a million years and the total weight of those changes becomes immense. Dinosaurs (at least the ones that survived) become birds. Small land mammals become whales.


Having more information does not make us smarter. Making discoveries does not make us smarter. We have more information than ever before, yet all it seems to lead to is building bigger, and sometimes better mousetraps. Yet, the world still has the same problems now, when you remove all the window dressing, that it always has. Men still are killing men at alarming rates, I guess they are smarter at that. There is still a HUGE problem with the allocation of resources among all humanity, one which goes unnoticed to many, many Americans because even the poor are comparatively rich. And not one man has been able to solve the sin problem that is at the root of all evil in the world. Getting smarter? No, we've just created technologically advanced ways to sin against God and all humanity.

When the tides rises, it floats all boats, good and bad. It's still a chicken-and-egg matter as to whether the current explosion in knowledge is a result of humans applying the skills we've always had or if we're now hitting a point where knowledge is exploding because we're better able to process it than we had been previously. Simply put, we don't know and we won't for a long time. It's speculation at this point.

BTW, that wildly disparate allocation of resources could have profound evolutionary effects if it continues for another few centuries. If you look at evolutionary trees what you see is a lot of branching. There's a lot of gomptheriums and smilodons that wind up being out of the mainstream of what survives into the next era. If plentiful food, advanced medicine, protection against the elements and a disparate gene pool gets offered to some portions of humanity and not others, we're going to branch. I'm not talking about becoming different species, but people in the have section likely will develop a pile of beneficial traits that won't be found in the have-not areas.

traderumor
08-04-2005, 01:23 PM
I think we might have hit at the core of it right here. Evolution's just a catch-all term for the gradual changes that occur in all species.

But that's where the discussions start to get messy. It sounds like you buy more into microevolution thought, where we have changes occurring within species, and are perhaps a little unsure once we start getting to full blown macroevolution, which is an explanation of origins for those who take it to the logical conclusion. However, rarely in discussions is the distinction made, yet it is so important. After all, a Creationist needs microevolution to explain the races, just as one example.

M2
08-04-2005, 02:05 PM
But that's where the discussions start to get messy. It sounds like you buy more into microevolution thought, where we have changes occurring within species, and are perhaps a little unsure once we start getting to full blown macroevolution, which is an explanation of origins for those who take it to the logical conclusion. However, rarely in discussions is the distinction made, yet it is so important. After all, a Creationist needs microevolution to explain the races, just as one example.

Micro/macroevolution is a false choice. There is no difference. Dinosaurs became birds through the same process that enabled you and I to enjoy a big scoop of ice cream.

Like I said, things change and evolution tracks the changes. Take a larger chunk of time and you get bigger changes. At its heart it's the simplest, least complex, least challenging theory out there. The matter of human origin only gets messy because of the enormous amount of time involved and our present-day knowledge that we weren't around for most of it. Where religious "creation" pops into the equation, I leave that up individual religions to determine.

Seems to me that if someone wants to make the case for human exceptionalism they need to go a lot farther out than the biblical timeline, say 70,000 years. We've got no recorded history and not much of an artefact/DNA history to cover it. Maybe that's where the hand of God came in to stir the soup. I'm not saying that IS the case, just that it's around the time when something we'd have called humanity seems to have popped up (at least based on our best modern estimates).

The Old Testament never claims to be the definitive source on space and time. It's a collection of stories and parables, aiming more at wisdom than scrupulous accuracy (which is an extremely modern concept, really its a child of the Enlightenment).

traderumor
08-04-2005, 02:47 PM
The Old Testament never claims to be the definitive source on space and time. It's a collection of stories and parables, aiming more at wisdom than scrupulous accuracy (which is an extremely modern concept, really its a child of the Enlightenment).But is amazingly historically accurate when a literal rendering is required. The other stuff are your truth claims based on scientific theories (e.g. pre-history prior to Gen 1-2) vs. my truth claims from a Biblical perspective (ex nihilo Creation described in Gen 1-2).

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 02:47 PM
It's when you start talking about species' evolving into a species that never existed before through the process of evolution as a creative process that we will start to disagree.

On that subject, how does creationism deal with the lack of ancient fossil evidence for a number of animals that exist today? Scientists haven't found T-Rex fossils with, say, cows or sheep or people in their stomachs, and they haven't found grizzly bear fossils alongside dinosaur fossils.

M2
08-04-2005, 03:31 PM
The other stuff are your truth claims based on scientific theories (e.g. pre-history prior to Gen 1-2) vs. my truth claims from a Biblical perspective (ex nihilo Creation described in Gen 1-2).

Theories, schmeories. An uncovered T-Rex skeleton isn't a theory, it's a fact.

Artefacts found from human civiliazations that pre-date the biblical timeline aren't theories, they're facts. You can put your hands on them.

Geological strata. Fact, not theory.

Humans in North America with the only practical way to get there covered up by the ocean thousands of years prior to the biblical timeline. Facts, not theory.

Mitochondrial DNA capable of tracing the migration of humanity out of Africa and across the globe over the course of tens of thousands of years. Fact, not theory.

There's civilizations, continents, oceans and galaxies not accounted for in the Bible. How do I know North America exists? How do I know kangaroos exist? How do I know the solar system exists? It's not due to theory and it's sure as shooting not from Genesis.

I'm simply allowing some facts to inform me. This isn't science vs. religion for me. As we've discussed before, I think religion marginalizes itself when it initiates that argument. Science takes the stance that we're constantly learning more about the universe around us. That what we've learned deserves constant revisitation and that we need to be aware that we still have incalculably more to learn. I've never understood why that fundamentally humble approach isn't embraced by religion. The claim that we understand the bulk and detail-level of God's works thanks to an ancient version of the telephone game strikes me as pretty cheeky.

RFS62
08-04-2005, 03:42 PM
I'm simply allowing some facts to inform me. This isn't science vs. religion for me. As we've discussed before, I think religion marginalizes itself when it initiates that argument. Science takes the stance that we're constantly learning more about the universe around us. That what we've learned deserves constant revisitation and that we need to be aware that we still have incalculably more to learn. I've never understood why that fundamentally humble approach isn't embraced by religion. The claim that we understand the bulk and detail-level of God's works thanks to an ancient version of the telephone game strikes me as pretty cheeky.



:clap: :clap: :clap:

Blimpie
08-04-2005, 03:45 PM
Theories, schmeories. An uncovered T-Rex skeleton isn't a theory, it's a fact.

Artefacts found from human civiliazations that pre-date the biblical timeline aren't theories, they're facts. You can put your hands on them.

Geological strata. Fact, not theory.

Humans in North America with the only practical way to get there covered up by the ocean thousands of years prior to the biblical timeline. Facts, not theory.

Mitochondrial DNA capable of tracing the migration of humanity out of Africa and across the globe over the course of tens of thousands of years. Fact, not theory.

There's civilizations, continents, oceans and galaxies not accounted for in the Bible. How do I know North America exists? How do I know Kangaroos' exist? How do I know the solar system exists? It's not due to theory and it's sure as shooting not from Genesis.

I'm simply allowing some facts to inform me. This isn't science vs. religion for me. As we've discussed before, I think religion marginalizes itself when it initiates that argument. Science takes the stance that we're constantly learning more about the universe around us. That what we've learned deserves constant revisitation and that we need to be aware that we still have incalculably more to learn. I've never understood why that fundamentally humble approach isn't embraced by religion. The claim that we understand the bulk and detail-level of God's works thanks to an ancient version of the telephone game strikes me as pretty cheeky.M2, That is an excellent post.

traderumor
08-04-2005, 04:27 PM
Theories, schmeories. An uncovered T-Rex skeleton isn't a theory, it's a fact.

Artefacts found from human civiliazations that pre-date the biblical timeline aren't theories, they're facts. You can put your hands on them.

Geological strata. Fact, not theory.

Humans in North America with the only practical way to get there covered up by the ocean thousands of years prior to the biblical timeline. Facts, not theory.

Mitochondrial DNA capable of tracing the migration of humanity out of Africa and across the globe over the course of tens of thousands of years. Fact, not theory.

There's civilizations, continents, oceans and galaxies not accounted for in the Bible. How do I know North America exists? How do I know Kangaroos' exist? How do I know the solar system exists? It's not due to theory and it's sure as shooting not from Genesis.

I'm simply allowing some facts to inform me. This isn't science vs. religion for me. As we've discussed before, I think religion marginalizes itself when it initiates that argument. Science takes the stance that we're constantly learning more about the universe around us. That what we've learned deserves constant revisitation and that we need to be aware that we still have incalculably more to learn. I've never understood why that fundamentally humble approach isn't embraced by religion. The claim that we understand the bulk and detail-level of God's works thanks to an ancient version of the telephone game strikes me as pretty cheeky.I would say that you pick and choose which facts you choose to inform you on the subject. It's not the tangible evidence that is brought into the realm of scientific theory, its the interpretation of the tangible evidence that is disputable and is THEORY. We're talking origins, you're talking about things that are known to exist today. How they got here is the subject, not that they're here, so I'm not sure how this deserves applause:


"There's civilizations, continents, oceans and galaxies not accounted for in the Bible. How do I know North America exists? How do I know Kangaroos' exist? How do I know the solar system exists? It's not due to theory and it's sure as shooting not from Genesis."So what? Who ever said that they needed to be covered in Genesis to give Creationism (based on Biblical and scientific evidence) any validity? You don't find America specifically mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so does that mean the grammitico-historical approach to Biblical interpretation is not valid and one has to adopt the liberal view of the Scriptures that you promote? BTW, the solar system is covered in Genesis. :)

registerthis
08-04-2005, 04:34 PM
does that mean the grammitico-historical approach to Biblical interpretation is not valid and one has to adopt the liberal view of the Scriptures that you promote?
Why is his view a "liberal" one?

traderumor
08-04-2005, 04:46 PM
Why is his view a "liberal" one?Regarding the Bible to be a collection of myths and fables with little or no historicity is a liberal view of the Scriptures. The orthodox view of Scripture is that, where applicable, literal renderings are acceptable. That includes the historicity of the Pentateuch.

ochre
08-04-2005, 04:56 PM
And that could just as easily be rewritten as "...where convenient, literal renderings are acceptable, otherwise its a parable or a metaphor..."

registerthis
08-04-2005, 04:58 PM
Regarding the Bible to be a collection of myths and fables with little or no historicity is a liberal view of the Scriptures. The orthodox view of Scripture is that, where applicable, literal renderings are acceptable. That includes the historicity of the Pentateuch.
Oh, but we've been through this before. There wasn't a flood that was 20 feet higher than the tip of Mt. Everest. The sun didn't stand still while the Israelites waged their war, and then resumed moving again. The sea didn't swallow the entire Egyptian army. Etc.

In other words, the Pentateuch can't be taken completely literally because there are blatant exagerrations in it. I don't see why this is a "liberal" view--it is what it is. It doesn't discredit the message of the Bible...but attempting to assign a literal interpretation to things that are obviously not so just doesn't work.

traderumor
08-04-2005, 05:04 PM
Oh, but we've been through this before. There wasn't a flood that was 20 feet higher than the tip of Mt. Everest. The sun didn't stand still while the Israelites waged their war, and then resumed moving again. The sea didn't swallow the entire Egyptian army. Etc.

In other words, the Pentateuch can't be taken completely literally because there are blatant exagerrations in it. I don't see why this is a "liberal" view--it is what it is. It doesn't discredit the message of the Bible...but attempting to assign a literal interpretation to things that are obviously not so just doesn't work.It should be noted that the Bible doesn't say the entire Egyptian army was destroyed, it says that all pursuing the Israelites were killed. The sun standing still isn't a part of the Pentateuch, but I still assign a literal interpretation to the event as a miracle. The parting of the Red Sea and the subsequent drowning of the Egyptian soldiers following after the Israelites is another miracle of the Bible. It is an orthodox view to accept it as such, thus the "liberal" tag for diverting from the historical orthodox view of the Scriptures.

Rojo
08-04-2005, 05:19 PM
I just want to know where Cain's wife came from. :)

M2
08-04-2005, 05:27 PM
So what? Who ever said that they needed to be covered in Genesis to give Creationism (based on Biblical and scientific evidence) any validity? You don't find America specifically mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so does that mean the grammitico-historical approach to Biblical interpretation is not valid and one has to adopt the liberal view of the Scriptures that you promote? BTW, the solar system is covered in Genesis. :)

I didn't say those things needed to be covered. My point is once you allow that the Bible isn't a complete physical and historical record of our planet, and it's not even close, that should open up the door to the physical sciences and other historical sources.

Seems to me you're willing to classify things as facts when they're convenient to your religious views while you label all inconveniences as theories. I don't ask that things be convenient or fit my preconceived notions. When they uncovered the dinosaur bones and use established dating techniques to verify their age, I don't have to start acting like I suddenly don't understand what they're talking about.

And, once again, Creationism vs. Evolution is an either-or choice of your making, not mine. I see no reason, zero, whey they can't happily co-exist. Yeah, you've got to pick another starting point for human creation, but that strikes me as an insignificant detail when you're talking about matters of morality and divine love. Even if you want to go back and use the birth of the planet four billion years ago as the starting point, that doesn't strike me as exclusive of Creationism. I'm really not sure why the attitude of fundmentalists isn't that creation is a really complex thing undertaken by an immensely powerful being we can barely comprehend so it's something we'll be learning bits and pieces about yet never fully uncover in our lifetimes. Maybe God molded some sort of ape-like creature into His image. It provided the raw genetic material and he, pardon the pun, He monkeyed with the coding. I'm not claiming that's what happened, but you could spend all day coming up with theories about how God might have molded humans in ways that fit into a timeline congruent with the rest of what we've learned about the prehistoric world and dovetail with evolution.

On origins, you're assuming a point of origin that's scientifically and historically untenable. IMO, it's theologically unimportant. That date shifts and you've still got your souce of origin in place. That's what counts. Even if the nature of origin shifts on you, all you really need is a creator who put you here for a purpose as the basis for any form of Christianity. At its core, it's a pretty interoperable religion when people let it be.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 05:27 PM
It should be noted that the Bible doesn't say the entire Egyptian army was destroyed, it says that all pursuing the Israelites were killed.
No, it doesn't. It says all of Pharoah's army...

The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea. 24 During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion. 25 He made the wheels of their chariots come off so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, "Let's get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for them against Egypt."

26 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen." 27 Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward [c] it, and the LORD swept them into the sea. 28 [B]The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived.


The sun standing still isn't a part of the Pentateuch, but I still assign a literal interpretation to the event as a miracle.
How can you? It's factually inaccurate. Of COURSE the sun stood still--the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. If anything stopped moving, it would have been the spin of the Earth on its axis. You can argue that the *implication* is that the Earth stopped revolving, but that would no longer be a strictly literal interpretation of the text.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 05:31 PM
I didn't say those things needed to be covered. My point is once you allow that the Bible isn't a complete physical and historical record of our planet, and it's not even close, that should open up the door to the physical sciences and other historical sources.

Seems to me you're willing to classify things as facts when they're convenient to your religious views while you label all inconveniences as theories. I don't ask that things be convenient or fit my preconceived notions. When they uncovered the dinosaur bones and use established dating techniques to verify their age, I don't have to start acting like I suddenly don't understand what they're talking about.

And, once again, Creationism vs. Evolution is an either-or choice of your making, not mine. I see no reason, zero, whey they can't happily co-exist. Yeah, you've got to pick another starting point for human creation, but that strikes me as an insignificant detail when you're talking about matters of morality and divine love. Even if you want to go back and use the birth of the planet four billion years ago as the starting point, that doesn't strike me as exclusive of Creationism. I'm really not sure why the attitude of fundmentalists isn't that creation is a really complex thing undertaken by an immensely powerful being we can barely comprehend so it's something we'll be learning bits and pieces about yet never fully uncover in our lifetimes. Maybe God molded some sort of ape-like creature into His image. It provided the raw genetic material and he, pardon the pun, He monkeyed with the coding. I'm not claiming that's what happened, but you could spend all day coming up with theories about how God might have molded humans in ways that fit into a timeline congruent with the rest of what we've learned about the prehistoric world and dovetail with evolution.

On origins, you're assuming a point of origin that's scientifically and historically untenable. IMO, it's theologically unimportant. That date shifts and you've still got your souce of origin in place. That's what counts. Even if the nature of origin shifts on you, all you really need is a creator who put you here for a purpose as the basis for any form of Christianity. At its core, it's a pretty interoperable religion when people let it be.
:beerme: Outstanding. Couldn't have said it any better.

Here's a question I have for TR and others who believe in literal creationism:

Suppose, if you will, the science *proves* evolution...it *proves* that the Earth is billions of years old, that life evolved from less-complex forms, etc. I mean, proved beyond any doubt whatsoever--and it is as much an accepted fact as the Earth is round or the sun shines. Now, what happens to your faith? Does it disappear? Is it shaken? Can you adapt? Would it make you question other tenets of your religion which you have held as undeniable fact?

Falls City Beer
08-04-2005, 05:43 PM
I just want to know where Cain's wife came from. :)

From the rib of a chimp.

westofyou
08-04-2005, 05:46 PM
From the rib of a chimp.

Mmmmmm Chimp Ribs.....

http://www.capefeare.com/homerdying.gif

Mutaman
08-04-2005, 06:03 PM
I thought Spencer Tracy resolved all of this in "Inherit the Wind" ? You mean there are still people who believe that stuff Frederick March was talking about?

Caveat Emperor
08-04-2005, 06:09 PM
I thought Spencer Tracy resolved all of this in "Inherit the Wind" ? You mean there are still people who believe that stuff Frederick march was talking about?

Yup...They even built a museum right here in the Cincy-area to display their dogma neatly.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

traderumor
08-04-2005, 06:13 PM
No, it doesn't. It says all of Pharoah's army...
Better go read Exodus 14 again.



How can you? It's factually inaccurate. Of COURSE the sun stood still--the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. If anything stopped moving, it would have been the spin of the Earth on its axis. You can argue that the *implication* is that the Earth stopped revolving, but that would no longer be a strictly literal interpretation of the text.You're kidding, right? Of course it had to do with the length of the day, not "the sun standing still." The actual verse is
Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. I guess when we talk about sunrise and sunset still today, we're just scientically illiterate flat earthers? An ethnocentric view of heavenly bodies is a common literary device.

traderumor
08-04-2005, 06:14 PM
Yup...They even built a museum right here in the Cincy-area to display their dogma neatly.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/Dogma goes both ways in this debate.

traderumor
08-04-2005, 06:29 PM
I didn't say those things needed to be covered. My point is once you allow that the Bible isn't a complete physical and historical record of our planet, and it's not even close, that should open up the door to the physical sciences and other historical sources.Who ever said it didn't. However, when "findings" undermine the authority of Scripture, which the only reason I enter debates such as this is because that is at stake, then I will challenge them.


Seems to me you're willing to classify things as facts when they're convenient to your religious views while you label all inconveniences as theories. I don't ask that things be convenient or fit my preconceived notions. When they uncovered the dinosaur bones and use established dating techniques to verify their age, I don't have to start acting like I suddenly don't understand what they're talking about.Didn't I say that heading in the opposite direction regarding your "facts?" My guess is that you have never researched C14 dating, say to the depth of researching a draft pick for the Reds. If you had, you likely would not be so certain about ages assigned by the method. If you have and still have the confidence you do, then you are guilty of what you accused me of above, which is essentially intellectual dishonesty.


And, once again, Creationism vs. Evolution is an either-or choice of your making, not mine. I see no reason, zero, whey they can't happily co-exist. Yeah, you've got to pick another starting point for human creation, but that strikes me as an insignificant detail when you're talking about matters of morality and divine love. Even if you want to go back and use the birth of the planet four billion years ago as the starting point, that doesn't strike me as exclusive of Creationism. I'm really not sure why the attitude of fundmentalists isn't that creation is a really complex thing undertaken by an immensely powerful being we can barely comprehend so it's something we'll be learning bits and pieces about yet never fully uncover in our lifetimes. Maybe God molded some sort of ape-like creature into His image. It provided the raw genetic material and he, pardon the pun, He monkeyed with the coding. I'm not claiming that's what happened, but you could spend all day coming up with theories about how God might have molded humans in ways that fit into a timeline congruent with the rest of what we've learned about the prehistoric world and dovetail with evolution.See, you have to use perhaps and maybes, yet I can say that God created ex nihilo. Plus, you accept as a given a certain timeline that I do not, and we both have our reasons. Man, what to do? Oh yea, there's the "mountains of evidence" that should intimidate me but doesn't.


On origins, you're assuming a point of origin that's scientifically and historically untenable. IMO, it's theologically unimportant. That date shifts and you've still got your souce of origin in place. That's what counts. Even if the nature of origin shifts on you, all you really need is a creator who put you here for a purpose as the basis for any form of Christianity. At its core, it's a pretty interoperable religion when people let it be.Your position creates a theological problem at the very core. The Bible calls Adam the first man, you say science says otherwise. That is a HUMONGOUS theological problem, one that should make you wonder why one would place any value on one word written in the Bible. If it lies about that, how do we know that the plan of salvation has any veracity, just as one example of the pandora's book your view opens. But then, that is what this is all about. That's why people like myself confront the arguments you advance.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 06:44 PM
Better go read Exodus 14 again.
I just did, and amazingly the words didn't change from when I posted them earlier...but apparently there was a breakdown in communication, so I'll post again:

The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea.
Exactly which part of "all Pharoah's horses and chariots and horsemen" isn't clear?


You're kidding, right? Of course it had to do with the length of the day, not "the sun standing still." The actual verse is
You're making an inference there. The Bible ascribes the miracle to the sun standing still--not the Earth stopping rotation on its axis. If that's what happened, why didn't the author write "And the earth stopped spinning, and the moon stayed..." If I am to accpet a literal translation of text, I shouldn't have to make inferences that begin "Well OBVIOUSLY they meant..." because for years the church thought the Bible OBVIOUSLY said the Earth was flat and OBVIOUSLY said it was the center of the universe.


I guess when we talk about sunrise and sunset still today, we're just scientically illiterate flat earthers? An ethnocentric view of heavenly bodies is a common literary device.
Of course, but I'm being asked to accept the Old testament as a literal historically-accurate text. In your view, it should read as if it were a history book--at least the parts we're discussing. The day wasn't enlongated because the sun stopped moving--it's very simple. You may wish to brush it off as simply harping on a metaphor, but the Church used to kill people who dared challenge these "metaphors".

registerthis
08-04-2005, 06:52 PM
Your position creates a theological problem at the very core. The Bible calls Adam the first man, you say science says otherwise. That is a HUMONGOUS theological problem
Only to someone whose faith depends on a literal interpretation of every word in the Bible. For someone who views the creation story as an allegorical tale meant to ascribe meaning to our existence and development at a time when no concept of evolution--or advanced scientific thought, for that matter--existed, it's not a humongous problem at all. If you find it to be a huge problem, and your faith depends on a 6,000 year old Earth...I'd say you have larger problems than simply trying to explain away some dinosaur fossils.


Didn't I say that heading in the opposite direction regarding your "facts?" My guess is that you have never researched C14 dating, say to the depth of researching a draft pick for the Reds. If you had, you likely would not be so certain about ages assigned by the method. If you have and still have the confidence you do, then you are guilty of what you accused me of above, which is essentially intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, what short memories we have. We had this very discussion a few months ago. Did you not read the links I provided? Well, in case not, here we are again. Feel free to debunk these, if you wish, but the methodologies used are scientifically sound and accepted principles. this is what I wrote several months ago:

Carbon-14 Article (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html)

Radiometric Dating Article (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html)


I chose not to respond individually to your carbon dating comments for two reasons. One, carbon dating is hardly the exclusive method scientists use to offer a "date" of certain organic materials. It is only useful back to approximately 50,000 years, and even then the dates are given only as "approximations." The dates do not nearly vary so much as to suggest that the Earth could potentially be only 7,000 years old, as you seemingly suggest, but variations of several hundred to a thousand years are not uncommon.

Secondly, scientists have successfully refuted challenges to the carbon dating system to support it as an adequate method for approximate dating of organic materials, and I need not repeat them here and turn this thread into a scientific dissertation. If you are curious, this site offers a good synopsis of it. (Never say i don't provide reading material): Link to Carbon Dating article

i did want to make another point, since you brought up radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is actually a general term given to a variety (over 40) of intricate dating techniques used to provide the approximate age of rocks and other minerals on our Earth. The important thing to remember is all of these dating methods agree. COntrary to your assertion, disagreements between radiometric dating techniques are the exception, not the rule. The dating systems agree a great majority of the time.

Using all data from radiometric dating techniques, in order for someone who holds the view of a young Earth to be correct, it would require a difference in magnitude ranging from 10,000 to over 1 million. This is based on ALL data observed. The differences of which you speak, and imply are so grandiose, are actually generally within the margin of error--a few percent--and certainly no where near the *magnitude* of difference which would be necessary to support your views of a young Earth.

I have a good website for this one too, also written by a Christian physicist. Very good article on this topic

Simply put, radiometric dating overwhelmingly supports the theory of an old Earth, the evidence is irrefutable.

registerthis
08-04-2005, 07:07 PM
Whenever the talk of teaching intelligent design in schools comes up, I feel this is always appropriate...



> OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
>
> I am writing you with much concern after having read of your
> hearing
> to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design to be
> taught
> along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it
is
> important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose
> for
> themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am
> concerned,
> however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent
Design.
>
> Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent
> Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief
> that the
> universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who
> created
> all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the
> overwhelming
> scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is
nothing
> but a
> coincidence, put in place by Him.
>
> It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally
> request
> that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with
the
> other
> two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not
agree
> to do
> this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you
see
> where
> we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on
> faith,
> but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must
> also
> allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on
> faith.
>
> Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell
you
> a
> little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying
Spaghetti
> Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to
> see it,
> but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes
> explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to
> hear that
> there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very
> secretive,
> as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable
> evidence. What these people don't understand is that He built the
> world to
> make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a
> scientist
> may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that
> approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission
to
> Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000
> years
> old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But
what
> our
> scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement,
> the
> Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His
Noodly
> Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this
can
> be
> possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible
> and can
> pass through normal matter with ease.
>
> I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students
> are
> taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they
> realize
> that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti
> Monster.
> Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing
> His
> chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot
stress
> the
> importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why
> this
> must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The
> concise
> explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.
>
> You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes,
> hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the
> shrinking
> numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have
included
> a
> graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global
> temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a
> statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and
> global
> temperature.
>
>
>
> In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views
> and
> beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this
> theory
> to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in
> this
> alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope
dearly
> that
> no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look
forward
> to
> the time when these three theories are given equal time in our
science
> classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third
> time for
> Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism,
> and one
> third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable
> evidence.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
>
Here is an artistic rendering of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

http://www.venganza.org/him.jpg

traderumor
08-04-2005, 07:45 PM
I just did, and amazingly the words didn't change from when I posted them earlier...but apparently there was a breakdown in communication, so I'll post again:

Exactly which part of "all Pharoah's horses and chariots and horsemen" isn't clear?


You're making an inference there. The Bible ascribes the miracle to the sun standing still--not the Earth stopping rotation on its axis. If that's what happened, why didn't the author write "And the earth stopped spinning, and the moon stayed..." If I am to accpet a literal translation of text, I shouldn't have to make inferences that begin "Well OBVIOUSLY they meant..." because for years the church thought the Bible OBVIOUSLY said the Earth was flat and OBVIOUSLY said it was the center of the universe.


Of course, but I'm being asked to accept the Old testament as a literal historically-accurate text. In your view, it should read as if it were a history book--at least the parts we're discussing. The day wasn't enlongated because the sun stopped moving--it's very simple. You may wish to brush it off as simply harping on a metaphor, but the Church used to kill people who dared challenge these "metaphors".


Exo 14:9 But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon.If you want to refute Biblical claims, I will insist you do not make misleading claims about what it says. It says all his horses and chariots. It includes horseman and the army, but does not say all of either.

As for "but I'm being asked to accept the Old testament as a literal historically-accurate text," no, you're not. I've limited that to the Pentateuch so far for my claim. The only statement I've made is that the grammatico-historical approach affords for literal renderings where appropriate. There is ample evidence for a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch, thust that has been the orthodox position of Bible interpreters over the ages. Of course, there has always been naysayers, and I'm sure they had similar discussions to the one's we engage in.

As for the "sun standing still," and this comment "Only to someone whose faith depends on a literal interpretation of every word in the Bible," your responses shows a total lack of understanding of literary devices, genres, and what "literal" translation means, so further discussion on the matter will be an exercise in futility.

M2
08-04-2005, 08:43 PM
Your position creates a theological problem at the very core. The Bible calls Adam the first man, you say science says otherwise. That is a HUMONGOUS theological problem, one that should make you wonder why one would place any value on one word written in the Bible. If it lies about that, how do we know that the plan of salvation has any veracity, just as one example of the pandora's book your view opens. But then, that is what this is all about. That's why people like myself confront the arguments you advance.

The book also "lies" about the entire world flooding over and every species on the planet piling into an ark. DID ... NOT ... HAPPEN. The worldwide flood didn't happen. Every species on the planet did not migrate to the Middle East and then return to its native homeland. Every species on the planet wouldn't fit onto an aircraft carrier let alone an ark.

Now is that a lie? No. Is it a parable based on what possibly was the flood that created the Black Sea? Yep.

If you're insisting that every word in the Bible must be literal, incontrovertible truth or the whole thing falls apart then you are BEGGING for people to abandon the religion.

It's a standard the Bible does not and cannot meet.

Now if you're willing to call a parable a parable, that eliminates any theological problems that might arise from a global catastrophe that didn't happen or baby back women. It's religion and it's talking about the forest, not the trees. It's the value of the lesson that counts, not the encyclopedic accuracy of the text.

BTW, science makes no claims on what the first identifiable man was named.

registerthis covered carbon-dating (not to mention the EXTREMELY important detail that there's dozens of radiological dating formats and that all of them vaporize a biblical timeline). There's a psuedoscience effort out there that tries to undermine the legitimate work being done, but it's quackery and there's no reason to call it anything else. It's akin to the guy who lied about being a Nobel candidate who conned Terry Schiavo's parents into thinking she had a treatable, reversible condition. She didn't, there was ample imaging to prove it and every reasonable medical professional who had access to Schiavo's files knew better.

Of course the sad state of affairs we've reached in this country made it that people refused to acknowledge the obvious until after a post-mortem autopsy was conducted (and that still wasn't enough for some). Belief even supplants math these days. We see that played out on the baseball side all the time. For many what they believe is the only "fact" they're willing to accept. I know that's not the way you operate. I respect your faith, but I think you're creating false choices that really should affect that faith.

Ravenlord
08-04-2005, 09:49 PM
Okay. Even *if* I were to grant the Bible as a source of history/biological evidence, how does that show that the scientific method used by evolutionary biologists is less rigorous and thoroughly investigated than relying upon the authority of a single text?not sure what you mean...are you meaning that 'how is the scientific theory being applied?' if so, then you apply it the same way you do everything else.



Particularly in light of your contention that other life forms (non-human) HAVE evolved. Why the human exceptionalism? After all, we share 98% of our genetic material with chimps; is it absurd to suggest that there may be a connection?97.3% of human genetic material matches a pig. 96.7% a grasshopper, and a grasshopper 98% that of a chimp. i think it's because there's a small range of combonations that can sustain life on a physical prime-material existance.

fossils have never been found of the so-called 'missing link.' fossils have been found of a lot of other creatures that are lead into's of other creatures. like a saber-tooth tiger into a 'modern' tiger.

Yachtzee
08-04-2005, 09:56 PM
fossils have never been found of the so-called 'missing link.' fossils have been found of a lot of other creatures that are lead into's of other creatures. like a saber-tooth tiger into a 'modern' tiger.

Why dig for fossils? Kyle Farnsworth is pitching for the Braves right now? ;)

Falls City Beer
08-04-2005, 10:22 PM
not sure what you mean...are you meaning that 'how is the scientific theory being applied?' if so, then you apply it the same way you do everything else.

Your contention, way back on the first page, was to say that you believe intelligent design to be the more rigorous and scientific of the two "competing" strands of thought. You said that you "see the exact opposite" of my contention that evolutionary biology uses the scientific method of inquiry.


97.3% of human genetic material matches a pig. 96.7% a grasshopper, and a grasshopper 98% that of a chimp. i think it's because there's a small range of combonations that can sustain life on a physical prime-material existance.

fossils have never been found of the so-called 'missing link.' fossils have been found of a lot of other creatures that are lead into's of other creatures. like a saber-tooth tiger into a 'modern' tiger.

I'm going to pull up at saying you're fabricating those pig/human similarity figures, as I can't find all the details. Though a quick Google scan shows NO verification of that assertion--I did, however, find a scholarly article claiming that some virus that affects both human and pig shares similar nucleotide sequence, that of 97.3% between pig "version and "human" version.

However, I can point to a number of sources (all scholarly and researched) that show that 98-99% of human and chimp genetic material is shared. Jared Diamond's book "The Third Chimpanzee" is a good start. But articles in Discovery, Science, and research by biologists and physiologists from institutions like Harvard, University of Chicago, Yale, and Berkeley have also attested to this fact.

Does this mean, unequivocally that science can say from this information that humans can assume a clear antecedence in chimpanzees? Science isn't (or shouldn't be) that brazen. That's why science refers to evolution as a theory. That you fill the hole or gap in the missing link with God or suggest that evolution must be wrong is contrary to science --in fact, it's a logical fallacy; the very opposite of the scientific method--you're trying to make the facts (or their absence) match a pre-ordained conclusion. And that's not science.

traderumor
08-04-2005, 10:29 PM
The book also "lies" about the entire world flooding over and every species on the planet piling into an ark. DID ... NOT ... HAPPEN. The worldwide flood didn't happen. Every species on the planet did not migrate to the Middle East and then return to its native homeland. Every species on the planet wouldn't fit onto an aircraft carrier let alone an ark.

Now is that a lie? No. Is it a parable based on what possibly was the flood that created the Black Sea? Yep.

Sure it did. It actually explains some of the things that science has to fabricate millions of years to fit humanistic evolutionary theory. The Flood DID HAPPEN, whether you want to believe it did or not, M2, and there are as many papers written with answers for your objections as you can come up with objections. And I suppose you do the same thing with those explanations as you claim I do when it comes to old earth issues and macroevolution. You had your mind made up a long time ago and it will take a supernatural act of God's Holy Spirit to change it at this point.


If you're insisting that every word in the Bible must be literal, incontrovertible truth or the whole thing falls apart then you are BEGGING for people to abandon the religion.

It's a standard the Bible does not and cannot meet.

Like reg, if you come away from my posts with that idea, then you're not reading what I say very carefully. Every word in the Bible represents truth, but I'd say the number is in the hundreds of how many times I've tried to explain what interpreting the Bible literally means. You're creating a position that even the staunchest Creationists don't take. No one reads the Bible completely "literally," or else they have to claim that God has wings, looks like a chicken, and has really big hands that allow him to measure the universe by the span of just one of them. I think you know that.


Now if you're willing to call a parable a parable, that eliminates any theological problems that might arise from a global catastrophe that didn't happen or baby back women. It's religion and it's talking about the forest, not the trees. It's the value of the lesson that counts, not the encyclopedic accuracy of the text.

BTW, science makes no claims on what the first identifiable man was named.

registerthis covered carbon-dating (not to mention the EXTREMELY important detail that there's dozens of radiological dating formats and that all of them vaporize a biblical timeline). There's a psuedoscience effort out there that tries to undermine the legitimate work being done, but it's quackery and there's no reason to call it anything else. It's akin to the guy who lied about being a Nobel candidate who conned Terry Schiavo's parents into thinking she had a treatable, reversible condition. She didn't, there was ample imaging to prove it and every reasonable medical professional who had access to Schiavo's files knew better.

Of course the sad state of affairs we've reached in this country made it that people refused to acknowledge the obvious until after a post-mortem autopsy was conducted (and that still wasn't enough for some). Belief even supplants math these days. We see that played out on the baseball side all the time. For many what they believe is the only "fact" they're willing to accept. I know that's not the way you operate. I respect your faith, but I think you're creating false choices that really should affect that faith.

I recognize parables, but then I think it is as clear as the nose on my face that Genesis was meant to be read as a historical account of the earth's first days, the world's first family, the world's first sin, and various other firsts. It is only when folks thought they had to compromise this orthodox belief because humanistic scientists convinced enough people that they had explained away God as Creator. Sorry, I missed that memo.

Johnny Footstool
08-04-2005, 10:38 PM
It actually explains some of the things that science has to fabricate millions of years to fit humanistic evolutionary theory.

I'll need to see some proof.

Proof that the flood happened.

And proof that a cabal of scientists with an agenda to subvert the Bible was able to come up with this coordinated "fabrication."

ochre
08-04-2005, 10:51 PM
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
here within pages it goes from beasts occuring before man to man occuring before beasts? Minor detail?

traderumor
08-05-2005, 08:09 AM
Try the NIV, Ochre


Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

And that is the same sense as the KJV, which can cause some problems because of the Old English. So, as you can see, there is really no inconsistency at all. Folks also get off course in Genesis as they try to reconcile Gen 1 & 2 if they do not understand that Gen 1 is a fly over of Creation, whereas Gen 2 zooms in and focuses on Adam, the one created in God's image.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 08:14 AM
I'll need to see some proof.

Proof that the flood happened.

And proof that a cabal of scientists with an agenda to subvert the Bible was able to come up with this coordinated "fabrication."How far does that requirement extend, Johnny? Have you actually seen a creature evolve before your eyes, for example? Have you actually seen proof that all life can be traced back to a one-celled organism?

registerthis
08-05-2005, 09:47 AM
If you want to refute Biblical claims, I will insist you do not make misleading claims about what it says. It says all his horses and chariots. It includes horseman and the army, but does not say all of either.


9 The Egyptians—all Pharaoh's horses and chariots, horsemen and troops—pursued the Israelites
You can't dodge this, TR. There's absolutely nothing unclear about this: "All Pharoah's troops". Seeing as how they had neither a navy or an air force, all of Pharoah's chariots, horsemen and troops would be the ENTIRE army. If it isn't, perhaps you could explain to me what got left out?


As for "but I'm being asked to accept the Old testament as a literal historically-accurate text," no, you're not. I've limited that to the Pentateuch so far for my claim. The only statement I've made is that the grammatico-historical approach affords for literal renderings where appropriate.
No, you mean "where convenient." I understand that the books of the prophets aren't meant to be read literally--they're prophecies. But if "the sun stood still" doesn't really mean "the sun stood still"...and a flood that caused "all the high mountains under the entire heavens" to be covered doesn't really mean a flood that caused "all the high mountains under the entire heavens" to be covered...and if the crashing of the sea which destroyed "all Pharaoh's horses and chariots, horsemen and troops" didn't really destroy "all Pharaoh's horses and chariots, horsemen and troops"...then where is the distinction made between literalism and allegory? Does one wait until something has been proven beyond all conceivable doubt to claim something is a literary metaphor?


There is ample evidence for a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch,
Actually, no. There's overwhelming evidence for a largely allegorical interpretation of the Pentateuch. If the "evidence" you ascribe to includes the writings of a few fringe scientists who seek to discredit evidence for an old Earth and evolution--then that would hardly qualify, since their writings and theories have been thoroughly discredited by legitimate, respectable scientists and institutions.


As for the "sun standing still," and this comment "Only to someone whose faith depends on a literal interpretation of every word in the Bible," your responses shows a total lack of understanding of literary devices, genres, and what "literal" translation means, so further discussion on the matter will be an exercise in futility.
No, what it is is a convenient way to brush off clear exagerrations and half-truths that appear in a series of books I am supposed to take at literal face value. If someone were writing a historical account of WWII, and had no knowledge of what an atomic bomb was, what it could do, and what creates it, they would have presented a very skewed descriptions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In much the same way, Biblical authors had no concept of a round Earth, a universe where we were not at the center, a planet that was billions of years old, and the concept of evolution. They couldn't conceive of it. So, to make up for that ignorance, yet also recognizing that this marvelous universe had to come from *somewhere*, they crafted an account of the beginnings of the world and various ways that it came to be.

And I maintain that if one's faith hinges on the validation of a 6,000 year old Earth and other similar beliefs, one's faith may not be as strong as one might believe it to be.

registerthis
08-05-2005, 09:54 AM
How far does that requirement extend, Johnny? Have you actually seen a creature evolve before your eyes, for example? Have you actually seen proof that all life can be traced back to a one-celled organism?
Have you ever been to Argentina?

Do you believe Buenos Aires is its capital?

If the only things we are to accept as "true" are those which we can perceive firsthand, then our society will regress in our understandings of this world.

dsmith421
08-05-2005, 10:32 AM
This is getting tiresome. I want to know what Carl Everett thinks.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 10:41 AM
Reg,

I'm not sure what it does to build your case that you want to include all of Pharoah's forces available to him drowned in the seas. I would imagine that there is either historical evidence that Pharoah still had a military after the proposed time of the Exodus or that there is no historical record of the entire Egyptian armed forces being wiped out. Regardless, here are several versions of the same verse, none of which go as far as the one you provided, so I'm curious what translation that came from, but regardless, several interpreters seemed very careful not to be all inclusive with the horseman and army.
http://bible.cc/exodus/14-9.htm

Exodus 14:9


The Egyptians pursued after them: all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, his horsemen, and his army; and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baal Zephon. (WEB)

And the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baal-zephon. (ASV)

But the Egyptians went after them, all the horses and carriages of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them in their tents by the sea, by Pihahiroth, before Baal-zephon. (BBE)

And the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them where they had encamped by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, opposite to Baal-Zephon. (DBY)

But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon. (KJV)

But the Egyptians pursued them (all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army) and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon. (WBS)

And the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, in front of Baal-zephon. (JPS)

and the Egyptians pursue after them, and all the chariot horses of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his force, overtake them, encamping by the sea, by Pi-Hahiroth, before Baal-Zephon. (YLT)





Have you ever been to Argentina?

Do you believe Buenos Aires is its capital?

If the only things we are to accept as "true" are those which we can perceive firsthand, then our society will regress in our understandings of this world.Um, isn't that proving my point? In case you missed it, Johnny was setting a standard for not believing the Flood until he sees tangible proof, to which I asked if he held that same standard for evidence used to support evolutionary theory.


Actually, no. There's overwhelming evidence for a largely allegorical interpretation of the Pentateuch. So, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Job, et al never existed? And, if they did, the stories that they are central figures of never really happened? And, King David, Jesus, Peter, the Apostle Paul and the writer of Hebrews are just as duped as I am because they make clear historical references to these characters and events in the Psalms and the NT? Those are some pretty serious charges for someone who claims that their faith in Jesus Christ saves them. From what you're telling me, he is upholding thousands of years of lies and using a claim of authority as the sinless Son of God, the Savior of the World to do so. I'm not sure why anyone would expect such a man to be able to save anyone, much less put their faith in a matter of eternal consequence to such a liar. Of course, that's what got him killed in the first place, isn't it?

Blimpie
08-05-2005, 11:20 AM
This is getting tiresome. I want to know what Carl Everett thinks.I'd say Carl is more concerned right now with trying to disprove all of this nonsense talk of a "Space Shuttle" orbiting our fair planet as we speak....

westofyou
08-05-2005, 11:33 AM
So, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Job, et al never existed?

I myself need fossil proof.

But that just me. :p:

registerthis
08-05-2005, 11:42 AM
Reg,

I'm not sure what it does to build your case that you want to include all of Pharoah's forces available to him drowned in the seas. I would imagine that there is either historical evidence that Pharoah still had a military after the proposed time of the Exodus or that there is no historical record of the entire Egyptian armed forces being wiped out. Regardless, here are several versions of the same verse, none of which go as far as the one you provided, so I'm curious what translation that came from, but regardless, several interpreters seemed very careful not to be all inclusive with the horseman and army.
It came from the NIV, the most commonly-used translation of the Bible in America. In fact, I checked on Bible Gateway, and was unable to find a translation of Exodus 14:9 that DIDN'T say that all of Pharoah's forces were involved in this chase. The KGV, NKGV, NASV, NLV...all say that ALL of his forces pursued the Israelites.

You are correct to state that there are no historical records of Pharoah's army being wiped out, and that he did indeed still have a military after the sea swallowed his forces. So, why the discrepancy? Is this simply another metaphor?

registerthis
08-05-2005, 11:43 AM
I myself need fossil proof.

But that just me. :p:
Nah, they probably existed. It's just that their actions and accomplishments were exagerrated and enhanced after their deaths.

Kind of like Ronald Reagan.

M2
08-05-2005, 11:47 AM
How far does that requirement extend, Johnny? Have you actually seen a creature evolve before your eyes, for example? Have you actually seen proof that all life can be traced back to a one-celled organism?

Head to the American Museum of Natural History in New York and they've usually got a few displays showing the evolution of certain species. I think dinosaur to bird is on permanent exhibit there. Covers everything from bone density to plumage to wing formation with the actual fossils lined up in front of you.

Have you ever seen photosynthesis? Have you ever seen yourself exhale carbon dioxide? Do you witness the battle of Pharsallus? Did you watch William Shakespeare write "Hamlet"?

But at this point you're just obfusticating. Johnny made a fair request for some tangible evidence and you haven't provided any (because, let's face it, you can't). I could use the same argument you've made to claim Vishnu danced the world into its being or that Odin and his brothers formed the Earth from the carcass of a dead giant. Those stories also provide a historical account of the earth's first days, how the first people came to be, etc. The question here is whether you can verify any of your orthodoxy vis-a-vis a 6,000-year-old earth or a worldwide flood using other sources. You can't and it's not because anyone was trying to undercut your religion. It's because there's a planet full of evidence to the contrary and societies that the ancient Hebrews didn't know existed. The evidence is in the rocks, painted on cavewalls, forged into ancient artefacts and in our own DNA coding. It's also borne out in a world far larger and more diverse than the Children of Abraham ever could have imagined. Neolithic settlers in the British Isles, Halaf potters in the Middle East and Chinese herders didn't know they were going to be so inconvenient, populating an earth that didn't exist. Neither did the settlers in the Americas who made the passage over here before the earth supposedly existed.

I'm sure the folks who made this wouldn't have done so, had they known the earth supposedly wasn't going to exist for another 26,500 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2679675.stm

And it's nothing short of bad manners that this guy didn't decompose:

http://www.geocities.com/stegob/mammoth.html

M2
08-05-2005, 11:49 AM
Nah, they probably existed. It's just that their actions and accomplishments were exagerrated and enhanced after their deaths.

Kind of like Ronald Reagan.

And Elvis, though he's not dead.

Blimpie
08-05-2005, 11:50 AM
Nah, they probably existed. It's just that their actions and accomplishments were exagerrated and enhanced after their deaths.

Kind of like Ronald Reagan.Bible------->Ronald Reagan

Somewhat of a bumpy segue, no?

registerthis
08-05-2005, 11:54 AM
Bible------->Ronald Reagan

Somewhat of a bumpy segue, no?
:laugh:

Not to some people, I don't think...

Blimpie
08-05-2005, 11:56 AM
:laugh:

Not to some people, I don't think...Man, did I ever walk into that one.... ;)

Johnny Footstool
08-05-2005, 12:04 PM
How far does that requirement extend, Johnny? Have you actually seen a creature evolve before your eyes, for example? Have you actually seen proof that all life can be traced back to a one-celled organism?

Of course I haven't seen a creature evolve before my eyes, any more than anyone saw God construct the world, breathe life into Adam, or build Eve from a rib.

I'm just curious what led you and presumably others to believe that scientists worldwide have spent decades or even centuries suppressing evidence that supports the Biblical account of creation.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 12:31 PM
Of course I haven't seen a creature evolve before my eyes, any more than anyone saw God construct the world, breathe life into Adam, or build Eve from a rib.

I'm just curious what led you and presumably others to believe that scientists worldwide have spent decades or even centuries suppressing evidence that supports the Biblical account of creation.Yes, but certainly you see my point that your requirement for evidence to support what you believe to be true doesn't seem to go both ways. You reject the flood, on the grounds of insufficient physical evidence but accept that evolution is the engine of creation without having seen it in action with your own eyes.

I am puzzled as to where I represented that scientists are suppressing evidence of the the Biblical account of creation? I did assert that evolution as the originating force of life is a humanist concoction accepted by the multitudes to remove God from the equation, but that is certainly not alluding to a conspiracy of suppressing evidence of Creation. Good Lord, the evidence is all around you, it couldn't have just happened, yet that is the logical conclusion that folks like you buy into. Or the ultimate compromise, theistic evolution (blech!)

registerthis
08-05-2005, 12:37 PM
Or the ultimate compromise, theistic evolution (blech!)
Yes, because believing that God is the ultimate force responsible for everything in our universe, and that He was responsible for creating and setting into motion the cosmological laws that have ultimately allowed life to take form on our planet is just a ridiculous, preposterous position to hold...but believing that everything in our universe is only 6,000 years old, and the mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise is simply being misinterpreted by the millions of brilliant scientific minds who are in agreement on this issue makes SIGNIFICANTLY more sense. :thumbup: Gotcha.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 12:42 PM
Yes, because believing that God is the ultimate force responsible for everything in our universe, and that He was responsible for creating and setting into motion the cosmological laws that have ultimately allowed life to take form on our planet is just a ridiculous, preposterous position to hold...but believing that everything in our universe is only 6,000 years old, and the mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise is simply being misinterpreted by the millions of brilliant scientific minds who are in agreement on this issue makes SIGNIFICANTLY more sense. :thumbup: Gotcha.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I am not a dogmatic 6,000 year old earther, which you should recall from our last discussion.

Your first part, I have no problem with that statement and I really don't see any difference between what you said and what a Creationist believes. But, do you take the next step and say that the God created and set into motion the forces and then stepped away to let "cosmological laws" take over with no subsequent intervention?

pedro
08-05-2005, 12:55 PM
Good Lord, the evidence is all around you, it couldn't have just happened, yet that is the logical conclusion that folks like you buy into.

Excuse me? It very well could have just happened. WE DON'T KNOW. But as far as evidence goes I'll stick with the anti biblical conspirists (yeah those evil god hating science guys) over literal biblical interpretists any day. Furthermore, Evolution and the existence of God are not mutuallly exclusive concepts. I think I know what your big hang up on this is. If God didn't create us in the manner suggested specifically by the Bible, how did we get a soul? Did you ever think that the story of Genesis is really a metaphor for the time when God picked his favorite species out of the mud pile and endowed them with a soul? Not saying that's what I believe but honestly, can't you stretch your mind just a little and accept that there are a multitude of possibilties not encapsulated in the literary work represented in the Bible?

registerthis
08-05-2005, 01:01 PM
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I am not a dogmatic 6,000 year old earther, which you should recall from our last discussion.
OK, if you're not, I apologize. The position you're taking appears to be that of a "Young-Earther," arguing against carbon dating and whatnot. But we'll leave this, for now.


Your first part, I have no problem with that statement and I really don't see any difference between what you said and what a Creationist believes. But, do you take the next step and say that the God created and set into motion the forces and then stepped away to let "cosmological laws" take over with no subsequent intervention?
Well, I'm not certain what you mean by "subsequent intervention". I don't, for instance, believe that God snapped his fingers and made a hyena, and then snapped his fingers again and made an elephant. I don't believe in that *type* of intervention. When I say that God created the cosmological laws and set them into motion, I am referring to the laws of gravity, density, the formation of stars and galaxies, the creation of life, etc.. I believe God created the universe the way a baker would make a cake: the baker combines the ingredients, puts them in the oven, and let's things go from there.

I do believe that God can--and does--play a role in our lives, but to what extent I am not certain. And I have never understood why some people would view it as less miraculous if God chose to design our universe over a series of intricate and detailed steps spread out over billions of years, rather than over 6 24 hour days 6,000 years ago. The amazing complexity of our universe speaks for itself--its method of creation is not nearly as important as the end result.

M2
08-05-2005, 01:06 PM
Yes, but certainly you see my point that your requirement for evidence to support what you believe to be true doesn't seem to go both ways. You reject the flood, on the grounds of insufficient physical evidence but accept that evolution is the engine of creation without having seen it in action with your own eyes.

Big difference, evolution is supported by a massive, cross-discipline battery of evidence. It's not like Darwin coined the term and everyone just bought into it. It's that everything we're learned for the 150 years since Darwin has supported his theory, just as it's supported the theory that the earth is billions, not thousands, of years old.

And you know that evidence is out there. I could spend the rest of my life listing the sum total of archaeological finds that pre-date a biblical timeline. Strata samples from across the globe disprove the worldwide flood myth. Human, plant and animal life in the Americas and Australia also shoots a rocket into the flood story. Like I said before, there's a planet full of physical evidence supporting the things we're talking about. Supporting what I'm talking about, I've got the earth, millions of years of accumulated fossil evidence and a treasure trove of leavings from our prehistoric ancestors. That's in no way analogous or even vaguely similar to a parable culled from hundreds of years of oral tradition based neither on evidence nor observation.

The reason why you've been asked for some physical evidence is because of the massive amount of physical evidence that explodes your theory.

While I've got a certain respect for the stubbornness of those who take the position that this is all about faith and they won't surrender an inch no matter how fantastical or unlikely their claims seem, I'm sure you recognize where many people would be looking to find a point where they can harmonize what they believe with what we've learned.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 01:21 PM
Excuse me? It very well could have just happened. WE DON'T KNOW. But as far as evidence goes I'll stick with the anti biblical conspirists (yeah those evil god hating science guys) over literal biblical interpretists any day. Furthermore, Evolution and the existence of God are not mutuallly exclusive concepts. I think I know what your big hang up on this is. If God didn't create us in the manner suggested specifically by the Bible, how did we get a soul? Did you ever think that the story of Genesis is really a metaphor for the time when God picked his favorite species out of the mud pile and endowed them with a soul? Not saying that's what I believe but honestly, can't you stretch your mind just a little and accept that there are a multitude of possibilties not encapsulated in the literary work represented in the Bible?

Pedro,

As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, there's a Pandora's Box of problems associated with departing from a historical interpretation of the Book of Genesis. As has been accused by others, it is not a matter of convenience, but it is a matter of reading the Bible, which is literature, while allowing for the same literary rules afforded any other literary work. In the case of Genesis, it is the natural sense. There is no metaphorical language in Genesis, it is historical narrative. One cannot simply classify something as metaphorical because it contains information which they believe has been contradicted by tangible evidence. Yet, that seems to be the way folks want to treat Genesis, as if it is a special case whereby normal literary rules do not apply. So give it a shot, rather than say "it could be a metaphor," show me some metaphorical language that contradicts my claim that Genesis is historical narrative.

As for "it just happened," I'll stick to the Cosmological argument that says everything that exists must have a cause. Of course, I'd go the next step and claim God to be self-existent by nature.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 01:28 PM
OK, if you're not, I apologize. The position you're taking appears to be that of a "Young-Earther," arguing against carbon dating and whatnot. But we'll leave this, for now.


Well, I'm not certain what you mean by "subsequent intervention". I don't, for instance, believe that God snapped his fingers and made a hyena, and then snapped his fingers again and made an elephant. I don't believe in that *type* of intervention. When I say that God created the cosmological laws and set them into motion, I am referring to the laws of gravity, density, the formation of stars and galaxies, the creation of life, etc.. I believe God created the universe the way a baker would make a cake: the baker combines the ingredients, puts them in the oven, and let's things go from there.

I do believe that God can--and does--play a role in our lives, but to what extent I am not certain. And I have never understood why some people would view it as less miraculous if God chose to design our universe over a series of intricate and detailed steps spread out over billions of years, rather than over 6 24 hour days 6,000 years ago. The amazing complexity of our universe speaks for itself--its method of creation is not nearly as important as the end result.

Baker, watchmaker, same analogy. That's Deism, in its most basic form, which is not the God revealed in Scripture.

As for your last paragraph, as Creator, God describes to us the process as recorded by Moses in the first book of the Pentateuch. Sure, He could have done what you say, but that's not what the Bible says. Which is exactly why you can basically accept any version of creation that you wish after dismissing Genesis of having any historical validity.

registerthis
08-05-2005, 01:32 PM
So give it a shot, rather than say "it could be a metaphor," show me some metaphorical language that contradicts my claim that Genesis is historical narrative.
We have presented plenty. You simply choose to gloss over it, or push aside questionable language under the the guise of a "literary metaphor" or something lost in translation.

I must admit, TR...it takes a level of comprehension and belief which I don't understand to be able to walk into the Museum of Natural History and disagree with 80% of its content.

registerthis
08-05-2005, 01:34 PM
Which is exactly why you can basically accept any version of creation that you wish after dismissing Genesis of having any historical validity.
Indeed you can, which is why each religion/culture has its own form of the creation story. Such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Which is also why my faith doesn't hinge in a historically valid Genesis.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 01:37 PM
Big difference, evolution is supported by a massive, cross-discipline battery of evidence. It's not like Darwin coined the term and everyone just bought into it. It's that everything we're learned for the 150 years since Darwin has supported his theory, just as it's supported the theory that the earth is billions, not thousands, of years old.

And you know that evidence is out there. I could spend the rest of my life listing the sum total of archaeological finds that pre-date a biblical timeline. Strata samples from across the globe disprove the worldwide flood myth. Human, plant and animal life in the Americas and Australia also shoots a rocket into the flood story. Like I said before, there's a planet full of physical evidence supporting the things we're talking about. Supporting what I'm talking about, I've got the earth, millions of years of accumulated fossil evidence and a treasure trove of leavings from our prehistoric ancestors. That's in no way analogous or even vaguely similar to a parable culled from hundreds of years of oral tradition based neither on evidence nor observation.

The reason why you've been asked for some physical evidence is because of the massive amount of physical evidence that explodes your theory.

While I've got a certain respect for the stubbornness of those who take the position that this is all about faith and they won't surrender an inch no matter how fantastical or unlikely their claims seem, I'm sure you recognize where many people would be looking to find a point where they can harmonize what they believe with what we've learned.

Like I said elsewhere, one man's evidence is another man's challenge to poke holes in that evidence. You know there is just as much literature that pokes holes in your "lifetime" of evidence that purportedly supports evolution as THE creative mechanism. I'm guessing that you are also leaning toward theistic evolution with the various comments you've made. With that in mind, this might interest you:
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=174

An Evolving Position on Evolution? Interesting Developments in the Roman Catholic Church

Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 6:13 pm ET

A leading Roman Catholic cardinal has issued a statement that has caused quite a stir in both scientific and theological circles. Christoph Schonborn, the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, published his controversial remarks in the pages of The New York Times, and in the form of an op-ed column entitled "Finding Design in Nature."

Schonborn, the most aristocratic of the European cardinals, was considered a possible candidate to succeed Pope John Paul II. Now, he is out to set the record straight about the Catholic Church's position on evolution -- and about the real intention of John Paul II. Here's how he begins his column:

Ever since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

These three paragraphs represent a genuine bombshell in the Catholic world. Cardinal Schonborn is recognized as a close friend and supporter of Pope Benedict XVI and is thought to have been among the new pope's strongest advocates in the last papal election. His statement also addressed what Schonborn characterizes as a misrepresentation of a statement by Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) about evolution:

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Vatican observers suggest that Schonborn's 'clarifiction' was likely made with full support from the Pope, though the cardinal denied that his statement was officially approved by the Vatican. In any event, this cardinal's rejection of the dominant evolutionary model -- signaling a shift in the Vatican's emphasis, if not in the Vatican's position -- started quite a controversy.

The New York Times ran a news story shortly after the cardinal's column appeared in the opinion pages of the paper -- an unusual development in itself. In its article, the paper quickly got to the point: An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith. Further: American Catholics and conservative evangelical Christians have been a potent united front in opposing abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia, but had parted company on the death penalty and the teaching of evolution. Cardinal Schönborn's essay and comments are an indication that the church may now enter the debate over evolution more forcefully on the side of those who oppose the teaching of evolution alone.

Since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic church has held positions on evolution that have attempted to straddle the fence between evolutionary naturalism and theistic creation. A 1996 public letter by John Paul II (interestingly characterized by Schonborn as "rather vague and unimportant") is often cited as evidence that the Catholic Church had largely accepted the dominant evolutionary model -- a model that excludes the possibility of divine design. The reaction to Cardinal Schonborn's statement will be interesting to watch. The end result is likely to be a further clarification of the Vatican's position.

For the rest of us, this controversy is yet another reminder that irreconcilable worldviews cannot be bridged by accommodationist theories. The dominant evolutionary model denies the possibility of divine design within the process of evolution. This model cannot be reconciled with the Bible and the Christian truth claim.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 01:41 PM
Indeed you can, which is why each religion/culture has its own form of the creation story. Such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Which is also why my faith doesn't hinge in a historically valid Genesis.Yet Christ, whom you claim allegiance to, accepted the historical validity of Genesis, an issue you have yet to address.

Chip R
08-05-2005, 01:41 PM
http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/argument.jpg

registerthis
08-05-2005, 02:08 PM
Yet Christ, whom you claim allegiance to, accepted the historical validity of Genesis, an issue you have yet to address.
You're right, TR. God's just trying to trick us with all of these "fossils" and "historical evidence." The TRUE believers are the ones who ignore all that mumbo jumbo and keep their Faith Blinders on. :cool:


1/3 time for Intelligent Design. 1/3 time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. And 1/3 time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

registerthis
08-05-2005, 02:09 PM
http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/argument.jpg
"But I came here for an argument!"
"Oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse..."

SunDeck
08-05-2005, 02:14 PM
It's been so long since I was in school, I don't even remember what we were taught. Had a big effect on me.

That's because you were in school BEFORE TIME BEGAN.

Sorry, somebody had to pick up the joke fumble and run with it there.

M2
08-05-2005, 02:18 PM
For the rest of us, this controversy is yet another reminder that irreconcilable worldviews cannot be bridged by accommodationist theories. The dominant evolutionary model denies the possibility of divine design within the process of evolution. This model cannot be reconciled with the Bible and the Christian truth claim.

Seems to me that entire article was a piece of vacuous nonsense written in service of delivering that line.

Overall it's just more drivel about a pointless Pope seeking to give people an excuse to turn off their brains. It's also another gross mischaracterization of what evolution claims, by insisting evolution makes no room for divine design the author gets to claim religion has no place for evolution. It's bunk, detritus, scribed flatus.

BTW, you've guessed wrong about my leanings.

And poking holes in evidence? You haven't made a dent so far. You've claimed you can, but I've yet to see it. All I've seen you do is state that God acted as the creating force of the world and humanity. Far as I can tell, no one's argued the contrary in this entire thread. What has been argued is whether your interpretation of that creation holds any water. On that point you've offered up dogma while copiously avoiding anything approaching a physical or social science.

Biblical commentaries might be your thing, but they aren't relevant to this discussion. Explain how geologists can be off by BILLIONS of years. Show me the science which supports the worldwide flood (lack of plant and animal diversity outside of the Middle East for a large chunk of time for instance, or evidence of Kangaroos migrating back to Australia). Tell me what all these dinosaur and prehistoric mammal bones are if they aren't dinosaur and prehistoric mammal bones. Explain to me how all these other ancient civilizations that existed prior to the biblical timeline and left behind museums full of artefacts were nothing more than illusions. Show me a scientifically-supported migration pattern for humankind that conforms to a biblical timeline.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 02:19 PM
You're right, TR. God's just trying to trick us with all of these "fossils" and "historical evidence." The TRUE believers are the ones who ignore all that mumbo jumbo and keep their Faith Blinders on. :cool:

I assume that is your explanation for why Christ clearly accepted the historical validity of Noah and the Flood, and referred to Abraham and Moses as historical figures? Do I assume you have no reasonable explanation?

KronoRed
08-05-2005, 02:19 PM
That's because you were in school BEFORE TIME BEGAN.

Sorry, somebody had to pick up the joke fumble and run with it there.

I'd go into hiding if I were you ;)

registerthis
08-05-2005, 02:23 PM
Biblical commentaries might be your thing, but they aren't relevant to this discussion. Explain how geologists can be off by BILLIONS of years. Show me the science which supports the worldwide flood (lack of plant and animal diversity outside of the Middle East for a large chunk of time for instance, or evidence of Kangaroos migrating back to Australia). Tell me what all these dinosaur and prehistoric mammal bones are if they aren't dinosaur and prehistoric mammal bones. Explain to me how all these other ancient civilizations that existed prior to the biblical timeline and left behind museums full of artefacts were nothing more than illusions. Show me a scientifically-supported migration pattern for humankind that conforms to a biblical timeline.
You don't get it, M2. those are all illusory pranks put there by God to fool us and separate the true believers from those who would dare open their minds on topics such as this. It's the same way that certain people swear up and down that the whole moon landing thing was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by by scientists, researchers, engineers, the U.S. government, the news media and educational institutions around the globe.

Seriously, though, this isn't even an argument any more. To have a legitimate argument, both sides must raise points that both serve to enhance their position and discredit the other argument. I'm not seeing much of that here...

registerthis
08-05-2005, 02:28 PM
I assume that is your explanation for why Christ clearly accepted the historical validity of Noah and the Flood, and referred to Abraham and Moses as historical figures? Do I assume you have no reasonable explanation?
I'm not answering it because it is a red herring that has nothing to do wiith the discussion at hand. I (and others) are asking how you explain away the mountains of evidence M2 has brought up that discredit a literal Genesis. Either you believe that millions of scientists, archeologists, researchers, anthropologists, biologists and physicists have mistinterpreted scores and scores of evidence, or you believe that Genesis might not be, in fact, a word-for-word literal testimony as to the beginnings of the Earth. It's an easy question to answer.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 02:28 PM
Seems to me that entire article was a piece of vacuous nonsense written in service of delivering that line.

Overall it's just more drivel about a pointless Pope seeking to give people an excuse to turn off their brains. It's also another gross mischaracterization of what evolution claims, by insisting evolution makes no room for divine design the author gets to claim religion has no place for evolution. It's bunk, detritus, scribed flatus.

BTW, you've guessed wrong about my leanings.

And poking holes in evidence? You haven't made a dent so far. You've claimed you can, but I've yet to see it. All I've seen you do is state that God acted as the creating force of the world and humanity. Far as I can tell, no one's argued the contrary in this entire thread. What has been argued is whether your interpretation of that creation holds any water. On that point you've offered up dogma while copiously avoiding anything approaching a physical or social science.

Biblical commentaries might be your thing, but they aren't relevant to this discussion. Explain how geologists can be off by BILLIONS of years. Show me the science which supports the worldwide flood (lack of plant and animal diversity outside of the Middle East for a large chunk of time for instance, or evidence of Kangaroos migrating back to Australia). Tell me what all these dinosaur and prehistoric mammal bones are if they aren't dinosaur and prehistoric mammal bones. Explain to me how all these other ancient civilizations that existed prior to the biblical timeline and left behind museums full of artefacts were nothing more than illusions. Show me a scientifically-supported migration pattern for humankind that conforms to a biblical timeline.

Yea, M2, I've played that zero sum game before on any issue that will require Biblical support for a position. I provide a third party refutation of your position, but its going to come from a pro-Creation source, so its obviously biased, so you make fun of the source saying its coming from Creationists so what else are they going to say. I know how that goes. No thanks.

SunDeck
08-05-2005, 02:31 PM
I'd go into hiding if I were you ;)

I am moving to an undisclosed location as we speak. Only someone who works for the military will be able to find me. So, I'm in good shape. No problems here.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 02:33 PM
I'm not answering it because it is a red herring that has nothing to do wiith the discussion at hand. I (and others) are asking how you explain away the mountains of evidence M2 has brought up that discredit a literal Genesis. Either you believe that millions of scientists, archeologists, researchers, anthropologists, biologists and physicists have mistinterpreted scores and scores of evidence, or you believe that Genesis might not be, in fact, a word-for-word literal testimony as to the beginnings of the Earth. It's an easy question to answer.Oh please, would you get off the "red herring" crap anytime you don't have an answer to a question. How is it not relevant when the discussion is the historicity of Genesis? Why don't you just answer the question or admit you don't have an answer right away instead of pulling out the "red herring" wild card?

registerthis
08-05-2005, 02:37 PM
Oh please, would you get off the "red herring" crap anytime you don't have an answer to a question. How is it not relevant when the discussion is the historicity of Genesis? Why don't you just answer the question or admit you don't have an answer right away instead of pulling out the "red herring" wild card?Because it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion of the validity of Genesis.

For the sake of this discussion, I'll call myself an atheist. The thoughts/concerns of Jesus mean nothing to me, so your question has become irrelevant.

Now, either you believe that millions of scientists, archeologists, researchers, anthropologists, biologists and physicists have mistinterpreted scores and scores of evidence, or you believe that Genesis might not be, in fact, a word-for-word literal testimony as to the beginnings of the Earth.

M2
08-05-2005, 02:39 PM
Yea, M2, I've played that zero sum game before on any issue that will require Biblical support for a position. I provide a third party refutation of your position, but its going to come from a pro-Creation source, so its obviously biased, so you make fun of the source saying its coming from Creationists so what else are they going to say. I know how that goes. No thanks.

Well that is the problem of throwing in the with quacks. Just as I'm sure you're horrified by accountants who cook the books, responsible scientists are horrified by the incompetence of those psuedoscientists.

Anyway, you're right in that I'm going to put more stock in a neutral party whose only aim is to get at the truth of the matter than a propagandist.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 02:50 PM
For the sake of this discussion, I'll call myself an atheist. The thoughts/concerns of Jesus mean nothing to me, so your question has become irrelevant.

I can only say WOW! in light of your previous claims to be a follower of Christ, unless I am mistaken regarding that claim. I think Christ is a bit relevant considering what the Apostle John wrote:


(Joh 1:1 KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(Joh 1:2 KJV) The same was in the beginning with God.

(Joh 1:3 KJV) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

You just threw Christ under the bus :eek:

ochre
08-05-2005, 02:56 PM
appeal to authority requires that both parties in the debate/discussion agree that the authority is valid/pertinent to the discussion at hand. What is being said by registerthis is that, for the sake of this discussion he does not view Jesus as an authority in regards to the geological data that disproves the alleged historical accounts of the bible.

registerthis
08-05-2005, 02:57 PM
....still doesn't hold any relevance to this discussion. You apparently forgot, for purposes of this argument, I'm an atheist, so the words of Jesus and Biblical texts don't concern me. They're completely, utterly irrelevant. So if you're trying to convince me that Genesis should be taken literally, you need to devise another line of questionning...otherwise I will move for Summary Judgment, because you have failed to present clear and sufficient evidence to sustain your case.

Blimpie
08-05-2005, 03:08 PM
Oh please, would you get off the "red herring" crap anytime you don't have an answer to a question. How is it not relevant when the discussion is the historicity of Genesis? Why don't you just answer the question or admit you don't have an answer right away instead of pulling out the "red herring" wild card?How about we all just agree to put "red herring" in the penalty box along side his friend, "ad hominem".....

Redsfaithful
08-05-2005, 03:19 PM
How about we all just agree to put "red herring" in the penalty box along side his friend, "ad hominem".....

Yeah, fallacies are so inconvenient.

Blimpie
08-05-2005, 03:24 PM
Yeah, fallacies are so inconvenient.Yeah, so is sarcasm... :mooner:

M2
08-05-2005, 03:31 PM
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

This is a perfect example of where the Bible leaves a wide berth for interpretation.

Fine, God's the creator. Yet how were all these things made? Traditionally we've assumed simple statements like that must mean we're talking about a finger-snap God. Poof, I made a horseshoe crab. Yet it's just as possible that God had to assemble cosmic forces and put them in a cooker for four billion years to make the right stew. John wasn't a scientist or a historian. He probably wouldn't have understood gravity, bacterial oxygenation or trilobites had someone come along and tried to explain those things to him. Oceans would have blown his mind too. All he's really saying is this here thing we got going, God made that.

And the details of how could take a million years to unravel.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 03:33 PM
appeal to authority requires that both parties in the debate/discussion agree that the authority is valid/pertinent to the discussion at hand. What is being said by registerthis is that, for the sake of this discussion he does not view Jesus as an authority in regards to the geological data that disproves the alleged historical accounts of the bible.There's only one problem, the authority happens to be someone that reg has recognized as an authority on the highly significant issue of saving his soul, which he accepts (well at least his version of it, but that's another discussion), so since this same authority claims to also be the Creator of his soul, it is EXTREMELY relevant. Not to mention he would have to prove the authority's irrelevance, especially since I have shown him to be relevant.

There is also the minor issue (ok major issue) of a professing Christian who finds Christ irrelevant in a discussion on origins having some serious theological flaws in his understanding of what being a follower of Christ entails.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 03:38 PM
This is a perfect example of where the Bible leaves a wide berth for interpretation.

Fine, God's the creator. Yet how were all these things made? Traditionally we've assumed simple statements like that must mean we're talking about a finger-snap God. Poof, I made a horseshoe crab. Yet it's just as possible that God had to assemble cosmic forces and put them in a cooker for four billion years to make the right stew. John wasn't a scientist or a historian. He probably wouldn't have understood gravity, bacterial oxygenation or trilobites had someone come along and tried to explain those things to him. Oceans would have blown his mind too. All he's really saying is this here thing we got going, God made that.

And the details of how could take a million years to unravel.

On the first day, God created...
On the second day, God created...
On the third day, God created...
On the fourth day, God created...
On the fifth day, God created...
On the sixth day, God created...

All covered in the first chapter of Genesis :p:

As for the issue with John, his purpose for that statement was to identify Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, as the eternal Creator God, not to give an account of creation. It had already been covered. :)

Falls City Beer
08-05-2005, 03:43 PM
Yeah, fallacies are so inconvenient.

Come on, you know the only rules of debate are "shut up" and "my way or the highway."

Oh, and I really AM an atheist.

registerthis
08-05-2005, 03:46 PM
There's only one problem, the authority happens to be someone that reg has recognized as an authority on the highly significant issue of saving his soul, which he accepts (well at least his version of it, but that's another discussion), so since this same authority claims to also be the Creator of his soul, it is EXTREMELY relevant. Not to mention he would have to prove the authority's irrelevance, especially since I have shown him to be relevant.

There is also the minor issue (ok major issue) of a professing Christian who finds Christ irrelevant in a discussion on origins having some serious theological flaws in his understanding of what being a follower of Christ entails.
You're still completely missing the point TR, which I can only assume to mean that you have no intentions of answering my question. I'll spell it out for you as clearly as I possibly can:

Let's pretend that I'm not Registerthis. Let's pretend I'm some new guy who just joined the forum. You don't know anything about me--my religious preferences, by beliefs, etc. I explain to you that I am an avowed atheist--I don't believe the Bible is infallible, I don't believe it is the inspired Word of God. I simply view it as a book of parables and stories. Then, I tell you that I don't believe Genesis is a literal account of the beginning of our world, and I provide a significant amount of evidence to support this. I then ask you to provide evidence to support your contention. Your response, therefore, cannot be that "it's true because the Bible says it's true." You must provide other empirical evidence to support your claim. Tangible data that would show that the things described in genesis and other parts of the Bible (6 day creation, flood taller than the highest mountain, the entire earth populating itself from one single family that lived in an ark, etc.) were, in fact, true would be required.

That's as absolutely clear as I can make this. If you're still confused, there's nothing I can do at this point.

It bears mentioning, of course, that I am not an avowed atheist. I merely assumed this position to prevent you from relying on Christian dogma to support your contention and force you to move away from merely using Biblical evidence to support your claim.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 03:50 PM
Yeah, fallacies are so inconvenient.From what I've seen, a few folks have taken a logic class in college, or maybe debated in high school, learned some cool terms and rules, but don't have one iota of an idea on how to apply them. Rather, they bring them out like the soccer referees draw their little cards whenever there's a question they don't wish to answer.


http://www.ssra.ca/Referees%20signals1.JPG

We have a red herring

pedro
08-05-2005, 03:56 PM
And from what I've seen a there are a few people who probably haven't taken a logic class.

And BTW wasn't that sort of an Ad Hominem attack TR? ;)

traderumor
08-05-2005, 04:00 PM
You're still completely missing the point TR, which I can only assume to mean that you have no intentions of answering my question. I'll spell it out for you as clearly as I possibly can:

Yea, you've said that stuff many times, but I'm not the one missing the point. The issue that my question addressed was directly related to the historicity of Genesis way back when I asked it. Just to refresh your memory:




Actually, no. There's overwhelming evidence for a largely allegorical interpretation of the Pentateuch.

So, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Job, et al never existed? And, if they did, the stories that they are central figures of never really happened? And, King David, Jesus, Peter, the Apostle Paul and the writer of Hebrews are just as duped as I am because they make clear historical references to these characters and events in the Psalms and the NT? Those are some pretty serious charges for someone who claims that their faith in Jesus Christ saves them. From what you're telling me, he is upholding thousands of years of lies and using a claim of authority as the sinless Son of God, the Savior of the World to do so. I'm not sure why anyone would expect such a man to be able to save anyone, much less put their faith in a matter of eternal consequence to such a liar. Of course, that's what got him killed in the first place, isn't it?

So, physical evidence was nowhere addressed in this question following your claim. If you don't want to answer, fine, but don't start claiming "red herring" when there are two separate issues at hand.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 04:01 PM
And from what I've seen a there are a few people who probably haven't taken a logic class.

And BTW wasn't that sort of an Ad Hominem attack TR? ;)Yea, at least I have ignorance on my side. There's no such excuse for misapplication by the learned. ;)

PickOff
08-05-2005, 04:03 PM
It does seem to me that if you acknowledge that Christ is your saviour, and you must if you are a Christian, then it follows that you must believe in the Bible to some degree. That is to say, you make judgements on what you find to be literal and allegory, but you still choose to believe that Christ died for your sins, because it says so in the Bible. How and where do you draw these lines? Traderumor has drawn his.

I have drawn mine at not believing that the Bible is the word of God (a higher omnipotent power). I also don't believe that Christ is my saviour, nor do I beleive in any miracles portrayed in the Bible. Some aspects of the Bible may be accurate discriptions of certain historical events. No matter to me, however. You see I have no faith.

I was a regular Church goer, Sunday school attendee, and youth group member until I was about seventeen. But no faith materialized. My thoughts and mind rebelled against the belief in God.

Religion is good for most people because it allows some peace in a violent world. But at what expense? I can't help but feel that the vast majority of Christians lie to themsleves on a daily or weekly basis when it comes to the Bible. There is just too much contradictory evidence to the literal interpretation, and if you don't really beleive in the Bible, than how can you be a Christian?

Most of us believe in God and Christian tenants becasue we were taught that way growing up. So we just "feel" that there is a God and that Christ is there for us. It is hard to let that go, so the compromises begin when faced with biblical interpretation. Some people were born again because life in this world became to hard to deal with alone. Others look for serenity in material things or other people or even pets.

Comes down to understanding why you believe what you do, to IMO.

I will say this. I don't regret being brought up as a Chrtistian, because I learned a great deal about morality, forgiveness, love, and understanding.

ochre
08-05-2005, 04:05 PM
Yea, you've said that stuff many times, but I'm not the one missing the point. The issue that my question addressed was directly related to the historicity of Genesis way back when I asked it.

I don't find it historically accurate. I find no reason to believe that it has anymore veracity than any of the other multitudinous creation stories that exist/have existed throughout the history of mankind. I do not accept it as authoritative.

Convince me that I should.

Falls City Beer
08-05-2005, 04:06 PM
From what I've seen, a few folks have taken a logic class in college, or maybe debated in high school, learned some cool terms and rules, but don't have one iota of an idea on how to apply them. Rather, they bring them out like the soccer referees draw their little cards whenever there's a question they don't wish to answer.


We have a red herring

Really? Ochre categorizes logical fallacies with pinpoint accuracy...every time (which, frankly, isn't easy); and as far as I can tell registerthis, too. Just because you don't subscribe to logic doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that questioning truth and validity claims aren't necessary components of understanding the world.

But I agree with you to a certain extent, TR: the kind of faith you adhere to has no business coexisting with reason and logic, and vice versa. They aren't simply antithetical--they're inimical to each other apparently. For some, it seems, faith and reason can co-exist, but clearly not for you. That I'll grant you.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 04:16 PM
Really? Ochre categorizes logical fallacies with pinpoint accuracy...every time (which, frankly, isn't easy); and as far as I can tell registerthis, too. Just because you don't subscribe to logic doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that questioning truth and validity claims aren't necessary components of understanding the world.

But I agree with you to a certain extent, TR: the kind of faith you adhere to has no business coexisting with reason and logic, and vice versa. They aren't simply antithetical--they're inimical to each other apparently. For some, it seems, faith and reason can co-exist, but clearly not for you. That I'll grant you.Then his perfect record was broken earlier, because he misunderstood the context of reg's "red herring" charge, which I guess makes his own "red herring" statement a "red herring" itself.

As for your potshot, we certainly have different definitions of faith and reason, whereby you seem to contend that anything that has Scripture as a source is faith and irrational and anything you deem as verifiable outside of a Biblical context is reasonable and rational.

M2
08-05-2005, 04:19 PM
On the first day, God created...
On the second day, God created...
On the third day, God created...
On the fourth day, God created...
On the fifth day, God created...
On the sixth day, God created...

All covered in the first chapter of Genesis :p:

As for the issue with John, his purpose for that statement was to identify Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, as the eternal Creator God, not to give an account of creation. It had already been covered. :)

Well, that's what they decided he meant at Nicea at least.

As for Genesis, when you've got people who don't mark time that well, have only seen a small patch of the earth and are working with Bronze Age technology ... well, K.I.S.S. applies.

Again, to the wide berth of interpretation thing, it doesn't list the exact dates. We certainly don't track time from that point, which I'm sure we'd do if that level of detail had been provided. So "day" is kind of open-ended. Plus, what's a day to God? Humanist scientists would tell you it's got the order right (score one for the anonymous Jewish scribe). The idea of Genesis is to convey that God's really powerful and put all this stuff together. Either humanity needed a forklift upgrade to understand the forces involved or Genesis was going to bury the lead in a morass of detail ... or it could just say "days" and let people figure out that it was really a lot longer than days when they were ready to digest that nugget.

registerthis
08-05-2005, 04:20 PM
But I agree with you to a certain extent, TR: the kind of faith you adhere to has no business coexisting with reason and logic, and vice versa. They aren't simply antithetical--they're inimical to each other apparently. For some, it seems, faith and reason can co-exist, but clearly not for you. That I'll grant you.
And this, I believe, pretty much sums everything up quite nicely.

Falls City Beer
08-05-2005, 04:20 PM
As for your potshot,

What, exactly, was your little "red card" stab, eh? An eye for an eye?

registerthis
08-05-2005, 04:22 PM
or it could just say "days" and let people figure out that it was really a lot longer than days when they were ready to digest that nugget.
Interesting that "days" in this instance should be interpreted literally, whereas "the sun stood still" should NOT be interpreted literally.

:runaway:

it's Friday, I have a brain cramp.

ochre
08-05-2005, 04:22 PM
Then his perfect record was broken earlier, because he misunderstood the context of reg's "red herring" charge, which I guess makes his own "red herring" statement a "red herring" itself.


Are you referring to me there?

registerthis
08-05-2005, 04:24 PM
Then his perfect record was broken earlier, because he misunderstood the context of reg's "red herring" charge, which I guess makes his own "red herring" statement a "red herring" itself.
I still don't understand why you're incapable of proving the historical accuracy of Genesis without using the Bible. Surely there must be at least ONE source that independently verifies the accounts described in Genesis 1?

EDIT: Well, I understand WHY you're incapable--because the evidence doesn't exist. But at the very least humor me with something.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 04:25 PM
Are you referring to me there?Heck, I don't know, I am caught in a web of red herrings. ;)

But yes, what I was referring to was your conclusion on reg's "red herring," which seemed to be based on a topic of external, extra-Biblical evidence, when the topic at hand was actually "historicity of Genesis."

ochre
08-05-2005, 04:25 PM
Circulus in demonstrando

ochre
08-05-2005, 04:27 PM
Heck, I don't know, I am caught in a web of red herrings. ;)

But yes, what I was referring to was your conclusion on reg's "red herring," which seemed to be based on a topic of external, extra-Biblical evidence, when the topic at hand was actually "historicity of Genesis."
I called it a fallacious appeal to authority I believe.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 04:34 PM
I still don't understand why you're incapable of proving the historical accuracy of Genesis without using the Bible. Surely there must be at least ONE source that independently verifies the accounts described in Genesis 1?That's pretty funny. An independent source for Creation. Maybe CNN was there? So, what kind of independent sources would you expect? Maybe I'm missing something here, but that is sort of like asking me to give you an irrefutable independent source for the existence of God.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 04:47 PM
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html


This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject....
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Where this instance does not qualify is that Reg upholds Christ as Savior based on Scripture, who claims to be the Creator himself based on Scripture, but then that same Scripture is suddenly not sufficient for proving that a particular Scripture can be understood as historical.

In other words, Reg would have to claim that Christ is not an authority on Creation, the same authority he upholds to hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which he believes based on that authority's position as God, the authority given by Scripture, which Reg is ok with in that instance. If Reg denies any of that, than his profession is empty, as Pickoff was able to understand. Therefore, the question is, Reg, is Christ an authority on Creation or not?

registerthis
08-05-2005, 04:48 PM
That's pretty funny. An independent source for Creation. Maybe CNN was there? So, what kind of independent sources would you expect? Maybe I'm missing something here, but that is sort of like asking me to give you an irrefutable independent source for the existence of God.
No, it shouldn't be that difficult. After all, there are tremendous amounts of evidence backing up my assertion on how the universe came to be--scores and scores of books, as a matter of fact, have been written about that very subject. Documented empirical evidence exists, museums exist that fill their exhibitions with artifacts and information that contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis, scientists devote their lives to learning about the subject, etc. And the thing is, it's all independently verifiable information.

Now, if the events described in Genesis were true and accurate, then surely there would be physical evidence to support it. Shouldn't there be evidence that the world actually *was* created in six days? Shouldn't there be evidence that a flood eclisped the height of Mt. Everest? Shoudn't there be evidence that the entire human race repopulated itself in the last 6,000 years form one family who lived on an ark? It would stand to reason, wouldn't it? If God put all of this evidence here which contradicts Genesis, wouldn't he at least provide some which seems to support it? If he did, where is it? Have we just not found it yet?

registerthis
08-05-2005, 04:51 PM
Therefore, the question is, Reg, is Christ an authority on Creation or not?
Who cares? That's a matter of personal belief that, for the millionth time, has NOTHING to do with this discussion. You continually miss this point--over and over and over again. Suppose I DON'T view Christ as an authority--does that make the Genesis claim untrue? Are you implying that Genesis is only true for Believers? And ceases to be true if you don't hold Christ out as an authority?

ochre
08-05-2005, 04:53 PM
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html


Where this instance does not qualify is that Reg upholds Christ as Savior based on Scripture, who claims to be the Creator himself based on Scripture, but then that same Scripture is suddenly not sufficient for proving that a particular Scripture can be understood as historical.

In other words, Reg would have to claim that Christ is not an authority on Creation, the same authority he upholds to hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which he believes based on that authority's position as God, the authority given by Scripture, which Reg is ok with in that instance. If Reg denies any of that, than his profession is empty, as Pickoff was able to understand. Therefore, the question is, Reg, is Christ an authority on Creation or not?
The problem with that is that you are letting prior knowlege of registerthis creep into this conversation. He has not said those things within this debate that I remember. He questioned the authority of a book. You used beliefs held by a character within that book as evidence that the book was valid. In the context of this debate that is appeal to authority and circular reasoning.

traderumor
08-05-2005, 04:59 PM
Who cares? That's a matter of personal belief that, for the millionth time, has NOTHING to do with this discussion. You continually miss this point--over and over and over again. Suppose I DON'T view Christ as an authority--does that make the Genesis claim untrue? Are you implying that Genesis is only true for Believers? And ceases to be true if you don't hold Christ out as an authority?But you DO claim to view Christ as an authority and I know that. If your profession is true, he is to be the supreme authority on matters that he addressed in the Bible. That should indicate the incompatability of your position. He DID speak on Creation, therefore He is just as legitimate an authority on that subject as He is on any others that you accept. Otherwise, you are simply picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you choose to believe, which makes you lord, when Christ commands that He is Lord of your life if you want to follow Him. And unless you're infallible, I would say you're not qualified.

ochre
08-05-2005, 05:06 PM
But you DO claim to view Christ as an authority and I know that. If your profession is true, he is to be the supreme authority on matters that he addressed in the Bible. That should indicate the incompatability of your position. He DID speak on Creation, therefore He is just as legitimate an authority on that subject as He is on any others that you accept. Otherwise, you are simply picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you choose to believe, which makes you lord, when Christ commands that He is Lord of your life if you want to follow Him. And unless you're infallible, I would say you're not qualified.
so pretend like I'm the one saying what register has been saying.

registerthis
08-05-2005, 05:20 PM
But you DO claim to view Christ as an authority and I know that.... :bang:

traderumor
08-05-2005, 05:38 PM
:bang:Look, friend, you can bang your head against the wall, take part in this shell game and hide behind rules of debate, but that still doesn't address the problem that your low view of Scripture creates for your profession of faith. I'd hope you find that a little more important than whether or not you can convince others to share your low view of Scripture.

I understand what ochre is saying on the appeal to authority. What I don't think he understands is how disturbing it is that my assumption tripped me up.

James B.
08-05-2005, 06:35 PM
....still doesn't hold any relevance to this discussion. You apparently forgot, for purposes of this argument, I'm an atheist, so the words of Jesus and Biblical texts don't concern me. They're completely, utterly irrelevant. So if you're trying to convince me that Genesis should be taken literally, you need to devise another line of questionning...otherwise I will move for Summary Judgment, because you have failed to present clear and sufficient evidence to sustain your case.


Jesus took Genesis literally that is enough for me and should be enough for anyone who calls Jesus Lord.

James B.
08-05-2005, 06:40 PM
People have been talking about the faith one must have to believe the bible. I think it takes more faith to believe a reptile can turn into a bird or that a monkey can turn into a man.

I have a question for people on here who don't believe in God. I think it's the first law of science that matter can't be created or destroyed. How was matter created?

Falls City Beer
08-05-2005, 06:49 PM
How was matter created?

I don't know. And I'm okay with that.

ochre
08-05-2005, 06:52 PM
To be honest with you, I don't really care how matter was created. I believe it to be unproveable. Occam's razor indicates we should accept the least complicated cause as the most likely. For all I now I am a quark in an electron in an atom in a flea on the color of another 'reality's' ugliest dog. Don't really care how I got there, its up to me to find a way to deal with the fact that I'll never really know. I'll take the stuff I can measure, smell, see and feel every day of the week before I hold politically motivated translations of archaic languages (metaphor, sarcasm, idioms, and colloquialisms included) as any type of realistic record.

In my perspective the fact that we are here is no indication of divine intervention. Its all just random chance.

RFS62
08-05-2005, 07:14 PM
Look, friend, you can bang your head against the wall, take part in this shell game and hide behind rules of debate, but that still doesn't address the problem that your low view of Scripture creates for your profession of faith. I'd hope you find that a little more important than whether or not you can convince others to share your low view of Scripture.

I understand what ochre is saying on the appeal to authority. What I don't think he understands is how disturbing it is that my assumption tripped me up.


I don't see his reasoning as a low view of scripture. In fact, I see it as a high view.

To suggest that not believing in the snake, the garden, the ark, the flood, and all the other beautiful stories as literal is to me the high view. I would suggest that maybe he focuses on the true essence of spirituality that flows between all religions, and ignores the dogma that has been a 3000 year old way to control people.

What a silly waste of time to argue over these stories. They're mearly commentary. The essence of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is obscured by power struggles over translations and dogma.

princeton
08-06-2005, 09:01 AM
evolution at a molecular level is relatively easy to see in the lab. I've done some of the experiments personally-- turning bugs that won't grow on certain sugar sources into bugs that eat the sugar sources well, then really well, then really really well.

speciation is easy to recapitulate in the lab as well, followed by genetic drift.

some clever people are exploiting genetic diversity to molecularly "evolve" better soap powders, therapeutic antibodies, etc. It's fascinating stuff. Evolution rocks

what's really hard to see in the lab are the things that require a ton of steps to become advantageous. Sexual reproduction is a great example-- it's incredibly complex in terms of hardware and behavior necessary, yet the advantages over other types of reproduction aren't hugely evident. How do you get all of the way from one type of reproduction to another, slightly more advantageous type in one fell swoop? And if you can't do it all at once, what was so advantageous about all of the intermediate steps?

We have these questions about the origins of a number of processes. And personally, we scientists wave our modern hands (where did THOSE come from?) a lot if we ever actually answer the question about where modern eyes came from, or modern immune systems (at least eyes and immune systems have clear advantages) or, gulp, modern behaviors.

I don't deny that there are fascinating gaps in not only our knowledge but even possibly in our basic framework. But "intelligent design" really just means "lack of imagination"

SunDeck
08-06-2005, 09:29 AM
I don't deny that there are fascinating gaps in not only our knowledge but even possibly in our basic framework. But "intelligent design" really just means "lack of imagination"

I'm waaay to dumb to argue the nuances of these competing theories, but I'd like to add something that my wife said after childbirth. By education, she knows an awful lot about physical anthropology and has always had a personal fascination with evolution. What she said has always struck me and it went something like this,

"If it were intelligent design, the human birth canal would be larger. But it's not intelligent design, it's evolution and as such there is no incentive to improve upon a process once the benefits of such improvements fail to yield any appreciable results for the continuation of the species. In other words, the birth canal won't get any larger, despite the enormous pain and complications it creates precisely because it works well enough to keep us reproducing. Either that or God hates women."

traderumor
08-06-2005, 10:21 AM
I don't deny that there are fascinating gaps in not only our knowledge but even possibly in our basic framework. But "intelligent design" really just means "lack of imagination"

Princeton,

Your answer in its entirety is excellent, because I consider the eye to be a bigger problem for macroevolution and that the search for a holy grail known as the missing link will still not solve that problem. As for the paragraph I quoted, I think ID does not go far enough, personally, and opens the door for problematic theories like theistic evolution to creep into the mainstream, which to me is a compromise of the highest order for Bible believers like myself and is little more than a scientific spin on Deism, which is not a Biblical view of God. However, we're talking science here, not imagination, which I contend is much of what macroevolution was created from--some data and a fanciful imagination.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 10:41 AM
A fascinating websight for any interested in exploring critical analysis of some of the claims made by those supporting the Theory of Evolution within this thread. I know that the next step in the process will be to discredit the credentials of anything I post as being written by Creationists, but honestly, after giving that some thought, I'd hope that those supporting Evolution as the way it is would at least address directly criticisms of theories and the evidence supporting Evolution. To do otherwise would indicate to me that there is no interest in defending one's own assertions for this "mountain of evidence" that is continually referred to. After all, I do not think that those supporting Evolution are so naive as to believe that bias does not appear in the writings and evidence of those upholding the theory.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/science.html


Is Evolution Science?
----------------------------------------

The question of whether evolution is science would seem to be unnecessary. Surely a subject which is so widely taught and believed must be scientific! But it is not the fact that many people, even scientists, believe a theory that shows it to be correct, but rather that it passes reasonable and unbiased tests of verification. I have seen many papers by evolutionary biologists presenting evidence and arguing about various mechanisms of evolution, but I have not seen a single paper in a scientific journal seriously considering the question of whether evolution is true and attempting to answer it by putting the theory to an unbiased test. And yet this theory is nearly universally accepted and taught, and those who reject it are considered as fanatical and risk professional ostracism! This has to be one of the most unusual chapters in the history of science. The many recognized problems with the theory of evolution never seem to lead biologists to the obvious conclusion that there is something wrong with their theory; rather, they simply continue to patch it up.

Evolutionary biologists construct many plausible stories about how life developed and evolved, based largely on the fossil record. But how do we know that these stories are true? This history is based to some extent on time periods provided by radiometric dating. But, to my knowledge, there has not been a single double-blind test of radiometric dating methods. Just to illustrate how human bias could unintentionally affect radiometric dating, it could be that there are many different kinds of rock that can be used for dating, and geologists may choose which kind is most suitable depending on the geological period. So we might have one kind of rock being used for dating one period, another kind being used for another, and so on. Or there could be modifications of techniques, and the technique chosen might depend on the geological period being studied. Such possibilities could lead to bias that might be eliminated by a double-blind test. Another problem is that dates might not be published that are too far away from the expected values. Furthermore, there are many problems with radiometric dating in itself that creationists have pointed out. One thing to keep in mind is that when geologists say that a radiometric dating technique is accurate to within one percent, they do not mean that the measured age is within one percent of the true age. What they mean is that if all of the assumptions of the method hold, then the measured age is within one percent of the true age. These assumptions have to do with restrictions on whether parent or daughter elements enter or leave the sample during the measured time span. Geologists admit that the measured ages are often 20 percent or more away from the assumed true age.

Even if radiometric dates were accurate, it would still not prove the theory of evolution. One response of evolutionists to such questions is that creationism is not science. The implication is that if creationism is false, then evolution must be true. But just because scientists cannot think of an alternative is no reason to accept a theory. I don't know of other fields where a theory is accepted simply because no one can think of an alternative.

In arguing that creation is not science, evolutionists expect creation to pass tests that are not reasonable. They expect creationists to be able to say why God created the specific animals that He did, or why He set the third-position codons as He did. Such questions are not necessarily possible to answer. There may have been many things going on relating to the Creation that we have no idea of. We cannot even predict what a Beethoven would compose or a Van Gogh would paint; much less can we predict what a Creator would create! It would be like asking archaeologists at a dig to predict what they would uncover in the next area of their site. If they could not say, then we could say that their field was not scientific, and that they must explain the ruins they found not as the activity of intelligent beings, but rather as the results of wind and erosion and other natural forces.

Evolutionary biologists will often argue that evolution has been observed. By this they mean tiny changes in species that have been seen in nature or in the laboratory. Because we have seen such tiny changes, they argue, given enough time, large changes could also take place. However, this line of argument is not logically correct. Just because I can jump an inch does not mean I can jump to the moon. Just because I can walk an inch does not mean I can walk around the world.

The similarities among life forms are claimed to be an evidence for evolution. All life uses the same genetic code, and all proteins spiral to the left instead of to the right. However, if these similarities were not observed, it would not argue against the theory of evolution. Rather, biologists would say that life originated more than once. And, if these similarities did not exist, it could be used as an argument against creation. Biologists could ask why the Creator did not do everything the same way always. Furthermore, there are differences as well as similarities among various life forms. If the similarities prove evolution, do the differences prove creation?

Another argument that is put forth in favor of evolution is the supposed hierarchical structure of living things. Even if life is hierarchical, organized into classes and sub-classes and so on, this is not necessarily a logical consequence of the theory of evolution. This is only so if we assume that once a feature is acquired, it is retained in evolutionary descendents. So once a backbone is formed, the descendents will retain it, but animals without a backbone will probably not develop it. However, one can just as well imagine vertebrates losing their backbones and evolving to invertebrates. If a bacterium can evolve to a man, why can't a man evolve to a bacterium? Thus evolution would be just as well adapted to a non-hierarchical organization of life as to a hierarchical one.

The on-line Encyclopedia Britannica has an article about evolution that claims that molecular distances between organisms are linearly related to their assumed divergence times as seen in the fossil record. This is claimed to be a verification of the theory of evolution. However, there are a number of problems with this analysis. First, when deciding on common ancestors, biologists may use the observed differences between organisms, and reject ancestors that appear too soon or too late. Second, dating methods have some latitude, and may be calibrated to some extent based on evolutionary assumptions. Third, the organisms to consider in this comparison may have been chosen to make the graph come out right. Such a claim about a straight-line relationship could only be established by a rigorous statistical analysis. And it would have to consider the entire fossil record, and not just a selected subset of it.

The fact that different organisms are found in different layers of the fossil record is claimed to show evolution. But as ReMine points out in The Biotic Message, evolution did not predict the fossil sequence; it simply adapted itself to it. So we cannot see the fossil sequence as verifying the theory of evolution. It is claimed that the fact that we do not see birds and trilobites together verifies evolution. But if we did see them together, evolutionary biologists would simply modify their evolutionary trees and speak about the incompleteness of the fossil record.

Creationism, by constrast, was formulated before the fossil record and most of the findings of biology were known. Because of this, the creationist nature of the fossil record and of life in general really is a vindication of the theory. By this I mean such features as the Cambrian explosion, the gaps in the fossil record, the improbabilities of abiogenesis, and numerous other findings discussed by creationists in general and elsewhere on this web page.

I would like to see evolutionary biologists put their theory to the test and give us some rigorous evidence that it is true, if they can, instead of merely arguing about mechanisms and presenting plausible scenarios. A few predictions of the theory that pan out or fail to materialize will not settle the issue, but rather some meaningful statistical tests. Until this is done, I would suggest that they recognize that this is a theory without a shadow of support.

Red Heeler
08-06-2005, 11:17 AM
However, we're talking science here, not imagination, which I contend is much of what macroevolution was created from--some data and a fanciful imagination.

A literal interpretation of the Bible requires that evolution not only took place, but did so at a much faster pace than what evolutionary scientists believe.

If we accept that Adam and Eve were the first humans, then all other humans on the planet descend from them. The entire genetic diversity among humans cannot be carried on 92 chromasomes (23 pairs each from Adam and Eve). So, to account for the diversity that we can now observe, mutations must have taken place along the way. We also know that some of the diversity among humans provides them with a competetive advantage in their environment (dark skin in those who live in a tropical environment, for example). Therefore, even if we take Genesis literally, we have mutation in the human genome and the resultant mutation being selected for in environments where such mutations provide an advantage. Sounds like evolution to me.

ochre
08-06-2005, 11:34 AM
A fascinating websight for any interested in exploring critical analysis of some of the claims made by those supporting the Theory of Evolution within this thread. I know that the next step in the process will be to discredit the credentials of anything I post as being written by Creationists, but honestly, after giving that some thought, I'd hope that those supporting Evolution as the way it is would at least address directly criticisms of theories and the evidence supporting Evolution. To do otherwise would indicate to me that there is no interest in defending one's own assertions for this "mountain of evidence" that is continually referred to. After all, I do not think that those supporting Evolution are so naive as to believe that bias does not appear in the writings and evidence of those upholding the theory.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/science.html (http://www.cs.unc.edu/%7Eplaisted/ce/science.html)
He's a computer science professor. This is a potential example of an appeal to authority fallacy, in that his qualifications lie in an area other than the area he is discussing here, depending on how it is used.

If you look further he has a disclaimer on his main "ce" page that says:

...but for one who is willing to accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, we believe that a creation theory is an acceptable alternative.

Those not willing to accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, then would not necessarily find any credence in creation theory.

Red Heeler
08-06-2005, 11:43 AM
This is only so if we assume that once a feature is acquired, it is retained in evolutionary descendents. So once a backbone is formed, the descendents will retain it, but animals without a backbone will probably not develop it. However, one can just as well imagine vertebrates losing their backbones and evolving to invertebrates. If a bacterium can evolve to a man, why can't a man evolve to a bacterium? Thus evolution would be just as well adapted to a non-hierarchical organization of life as to a hierarchical one.

The problem with this argument is competetive advantage. Humans are born fairly regularly with extra digits. However, the extra digit provides no competetive advantage, so it has not been selected for. As for loosing features, birds are an easy example. Archaeopteryx was the first bird found in the fossil record. It could fly. Yet, there are lots of flightless birds in the world whose adaptations have given them a competetive advantage that flight would not have.

Most of the article is devoted to an argument that researchers are rigging the scientific publications to fit the theory of evolution. While I suppose that could be true, it would be a conspiracy of unprecedented proportions.

Scientific research is not about fitting data into support for a theory. It is about observing data and finding a plausible explaination for it. When new data is found, the theory may have to be modified to fit that new data. Science is never static. New discoveries are made every day which cause changes in the way we understand things.

SunDeck
08-06-2005, 11:48 AM
Scientific research is not about fitting data into support for a theory. It is about observing data and finding a plausible explaination for it. When new data is found, the theory may have to be modified to fit that new data. Science is never static. New discoveries are made every day which cause changes in the way we understand things.

A friend of mine, a physicist, jokes that it would be really cool if Creationism or Intelligent Design were right. It would give him a whole new fascinating thing onto which he could apply the scientific method.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 11:50 AM
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0722_Creationism_explains.html

This article is fairly lengthy, so here are highlights:


Evolutionist Francisco Ayala has estimated that humans are heterozygous for 6.7 percent of their genes on the average. This 6.7 percent variety would enable Adam and Eve to produce 10 [^]2017 before they would reproduce a twin identical to another born previously. Since the estimated number of particles in the universe is10 [^]80, nothing can compare to the potential variety within two people.



http://www.bio.miami.edu/dywang/MultipleAlleles-MultifactorialTraits___.html
Skin Color, a controversial view:


A Biblical View of Inheritance in Human Skin Color. (for your reference…)
1. Adam and Eve were the first parents of all the races. Adam and Eve contained all the genetic information from which eventually all the races came.

2. From Adam to Noah, all descendants of Adam and Eve were probably all mid-brown color since Adam and Eve were also mid-brown.

3. After the global flood and the tower of Babel incident, descendants of Noah separated into people groups according to their own languages and traveled to different parts of the world.

4. As different "people groups" were exposed to different environments, natural selection occurred resulting in certain genetic traits to be enhanced for adaptability (for example: darker skin pigmentation for environments with more intense sunlight due to the genetic "potential" to increase more melanin).

5. As the "people groups" were isolated and intermarried with each other with a certain group, they eventually lost certain genes that were not needed for adaptability. (That would explain, from this point of view, why African Negroes who move to different northern environments or European Whites who move down to Africa, do not change back to another color because over time they previously lost the genetic potential to do so.)


A Modern Molecular Biology Interpretation of this view:

There are at least three and perhaps four genes involved in skin color and several alleles at each gene producing differing amounts of melanin.

Adam and Eve would not necessarily need to possess the entire range of skin gene possibilities since there is some time for accumulation of mutations between them and Noah's sons. With that said, since Adam and Eve would both possess two copies of each gene, that means a possible total of at least 4 different alleles at each gene and if there are 3 different genes, that means 12 different alleles which could be combined 144 different ways. This would seem more than adequate to accommodate the full range of human skin color.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 11:53 AM
A friend of mine, a physicist, jokes that it would be really cool if Creationism or Intelligent Design were right. It would give him a whole new fascinating thing onto which he could apply the scientific method.I think there's still plenty of work he could be doing applying the scientific method to evolutionary theory to remove the many assumptions that are made to fill in missing information, perhaps.

ochre
08-06-2005, 12:08 PM
I think there's still plenty of work he could be doing applying the scientific method to evolutionary theory to remove the many assumptions that are made to fill in missing information, perhaps.
He's a physicist. Evolution typically is not their field.

SunDeck
08-06-2005, 12:12 PM
I think there's still plenty of work he could be doing applying the scientific method to evolutionary theory to remove the many assumptions that are made to fill in missing information, perhaps.

I believe he is actually occupied with the origins of the universe. His cube mate is taking care of the details. :)

registerthis
08-06-2005, 12:35 PM
Those not willing to accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, then would not necessarily find any credence in creation theory.
I believe this is the point that TR has been unwilling to discuss for...well, the past several pages of this thread now. His preconceived notions of my views on Christianity and religion cloud an ability to answer, what should be, a rather easy question: For someone who does not accept the authority of Christ, what evidence exists to support a literal reading of Genesis? I'm not asking for a series of articles by pseudoscientists with an agenda that attempt to poke holes in evolution--that doesn't answer my question. Don't tell me why evolution is WRONG, tell me why genesis is RIGHT--and don't use circular logic by claiming that "Christ says it is true." You have to do better than that.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 12:40 PM
I believe he is actually occupied with the origins of the universe. His cube mate is taking care of the details. :)So, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, that whole first cause issue? I get you and ochre's point, but then that takes a little sting out of his little funny, it would seem.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 12:46 PM
He's a computer science professor. This is a potential example of an appeal to authority fallacy, in that his qualifications lie in an area other than the area he is discussing here, depending on how it is used.

If you look further he has a disclaimer on his main "ce" page that says:


Those not willing to accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, then would not necessarily find any credence in creation theory.

Ah, the shell game once again. Within the article referenced, there are issues presented, with no supernatural reference. Consider it a Q&A question from an audience member. I really wish folks would just answer questions instead of attempting to end a discussion with a shell game. This is not a scholarly debate, this is a discussion on a forum. Why doesn't someone just address issues brought up from someone who doesn't accept evolution at face value because of those issues instead of helping folks dodge questions. In other words, if the questions are valid, what makes the difference if a chimpanzee presents them?

SunDeck
08-06-2005, 12:51 PM
So, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, that whole first cause issue? I get you and ochre's point, but then that takes a little sting out of his little funny, it would seem.
I didn't understand the joke that way. I believe he is saying he has no problem with Creationism or ID, but that the proponents of those theories misunderstand the purpose of the scientific method. He has no viewpoint on whether there is intelligent design, and if it is truly plausible then it would be able to win him over, even on his terms.

ochre
08-06-2005, 12:52 PM
...I'm not asking for a series of articles by pseudoscientists with an agenda that attempt to poke holes in evolution--that doesn't answer my question. Don't tell me why evolution is WRONG, tell me why genesis is RIGHT...

thats the "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy in action.

ochre
08-06-2005, 01:00 PM
Its not a shell game. I don't care if either of the primary theories being discussed here are true. I doubt I, or you will ever be able to prove either. That being said, the discussion on the merits of intelligent design and the evidence for it have nothing to do with whether evolution is real. I see it as a shady pseudo-scientific theory that people are using to rationalize their religious beliefs. Shifting the burden of proof to the evolution camp does nothing to substantiate the case of creationism. If I had to decide which had more scientific merit based on the evidence I have seen in my life, I would go with evolution hands down.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 01:05 PM
I believe this is the point that TR has been unwilling to discuss for...well, the past several pages of this thread now. His preconceived notions of my views on Christianity and religion cloud an ability to answer, what should be, a rather easy question: For someone who does not accept the authority of Christ, what evidence exists to support a literal reading of Genesis? I'm not asking for a series of articles by pseudoscientists with an agenda that attempt to poke holes in evolution--that doesn't answer my question. Don't tell me why evolution is WRONG, tell me why genesis is RIGHT--and don't use circular logic by claiming that "Christ says it is true." You have to do better than that.

My notions are not preconceived, they are what you have claimed. Ochre keeps on trying to invoke the rules of a scholarly debate in a discussion on an internet forum. Like I said, I understand his point, but I think you are simply dodging the issue by picking and choosing when you accept Christ as an authority.

Secondly, it is not circular logic when several thousand years separate the events and writing of Genesis and the records contained in the NT. Christ, Paul, Peter are all historical figures with writings that are accepted as authentic on both levels of scholars, religious and secular. Obviously not all agree, but you are arguing against the historicity of Genesis. Independently, there is secular scholarly evidence of the historicity of NT writers, whose writings make literal references to the earlier writings of Genesis. With the time that had passed, an allegorical meaning, which some rabbis and scribes were promoting even then, would have made its way onto the pages of the NT writers and agreement made. Yet, these writers (which is all they are with respect to the subject matter) still understood Genesis to be historical.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 01:11 PM
Its not a shell game. I don't care if either of the primary theories being discussed here are true. I doubt I, or you will ever be able to prove either. That being said, the discussion on the merits of intelligent design and the evidence for it have nothing to do with whether evolution is real. I see it as a shady pseudo-scientific theory that people are using to rationalize their religious beliefs. Shifting the burden of proof to the evolution camp does nothing to substantiate the case of creationism. If I had to decide which had more scientific merit based on the evidence I have seen in my life, I would go with evolution hands down.The funny thing is that I was not even responding to reg, but M2s challenge earlier in the thread to provide evidence countering his "mountains of evidence." So, I am not shifting the burden of proof with respect to reg, as you allege, I am responding to M2s challenge. I know these discussions are somewhat hard to follow to whom a post is directed when there are several people talking at the same time, if you will. The posts had nothing to do with the discussion reg and I had. And, for the record, he is using you to hide behind the original question, anyhow, by claiming to not accept Christ as an authority on Creation. Games people play.

ochre
08-06-2005, 01:13 PM
so pretend like I'm the one saying what register has been saying.
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=804186&postcount=150

traderumor
08-06-2005, 01:17 PM
I didn't understand the joke that way. I believe he is saying he has no problem with Creationism or ID, but that the proponents of those theories misunderstand the purpose of the scientific method. He has no viewpoint on whether there is intelligent design, and if it is truly plausible then it would be able to win him over, even on his terms.I know its hard for some to believe, but Creationist and scientist are not mutually exclusive categories. I think that is a misinformed stereotype that has been evident throughout this thread.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 01:20 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=804186&postcount=150

Was I not clear that I was not addressing Reg's argument but M2's challenge? M2 opened the door, I walked through it. That is not "shifting the burden of proof."

registerthis
08-06-2005, 02:29 PM
My notions are not preconceived, they are what you have claimed. Ochre keeps on trying to invoke the rules of a scholarly debate in a discussion on an internet forum. Like I said, I understand his point, but I think you are simply dodging the issue by picking and choosing when you accept Christ as an authority.
So what if i am? I have answered your question--suppose I don't consider Christ an authority on this issue. Put my previous assertions aside, say I'm playing devil's advocate here--my refusal to accept Christ as an authority has made your question irrelevant. I'm asking you a very specific question and you absolutely refuse to answer it. Who is "doding" questions here?


Secondly, it is not circular logic when several thousand years separate the events and writing of Genesis and the records contained in the NT. Christ, Paul, Peter are all historical figures with writings that are accepted as authentic on both levels of scholars, religious and secular. Obviously not all agree, but you are arguing against the historicity of Genesis. Independently, there is secular scholarly evidence of the historicity of NT writers, whose writings make literal references to the earlier writings of Genesis. With the time that had passed, an allegorical meaning, which some rabbis and scribes were promoting even then, would have made its way onto the pages of the NT writers and agreement made. Yet, these writers (which is all they are with respect to the subject matter) still understood Genesis to be historical.
Do you honestly believe what you're writing here? Let's follow your logic train:

-History proves that NT figures such as Jesus, Paul, John and others existed.
-Those figures accepted genesis as historically accurate.
-Therefore, Genesis is historically accurate.

That's completely illogical, and it IS circular. You're only using evidence gathered from the very book I have said bears no authority with me, as far as this argument goes. Your contention that Paul believed genesis to be historically accurate, and because Paul actually DID exist proves his contention to be true. Never mind that, in the several thousand years between the writing of Genesis and Paul's letters there wasn't a noticeable difference in scientific standards. People still thought the Earth was flat, for example--and would so for another 1500 years AFTER Paul. people had no concept of the continents of North America, South America, or Australia. "Evolution" could not even be conceived of. And yet I am supposed to accept the fact that NT writers accepted Genesis as historically accurate simply because they SAY so?

I could go on and on, but it's unnecessary for me to do so. The fact is, you are INCAPABLE of providing secular evidence for the historical accuracy of Genesis. It is not possible for you to do so--that's why you dodge my question, over and over again. You know that there is no evidence to support many of the contentions made by Genesis. That's why you have to revert to using strictly biblical texts to "support" your argument. It's absolutely no different than claiming "X exists because I say so."

registerthis
08-06-2005, 02:33 PM
I know its hard for some to believe, but Creationist and scientist are not mutually exclusive categories. I think that is a misinformed stereotype that has been evident throughout this thread.
A scientist who believes the Earth was created in 6 days, is 6,000 years old, that all of humanity has repopulated itself in less than 6,000 years from one family on the ark, etc. is a pseudoscientist. Any scientist who made these contentions could very quickly and easily have their work debunked by literally thousands of scientists with knowledge in those areas.

I do agree that the concepts of ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive--there are plenty of scientists who believe that a Higher Power played a significant role in the creation and formation of our universe. But you won't find any reputable scientists who accept a literal interpretation of Genesis as a historically accurate depiction of the way our universe came to be.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 03:37 PM
So what if i am? I have answered your question--suppose I don't consider Christ an authority on this issue. Put my previous assertions aside, say I'm playing devil's advocate here--my refusal to accept Christ as an authority has made your question irrelevant. I'm asking you a very specific question and you absolutely refuse to answer it. Who is "doding" questions here?


Do you honestly believe what you're writing here? Let's follow your logic train:

-History proves that NT figures such as Jesus, Paul, John and others existed.
-Those figures accepted genesis as historically accurate.
-Therefore, Genesis is historically accurate.

That's completely illogical, and it IS circular. You're only using evidence gathered from the very book I have said bears no authority with me, as far as this argument goes. Your contention that Paul believed genesis to be historically accurate, and because Paul actually DID exist proves his contention to be true. Never mind that, in the several thousand years between the writing of Genesis and Paul's letters there wasn't a noticeable difference in scientific standards. People still thought the Earth was flat, for example--and would so for another 1500 years AFTER Paul. people had no concept of the continents of North America, South America, or Australia. "Evolution" could not even be conceived of. And yet I am supposed to accept the fact that NT writers accepted Genesis as historically accurate simply because they SAY so?

I could go on and on, but it's unnecessary for me to do so. The fact is, you are INCAPABLE of providing secular evidence for the historical accuracy of Genesis. It is not possible for you to do so--that's why you dodge my question, over and over again. You know that there is no evidence to support many of the contentions made by Genesis. That's why you have to revert to using strictly biblical texts to "support" your argument. It's absolutely no different than claiming "X exists because I say so."Reg, if you're not dodging, I'm not dodging. You have made several absolute statements, many of which are arguments from silence. I am working on addressing those issues. The aim is not to win a debate with you or anyone else who has spoken up, but I am glad there are others brave enough to throw these things around.

princeton
08-06-2005, 04:12 PM
I know its hard for some to believe, but Creationist and scientist are not mutually exclusive categories. I think that is a misinformed stereotype that has been evident throughout this thread.

it's a bad place for you to stand. Creationist scientist has been an oxymoron for centuries.

Red Heeler
08-06-2005, 04:36 PM
Within the article referenced, there are issues presented, with no supernatural reference. Consider it a Q&A question from an audience member. I really wish folks would just answer questions instead of attempting to end a discussion with a shell game. This is not a scholarly debate, this is a discussion on a forum. Why doesn't someone just address issues brought up from someone who doesn't accept evolution at face value because of those issues instead of helping folks dodge questions. In other words, if the questions are valid, what makes the difference if a chimpanzee presents them?

Well, here it goes:


Evolutionary biologists construct many plausible stories about how life developed and evolved, based largely on the fossil record. But how do we know that these stories are true? This history is based to some extent on time periods provided by radiometric dating. But, to my knowledge, there has not been a single double-blind test of radiometric dating methods.

There have been many studies comparing various radiometric dating methods to each other and to non-radiometric dating methods such as counting tree rings or samplings from glacier cores. There is a remarkable consistency between dating methods that has been shown in numerous studies.


The implication is that if creationism is false, then evolution must be true. But just because scientists cannot think of an alternative is no reason to accept a theory. I don't know of other fields where a theory is accepted simply because no one can think of an alternative.

Egads, what a strawman!!! I would like to see where any scientific autority has ever used "creation is false so evolution must be true" logic. Such an argument would get eaten alive by the scientific community. Rather, evolution is a theory which provides the best fit for the evidence.


In arguing that creation is not science, evolutionists expect creation to pass tests that are not reasonable. They expect creationists to be able to say why God created the specific animals that He did, or why He set the third-position codons as He did.

Another strawman. What a scientist would expect creationist to be able to explain is why the physical evidence that exists, well, exists? How do you explain the fact that the number of animals that would have been carried on the Ark would not fit? How do you explain genetic diversity that cannot have come from a beginning of two individuals? And so on and so forth.


evolution did not predict the fossil sequence; it simply adapted itself to it. So we cannot see the fossil sequence as verifying the theory of evolution. It is claimed that the fact that we do not see birds and trilobites together verifies evolution. But if we did see them together, evolutionary biologists would simply modify their evolutionary trees and speak about the incompleteness of the fossil record.

That is how science works. We observe things and then try to come up with a hypothesis on how or why things happened the way the do. If enough evidence and testing shows a hypothesis to be accurate, then it becomes a theory. New evidence is being discovered every day in every field of science which forces a change in existing theories. Anyone who has ever taken a physics class has learned Newtonian physics. Newton's laws are amazingly accurate especially considering the measuring techniques he had available. However, nuclear and electrical physics have shown some of the basics presumptions of Newtonian physics to be incorrect.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 04:36 PM
A scientist who believes the Earth was created in 6 days, is 6,000 years old, that all of humanity has repopulated itself in less than 6,000 years from one family on the ark, etc. is a pseudoscientist. Any scientist who made these contentions could very quickly and easily have their work debunked by literally thousands of scientists with knowledge in those areas.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp


*As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below, because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because they should know better.
Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

* Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
* Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
* Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?

Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early

*

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:
1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
* Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
* Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
* Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
* John Wilkins (1614–1672)
* Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
* Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
* Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
* Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
* John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
* Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
* Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
* Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
* Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
* Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

The Age of Newton

* Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
* Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
* John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
* William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
* Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
* John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
* John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
* William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
* John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
* Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
* Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
* Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
* Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
* William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
* James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
* John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
* John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

* The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
* Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
* William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
* Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
* Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
* John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
* Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
* Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
* John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
* Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
* Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
* Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
* Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
* David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
* William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
* Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
* Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
* John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
* Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
* Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

* Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
* Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
* James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
* Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
* Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
* James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
* James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
* James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
* Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
* Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
* George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
* John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
* Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
* Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
* Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
* William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
* William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
* Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
* Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
* Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
* James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
* P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
* John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
* John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
* Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
* Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
* A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
* John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

The Modern Period

* Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
* George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
* L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
* Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
* Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
* Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
* Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
* Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
* Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
* William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
* William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
* Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
* Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

traderumor
08-06-2005, 04:41 PM
it's a bad place for you to stand. Creationist scientist has been an oxymoron for centuries.See above list. And I think that is a sad commentary on the scientific community, as if one has to accept evolutionary theory to practice the scientific method. With all due respect, that's ludicrous. And Biblicists are accused of trying to pound their worldview into the heads of others?

Here's a response to your opinion:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

By David Buckna

In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly 'has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal' (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn't be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.

Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies ('Developmental genetics of homoeosis', Advances in Genetics, 16:179–248, 1976). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

In their study of creationist publishing practices ('The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation "Science"', Quarterly Review of Biology 60:21–30, 1985), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980–1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described 'as advocating scientific creationism' (p.26).

Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled 'Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport', Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 289–299, 1983, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed. Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer's argument would have flagged the paper as 'creationist'.

How many papers did Scott and Cole miss? Let's look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up 'Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer', by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107:387–403, 1984)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.

It's a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn't 'explicitly' wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as 'an unresolved problem in theoretical biology' (p.401). By Scott and Cole's criteria, such papers don't really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.

Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.

His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 63(10):5068–5071, October 1992, 'Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.' I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future.

Here is just a sampling of some of his earlier articles:

'Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams', (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1–6 October 1990.

'Progress toward a superconducting opening switch', (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 – July 1, 1987) pp. 279–282.

'Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II', (Principal author), Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10–12, 1985) pp. 262–2265.

'Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons', (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34(1):261–268, 1983.

'The 1/gamma velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials', (Only author) Nuclear Physics, A182:580–592, 1972.

Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had 'a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.' Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, 'It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.' This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent 'the range of opinions received.' e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys' letter and Ms Gilbert's reply are reprinted in the book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * 'Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps' to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a 'slight bias' exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphreys' article in their Impact series [No. 233, 'Bumps in the Big Bang', November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.

In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn't publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry's connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.

Another example of blatant discrimination is Scientific American's refusal to hire Forrest Mims as their 'Amateur Scientist' columnist when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was 'fabulous', 'great' and 'first rate'. Subsequently Mims invented a new haze detector praised in the 'Amateur Scientist' column, without mentioning that Mims was rejected for this very column purely because of religious discimination. So it's hardly surprising that some creationists write creationist papers under pseudonyms to avoid being victimised by the bigoted establishment. See Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination

Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: 'I'm part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don't actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it's probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practising scientists who are biblical creationists.' ('Creation in the Physics Lab', Creation Ex Nihilo 15(3):20–23).

A great resource book for refuting the 'Big Bang'!

Starlight and Time
Dr D. Russell Humphreys

The Bible teaches that the universe is just thousands of years old, and yet we can see stars that are billions of light-years away. In his book, Dr Humphreys explains his new cosmology with an easy-to-read popular summary and two technical papers.
More info/Purchase online
Additional information on Dr D. Russell Humphreys:

Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico. He is also the author of the book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory. (See above, right)

One other ICR Impact article by Humphreys can be viewed at: The Earth's Magnetic Field is Young

NOTE: There is a companion video for Creation's Tiny Mystery entitled Fingerprints of Creation.

Dr Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University author of Darwin's Black Box, is not even a biblical creationist, but has experienced blatant censorship simply because he highlights the strong evidence for an intelligent designer of life. Like Dr Gentry, he wasn't even given a chance to respond to his critics — see his Correspondence with Science Journals.
Scientific American refused to allow Phillip Johnson to defend himself against a vindictive and petty review by the atheistic Marxist, Stephen Jay Gould. So Johnson published Response to Gould on the Internet, from Access Research Network.

Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström for examples of mainstream scientific publications by full-time Answers in Genesis Research Scientists.

Postscript: If you are a creationist who publishes in mainstream journals, and would like to be included in further updates of this article, please send your curriculum vitae to: David Buckna.

ochre
08-06-2005, 04:48 PM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

sweet. Argumentum ad numerum. Of course you were responding to an ad hominem, so I guess we'll let this one slide :):)
(http://Of%20course%20you%20were%20responding%20to%20an%20 ad%20hominem,%20so%20I%20guess%20we%27ll%20let%20t his%20one%20slide%20%3Cimg%20src=%22images/smilies/smile.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20title =%22Smile%22%20smilieid=%22242%22%20class=%22inlin eimg%22%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E)

ochre
08-06-2005, 04:54 PM
I have serious questions about scientists with theological agendas. They seem to be trying to fit evidence to meet preconceived (biblical) notions. That's a dangerous route to take and I believe it ties into what princeton is alluding to.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 05:11 PM
I have serious questions about scientists with theological agendas. They seem to be trying to fit evidence to meet preconceived (biblical) notions. That's a dangerous route to take and I believe it ties into what princeton is alluding to.

Oh, boy. Whether one is a creationist or an evolutionist, there are presuppositions that are brought to the table. I'm sure you can identify for me the name of the fallacy that line of thinking represents, whereby it is presumed that a creationist's presuppositions will result in unscientific results, but a non-creationist scientists' presuppositions (or maybe you believe they have none, come this way for swampland) will be left at the door and create no problems with bias. And that is a key point of contention I have with this entire debate and presuppositions that have been introduced, whereby evolutionary interpretation of data is presumably scientific (in fact, its treated as a given) while any evidence provided and interpreted from a Creationist worldview is presupposed to be false.

ochre
08-06-2005, 05:14 PM
What is the non biblical evidence for creationism?

traderumor
08-06-2005, 06:08 PM
What is the non biblical evidence for creationism?

Define creationism.

Also, it appears that you consider there to be a need for separate evidence to support creation than there is to support evolution. I would submit that there are divergent interpretations of the same data by creationist vs. evolutionists.

princeton
08-06-2005, 06:16 PM
See above list. And I think that is a sad commentary on the scientific community, as if one has to accept evolutionary theory to practice the scientific method. With all due respect, that's ludicrous. And Biblicists are accused of trying to pound their worldview into the heads of others?

you're confusing scientists that believe in creation, who are people of faith, with those that study creation, who are usually anti-science. One of my close colleagues is a tremendous scientist who also believes that the world is 6000 years old. But he doesn't study the age of the world, rather he studies proteins that bind to DNA. So he's not a creationist scientist-- and therefore not an anti-scientist

evolution has to be pounded into science students because it's wildly successful at providing a framework that has led to new scientific insight and discovery. Creation simply blocks the imagination and has led nowhere.

ochre
08-06-2005, 06:19 PM
So, again why would/should anybody believe in creationism if they do not believe the bible is accurate? What evidence would compel them, without the pre-conceived biblical bias, to believe that something like what is represented in the bible actually occured?

ochre
08-06-2005, 06:24 PM
You added:

Also, it appears that you consider there to be a need for separate evidence to support creation than there is to support evolution. I would submit that there are divergent interpretations of the same data by creationist vs. evolutionists.
after I replied up there (your post had just said "define creationism") :).

I consider there to be a need for evidence. I do not accept the bible as evidence.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 07:00 PM
You added:

after I replied up there (your post had just said "define creationism") :).

I consider there to be a need for evidence. I do not accept the bible as evidence.

Did you define what you mean by creationism?

And I am a bit confused as to why, say, fossils and the interpretation of the fossils is not evidence available to support creationism. Is that what you are saying? If so, I will not be participating.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 07:04 PM
you're confusing scientists that believe in creation, who are people of faith, with those that study creation, who are usually anti-science. One of my close colleagues is a tremendous scientist who also believes that the world is 6000 years old. But he doesn't study the age of the world, rather he studies proteins that bind to DNA. So he's not a creationist scientist-- and therefore not an anti-scientist

evolution has to be pounded into science students because it's wildly successful at providing a framework that has led to new scientific insight and discovery. Creation simply blocks the imagination and has led nowhere.

I'd say its a matter of defining your terms.


Creationist scientist has been an oxymoron for centuries.

And I consider either position to be arrogant, exclusive, and exceeding the requirements of what constitutes science. As if evolution does not border on being philosophical moreso than it is scientific. But then, what evolution are we talking about, since the term really hasn't been defined throughout this discussion.

ochre
08-06-2005, 07:15 PM
Did you define what you mean by creationism?

And I am a bit confused as to why, say, fossils and the interpretation of the fossils is not evidence available to support creationism. Is that what you are saying? If so, I will not be participating.

How I define it isn't necessarily the issue as I am the one you are trying to convince. What it means to you might be the more important definition. From what I have seen it hinges entirely on the bible being reliable/accurate.

I believe that the mechanisms that are used to scientifically date fossil records are reasonably accurate. I believe that the fossil record puts events in the bible, which I have already stated I do not trust as historical evidence, further into doubt.

I asked for extra-biblical evidence that the events portrayed as the basis for creationism actually occured.

princeton
08-06-2005, 07:22 PM
I consider either position to be arrogant, exclusive, and exceeding the requirements of what constitutes science.

While scientists themselves are usually arrogant and exclusive, they try pretty hard not to allow their colleagues to overextrapolate by wrapping themselves up in evolutionary theory. And it happens a lot

but creation's a dead end for a scientist. Any scientist that blames creation for his own failure to understand his problem of interest is a dead scientist.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 07:48 PM
How I define it isn't necessarily the issue as I am the one you are trying to convince. What it means to you might be the more important definition. From what I have seen it hinges entirely on the bible being reliable/accurate.

I believe that the mechanisms that are used to scientifically date fossil records are reasonably accurate. I believe that the fossil record puts events in the bible, which I have already stated I do not trust as historical evidence, further into doubt.

I asked for extra-biblical evidence that the events portrayed as the basis for creationism actually occured.For the record, your original question was

What is the non biblical evidence for creationism?


I simply wanted to make sure we were on the same page in our definitions. That seems to be too much to ask.




I believe that the mechanisms that are used to scientifically date fossil records are reasonably accurate. I believe that the fossil record puts events in the bible, which I have already stated I do not trust as historical evidence, further into doubt.Good for you, I do not. I believe that is the fallacious appeal to authority, although I'm sure there is some convuluted reason you will come up with as to why it is not.

Honestly, Ochre, you continue to play games and handcuff any position I might come up with. That is not fair and I will not further waste our time.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 07:50 PM
While scientists themselves are usually arrogant and exclusive, they try pretty hard not to allow their colleagues to overextrapolate by wrapping themselves up in evolutionary theory. And it happens a lot

but creation's a dead end for a scientist. Any scientist that blames creation for his own failure to understand his problem of interest is a dead scientist.Bias 101

ochre
08-06-2005, 08:14 PM
For the record, your original question was


which conveniently you have yet to answer.


I simply wanted to make sure we were on the same page in our definitions. That seems to be too much to ask.

what seems to much to ask is for you to actually answer the questions that have been presented without reverting to "the bible says so".



Good for you, I do not. I believe that is the fallacious appeal to authority, although I'm sure there is some convuluted reason you will come up with as to why it is not.


its not fallacious. Its only fallacious if the authority is not qualified for the subject material. Additionally if the merits of creationism are what's being discussed, its shifting the burden of proof to continue to attack evolution as your argument. I was presenting my beliefs in hope that it might further the discussion.

ochre
08-06-2005, 08:16 PM
Bias 101
actually what he is describing is about the least biased system that is, with humans in the equation, feasible. Do you think a scientist wouldn't love to make a break through discovery and be able to disprove a long held principle of any sort? Peer review works because of human nature.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 08:27 PM
which conveniently you have yet to answer.

what seems to much to ask is for you to actually answer the questions that have been presented without reverting to "the bible says so".

its not fallacious. Its only fallacious if the authority is not qualified for the subject material. Additionally if the merits of creationism are what's being discussed, its shifting the burden of proof to continue to attack evolution as your argument. I was presenting my beliefs in hope that it might further the discussion.But you did present your beliefs, which summarily eliminated any discussion of fossil evidence, as far as you're concerned. So, no need to waste any one's time there, right?

You know why I haven't answered? Because I am not going to let you set a trap because I presumed wrongly what you mean when you refer to "creationism." I would expect you to do the same if I asked you to provide evidence outside of "Origin of Species" for evolution, since that's a pretty broad term. So, since you seem to be more interested in double talk than giving a simple explanation for a question you asked, I will not assume you have a proper definition of creationism for which you are forming the basis for your question.

ochre
08-06-2005, 08:31 PM
But you did present your beliefs, which summarily eliminated any discussion of fossil evidence, as far as you're concerned. So, no need to waste any one's time there, right?

You know why I haven't answered? Because I am not going to let you set a trap because I presumed wrongly what you mean when you refer to "creationism." I would expect you to do the same if I asked you to provide evidence outside of "Origin of Species" for evolution, since that's a pretty broad term. So, since you seem to be more interested in double talk than giving a simple explanation for a question you asked, I will not assume you have a proper definition of creationism for which you are forming the basis for your question.
this one works fine for me:
http://www.tfd.com/creationism
creationism
cre·a·tion·ism (krhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifm) n. Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 08:34 PM
actually what he is describing is about the least biased system that is, with humans in the equation, feasible. Do you think a scientist wouldn't love to make a break through discovery and be able to disprove a long held principle of any sort? Peer review works because of human nature.

That's not peer review, that's exclusion of a group based on philosophical differences that hinders the scientific community from being considered objective.

traderumor
08-06-2005, 08:35 PM
this one works fine for me:
http://www.tfd.com/creationism
creationism
cre·a·tion·ism (krhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifm) n. Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.Now was that so hard ;)

James B.
08-06-2005, 08:40 PM
[QUOTE=ochre]

what seems to much to ask is for you to actually answer the questions that have been presented without reverting to "the bible says so"

I don't think there is a better place to see how we were created than the word of God. After all he is the one who created us and he is the one that was there not Darwin or any other man.

ochre
08-06-2005, 08:49 PM
That's not peer review, that's exclusion of a group based on philosophical differences that hinders the scientific community from being considered objective.
But the philosophical differences are important. One philosophy says to measure and observe and draw logical conclusions. The other says measure and observe and fit it into a pre-established framework. As princeton pointed out, your list was noted for their scientific contributions. None of those contributions appear to be in, or around the 'science' of creationism.

Religion requires faith. Science requires empirical evidence.

ochre
08-06-2005, 08:52 PM
Now was that so hard ;)
I read it when you asked before. That's why I asked my question a bit differently further down, sorry for the confusion. :)

traderumor
08-06-2005, 09:22 PM
But the philosophical differences are important. One philosophy says to measure and observe and draw logical conclusions. The other says measure and observe and fit it into a pre-established framework. As princeton pointed out, your list was noted for their scientific contributions. None of those contributions appear to be in, or around the 'science' of creationism.

Religion requires faith. Science requires empirical evidence.

And, as I argued previously, the "acceptable" scientists come to the table with a pre-established framework as well. Since you believe otherwise, what time shall we meet to look at that swampland?

Just to let you know I am not stalling or blowing you off, I want to formulate my arguments very carefully to support creationism without, as you say, using "because the Bible tells me so" arguments. However, it would be impossible to not use the Biblical record for comparative purposes, such as "Creation is feasible because we can see that items included in the Creation account actually exist." I will at least assume to be afforded that much leeway in answering your question, because otherwise, there is no starting point of reference.

ochre
08-06-2005, 09:25 PM
Cool. I am leaving for vacation for a week in the morning. I am not sure if I will be able to check in from there, so I may not be able to reply during that time.

princeton
08-06-2005, 11:15 PM
Bias 101

no, it's strictly utilitarian. Creationism keeps you in the dark ages-- look and marvel, don't try to hard to understand. Evolution helps one to understand things, and helps to make predictions, which often turn out to work.

but just as Einstein replaced Newton, something'll replace Darwin eventually, because Darwinism leaves some things unclear.

won't be intelligent design, though.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2005, 12:43 AM
And, as I argued previously, the "acceptable" scientists come to the table with a pre-established framework as well.

Yes, and that pre-established framework is called "the scientific method" -- forming a hypothesis based on the best evidence available. That's the name of the game. If Creationists want to play the science game, they need to follow the rules and use empirical data to support their hypotheses instead of circular logic ("the Bible says it's true, so it must be true") and leaps of faith ("the world *couldn't possibly* have happened by accident.")

GAC
08-07-2005, 09:03 AM
We'll know in the end. ;)

I'd like to hear someone's explanation of creation ex nihilo?

princeton
08-07-2005, 11:18 AM
personally, I think that the creationists merely like to eat their grapes sour. Unlike evolution, their model doesn't explain much about observations that we make daily, and makes no predictions about things that we'd like to know more about.

I've published a couple of models within my area of research, and not everyone believes them, teaches them, nor even discusses them. Getting ignored is worse than getting attacked, let me tell you. Now, I have faith that I'll be proven correct in the end, but for now, maybe I should just complain to a priest about not getting equal time?

traderumor
08-07-2005, 12:53 PM
personally, I think that the creationists merely like to eat their grapes sour. Unlike evolution, their model doesn't explain much about observations that we make daily, and makes no predictions about things that we'd like to know more about.From what I've seen, you have a stereotype for "creationist." I'll address that as well.

princeton
08-07-2005, 01:18 PM
From what I've seen, you have a stereotype for "creationist." I'll address that as well.

stereotype no. 1: creationists do seem to change the subject a lot ;)

registerthis
08-07-2005, 02:39 PM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp
Oh, this list again.

I don't think you'd want me to list every single scientist who believes that evolution is true...it would crash the redsZone server.

Please...and red Heeler did an outstanding job debunking your "evidence."

registerthis
08-07-2005, 02:40 PM
Reg, if you're not dodging, I'm not dodging. You have made several absolute statements, many of which are arguments from silence. I am working on addressing those issues. The aim is not to win a debate with you or anyone else who has spoken up, but I am glad there are others brave enough to throw these things around.
But I'm not dodging your question, I simply made it irrelevant. You can't use the words of Jesus to justify your contention, therefore your question to me of whether or not I hold Jesus ot be an authority on this issue is completely irrelevant. Why you can't see this, I don't know...

registerthis
08-07-2005, 02:49 PM
And I consider either position to be arrogant, exclusive, and exceeding the requirements of what constitutes science. As if evolution does not border on being philosophical moreso than it is scientific.
If you honestly believe this, you have simply closed off your mind to what defines "science."

The very basis behind a scientific theory is that it is postulated and supported by empirical evidence and data--it does not require faith to believe but, rather (as my sig line states) logical conjecture based on observable evidence. Then, once the theory has been put forth, it is the job and duty of everyone within the scientific community to do everything possible to discredit the argument. Scientists are natural skeptics--everything is looked at with a wary eye. It is this process--the *scientific* process--which separates science from other pursuits, such as philosophy...or religion.

Whether you care to admit it or not, religion requires an act of faith--belief that a supreme being created this world (particularly constrained to the process described in Genesis) requires and act of substantial faith. It also requires you to ignore scads and scads of evidence that indicate that the Earth did not indeed form the way it is described in Genesis.

If you wish to hold this view, fine. But it is absolutely uncomparble to science in every way. There is no rigorous test to "disprove" the accounts of Genesis...creationsim isn't dependent upon observable evidence, thus it can't be discredited with observable evidence. It fails at every level of being a "science." Moreover, there's nothing philosophical about evolution, insomuch as that would imply the scientists who believe in it to have a preconceived bias against religion and an agenda to disprove God. No such thing exists.

traderumor
08-07-2005, 02:57 PM
Oh, this list again.

I don't think you'd want me to list every single scientist who believes that evolution is true...it would crash the redsZone server.

Please...and red Heeler did an outstanding job debunking your "evidence."Go back and read your claim again, so the size of the list doesn't matter. Besides, your little retort simply supports a truth from the Bible (you know, that book you seem to enjoy discrediting) (Matthew 7:13-14 KJV) "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Regardless of the size of the list, it debunked your gross exaggeration that caused me to post it.

traderumor
08-07-2005, 03:18 PM
If you honestly believe this, you have simply closed off your mind to what defines "science."

The very basis behind a scientific theory is that it is postulated and supported by empirical evidence and data--it does not require faith to believe but, rather (as my sig line states) logical conjecture based on observable evidence. Then, once the theory has been put forth, it is the job and duty of everyone within the scientific community to do everything possible to discredit the argument. Scientists are natural skeptics--everything is looked at with a wary eye. It is this process--the *scientific* process--which separates science from other pursuits, such as philosophy...or religion.

Whether you care to admit it or not, religion requires an act of faith--belief that a supreme being created this world (particularly constrained to the process described in Genesis) requires and act of substantial faith. It also requires you to ignore scads and scads of evidence that indicate that the Earth did not indeed form the way it is described in Genesis.

If you wish to hold this view, fine. But it is absolutely uncomparble to science in every way. There is no rigorous test to "disprove" the accounts of Genesis...creationsim isn't dependent upon observable evidence, thus it can't be discredited with observable evidence. It fails at every level of being a "science." Moreover, there's nothing philosophical about evolution, insomuch as that would imply the scientists who believe in it to have a preconceived bias against religion and an agenda to disprove God. No such thing exists.The issue you and ochre left me with is not whether or not you consider Creationism a scientific approach. My challenge was to show extra-Biblical evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis. I am preparing a response for that challenge. At some point, I will also address what I consider to be misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and in some cases, outright a priori dismissal of Creation science as "religion not science because God and the Bible are involved (which you just did above)" thusly being labeled "pseudoscience" (enough people say it enough times its considered to be true argument at work).

BTW, referring to people who think differently on an issue than you does not qualify as "closed mindedness."

capndees
08-07-2005, 03:58 PM
The issue you and ochre left me with is not whether or not you consider Creationism a scientific approach. My challenge was to show extra-Biblical evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis. I am preparing a response for that challenge. At some point, I will also address what I consider to be misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and in some cases, outright a priori dismissal of Creation science as "religion not science because God and the Bible are involved (which you just did above)" thusly being labeled "pseudoscience" (enough people say it enough times its considered to be true argument at work).

BTW, referring to people who think differently on an issue than you does not qualify as "closed mindedness."

Oh Lord, I got drawn into this debate on the Passion of the Christ forum at rottentomatoes.com. Why does this argument always come up at the most inappropriate of places?

My two cents: Genesis is not science (it was never meant to be), but it has not been disproven by real science either. Evolution is NOT science, it is a wannabe piggy-backing on REAL science. It (macro-evolution) has never been observed, and that right there disqualifies it from being a real theory. I think if Mr Darwin was around today and saw how different the fossil record he predicted was from the one that actually turned up, he would quickly recant his theory. But the damage cannot be undone, the uniformitarians of the late 19th century were looking for any excuse to throw out the Bible, and once they found it, damned if they were going to let facts get in the way of accomplishing their goal.

Falls City Beer
08-07-2005, 04:09 PM
My two cents: Genesis is not science (it was never meant to be), but it has not been disproven by real science either.

Right. Why would "real" science bother to disprove something so patently impossible as the occurrences laid out in Genesis?

True, evolutionary biology has its warts, but it's tapping into something that heretofore people would never have thought to look for or at (based largely on the inertia of human thought and the stubbornness of human exceptionalism).

GIK
08-07-2005, 04:14 PM
I don't see his reasoning as a low view of scripture. In fact, I see it as a high view.

To suggest that not believing in the snake, the garden, the ark, the flood, and all the other beautiful stories as literal is to me the high view. I would suggest that maybe he focuses on the true essence of spirituality that flows between all religions, and ignores the dogma that has been a 3000 year old way to control people.

What a silly waste of time to argue over these stories. They're mearly commentary. The essence of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is obscured by power struggles over translations and dogma.

Great post.

capndees
08-07-2005, 04:16 PM
Right. Why would "real" science bother to disprove something so patently impossible as the occurrences laid out in Genesis?

I think TR is working on this, but why do you think it is so impossible, other than that it is popular today to dismiss the Bible? I say the burden is on you. What is in Genesis that is so impossible? And I'm sorry, "it goes against evolution" is not a valid answer.


True, evolutionary biology has its warts, but it's tapping into something that heretofore people would never have thought to look for or at (based largely on the inertia of human thought and the stubbornness of human exceptionalism).

Couldn't disagree more. The secular community is (and always has been) DYING for an excuse to throw out the Bible, and will blindly jump off any cliff that might accomplish that.

Falls City Beer
08-07-2005, 04:21 PM
I think TR is working on this, but why do you think it is so impossible, other than that it is popular today to dismiss the Bible? I say the burden is on you. What is in Genesis that is so impossible? And I'm sorry, "it goes against evolution" is not a valid answer.



Couldn't disagree more. The secular community is (and always has been) DYING for an excuse to throw out the Bible, and will blindly jump off any cliff that might accomplish that.

I'm in no mood to re-write every reason that's been listed in this thread ad nauseam. Just read the thread to find the reasons for Genesis's impossibility. They're all there.

But then I look at guys like RFS62 and registerthis and see that they're members of the "non-secular" community, that is, they are both people of faith who happen to question the scientific validity and truth of the claims laid out in Genesis. Are they, too, "dying" to throw out the Bible? I think that's kind of insulting to the two of them and the many, many, many people who believe in God and are faithful but who question the scientific reality of some of the Bible.

capndees
08-07-2005, 04:26 PM
personally, I think that the creationists merely like to eat their grapes sour. Unlike evolution, their model doesn't explain much about observations that we make daily, and makes no predictions about things that we'd like to know more about.

You mean like the vast fossil graveyards, which required not millions of years, but a large-scale catastrophe? (i.e., flood)

capndees
08-07-2005, 04:26 PM
I'm in no mood to re-write every reason that's been listed in this thread ad nauseam. Just read the thread to find the reasons for Genesis's impossibility. They're all there.

Will do.

capndees
08-07-2005, 04:34 PM
I don't think you'd want me to list every single scientist who believes that evolution is true...it would crash the redsZone server.

Here's one:


To postulate that the development of and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and entirely irreconcilable with the facts....it amazes me that [classical evolutionary theories] are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmer of protest.

That was biochemist Ernst Chain, who received the Nobel Prize for his work on penicillen. Yeah, you could call him a scientist.

capndees
08-07-2005, 04:40 PM
But then I look at guys like RFS62 and registerthis and see that they're members of the "non-secular" community, that is, they are both people of faith who happen to question the scientific validity and truth of the claims laid out in Genesis. Are they, too, "dying" to throw out the Bible? I think that's kind of insulting to the two of them and the many, many, many people who believe in God and are faithful but who question the scientific reality of some of the Bible.

I was talking about those at the top of the ladder, those people actually responsible for spreading the religion of evolution and maintaining its study in public schools.

Falls City Beer
08-07-2005, 04:42 PM
I was talking about those at the top of the ladder, those people actually responsible for spreading the religion of evolution and maintaining its study in public schools.

What difference does it make? For all I know, registerthis writes science textbooks.

capndees
08-07-2005, 04:48 PM
Lucy says hi.

Probably not, since she was a plains-dwelling chimp.

capndees
08-07-2005, 05:05 PM
Trust me, I'm brutally aware of the argument ad ignorantiam belched by the fundamentalist line of thinking vis. "the holes" in evolutionary theory. "If it can't be explained, it must be God" isn't a theory; it's a default/defense mechanism.

I'm just trying a different tack--as I now see that arguing for the scientific method is falling mostly on deaf ears. Perhaps, I can catch one who concedes that science actually enlightens some corners of the universe (Ravenlord) and compel him to see where his argument falls apart.

If you (and registerthis) really believe that evolution must be proven 100% correct for us to believe it, or else we will blindly fall back on our Bible, then I'm afraid you seriously misunderstand us.

I've only read the first couple pages of the thread (got to go to work for now), but all I see so far is a defense of MICRO-evolution, which of course happens all the time, and the Genesis account has no problem with. I have yet to see any defense of macro-evolution, or anything in Genesis debunked (but I will keep reading).

The problem is not that we require an absolution of macro-evolution in order to believe it; although, we are A LONG WAY from proving macro, and continue to move farther away as more and more facts turn up. The problem is, we believe (and with good reason) that the scientific method is being completely bypassed when it comes to evolutionary study! Evolution (just another form of uniformitarianism) is a religion, not a science. It is the official religion of the post-Christian era. If you look closely, I think you will find that it requires way more faith and leaps of logic than the Genesis account does (perhaps TR and I can explore this more as we go).

Red Heeler
08-07-2005, 05:22 PM
You mean like the vast fossil graveyards, which required not millions of years, but a large-scale catastrophe? (i.e., flood)

However, this provides another challenge to a literal interpretation of Genesis. If we take all of the species which currently live on the earth, they would not fit in a vessel the size of the Ark. Adding in all of the species for which there is a fossil record only serves to further disprove the Flood story.

Falls City Beer
08-07-2005, 05:46 PM
If you (and registerthis) really believe that evolution must be proven 100% correct for us to believe it, or else we will blindly fall back on our Bible, then I'm afraid you seriously misunderstand us.

I've only read the first couple pages of the thread (got to go to work for now), but all I see so far is a defense of MICRO-evolution, which of course happens all the time, and the Genesis account has no problem with. I have yet to see any defense of macro-evolution, or anything in Genesis debunked (but I will keep reading).

The problem is not that we require an absolution of macro-evolution in order to believe it; although, we are A LONG WAY from proving macro, and continue to move farther away as more and more facts turn up. The problem is, we believe (and with good reason) that the scientific method is being completely bypassed when it comes to evolutionary study! Evolution (just another form of uniformitarianism) is a religion, not a science. It is the official religion of the post-Christian era. If you look closely, I think you will find that it requires way more faith and leaps of logic than the Genesis account does (perhaps TR and I can explore this more as we go).

I have looked closely. And I'm completely and totally unconvinced creationism is scientific.

Christianity is a religion. Not a science. Evolution is a theory. It's never sold itself as anything else. Now who is it who protesteth so much?

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2005, 06:38 PM
It (macro-evolution) has never been observed, and that right there disqualifies it from being a real theory.

No. A theory is just an idea. "Evidence" is observed, and good theories (like evolution) are formed based on that evidence. If a theory is observed, it's no longer a theory.


The problem is not that we require an absolution of macro-evolution in order to believe it; although, we are A LONG WAY from proving macro, and continue to move farther away as more and more facts turn up.

What is the basis for that statement? What "facts" are turning up that contradict evolution?

James B.
08-07-2005, 07:28 PM
No. A theory is just an idea. "Evidence" is observed, and good theories (like evolution) are formed based on that evidence. If a theory is observed, it's no longer a theory.



What is the basis for that statement? What "facts" are turning up that contradict evolution?


The fact is that evolution for one can't prove how we got here. The fact is there had to be a creator. It is also takes a great leap of faith to believe that a monkey can evolve into a man. This has never been proved.

Here is the formula for creation; God + Supernatural Power = Creation (man)

Here is the formula for evolution; Nothing + Nothing = Something + Impossible chance *7

Ameba changing into a amphibian is impossible
amphibian changing into a reptile is impossible
reptile changing into a bird is impossible
bird changing into a mammel is impossible
mammel changing into a ape is impossible
ape changing into a man is impossible

I'm not sure that is exactly right but I do know that it takes more faith in that than it does to believe in God. Some people just want to take away the glory from God.

Hoosier Red
08-07-2005, 07:44 PM
Ameba changing into a amphibian is impossible
amphibian changing into a reptile is impossible
reptile changing into a bird is impossible
bird changing into a mammel is impossible
mammel changing into a ape is impossible
ape changing into a man is impossible


Really? why is that? It's not possible that as species adapted to the enviroments around them, over the course of millions of years, they have taken on new traits?

Why is it impossible?
Of course if God created the framework for this all to happen, surely you wouldn't say it was impossible would you. For what is impossible to God?

alex trevino
08-07-2005, 07:45 PM
I think both theories are full of holes but the fact that Preseident Bush endorses a certain point of view is not that concerning. He is for all intent and purposes a lame duck. The 2008 campaign is already underway and eveyone on the hill is looking past W. at this point.

RFS62
08-07-2005, 07:54 PM
I'm not sure that is exactly right but I do know that it takes more faith in that than it does to believe in God. Some people just want to take away the glory from God.


This is why I'm hesitant to post on these threads. I don't want to ever say anything that demeans or challenges someone else's faith. It always makes me feel a little guilty.

Faith comes in so many variations. And not just Christian faith, but all the other religions and belief systems as well. I believe we are drawn to whatever belief system that suits our journey, and we're all a little different, hence all the different variations on the theme.

The problems come when you start talking about the retirement plan. But I always try to look first at intent. The intent of the person making their case. If their intent is to save me from what they believe is certain punishment in a lake of fire and brimstone, I can cut them some slack if they are a little forward in their approach. I don't share that belief, but I understand where they're coming from, and for the most part, they feel as if they have to, are commanded to, and want to save me from that end.

And they often do it knowing it makes them the butt of jokes and ridicule. So, they get all the slack I can muster up, because I consider their intent first, and their methods as an often uncomfortable reflection of that belief system.

I don't see how the problem of faith vs. science can ever be reconcilled. The concept that "belief" of things unseen is central to a lot of religious thought. To me, it's all different window dressing that often obscures the central theme that runs common in all spiritual belief systems.

So, I don't see any way this will ever be argued to a conclusion, with a winner declared. It's an argument that allows all sides to make passionate cases for their point of view, but will never be concluded to the satisfaction of all involved.

But I like reading these threads, and I learn a lot from all sides involved. I just hope we can all respect one another and keep it from becoming ugly and hurtful among people that it looks to me like have a lot of sincere and heartfelt beliefs, even if they are very different.

GAC
08-07-2005, 08:48 PM
Ameba changing into a amphibian is impossible
amphibian changing into a reptile is impossible
reptile changing into a bird is impossible
bird changing into a mammel is impossible
mammel changing into a ape is impossible
ape changing into a man is impossible


Really? why is that? It's not possible that as species adapted to the enviroments around them, over the course of millions of years, they have taken on new traits?

Why is it impossible?
Of course if God created the framework for this all to happen, surely you wouldn't say it was impossible would you. For what is impossible to God?

I think what he is saying (and I don't presume to speak for him), is that for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to have evolved into what is later man, it would have first had to possess such DNA.

James B.
08-07-2005, 08:51 PM
Ameba changing into a amphibian is impossible
amphibian changing into a reptile is impossible
reptile changing into a bird is impossible
bird changing into a mammel is impossible
mammel changing into a ape is impossible
ape changing into a man is impossible


Really? why is that? It's not possible that as species adapted to the enviroments around them, over the course of millions of years, they have taken on new traits?

Why is it impossible?
Of course if God created the framework for this all to happen, surely you wouldn't say it was impossible would you. For what is impossible to God?



What do you mean by taking on new traits? If it's going from one species to another then science says that's impossible. It takes faith to believe this because there is no proof. Where does the bible say that God used evolution to make all this happen? I think the bible is clear that God created everything in 6 days.

James B.
08-07-2005, 08:59 PM
This is why I'm hesitant to post on these threads. I don't want to ever say anything that demeans or challenges someone else's faith. It always makes me feel a little guilty.

Faith comes in so many variations. And not just Christian faith, but all the other religions and belief systems as well. I believe we are drawn to whatever belief system that suits our journey, and we're all a little different, hence all the different variations on the theme.

The problems come when you start talking about the retirement plan. But I always try to look first at intent. The intent of the person making their case. If their intent is to save me from what they believe is certain punishment in a lake of fire and brimstone, I can cut them some slack if they are a little forward in their approach. I don't share that belief, but I understand where they're coming from, and for the most part, they feel as if they have to, are commanded to, and want to save me from that end.

And they often do it knowing it makes them the butt of jokes and ridicule. So, they get all the slack I can muster up, because I consider their intent first, and their methods as an often uncomfortable reflection of that belief system.

I don't see how the problem of faith vs. science can ever be reconcilled. The concept that "belief" of things unseen is central to a lot of religious thought. To me, it's all different window dressing that often obscures the central theme that runs common in all spiritual belief systems.

So, I don't see any way this will ever be argued to a conclusion, with a winner declared. It's an argument that allows all sides to make passionate cases for their point of view, but will never be concluded to the satisfaction of all involved.

But I like reading these threads, and I learn a lot from all sides involved. I just hope we can all respect one another and keep it from becoming ugly and hurtful among people that it looks to me like have a lot of sincere and heartfelt beliefs, even if they are very different.


RFS62 you won't hurt my feelings just because we might disagree. I like to have these discussions because that is how we can learn. I hope I don't make anyone mad but when I see people making light of the word of God I have a responsibility to defend it.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2005, 09:48 PM
The fact is that evolution for one can't prove how we got here. The fact is there had to be a creator. It is also takes a great leap of faith to believe that a monkey can evolve into a man. This has never been proved.

Here is the formula for creation; God + Supernatural Power = Creation (man)

Here is the formula for evolution; Nothing + Nothing = Something + Impossible chance *7

No offense, but nothing you wrote qualifies as a fact. Your opinions and your interpretations of science and the Bible are fine, but I asked for some objective facts that capndees claimed keep turning up to undermine the theory of evolution.

capndees
08-07-2005, 09:57 PM
However, this provides another challenge to a literal interpretation of Genesis. If we take all of the species which currently live on the earth, they would not fit in a vessel the size of the Ark. Adding in all of the species for which there is a fossil record only serves to further disprove the Flood story.

The ark had the volume of over 500 boxcars. A single boxcar can hold several hundred sheep. The ark could hold more than you think.

capndees
08-07-2005, 10:08 PM
I have looked closely. And I'm completely and totally unconvinced creationism is scientific.

Thats fine. I'm not trying to convince anybody that Creationism is a science. I am as much opposed to Genesis being taught in science class as I am evolution. To me, they are opposite ends of a religious spectrum that have butted their heads into the scientific community. Evolution has gained a foothold there that it doesn't deserve. Removing it and replacing it with Creationism would not make things right (even though, IMO, Creation is much more scientifically feasible).

My only contention is that when tested against known scientific facts, the Genesis account lacks nothing. Do we understand completely how everything happened? Of course not. But that is the point of science, to figure things out without the costraints of any preconceived notions (either evolutionary or creationist). I am convinced that because of the uniformitarian mindset that most scientists have, many facts have been ignored or skewed that would otherwise have agreed with Genesis.

capndees
08-07-2005, 10:14 PM
No. A theory is just an idea. "Evidence" is observed, and good theories (like evolution) are formed based on that evidence. If a theory is observed, it's no longer a theory.

A scientific theory must be observable and repeatable. No one has ever observed macro-evolution. So how is it possible to study it? We might as well study the theory that all humans came from alien DNA (oh wait, we're looking into that, too... :bang: )


What is the basis for that statement? What "facts" are turning up that contradict evolution?

By way of a for instance, the total lack of any "missing links" in the fossil record, the out-of-order strata, the fossilized trees that stretch across several strata (supposed millions of years)....ok, thats 3.

capndees
08-07-2005, 10:23 PM
I don't see how the problem of faith vs. science can ever be reconcilled. The concept that "belief" of things unseen is central to a lot of religious thought.

Thats just the problem! Its not faith vs. science, its faith vs. faith! Its belief of things unseen vs. belief of other thing unseen. Its religious thought vs. religious thought. Dont be fooled into thinking that religious teaching only occurs in churches.

If evolution had ANY scientific credibility, I would be the first to apologize for creationism. I dont want anybody to accept a religious view over scientific fact!