Followup "Is TWeb on a Slippery Slope"

[Stephen]

Hey Socrates, I thought it'd be easier if I continued the discussion here because the locker room is out of control. Here's where I"ll answer your last post directed to me:


You should be more skeptical of those the Bible calls "fools", especially when they contradict God's Word and propose an explanation for origins that rules God out.


I personally think that the Bible isn't speaking of them being a fool IQ-wise. Are you suggesting that atheists are all unintelligent, and cannot propose a good theory? And sure, maybe they choose hide behind evolution to try to discredit God's existance, but I am not. I believe evolution because I am trying to credit God as being able to fit with what evidence has shown us.

This isn't directed to you, but a lot of people steriotype Christians as people who ignore the evidence. I just choose to find a theory that includes both God and the evidence.


Nonsense! The whole point of evolution is to explain the complexity of life without divine design. It is necessary for atheists to feel intellectually fulfilled.


To my knowledge, when Charle's Darwin discovered it, it was to explain why there was such a variety of finches so similiar on different islands. I will not argue that most atheists use evolution as a crutch, but to use the actions of those who I am not in agreement with seems to be a strawman argument. I am not an atheist, what any given atheist happens to believe about evolution, or adds to evolution, does not in any way affect me.


This fails to recognize that data must always be interpreted in the light of theory. And the theories are in turn determined by the starting assumptions. For evolutionists, this is that God, if He even exists, has not intervened miraculously in the past to create life or judge the world by a global Flood. As I've shown with Hutton, Lewontin and Todd, this antimiraculous bias is presupposed a priori. So why trust their theories when they are starting with antibiblical assumptions?

Frankly, the idea of God using evolution is self-contradictory, since it entails that God used a process proposed precisely not to require Him. It's like the farmer in the parable The horse and the tractor: Why God and evolution don’t mix, who claims that the tractor is really being pulled invisibly by a horse, when the whole point of the tractor is to replace the horse.



It is self contradictory because God used a process not to require Him? Why? Last time I checked, nearly all of nature has been put together in a way that it can run "on its own" in the sense that we have explanations for why. Take life, for instance: God created people, He created a way for them to reproduce, He created a way for one human to be born from another, and a way for them to mature and continue the cycle. This meets the exact criterea you suggested to be self-contradictory. Of course God didn't need to have things be able to work without His direct intervention, but God rarely does things out of need, but out of His choice. As I said before, evolution to me only proves that there must be an Intelligent Designer to create such a process. So does the cycle of life. Yet God still is active in both


Already done at length on TWeb and I refuse to reinvent the wheel. If you had the text of Scripture alone, you would not come up with evolution or long ages.


If we had a text of scripture alone, we would believe the earth was flat too.

Scripture is no reason to ignore other factors. If it doesn't fit, it means we must be interpreting it the wrong way, and we need to re-examine it. Scripture alone is our basis for truth, but we must use science and knowledge that we have been given to interpret that truth.


Actually 6 days, because God rested on the seventh, and Ex. 20:8-11 makes sense only if the days of Creation Week were the same as those of the working week.

And why do you want to answer that? Sounds like you're trying to explain away the clear teaching to fit materialist notions of Earth history.


6, my bad.

Exodus 20
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.


God's creation is being paralleled to a week with the Sabbath symbolizing God's time of rest, I see no problem there.

And why would I want to answer that? Because I am arguing from a Christian perspective. If something contradicts Scripture, that something is wrong unless that something has ample evidence and can be fit to Scripture

yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age (etc.)...

The word can mean "age" as well as "day"

Also, there is another explanation.

Time is, of course, relative. Depending on where one is, any given amount of time can mean anything. From earth, a literal 24 hour day is different from on mars, etc. The Bible is nearly all from the perspective of the earth, with people's accounts. But the days of creation, the perspective is notably different. God is creating the earth, so the gravitational pull is not yet existant at the beginning of the creation. This means that it is a day in God's eyes, not from earth's perspective. A day can mean any amount of time, given the fact that there was no earth yet, so the word "day" as 24 earth-hours is meaningless.

This is only one theory presented in a book I recently read, "The Science of God".


Quite simple. On each of the creation days, there is the obvious patterning of command, fulfillment, assessment. On days 3, 5 and 6, lots of different kinds are created at once.

We both agree that the pattern is command, fulfillment, and assessment. But where does that say anything about the means of creation? Furthermore, if it is really spontaneous creation, why does it take a 24 hour day for God to say something, and it is immediately there, and then to later assess it?


Furthermore, the air and sea creatures came before the land creatures, so could not have evolved from them.



Doesn't evolution say all animals evolved from sea creatures?


Talk about begging the question of whether evolution is true!! And this contradicts the Bible, which says that the beginning of wisdom and knowledge is fear of the lord, and that those who seek God will find truth. If what you say is true, those seeking God overlooked the alleged truth of evolution for 1800 years of church history, and instead God-haters like Hutton, Lyell, Darwin and Huxley found this alleged truth that


So all Christians who search for the truth will know the exact truth in every matter? Why are there even any theological debates, shouldn't all Christians know the truth?


Hang on, it takes away the idea that animals were originally vegetarian. And since the Isaiah passages are most likely linked to the promise of restoration in Acts 3:21, one must ask, "restored to what? Millions of years of more animal death and suffering?"



Can you give me the exact Isaiah passage so I knew exactly what you are reffering to?


No, according to most big bang proponents, it is the "ultimate free lunch". And there is something incredibly compromising about restricting God to the one who lit the fuse of the alleged big bang.


I didn't say I was a Big-Bangist anyway, but it would be more than lighting the fuse: who created the laws by which the big band and evolution and all other life would need to follow? If the Big Bang is true, God didn't only light the fuse, He created the fuse, and the laws by which the fuse would burn.


That He specially created Adam and Eve at the "beginning of creation", not evolving them from some ape-like creature 15 billion years after an alleged big bang.

He created them at the beginning of creation? What about the other 5 days?:noid:

[Socratism]

Stephen,


If something contradicts Scripture, that something is wrong unless that something has ample evidence and can be fit to Scripture

IMO, the problem with your statement is twofold:

[1] the evidence against evolution is compelling, and

[2] people "fit' scripture to their interpretation of certain evidence, and in so doing twist scripture as to make it virtually of no real consequence in their world view. Fortunately. most Christians stop short of doing this to the life of Jesus, and hence may preserve their salvation, but probably sacrifice any rewards in Heaven by their faithlessness toward the rest of God's word..

[Stephen]

Hehe, cool! I have socrates and socratism in the same debate.


the evidence against evolution is compelling, and

This thread was, at least for now, meant to discuss whether evolution is compatible with Christianity, not to argue the evidence as of the time being.


people "fit' scripture to their interpretation of certain evidence, and in so doing twist scripture as to make it virtually of no real consequence in their world view. Fortunately. most Christians stop short of doing this to the life of Jesus, and hence may preserve their salvation, but probably sacrifice any rewards in Heaven by their faithlessness toward the rest of God's word..

You are right, of course that there must be a certain point beyond interpretation, but I'm talking about thing that are actually open to interpretation.

Say for instance, a greek word may mean either day or age (reference to Genesis not intended) but evidence shows it means the word "day", whereas translators translated it to "age". Unless there is sufficient reason why it ought to stay "age", then because of the evidence one has the right and duty to interpret it accordingly. The Bible will never contradict true factual evidence or science, so if we have evidence, we should try to make both fit. If the Bible isn't open to interpretation, and the evidence is, then change the evidence. If the bible is open to interpretation and the evidence is solid (not speaking of evolution specifically) then you change your interpretation of the Bible.

Too many Christians sacrafice truth for their own interpretation. Far mor atheists sacrafice the Bible for evidence that is subject to interpretation. There must be middle ground.

[Socratism]

10-27-2003 @ 08:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=259564#post259564)
Stephen:

You are right, of course that there must be a certain point beyond interpretation, but I'm talking about thing that are actually open to interpretation.

Say for instance, a greek word may mean either day or age (reference to Genesis not intended) but evidence shows it means the word "day", whereas translators translated it to "age". Unless there is sufficient reason why it ought to stay "age", then because of the evidence one has the right and duty to interpret it accordingly. The Bible will never contradict true factual evidence or science, so if we have evidence, we should try to make both fit. If the Bible isn't open to interpretation, and the evidence is, then change the evidence. If the bible is open to interpretation and the evidence is solid (not speaking of evolution specifically) then you change your interpretation of the Bible.

Too many Christians sacrafice truth for their own interpretation. Far mor atheists sacrafice the Bible for evidence that is subject to interpretation. There must be middle ground.

In the case of Genesis the evidence is perfectly clear that yom in the 6 day creation account is intended to mean a normal day.

There are other usages of yom in Genesis where it is clear a broader interpretation is required, e.g. "in the day that God created .... ".

In the 6 day account the context includes the term "evening and morning". This phrase always implies an ordinary day is intended. In addition if that were not enough, the days of creation are associated with a numeral, which also implies that an ordinary day is intended.

On top of all this other books of the Bible refer to the 6 days of creation and nowhere is their any implication that they were not ordinary days.

Those who wish to reconcile billions of years with the Genesis account should be aware that they are twisting scripture only because they have such great confidence that the theory of evolution is true and the Earth is billions of years old..

[Stephen]

However, even if the word yom is really used to mean a literal day, that still begs the question - day from what point of view? From an earth point of view, in which 24 hours is as it is now, or from a God's eye view, in which "day" can really mean any period of time yet continually be a true day.

[Socratism]

Stephen,

You're obviously grasping at straws in order to preserve your misguided faith in evolution.

You do believe in evolution do you not?

[$cirisme]

He's OEC iirc

[Stephen]

Yep I believe in evolution. And yes, my answer is at best ambiguous. But the yom as an age still makes sense. Yes, it isn't used in genesis to mean "ages" in other places, but this is the creation of the world, its a past event recorded that none but God saw.

And yes, I would believe yom reffers to age out of a basic belief in an old-earth, but what is wrong with that? It is either day or age, but evidence seems to suggest the latter. :huh:

I should make it clear though, I'm very very on-the-fence in these issues. I wouldn't really call myself a theistic evolutionist, only someone who's open to both views and willing to discuss which one is more plausible. So if my arguments get weak at time, it is not out of grasping for straws on defending my views, only me trying to think of arguments for the sake of a good discussion

[$cirisme]

Stephen:

Yep I believe in evolution.

my bad, sorry

[Stephen]

Or at least, as far as this argument is concerned I believe in evolution. As I said, I'm not very set in either view as of now.

[Algesan]

Stephen, I don't bother posting much here on C/E since Socrates does a good job and most people who try to dispute YEC don't know enough about it to say anything worth hearing. A vague belief in evolution (i.e. - faith in what your teacher taught you) is not incompatible with Christianity or salvation.

You are correct that yom can mean ages or days or undetermined lengths of time. However, with the usage of Genesis 1 compared to the rest of the OT, it is doubly reinforced that it is a normal day, plus all references to creation confirm it is a normal day. To make it 'ages' at that point requires extra gymnastics, like calling something written in a historical style something poetic.

The 'at the beginning of creation' refutation by asking 'what about the other five days' sounds a bit silly when you compare the at least 4000+ years between the event and the comment, think significant digits. I'm an inerrantist, but definitely not a hyperliteralist.

As for evolution fitting the evidence, what evidence? Counting layers of rock and claiming that each are a year, except when we can see the rock formations actually forming and they take far less than a year to make what is counted as 'old' formations that we didn't see form. The list goes on.

Be aware that the most common 'refutations' of YEC depends on refuting some of the fringe or out of date concepts of YEC like fixity of species or using hyperliteralism. I'm sure you and I could trivially refute New Age Gaianism and then claim that you had refuted Darwinian evolution. We could get great sound bites doing so, but we wouldn't have touched the actual subject we are supposedly disproving. After exhausting these, evolutionists tend to move on to fallacies and catechismal statements.

I don't have anything against you or your position though, I held it once myself, which is one reason I decided to post here. I decided to smoke a silly YEC one day and started doing the research on YEC to find the holes to poke in it. Guess which side started showing the bigger holes?

[Dee Dee Warren]

CLARIFICATION: A question was raised about materialistic views of origins being raised on this thread when this section is generally off-limits to materialistic evolution. The thread was started at my direction as the thread starter Stephen is not set in his views and wanted a discourse with YEC on these issues, and I believe this is the most appropriate place. Evolution is not totally prohibited in this section though generally that is so. Here are the forum guidelines for everyone's perusal:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12438

With a clarification on the issue of evolutionary views and their expression here. However, again, this thread was put here at my direction so that Stephen could eplore these views and his questions with creationists to come to a place where he can firm up his own view.

[jason]

Today @ 07:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269687#post269687)
Algesan:

You are correct that yom can mean ages or days or undetermined lengths of time. However, with the usage of Genesis 1 compared to the rest of the OT, it is doubly reinforced that it is a normal day, plus all references to creation confirm it is a normal day. To make it 'ages' at that point requires extra gymnastics, like calling something written in a historical style something poetic.
I'm not sure that is as true as you seem to think.


As for evolution fitting the evidence, what evidence? Counting layers of rock and claiming that each are a year, except when we can see the rock formations actually forming and they take far less than a year to make what is counted as 'old' formations that we didn't see form. The list goes on.
Glenn Morton has some examples that still remain untouched. And the astronomy questions remain unanswered to. Although I still fail to see why an ancient universe is incompatible with a YEC position.

I don't have anything against you or your position though, I held it once myself, which is one reason I decided to post here. I decided to smoke a silly YEC one day and started doing the research on YEC to find the holes to poke in it. Guess which side started showing the bigger holes?
I found the reverse to be true. But I am sure you will be tackling Chickenmans UOX pseudogene challege right after this.

One thing I have noticed is that the young earth proponents here are very picky about what subjects they are willing to engage in discussion on.

Jason

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 08:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269725#post269725)
jason:

Glenn Morton has some examples that still remain untouched.

So? Since when are we obliged to answer every single silly case of an opponent? I have already demonstrated that AiG has a world-class expert on karsts who totally blows away Morton's case. And once more, to go down Morton's track would be conceding a goal to him already -- i.e. adopting his foundational axiom of the autonomy of human reasoning apart from the history revealed in the Bible. BTW, Morton despises OECs almost as much as he despises YECs, since they have not compromised on materialism in biology, just geology and astronomy.


And the astronomy questions remain unanswered to.

In your dreams -- no refutation of Dr Humphreys' cosmology is forthcoming, nor is there any good answer to the long-agers' own light-travel difficulty, the horizon problem.


I found the reverse to be true. But I am sure you will be tackling Chickenmans UOX pseudogene challege right after this.

Why? I think your answers are pretty similar to what John Woodmorappe wrote in the TJ recently about the demonstrably functional pseudogene, and AiG has also made similar points about the impossibility of proving an absence of function.


One thing I have noticed is that the young earth proponents here are very picky about what subjects they are willing to engage in discussion on.

I.e. they are not at Jason's beck and call to discuss the subjects HE wants to discuss. But then again, the theistic evolutionists are hardly serious about exegesis -- Morton would not debate Gray Pilgrim on the Hebrew of Genesis, for example. And old-earthers in general are reticent to debate the fact that all data must be interpreted within a framework.

[Stephen]

:no: Now Socrates comes and he doesn't answer my questions. I can take a hint... :bawl:

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 07:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269104#post269104)
Stephen:

However, even if the word yom is really used to mean a literal day, that still begs the question - day from what point of view? From an earth point of view, in which 24 hours is as it is now, or from a God's eye view, in which "day" can really mean any period of time yet continually be a true day.

That's silly. God is not bound by time; WE are. And God wrote Scripture so we might understand Him. So when He said "day", He meant what we mean by "day"; when He said "man" and "woman", He meant what we mean by "man" and "woman"; when he said, "Go forth and multiply", He meant what we mean by "Go forth and multiply" ... Why is only "day" the word that somehow has a different meaning in Genesis??

And as I have pointed out, yôm in Genesis 1 has an evening and morning as well as a number, so it means an ordinary day. as TWeb's resident Hebrew scholar Gray Pilgrim pointed out at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=165376#post165376 :


As Claus Westermann and James Barr, neither of whom are known his evangelical leanings, both point out, the use of יום in Genesis 1 paired together with ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום and then add a number is only used to refer to 24 hour days. Barr, whose career can be summed up as a methodological critic and is no friend of evangelical approaches, actually finds absurd anyone view of the text that does not find this to equal 7 24 hour days.

In fact, HALOT gives Genesis 1:5 as an example of yôm meaning 24 hours. Andrew Steinmann, Associate Professor of theology and Hebrew and Concordia University, Illinois, has analyzed this pattern in Genesis (Echad] as an ordinal number and the meaning of Genesis 1:5, JETS 45(4):577–584, December 2002). He showed that it was strong SUPPORT for 24-hour creation days:


[Yôm], like the English word “day”, can take on a variety of meanings. It does not in and of itself mean a twenty-four hour day [ref]. This alone has made the length of days in Genesis 1 a controversial subject [ref]. However, the use of [Echad] in Gen 1:5 and the following unique uses of the ordinal numbers on the other days demonstrates that the text itself indicates these as regular solar days.

The connection with Exodus 20:8-11 is a very strong indicator that the days were ordinary days. There is the Hebrew ki indicating the causal relationship between the days of Creation Week and the days of the working week.

There are also many ways that God could have taught long ages, if He had intended to: dor meaning a generation or period, 'olam meaning an eon, zeman or mo'ed meaning a time or a season. God could also have said myriads of myriads of years or compared them to the grains of sand on the seashore.

I have also argued at length that animals were created vegetarian, and that Isaiah 11 and 65 state that this will be restored and there will be no more "hurting or destroying on God's holy mountain."

Stephen, in his naive way of trying to twist the Bible to fit the assumed fact of evolution, despite the fact that it was invented solely to exclude God, asks:


Doesn't evolution say all animals evolved from sea creatures?

But it says whales and birds evolved from land creatures, yet Genesis places whales and birds BEFORE them.

And Stephen spruiks forth some nonsense which could easily have been picked up from a gutter atheist site:


If we had a text of scripture alone, we would believe the earth was flat too.

Total twaddle, as amply shown in the articles under Does the Bible really teach a flat earth? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp#flatearth).

[Stephen]

Nice post socrates. I'll respond in a second, but I want to know where the response I posted to Algesan went :hrm:

[Stephen]

On the whole issue of yom, I realize that my argument has been beaten to death enough times for me to no longer use it.

However, that still raises some of my other questions, such as the fossil record's supposed organization, the close bone structure between different animals, etc.

Not that I am arguing that these arguments are powerful at all, just want them clarified.

[Socrates]

Stephen:

Nice post socrates. I'll respond in a second, but I want to know where the response I posted to Algesan went :hrm:

The board monster ate it, as has happened to me sometimes :bawl:


Stephen:

On the whole issue of yom, I realize that my argument has been beaten to death enough times for me to no longer use it.

:cheers:


However, that still raises some of my other questions, such as the fossil record's supposed organization, the close bone structure between different animals, etc.

Not that I am arguing that these arguments are powerful at all, just want them clarified.

OK, what are your queries exactly? But my main point is not so much the length of the days, but the final authority of Scripture on everything it touches. Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis--US, says that he's not so much a young earth creationist, but a revelationist no-death-before-Adam redemptionist primarily, and the YEC view is merely a corollary.

[jason]

Today @ 02:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269874#post269874)
Socrates:

So? Since when are we obliged to answer every single silly case of an opponent?
When you go and ake claims that "opponents don't ever know what they are talking about", when glenn clearly does. I know you didn't say it, but the post wasn't to you either.


And once more, to go down Morton's track would be conceding a goal to him already -- i.e. adopting his foundational axiom of the autonomy of human reasoning apart from the history revealed in the Bible.
Nonsense. Given Glenn does believe in the inerrancy of the bible (juding from the short email exchange I had with him) he is compromising nothing.


In your dreams -- no refutation of Dr Humphreys' cosmology is forthcoming, nor is there any good answer to the long-agers' own light-travel difficulty, the horizon problem.
You never did provide a specific link to the answer to the time dialation problems (Not that I think an ancient universe is a problem for genesis).


Why? I think your answers are pretty similar to what John Woodmorappe wrote in the TJ recently about the demonstrably functional pseudogene, and AiG has also made similar points about the impossibility of proving an absence of function.
Because he touts it as "death to creationism". Ignoring it convinces him that the challenge cannot be answered.


I.e. they are not at Jason's beck and call to discuss the subjects HE wants to discuss. But then again, the theistic evolutionists are hardly serious about exegesis -- Morton would not debate Gray Pilgrim on the Hebrew of Genesis, for example. And old-earthers in general are reticent to debate the fact that all data must be interpreted within a framework.
I am happy to have that discussion. You keep saying things like "And old-earthers in general are reticent to debate the fact ... " but when exactly have I stepped away from an argument ?

And I am more than happy to have any conversation you like that does not stray to far from my ken.

Of course being ad hom'd to death does make one reluctant to bother.

Jason

[Evangel]

in the biblical sense a fool is a non-believer. at least thats what i've been lead to believe.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 05:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270149#post270149)
jason:

When you go and ake claims that "opponents don't ever know what they are talking about",

So often true, as I have often demonstrated.


when glenn clearly does.

:rofl: I've shown how little he knows about Hebrew, the physics of glass formation, and proper use of scientific units; not to mention how he misrepresented creationist arguments about death before the Fall. And there are creationists far more qualified in geology than he is who disagree with his data-ignoring theories, e.g. leading karst expert Dr Emil Silvestru. Or are you saying that he knows what he is talking about when he defends an esentially atheistic goo-to-you evolutionary theory for the origin of living things?


Nonsense. Given Glenn does believe in the inerrancy of the bible (juding from the short email exchange I had with him) he is compromising nothing.

He may well claim to, but the issue is the authority of Scripure. Morton's alleged rescuing of inerrancy is at the cost of historically understood meanings. Liberals deny the resurrection but often rescue the Gospels by reinterpreting the Rez to mean that Jesus' teachings live on in the lives of his followers.


You never did provide a specific link to the answer to the time dialation problems (Not that I think an ancient universe is a problem for genesis).

What problems? In fact, Morton's main link carried the refutation of the same claims by Humphreys.


[Pseudogene]

Because he touts it as "death to creationism". Ignoring it convinces him that the challenge cannot be answered.

Are you saying that you haven't got it under control? And I think that the ATP synthase motor and the origin of life itself is the "death to evolutionism" and cannot be answered and certainly have not been. But evolutionists will keep the faith all the same, and claim that solving problems is part of science. OK, but then they must allow the same to creationists and not claim that any minutia that a creationist allegedly cannot NOW explain is the "death of creation".


Of course being ad hom'd to death does make one reluctant to bother.

Then stop your old-earth buddies from resorting to it then!

[jason]

Today @ 04:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271133#post271133)
Socrates:
Are you saying that you haven't got it under control?
You obviously don't. It is clearly an anomalous case that needs to be addressed. I agree with you that it is absurd to think life is not-designed, but the example cited does support common descent more easily than alternatives. But i've noticed your reluctance to touch hard cases.

By not even having a go, you are simply doing exactly the same thing you claim they do.

Jason

[Socrates]

Today @ 06:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271546#post271546)
jason:

You obviously don't. It is clearly an anomalous case that needs to be addressed.

I thought you and others had. And as Kuhn showed, it is common for a paradigm to have unsolved problems, if such it is. Evolution has them too, but will they give up? I already addressed this. And Darwin knew that the fossil record was a problem, but had (misplaced) faith that future discoveries would solve it.


I agree with you that it is absurd to think life is not-designed, but the example cited does support common descent more easily than alternatives.

No it doesn't. And it is most rash to talk about any junk DNA at all, since new discoveries about its function are being discovered all the time. See the AiG article DNA: marvelous messages or mostly mess? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp)

Notice another thing. The usual textbook examples of evolution are totally flawed, e.g. peppered moth, Haeckel's embryos; or are mere examples of change compatible with the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model such as antibiotic resistance and blind fish in caves. The examples from decades ago, such as Piltdown Man, embryonic recapitulation and Ostraea-to-Gryphaea, are no longer believed today. It's only on Internet debates that they come up with more obscure examples to bluff the unwary. A little while ago, they would have touted that Makorin1 as a useless piece of junk DNA, while we now know it's functional.


But i've noticed your reluctance to touch hard cases.
You haven't been noticing very much evidently :bonk:


By not even having a go, you are simply doing exactly the same thing you claim they do.

How pathetic. I never realised before that I am obliged to answer everything that Jason and the infudgels demand of me. Some TWebbers have a life, you know! And for the record, many of my arguments have not been addressed either, e.g. finding a chemically valid answer to the materialistic origin of life, or a plausible way of evolveing the ATP synthase motor. Nor have you demonstrated that there can be enormous gaps in Genesis 5 and 11.

[jason]

Today @ 01:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271756#post271756)
Socrates:

I thought you and others had.
I'm not working in a YEC paradigm. Perhaps my solution is not compatible with yours.


And as Kuhn showed, it is common for a paradigm to have unsolved problems, if such it is. Evolution has them too, but will they give up?
I agree with you here. But if this can be kicked in the head then that is one more point in our favour.

The diehards will never change there mind, but those less well brainwashed may yet.


No it doesn't. And it is most rash to talk about any junk DNA at all, since new discoveries about its function are being discovered all the time. See the AiG article DNA: marvelous messages or mostly mess? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp)
I agree again. Never the less this example does not look to have any function at all. As I said, feel free to weigh in with some ideas.


A little while ago, they would have touted that Makorin1 as a useless piece of junk DNA, while we now know it's functional.
Agreed. Still this case is a hard one.


How pathetic. I never realised before that I am obliged to answer everything that Jason and the infudgels demand of me.
You do not. Still this is a regularly touted hard case. If it can be banished then all similar cases are banished with it.


And for the record, many of my arguments have not been addressed either, e.g. finding a chemically valid answer to the materialistic origin of life, or a plausible way of evolveing the ATP synthase motor.
Which I have no quibble about.


Nor have you demonstrated that there can be enormous gaps in Genesis 5 and 11.
*shrug* I have a life to. And it is outside of my ken anyway. I am not a hebrew scholar nor do I pretend to be one.

We can play cite the expert if you like, but I do not think that will be productive. I'll cite somebody that says, "Gaps can exist no problem", you will cite one that says, "No there can't be gaps", i'll cite someone else, then you will, and around we will go.

We can agree to disagree if you like, or we can play cite the expert for a couple of rounds. I don't think it will be very fruitful though.

If I knew enough hebrew to argue with you I would, but I don't, so I wont.

Jason

[grmorton]

Socrates:
:rofl: I've shown how little he knows about Hebrew, the physics of glass formation, and proper use of scientific units; not to mention how he misrepresented creationist arguments about death before the Fall. And there are creationists far more qualified in geology than he is who disagree with his data-ignoring theories, e.g. leading karst expert Dr Emil Silvestru. Or are you saying that he knows what he is talking about when he defends an esentially atheistic goo-to-you evolutionary theory for the origin of living things?


I have already posted on this board that I changed my view on glass in 1993 or 1994. Are you that behind the times, or do you do this for rhetorical purposes? Unlike some, I can actually learn and change my views. So if you want to represent my views from the 1980s as being those I believe today, you are doing something intellectually less than honorable.

I would dearly love to see one of your experts explain the pics I have been posting.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Glenn you know you are not supposed to be posting in this area, please resist the urge.

Socrates, please refrain from taking shots at Glenn in an area where he cannot respond. You can address the points raised but please refrain from making it personal because it is not fair when Glenn cannot respond here.

Let's tone down the agression between brethren please