Evolution or Creation [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

The Plain Jane

September 3rd 2006, 09:29 PM

Lacking a link to check the quotes' possible context (all on-line quotes should have a link to them) about all we can do is guess what the author had in mind with his terms.
Do you expect me to type the whole chapter? HAHA. This came out of the text for my Principals of Biology course.

Assuming the author supports evolution, his use of "kinds" would not be that of the creationist, who uses it in whatever way bests suits the purposes at hand, but most commonly as a quasi-species/genus/ family graded organism. So when the author says "Organisms reproduce their own kind" it is reasonable to infer that he means sparrows give birth to sparrows and not red-tailed hawks, and that ostriches give birth to ostriches, not anacondas.
This book is by no doubt geared towards evolution. Two out of the seven units is on evolution, and no doubt evolution-based statements are strung throughout the other chapters.

His remark, "Reproduction underlies the capacity of species to change (evolve) over time" would appear to mean that evolution can only take place with an on-going series of generations.
This is rather obvious. I was hoping the readers of this thread would engage in a coversation on why the first quote contradicts itself (which the Creationist would say) and why it doesn't contradict (which the evolutionist would say)

It seems a rather obvious observation, but :shrug: he can be as obvious as he wants. Actually, the two remarks sound as though they are geared to a very young readership.
College level, so yes, young.

George Murphy

September 3rd 2006, 09:31 PM

The Plain Jane

September 3rd 2006, 09:37 PM

BTW, as a Lutheran I find it embarassing to see you linking Luther's seal with AiG.

I am floored there are Lutherans who believe in evolution... I mean we, who parade Sola Scriptura the most, dare we place "science" and reason over faith and the living and abiding Word of God...I would have never dreamed we would be caught in such an offense!

If you're familar with AiG, then, there's no need for me to explain with the Gospel has its roots in a literal history of Genesis...

Minnesota

September 3rd 2006, 09:58 PM

Do you expect me to type the whole chapter? HAHA. This came out of the text for my Principals of Biology course.
My impression was that it was a quote you had read on AiG. On rereading your OP I see where I went amiss.

This is rather obvious. I was hoping the readers of this thread would engage in a coversation on why the first quote contradicts itself (which the Creationist would say) and why it doesn't contradict (which the evolutionist would say)

I don't see the contradiction. Perhaps you would explain.

College level, so yes, young.

:lol: No, I meant really young, like Jr. High age. I'm surprised this is a college text.

Tickle Me Goody

September 3rd 2006, 10:51 PM

I am floored there are Lutherans who believe in evolution... I mean we, who parade Sola Scriptura the most, dare we place "science" and reason over faith and the living and abiding Word of God...I would have never dreamed we would be caught in such an offense!

I believe that your comments are overly judgemental, Jane. Science merely explores how God created our elegant universe and does not contradict the word of God on matters of Faith and morals.

I invite you to examine the website of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) at:

http://www.asa3.org/

You will find numerous articles by people who are both Scientists and Christians. You will probably find in those articles that Geoge Murphy is a highly respected member and teacher in your particular Protestant sect.

You are young and it would be wise to intelligently examine all the facts so that you do not fall into a trap based upon one sided arguments. As Glen Morton has pointed out, many a "YEC" has had his/her faith destroyed by believing that the only alternatives are choosing between an overly literal interpretation and some rather compelling factual (scientific) data. It need not be that way.

Some Twebbers will try to strong arm you into a blind acceptance of AIG. I pray that you will examine ASA also, and think for yourself.

GG

Gaytheist

September 4th 2006, 12:43 AM

Both my sources comes from Biology: Concepts & Connections, Fifth Edition. And I want both sides presented in this thread
...
(6) Reproduction. Organisms reproduce their own kind. (7) Evolution. Reproduction underlies the capacity of species to change (evolve) over time.
Is there a contradiction here? Why and why not. I don't think so. I think what you're getting at is, if organisms reproduce after their own kind, how do they then differentiate into different species by reproduction, right? It's like this: Offspring differ slightly from their parents, I'm sure you'll agree with that? O.K., so offspring: slight difference, next generation, another slight difference, generation, slight difference, and all these slight differences together add up to enough difference to make a new species. So although each offspring is always the same species as its parents, it is not necessarily the same species as its distant ancestor, because enough change may have accumulated to "add up" to a different species. This is a gross oversimplification, and I can expoud if you are interested.

Is this the "contradiction" you were getting at?

Barry Desborough

September 4th 2006, 01:29 AM

Both my sources comes from Biology: Concepts & Connections, Fifth Edition. And I want both sides presented in this thread

Natraully, I hold to a six day, two literal people, and literal serpent, a read garden, which is called Creationism. I have Answers in Genesis to thank for this, and how they showed my that by beliving evolution I was being inconsistant as a Christian.

(6) Reproduction. Organisms reproduce their own kind. (7) Evolution. Reproduction underlies the capacity of species to change (evolve) over time.
Is there a contradiction here? Why and why not.
Evolution is biology's core theme--the one idea that makes sense of all we know about life.
Is this true? Why and why not.

Re. box 1, organisms produce offspring which are similar, but not identical to themselves. The differences between generations are small enough for us to say that parents and offspring are the same 'kind' of creatures. It's like watching a child grow, day by day, or hour by hour. "How tall is little Jimmy now?" "Oh, he's four foot two inches." "No, wait a moment - he's four foot two inches and a tenth of a hair's breadth." If you measure him frequently enough over a short timescale, and you don't measure to an accuracy of a tenth of a hair's breadth, you don't detect that he is growing. Of course, he is.

By the way, Genesis does not actually say that creatures reproduce after their own kind, even though this would have been an understandable statement by the author(s) of the time, as they did not have the evidence of long, slow gradual change that we have available. Genesis says that they were 'brought forth' after their kind by the earth and the waters (abiogenesis!). 'After their kind' merely means 'of their various types'. Read it.

Re. box 2), whether or not we believe that God is/was responsible for the variety of extinct and living species that we observe, the patterns of similarities and differences between species over distances of time and geography are neatly, nay, beautifully explained by common descent. Without common descent, we have a problem. If God just decided to produce this pattern of similarities and differences for some other reasons, those reasons are unfathomable. The only reason that occurs to people is a disagreeable one, that God was trying to tempt or fool us into concluding common descent.

wattsr1

September 4th 2006, 06:39 AM

Both my sources comes from Biology: Concepts & Connections, Fifth Edition. And I want both sides presented in this thread

Natraully, I hold to a six day, two literal people, and literal serpent, a read garden, which is called Creationism. I have Answers in Genesis to thank for this, and how they showed my that by beliving evolution I was being inconsistant as a Christian.

(6) Reproduction. Organisms reproduce their own kind. (7) Evolution. Reproduction underlies the capacity of species to change (evolve) over time.
Is there a contradiction here? Why and why not.
Evolution is biology's core theme--the one idea that makes sense of all we know about life.
Is this true? Why and why not.

Gidday Jane,

It is a bit hard to know what to make of your definitions.

Reproduction is about organisms reproducing their own kind. Reproduction is only one of the things that underly the capacity of a species to change over time. Variation and selection also underly this capacity. So there is no contradiction.

As for your second point. It is in a way an overstatement. There is much about life we could understand without reference to evolution. Nevertheless, to naturalistically explain how we got here and to naturalistically explain the patterns we see in both existing and extinct life, evolution is about the only game in town. It is a bit like saying that the atomic theory of matter is central to materials science. However, there is much in materials science that can be understood without reference to the atomic theory of matter. Nevertheless, to ultimately explain, in a naturalistic sense, how matter behaves, we need the atomic theory of matter.

Regards, Roland

Stabbytheclown

September 4th 2006, 06:56 AM

I am floored there are Lutherans who believe in evolution... I mean we, who parade Sola Scriptura the most, dare we place "science" and reason over faith and the living and abiding Word of God...I would have never dreamed we would be caught in such an offense!

If you place blind faith over reason, I'm afraid it will be difficult to have any sort of debate.

BTW, could you maybe define "kind"? Jorge had a lot of trouble with that word and I'm sure he'd appreciate some help.

Cyrus Johnson

September 4th 2006, 07:10 AM

(6) Reproduction. Organisms reproduce their own kind. (7) Evolution. Reproduction underlies the capacity of species to change (evolve) over time.

Is there a contradiction here? Why and why not.

Evolution is biology's core theme--the one idea that makes sense of all we know about life.
Is this true? Why and why not.

1. No, there is no contradiction there. The first statement simply points to the fact that species reproduce themselves. Humans give birth to humans, and oak trees make other oak trees. But as others have pointed out, offspring are very much like their parents, but they are not identicle. There is variation. The second statement is a reflection of how the population of these species can change, based on these variations, over time.

There is only a contradiction if you assume the authors meant the notion of a Biblical Kind, where under some ideologies, changes betwixt them are forbidden.

In other words, there is no scientific conflict here, but it does lead to a religious conflict. At least for some religious worldviews, although not all.

2. The second statement I agree with. It's a paraphrase of a famous quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I think Dobzhansky's version a bit more of an overstatement than your version. It's not true that literally absolutely nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. He was trying to emphasize here the importance of evolution in tying all biology together. In that sense, you cannot make sense of biology as a whole without evolution.

I am floored there are Lutherans who believe in evolution... I mean we, who parade Sola Scriptura the most, dare we place "science" and reason over faith and the living and abiding Word of God...I would have never dreamed we would be caught in such an offense!

Like all Creationists, you assume your particular understanding of the Word of God, is the Word of God. The Bible doesn't say exactly how the Creation happened, nor does it say how old the Earth is. These are interpreted from Scripture. And as you see, there are many interpretations, even amongst those of nominally the same religious persuasion.

As for the scientific evidence, that is fairly unequivocal. The Earth is 4.55 billion years old (give or take a couple percent), and all living things on Earth, including you and me, arose through descent with modification from earlier living forms. I understand that this position must be attacked by those holding to certain religious views, but that doesn't change the facts.

George Murphy

September 4th 2006, 07:26 AM

I am floored there are Lutherans who believe in evolution... I mean we, who parade Sola Scriptura the most, dare we place "science" and reason over faith and the living and abiding Word of God...I would have never dreamed we would be caught in such an offense!

Yes, there are many Lutherans, including many of the best Lutheran theologians and I think almost all Lutherans working on science-theology issues, who accept evolution as a scientific theory. (I'd rather say that than "believe in evolution" which makes it sound like a religious commitment.) One place you might check out is the website of the ELCA Alliance on Faith, Science and Technology, http://www.elca.org/faithandscience/ . (There's a lot more than just evolution that's dealt with there.)

Second, you need to be careful with that "sola scriptura" phrase. There are a lot of things that we know that we don't get from the Bible, including some things needed for biblical interpretation - e.g., languages or geography.

& perhaps most importantly, accepting the authority of scripture doesn't in itself tell us how various parts of scripture are to be interpreted. If there are different possible ways to understand a passage (e.g., the early chapters of Genesis), one of which agrees with what science tells us about the world and the other of which doesn't, we should choose the former. Science has shown that the earth is billions of years old and that living things have evolved so our interpretation should be consistent with those results.

If you're familar with AiG, then, there's no need for me to explain with the Gospel has its roots in a literal history of Genesis...

This is one of the worst notions promoted by AiG, verging on heresy. The Gospel has its roots in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. "True theology and the recognition of God are in the crucified Christ" (Luther) People can be faithful Christians without ever having heard of Adam & Eve.

I know what the response of AiG (& many other anti-evolutionists) is: If there was no literal fall then there is no need for a savior and Christianity collapses. That is nonsense. A savior is needed because all people are sinners - it's that simple. Why all people are sinners and what connection that fact has with early humanity are important issues but the truth of the Gospel doesn't depend on it.

I've discussed that & other matters relating to Christianity and evolution in the "Deep Theistic Evolution" thread of the Cosmogony forum.

Shalom,
George

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 08:53 AM

Yes, there are many Lutherans, including many of the best Lutheran theologians and I think almost all Lutherans working on science-theology issues, who accept evolution as a scientific theory. (I'd rather say that than "believe in evolution" which makes it sound like a religious commitment.) One place you might check out is the website of the ELCA Alliance on Faith, Science and Technology, http://www.elca.org/faithandscience/ . (There's a lot more than just evolution that's dealt with there.)
I will check it out. Pastor Mark Hawkinson (www.kfuo.org) sent me a book called Luther's Small Catechism with Explaination. And in the Explaination section of the book of the Apostles Creed, it specfically states that evolution goes counter to our beliefs, that it is "not scientifically verifiable". If I had the book I would give you the question and answer. This book comes from the LCMS. I can't speak for the ELCA, I am attending a ELCA church, so I will ask the pastor Wednesday night.

Second, you need to be careful with that "sola scriptura" phrase. There are a lot of things that we know that we don't get from the Bible, including some things needed for biblical interpretation - e.g., languages or geography. When I say this, I mean it is the only source for faith and life. Of course we need outside sources to interpret it, however when the Genesis account is so CLEAR, we need not challenge what it has to say.

Science has shown that the earth is billions of years old and that living things have evolved so our interpretation should be consistent with those results. Evolution is historical science, it is beliefs about the past and so is Creationism. Can you point me to one experient that shows evolution at work.

This is one of the worst notions promoted by AiG, verging on heresy. The Gospel has its roots in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. "True theology and the recognition of God are in the crucified Christ" (Luther) People can be faithful Christians without ever having heard of Adam & Eve. I will rebuttle this with Scripture later.

I know what the response of AiG (& many other anti-evolutionists) is: If there was no literal fall then there is no need for a savior and Christianity collapses. That is nonsense. A savior is needed because all people are sinners - it's that simple. Why all people are sinners and what connection that fact has with early humanity are important issues but the truth of the Gospel doesn't depend on it. This is true, but I think the serious Christian should be aware of these things.

I've discussed that & other matters relating to Christianity and evolution in the "Deep Theistic Evolution" thread of the Cosmogony forum. I will check it out.

George Murphy

September 4th 2006, 09:18 AM

I will check it out. Pastor Mark Hawkinson (www.kfuo.org (http://www.kfuo.org/)) sent me a book called Luther's Small Catechism with Explaination. And in the Explaination section of the book of the Apostles Creed, it specfically states that evolution goes counter to our beliefs, that it is "not scientifically verifiable". If I had the book I would give you the question and answer. This book comes from the LCMS. I can't speak for the ELCA, I am attending a ELCA church, so I will ask the pastor Wednesday night.

Most editions of the catechism have explanations of one sort or another in addition to the brief answers that Luther gave,to be used for educational purposes, but these are not by Luther and are not included in what's meant when we say that Lutherans subscribe to the Small Catechism. (Of course that's not to say that Luther accepted evolution! That would be a terrible anachronism. But what Luther would have said if he'd lived in the 21st century isn't so obvious.)

& note what Luther does in explaining the 1st Article. He explains creation entirely in terms of what God is doing now and doesn't talk about the origin of the earth or life at all. (Certainly "all things" includes those but they're not what Luther emphasizes.)

When I say this, I mean it is the only source for faith and life. Of course we need outside sources to interpret it, however when the Genesis account is so CLEAR, we need not challenge what it has to say.

There are two different creation accounts in Genesis (1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25) which tell the story in different ways. This makes it very doubtful that they should both be read as historical narratives.

Evolution is historical science, it is beliefs about the past and so is Creationism. Can you point me to one experient that shows evolution at work.

1st, the fact that evolution deals primarily with events about the past doesn't make it any less science.

2d, evolution isn't just about the past. E.g., the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria is a small-scale example of natural selection.

& while it's not easy to do laboratory experiments that show evolution directly because of the long times required, there are experiments that show various features of it. E.g., it's possible to cross two different species of plants to produce offspring which can interbreed among themselves but are not fertile with either of the parent species, and is thus a new species.

I will rebuttle this with Scripture later.

Give it a try but I doubt it.

This is true, but I think the serious Christian should be aware of these things.

There are lots of things that serious Christians should be aware of that aren't of the essence of the faith.

Shalom,
George

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 10:11 AM

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 10:20 AM

Is this the "contradiction" you were getting at?

Yes it was. Thanks for the explaination.

wattsr1

September 4th 2006, 10:24 AM

[snip]

Evolution is historical science, it is beliefs about the past and so is Creationism. Can you point me to one experient that shows evolution at work.

[snip]

Gidday Jane,

Evolution is historical science, it is beliefs about the past ….

A science that deals with the past seems to present a problem for you. Can you tell me what that problem is?

Can you point me to one experient that shows evolution at work.
See http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=82910 for a set of experiments done to elucidate how a new gene arose some 40-50 million years ago.

Regards, Roland

Barry Desborough

September 4th 2006, 10:25 AM

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 10:25 AM

If you place blind faith over reason, I'm afraid it will be difficult to have any sort of debate.
From the way I read the NT, faith is more factual than blind, ie, "without the Resurrection your faith is in vain.."

BTW, could you maybe define "kind"? Jorge had a lot of trouble with that word and I'm sure he'd appreciate some help.
I'm no Hebrew scholar, so the question is out of my league. I was told it refers to an overall class of animals, like fish or birds or repetiles or cats.

oxmixmudd

September 4th 2006, 10:27 AM

Thanks for all your answers everyone! I'm no scienctist, but hope to be one one day. Can't think of anything more fun to do (and get paid!) than to study God's creation (cursed by the Fall, but still beautiful creation nonetheless). To be truthful, I want more of the evolutionist view than the creationist view, because I want to get into the "evolutionist mindset." I need to pretend to be interested in this stuff and fool my professors into thinking I actually buy all this.
Because, there may be no truth to these stories, I don't know, but I have heard stories of professors refusing to recommend students to grad school because they voiced they believed in creation.

Your best bet is to maintain your integrity and take what comes. If you believe in a six day creation, then don't pretend not to. Remember what happend to Abraham when he lied about Sarah being his wife. God is your protector, and if you play games lying about who you really are, you will lose His blessing. But you don't have to wear it like an anchor around your neck either. The main issue with all but a rabid anti-creationist is that you show the ability to be objective in your analysis of the information. And that you have the mental gifts necessary to be successful in grad school.

But I also encourage you to keep an open mind in the Creation/Evolution debate. George is correct, the Gospel hinges on the resurrection. The age of the Earth or method of formation of life is secondary to that. The Bible IS God's word to us- but it is what He intended. We can't dictate that, and if/when it becomes clear it is not what we expected (e,g, Genesis isn't simple literal history), we can't then reject it.

Jim

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 10:29 AM

Some Twebbers will try to strong arm you into a blind acceptance of AIG. I pray that you will examine ASA also, and think for yourself.
I do intend to do this.

wattsr1

September 4th 2006, 10:32 AM

That's sad, if true. I wouldn't condone a prof automatically refusing a student on those grounds, but maybe they have had experiences of creationist students being disruptive of their courses. A graduate course is not the time or place for such activism.

Gidday Barry,

I remember a long time ago, reading of a prof at some US university stating that he would automatically fail any students he overheard advocating creationism. I do not remember any more of the details than that. But like you, I found such an attitude kind of sad.

I figure that if the standard for passing a course happens to be an exam, then it is kind of unfair to fail students simply because they disagree with that professor's point of view. While I understood the reason for the profs. attitude, I figured that it was "stiff". If the standard was to pass an exam with a certain percentage point, then that is what the standard was and too bad if creationists also passed.

Regards, Roland

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 10:48 AM

A science that deals with the past seems to present a problem for you. Can you tell me what that problem is?

Well, a science that deals with the past isn't testable right? So, unless evoltuion is testable, which I will check out the instances on this thread, then it shouldn't be paraded as fact so dogmatically.

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 10:52 AM

But I also encourage you to keep an open mind in the Creation/Evolution debate. George is correct, the Gospel hinges on the resurrection.
Without which our faith is vain! You are right. But with the Gospel also comes Law, being a mirror for us, showing us our sin. And if we want to know why we sin, we need look no farther than Paul and the creation account.

Gotta go to class.

wattsr1

September 4th 2006, 11:09 AM

Well, a science that deals with the past isn't testable right? So, unless evoltuion is testable, which I will check out the instances on this thread, then it shouldn't be paraded as fact so dogmatically.
Hi Jane,

I think a science about the past is every bit as testable as is a science about the present. In both cases, theories (ideas about things) are constructed and data is collected (via experiments or observations in the field) which confirms the theories, refutes them or causes them to be modified. This happens for theories about the present and for theories about the past.

Can I ask, what do you mean by “testable”?

Regards, Roland

Adrift

September 4th 2006, 11:36 AM

There are two different creation accounts in Genesis (1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25) which tell the story in different ways. This makes it very doubtful that they should both be read as historical narratives.

I'm sure this has been brought up on these boards before, but I figured i'd point out Holding's apologetic reply for the 2 creation debate http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
Basically he points out that the second creation story is a "dis"chronology to emphasize mans dominion over nature and highlights that, linguistically speaking, there probably is no unintended contradiction.

sylas

September 4th 2006, 11:58 AM

Well, a science that deals with the past isn't testable right?

Science that deals with the past does so by reasoning from traces observed in the present. A part of this is development of predictions of what futher traces might be found; and such predictions can be tested. Theories about the past get tested and refuted all the time in science.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. Oops. I missed seeing that Roland has made the same point.

George Murphy

September 4th 2006, 12:08 PM

I'm sure this has been brought up on these boards before, but I figured i'd point out Holding's apologetic reply for the 2 creation debate http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
Basically he points out that the second creation story is a "dis"chronology to emphasize mans dominion over nature and highlights that, linguistically speaking, there probably is no unintended contradiction.

The notion that there has to be an "apologetic reply to the 2 creation debate" is pretty questionable. Stating the matter in that way assumes at the outset that having 2 creation accounts in Genesis is a challenge to Christian faith which must be defended against. It isn't - or at least that something that would have to be demonstrated.

& the claim that the putative 2d account is supposed to "emphasize man's dominion over nature" is clearly wrong. It's the 1st account in which humanity is given dominion over the earth. While the 2d account of course indicates a superiority of humans over other animals, as shown by the man's naming of them, the language of "dominion" over them is neither used nor implied.

I would be rather cautious about treating Holding as an expert on these matters.

& if it comes to that the Bible has more than 2 creation accounts - e.g., Ps.104.

Shalom,
George

George Murphy

September 4th 2006, 12:12 PM

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 12:17 PM

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 12:20 PM

I should have pointed this out to begin with: Posing the issue as "evolution or creation" is wrong. Those like myself who see evolution as part of God's activity in the world understand evolution to be part of creation. If a question is to be posed from a Christian standpoint it should be "Can evolution be understood as God's creative work?" rather than "Which do you choose - evolution or creation?"

I was just thinking about that as the thread went on, however, I can't change it now. May I ask, what sort of evolution do you hold to as a Christian anyway? There are all sorts, the Gap Theory is one of them (I"m not sure that theory supports evolution, but I know it supports long ages of the earth) Do you believe we decended from ape-like creatures, or that we are all decentants of Adam and Eve, what about the flood, global or local, and so forth. I'm just curious. I always thought all Lutherans rejected evolution on the basis of the Hebrew understanding of the first couple chapters (well, that's why Hawkinson rejects it anyway)

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 12:25 PM

Can I ask, what do you mean by “testable”?

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Adrift

September 4th 2006, 12:27 PM

The notion that there has to be an "apologetic reply to the 2 creation debate" is pretty questionable. Stating the matter in that way assumes at the outset that having 2 creation accounts in Genesis is a challenge to Christian faith which must be defended against. It isn't - or at least that something that would have to be demonstrated.

& the claim that the putative 2d account is supposed to "emphasize man's dominion over nature" is clearly wrong. It's the 1st account in which humanity is given dominion over the earth. While the 2d account of course indicates a superiority of humans over other animals, as shown by the man's naming of them, the language of "dominion" over them is neither used nor implied.

I would be rather cautious about treating Holding as an expert on these matters.

& if it comes to that the Bible has more than 2 creation accounts - e.g., Ps.104.

Shalom,
George

I'm not asserting any notion that there MUST be an apologetic reply, I'm simply pointing out that there is one. Neither am I asserting that a possible contradiction is a challenge to Christian faith, you misread me. Lastly, I don't hold Holding to expert status (he's a librarian right?), but since I have Tektonics bookmarked, and his arguements on the subject seem fairly well researched seemed like a good place to start. Do you have a better online apologetics resource in mind?

George Murphy

September 4th 2006, 12:47 PM

I would add this argument (contradiction of 1 and 2) falls apart quickly if you are consistant, meaning, you should apply it to the Gospel accounts, which are four different accounts of the same thing...we should doubt the Gospel accounts as well.

"Contradiction" is not a word I used, but put it this way: The 2 Genesis accounts contradict one another if they are both read as straight historical narratives. That an indication from within the Bible itself that they shouldn't both be read as straight historical narratives.

& care is indeed needed with the gospel accounts. The evangelists were speaking about Jesus from different points of view, emphasizing different aspects of who he was & what he did. That in fact gives us a richer picture of Jesus than if we just had one account from one point of view.

Shalom,
George

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 12:50 PM

"Contradiction" is not a word I used, but put it this way: The 2 Genesis accounts contradict one another if they are both read as straight historical narratives. That an indication from within the Bible itself that they shouldn't both be read as straight historical narratives.
Maybe as a former English major I harmonized the two accounts automatically as I read them. I never once thought they contridicted each other in any way. You haven't yet told me what your views are.

& care is indeed needed with the gospel accounts. The evangelists were speaking about Jesus from different points of view, emphasizing different aspects of who he was & what he did. That in fact gives us a richer picture of Jesus than if we just had one account from one point of view.
Ditto.

George Murphy

September 4th 2006, 12:57 PM

I was just thinking about that as the thread went on, however, I can't change it now. May I ask, what sort of evolution do you hold to as a Christian anyway? There are all sorts, the Gap Theory is one of them (I"m not sure that theory supports evolution, but I know it supports long ages of the earth) Do you believe we decended from ape-like creatures, or that we are all decentants of Adam and Eve, what about the flood, global or local, and so forth. I'm just curious. I always thought all Lutherans rejected evolution on the basis of the Hebrew understanding of the first couple chapters (well, that's why Hawkinson rejects it anyway)

That's a big question & I have to run in a few minutes. Briefly: We descended from ape-like creatures (though not "from apes" - we're more like cousins of apes than their descendants). In this process (I don't try to specify just when) intelligence, self-consciousness and abilities to communicate emerged (God being active in the whole process). At this point humans were able to "hear" God's word & respond to it, by either obeying or not. They chose not to obey, & got the human race off track.

If you'd like I can send you a recent article of mine titled "Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin" from the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith that deals with these matters. (Unfortunately it's not up on the American Scientific Affiliation website yet.) I'd need an email address for that.

Another resource you might want to look at is Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation (Abingdon, 2003). It gives, I think, a very fair overview of the whole range of views on evolution. Ted is a Lutheran theologian who has been involved for a long time in theology-science dialogue and Martinez is a Roman Catholic molecular biologist.

Shalom,

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 01:06 PM

That's a big question & I have to run in a few minutes. Briefly: We descended from ape-like creatures (though not "from apes" - we're more like cousins of apes than their descendants). In this process (I don't try to specify just when) intelligence, self-consciousness and abilities to communicate emerged (God being active in the whole process). At this point humans were able to "hear" God's word & respond to it, by either obeying or not. They chose not to obey, & got the human race off track.

If you'd like I can send you a recent article of mine titled "Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin" from the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith that deals with these matters. (Unfortunately it's not up on the American Scientific Affiliation website yet.) I'd need an email address for that.

Another resource you might want to look at is Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation (Abingdon, 2003). It gives, I think, a very fair overview of the whole range of views on evolution. Ted is a Lutheran theologian who has been involved for a long time in theology-science dialogue and Martinez is a Roman Catholic molecular biologist.

Shalom,

Alrighty then!

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 02:27 PM

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 04:05 PM

Give me time and I will post quotes from Hebrew scholars showing that Genesis is meant to be taken as a literal book.
Luther believed that the earth is 6,000 years old. Luther's Works, Volume 1, page 3.
It might be a while, but I will get a direct quote.

Minnesota

September 4th 2006, 04:18 PM

Luther believed that the earth is 6,000 years old.
So what? He no doubt also believed in alchemy, the Earth was flat, and that witches could cast spells.

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 04:33 PM

So what? He no doubt also believed in alchemy, the Earth was flat, and that witches could cast spells.
Well, I believe that witches could cast spells, because:
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
I believe in ghosts too. I believe firmly in evil spirits and I believe they are constantly attacking us. I know a soothsayer who gets most of her predictions right, but does this come of God? I don't think so. Now, I'm no Purtian, please don't let me paint that picture. But I do no dismiss the evil forces in the world.
There is a Scripture that supports the earth as a spear. I will continue looking for it. I doubt Luther believed the earth was flat or in alchemy, (not saying he didn't) partly because you have not shown any quotes to me. I acutally don't know much about alchemy.
In the meantime, I know the Scripture which states the earth is suspended in space.
He stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing.

Since you're an agnostic, please forgive the Scripture. I do not mean to come across a "Bible Thumper."

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 04:38 PM

There is a Scripture that supports the earth as a spear.
22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

wattsr1

September 4th 2006, 05:17 PM

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Gidday Jane,

I have not read the whole link. Nevertheless, ToE (both macro and micro) certainly fall within the following:-

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments

I do have one complaint with the definition though.

Point 1 talks about observation of some phenomena. Point 2 talks about formulating an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

What a scientist does is undedertake observations (from experiments or by going into the field) to collect data. I guess that is what is meant by "observe phenomena". That data is then used to test an hypothesis. Points 1 and 2 kind of read like "observing the thing one is trying to explain".

Often in science, researchers do not observe the thing they are trying to explain. Rather they infer the existence of it. Thus we do not observe the center of the sun to see the fusion reactions occuring there. Rather we infer the existence of those reactions from data that we do observe. We do not observe the erruption, 500 years ago, of a now extinct volcano. Rather we infer the erruption of that volcano from data we observe today. We do not observe mesons holding the atomic nucleus together. Rather we infer the existence of mesons from data we can observe and therefore collect. Until the invention of space-craft, we did not observe the earth orbiting the sun, we inferred it from data we collected. Nor did we observe the spherical shape of the earth. We inferred it from other data we collected.

Regards, Roland

PS with regard to your post #47. I am about to get breakfast. Shall have some toast and will butter it and eat it from a flat plate. A flat plate is circular. Therefore the earth is a flat circle?

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 05:49 PM

PS with regard to your post #47. I am about to get breakfast. Shall have some toast and will butter it and eat it from a flat plate. A flat plate is circular. Therefore the earth is a flat circle?

Naturally, I believe Scripture is without error, but you make a good point. I am not skilled in apologitics, however, once I'm a biologist I plan to go to seminary (into Apologistics or defence of my religious position, I haven't decided yet) Boy I am going to be in so much debt by the time I'm done with school!

Btw, I just did research and the Hebrew word translated "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is hhug. It means circle in 2 dimensions and sphere in 3 dimensions.

wattsr1

September 4th 2006, 05:56 PM

jason

September 4th 2006, 06:29 PM

Paul said sin entered by ONE MAN. (If you've heard this, sorry, but as a sister in Christ I'm obligated to point this out...)
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

I should note on this point, that death from sin spread to all men and not to all of the creation.

Who were the first people? In what manner did they sin? If we emerged over the course of millions of years, then, who sinned? Why do we sin? Why do we need Christ, if death is God's why of Creation, wasn't death the "last enemy?" How can death be bad if death has always been here?
Although I think Georges position is misguided, the text is limited to human death by the context.

Need I add, Paul was writing under the inspiration of the precious Holy Ghost. You re-write what Paul said, you are re-writing what God the Ghost has said. Gee, I remeber reading somewhere that God can not lie
This is a pretty harsh charge. You might disagree with George, but it is possible that you are misreading the scripture. It would seem that it would be charitable to at least give George the benifit of the doubt before you claim he is calling God a liar.

Give me time and I will post quotes from Hebrew scholars showing that Genesis is meant to be taken as a literal book.
What do you mean by a "literal book" ? The odd thing is that there are plenty of Christians that would disagree with your understanding of the text while not denying that it should be understood "literally". George may not be one of them, but you seem commited to one particular "infallible interpretation" of the text, which seems odd for a Lutheran.

One quick question. If you are indeed a Lutheran, you believe the body is in with and under the bread. Why do you believe this?
I am not a Lutheran, and I disagree with Luther on this point and think that Zwingli or Calvin were more on the mark. Does this mean I am denying the Word of God ?

Btw, if god were to tell me right now He created through evolution, I would probably spit in His face and become an atheist. Because what kind of loving god would allow His creation to go through such tortures (so dino bones show evidence of cancer) just so He can create? Is our God so powerless, so tiny, so uncreative, that He couldn't create things just by calling it into existance. Because that is the God I thought we Lutherans served. That His word alone creates and gives life.
Do you realise what you are saying ?

Consider carefully that you are claiming that if God appeared and told you how he created in a way that you disagreed with, then you would reject God. It would seem that you are putting your "fallible understanding" ahead of the actual spoken word of God in your presence. You would only be willing to worship a God of your imagination.

Jason

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 06:56 PM

I should note on this point, that death from sin spread to all men and not to all of the creation.
I do not know how to answer that one. Guess I need to research my views more.

This is a pretty harsh charge. You might disagree with George, but it is possible that you are misreading the scripture. It would seem that it would be charitable to at least give George the benifit of the doubt before you claim he is calling God a liar.
It is indeed a harsh one. But the death spreading to just men never crossed my mind. When think of death, I think of things dying, not just man. When our dog died, I thought of death...

What do you mean by a "literal book" ? The odd thing is that there are plenty of Christians that would disagree with your understanding of the text while not denying that it should be understood "literally". George may not be one of them, but you seem commited to one particular "infallible interpretation" of the text, which seems odd for a Lutheran. I didn't know we were such an open-minded group. I know we are more accepting of other interpretations than most groups, we have never changed our views because of it.

I am not a Lutheran, and I disagree with Luther on this point and think that Zwingli or Calvin were more on the mark. Does this mean I am denying the Word of God ? Depends on how you define the Word of God. If it is meant to understood in different ways, by no means. I talked a little about the Real Prescence in the Jesus-A Canniablist thread in the Theology forum.

Consider carefully that you are claiming that if God appeared and told you how he created in a way that you disagreed with, then you would reject God. It would seem that you are putting your "fallible understanding" ahead of the actual spoken word of God in your presence. You would only be willing to worship a God of your imagination.

Well, I still don't see what's loving about "survival of the fittest." I said I would probably spit is His face. Words like probably are important words you see..

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 07:02 PM

Luther believed that the earth is 6,000 years old. Luther's Works, Volume 1, page 3.
It might be a while, but I will get a direct quote.

"We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. Of this it is altogether impossible to convince a philosopher, because, according to Aristotle, no first man or last man can be conceded...Although Aristotle leaves unsettled the problem whether the world is eternal, he leans toward the opinion that it is eternal...Human reason cannot rise to a higher level than to conclude [Vol. 1, Page 4] that the world is eternal and that countless men have gone before us and are coming after us; here it is forced to call a halt. But from this very conclusion there follows the most dangerous opinion that the soul is mortal, for philosophy knows no more than one infinite....Indeed, human reason cannot avoid being overwhelmed by the grandeur of this subject matter and coming into conflict with it.[Luther's Works, vol. 1 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5, 1-2]

jason

September 4th 2006, 07:15 PM

I do not know how to answer that one. Guess I need to research my views more.
Always a good thing.

It is indeed a harsh one. But the death spreading to just men never crossed my mind. When think of death, I think of things dying, not just man. When our dog died, I thought of death...
But not death though sin. Can an animal sin ? I don't think so.

I didn't know we were such an open-minded group. I know we are more accepting of other interpretations than most groups, we have never changed our views because of it.
Actually I was alluding to Luthers break with Rome all those years ago.

Well, I still don't see what's loving about "survival of the fittest." I said I would probably spit is His face. Words like probably are important words you see..
:wink:

What is loving about a God who allows any suffering in the world at all ?

This just seems to be a recasting of the classic problem of evil in the world. Yet the existence of some evil is compatible with a loving God. You second guess God's plan when you talk like that.

And you are welcome to ask the question, I would never discourage that, but keep in mind that at the end of the day, God is way smarter and way wiser than any of us.

As to Luther believing the world is 6000 years old. I have no doubt that he did. Of course we don't know how he would have reacted to what we know today. Remember than once many ascribed to the Ptolemaic system, and insisted that the Bible taught that. Now I know the story of Galileo is normally misrepresented by those who are confused and wish to pit science agaisnt christianity, but never the less, people did argue that the Bible said that Geocentrism was true. They were mistaken, but that was the claim being made. Are you sure you are not doing the same thing ?

Jason

Jorge

September 4th 2006, 07:22 PM

To be truthful, I want more of the evolutionist view than the creationist view, because I want to get into the "evolutionist mindset."
Don't take this the wrong way but make sure that your mind is fully prepared for the vile shock of getting into the evo-mindset. One person that wasn't prepared was last seen babbling to himself and drooling uncontrollably as he aimlessly wandered into the Amazon jungle, never to be heard from again. The human mind wasn't created for that level of stress, Jane. :lol:

I need to pretend to be interested in this stuff and fool my professors into thinking I actually buy all this.
Just wear a "I Love Darwin" T-shirt with an ape on it ... that'll fool them every time.

Because, there may be no truth to these stories, I don't know, but I have heard stories of professors refusing to recommend students to grad school because they voiced they believed in creation.
I wouldn't know of the particular stories you've heard but, believe me, there are plenty of very true stories of people that not opposed but merely questioned the evolutionary dogma and lost their job over it.

As two past examples, read up on the cases of Kevin Haley and Roger DeHart. Even though students stated that these teachers were not teaching creationism or even mentioning God, the fact that they were asking their students to think critically about evolution and they dared present some evidence that put evolution into question --- evidence from scientific, peer-reviewed journals --- was enough to get them both removed from their teaching positions. Bow to the Cow or take a hike - so saith the ACLU.

Unfortunately, there's lots more.

Jorge

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 07:27 PM

But not death though sin. Can an animal sin ? I don't think so. Animales can not sin, this is correct, but my understanding is that they were cursed by sin, but after reading the text carefully, it says the ground was cursed.

What is loving about a God who allows any suffering in the world at all ?
Every Christian knows the answer to this age-old objection...

And you are welcome to ask the question, I would never discourage that, but keep in mind that at the end of the day, God is way smarter and way wiser than any of us.
Oh I agree!

Remember than once many ascribed to the Ptolemaic system, and insisted that the Bible taught that. Many heresies arrive out of "The Bible teaches this..." but I'll just leave it at that.

Are you sure you are not doing the same thing ?

I'll give a fair ear to evoluiton, all the theist views of Genesis, learn more of the YEC views and get back to you on that one.

George Murphy

September 4th 2006, 07:28 PM

Just one quick question, I'm just curious to how you answer it (to George). Why do you sin? Don't say "Because I'm a sinner" because my next question would be Why are you a sinner? "Because of my parents sin, they passed it on to me," Well to that I would ask "Who sinned first?"

1st let me repeat what I said before: Questions about the origin of sin are important. But they are not essential for Christian faith. In Romans Paul speaks about the universal problem of human sinfulness and God's solution to it in Christ in Chapters 1-3, and thus presents a pretty thorough statement of law & gospel. Everything needed to being a person to faith is there. But it's not till Chapter 5 that he says anything about Adam.

As to your questions: Why I commit any particular sin is because I choose to. I can avoid any particular sin. Why I do nevertheless commit sins
no matter how I try to avoid to avoid them is due to the universal sinful condition of humanity, & it's the source of that condition that doctrines of original sin are about.

Paul said sin entered by ONE MAN. (If you've heard this, sorry, but as a sister in Christ I'm obligated to point this out...)
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Who were the first people? In what manner did they sin? If we emerged over the course of millions of years, then, who sinned? Why do we sin? Why do we need Christ, if death is God's why of Creation, wasn't death the "last enemy?" How can death be bad if death has always been here?
Need I add, Paul was writing under the inspiration of the precious Holy Ghost. You re-write what Paul said, you are re-writing what God the Ghost has said. Gee, I remeber reading somewhere that God can not lie

I just want to know your response to this. I'm not mocking you just pointing out that our faith is not consistant with that of evolution. I know most church leaders disagree with me, but the Word is Supreme, and in my life I use it to test doctrine, including those which you hold to.

The best answer I could give you to these questions would be to send you the recent article I referred to. I'm not trying to avoid discussing it here but the article takes 10 pages in the journal and I'm not going to paste it all in here. If you'd rather find something on the web I'd refer you to two other articles of mine, "A Theological Argument for Evolution" at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html) and "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity" at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html) . These don't deal as directly with the issues of specifically human evolution and original sin but they will give you a good idea of how to understand evolution as God's creative work.

Give me time and I will post quotes from Hebrew scholars showing that Genesis is meant to be taken as a literal book.

& I will show you an equal or greater number from those who do not think early Genesis should be read as historical narrative.

One quick question. If you are indeed a Lutheran, you believe the body is in with and under the bread. Why do you believe this?

Because of Christ's promise.

Btw, if god were to tell me right now He created through evolution, I would probably spit in His face and become an atheist. Because what kind of loving god would allow His creation to go through such tortures (so dino bones show evidence of cancer) just so He can create? Is our God so powerless, so tiny, so uncreative, that He couldn't create things just by calling it into existance. Because that is the God I thought we Lutherans served. That His word alone creates and gives life.

If you are really serious in your first sentence you should perhaps drop the whole subject and remain in spiritually safe territory for awhile. But the short answer to your concern about God allowing creation to go through suffering is that God goes through that suffering with creation. That's part of what the cross means - that through the incarnation God becomes a participant in evolutionary the process and by doing so suffers & experiences death.

Shalom,
George

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 07:42 PM

1st let me repeat what I said before: Questions about the origin of sin are important. But they are not essential for Christian faith. In Romans Paul speaks about the universal problem of human sinfulness and God's solution to it in Christ in Chapters 1-3, and thus presents a pretty thorough statement of law & gospel. Everything needed to being a person to faith is there. But it's not till Chapter 5 that he says anything about Adam.

As to your questions: Why I commit any particular sin is because I choose to. I can avoid any particular sin. Why I do nevertheless commit sins
no matter how I try to avoid to avoid them is due to the universal sinful condition of humanity, & it's the source of that condition that doctrines of original sin are about.

The best answer I could give you to these questions would be to send you the recent article I referred to. I'm not trying to avoid discussing it here but the article takes 10 pages in the journal and I'm not going to paste it all in here. If you'd rather find something on the web I'd refer you to two other articles of mine, "A Theological Argument for Evolution" at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html) and "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity" at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html) . These don't deal as directly with the issues of specifically human evolution and original sin but they will give you a good idea of how to understand evolution as God's creative work.

& I will show you an equal or greater number from those who do not think early Genesis should be read as historical narrative.

Because of Christ's promise.

If you are really serious in your first sentence you should perhaps drop the whole subject and remain in spiritually safe territory for awhile. But the short answer to your concern about God allowing creation to go through suffering is that God goes through that suffering with creation. That's part of what the cross means - that through the incarnation God becomes a participant in evolutionary the process and by doing so suffers & experiences death.

Shalom,
George

I will check it all out.

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 07:52 PM

Don't take this the wrong way but make sure that your mind is fully prepared for the vile shock of getting into the evo-mindset. One person that wasn't prepared was last seen babbling to himself and drooling uncontrollably as he aimlessly wandered into the Amazon jungle, never to be heard from again. The human mind wasn't created for that level of stress, Jane. :lol:
:lmbo: Jeez, I'm going to be laughing about this for hours...

I wouldn't know of the particular stories you've heard but, believe me, there are plenty of very true stories of people that not opposed but merely questioned the evolutionary dogma and lost their job over it.

As two past examples, read up on the cases of Kevin Haley and Roger DeHart. Even though students stated that these teachers were not teaching creationism or even mentioning God, the fact that they were asking their students to think critically about evolution and they dared present some evidence that put evolution into question --- evidence from scientific, peer-reviewed journals --- was enough to get them both removed from their teaching positions. Bow to the Cow or take a hike - so saith the ACLU.

Unfortunately, there's lots more.

Jorge

Truly sad, truly.

oxmixmudd

September 4th 2006, 10:00 PM

Btw, if god were to tell me right now He created through evolution, I would probably spit in His face and become an atheist. Because what kind of loving god would allow His creation to go through such tortures (so dino bones show evidence of cancer) just so He can create? Is our God so powerless, so tiny, so uncreative, that He couldn't create things just by calling it into existance. Because that is the God I thought we Lutherans served. That His word alone creates and gives life.

And when Jesus said we must eat His Body and drink His blood, most turned away from following him. The mistake of idolotry is the worshiping of God in our own image. We don't make little idols anymore, but the God of our imagination may not be the God of scripture and as such serve the same function as an idol. Remember that our God, who is indeed a God of love, required under the law for any vow to be kept. And when Jepthah vowed to sacrifice the first thing to come out of his house if given a victory, he had to keep his promise even though the first 'thing' to come out of his house was his one and only daughter! Now not only is there no rebuke for Jepthah in scripture, he is listed along with David and Elijah and others in Hebrews chapter 12 in the list of those who prevailed and suffered for faith!

I would be the last to say I understand this or could reconcile it, and most assuradly there are many who reject the Bible and the whole of Judaism and Christianity for passages just such as this, but surely you understand there are aspects, very harsh aspects of who our God is, and we simply can't understand them. Christ revealed a God who loves us dearly - but this is the same God who required Jepthah keep his vow. If Evolution is against the character of God, it is NOT because it is harsh or wasteful.

Jim

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 10:08 PM

And when Jesus said we must eat His Body and drink His blood, most turned away from following him. The mistake of idolotry is the worshiping of God in our own image. We don't make little idols anymore, but the God of our imagination may not be the God of scripture and as such serve the same function as an idol. Remember that our God, who is indeed a God of love, required under the law for any vow to be kept. And when Jepthah vowed to sacrifice the first thing to come out of his house if given a victory, he had to keep his promise even though the first 'thing' to come out of his house was his one and only daughter! Now not only is there no rebuke for Jepthah in scripture, he is listed along with David and Elijah and others in Hebrews chapter 12 in the list of those who prevailed and suffered for faith!
I never made a vow in the first place. I used the words "if" and "probably". Hardly words you use when making a vow.

I would be the last to say I understand this or could reconcile it, and most assuradly there are many who reject the Bible and the whole of Judaism and Christianity for passages just such as this, but surely you understand there are aspects, very harsh aspects of who our God is, and we simply can't understand them. Christ revealed a God who loves us dearly - but this is the same God who required Jepthah keep his vow. If Evolution is against the character of God, it is NOT because it is harsh or wasteful.
There are indeed many who reject God because they do not understand Him. But I find it interesting that you don't see evolution as harsh and wasteful. I really am interested, can you tell me how it is not?

oxmixmudd

September 4th 2006, 11:03 PM

I never made a vow in the first place. I used the words "if" and "probably". Hardly words you use when making a vow.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying you were somehow making a vow. I was saying that your rejection of God if he turned out to use evolution implies that unless you understand why God does what He does, you will reject Him, or that if you find out he did something you dont agree with, you will reject Him. That puts you in charge of who God is, and He had better measure up or else. It is essentially a form of idolotry. God is who He is. He does what He does. It is up to us to conform to Him, not Him conform to us.

There are indeed many who reject God because they do not understand Him. But I find it interesting that you don't see evolution as harsh and wasteful. I really am interested, can you tell me how it is not?

I didn't say how I view evolution. I was saying that if it IS harsh and wasteful, that is not in and of itself a reason God would not use it. God required MANY harsh things in both the OT and NT. Further, we are not qualified to judge His ways or works (Job, Romans 9). I personally think the line of thought God is not 'wasteful' or 'harsh' by human standards is particularly misleading. God does what He does according to his standards and OFTEN that does not line up with our sensibilities.

I think we have to face the fact life has been on this planet a long time, and it apparently has progressed if not fully, at least partially by natural means. And we have to accept that is what God chose to do, and we may not be able to fully reconcile that with a simplistic reading of scripture. but we can have faith that whatever the case, this is the God who sent Messiah, and we can and do and should worship and trust Him.

Jim

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 11:18 PM

I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying you were somehow making a vow. I was saying that your rejection of God if he turned out to use evolution implies that unless you understand why God does what He does, you will reject Him, or that if you find out he did something you dont agree with, you will reject Him. That puts you in charge of who God is, and He had better measure up or else. It is essentially a form of idolotry. God is who He is. He does what He does. It is up to us to conform to Him, not Him conform to us.
I don't understand why God would be unclear conerning Creation. I always thought He was dogmatically clear. I am merely holding God to His word..

I didn't say how I view evolution. I was saying that if it IS harsh and wasteful, that is not in and of itself a reason God would not use it. God required MANY harsh things in both the OT and NT. Further, we are not qualified to judge His ways or works (Job, Romans 9). I personally think the line of thought God is not 'wasteful' or 'harsh' by human standards is particularly misleading. God does what He does according to his standards and OFTEN that does not line up with our sensibilities.
This is very true.

I think we have to face the fact life has been on this planet a long time,
What about the geneolgies in the Bible? Can't we use them to tell how old the Earth is since Adam's sin? Or do you put gaps in the Creation account?

but we can have faith that whatever the case, this is the God who sent Messiah, and we can and do and should worship and trust Him.
We can certainly have faith either way.

oxmixmudd

September 4th 2006, 11:40 PM

I don't understand why God would be unclear conerning Creation. I always thought He was dogmatically clear. I am merely holding God to His word..

Not so. When Jesus was here on Earth, He purposefully spoke in parables so that the crowds would NOT understand Him (yes, I know the rest of the story). There are also many Messianic prophecies that were it not for the fact we 'know' from other scriptures or the words of Christ that they are messianic, we wouldn't have a clue that is what they are. Further, much prophetic scripture is necessarily vague, only fully understood at the time of fulfillment, and sometimes not until much later. And finally, much of scripture is full of double or triple meaning, and only the surface meaning is accessable via a simple reading.

I am convinced as for the age of the Earth and the universe we have two choices: God created with full appearance of age, i.e with a full history intact that would have existed if it had formed naturally (this still does not explain the lack of evidence for a global flood), OR

The Earth is old and Genesis is not meant to be taken as literal history.

This is very true.

What about the geneolgies in the Bible? Can't we use them to tell how old the Earth is since Adam's sin? Or do you put gaps in the Creation account?

We are commanded - not advised - to avoid foolish specualations about geneologies. The entire 6000 year time frame is based on an assumption about the precision of the geneologies. Even in Paul's day people were arguing and speculating about what was or was not based on geneologies, and Paul said to cut it out. They aren't there for that purpose, nor this.

I do not know if Adam and Eve are recent(6,000-10,000) or ancient (much older) (I do believe they were). But I doubt very seriously the Geneologies can be used to determine how long ago they were. That is, I believe there are very likely gaps in them. This would be consistent with what I understand are the traditions and practices of the ancient cultures from which they come.

We can certainly have faith either way.

Indeed!

Jim

The Plain Jane

September 4th 2006, 11:51 PM

I am convinced as for the age of the Earth and the universe we have two choices: God created with full appearance of age, i.e with a full history intact that would have existed if it had formed naturally (this still does not explain the lack of evidence for a global flood), OR

The Earth is old and Genesis is not meant to be taken as literal history. They are the only two choices. No evidence for a global flood? Just look at the fossil record! Even scientist admit it had to be from a catstrophic event. What else would explain world-wide fossils? Peter certainly thought it was a true event, 1 Peter 2:5.

We are commanded - not advised - to avoid foolish specualations about geneologies. The entire 6000 year time frame is based on an assumption about the precision of the geneologies. Even in Paul's day people were arguing and speculating about what was or was not based on geneologies, and Paul said to cut it out. They aren't there for that purpose, nor this. But the geneologies do serve some purpose! Otherwise they would not be in there. The are to record Jesus' decent from Adam and Eve, ie, the Gospel promise giving to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. Paul must be talking about something else when he gave that advise. I mean, I don't think that useing the geneologies as a way to "trace time" so to speak, is what he was advising against. Tomorrow I will post it but I have to go in a few minutes.

I do not know if Adam and Eve are recent(6,000-10,000) or ancient (much older) (I do believe they were). But I doubt very seriously the Geneologies can be used to determine how long ago they were. That is, I believe there are very likely gaps in them. This would be consistent with what I understand are the traditions and practices of the ancient cultures from which they come.
But are not the geneologies the Word of God too? Do you not think the Word of our Lord would be accurat? Or a better question, is the Bible infalliable?

oxmixmudd

September 5th 2006, 12:39 AM

They are the only two choices. No evidence for a global flood? Just look at the fossil record! Even scientist admit it had to be from a catstrophic event. What else would explain world-wide fossils? Peter certainly thought it was a true event, 1 Peter 2:5.

I am not saying there was not a flood. But the evidence is that is was not a 'global' flood. You should look at some of the threads here and the website of Glenn Morton (here (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/) ) The fossil record can not be explaind by a single global catastrophe. It spans too much time and contains too many contrary records (like termite mounds between layers deposited in < 1year and under water as they formed (per the global flood as the depsiting mechanism), or fully formed river systems between layers, or placid lakes whose bottom layers span a time of >40,000 years - see lake suigetsu)

But the geneologies do serve some purpose! Otherwise they would not be in there. The are to record Jesus' decent from Adam and Eve, ie, the Gospel promise giving to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. Paul must be talking about something else when he gave that advise. I mean, I don't think that useing the geneologies as a way to "trace time" so to speak, is what he was advising against. Tomorrow I will post it but I have to go in a few minutes.

Yes indeed. They chronical the lineage - not the time frame. There is nothing that requires they be complete. Biblically my son can also be my grandson or great grandson. The Jews are all 'sons' of Abraham. Secondly, they could be literal and substantially complete from Abraham on. But the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 is a special case.

But are not the geneologies the Word of God too? Do you not think the Word of our Lord would be accurat? Or a better question, is the Bible infalliable?

Of course they are. But it is not their accuracy in 21st century terms that makes them God's word. Any more than whether the cursed fig tree withered instantly (Matthew) or later (Mark) has any bearing on whether the Bible is God's word.

The mindset that requires this kind of absolute 'consistency' or 'accuracy' in scripture takes two forms:

1) 'Literalist' who ignores obvious discontinuitues
2) 'Liberal' who denies the authority of scripture because of them

Much of what is called 'conflicts' in scripture by those who do not believe are not really conflicts. Than cn be easily dismissed or understood in a context where they are indeed consistant. Yet that does not change the fact there are some troublesome issues, enough to crush any typical 'inerrancy' argument. The truth lies between these two extremes. You can't prove the Bible perfect or supernatural - that would invalidate the need for faith. At the same time, there is a great deal about it that defies explanation.

When we talk about Genesis, however, the evidence for age is so clear that 6,000 year history based on geneologies is not far from arguing the Earth does not rotate on its axis based on the text in Joshua.

So I think 'infallible' requires a definition. But if you think there are no passages of scripture that are 'inconsistant' or for which we can only make a best guess as to what the correct text is, then you are ignorant of the facts.

Jim

wattsr1

September 5th 2006, 03:50 AM

Naturally, I believe Scripture is without error, but you make a good point. I am not skilled in apologitics, however, once I'm a biologist I plan to go to seminary (into Apologistics or defence of my religious position, I haven't decided yet) Boy I am going to be in so much debt by the time I'm done with school!

Btw, I just did research and the Hebrew word translated "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is hhug. It means circle in 2 dimensions and sphere in 3 dimensions.

Gidday Jane,

Our posts crossed thismorning and I did not see your edit till after I had posted.

Your "btw" point is interesting. I did not know that.

But it still begs the question. Spheres and flat plates both exist in the world of 3D. So when the author of that verse in Isaiah used the word “hhug/cirlce” just how do you decide what that author meant (i.e. flat like circular plate, or spherical like circular ball)?

My understanding of that word “hhug” is that it can have either meaning – “circle” or “sphere”. Thus, when confronted with both a hoop or a plate, and a ball, the Hebrew author would say “circle” to all three. Thus, what the author’s intention was with respect to the shape of the earth, as far as I know, is indeterminable.

Regards, Roland

Barry Desborough

September 5th 2006, 05:02 AM

Gidday Jane,

Our posts crossed thismorning and I did not see your edit till after I had posted.

Your "btw" point is interesting. I did not know that.

But it still begs the question. Spheres and flat plates both exist in the world of 3D. So when the author of that verse in Isaiah used the word “hhug/cirlce” just how do you decide what that author meant (i.e. flat like circular plate, or spherical like circular ball)?

My understanding of that word “hhug” is that it can have either meaning – “circle” or “sphere”. Thus, when confronted with both a hoop or a plate, and a ball, the Hebrew author would say “circle” to all three. Thus, what the author’s intention was with respect to the shape of the earth, as far as I know, is indeterminable.

Regards, Roland

Science and maths weren't the ancient Hebrews' strong points, that much is clear.

The creation story was written down long after it had had a long history of being oral tradition in various middle eastern cultures. During that time, the idea of monotheism came into it. People wrote it, and people interpret it (in all sorts of ways). I've never understood why it has become a lynch-pin of some people's beliefs, especially Christians, who's calling is to follow the example of Christ. The 'lynch-pin' doesn't seem to be very relevant to me.

So should Christians believe what some guys say is the only correct interpretation of what some other guys wrote about Creation, or should they rather look at the real source, at Creation itself?

jason

September 5th 2006, 07:47 AM

Every Christian knows the answer to this age-old objection...
Sure, but you just raised a variation on this exact objection.

Many heresies arrive out of "The Bible teaches this..." but I'll just leave it at that.
Sure. I'm just noting that mistakes have been made in the past on this ground and as such a little caution is warranted.

I'll give a fair ear to evoluiton, all the theist views of Genesis, learn more of the YEC views and get back to you on that one.
Good for you. I would always encourage that. Take your time and study the issue and trust that God will look after you and knows what he is doing.

Jason

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 10:58 AM

So should Christians believe what some guys say is the only correct interpretation of what some other guys wrote about Creation, or should they rather look at the real source, at Creation itself?
The question really is "What is Creation?" Is it 6 24-hour days or is it millions of years? Is it animals always reproducing after their own kind or is their a genetic change over the years so that the animal of now is something completely different of the animal that has past? Is it two literal people named Adam and Eve or does Adam and Eve represent the human race (I've heard that arugement before, but only one time) The story of Creation is one of mystery. People nowadays thinks God created too fast--I think he created too slow! I believe the Almightly could have done it in 1 day, nay, 1 second! But He choose 6. Why? We need look no farther than Exodus 20:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God choose six days so that we would have a week to follow! He rested, which is the Sabbath, established at Creation, long before Moses. If you wish to re-write Exodus too, by all means go ahead. But I noticed that the Bible is interconnected. You modify one part, you will have to modify other parts as well.
Now I am not avocating predistnation. But I believe He took six days because He was thinking of us.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 11:04 AM

I am probably not saying anything new. The title of this thread was poorly choosen, mostly because I knew there were Christians who try to make Genesis and evolution agree. I meant to learn from this thread not debate, I didn't realize just how set in my ways I am.
If any of you wish to show the evidences for evolution, please go ahead. I looked at my syballis today and evoltuion, both units, will be covered this semester.
I do not claim to know everything about evolution. I don't. I have been meaning to pick up John Satrafi book Refuting Compromise so I can get better aquainted with all the theories Christians made up to support evolution. (It's suppose to be a thick book!) The most I know about evoltion was the text in the OP.

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 11:07 AM

Well, a science that deals with the past isn't testable right? So, unless evoltuion is testable, which I will check out the instances on this thread, then it shouldn't be paraded as fact so dogmatically. It is testable in a way, although not directly, since we can't go back in time. Science makes predictions about what we will find or find out. For example, ToE predicted that we would find fossils of a certain kind in a certain order. We did. Thus, the fulfilled prediction confirmed the theory, and it became more robust. ToE predicted we would find a mechanism that generated random variation, and we did, DNA. (Remember, at the time the theory was created, we didn't know about DNA.) Further, everything we have since found out about DNA and how it works confirmed or was consistent with ToE, which greatly confirmed the theory. Another would be say the way that creatures are related geographically, with creatures who are closer together geographically more closely related genetically then similar creatures from far away. But most people feel that the strongest confirmation is found in the nested heirerachies of phylogenies. That means that all living creatures can be grouped into groups within groups within groups, all related to one another, as predicted by the theory of common descent. So although most of evolution itself happened in the past, it predicted that in the future scientists would find certain things, which they did, thus confirming the theory.

btw, not all evolution is in the past. New species emerge, scientists estimate, at the rate of approximately one per year. Scientists have observed and even caused speciation in the lab, among fast-reproducing creatures.

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 11:11 AM

So what? He no doubt also believed in alchemy, the Earth was flat, and that witches could cast spells.
And that Jews are evil.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 11:21 AM

I am not saying there was not a flood. But the evidence is that is was not a 'global' flood. You should look at some of the threads here and the website of Glenn Morton (here (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/) ) The fossil record can not be explaind by a single global catastrophe. It spans too much time and contains too many contrary records (like termite mounds between layers deposited in < 1year and under water as they formed (per the global flood as the depsiting mechanism), or fully formed river systems between layers, or placid lakes whose bottom layers span a time of >40,000 years - see lake suigetsu)
I will check it out, but let me just make one quick observation: You completely ignored the verse I gave you. In re-writing Genesis, you are re-writing Peter as well, who by the way, made such a confession that Jesus said "Upon this ROCK I will build My church." Is Peter therefore an ignorant fool, for believing in a world-wide flood? The man who walked with God for three years just isn't as educated as us more advanced folks.

Yes indeed. They chronical the lineage - not the time frame. There is nothing that requires they be complete. Biblically my son can also be my grandson or great grandson. The Jews are all 'sons' of Abraham. Secondly, they could be literal and substantially complete from Abraham on. But the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 is a special case. Yes but wouldn't you say that 4.6 billion years is strecting it a bit? I heard one scholar say that at most the earth is 10,000 years. There are geneologies in Genesis 1-11 though.

Of course they are. But it is not their accuracy in 21st century terms that makes them God's word. Any more than whether the cursed fig tree withered instantly (Matthew) or later (Mark) has any bearing on whether the Bible is God's word. As George said eariler in the thread, the Gospel accounts are to be handled with care. There is a thing where you harmonize the Gospels, so that there is no contridictions. The first time I read the Gospels I almost lost my faith because I thought they contridicted.

The mindset that requires this kind of absolute 'consistency' or 'accuracy' in scripture takes two forms:

1) 'Literalist' who ignores obvious discontinuitues
2) 'Liberal' who denies the authority of scripture because of them
I would add the Scholar, who realizes that some Scripture is poetry, some Scripture is history, some Scripture are letters, some Scripture is songs, some Scripture is wisdom and so forth. The key, is knowing what is what: Is Genesis 1 history or symbolism? That is the key difference between scholars, they label parts of the Bible differently.

Yet that does not change the fact there are some troublesome issues, enough to crush any typical 'inerrancy' argument. The truth lies between these two extremes. You can't prove the Bible perfect or supernatural - that would invalidate the need for faith. At the same time, there is a great deal about it that defies explanation.
Indeed faith is required, the Bible says without faith it is impossible to please God. But about these troublesome issues, what are they?

When we talk about Genesis, however, the evidence for age is so clear that 6,000 year history based on geneologies is not far from arguing the Earth does not rotate on its axis based on the text in Joshua.
I don't know the answer to that Scripture.

So I think 'infallible' requires a definition. But if you think there are no passages of scripture that are 'inconsistant' or for which we can only make a best guess as to what the correct text is, then you are ignorant of the facts.
The way it was explained to me, evolutionist and creationist or theistic evolutionist all have the same facts. We have the same fossil record, the same data, the same experiments. We just interpret them differently.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 11:24 AM

And that Jews are evil.
Sources sure are a heck of a thing!!! Since no one cares to use them!!

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 11:30 AM

It is testable in a way, although not directly, since we can't go back in time.
I guess in a few million years we will know, then won't we, haha. Though I hope Jesus comes back much sooner than that! As the saints say in Revelation, "Come, Lord Jesus.."

btw, not all evolution is in the past. New species emerge, scientists estimate, at the rate of approximately one per year. Scientists have observed and even caused speciation in the lab, among fast-reproducing creatures. I was told that new species is not evolution, but variation within a kind. For example, only a fool would deny that a lion and a mountain lion could mate. We creationist do not believe that everything as we see it today is how God created it. Far from it! All animals are decendants of the once-perfect Creation. That is what we believe. Just want to point that out, because we creationist get misrepresented A LOT.

Barry Desborough

September 5th 2006, 11:38 AM

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 11:50 AM

Thank you! I forgot about this site. There another site very similar to it, True Orgins I believe, that refutes articles on Talk Orgins (or is it the other way around). At any rate, thanks.

Barry Desborough

September 5th 2006, 12:00 PM

Thank you! I forgot about this site. There another site very similar to it, True Orgins I believe, that refutes articles on Talk Orgins (or is it the other way around). At any rate, thanks.

You are welcome. The Talk.Origins page links to it's critic on the True.Origins site. (The True.Origins page doesn't link back. :wink:)

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 12:06 PM

You are welcome. The Talk.Origins page links to it's critic on the True.Origins site. (The True.Origins page doesn't link back. :wink:)
Interesting.

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 12:18 PM

I guess in a few million years we will know, then won't we, haha. Though I hope Jesus comes back much sooner than that! As the saints say in Revelation, "Come, Lord Jesus.." [quote] But we don't have to wait to do our best to figure it out. We can look at the existing evidence with an open mind to develop a theory as to what it looks like most likely happened. The many, many, brilliant people who have done so have concluded that ToE is the best available explanation. I think that if you do the same, that is, look at the evidence in a scientific manner, you will likely reach the same conclusion. But when I say "scientific" and "open-minded" I mean you don't first decide what scripture says, and then go picking through the data for support. You look at the data, and try to piece together what it tells you.

[quote] I was told that new species is not evolution, but variation within a kind. For example, only a fool would deny that a lion and a mountain lion could mate. We creationist do not believe that everything as we see it today is how God created it. Far from it! All animals are decendants of the once-perfect Creation. That is what we believe. Just want to point that out, because we creationist get misrepresented A LOT. Sigh. If you don't know what a "kind" is, how do you know whether a new species is variation within a kind or not? Every time a new species emerges, it is an example of evolution in the biological sense. If you believe that new species emerge, then you believe that evolution occurs. Maybe you are saying that evolution occurs, but does not account for the diversity of life on earth, that there is not enough of it to account for the amazing number of species presently in existence? To establish this, you would have to do a lot of math: # of species, # of years life has existed on earth, rate of speciation, see what I mean? Otherwise, why not? If new species emerge, why doesn't that fact account for the diversity and number of species we now have, as biologists believe?

Tiggy

September 5th 2006, 12:21 PM

Thank you! I forgot about this site. There another site very similar to it, True Orgins I believe, that refutes articles on Talk Orgins (or is it the other way around). At any rate, thanks.

Another thing to note. All TalkOrigins articles provide references to the primary scientific literature, so that an interested reader may locate and read the original research papers. TrueOrigins only references other Creationist web sites and sources.

That alone should tell you something.

- Tiggy

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 12:24 PM

They are the only two choices. No evidence for a global flood? Just look at the fossil record! Even scientist admit it had to be from a catstrophic event. What else would explain world-wide fossils? Peter certainly thought it was a true event, 1 Peter 2:5. No, they don't. Look at the fossil record with an unprejudiced eye. Here's a site to help you out: fossil evidence does not support flood (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/geologiccolumn.htm) Warning: there's a lot of scientific evidence to digest and understand on this page. However, if you really want to figure this out, I recommend going over it. Like biologists, geologists have reached an overhwelming consensus about the probably age of the earth and how it was formed. They did this independent of, and using entirely different methods from biologists. Yet their conclusions are entirely consistent with ToE. And here in the U.S., the overwhelming majority of them are Christians. Gives you something to think about.

Minnesota

September 5th 2006, 12:42 PM

Gaytheist,

Thanks for the link to Morton's Fossil evidence does not support flood. I had forgotten all about it and appreciate you bringing it to our attention. If nothing else, it points up the duplicitous nature of creationist claims.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 12:43 PM

But we don't have to wait to do our best to figure it out. We can look at the existing evidence with an open mind to develop a theory as to what it looks like most likely happened. The many, many, brilliant people who have done so have concluded that ToE is the best available explanation. I think that if you do the same, that is, look at the evidence in a scientific manner, you will likely reach the same conclusion. But when I say "scientific" and "open-minded" I mean you don't first decide what scripture says, and then go picking through the data for support. You look at the data, and try to piece together what it tells you. I have an open mind. Otherwise I would not be in the Natraul Science department. Theology is more my area, I'm taking a big step here...

Sigh.
Is this really necessary? I guess you heard this before. But seriously, take a look at my profile. Do I look two to you? Is my agreement with AiG suddenly make me a bafoon?

If you don't know what a "kind" is, how do you know whether a new species is variation within a kind or not?
I define kind as Genesis defines it:

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; ...the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind...So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind....“Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind.
Genesis doesn't go as far as to define kind, but the author sure repeats it a lot! It must have some signaficance. I see you're an atheist, so I understand this would have no bearing on you. But I already described what I believe a kind is and my cat example, to which you sighed.

that there is not enough of it to account for the amazing number of species presently in existence? To establish this, you would have to do a lot of math: # of species, # of years life has existed on earth, rate of speciation, see what I mean? Otherwise, why not? If new species emerge, why doesn't that fact account for the diversity and number of species we now have, as biologists believe? It certainly counts for diversity (natural selection and speciation). Think of this way. Two parents have enough genetic information that they could have thousands, possibly millions of kids and not have a single two look identical (let's assume they had no twins) When God created, I do not believe He created all the cats we see today. I think He created maybe a couple pairs of cats and after the Fall, through natural selection and speciation we come to have all the cats we have today because of the genetic information of the first two.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 01:05 PM

Another thing to note. All TalkOrigins articles provide references to the primary scientific literature, so that an interested reader may locate and read the original research papers. TrueOrigins only references other Creationist web sites and sources.

That alone should tell you something.

- Tiggy

Actually, they might have to do that because the evolution-pushing Science magaizines won't publish their articles.. A scientist came to my school one time and he had dated some dino fossils to be oh, 10,000 years old. The Science journals refused to publish his work because DINOS LIVED 65 MILLION YEARS AGO AND THAT'S THAT!

btw, There is something I have been pondering. Maybe you can answer it. AiG made the accusation that evolution is more of a religious worldview than a scientific fact. If the theory of evoltuion is as well support as say the theory of gravity, why do evolutionists go so **** emotional about it? If I were to walk up to an evolutionist and say "I don't believe in gravity" do you not think they would laugh rather try breathlessly to prove me wrong? Any thoughts on this, is the accusation valid? I personally think it is, esp since Science magazines refuse to publish any Creationist material when in fact they are just as scientific. They approach the world in an entirely different manner (for centuries Christians have approched it this way!) and because Creation (as defined by AiG) is not as popular they get persucuted for it.

Because it comes down to three choices: Creation, Evolution, or Compromise. I'm not going speculate any farther than that.

Jake

September 5th 2006, 01:21 PM

Two parents have enough genetic information that they could have thousands, possibly millions of kids and not have a single two look identical (let's assume they had no twins) When God created, I do not believe He created all the cats we see today. I think He created maybe a couple pairs of cats and after the Fall, through natural selection and speciation we come to have all the cats we have today because of the genetic information of the first two.

Sorry to post and run, I dont have much time to spend on TWeb any more. I thought I would address this one point though. Jane is correct that two parents could have thousands of kids and not have a single two look identical. However, when we look deeper, at the genes in the people alive today, we see huge allelic diversity (different versions of the same genes in different people). This level of allelic diversity simply could not have arisen from only two recent parents. This tends to be what most creationist arguments are like. They appear to explain things on first glance, but they quickly fall apart under any level of scrutiny.

Without wishing to be cruel or unpleasant, I can tell you now that if you raise creationist 'arguments' in a university biology class, you will be laughed out of the place. This isnt because of any suppression, or an atheistic conspiracy among the instructors, it is because these arguments really are trivially false. There is no place for them in biology, for the same reason there is no place for the theory that angels push the planets round in planetary physics.

I hope you arent put off science by the short shrift people here are giving the AIG arguments, and can approach your future studies with genuinely open mind, not just one open to things you want to believe.

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 01:28 PM

I have an open mind. Otherwise I would not be in the Natraul Science department. Theology is more my area, I'm taking a big step here... Yes, I understand. However, in the scientific context, open-minded means you have to look at the evidence without reference to scripture. Just evidence, conclusion based on evidence and logic, prediction, confirmation, refinement, etc. No place for scripture. After you reach your scientific conclusion, then you can go back and determine your theological implications. But if you start from scripture and look for evidence to confirm, it's not science.

Is this really necessary? I guess you heard this before. Sorry. You're right, it's a common Creationist assertion I was responding to.
But seriously, take a look at my profile. Do I look two to you? Is my agreement with AiG suddenly make me a bafoon? I think it probably means that you're not very familiar with the evidence and arguments in favor of ToE. AIG themselves are buffoons and liars, but I don't think you are. You've just allowed yourself to be swindled by them.

I define kind as Genesis defines it:

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; ...the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind...So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind....“Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind.
Genesis doesn't go as far as to define kind, but the author sure repeats it a lot! It must have some signaficance. I see you're an atheist, so I understand this would have no bearing on you. But I already described what I believe a kind is and my cat example, to which you sighed. None of this is a definition, nor is an example. Is a kind a species, genus, family, order, class, phylum or kingdom...or something else? How do you recognize a kind? How do you know when something is the same or a different kind? Not examples, but definitions or methods. If you don't know what it is, how can you make any clear true statement about it? It's this kind of thinking that makes me sigh.

It certainly counts for diversity (natural selection and speciation). Think of this way. Two parents have enough genetic information that they could have thousands, possibly millions of kids and not have a single two look identical (let's assume they had no twins) When God created, I do not believe He created all the cats we see today. I think He created maybe a couple pairs of cats and after the Fall, through natural selection and speciation we come to have all the cats we have today because of the genetic information of the first two. Did God create all the species of cats, or one member of the felidae family, or what? E.g. tigers and
caracal: same or different kind? If different kind, is a kind a species? If so, how many creatures did Noah take on the ark? If same kind, did one evolve from the other? In what time frame? It's these kinds of specific questions that are the hallmark of science.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 01:37 PM

Without wishing to be cruel or unpleasant, I can tell you now that if you raise creationist 'arguments' in a university biology class, you will be laughed out of the place.
Worse than laughed at--not recommended to grad school. Jesus said to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. I know better to raise concerns in class. Perhaps you didn't read the entire thead. Anyway, I will raise concerns after I get through grad school. Of course, when I do reserch I will probably stay in the realm of Operational Science. Of course, Jesus plainly said that if they perscute Him, they will persucate His followers as well. Most Christians who have compromised, IMHO, are those Christians who don't want to bear the burden of mild persucuttion from unbelievers. That is the source of compromise. That being said, I do not comdemn Christians who have comprimsed. That is their choice. But I would remind those Christians that Jesus said "I have you hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm I will spew you out of my mouth."

This isnt because of any suppression, or an atheistic conspiracy among the instructors, it is because these arguments really are trivially false. There is no place for them in biology, for the same reason there is no place for the theory that angels push the planets round in planetary physics. Again, same facts, different interptations. It is a nice accusation, however, devoid of any arguments for evolution, which I stated in one of the eariler posts that was what I wanted. We Christians are prejuiced, so the claim has been raised. The same can be said of evolutionist, who can not measure time for more than their own lifespan yet think they can judge the age of the earth! As God said to Job "Where were you when I created the earth?"

I hope you arent put off science by the short shrift people here are giving the AIG arguments, and can approach your future studies with genuinely open mind, not just one open to things you want to believe. As Lutherans we hold to Sola Scriptura, that is Latin for Scripture Alone. We use language and culture context but it still remains Sola Scriptura, that is, the only authority on faith and life. Faith and life which includes salvation, and why we need salvation. The Scriptures are also replete with warnings not to add to it. I think "millions of years" is adding to the Bible. I have an open mind concerning the interptation of Scripture. I never said my mind would be easily changed however.

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 01:58 PM

Worse than laughed at--not recommended to grad school. Jesus said to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. I know better to raise concerns in class. Perhaps you didn't read the entire thead. Anyway, I will raise concerns after I get through grad school. Of course, when I do reserch I will probably stay in the realm of Operational Science. Of course, Jesus plainly said that if they perscute Him, they will persucate His followers as well. Most Christians who have compromised, IMHO, are those Christians who don't want to bear the burden of mild persucuttion from unbelievers. I'm not Christian, so I really don't have a dog in this fight, but if I were one of the many millions of Christians who do accept ToE I would be greatly offended by this. It assumes the worst of people, that they are insincere cowards. Maybe they were just sincerely convinced by the evidence and by their reading of the bible. What I'm saying is that because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are cowardly or hypocritical--they may just honestly disagree.

Again, same facts, different interptations. It is a nice accusation, however, devoid of any arguments for evolution, which I stated in one of the eariler posts that was what I wanted. We Christians are prejuiced, so the claim has been raised. The same can be said of evolutionist, who can not measure time for more than their own lifespan yet think they can judge the age of the earth! As God said to Job "Where were you when I created the earth?" There is no such thing as an Evolutionist. What there are are scientists, more specifically biologists, who study life on our planet. ToE is a foundation of the modern study of biology, so biologists use it in their work. Creationism is not science and is not scientific, and has no place in the Biology classroom. If you believe it, you must do so as a result of your interpretation of scripture, as the scientific evidence does not support it.

The age of the earth is not part of Biology, but of geology and cosmology. Scientists who study these fields have determined the age of the earth to the best of their ability, and come up with an answer which allows time for ToE to operate. This is not because of a conspiracy, but simply because both sciences have advanced to the point where we are starting to get some accurate answers. Neither any of them nor you were present when "I [God]" created the earth. Do you believe that should stop us from doing our best to learn about it? What methods do you believe are most likely to enable us to figure it out? If science, then leave scripture out of it. If not, why train in science?

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 02:00 PM

Yes, I understand. However, in the scientific context, open-minded means you have to look at the evidence without reference to scripture. Just evidence, conclusion based on evidence and logic, prediction, confirmation, refinement, etc. No place for scripture. After you reach your scientific conclusion, then you can go back and determine your theological implications. But if you start from scripture and look for evidence to confirm, it's not science.
I was always told Scripture and Science go hand in hand. That the first scientists believed that we have a logical and consistant God, and thus decided for studing the earth more closely. That is Scriptures are really inspired, then everything we find should be consistant with it. If you want sources, I will find them. But I do see where you're coming from. I had a biology professor that occassionally made wise cracks about the Bible, and he said "I can not test how many angels can dance on a pin, because it is a belief. Science is when you can test something."

Sorry. You're right, it's a common Creationist assertion I was responding to. I think it probably means that you're not very familiar with the evidence and arguments in favor of ToE. I'm not.

None of this is a definition, nor is an example. Is a kind a species, genus, family, order, class, phylum or kingdom...or something else? How do you recognize a kind? How do you know when something is the same or a different kind? Not examples, but definitions or methods. If you don't know what it is, how can you make any clear true statement about it? It's this kind of thinking that makes me sigh.
Can you give me the diffinitions for classification? I can not find it on the web, and it is not in my text. It's been so long since I was aquainted with it (two years) that I forgot it.

If so, how many creatures did Noah take on the ark? If same kind, did one evolve from the other? In what time frame? It's these kinds of specific questions that are the hallmark of science.Certainly Noah did not take all species on the ark! I will expound on this one once I have the classifications order.

Tiggy

September 5th 2006, 02:06 PM

Hi Jane,

Actually, they might have to do that because the evolution-pushing Science magaizines won't publish their articles.. A scientist came to my school one time and he had dated some dino fossils to be oh, 10,000 years old. The Science journals refused to publish his work because DINOS LIVED 65 MILLION YEARS AGO AND THAT'S THAT!

Er…no. That’s one of the many dishonest stories creationists use for supplying no positive evidence for their claims. Professional science magazines will accept any papers for review, but will only publish ones that pass rigorous peer review of the processes and protocols used in the experiments. Papers aren’t rejected because of their conclusions, they are rejected because of the quality of the science used to draw the conclusions. Creationists can’t come close to providing the scientific rigor required for their claims to be accepted, so they don’t even try to submit papers. It’s easier for them to cry ‘sour grapes’ and make flimsy excuses that to do actual research.

If what you said was true, then one of the big Creationist organizations (AIG, ICR, DI) would have compiled a list by now of ‘Scientific papers with evidence for creation that were rejected because of the YEC conclusions’. Such a list doesn’t exist, because the papers don’t exist.

btw, There is something I have been pondering. Maybe you can answer it. AiG made the accusation that evolution is more of a religious worldview than a scientific fact. If the theory of evoltuion is as well support as say the theory of gravity, why do evolutionists go so **** emotional about it? If I were to walk up to an evolutionist and say "I don't believe in gravity" do you not think they would laugh rather try breathlessly to prove me wrong? Any thoughts on this, is the accusation valid? I personally think it is, esp since Science magazines refuse to publish any Creationist material when in fact they are just as scientific. They approach the world in an entirely different manner (for centuries Christians have approched it this way!) and because Creation (as defined by AiG) is not as popular they get persucuted for it.

Scientists and educators get upset about it because the creationists are trying every underhanded political trick in the book to get their pseudoscience forced into science classrooms. Creationism has not one iota of actual positive scientific evidence, it is purely a political movement. Unfortunately, it costs scientists and educators real time and real money to fight these political efforts – time and money that is taken away from helping with the students’ actual science education.

Imagine you were head of a public school in charge of health education for Jr. High school students. You have a limited schedule and budget to present materials to the kids. Now imagine some wingnut gets elected to the school board, and demands that half of your class time and book budget must be spent on the ‘theory’ that the stork brings the babies. ‘Teach the controversy’ cries the wingnut – ‘present both sides and let the students decide for themselves’. Would you be angry at the wingnut? Would you have any problems losing half your time and budget for such a dishonest reason? Would you get resentful for the personal time you would lose having to battle against the wingnut’s plan?

- Tiggy

oxmixmudd

September 5th 2006, 02:06 PM

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 02:17 PM

I'm not Christian, so I really don't have a dog in this fight, but if I were one of the many millions of Christians who do accept ToE I would be greatly offended by this. It assumes the worst of people, that they are insincere cowards. Maybe they were just sincerely convinced by the evidence and by their reading of the bible. What I'm saying is that because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are cowardly or hypocritical--they may just honestly disagree.
Well I am a bold person. I have been ever since I discovered Lutheranism. Some like it, some don't. I have much more respect for someone who says "That is wrong" and disagree with me. It shows conviction.
Notice also I used the words IMHO. Opinion. Everyone has one. That means you can take it or leave it. However, I do see your point.

There is no such thing as an Evolutionist. What there are are scientists, more specifically biologists, who study life on our planet. ToE is a foundation of the modern study of biology, so biologists use it in their work. Creationism is not science and is not scientific, and has no place in the Biology classroom. If you believe it, you must do so as a result of your interpretation of scripture, as the scientific evidence does not support it. What of ID? I do not know much about it, but is it scientific?

The age of the earth is not part of Biology, but of geology and cosmology. I never said it was part of Biology.

Scientists who study these fields have determined the age of the earth to the best of their ability, and come up with an answer which allows time for ToE to operate. This is not because of a conspiracy, but simply because both sciences have advanced to the point where we are starting to get some accurate answers. Neither any of them nor you were present when "I [God]" created the earth. Do you believe that should stop us from doing our best to learn about it? What methods do you believe are most likely to enable us to figure it out? If science, then leave scripture out of it. If not, why train in science?
I never said that scientists who support evolution are not trying to find answers to the best of their ability. I would just point out we are falliable people. We make mistakes. We screw up. As for methods of figuring it out, imo, one needs to look no farther than Genesis. I have said this all along. If Scripture is indeed inspired, Science would confirm it. I do not intend to take my Bible to class. But with Christians it is a matter of conviction, which, I might add, Christians are convicted about different things. Peter said the Bible is not a matter of any private interpretation. That means there's one meaning and one meaning only. I came to this site to find out what that meaning it. I thought Lutherans had it, but it might be the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox. But I have ruled out all Protestants but Lutherans. This is not the place to discuss why.
I do indeed believe we should do all we can to learn about the creation. That is why I'm in Biology, I can't think of anything better to do than to study God's creation (a cursed creation, but still has its beauty) I need to meet with a professor about questions I have. Be back later.

Jake

September 5th 2006, 02:27 PM

Worse than laughed at--not recommended to grad school. Jesus said to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. I know better to raise concerns in class. Perhaps you didn't read the entire thead. Anyway, I will raise concerns after I get through grad school. Of course, when I do reserch I will probably stay in the realm of Operational Science.

I hope your religious beliefs do not lead to prejudice against you. So long as they do not impact upon your ability to do the job in hand they should not.

Of course, Jesus plainly said that if they perscute Him, they will persucate His followers as well. Most Christians who have compromised, IMHO, are those Christians who don't want to bear the burden of mild persucuttion from unbelievers. That is the source of compromise. That being said, I do not comdemn Christians who have comprimsed. That is their choice. But I would remind those Christians that Jesus said "I have you hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm I will spew you out of my mouth."

Not being a Christian I will not comment on this. That is between you and other Christians.

Again, same facts, different interptations. It is a nice accusation, however, devoid of any arguments for evolution, which I stated in one of the eariler posts that was what I wanted.

Easy now! I provided a very specific example above, showing how a little further analysis of the data showed that the idea that all humanity were decended from a single, recent couple could not possibly be the case. You have totally ignored this point, and then accuse me of making accusations devoid of arguments.

That aside, the findings of mainstream science (which I think is pretty much what you mean by 'evolution') are quite extensive; I suggest you narrow it down a little if you want to have a meaningful discussion.

We Christians are prejuiced, so the claim has been raised. The same can be said of evolutionist, who can not measure time for more than their own lifespan yet think they can judge the age of the earth! As God said to Job "Where were you when I created the earth?"

If you are going to start the whole 'you cant be sure of anything outside your own lifespan' thing then this will rapidly get very silly. By the same standards, neither could YECs be sure of the historical facts they claim are certain. lets just assume the reality is at least theoretically rational and explainable for now and move on, shall we?

As Lutherans we hold to Sola Scriptura, that is Latin for Scripture Alone. We use language and culture context but it still remains Sola Scriptura, that is, the only authority on faith and life. Faith and life which includes salvation, and why we need salvation. The Scriptures are also replete with warnings not to add to it. I think "millions of years" is adding to the Bible. I have an open mind concerning the interptation of Scripture. I never said my mind would be easily changed however.

As Gaytheist said before, in the scientific context, open-minded means you have to look at the evidence without reference to Scripture, or the Torah, or the Book of Mormon, or any other 'external' source. You dont have to accept the scientific method, but if you don't you are not doing science.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 02:55 PM

Easy now! I provided a very specific example above, showing how a little further analysis of the data showed that the idea that all humanity were decended from a single, recent couple could not possibly be the case. You have totally ignored this point, and then accuse me of making accusations devoid of arguments.
I was hoping for a source, an article I can read on it. But do forgive me.

If you are going to start the whole 'you cant be sure of anything outside your own lifespan' thing then this will rapidly get very silly. By the same standards, neither could YECs be sure of the historical facts they claim are certain. lets just assume the reality is at least theoretically rational and explainable for now and move on, shall we?
I never thought of this.

As Gaytheist said before, in the scientific context, open-minded means you have to look at the evidence without reference to Scripture, or the Torah, or the Book of Mormon, or any other 'external' source. You dont have to accept the scientific method, but if you don't you are not doing science.
When did exclusion of outside sources arise? I don't know much about Einstine, but even he said "God does not play dice." Seems great scientists of past were in fact Christians, and operated with the presumption of the existance of a logical God. Does not the scientific methold as used today start with the presumption "There is no God?" We must all face it, we all come to the table with ideas on how the data (on some things) are to be interpreted. To say otherwise is to be downright mean-spirited (which I am guilty of too)

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 03:06 PM

Er…no. That’s one of the many dishonest stories creationists use for supplying no positive evidence for their claims. Professional science magazines will accept any papers for review, but will only publish ones that pass rigorous peer review of the processes and protocols used in the experiments. Papers aren’t rejected because of their conclusions, they are rejected because of the quality of the science used to draw the conclusions. Creationists can’t come close to providing the scientific rigor required for their claims to be accepted, so they don’t even try to submit papers. It’s easier for them to cry ‘sour grapes’ and make flimsy excuses that to do actual research.
What about the Creation Research Insititute? Do they not do reasearch? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

If what you said was true, then one of the big Creationist organizations (AIG, ICR, DI) would have compiled a list by now of ‘Scientific papers with evidence for creation that were rejected because of the YEC conclusions’. Such a list doesn’t exist, because the papers don’t exist. The scientist who did the reasearch on dino bones, he showed us all his research.

Imagine you were head of a public school in charge of health education for Jr. High school students. You have a limited schedule and budget to present materials to the kids. Now imagine some wingnut gets elected to the school board, and demands that half of your class time and book budget must be spent on the ‘theory’ that the stork brings the babies. ‘Teach the controversy’ cries the wingnut – ‘present both sides and let the students decide for themselves’. Would you be angry at the wingnut? Would you have any problems losing half your time and budget for such a dishonest reason? Would you get resentful for the personal time you would lose having to battle against the wingnut’s plan?
I must say I am deeply offended by the anology. But I have offened a number in my day too.

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 03:12 PM

I was always told Scripture and Science go hand in hand. That the first scientists believed that we have a logical and consistant God, and thus decided for studing the earth more closely. That is Scriptures are really inspired, then everything we find should be consistant with it. If you want sources, I will find them. But I do see where you're coming from. I had a biology professor that occassionally made wise cracks about the Bible, and he said "I can not test how many angels can dance on a pin, because it is a belief. Science is when you can test something." That's true. And further, all science starts with the evidence, and constantly and finally compares its results to the evidence. Evidence is stuff we can observe and measure. What you find out may or may not end up consistent with scripture or with a specific interpretation of scripture, but it cannot by assuming anything that any scripture asserts to be true. That completely poisons the well, and is one of the many reason that "Creation Science" [sic] is not science.

I'm not. Don't you think that before deciding to reject a theory that is so basic to modern science, that the is the foundation of all modern biology, and that is accepted by thousands of intelligent and fair-minded people who have devoted their lives to studying life on this planet, you should first become familiar with what it actually says?

Can you give me the diffinitions for classification? I can not find it on the web, and it is not in my text. It's been so long since I was aquainted with it (two years) that I forgot it. Here's a link to a wiki article classification of living things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy) that explains the basics. At the top is Kingdom, which includes plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, protozoans and algae, and it gets subdivided finer and finer until you get species, of which we now think there are around 12,000,000 different ones. [please, someone who actually knows biology correct me anywhere in here.] All of this is provisional and based on Linneus, who started this system a long time ago. I think a lot of biologists disagree with the whole approach, but it's one handy system we can use for discussion purposes.

Certainly Noah did not take all species on the ark! I will expound on this one once I have the classifications order. Ponder this: if Noah took only 1 of each above the species level, then there would have to have been an incredible amount of evolution in the last 6000 years, which wouldn't give enough time to develop all these species unless evolution proliferated wildly. OTOH if he took one of each species, he had 12,000,000 different species on board? It's a problem either way for biblical literalists.

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 03:15 PM

What about the Creation Research Insititute? Do they not do reasearch? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. IMO no, they're a bunch of liars and charlatans and no, they don't get anything published in reputable journals not because of some gross conspiracy, but because they don't do science or don't do good science.

The scientist who did the reasearch on dino bones, he showed us all his research. Can you remember his name? You may have been conned. A lot of Creationist "scientists" are frauds and liars.

I must say I am deeply offended by the anology. But I have offened a number in my day too. Or you're teaching astronomy and they agitate to force you to include astrological theory, or medicine and they want you to teach about the witch doctor alternative...you get the idea. Astrology may or may not be valid, but it certainly isn't science.

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 03:38 PM

When did exclusion of outside sources arise? I don't know much about Einstine, but even he said "God does not play dice." Seems great scientists of past were in fact Christians, and operated with the presumption of the existance of a logical God. Does not the scientific methold as used today start with the presumption "There is no God?" We must all face it, we all come to the table with ideas on how the data (on some things) are to be interpreted. To say otherwise is to be downright mean-spirited (which I am guilty of too) The scientific method is founded on starting without prejudice as to the outcome and using, relying on, and checking with the evidence, not with any pre-existing book prejudicing the outcome. Einstein was not a theist and did not believe in a personal God. He was arguing against quantum theory. (p.s., he turned out to be wrong.) No, the scientific method does not start with any such presumption and in fact cannot investigate the question, as it can only investigate things which can be observed and measured, which does not include God. Science neither starts nor ends with any position on the existence of God. Yes, we all come at everything with our pre-existing prejudice. The scientific method is an attempt to prevent us to leave with them as well.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 03:39 PM

That's true. And further, all science starts with the evidence, and constantly and finally compares its results to the evidence. Evidence is stuff we can observe and measure. What you find out may or may not end up consistent with scripture or with a specific interpretation of scripture, but it cannot by assuming anything that any scripture asserts to be true. That completely poisons the well, and is one of the many reason that "Creation Science" [sic] is not science. I can live with this. It isn't as terrible as Creationist might have it be...as far as what I consider "compromise" I haven't made up my mind yet either way. I hate to compromise. It shows a lack of faith. I compromised before on my beliefs and it cost me dearly...but I wish not talk about that sin.

Don't you think that before deciding to reject a theory that is so basic to modern science, that the is the foundation of all modern biology, and that is accepted by thousands of intelligent and fair-minded people who have devoted their lives to studying life on this planet, you should first become familiar with what it actually says?
Where did I say I rejected it? Did I not say give me sources and I'll check it out? I haven't the time just yet, I need to read Chapter 3 before class tonight.

Here's a link to a wiki article classification of living things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy) that explains the basics. At the top is Kingdom, which includes plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, protozoans and algae, and it gets subdivided finer and finer until you get species, of which we now think there are around 12,000,000 different ones. [please, someone who actually knows biology correct me anywhere in here.] All of this is provisional and based on Linneus, who started this system a long time ago. I think a lot of biologists disagree with the whole approach, but it's one handy system we can use for discussion purposes.
Judging from the examples, I would say a "kind" is probably an order. But I'm not certain about that.

Ponder this: if Noah took only 1 of each above the species level, then there would have to have been an incredible amount of evolution in the last 6000 years, which wouldn't give enough time to develop all these species unless evolution proliferated wildly. OTOH if he took one of each species, he had 12,000,000 different species on board? It's a problem either way for biblical literalists.
But you see, you reject it because you stated with an assumption. (Which I do the same thing) That evolution is true (I'm not saying it isn't, just making a point) Then you started with another assumption. That he took all species on the ark. I would say he took every kind of order on the ark. Or maybe family. I'm not certain. Might take a while but I'll try to find out how many pairs he would have took if it had been an order or a family. Also, you need to take into account Noah didn't need to take sea creatures, so there's MANY animals right there taken care of.

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 03:54 PM

Sources sure are a heck of a thing!!! Since no one cares to use them!! Not sure what you mean, and a bit of a de-rail, but Luther said inter alia:

Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer selfglory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them. and
Moreover, they [the Jews] are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as archthieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security. Also,
What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? ...

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ...

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed... All of these quotes are from The Jews and Their Lies, by Martin Luther. (Sorry, don't have the page numbers.)

Luther also said:
Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Do you agree or disagree?

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 04:09 PM

All of these quotes are from The Jews and Their Lies, by Martin Luther. (Sorry, don't have the page numbers.)
Luther was also very anti-Catholic and I have high respect for Catholics. I have seen his anti-Catholic quotes. I do not doubt he said these quotes. I have a pet peeve concerning my faith, that we quote Luther almost as much was we quote the Bible (as if Scripture does not suffice on it's own merits!) I do not condon Luther's judgeing, and that is, plainly and simply judgeing. One wonders if the words "Judge not, lest you also be judged" ever crossed his mind. Being a scholar I know he was familar with it. But in Luther's defense, I would say that he was a miserable sinner like the rest of us. I think Lutherans forget that. I would also say his behavior does not somehow negate what he taught. For example, if I had the cure for AIDS, yet called people with HIV devils, would not my cure still be effective? It indeed would. Luther, dispite his behavior knew the cure for sin and proudly proclaimed it. That is why we are Lutherans, because we agree with his doctrines, and because we admire his strenght.

Do you agree or disagree? I guess it depends on how you define reason. I would have perfered to have the context of that quote, as sometimes the context can help us better understand the meaning. "In Christians all reason will be destroyed" that is, if it means what I think it means, that this "reason" mankind has that he must come to God, that he must live right, that he must obey the Law, and by that "reason" he is to be saved, if that is what "reason" means, then I agree firmly. Because we are not saved by the Law, we are saved by the Gospel.

wattsr1

September 5th 2006, 04:29 PM

Actually, they might have to do that because the evolution-pushing Science magaizines won't publish their articles.. A scientist came to my school one time and he had dated some dino fossils to be oh, 10,000 years old. The Science journals refused to publish his work because DINOS LIVED 65 MILLION YEARS AGO AND THAT'S THAT!

btw, There is something I have been pondering. Maybe you can answer it. AiG made the accusation that evolution is more of a religious worldview than a scientific fact. If the theory of evoltuion is as well support as say the theory of gravity, why do evolutionists go so **** emotional about it? If I were to walk up to an evolutionist and say "I don't believe in gravity" do you not think they would laugh rather try breathlessly to prove me wrong? Any thoughts on this, is the accusation valid? I personally think it is, esp since Science magazines refuse to publish any Creationist material when in fact they are just as scientific. They approach the world in an entirely different manner (for centuries Christians have approched it this way!) and because Creation (as defined by AiG) is not as popular they get persucuted for it.

Because it comes down to three choices: Creation, Evolution, or Compromise. I'm not going speculate any farther than that.

Hi Jane,

btw, There is something I have been pondering. Maybe you can answer it. AiG made the accusation that evolution is more of a religious worldview than a scientific fact. If the theory of evoltuion is as well support as say the theory of gravity, why do evolutionists go so **** emotional about it? If I were to walk up to an evolutionist and say "I don't believe in gravity" do you not think they would laugh rather try breathlessly to prove me wrong? Any thoughts on this, is the accusation valid? I personally think it is, esp since Science magazines refuse to publish any Creationist material when in fact they are just as scientific. They approach the world in an entirely different manner (for centuries Christians have approched it this way!) and because Creation (as defined by AiG) is not as popular they get persucuted for it.

ToE is as well supported as gravity. Theists and non-theists go “***” at creationists for that very reason.

If you were to walk up to mainstreamers and say “Gravity is wrong. I do not want ToG (Theory of Gravity) taught in schools any more. I want gravitational attraction replaced by an equally scientific theory that things fall towards each other because of God. I have an organization which is campaigning to get ToG replaced in our schools”, then you would be both laughed at and fought against.

We recently had a guy here who argued that the earth is at the center of the universe and that the whole cosmos revolved around the earth. Furthermore he argued that his geocentricsm was Biblical and that we were all wrong. He claimed to be philosophically brilliant and always insisted that he had refuted every one who challenged him. He argued like this for well over a year. He was countered most vigorously by both theists and atheists. Many maintained some politeness towards him. Many were quite rude to him. Everyone was very exasperated at him.

So there is an example for you. Yes, people laughed at him AND they vigorously argued against him.

Now imagine if he organized himself politically and tried to get geocentricsm taught in the physics classes to replace conventional astronomical theory.

Can I ask, whose side would you be on? What kind of reaction would you expect from the mainstream?

Regards, Roland

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 04:41 PM

ToE is as well supported as gravity. Theists and non-theists go “***” at creationists for that very reason. I will judge the evidence for myself when we approach it in class, which won't be too awful long. When we passed the units I'll start a new thread giving my thoughts. How about that?

We recently had a guy here who argued that the earth is at the center of the universe and that the whole cosmos revolved around the earth. Furthermore he argued that his geocentricsm was Biblical and that we were all wrong. He claimed to be philosophically brilliant and always insisted that he had refuted every one who challenged him. He argued like this for well over a year. He was countered most vigorously by both theists and atheists. Many maintained some politeness towards him. Many were quite rude to him. Everyone was very exasperated at him.
Are you saying Creationism is an equivent for this? You know I've heard many say "It takes more faith to believe evolution than Creation as written in Genesis," to which I disagree. There are Christians on here who support evolution, so I won't go into reasons why I disagree with it.

Can I ask, whose side would you be on? What kind of reaction would you expect from the mainstream? I have said eariler in this thread that to "spit in God's face" if He told me that evolution was correct, is really my way of holding God to His Word. Do I believe God lies? Am I willing to except the fact that He did? What if He did? That means He probably also lied when He declared me a sinner, He probably also lied when, through the disciples, He said Jesus is risen. That, imo, is what is at stake: the nature of God. I have also said I'm not saying evolution is not correct. What I am saying is that the only way you can draw evolution out of the text is if you purposely put it there. So, did God lie? For non-Christians on here, sorry for my ramblings. I hope you can understand my deliema.

Minnesota

September 5th 2006, 04:43 PM

When did exclusion of outside sources arise? I don't know much about Einstine, but even he said "God does not play dice."
"God does not play dice with the universe," was in response to the discovery that at the quantum level, according to quantum theory truly random events DO occur.

Seems great scientists of past were in fact Christians, and operated with the presumption of the existance of a logical God.
EVERYONE was a Christian or they suffered the consequences. Yet even Christian scientists were persecuted because their findings sometimes challenged long held beliefs of Christianity.

Does not the scientific methold as used today start with the presumption "There is no God?"
No. It's only stand on god and the supernatural is that because they are outside of nature they are not investigatable. Science has no tools for determining the worth of the claims about the supernatural. It is mute on the subject of the existence of the supernatural or anything claimed to inhabit it.

Judging from the examples, I would say a "kind" is probably an order. But I'm not certain about that.
Let me save you some time. No one, not even creationists who blithely use the term, have come to an agreement as to what "kind" denotes. Most often creationists will define it depending on the objective at hand. Sometimes they treat it as identical with species, and other times it appears they are talking at the family level.

I would say he [Noah] took every kind of order on the ark. Or maybe family. I'm not certain. Might take a while but I'll try to find out how many pairs he would have took if it had been an order or a family.

If he only took representative examples of each order or even each family--numbers that would be far, far fewer than taking two of each species--then one has to wonder exactly which representative species of each family or order he took. When he took the representative pair of the Cebidae family (capuchin-like monkeys) did he take Aotus trivirgatus? or Saimiri sciureus? or Brachyteles arachnoides or, one of the other 27 species in the family? If he took one pair from each order, do you think that within the order Rodentia all our 1,702 species, which includes the beavers, squirrels, cavies, chinchillas, and rats all descended from that one what________? Rat, Squirrel, or Capaybara Noah selected? Moreover, even if Noah took just two representatives from each genus there would have to have been an incredible amount of evolution taking place in order to get all the diverse species we now have. From the rodent genus Apodemus, 20 species of field mice would have had to evolve in an astounding short time. Or how about the evolution that would have had to take place in the ant genus Pheidole, which would have had to go from the single species Noah brought aboard to the 620 species now running around, and in the New World no less, quite a ways from their disembarkation point on Mt. Ararat.

And don't forget, Noah would not only have had to take mammals, which most people limit his cargo to, but also all the birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, spiders, and plants and fungi. Just like the mammals, they too had no chance of surviving the deluge.

Soundsurfr

September 5th 2006, 04:50 PM

So, did God lie?

No, God didn't lie. Whoever told you that the origin-myth of a bronze-age tribal text is superior to scientific research lied.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 04:59 PM

EVERYONE was a Christian or they suffered the consequences. Yet even Christian scientists were persecuted because their findings sometimes challenged long held beliefs of Christianity.
Can you give me an example? Besides Galio, I have heard that one and the rebuttle to it.

If he only took representative examples of each order or even each family--numbers that would be far, far fewer than taking two of each species--then one has to wonder exactly which representative species of each family or order he took. When he took the representative pair of the Cebidae family (capuchin-like monkeys) did he take Aotus trivirgatus? or Saimiri sciureus? or Brachyteles arachnoides or, one of the other 27 species in the family? If he took one pair from each order, do you think that within the order Rodentia all our 1,702 species, which includes the beavers, squirrels, cavies, chinchillas, and rats all descended from that one what________? Rat, Squirrel, or Capaybara Noah selected? Moreover, even if Noah took just two representatives from each genus there would have to have been an incredible amount of evolution taking place in order to get all the diverse species we now have. From the rodent genus Apodemus, 20 species of field mice would have had to evolve in an astounding short time. Or how about the evolution that would have had to take place in the ant genus Pheidole, which would have had to go from the single species Noah brought aboard to the 620 species now running around, and in the New World no less, quite a ways from their disembarkation point on Mt. Ararat. The Bible does not explore these matters.

And don't forget, Noah would not only have had to take mammals, which most people limit his cargo to, but also all the birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, spiders, and plants and fungi. Just like the mammals, they too had no chance of surviving the deluge.
Actually, all he had to take were animals that "breathed though the nostrilles" Genesis 7:22 Insects and spiders would not be included here. Plants didn't need to go, because their seeds could float on the water.
I erally must be reading Chapter 3. Be back later...

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 05:00 PM

Luther was also very anti-Catholic and I have high respect for Catholics. I have seen his anti-Catholic quotes. I do not doubt he said these quotes. I have a pet peeve concerning my faith, that we quote Luther almost as much was we quote the Bible (as if Scripture does not suffice on it's own merits!) I do not condon Luther's judgeing, and that is, plainly and simply judgeing. One wonders if the words "Judge not, lest you also be judged" ever crossed his mind. Being a scholar I know he was familar with it. But in Luther's defense, I would say that he was a miserable sinner like the rest of us. I think Lutherans forget that. I would also say his behavior does not somehow negate what he taught. For example, if I had the cure for AIDS, yet called people with HIV devils, would not my cure still be effective? It indeed would. Luther, dispite his behavior knew the cure for sin and proudly proclaimed it. That is why we are Lutherans, because we agree with his doctrines, and because we admire his strenght. Yes, this makes perfect sense. It's not who he was, but what he said and whether it was true. However, when you're talking about the founder of your branch of your religion, I think it's significant that he was virulently and irrationally anti-semitic. It's particularly significant that the way he advocated treating the Jews actually were inflicted on us.

I guess it depends on how you define reason. I would have perfered to have the context of that quote, as sometimes the context can help us better understand the meaning. "In Christians all reason will be destroyed" that is, if it means what I think it means, that this "reason" mankind has that he must come to God, that he must live right, that he must obey the Law, and by that "reason" he is to be saved, if that is what "reason" means, then I agree firmly. Because we are not saved by the Law, we are saved by the Gospel. I don't have the source, but Luther was anti-reason in general. Here's a link to a collection of Luther quotes on the subject: Luther opposed to reason (http://www.jesuscult.com/Luther_Anti-Reason.htm) btw we've wandered pretty far from the OP.

jason

September 5th 2006, 05:04 PM

Professional science magazines will accept any papers for review, but will only publish ones that pass rigorous peer review
:lol:

You'd think you would be a little more cautious with that claim in light of recent publications accepting after "peer review" fraudulent articles.

Jason

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 05:05 PM

Yes, this makes perfect sense. It's not who he was, but what he said and whether it was true. However, when you're talking about the founder of your branch of your religion, I think it's significant that he was virulently and irrationally anti-semitic. It's particularly significant that the way he advocated treating the Jews actually were inflicted on us. This could be very true. Luther was a highly influcintal man.

btw we've wandered pretty far from the OP.
Indeed!

Maybe I should start over.

I'm sorry for the debates guys, I really want to learn but I'm so set in my ways! LOL. Help me!

Arguments for evolution...go.

jason

September 5th 2006, 05:08 PM

btw, There is something I have been pondering. Maybe you can answer it. AiG made the accusation that evolution is more of a religious worldview than a scientific fact. If the theory of evoltuion is as well support as say the theory of gravity, why do evolutionists go so **** emotional about it? If I were to walk up to an evolutionist and say "I don't believe in gravity" do you not think they would laugh rather try breathlessly to prove me wrong? Any thoughts on this, is the accusation valid?
There is some truth to this.

The problem is that it depends how you define the word "Evolution".

Certianly it is science when it is defined as change over time, or shifts in gene frequency in a population and so on.

However when the word is used to mean an account of the creation of all life on earth by an atelic process, then yes, you have well and truly stepped far beyond the evidence and into the realm of Naturalists religious claims.

Of course, it suits the Naturalists to tell lies and blur the lines as much as possible when promoting their creation myth when it lacks so much evidence.

Jason

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 05:15 PM

But you see, you reject it because you stated with an assumption. (Which I do the same thing) That evolution is true (I'm not saying it isn't, just making a point) Then you started with another assumption. That he took all species on the ark. I would say he took every kind of order on the ark. Or maybe family. I'm not certain. Might take a while but I'll try to find out how many pairs he would have took if it had been an order or a family. Also, you need to take into account Noah didn't need to take sea creatures, so there's MANY animals right there taken care of.
No, I'm not rejecting it and I'm not starting with an assumption. I'm pointing out difficulties. If you don't believe in evolution, and you do believe in Noah, flood, etc., you have a big problem. Either you think Noah took 2 (or 7) of each species, of which there are millions, so he would have had to build a REALLY big boat--obviously impossibly big. Or he took 2 (or 7) of each genus or family or order, from which all the current species evolved. In that case, evolution has been zooming along at a rate of something like 1000 new species per year or something (sorry, not good at math) but really ridiculously fast, extreme evolution, which is not what we see happening. So either way, if you believe in 6000 years and the flood and everything, you've got a huge problem.

The way that Creationists resolve this is to change the definition of kind to suit their purposes. When Noah's loading the ark, it means something like order, but when arguing against evolution, it means species. It's inconsistent. I consider it a form of lying, which is one of the many reasons that I say that Creationists tend to lie. Ask a creationist to define "kind." They won't do it, because they cannot resolve this logical problem.

And I always say, "What about the plants?"

Another way out of this dilemma is to throw reason out the window, but then I think you've got another whole set of problems, don't you, like not letting them lock you up in the nuthouse! :lol:

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 05:19 PM

T Certianly it is science when it is defined as change over time, or shifts in gene frequency in a population and so on. Well, this is the biological theory.

However when the word is used to mean an account of the creation of all life on earth by an atelic process, then yes, you have well and truly stepped far beyond the evidence and into the realm of Naturalists religious claims. I don't know what this is but it has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which does not address the creation of life.

Of course, it suits the Naturalists to tell lies and blur the lines as much as possible when promoting their creation myth when it lacks so much evidence.
Please find a single lie by a single person explaining and advocating for ToE in this thread.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 05:27 PM

No, I'm not rejecting it and I'm not starting with an assumption. I'm pointing out difficulties. If you don't believe in evolution, and you do believe in Noah, flood, etc., you have a big problem. Either you think Noah took 2 (or 7) of each species, of which there are millions, so he would have had to build a REALLY big boat--obviously impossibly big. Or he took 2 (or 7) of each genus or family or order, from which all the current species evolved. In that case, evolution has been zooming along at a rate of something like 1000 new species per year or something (sorry, not good at math) but really ridiculously fast, extreme evolution, which is not what we see happening. So either way, if you believe in 6000 years and the flood and everything, you've got a huge problem.
But you're assuming that you know how many species he had to start with. How do we know that many he took on the boat are now exint?

The way that Creationists resolve this is to change the definition of kind to suit their purposes.
Not trying to be sarcastic here, but you yourself don't believe the non-sense so how are you to judge wheather or not they are using "kind" correctly or not?

When Noah's loading the ark, it means something like order, but when arguing against evolution, it means species.
REALLY? *strachtes head* I have listened to and read AiG articles and media for hours upon hours and I have never once heard them claim that kind meant species.

It's inconsistent. I consider it a form of lying, which is one of the many reasons that I say that Creationists tend to lie. Ask a creationist to define "kind." They won't do it, because they cannot resolve this logical problem.
Well it would be inconsistent if it were true...Care to quote AiG on this? As I said eariler in the thread, Creationist are often misrepresented.

Another way out of this dilemma is to throw reason out the window, but then I think you've got another whole set of problems, don't you, like not letting them lock you up in the nuthouse! :lol: I've stepped over the line myself, but my my...

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 05:35 PM

I don't have the source, but Luther was anti-reason in general. Here's a link to a collection of Luther quotes on the subject: Luther opposed to reason (http://www.jesuscult.com/Luther_Anti-Reason.htm) btw we've wandered pretty far from the OP.
I think they are quoting him out of context. I am familar with these quotes upon reading them, some of them I have enjoyed reading. Luther is saying often time people use reason to doubt Scripture. A perfect example would be the Resurrection. Some people reject Christianity because after all, people do not come back out of the grave. And the mircles would fall into this category as well. Reason should be a servant of Scripture, not the other way around. After all, if you reject the Resurrection (without which our faith is vain!) then reason truly is the "greatest enemy faith has."

wattsr1

September 5th 2006, 05:35 PM

I will judge the evidence for myself when we approach it in class, which won't be too awful long. When we passed the units I'll start a new thread giving my thoughts. How about that?

Are you saying Creationism is an equivent for this? You know I've heard many say "It takes more faith to believe evolution than Creation as written in Genesis," to which I disagree. There are Christians on here who support evolution, so I won't go into reasons why I disagree with it.

I have said eariler in this thread that to "spit in God's face" if He told me that evolution was correct, is really my way of holding God to His Word. Do I believe God lies? Am I willing to except the fact that He did? What if He did? That means He probably also lied when He declared me a sinner, He probably also lied when, through the disciples, He said Jesus is risen. That, imo, is what is at stake: the nature of God. I have also said I'm not saying evolution is not correct. What I am saying is that the only way you can draw evolution out of the text is if you purposely put it there. So, did God lie? For non-Christians on here, sorry for my ramblings. I hope you can understand my deliema.

Gidday Jane,

I hope you can understand my deliema.

Yes. But I think it is largely a matter of perception. Jim (Oxmixmudd) and GlenMorton are very conservative Christians. Glenn has no problems with evo. Jim does, but is reasonably open to it. After having watched the PBS series on evolution some years ago, I understand that many conservative Christians are happy with evolution.

As an atheist, I doubt if I can help you much. However, I look at Genesis as symbolic. 7,000 years ago (?), people had to explain existence, just as we do today. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were their best shots.

In Job 37 and 38, it is very clear that God interacts directly in nature to cause snow, to cause thunder to whip up storms on the oceans and to quell those storms. In chapter 37, the companions of Job certainly accepted that this was so. In chapter 38 God agrees. Now no-one reads those verses literally these days and abandons modern meteorological theory as a result. Job is poetry, certainly. Nevertheless, a casual reading of those chapters and you will see that it is made clear – God really does cause the weather. People quite reasonably thought that way in those days, just as they do with respect to Gen 1 and Gen 2.

Yet just as Gen 1 and Gen 2 tell the believer something very important about God, man, and man’s relationship with God, so do Job 37 and 38.

So, did God lie?

See above.

For non-Christians on here, sorry for my ramblings.

No, don’t be sorry. Often, “ramblings” are the only way we can sort these things out. (I am about to go into a long ramble with Goody Goody in the BasketBall court. GG will ramble too.)

Rambles are fine. They can be useful.

Roland

Can I ask, whose side would you be on? What kind of reaction would you expect from the mainstream?

Jane

I have said eariler in this thread that to "spit in God's face" if He told me that evolution was correct, is really my way of holding God to His Word.

I do not think you would spit in his face. I am an atheist. If I felt that God was saying to me “Roland I exist”, I would not spit in his face. I would have to accept that God really does exist. I think if God said to you - “Jane, evolution is fact”, then you would think “I, Jane have made a mistake. I must rethink my attitude to Genesis”.

Do I believe God lies? Am I willing to except the fact that He did? What if He did? That means He probably also lied when He declared me a sinner, He probably also lied when, through the disciples, He said Jesus is risen. That, imo, is what is at stake: the nature of God. I have also said I'm not saying evolution is not correct. What I am saying is that the only way you can draw evolution out of the text is if you purposely put it there. So, did God lie?

Again, see above. Many conservative Christians do accept that Jesus is their saviour and that evolution is fact.

I will judge the evidence for myself when we approach it in class, which won't be too awful long. When we passed the units I'll start a new thread giving my thoughts. How about that?

That is fine. Someone pointed you to Talk.Origins. There is an excellent paper in there titled “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” by Douglas Theobald. It is a long read but well worth the effort. You will find it at:-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html

And by all means, return and start a new thread.

Regards, Roland

Gaytheist

September 5th 2006, 06:03 PM

Not trying to be sarcastic here, but you yourself don't believe the non-sense so how are you to judge wheather or not they are using "kind" correctly or not?

REALLY? *strachtes head* I have listened to and read AiG articles and media for hours upon hours and I have never once heard them claim that kind meant species. Really, I spent about 2 minutes on Google:
But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept. (See aside below.) (from (AIG.)
Finding the created kinds
From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds.

Well it would be inconsistent if it were true...Care to quote AiG on this? As I said eariler in the thread, Creationist are often misrepresented.

I've stepped over the line myself, but my my... O.K., please define "kind."

Here's Duane Gish:

"It is obvious, for example, that among the invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters and bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are obviously different basic kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and icthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each. Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, opposums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind." (Gish, 1978, p 35.)

So a kind is as small as a species (humans), but as large as a phylum (sponges) or even a kingdom (protozoa) ? All reptiles are one kind, and all mammals another? So Noah took one mammal on the ark (what, a cow?) and everything from a shrew to a whale descended from that in the last 6000 years? But human beings, who share 98% of our DNA with chimps, are a whole separate kind? It's gibberish.

Here's another quote from AIG:
Creationists understand that the classification category of species is not the same as the Genesis kind. AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FIT/appendix3.asp) NOte that this contradicts the definition from AIG given above.
It is obvious that the human species is one Genesis kind or baramin, but when it comes to animals and plants, it is often difficult to classify them into baramins. Sometimes, the kind may be at the species level, as in modern humans, or at the genus level or sometimes at the family level. It should be rare that the kind is at the level of the order or class. A kind is anything from a species all the way up to the family?

CreationWiki says:
Created kinds are organisms that share a common ancestry. but also
In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible.

It's all over the map. It means exactly what they need it to mean when they need it to mean that.

Minnesota

September 5th 2006, 06:57 PM

Can you give me an example? Besides Galio, I have heard that one and the rebuttle to it.
Copernicus had to recant because he said that it was not the sun that goes round the earth, but the earth that goes round the sun. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600 for indulging in astronomical speculations; for supporting the Copernican theory, the reason given being because it was "contrary to the bible."

The Bible does not explore these matters.
No it doesn't. So what are we to think of them? Wouldn't this be one of those cases where god expects us to use our brain to figure out the answer? In absence of biblical directive what do you normally do?

Actually, all he had to take were animals that "breathed though the nostrilles" Genesis 7:22 Insects and spiders would not be included here. Plants didn't need to go, because their seeds could float on the water.
Gen 7:23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

"Every living thing" would seem to cover every living thing. So if anything survived it would have to have been brought aboard the ark. Furthermore, the passage talking about those who "breathed through the nostrils," was talking about those who died--NOT THOSE DESCRIBED AS HAVING BEEN BROUGHT ABOARD THE ARK. Besides these, " Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." As for the insects and such, the Bible says that Noah brought aboard the ark "every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind."

As for the survival of vegetation by floating seeds. Not all plants go to seed at the same time of the year, and some produce seeds only once every 7 - 10 years. And many seeds will rot and die if exposed to water for too long--the length of the flood would have been sufficient. Then there's the rather odd logistical problem of specific seeds landing in specific sites and only those specific sites. Nope. For much of the vegetation we have today Noah would have had to bring specimens on board.

Tiggy

September 5th 2006, 07:08 PM

Professional science magazines will accept any papers for review, but will only publish ones that pass rigorous peer review of the processes and protocols used in the experiments.

You'd think you would be a little more cautious with that claim in light of recent publications accepting after "peer review" fraudulent articles.

Jason, please provide a list of after "peer review" fraudulent articles that have recently appeared in technical, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Keep in mind that popular press, layman-oriented magazines like National Geographic and Scientific American are NOT technical, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The only recent case of fraud I am aware of involves a South Korean researcher, Hwang Woo-suk, who was caught publishing fraudulent data on human stem cell research. The two papers he authored passed a peer–review of the methods and protocols that were described. Peer review of original research is not designed nor expected to detect plausible but deliberately fraudulent data. Such fraud is almost always exposed (as it was in this case) when other researchers try to duplicate the results but can’t.

Jason, your list please? It would certainly be an embarrassment to TWeb if a moderator of all people was caught just making things up.

- Tiggy

Tiggy

September 5th 2006, 07:27 PM

What about the Creation Research Insititute? Do they not do reasearch? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
No, they do no scientific research at all. They are a political organization specifically formed to help push the Christian right-wing agenda into public school science classrooms. As PR is their only output, they actually avoid dealing with real scientific research like the plague.

The scientist who did the reasearch on dino bones, he showed us all his research.

Yes, but did he actually submit his research to a technical, peer-reviewed scientific journal? Which one? Or was he just feeding you a steaming load about how he was rejected because of the Evil Atheist Scientist Conspiracy?

I must say I am deeply offended by the anology. But I have offened a number in my day too.

What, specifically, about the analogy did you find offensive? (note that it was not my intention to offend). Right now, 'the stork brings the babies' and Young Earth Creationism have exactly the same amount of positive evidence - Zero, Zilch, Zippo, Nada. That's not said to offend; it is a simple, easily verifiable fact.

- Tiggy

Jme

September 5th 2006, 07:36 PM

Jason, please provide a list of after "peer review" fraudulent articles that have recently appeared in technical, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Keep in mind that popular press, layman-oriented magazines like National Geographic and Scientific American are NOT technical, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The only recent case of fraud I am aware of involves a South Korean researcher, Hwang Woo-suk, who was caught publishing fraudulent data on human stem cell research. The two papers he authored passed a peer–review of the methods and protocols that were described. Peer review of original research is not designed nor expected to detect plausible but deliberately fraudulent data. Such fraud is almost always exposed (as it was in this case) when other researchers try to duplicate the results but can’t.

Jason, your list please? It would certainly be an embarrassment to TWeb if a moderator of all people was caught just making things up.

- Tiggy

While I can't provide links to them the most important ones that come to mind are the cloning/stem cell one, this physics bloke that was supposed to be a wizz kid and turned out to be a joke. Another interesting one was the researcher that submitted fraudulent data regarding detection of cancer or something similar - I think it was working up predictors for those likely to develop cancer. The interesting this is that while his research was faked the method works quite well, so we are stuck with the dilemma of what to do: disregard the method because of the fraud or keeping using it because it works.

IIRC there was an article about it either in.... I read too much.... science, nature or more likely new scientist (well I like it it's simple) - I'll dig around and see if I can find it.

The problem with what Jason is trying to imply is that we get fraud in every work of life, in every field of science - but the peer review process (when used properly) does cut down on the chances.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 08:05 PM

Really, I spent about 2 minutes on Google:
I looked through the link to the AIG page and this certainly was not in there. Did it come from anti-Creation site, much like Luther's quotes on reason came from an anti-Christian site?

So a kind is as small as a species (humans), but as large as a phylum (sponges) or even a kingdom (protozoa) ? All reptiles are one kind, and all mammals another? So Noah took one mammal on the ark (what, a cow?) and everything from a shrew to a whale descended from that in the last 6000 years? But human beings, who share 98% of our DNA with chimps, are a whole separate kind? It's gibberish.
You do make a vaild point here. I can't say I know what Gish's response would be.

Speaking from a Christian POV, let me say something about all these "contrdictions" for a moment. The debate on varieration within a kind is no different than the debates on Baptism, the Eurchist, or Creation itself. Although I am a child of the Reformation, I have serious criqutes of it. All sorts of heresy came out of it (and if you hang around the Theology forum, I even asked was Luthers ideas heretical.) But we are all still Christians, even though Paul says "Let there be no division among you." If Paul were to see us today, I believe he would have harsh words to say. That said, differences doesn't negate something being true. For example, all Christians pratice Baptism even though some believes it saves and some doesn't. The debates about Creation doesn't nagate that it has happened (or is happening as some Christians would say).

Tiggy

September 5th 2006, 08:10 PM

The problem with what Jason is trying to imply is that we get fraud in every work of life, in every field of science - but the peer review process (when used properly) does cut down on the chances.

Of course we get fraud in every walk of life. We certainly get the occasional fraud in the scientific world also (as in the example I gave), but the ones that get through peer review are the rare exception.

I read Jason as trying to claim peer review is worth very little since many fraudulent papers still get published. I'd like to see his list, or data on the number of peer-reviewed papers with fraudulent data that get published vs. the total number of peer-reviewed papers published every year. Is it 0.01%? 0.001?

If I am reading him wrong I'm sure to be corrected.

Jason's whole line is a red herring, because my point was that YEC 'science' is so non-existant that virtually no pro-YEC papers are ever even submitted for peer review.

- Tiggy

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 08:14 PM

No, they do no scientific research at all. They are a political organization specifically formed to help push the Christian right-wing agenda into public school science classrooms. As PR is their only output, they actually avoid dealing with real scientific research like the plague. Maybe I'll check their site out and see? Certainly good money is not being put towards people sitting on their thumbs! And I was going to donate to them.

Yes, but did he actually submit his research to a technical, peer-reviewed scientific journal? Which one? Or was he just feeding you a steaming load about how he was rejected because of the Evil Atheist Scientist Conspiracy?
That I do not recall. I'll try to find his website (I can't remember the name of it) and email him. He's one of those Ark-seekers which I think is kinda silly and I told him so.

What, specifically, about the analogy did you find offensive? (note that it was not my intention to offend). Right now, 'the stork brings the babies' and Young Earth Creationism have exactly the same amount of positive evidence - Zero, Zilch, Zippo, Nada. That's not said to offend; it is a simple, easily verifiable fact. The only reason I found it offensive is because, as it stands now, I consider YEC a correct intreptation of Genesis and the Genesis being infalliable. While we're on the subject of facts, I have seen many links but no arguments. I just want a, shall you say, breif synopisis of the evidances for evolution. I will read the links btw, and I will once this thread dies down.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 08:21 PM

That I do not recall. I'll try to find his website (I can't remember the name of it) and email him. He's one of those Ark-seekers which I think is kinda silly and I told him so.
Aha! Found it on the third try!
http://www.arksearch.com/
No email? That is insane!
Wait, never mind!...
Question sent.

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 09:27 PM

I looked through the link to the AIG page and this certainly was not in there. Did it come from anti-Creation site, much like Luther's quotes on reason came from an anti-Christian site?
I was wrong about this...I just wonder which demonation is considered "not a cult"...no wait a minute I was correct: "The Prophet Jesus said He was the Messenger of the Word of God - not God incarnate." One of the core teachings of Christianity is that Jesus is true God and true Man. Jesus taught this concerning Himself. The Apostle John recorded it long before the Bible was cannonized. This can be supported by Scripture and I will give you some verses if you want them. Actually, the cults are the ones who denies His divinity. But I don't guess you would much care, lol. I just find it funny that you use a religious site (being an atheist) to prove a point. I believe it was to accuse YEC of not using reason..I'm not sure what you were trying to prove..LOL. But most Christians would be "reasonable" by your defintion, if that includes acceptance of evolutionary theory. I haven't made up my mind either way. I do believe God has lied to us if He did in fact use evolution. No one will convince otherwise of that.

This site you've given me failed to define what a Christian really is. It spent more time talking about what Christians aren't...

And sites with this kinda content are usually from extremeist and only reflect a very small minority.

Tiggy

September 5th 2006, 10:33 PM

Hi Jane,

Maybe I'll check their site out and see? Certainly good money is not being put towards people sitting on their thumbs! And I was going to donate to them.
Yep. Sadly, their entire budget goes for political lobbying. Not one red cent goes to actual scientific research. Check it out and see for yourself.

That I do not recall. I'll try to find his website (I can't remember the name of it) and email him. He's one of those Ark-seekers which I think is kinda silly and I told him so.
I read his site and the guy is not a scientist at all. He's a layman with a strong religious interest in proving a literal Noah's ark. He has done no scientific research and/or written any scientific papers at all as far as I can tell.

While we're on the subject of facts, I have seen many links but no arguments. I just want a, shall you say, breif synopisis of the evidances for evolution. I will read the links btw, and I will once this thread dies down.
The strongest piece of evidence for evolution is that fact that there are so many different pieces of evidence from so many different scientific fields that it would take days to list them all. It’s all these pieces taken together that form the big picture, just like a giant jigsaw puzzle. For hundreds of years, scientist had been collecting pieces of the puzzle without knowing how they were related – fossil bits, geological info, biological info. Charles Darwin didn’t ‘invent’ evolution; he was just the first to see how all the scientific pieces fit together to form one big, coherent picture. Since his time, literally millions more of the pieces have been found, and they are filling in the big picture even more clearly. The Theory of Evolution is a grand, overarching one that combines cross-corroborating positive evidence from literally hundreds of different scientific disciplines into one cohesive explanation for the observed physical facts of Evolution

Here is an EXTREMELY simplified overview of how the evidence from different scientific fields fits together:

Chemistry – chemists have shown that certain radioactive elements have a very specific decay time, and that by carefully measuring the ratio of parent/daughter isotopes you can have a good measurement of the absolute age of the land where he elements were found. For good reason, the assumption is made that the physical laws of the universe have been constant over time. There is no reason to suspect they have ever changed, and if you DO assume they change then ALL scientific work would become invalid. Measurements taken today would be different tomorrow, and no one could trust any results.

Geology – geologists have been mapping the earth for centuries. They noticed distinct differences in the makeup of different layers of earth – the geological column. These layers show a remarkable consistency across the planet, with certain layers always in the same relative position (below or above) other layers. These layers are extremely well mapped and understood. Taking that knowledge of the relative time scales of the layers, and applying the knowledge of the chemists of absolute time scales, geologists could date the layers with pretty good accuracy. The oldest rocks date from about 4.6 billion years ago. The oldest rocks with traces of life date to about 3 billion years ago. And the oldest rocks with traces of multicellular life date to about 600 million years ago.

Paleontology – paleontologists have been collecting fossil specimens for hundreds of years. Since most are found in intact geological layers, the fossils (for the large majority) are assumed to have been deposited with the layers, and thus are the same age as the layers. We now have a reliable way to date the fossils, and organize them temporally.
Turns out that certain types of fossils are found only in certain layers. Also, certain fossil sequences are found to have a distinct pattern of morphological changes over the years. We don’t have fossils of every single generation of creature that ever lived, but we have enough to generate a plausible sequence of change

Example: We may have fossil samples dated in MYA (million years ago)

Age (MYA): 60 …50 …45…35…30
Fossil type: ..A….B…..C…..D…..E

A and B show distinct similarities, indicating they may be related. So do B and C, C and D, D and E. Keep in mind this is not determined by a bunch of drunk guys sitting around, going “Say Frank, doncha think A looks like B?” but is base on precise measurements and detailed statistical analysis of the all aspects of the samples. B is said to be a transitional fossil between A and C, because it shares morphology with both. There are literally thousands of sequences like this that have been identified (with thousands of identified “transitionals” which creationists claim don’t exist :wink: ) From them the paleontologists were able to draw a branching tree diagram, showing which species led to which other, and when. Lots of evidence, but maybe not conclusive to all.

Now, let’s throw Genetics and Biology into the mix. When the first research into DNA was done, we finally had the mechanism for evolutionary change (something Darwin didn't know but had predicted would be found). Another piece of the puzzle fell into place. Geneticists and biologists have examined the DNA of many of the major animal species today, and have noticed large similarities in many lineages. Chimps and Humans, for example, share between 92%-95% (depending on which coding sequences are counted) common DNA, and great morphological similarities. Furthermore, geneticists have been able to measure the rate of mutational change of DNA sequences, so they can calculate backwards and figure out when two species last shared a common ancestor (about 6-7 MYA for Chimps and Humans). To top it off, there are specific genetic markers (called endogenous retrovirus sequences) that indicate strongly that two species once shared a common ancestor. Using their data, the geneticists and biologists also were able to draw a branching tree diagram, showing which species gave rise to which other, and when.

Now the really cool part. When the paleontologists’ tree was compared to the geneticist/biologists’ tree, they MATCHED almost exactly! Two totally independent line of evidence, and they reached almost the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION. This dual independent matching is referred to as the twin nested hierarchy of life (I’m sure you’ll be reading about it shortly.) The only plausible explanation for ALL the observed data from ALL the sciences collectively is called the Theory of Evolution.

If you are willing to do more reading on your own, the University of California at Berkeley Museum of Paleontology 'Understanding Evolution' web site is a great place to start.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

This is one of the best on-line resources available with a good overview of the major lines of evidence for Evolutionary theory. Be aware that it is hundreds and hundred of pages deep, since there has been so much positive evidence from so many different scientific disciplines accumulated over the past 150 years. Even so, this site just scratches the surface of the confirmed scientific data out there. The site is primarily written for an educated layman, although some of the descriptions can get pretty technical. And of course like all good educational sites, there are many additional links to the primary scientific literature provided if you wish to research a particular evolutionary topic a bit deeper. I will be glad to answer technical questions (to the best of my ability) about what you find there.

- Tiggy

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 10:49 PM

Yep. Sadly, their entire budget goes for political lobbying. Not one red cent goes to actual scientific research. Check it out and see for yourself.
I read his site and the guy is not a scientist at all. He's a layman with a strong religious interest in proving a literal Noah's ark. He has done no scientific research and/or written any scientific papers at all as far as I can tell. Tsk tsk. He at least sounded like one...

The strongest piece of evidence for evolution is that fact that there are so many different pieces of evidence from so many different scientific fields that it would take days to list them all. It’s all these pieces taken together that form the big picture, just like a giant jigsaw puzzle. For hundreds of years, scientist had been collecting pieces of the puzzle without knowing how they were related – fossil bits, geological info, biological info. Charles Darwin didn’t ‘invent’ evolution; he was just the first to see how all the scientific pieces fit together to form one big, coherent picture. Since his time, literally millions more of the pieces have been found, and they are filling in the big picture even more clearly. The Theory of Evolution is a grand, overarching one that combines cross-corroborating positive evidence from literally hundreds of different scientific disciplines into one cohesive explanation for the observed physical facts of Evolution

Here is an EXTREMELY simplified overview of how the evidence from different scientific fields fits together:

Chemistry – chemists have shown that certain radioactive elements have a very specific decay time, and that by carefully measuring the ratio of parent/daughter isotopes you can have a good measurement of the absolute age of the land where he elements were found. For good reason, the assumption is made that the physical laws of the universe have been constant over time. There is no reason to suspect they have ever changed, and if you DO assume they change then ALL scientific work would become invalid. Measurements taken today would be different tomorrow, and no one could trust any results.

Geology – geologists have been mapping the earth for centuries. They noticed distinct differences in the makeup of different layers of earth – the geological column. These layers show a remarkable consistency across the planet, with certain layers always in the same relative position (below or above) other layers. These layers are extremely well mapped and understood. Taking that knowledge of the relative time scales of the layers, and applying the knowledge of the chemists of absolute time scales, geologists could date the layers with pretty good accuracy. The oldest rocks date from about 4.6 billion years ago. The oldest rocks with traces of life date to about 3 billion years ago. And the oldest rocks with traces of multicellular life date to about 600 million years ago.

Paleontology – paleontologists have been collecting fossil specimens for hundreds of years. Since most are found in intact geological layers, the fossils (for the large majority) are assumed to have been deposited with the layers, and thus are the same age as the layers. We now have a reliable way to date the fossils, and organize them temporally.
Turns out that certain types of fossils are found only in certain layers. Also, certain fossil sequences are found to have a distinct pattern of morphological changes over the years. We don’t have fossils of every single generation of creature that ever lived, but we have enough to generate a plausible sequence of change

Example: We may have fossil samples dated in MYA (million years ago)

Age (MYA): 60 …50 …45…35…30
Fossil type: ..A….B…..C…..D…..E

A and B show distinct similarities, indicating they may be related. So do B and C, C and D, D and E. Keep in mind this is not determined by a bunch of drunk guys sitting around, going “Say Frank, doncha think A looks like B?” but is base on precise measurements and detailed statistical analysis of the all aspects of the samples. B is said to be a transitional fossil between A and C, because it shares morphology with both. There are literally thousands of sequences like this that have been identified (with thousands of identified “transitionals” which creationists claim don’t exist :wink: ) From them the paleontologists were able to draw a branching tree diagram, showing which species led to which other, and when. Lots of evidence, but maybe not conclusive to all.

Now, let’s throw Genetics and Biology into the mix. When the first research into DNA was done, we finally had the mechanism for evolutionary change (something Darwin didn't know but had predicted would be found). Another piece of the puzzle fell into place. Geneticists and biologists have examined the DNA of many of the major animal species today, and have noticed large similarities in many lineages. Chimps and Humans, for example, share between 92%-95% (depending on which coding sequences are counted) common DNA, and great morphological similarities. Furthermore, geneticists have been able to measure the rate of mutational change of DNA sequences, so they can calculate backwards and figure out when two species last shared a common ancestor (about 6-7 MYA for Chimps and Humans). To top it off, there are specific genetic markers (called endogenous retrovirus sequences) that indicate strongly that two species once shared a common ancestor. Using their data, the geneticists and biologists also were able to draw a branching tree diagram, showing which species gave rise to which other, and when.

Now the really cool part. When the paleontologists’ tree was compared to the geneticist/biologists’ tree, they MATCHED almost exactly! Two totally independent line of evidence, and they reached almost the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION. This dual independent matching is referred to as the twin nested hierarchy of life (I’m sure you’ll be reading about it shortly.) The only plausible explanation for ALL the observed data from ALL the sciences collectively is called the Theory of Evolution.

If you are willing to do more reading on your own, the University of California at Berkeley Museum of Paleontology 'Understanding Evolution' web site is a great place to start.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

This is one of the best on-line resources available with a good overview of the major lines of evidence for Evolutionary theory. Be aware that it is hundreds and hundred of pages deep, since there has been so much positive evidence from so many different scientific disciplines accumulated over the past 150 years. Even so, this site just scratches the surface of the confirmed scientific data out there. The site is primarily written for an educated layman, although some of the descriptions can get pretty technical. And of course like all good educational sites, there are many additional links to the primary scientific literature provided if you wish to research a particular evolutionary topic a bit deeper. I will be glad to answer technical questions (to the best of my ability) about what you find there.

Someone finally knows what I wanted out of this thread! (I didn't help matters any in the debate) Thanks thanks!

Tiggy

September 5th 2006, 10:58 PM

Someone finally knows what I wanted out of this thread! (I didn't help matters any in the debate) Thanks thanks!

You're welcome, it was my pleasure. I'm a pushover for an intelligent woman with an open mind :smile:

- Tiggy

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 11:07 PM

You're welcome, it was my pleasure. I'm a pushover for an intelligent woman with an open mind :smile:
:blush:

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 11:12 PM

oxmixmudd

September 5th 2006, 11:14 PM

I do believe God has lied to us if He did in fact use evolution. No one will convince otherwise of that.

God has not lied. It is men who told you Genesis MUST be literal history. They have reasons, and they may be reasonable, but there is nothing that requires Genesis to be literal history. Did the ancients believe it was literal? Most likely yes. Does that mean they were correct? Most likely not. Did the ancient Hebrews think the Earth was a sphere? NO!. Did God make sure the descriptive word could mean both a 2 or 3-D object? Yes. Did Peter think the flood was global - not exactly, because Peter would not have know the Earth is a globe, but in all practical purposes yes. Does that fact change the meaning of the scripture he wrote referencing the flood? NO. It is an analogy, comparing what Christ does in baptism to what the Ark did for Noah. The analogy stands whether the flood is local or global, real or mythical.

Did the ancient Hebrews think the sun and moon actually stood still? YES. Does that make the passage untrue since it would have been either the Earth that stood still or time that stood still (I am accepting the miracle and assume you do as well)? Did the ancients think that there were 4 corners of the Earth? Most likely yes. Did they think the East and West never met (our sin will be separated from us as far as the East is from the West)? Yes.

They wrote the Bible in the understanding of their time. But it is written in such a way that its truths supercede this fact. It is those who expect more of the Bible than the Bible is who cause people like yourself to believe God has lied if Genesis is not literal. The Bible is Holy, it is the word of God to us, but it is written by and in the understanding of those who wrote it, yet with divine inspiration. It's authority comes not from being written miraculously to conform to a 21st century mind, but from the Authority of the resurrection itself.

Like I said before, some of the issues are difficult. But if you discover men have misunderstood the text or its intent, will you then walk away from God? I hope not. Do any of these technical issues affect what the Bible teaches about sin, righteousness, and redemption? Do they change what is required of us to be redeemed by the Blood of Christ?

I answer these questions with a firm NO. But these problems do make it more difficult to prove to ourselves we have the Word of God, or that what it teaches is better than what any other religion teaches. But what did the Early Christians have? A story of a resurrection. Nothing written. No proof at all! Just some crazies running around saying some Guy rose from the dead. That and some purported miracles. Why should we have more than they? They had what we have: The witness and conviction of the Holy Spirit and the story of the resurrection.

And yet we do have more in so many ways. We have the tradition of the Church. The canonized scripture, open access to those words translated 10 different ways into our own language. And historical records confirming the Isaiah prophecies predated Christ, multiple copies of the texts with which to derive to a 99% confidence the early teachings of the Church and I believe the teachings of Christ. Archeological discoveries confirming the existence of Jericho, Ninevah and many other places.

And further - look carefully at how life came about in Genesis. God commanded the Earth to bring forth life. He told the Earth to do it. If evolution is true, it is just the mechanism by which the Earth obeyed His command.

I am saying all this to say put the blame where it belongs: the fallible understanding of man and the corruption that comes through sin. Let any anger you might have focus there. God has not lied.

Jim

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 11:30 PM

God has not lied. It is men who told you Genesis MUST be literal history. They have reasons, and they may be reasonable, but there is nothing that requires Genesis to be literal history. Did the ancients believe it was literal? Most likely yes. Does that mean they were correct? Most likely not. Did the ancient Hebrews think the Earth was a sphere? NO!. Did God make sure the descriptive word could mean both a 2 or 3-D object? Yes. Did Peter think the flood was global - not exactly, because Peter would not have know the Earth is a globe, but in all practical purposes yes. Does that fact change the meaning of the scripture he wrote referencing the flood? NO. It is an analogy, comparing what Christ does in baptism to what the Ark did for Noah. The analogy stands whether the flood is local or global, real or mythical. The anology of the Flood and Baptism is not the text I was refering to. 2 Peter 2:5 and 3:6

I am saying all this to say put the blame where it belongs: the fallible understanding of man and the corruption that comes through sin. Let any anger you might have focus there. God has not lied.
Well said. But I still don't know how someone can read Genesis with an unbiased view and come away with the idea of evolution. I read the text long before I found AiG, I was fimilar with evolution and I didn't draw that meaning out of it.

sylas

September 5th 2006, 11:33 PM

I have heard some Creationists say that Darwin was anti-God (in so many words) To which I disagree. Darwin's Black Box, which I will pick up later in my studies, talks about how at Darwin's time evolution seemed very probable but as our microscopes get more advanced and we learn more about cells, evolution is, supposed, becomes less probable. Any thoughts? Have you heard of the book?

The book is discussed here fairly often. It has come up just recently at the thread "Intelligent Design Versus Evolution (No Creationism)"; look especially for messages #5 and #6 for some of the errors in Behe's argument. Last year there was a thread on the book, at Darwin's Black Box. In brief, the notion that evolution is less probable since we have been able to look more closely at cells is completely backwards. The study of cells gives solid support to evolutionary biology, and sheds more light on how evolution works. Behe's argument in "Darwin's Black Box" is incorrect, and has no credibility with the people who actually are studying cells.

The messages above in the recent thread show some of Behe's errors; and I'll be happy to answer further questions there.

Cheers -- Sylas

The Plain Jane

September 5th 2006, 11:42 PM

The book is discussed here fairly often. It has come up just recently at the thread "Intelligent Design Versus Evolution (No Creationism)"; look especially for messages #5 and #6 for some of the errors in Behe's argument. Last year there was a thread on the book, at Darwin's Black Box. In brief, the notion that evolution is less probable since we have been able to look more closely at cells is completely backwards. The study of cells gives solid support to evolutionary biology, and sheds more light on how evolution works. Behe's argument in "Darwin's Black Box" is incorrect, and has no credibility with the people who actually are studying cells.

The messages above in the recent thread show some of Behe's errors; and I'll be happy to answer further questions there.

Cheers -- Sylas

Thanks, I really must get going.

oxmixmudd

September 6th 2006, 12:07 AM

The anology of the flood and Baptism is not the text I was refering to. 2 Peter 2:5 and 3:6

OK - sorry. Fair enough. In 2 Peter 2:5 the meaning is not lost if the flood is not Global. But if it is not real at all, then the impact of the warning is lost. That is, a real flood implies real judgment, and a judgement to be respected and feared. A mythological flood takes away from this. But then, I do believe there was a flood of judgment and a man Noah miraculously saved from it. I just don't see evidence for a Global flood.

In 2 Peter 3:6, it is more problematic I agree. But the reality is that the evidence does not support a global flood, and I can see how if one limits the term 'world' to the known world at the time it still has relevance. It is sometimes difficult to read these texts as they were meant to be. 'world' or 'Earth' to us equals a globe about 8,000 miles in diameter. That is NOT what it meant to the writer. But I hear you, and I don't have a completely satisfactory response. But regardless, I do not see this as "God lying" for the reasons I have already listed.

Well said. But I still don't know how someone can read Genesis with an unbiased view and come away with the idea of evolution. I read the text long before I found AiG, I was fimilar with evolution and I didn't draw that meaning out of it.

True, but I doubt if anyone could read the story of Joshua and come away with a correct understanding of the Earth/moon/sun system sans any external input. Actually, we have proof they won't. It is found in the trial and subsequent house arrest afforded Galileo on challenging the most straightforward meaning of that text.

I think George had it right when pointing out there is a great deal of scripture we can't properly understand without extra-Biblical input. And it is that input that forces Genesis to be understood in light of a very old Earth, not as a literal, physical descripion of the creation act itself a few thousand years ago.

Jim

jason

September 6th 2006, 04:29 AM

Well, this is the biological theory.
And this is all there is any real evidence for. However this is not going to work as a naturalist creation myth.

I don't know what this is but it has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which does not address the creation of life.
Funny the textbooks seek to conflate the two.

Please find a single lie by a single person explaining and advocating for ToE in this thread.
Why ? Anybody who has used the phrase "overwhelming evidence" or such typical statements would merely be guilty of gross credulity and incompetence.

Jason

jason

September 6th 2006, 04:34 AM

The problem with what Jason is trying to imply is that we get fraud in every work of life, in every field of science - but the peer review process (when used properly) does cut down on the chances.
The problem I have is with Tiggy and others implying that it is somehow infallible. We have seen recently that this is not the case.

Worse yet, the greatest discoveries in science did not go through peer review.

I think its value is grossly overstated.

Although it does work perfectly well for enforcing idelogical purity as we have seen a number of times over the years.

Jason

Barry Desborough

September 6th 2006, 05:29 AM

The problem I have is with Tiggy and others implying that it is somehow infallible. We have seen recently that this is not the case.

Worse yet, the greatest discoveries in science did not go through peer review.

I think its value is grossly overstated.

Although it does work perfectly well for enforcing idelogical purity as we have seen a number of times over the years.

Jason

If you object to phrases like 'overwhelming evidence', despite the fact that such evidence has been presented in this thread, I think you need to explain 'enforcing ideological purity' in the context of an example or two of what you have seen 'a number of times over the years'.

Barry Desborough

September 6th 2006, 07:41 AM

Anybody who has used the phrase "overwhelming evidence" or such typical statements would merely be guilty of gross credulity and incompetence.
Jason

It really depends on the quantity and quality of the evidence and the person doing the evaluation of it, doesn't it Jason? The evidence for evolution is clearly not sufficient to overwhelm you!

If you take any statement, position or theory, there is always someone who fails to be overwhelmed by the evidence for it, no matter how good that evidence is. Take, for example, John Martin, who is of the opinion, nay, unshakeable belief, that the Earth is the centre of the universe and does not revolve. He would rather believe there must be some explanation other than a rotating Earth for the fact that minute wobbles in the apparent positions of distant quasars coincide with earthquakes down here!

Take as further examples, those who believe the Earth is not significantly older than 6000 years, despite the unassailable evidence from many independent but closely correlating dating techniques and sources of calibration.

The phrase 'overwhelming evidence' clearly carries with it a value judgement about the observer of the evidence. It presumes a reasonable, impartial and diligent observer, not encumbered by ideological presuppositions which explicitly skew the observer's evaluation.

Tiggy

September 6th 2006, 09:39 AM

The problem I have is with Tiggy and others implying that it is somehow infallible. We have seen recently that this is not the case.

In no way, shape, or form did I say or imply that the peer review process is infallible. I even gave an instance where it was not. Looks like you're making stuff up again Jason.

I do say that peer review is a great first filter to weed out the pseudoscientific junk the creationists try to pass off as science. In fact, it scares them so much that the creationists don't even try to get their crap published in reputable scientific journals.

Jason, how are you coming with that list of all those fraudulent articles in technical peer-reviewed science journals you claimed? Guess you were just making that up too. Pity.

- Tiggy

The Plain Jane

September 6th 2006, 01:01 PM

OK - sorry. Fair enough. In 2 Peter 2:5 the meaning is not lost if the flood is not Global. But if it is not real at all, then the impact of the warning is lost. That is, a real flood implies real judgment, and a judgement to be respected and feared. A mythological flood takes away from this. But then, I do believe there was a flood of judgment and a man Noah miraculously saved from it. I just don't see evidence for a Global flood.

In 2 Peter 3:6, it is more problematic I agree. But the reality is that the evidence does not support a global flood, and I can see how if one limits the term 'world' to the known world at the time it still has relevance. It is sometimes difficult to read these texts as they were meant to be. 'world' or 'Earth' to us equals a globe about 8,000 miles in diameter. That is NOT what it meant to the writer. But I hear you, and I don't have a completely satisfactory response. But regardless, I do not see this as "God lying" for the reasons I have already listed.
I agree that either local or global doesn't affect what Peter is trying to say. That said, I want to make another point. Mind you I am not critizing you of this attutude. But don't you think this is historical chauvinism? "Oh look, how smarter we are than them because of all our discoveries.." Last I checked, even the evolutionary timescale doesn't make our brains any bigger than that of the ancients (Greeks, Egyptians, Hebrews). Why, those Egyptians were so stupid we have yet to figure out how to make the pyermids! In fact, IMO, the anicents were smarter than us!
I am not accusing you of this kind of chauvinism. But many historians and scholars hold to it and it makes me sick.

True, but I doubt if anyone could read the story of Joshua and come away with a correct understanding of the Earth/moon/sun system sans any external input. Actually, we have proof they won't. It is found in the trial and subsequent house arrest afforded Galileo on challenging the most straightforward meaning of that text. I explain this below.

I think George had it right when pointing out there is a great deal of scripture we can't properly understand without extra-Biblical input. And it is that input that forces Genesis to be understood in light of a very old Earth, not as a literal, physical descripion of the creation act itself a few thousand years ago.
I never said we don't need extra input. What I said is we are not to add to it. The Bible is replete with warnings not too (I can think of four off the top of my head). This is precisely why Sola Scripture was founded, on this idea that it needs nothing extra. Culture context helps us to understand why the Hebrews and the Jews thought the way they thought, thus, giving us a model by which to intrepet the Scriptures. Notice that this is not adding to it. Same with laugange.

Gaytheist

September 6th 2006, 01:48 PM

I looked through the link to the AIG page and this certainly was not in there. This quote:
But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept. comes from this AIG page: Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp) (See aside below.) (from (AIG.)

Did it come from anti-Creation site, much like Luther's quotes on reason came from an anti-Christian site? 1. I'm not familiar with any "anti-Creation" sites. I am familiar with many sites that teach about evolution, most sponsored by Universities, colleges and science organizations. There is also talkorigins, which is an evolution site.
re: the Luther quotes: Do you deny that he said these things? If so, say so. If not, what difference does it make where they were cited?

You do make a vaild point here. I can't say I know what Gish's response would be. Don't ask. Remember above where I called into question the intelligence and integrity of several prominent creationists? That would certinaly include Mr. Gish.

Speaking from a Christian POV, let me say something about all these "contrdictions" for a moment. The debate on varieration within a kind is no different than the debates on Baptism, the Eurchist, or Creation itself. Although I am a child of the Reformation, I have serious criqutes of it. All sorts of heresy came out of it (and if you hang around the Theology forum, I even asked was Luthers ideas heretical.) But we are all still Christians, even though Paul says "Let there be no division among you." If Paul were to see us today, I believe he would have harsh words to say. That said, differences doesn't negate something being true. For example, all Christians pratice Baptism even though some believes it saves and some doesn't. The debates about Creation doesn't nagate that it has happened (or is happening as some Christians would say). That's fine for theology, and I have no problem as long as they say it's theology. It's when they present it as science, i.e. "Creation Science" that it becomes dishonest. Also when the same speaker uses both definitions inconsistently, that's not even honest theology.

Gaytheist

September 6th 2006, 01:52 PM

Gaytheist

September 6th 2006, 01:55 PM

Funny the textbooks seek to conflate the two. Please cite a single biology textbook that includes abiogenesis as part of the theory of evolution.

Why ? Anybody who has used the phrase "overwhelming evidence" or such typical statements would merely be guilty of gross credulity and incompetence. *raises hand* The evidence in favor of ToE is overwhelming. IMO that statement is true and not dependent on dishonesty, credulity, or incompetence.

Minnesota

September 6th 2006, 02:16 PM

Darwin was a lifelong Christian who once studied for the ministry.
Nope. Darwin abandoned Christianity when he was about 40.

wattsr1

September 6th 2006, 03:01 PM

Nope. Darwin abandoned Christianity when he was about 40.

Having said that though Minn, didn't he continue to hold some belief in a God of some sorts. That is, while he did abandon Chrisianity, he maintained a belief in God.

oxmixmudd

September 6th 2006, 03:04 PM

Having said that though Minn, didn't he continue to hold some belief in a God of some sorts. That is, while he did abandon Chrisianity, he maintained a belief in God.

Perhaps, but it was grief over the loss of his daughter that pushed him away from belief in a beneficent God.

Jim

Minnesota

September 6th 2006, 03:20 PM

Having said that though Minn, didn't he continue to hold some belief in a God of some sorts. That is, while he did abandon Chrisianity, he maintained a belief in God.
He became an agnostic.

UBoat

September 6th 2006, 03:22 PM

Really, I spent about 2 minutes on Google:

But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept. (See aside below.) (from (AIG.)
Finding the created kinds
From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds.

Here's another quote from AIG:

Creationists understand that the classification category of species is not the same as the Genesis kind.
AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FIT/appendix3.asp) NOte that this contradicts the definition from AIG given above.

Your note of a contradiction is rather misleading. Yes, the first quote indicates that Linnaeus at first thought that species were equivalent to Genesis kinds, but if you continued to read the article you quoted just a few sentences later you'd find:

In his mature years he did extensive hybridization (cross-breeding) experiments and realised that his ‘species’ concept was too narrow for the species to be considered as created kinds; he thought that the genus perhaps corresponded better with the created kind.

So it would correct to say that creationists don't equate the category of species with the Genesis kind, and these quotes don't indicate that they hold contradictory views of what is a kind.

A kind is anything from a species all the way up to the family?

CreationWiki says:
Created kinds are organisms that share a common ancestry.
but also
In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible.

It's all over the map. It means exactly what they need it to mean when they need it to mean that.

I'm not sure how this is all over the map. The first quote from CreationWiki might give the best definition of what a created kind is, but unless these organisms start giving us their entire genealogy, it would not be very useful to determine what all belonged to a particular kind. So, you would have to fall back on something testable (i.e. reproductive compatibility).

Also, the fact that a kind might be equivalent to a species and another equivalent to a family should not really be that surprising as creationists are using a different classification scheme than evolutionists. Whether you accept creation or evolution, the definition of a created kind doesn't seem that difficult to grasp.

Gaytheist

September 6th 2006, 03:39 PM

oxmixmudd

September 6th 2006, 03:39 PM

Gaytheist

September 6th 2006, 04:04 PM

Your note of a contradiction is rather misleading. Yes, the first quote indicates that Linnaeus at first thought that species were equivalent to Genesis kinds, but if you continued to read the article you quoted just a few sentences later you'd find:

So it would correct to say that creationists don't equate the category of species with the Genesis kind, and these quotes don't indicate that they hold contradictory views of what is a kind.

I'm not sure how this is all over the map. The first quote from CreationWiki might give the best definition of what a created kind is, but unless these organisms start giving us their entire genealogy, it would not be very useful to determine what all belonged to a particular kind. So, you would have to fall back on something testable (i.e. reproductive compatibility).

Also, the fact that a kind might be equivalent to a species and another equivalent to a family should not really be that surprising as creationists are using a different classification scheme than evolutionists. Whether you accept creation or evolution, the definition of a created kind doesn't seem that difficult to grasp.
Here's a random example:Rodents (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/rodentia/rodentia.html)
The single largest group of mammals is the Rodentia. Most non-flying mammals are rodents: there are about 1,500 living rodent species (out of about 4,000 living mammals overall). Most people are familiar with mice, rats, hamsters, and guinea pigs, which are commonly kept as pets. The Rodentia also includes beavers, muskrats, porcupines, woodchucks, chipmunks, squirrels, prairie dogs, marmots, chinchillas, voles, lemmings, and many others. (Incidentally, the Rodentia does not include rabbits; rabbits differ from rodents in having an extra pair of incisors and in other skeletal features. Rabbits, hares, and a few other species make up the Lagomorpha. Shrews, moles and hedgehogs are also not rodents; they are classified in the Insectivora.) So, are all rodents one kind? Is each species of rodent a kind? Or something else? Each family? If the former, did Noah bring 3000 different rodents on board? If the latter, have 1500 species evolved from one kind in the last 4000 years? If something else, what? What about shrews? Biologists classify them as a belonging to a different order, do "baraminologists?" Aren't all rodents descended from a common rodent ancestor? Biologists say so, do creationists? But all rodents aren't reproductively compatible, only each species. Etc. etc.

UBoat

September 6th 2006, 04:28 PM

Can you please define the word "kind?". Thank you. Please note that "organisms that share a common ancestry" contradicts "reproductive compatibility."

There is no contradiction. At best (or worst) there is not a perfect correspondence, but from experience we know that organisms which share a common ancestry quite often are reproductively compatible.

And I don't get the difficulty in understanding what a kind is. If organisms were created to reproduce after there kinds, then two organisms would be of the same kind if they share a common ancestor. This would probably be the best definition of a kind (i.e. organisms that all have the same ancestor(s)). However, this is not very testable, so one could also note that since organisms are to reproduce after there kind, then if two organisms are reproductively compatible, they would be of the same kind. As one can, at least in theory, conduct breeding experiments, this would be a testable and therefore more useful practical definition of a kind.

"Reproductive compatibility" would be pretty close to species.

Yes. As your quote about Linnaeus showed, that was the intention. The fact that it's not a perfect correspondence (and often would probably be closer to genus) just shows that he wasn't perfect.

"share common ancestry would go all the way up to kingdom.

If the extrapolations that evolutionists make are correct, then yes it would. However, and this is what creationists claim, the extrapolations aren't valid and there is no common ancestor to, say, dogs and cats then it wouldn't go all the way up to kingdom.

Here, I'll put it differently: approximately how many creatures did Noah take on the ark?

I'm not really qualified to give an answer to how many creatures Noah would have had to take on the ark, so I won't try. But, I don't see what relevance it has to the fact you can't understand what should be a reasonably simple thing.

Snarf

September 6th 2006, 04:44 PM

There is no contradiction. At best (or worst) there is not a perfect correspondence, but from experience we know that organisms which share a common ancestry quite often are reproductively compatible.

And I don't get the difficulty in understanding what a kind is. If organisms were created to reproduce after there kinds, then two organisms would be of the same kind if they share a common ancestor.

So then, how do you know that your parents had a common ancestor? (without extrapolation)

This would probably be the best definition of a kind (i.e. organisms that all have the same ancestor(s)). However, this is not very testable, so one could also note that since organisms are to reproduce after there kind, then if two organisms are reproductively compatible, they would be of the same kind. As one can, at least in theory, conduct breeding experiments, this would be a testable and therefore more useful practical definition of a kind.

Using your stated definition of "kind", and since there are over one million organisms which are reproductively INCOMPATIBLE with other organisms, and which therefore each represent a "kind" then Noah would have had to take over two million animals on his ark (can you imagine sharing an ark with thousands of "kinds" of mosquitoes:-))

UBoat

September 6th 2006, 04:53 PM

Of course, you could just map their genomes and look for similarities and connections. Of course, if you did that, you would likely begin to see the kinds of relationships implied by ToE. A nested heirarchy that implies a much deeper common origin than you are comfortable with.

Jim

This would also be a possibility. And it's also possible that doing so might reveal relationships that are more easily explained via evolution than creation. However, your example of a nested heirarchy would be expected to some extent by creationists as well if, for example, some kinds were equivalent to the family level. Further, what appears to be a nested heirarchy to the evolutionist could be seen as the product of design to a creationist.

But I am not really trying to argue creation over evolution here, or the other way around. I'm just trying to make the point that what a kind is isn't all that nebulous.

oxmixmudd

September 6th 2006, 05:08 PM

This would also be a possibility. And it's also possible that doing so might reveal relationships that are more easily explained via evolution than creation. However, your example of a nested heirarchy would be expected to some extent by creationists as well if, for example, some kinds were equivalent to the family level. Further, what appears to be a nested heirarchy to the evolutionist could be seen as the product of design to a creationist.

But that is the point. There is no clear dividing line. You can pick any point in the nested hierarchy to begin calling it design over breeding/'micro'/macro evolution from a single 'kind'. That makes the definition intractable from a scientific point of view. And likely, that dividing point will be picked based on the specific religious POV that says macro doesn't happen and which allows some plausable path both in time and space from the kind to its subsequent post noachian flood species.

Jim

The Plain Jane

September 6th 2006, 05:46 PM

This quote: comes from this AIG page: Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp) (See aside below.) (from (AIG.)
Since this has already been addressed by Uboat (and I will add I am highly ticked off by it) let me add another thing. You are just the sort Creationists complain about when they say evolutionists are always misrepresenting them (well, not all evolutionists anyway--most on this thread are rather honest) I would suggest that if you want to change my mind and other Creationists minds, that you abandon misrepresentation and misinformation (even I knew Darwin left Christianity) and start letting evolution speak for itself. After all, 10 to 1 when someone has to misrepresent their opponants views, their own views tend to not hold much water. If evolution is all you claim it to be, you shouldn't need to use such petty tactics.

Don't ask. Remember above where I called into question the intelligence and integrity of several prominent creationists? That would certinaly include Mr. Gish.
You have instead left me guessing your integrity.

That's fine for theology, and I have no problem as long as they say it's theology. It's when they present it as science, i.e. "Creation Science" that it becomes dishonest. Also when the same speaker uses both definitions inconsistently, that's not even honest theology. Fair enough. Somewhere you asked do I deny that Luther was anti-reason. Again, he was ripped out of context (and no wonder--a anti-Christian site!). The Resurection is at the heart of Christianity. Without the Resurrection Christianity ceases to be. Luther is saying some use reason to leave the faith, ie, people don't come back from the dead. In that way, reason really is a "whore" and an "enemy" as he so beautifully puts it. I do not think he was anti-reason insofar as common sense goes. For the quote in which he believed earth is the center of the solar system. Again, the mistakes Luther made doesn't negate his spiritual correctness.

Some Christians do put reason over Scripture (and I am not talkin about evolution) to which all I can say is I am not their Judge.

Must get going to church, I have important questions to ask the pastor before I can continue to commune there.

jason

September 6th 2006, 06:02 PM

Please cite a single biology textbook that includes abiogenesis as part of the theory of evolution.
Umm ... any of them include a section on abiogenesis.

*raises hand* The evidence in favor of ToE is overwhelming. IMO that statement is true and not dependent on dishonesty, credulity, or incompetence.
It depends on what you mean by "evolution". For change in gene frequency of time yes, for the grand materialist creation myth, no. It is the second that takes all the credulity.

Jason

Gaytheist

September 6th 2006, 06:07 PM

Since this has already been addressed by Uboat (and I will add I am highly ticked off by it) let me add another thing. You are just the sort Creationists complain about when they say evolutionists are always misrepresenting them (well, not all evolutionists anyway--most on this thread are rather honest) I would suggest that if you want to change my mind and other Creationists minds, that you abandon misrepresentation and misinformation (even I knew Darwin left Christianity) and start letting evolution speak for itself. After all, 10 to 1 when someone has to misrepresent their opponants views, their own views tend to not hold much water. If evolution is all you claim it to be, you shouldn't need to use such petty tactics. What petty tactics? What misrepresentation? I took a quote directly from AIG, quoted them in their own words from their own website, and when challenged was able to show you that that was where it came from. I said in the post it was from AIG, thinking you could go there and find it if interested. What on earth did I misrepresent or what misinformation did I state? This pains me because my credibility is very important to me, and I try to take pains to be accurate and to present and verify sources. If I have misquoted someone, or misstated their position, I would certainly want to know that. However, I honestly can't see where I have; quite the contrary.

As for UBoat's addition (not correction) I don't agree that it saves the contradiction. It doesn't matter what Linneus defined, what matters is what AIG defines, and their definitions clearly contradict themselves.

Not to mention Duane Gish.

You have instead left me guessing your integrity. O.K., I'm answering you with patience here. Please state exactly how I have shown a lack of integrity, back it up with sources, or withdraw this asperson on my character.

Fair enough. Somewhere you asked do I deny that Luther was anti-reason. Actually, what I wanted to know is whether you agree with Luther that reason is a bad thing. Clearly, he says it again and again in a variety of ways, so I don't think there's any question what his position was. I wanted to know what yours is.
Again, he was ripped out of context (and no wonder--a anti-Christian site!). I don't know and neither do you, as we don't know the contexts for the quotes. They may look better in full context; they may look worse, I don't know. Anyway as we have said it's very OT. As a Jew, an atheist and a person of reason, I cannot admire Luther.

btw, not everyone is Christian. Just as Christians quote use Christian websites, I use atheist or even anti-Christian ones. It's not the position of the site, but its reliability, scholarliness, fairness, etc. My question is: do you deny that Luther said those things? If not, what difference does it make where I found that collection of quotes, if they're accurate. (Of course, you're right, it would be helpful to get the full setting, but I didn't want to spend that much time researching.)

The Plain Jane

September 6th 2006, 10:29 PM

What petty tactics? What misrepresentation? I took a quote directly from AIG, quoted them in their own words from their own website, and when challenged was able to show you that that was where it came from. I said in the post it was from AIG, thinking you could go there and find it if interested. What on earth did I misrepresent or what misinformation did I state? This pains me because my credibility is very important to me, and I try to take pains to be accurate and to present and verify sources. If I have misquoted someone, or misstated their position, I would certainly want to know that. However, I honestly can't see where I have; quite the contrary.
UBoat already pointed it out. Why must I point it out as well? Or are you really that blind? (I am feeling particullary irritable) Ok, I will give sources:
In POST 144, you give a source (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp) and quote it thus:

But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept.
But if you read the whole article, it goes on to say:
Even today, creationists are often misrepresented as believing that God created all the species we have today, just like they are today, in the beginning. This is called ‘fixity of species’. The Bible does not teach this. Nevertheless, university professors often show students that a new ‘species’ has arisen in ferment flies, for example, and then claim that this disproves the Genesis account of creation. Darwin made this very mistake when he studied the finches and tortoises on the Galapagos islands. (He also erred in assuming that creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the Bible it is clear that today’s land-dwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)
And then goes on to define a kind:
If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.
I guess they're not dogmatically sure what a "kind" is. Scripture is not a science book. God hasn't revealed everything, we couldn't read all the books if He did. He has given us everything we need to know for life and salvation and that's good enough for me! Be that as it may, the first time you sent me this article was to prove that in one place they say kind is an order or family and then another place they say kind is a specises. You have not shown this to be the case. The artice simply states another Creation scientists' error. Don't evolutionists make errors in their work and have to be correct by other evolutionists? Or are evolutionists perfect, sinless people? No really I want to know. Because if they can be sinless, then by golly I don't need Jesus anymore cause I can be sinless too!

As for UBoat's addition (not correction) I don't agree that it saves the contradiction. It doesn't matter what Linneus defined, what matters is what AIG defines, and their definitions clearly contradict themselves. To prove this you would need two quotes, both from AiG, pointing out the contridiction.

Not to mention Duane Gish. I intend to question AiG about it myself because I'm quite curious.

O.K., I'm answering you with patience here. Please state exactly how I have shown a lack of integrity, back it up with sources, or withdraw this asperson on my character. I addressed this above. All I'm saying is don't question the integrity of AiG when you can't even show what they have been dishonest about.

Actually, what I wanted to know is whether you agree with Luther that reason is a bad thing. Clearly, he says it again and again in a variety of ways, so I don't think there's any question what his position was. I wanted to know what yours is. I don't know and neither do you, as we don't know the contexts for the quotes. They may look better in full context; they may look worse, I don't know. Anyway as we have said it's very OT. As a Jew, an atheist and a person of reason, I cannot admire Luther. I have been over this two times. POST 166 and POST 159 If reason is placed over Scripture, I agree with him. Btw, you are a Jew and an atheist? How interesting. When you say "a person of reason" are you somehow saying we Christians never use reason? I used reason today by going to class instead of staying online. We use reason all the time.

btw, not everyone is Christian.
I haven't noticed. Keen observation on your part!

Just as Christians quote use Christian websites, I use atheist or even anti-Christian ones. It's not the position of the site, but its reliability, scholarliness, fairness, etc. My question is: do you deny that Luther said those things? If not, what difference does it make where I found that collection of quotes, if they're accurate. (Of course, you're right, it would be helpful to get the full setting, but I didn't want to spend that much time researching.) You call the site where you got Luther's quotes a site of fairness and scholarliness? I will never get to sleep now for laughing. I do not deny Luther said them. I agree with him, see above. Yes, the context is always helpful, but I'm pretty confident I know what Luther meant. I am after all Lutheran.

UBoat

September 6th 2006, 11:14 PM

Here's a random example:Rodents (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/rodentia/rodentia.html)

The single largest group of mammals is the Rodentia. Most non-flying mammals are rodents: there are about 1,500 living rodent species (out of about 4,000 living mammals overall). Most people are familiar with mice, rats, hamsters, and guinea pigs, which are commonly kept as pets. The Rodentia also includes beavers, muskrats, porcupines, woodchucks, chipmunks, squirrels, prairie dogs, marmots, chinchillas, voles, lemmings, and many others. (Incidentally, the Rodentia does not include rabbits; rabbits differ from rodents in having an extra pair of incisors and in other skeletal features. Rabbits, hares, and a few other species make up the Lagomorpha. Shrews, moles and hedgehogs are also not rodents; they are classified in the Insectivora.)
So, are all rodents one kind? Is each species of rodent a kind? Or something else? Each family? If the former, did Noah bring 3000 different rodents on board? If the latter, have 1500 species evolved from one kind in the last 4000 years? If something else, what? What about shrews? Biologists classify them as a belonging to a different order, do "baraminologists?" Aren't all rodents descended from a common rodent ancestor? Biologists say so, do creationists? But all rodents aren't reproductively compatible, only each species. Etc. etc.

I do not know enough about rodents to be able to classify them into created kinds or species for that matter; I'm not a biologist, baraminologist, taxonomist, or anything else that would study rodents. This, however, does nothing to make a created kind something that can be whatever one wants it to be. You seem awfully stuck on trying to pin down a kind to a specific Linnaean class. But there's no a priori reason why, of those species, some could not be their own kinds, while others were grouped together with each other more at the genus level. If you want details about rodents, ask somebody who knows something about rodents, but it's not required to be able to understand what a created kind is.

Gaytheist

September 6th 2006, 11:17 PM

UBoat already pointed it out. Why must I point it out as well? Or are you really that blind? Yes. I can't for the life of me see where I misrepresented anything. I resented you implying that I had quoted AIG inaccurately, and gave the cite so that you could see that I had quoted them verbatim, which I stand by.
(I am feeling particullary irritable) Ok, I will give sources:
In POST 144, you give a source (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp) and quote it thus:

But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept.
But if you read the whole article, it goes on to say:
Even today, creationists are often misrepresented as believing that God created all the species we have today, just like they are today, in the beginning. This is called ‘fixity of species’. The Bible does not teach this. Nevertheless, university professors often show students that a new ‘species’ has arisen in ferment flies, for example, and then claim that this disproves the Genesis account of creation. Darwin made this very mistake when he studied the finches and tortoises on the Galapagos islands. (He also erred in assuming that creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the Bible it is clear that today’s land-dwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)
And then goes on to define a kind:
If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind. Yes, this quote supports what I am saying: creationists are all over the map in their definition of "kind", meaning anything from a species to an order, and elsewhere seeming to mean species, as in fact only animals of the same species are "reproductively compatible." (There is no such thing as creatures from different families that can reproduce sexually together.)
I guess they're not dogmatically sure what a "kind" is. Exactly my point! They don't know what a kind is, but they make assertions like "evolution can only occur within kinds." If you don't know what a kind is, how do you know whether this statement is true or not? This is what I started out by asking you. (I don't remember what your original assertion is, but it was something about kinds.) If you don't know what a "kind" is, how do you know whether your assertion is true? I have discussed these questions with many creationists, and never gotten a single consistent definition of "kind", as I have not in this thread. Don't you think that's suspicious?

Scripture is not a science book. I couldn't agree more. Scripture is not a science book religion isn't science, creationism isn't science, and if they would just stick to theology and stop trying to insert it into the high school science curriculum, where it doesn't belong, I wouldn't have a problem with them.

...Be that as it may, the first time you sent me this article was to prove that in one place they say kind is an order or family and then another place they say kind is a specises. You have not shown this to be the case. I beg to differ. They have said everything from species to family and possibly order.

I addressed this above. All I'm saying is don't question the integrity of AiG when you can't even show what they have been dishonest about. While you're asking them questions, why don't you ask them how many creatures Noah took on the ark. Not exactly, but + or - 50%, say.

... Btw, you are a Jew and an atheist? Yes, Jew by birth and athiest by belief. It's not that unusual.
How interesting. When you say "a person of reason" are you somehow saying we Christians never use reason? Jane, why would you jump to that conclusion? I haven't besmirched Christians or said anything negative about them, far from it. All that I said is that as a person of reason, I have a problem with a person (Luther) who is against it. As a Jew, I have a problem with a person who seeks to burn down our houses and discriminate against us.
I used reason today by going to class instead of staying online. We use reason all the time. I have no doubt of it--we are both using reason in this thread, are we not? On the contrary, up until this page I have found you to be a person of reason and willingness to think and learn.

You call the site where you got Luther's quotes a site of fairness and scholarliness? I actually don't remember where I got them--I was just doing a quick search for the subject of Luther on reason. My point is that the site was accurate, and that's what matters. Since you agree, what's the problem?

I will never get to sleep now for laughing. I do not deny Luther said them. I agree with him, see above. Yes, the context is always helpful, but I'm pretty confident I know what Luther meant. I am after all Lutheran. It doesn't follow. I'm always surprised at what people don't know about their own religion and its founders. You seemed surprised to learn that Luther was virulently anti-semitic and opposed to reason. Personally, I cannot admire or emulate a person like that. It would raise serious questions for me about their views on other issues, including (if I were Christian), their interpretation of Christ's words.

UBoat

September 6th 2006, 11:26 PM

So then, how do you know that your parents had a common ancestor? (without extrapolation)

I don't, and I never claimed I could. If we could prove ancestry instead of having to extrapolate the debate between creationists and evolutionists would be over, now wouldn't it.

Using your stated definition of "kind", and since there are over one million organisms which are reproductively INCOMPATIBLE with other organisms, and which therefore each represent a "kind" then Noah would have had to take over two million animals on his ark (can you imagine sharing an ark with thousands of "kinds" of mosquitoes:-))

Have you tested to see whether they're all reproductively incompatible? I'd love to see the research. Not all species are reproductively incompatible (my understanding of species is that different species do not mate in the wild, not that they cannot mate at all). That having been said, a point of clarification could be useful. If two organisms are reproductively compatible, then they must certainly be of the same kind, but if they are not compatible it's not a guarantee that they couldn't be of the same kind. This does not affect the definition of a kind that says that two organisms are of the same kind if they have a common ancestor. It would, however, limit our ability to discover this by testing reproductive compatibility. This is not a problem with the definition of kind, but just a limitation of our knowledge.

UBoat

September 6th 2006, 11:43 PM

But that is the point. There is no clear dividing line. You can pick any point in the nested hierarchy to begin calling it design over breeding/'micro'/macro evolution from a single 'kind'. That makes the definition intractable from a scientific point of view. And likely, that dividing point will be picked based on the specific religious POV that says macro doesn't happen and which allows some plausable path both in time and space from the kind to its subsequent post noachian flood species.

Jim

Intractable? The fact that some genetic features may be explained just a well by either design or common ancestry just means that you can't use those features to decide which is correct and must find some other test.

The Plain Jane

September 6th 2006, 11:53 PM

Yes. I can't for the life of me see where I misrepresented anything. I resented you implying that I had quoted AIG inaccurately, and gave the cite so that you could see that I had quoted them verbatim, which I stand by. Yes, this quote supports what I am saying: creationists are all over the map in their definition of "kind", meaning anything from a species to an order, and elsewhere seeming to mean species, as in fact only animals of the same species are "reproductively compatible." (There is no such thing as creatures from different families that can reproduce sexually together.)
Well, I can't help you there if you can not see it. As for creatures from different families mating together Uboat pointed out eariler in the thread they work from a different taxommoy.

Exactly my point! They don't know what a kind is, but they make assertions like "evolution can only occur within kinds."
In all my hours of studing their materials I have never heard such a thing. They actually represent the views of evolutionists quite well. Don't believe me do a through search of their website. In their video From a Frog to a Prince they give Dawkins ample time to share his views and if you don't believe me I can summerize all he said.

If you don't know what a kind is, how do you know whether this statement is true or not? This is what I started out by asking you. (I don't remember what your original assertion is, but it was something about kinds.) If you don't know what a "kind" is, how do you know whether your assertion is true? I have discussed these questions with many creationists, and never gotten a single consistent definition of "kind", as I have not in this thread. Don't you think that's suspicious?
I know there is a 'kind' because of the words of Scripture. I'm not sure what is that kind, but you really have failed to show them moving "all over the map," like saying Kingdom then saying species.

I couldn't agree more. Scripture is not a science book religion isn't science, creationism isn't science, and if they would just stick to theology and stop trying to insert it into the high school science curriculum, where it doesn't belong, I wouldn't have a problem with them. From a Christian pov, putting Law and Gospel back into the schools would be the loving thing to do, seeing Jesus spoke more about Hell than He did about Heaven. I am not, however, one of these Christians wanting the Ten Commandments placed in the schools. The TC never saved anyone, it is the Gospel that saves. Put both Law and Gospel back in schools or neither, is my opinion. As far as ID, I'm sure that has been debated as to weather or not it goes in schools. I personally think there should be a Religions class (teaching all major world religions) from grade school up to high school. It will teach kids tolerance. When I was in school it was "oh those evil Catholics." Utter nonsense!
I do believe in seperation of church and state however, those are just my concerns as a Christian, being Heaven and Hell are real wheather you believe in them or not. But I'm not here to preach. Say, are you going to provide some grounds for evolution?

I beg to differ. They have said everything from species to family and possibly order. They never said species. Where do they say species? Please I want to know.

While you're asking them questions, why don't you ask them how many creatures Noah took on the ark. They say about 16,000. But the ark really is an impressive thing, the Bible tells us exactly what it looked like. Here's a pic:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20021122_146.asp

Yes, Jew by birth and athiest by belief. It's not that unusual. Jane, why would you jump to that conclusion? I haven't besmirched Christians or said anything negative about them, far from it. All that I said is that as a person of reason, I have a problem with a person (Luther) who is against it. As a Jew, I have a problem with a person who seeks to burn down our houses and discriminate against us. I have no doubt of it--we are both using reason in this thread, are we not? On the contrary, up until this page I have found you to be a person of reason and willingness to think and learn. Failing to show AiG in contridiction is not just my observation. I am not intending to be difficult. It's just that if you want me to loose AiG's beliefs, you're going to have to spend more time talking about evolution and less time critizing those I am currently in agreement with. As for Luther I have already made the case for him, ie, having the cure for AIDS while hating those with HIV.

I actually don't remember where I got them--I was just doing a quick search for the subject of Luther on reason. My point is that the site was accurate, and that's what matters. Since you agree, what's the problem? Because I think they quoted him out of context to push their agenda. Would you not get offended it AiG quoted Dawkins out of context to push Creation?

It doesn't follow. I'm always surprised at what people don't know about their own religion and its founders. You seemed surprised to learn that Luther was virulently anti-semitic and opposed to reason. Personally, I cannot admire or emulate a person like that. It would raise serious questions for me about their views on other issues, including (if I were Christian), their interpretation of Christ's words. Lutherans don't usually quote his anit-Catholic and anit-Semitic writings because that is not why we follow him. Again the AIDS example. Most Lutherans think it's absurb to believe the pope is the antichrist now. But Luther taught it. I told you I do not dimiss his behavior. I have examined the Scriptures and his teachings (his later teachings, as his earlier teachings are that of Rome) and I have come to conclusion he nailed it on the head: Faith Alone, Christ Alone, Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, and Glory to God Alone. That is a summery of what he taught.

bandecoot

September 7th 2006, 12:10 AM

Intractable? The fact that some genetic features may be explained just a well by either design or common ancestry just means that you can't use those features to decide which is correct and must find some other test.

Well a test FOR design might be good.

I would be interested to see what such a test would look like. First of all you would need a known, designed biological entity and a known, random entity.

How do we find the first without a test for design? I suppose we could make one from scratch, but that would only show how we would design something a process already well known.

I suppose you might try to find a way to simulate a outside designer without knowing its motivations or skillsets.

Or you can use what we do know about speciation and apply it across the board and see if any blips come up.

Its up to you to prove the designer exists, we already have a working theory thats seems to work fine without one.

Gaytheist

September 7th 2006, 12:27 AM

Well, I can't help you there if you can not see it. Thank you for taking time and a step back. An accusation of dishonesty is a various serious thing, and some, like myself, are sensitive to such accusation.
As for creatures from different families mating together Uboat pointed out eariler in the thread they work from a different taxommoy. The word "family" is a term in biology and using standard biological taxonomy, it is false that members of different families can interbreed. Generally speaking, animals that can interbreed are defined as belonging to the same species.

In all my hours of studing their materials I have never heard such a thing. They actually represent the views of evolutionists quite well. Don't believe me do a through search of their website. Believe me I have.

I know there is a 'kind' because of the words of Scripture. I'm not sure what is that kind, but you really have failed to show them moving "all over the map," like saying Kingdom then saying species. I quoted Gish going I think from species all the way up to at least order, if not phylum, and you quoted AIG going from if I remember correctly, species up to family or maybe order.

From a Christian pov, putting Law and Gospel back into the schools would be the loving thing to do, seeing Jesus spoke more about Hell than He did about Heaven. I am not, however, one of these Christians wanting the Ten Commandments placed in the schools. The TC never saved anyone, it is the Gospel that saves. Put both Law and Gospel back in schools or neither, is my opinion. As far as ID, I'm sure that has been debated as to weather or not it goes in schools. I personally think there should be a Religions class (teaching all major world religions) from grade school up to high school. It will teach kids tolerance. When I was in school it was "oh those evil Catholics." Utter nonsense!
I do believe in seperation of church and state however, those are just my concerns as a Christian, being Heaven and Hell are real wheather you believe in them or not. My point is not whether it is a good thing or a bad thing but that it is not science and should not be taught as such.

But I'm not here to preach. Say, are you going to provide some grounds for evolution? Sure, I'd be happy to. Didn't realize that's what you were looking for. I'll spend some time on it tomorrow if I have time. Any particular aspect you're interested in?

They never said species. Where do they say species? Please I want to know.
It is obvious that the human species is one Genesis kind or baramin, but when it comes to animals and plants, it is often difficult to classify them into baramins. Sometimes, the kind may be at the species level, as in modern humans, or at the genus level or sometimes at the family level. (emphasis added.) Notice how they say that it's obvious that humans are one specific kind? It is not possible to make a definition of "kind" that includes humans, but groups members of different families together. Humans and chimps are incredibly closely related genetically. No one knows, but it seems probable that humans and chimps could hybridize. (theoretically, disgusting though the thought may be.)

They say about 16,000. But the ark really is an impressive thing, the Bible tells us exactly what it looked like. Here's a pic:

O.K., think about it. You say there were 16,000 creatures, or 8000 different species. There are several million species now. So several million species evolved from 8000 species in the last 4000 years? That's way more evolution than any "evolutionist" asserts. That's hyper, meta, super-evolution. And btw it has not been observed.

Because I think they quoted him out of context to push their agenda. Would you not get offended it AiG quoted Dawkins out of context to push Creation? Yes, I hate quote-mining, a common creationist tactic. If you can show me that Luther actually favored the use of reason, and his words have been twisted, I will stop saying that he is anti. If I get time, I may try to find the source of some of these statements. Or maybe you could, with your extensive Lutheran resources?

Lutherans don't usually quote his anit-Catholic and anit-Semitic writings because that is not why we follow him. Again the AIDS example. Most Lutherans think it's absurb to believe the pope is the antichrist now. But Luther taught it. I told you I do not dimiss his behavior. I have examined the Scriptures and his teachings (his later teachings, as his earlier teachings are that of Rome) and I have come to conclusion he nailed it on the head: Faith Alone, Christ Alone, Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, and Glory to God Alone. That is a summery of what he taught. Yes, I understand and accept your position on this. At a minimum, he contributed to the deaths of a lot of innocent people--and I happen to be related to them, so I take it personally. And since I think reason is a good thing, I have to speak out against that.

Gaytheist

September 7th 2006, 12:37 AM

We really need to start a new thread!
Here's one:
"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore;? Martin Luther said.......?
by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
— Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

Does that help? Do you have the "Erlangen Edition" or know what it is?

by the way I found the first site, it isn't an anti-Christian site, it's an atheist site. See the difference? Or would you call a Christian site an anti-atheist site?

UBoat

September 7th 2006, 12:40 AM

Well a test FOR design might be good.

I would be interested to see what such a test would look like. First of all you would need a known, designed biological entity and a known, random entity.

How do we find the first without a test for design? I suppose we could make one from scratch, but that would only show how we would design something a process already well known.

I suppose you might try to find a way to simulate a outside designer without knowing its motivations or skillsets.

Or you can use what we do know about speciation and apply it across the board and see if any blips come up.

Its up to you to prove the designer exists, we already have a working theory thats seems to work fine without one.

You've gone a little beyond what I said. I merely stated that one particular test didn't distinguish between two hypotheses. I'm sure there are other tests that would.

I'm not sure why you think we necessarily need a known, designed entity and a known, random entity to test between design and randomness. Another way would be to show that the probability of a random biological entity coming into being is so low as to be essentially zero, then you can rule that out as a possibilty. Then you're left with two options, either there is a law of nature that builds biological entities (I know of no such law and from what I do know, I suspect one doesn't exist) or that the entity was designed. On the other hand, if there is a reasonable probability of such an entity coming about by random means, it very well may have.

I also see no reason I have to prove a designer exists before I can look for potential signs of design. On the contrary, such a sign of design would be good evidence for a designer.

oxmixmudd

September 7th 2006, 12:50 AM

Intractable? The fact that some genetic features may be explained just a well by either design or common ancestry just means that you can't use those features to decide which is correct and must find some other test.

There is a lot more to it than just features. But the point I was making was that there is not a way to define 'kind'. You need a source animal that can produce all of its current variations, but there is no way to know what that source animal is. And the entire concept of a source animal in the past that produces groups of similar animals today is essentially in a nutshell the ToE. To keep it from becoming ToE, you must put up arbitrary, ad hoc barriers. That barrier used to be species. But that is too many animals for the ark, and new species that can't interbreed is no longer considered the line between 'micro' and 'macro' by most YEC's. So how do you 'pick' a point. How do you define a kind. Where on the ToE 'tree of life' do you cut to produce the YEC 'forest' of kinds? And how do you show the cut is correct scientifically? And what scientific evidence do you have that a cut reflects reality better than the tree itself?

Jim

UBoat

September 7th 2006, 01:20 AM

The word "family" is a term in biology and using standard biological taxonomy, it is false that members of different families can interbreed. Generally speaking, animals that can interbreed are defined as belonging to the same species.

Have you tested members of different families to see if they can interbreed? Until actual tests are done, evolutionists can only assert that they can't interbreed and, conversely, creationists can only assert that they may be able to. Horses and donkeys can interbreed though they are different species, so species are not necessarily defined exactly by ability to reproduce. The fact that mules, are generally sterile, while relevant to the classification of species, is irrelevant to the classification of kinds. Horses and donkeys would belong to the same kind.

I quoted Gish going I think from species all the way up to at least order, if not phylum, and you quoted AIG going from if I remember correctly, species up to family or maybe order.

And this is irrelevant because, as I stated before, we're comparing two different classification schemes. If you have a quote saying, for example, that mammals are all one kind and also that cats and dogs are different kinds, then you would have a contradiction and something meaningful.

Notice how they say that it's obvious that humans are one specific kind?
Seems obvious to me, as humans were created separately from all the other creatures in the Genesis account and that's where the definition of kind derives from.

It is not possible to make a definition of "kind" that includes humans, but groups members of different families together.

It is quite possible as long as you give up the idea that Linnaean classification system is the only way to classify organisms.

Humans and chimps are incredibly closely related genetically. No one knows, but it seems probable that humans and chimps could hybridize. (theoretically, disgusting though the thought may be.)

Until you manage to get a human and a chimp to mate successfully, this is just an assertion.

O.K., think about it. You say there were 16,000 creatures, or 8000 different species. There are several million species now. So several million species evolved from 8000 species in the last 4000 years? That's way more evolution than any "evolutionist" asserts. That's hyper, meta, super-evolution. And btw it has not been observed.

You are certainly correct that this would be an absurd rate of speciation if mutation is the only source of variation. But if the creatures aboard the ark already had most of the information necessary to give the variation we see today, then this extreme rate of speciation would not necesarily be so outlandish. And as the speciation occurred and species became isolated, each species would have less and less built in variation, thus slowing the rate of speciation, eventually to what we see today. There may be other reasons to reject it, but, by itself at least, this is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

bandecoot

September 7th 2006, 01:49 AM

You've gone a little beyond what I said. I merely stated that one particular test didn't distinguish between two hypotheses. I'm sure there are other tests that would.

Are you sure? I realize i went beyond what you said, how else do discusions progress?

I'm not sure why you think we necessarily need a known, designed entity and a known, random entity to test between design and randomness.

Standard methodology. How can you know if an entity is designed or not without a benchmark? In archaeology they are called Index samples.

Another way would be to show that the probability of a random biological entity coming into being is so low as to be essentially zero, then you can rule that out as a possibilty.

Why rule it out? Its what the evidence shows right now. except natural selection is not random at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Then you're left with two options, either there is a law of nature that builds biological entities (I know of no such law and from what I do know, I suspect one doesn't exist) or that the entity was designed.

How about Random mutations in the germ line combined with external selection pressures? as the natural law, although as a cornerstone of a theory it trumps mere laws. It has and continues to be observed. The entity may indeed have been designed, but not by anything resembling intelligence which is yet another option.

On the other hand, if there is a reasonable probability of such an entity coming about by random means, it very well may have.

So by reasonable probability you would accept observation of RM+NS+GD?

I also see no reason I have to prove a designer exists before I can look for potential signs of design. On the contrary, such a sign of design would be good evidence for a designer.

But my dear Uboat... thats the rub. You do have to show a designer. Not only that, you must know it's motivations, and be able to reproduce its work.

Thats again standard practice in this sort of work. Why do you think first year Archaeology students learn to knapp flints? Its not for fun you know, it is so that the ancient design process can be shown.

Minnesota

September 7th 2006, 03:50 AM

Horses and donkeys can interbreed though they are different species, so species are not necessarily defined exactly by ability to reproduce.
Although your conclusion is correct it is not because of your reasoning. In using the ability to mate to define "species," simple interbreeding is not enough. The interbreeding must be be heritable---the rare fertile mule or henny is not sufficient to bring such interbreeding to that level . Species are no longer defined by their ability to successfully breed--to perpetuate the linage--although the criterion is good enough for general discussions.

Horses and donkeys would belong to the same kind.
So your definition of "kind' would be: A group of differing organisms, to whatever extent, that can interbreed among themselves? Still leaves Noah and the kids with a whole lot of critters to round up and baby sit.

You are certainly correct that this would be an absurd rate of speciation if mutation is the only source of variation. But if the creatures aboard the ark already had most of the information necessary to give the variation we see today, then this extreme rate of speciation would not necesarily be so outlandish..
So you are saying, what, the "horse kind" had the genetic programming for the two horse species, the two ass species, and the three zebra species? And that somehow each of these seven separate genetic codings were able to express themselves while at the same time suppressing the other six? Got a mechanism for this odd bit of genetic legerdemain? And just what kind of animal do you suppose this all-purpose horse-kind was? An animal that gave birth to an ass, then gave birth to a zebra, then another ass, then a horse or two? How do you suppose such an animal came about? Think horse-ass-zebra kinds were roaming the country along with the martin-ermine-fisher-mink kinds?

But it's nice to see you recognize speciation, a distinct evolutionary process.

HRG_new

September 7th 2006, 04:18 AM

I don't, and I never claimed I could. If we could prove ancestry instead of having to extrapolate the debate between creationists and evolutionists would be over, now wouldn't it.

But common ancestry has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see "29+ evidences for macro-evolution" at www.talkorigins.org). The debate continues because creationists have unreasonable doubts.

Have you tested to see whether they're all reproductively incompatible? I'd love to see the research. Not all species are reproductively incompatible (my understanding of species is that different species do not mate in the wild, not that they cannot mate at all). That having been said, a point of clarification could be useful. If two organisms are reproductively compatible, then they must certainly be of the same kind, but if they are not compatible it's not a guarantee that they couldn't be of the same kind.
This does not affect the definition of a kind that says that two organisms are of the same kind if they have a common ancestor. It would, however, limit our ability to discover this by testing reproductive compatibility. This is not a problem with the definition of kind, but just a limitation of our knowledge.

OK. Organisms with a common ancestor belong to the same kind. IOW, at least all eukaryotes belong to the same kind.

And you haven't yet given your estimate of how many kinds Noah took on the Ark.

jason

September 7th 2006, 04:38 AM

But common ancestry has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see "29+ evidences for macro-evolution" at www.talkorigins.org). The debate continues because creationists have unreasonable doubts.

Fair enough. I suppose it is unavoidable, the same is true of atheists and their unreasonable idiocy in regards to the rez.

BTW, do you know what a literature bluff is ?

Jason

bandecoot

September 7th 2006, 05:11 AM

Fair enough. I suppose it is unavoidable, the same is true of atheists and their unreasonable idiocy in regards to the resurrection.

Jason

Is it unreasonable to say that the other 1010 corpses still safely below ground is a pretty good indicator that thats what happened here?

Absent any valid, sound evidence for the resurrection, what else are we supposed to think happened.

Consider this:

There is a battle fought at a bridge, and the winner takes control of a vast empire. One General is supported by Christians as spies and messengers. The other general is supported by Mithra worshippers.

Who would you be an apologist for if the battle of the Mulvian bridge had gone the other way?

Modern Christianity has almost nothing to do with the early church, but has a lot more to do with being a supposed unifying force. The descriptions given of it by letter writers is nothing like what we have now.

The Church in ad 63 was reviled by the population in general, ever wonder why? The Gospels present Christians as law abiding tax paying citizens, why would such model people be hated?

I can think of a few speculative reasons but how about you?

Why would a religion reviled a few centuries earlier become the imposed STATE religion of Rome?

Snarf

September 7th 2006, 08:41 AM

I don't, and I never claimed I could. If we could prove ancestry instead of having to extrapolate the debate between creationists and evolutionists would be over, now wouldn't it.
You were the one who said:
"If organisms were created to reproduce after there kinds, then two organisms would be of the same kind if they share a common ancestor. "

You don't know if your parents are of the same kind?

Have you tested to see whether they're all reproductively incompatible? I'd love to see the research. Not all species are reproductively incompatible (my understanding of species is that different species do not mate in the wild, not that they cannot mate at all). That having been said, a point of clarification could be useful. If two organisms are reproductively compatible, then they must certainly be of the same kind, but if they are not compatible it's not a guarantee that they couldn't be of the same kind. This does not affect the definition of a kind that says that two organisms are of the same kind if they have a common ancestor. It would, however, limit our ability to discover this by testing reproductive compatibility. This is not a problem with the definition of kind, but just a limitation of our knowledge.

I haven't personally tested it, but the incompatibility of many species is recorded in the scientific literature. Since most of the species are insects, the main problem is mechanical-the genitalia of dragonflies doesn't fit with those of beetles. But let's use the thousands of animals that you are familiar with. Elephants don't mate with zebras, zebras don't mate with giraffes, wolves don't mate with mice, etc. You are probably familiar with thousands of species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, worms, spiders, and insects. Keeping this list to the animals that you know, Noah and family would still have to fit thousands of animals on the ark, and keep them alive. One elephant eats 150-200 lbs. of food A DAY, and drinks 30-50 gallons of water.
The amount of food and water required to keep ONE elephant alive for 100 days would be over ten TONS, and this is just one of the thousands of animals on the ark.

But your answer will priobably be "I don't know about these things." If so, do you enjoy being ignorant and blindly thinking what AiG tells you to think?

oxmixmudd

September 7th 2006, 09:11 AM

The Church in ad 63 was reviled by the population in general, ever wonder why? The Gospels present Christians as law abiding tax paying citizens, why would such model people be hated?

The same reason they are hated in Islamic and communist contries today: they represent a threat to the status quo. In Rome, they refused to proclaim Caesar as a god. In Islamic countries they refuse to acknowledge Mohammed(and some even dare to try to 'convert' other muslims), and in Communist countries they dare to believe there is a God and refuse blind obedience to the state. The fact they obey the laws in other areas not in direct conflict with their (our) faith is of no consequence when faced with these 'horrific' violations.

Jim

ETA: I realised after posting this the 'proclaim caesar as a god' is likely not the only reasons, and that early on, most persecution was from the Jewish authorities, not the Romans. It was later, with the despot Nero who blamed the christians for burning Rome that things got really bad. But I am not a historian, so forgive any inaccuracies. The point is that Christianity found itself at odds with the government in Rome the same way it finds itself at odds with governments today. Especially repressive governments.

UBoat

September 7th 2006, 11:29 AM

There is a lot more to it than just features. But the point I was making was that there is not a way to define 'kind'.
I have given two definitions of a 'kind'. One that might be considered the "truest" definition and a second which is a best-we-can-reconstruct definition.

You need a source animal that can produce all of its current variations, but there is no way to know what that source animal is.

We don't know what the source organism is for evolution either, so what? In either case, we do the best we can at reconstucting the source.

And the entire concept of a source animal in the past that produces groups of similar animals today is essentially in a nutshell the ToE. To keep it from becoming ToE, you must put up arbitrary, ad hoc barriers.

Yes, ToE and YEC agree on many things, including that past creatures have produced groups of similar animals today. The dispute in this instance is was there ultimately one (or very few) or many source creature (and how complex were those sources)? If this was all there was, and there was no other evidence to distinguish the two views, I think you'd have to agree that a scientist would be free to pick whichever he wanted (as long as he realized he could not persuade others scientifically who held the opposing view). As far as arbitrary and ad hoc, I don't really think it is such. Creationists say, I believe the Bible and the Bible seems to indicate that we can't extrapolate all the way back to one source organism, so I won't, unless I have a reason to believe I've misunderstood something.

That barrier used to be species. But that is too many animals for the ark, and new species that can't interbreed is no longer considered the line between 'micro' and 'macro' by most YEC's. So how do you 'pick' a point. How do you define a kind. Where on the ToE 'tree of life' do you cut to produce the YEC 'forest' of kinds? And how do you show the cut is correct scientifically? And what scientific evidence do you have that a cut reflects reality better than the tree itself?

Jim

In the absence of evidence that shows one cut is better than another, one would be free to choose whichever cut one wants and see how far he can make it work. If he finds evidence his cut was wrong, he can pick a cut that still is possible and continue trying to work things out.

The Plain Jane

September 7th 2006, 11:33 AM

Thank you for taking time and a step back. An accusation of dishonesty is a various serious thing, and some, like myself, are sensitive to such accusation. The word "family" is a term in biology and using standard biological taxonomy, it is false that members of different families can interbreed. Generally speaking, animals that can interbreed are defined as belonging to the same species. Maybe I overreacted. I am not denying this bit a science that you put forth, by any means.

I quoted Gish going I think from species all the way up to at least order, if not phylum, and you quoted AIG going from if I remember correctly, species up to family or maybe order. My quote was thus:
If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind. Where is species in here? You must have a bad memory. :tongue:

My point is not whether it is a good thing or a bad thing but that it is not science and should not be taught as such. As a Christian and a firm Sola Scriptura gal, I believe everything is subject to Scripture, including science. However, creation science does work under Scripture so in a sense the science is religious. I do see you point. Btw, AiG has stated many times they do not take a stand one way or another wheather creation should be taught in schools. A breif search hasn't turned it up but I will keep looking for it if you want a quote.

Sure, I'd be happy to. Didn't realize that's what you were looking for. I'll spend some time on it tomorrow if I have time. Any particular aspect you're interested in? What about the peppered moth experiement. AiG says it was all a hoax?

(emphasis added.) Notice how they say that it's obvious that humans are one specific kind? It is not possible to make a definition of "kind" that includes humans, but groups members of different families together. Humans and chimps are incredibly closely related genetically. No one knows, but it seems probable that humans and chimps could hybridize. (theoretically, disgusting though the thought may be.) But where's the link?

O.K., think about it. You say there were 16,000 creatures, or 8000 different species. There are several million species now. So several million species evolved from 8000 species in the last 4000 years? That's way more evolution than any "evolutionist" asserts. That's hyper, meta, super-evolution. And btw it has not been observed. You have to be fair to AiG. They work with the assumption that evolution is not true. That is their whole ministry.

Yes, I hate quote-mining, a common creationist tactic. If you can show me that Luther actually favored the use of reason, and his words have been twisted, I will stop saying that he is anti. If I get time, I may try to find the source of some of these statements. Or maybe you could, with your extensive Lutheran resources?
I do not have them. The only resources I have is the Small and Large Catechism. I will try to find the source of these quotes. I haven't read much of Luther's writings. I've read much of his teachings. There is a difference.

Yes, I understand and accept your position on this. At a minimum, he contributed to the deaths of a lot of innocent people--and I happen to be related to them, so I take it personally. And since I think reason is a good thing, I have to speak out against that. Being I'm not a historian, I can't much comment without making an error.

The Plain Jane

September 7th 2006, 11:41 AM

We really need to start a new thread!
Indeed!

"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore;? Martin Luther said.......?
by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
— Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148
You just can't come off it can you. I explained why he felt that way three times.

Does that help? Do you have the "Erlangen Edition" or know what it is? I am not familiar with it but I will check it out with my pastor.

by the way I found the first site, it isn't an anti-Christian site, it's an atheist site. See the difference? Or would you call a Christian site an anti-atheist site? You have to see it from my point of view. They are calling millions upon millions of people cult members. People who were thrown to the lions because they believed they were saved by faith. Some of the early Christians were crusifed. Many early Christians lived miserable lives in order to show their repentance towards God. The few Christians who used the Bible to hate people and persucate people were not being consistant with their belief. And were probably no Christian at all. ("Love your enemies" comes to mind) And another thing. Why do when atheists choose a religion to bash, it's always Christianity? I have never seen a site where atheits bash terristortist Musilums. I see how it is. Tolerance for everything but Christianity. I never understood that.

The Plain Jane

September 7th 2006, 12:01 PM

Peals to Gaytheist

UBoat

September 7th 2006, 12:04 PM

Standard methodology. How can you know if an entity is designed or not without a benchmark? In archaeology they are called Index samples.

If I know the probability of something coming about randomly (I don't claim that I do for evolution), then I can certainly make a judgement on whether it's reasonable to believe that it came about randomly. And if I've found that it couldn't have (reasonably) come about randomly, I'm left with the alternative that it came about because of some specific force of nature which must bring such things about, or it was designed.

Why rule it out?

Scientists rule out the possibility of things having happened by random chance all the time. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Its what the evidence shows right now. except natural selection is not random at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

I understand how natural selection works and know that it itself is not random. But natural selection can only work on variations which come about by mutations or other random processes, so the process of evolutionary change as a whole is random.

How about Random mutations in the germ line combined with external selection pressures? as the natural law, although as a cornerstone of a theory it trumps mere laws. It has and continues to be observed. The entity may indeed have been designed, but not by anything resembling intelligence which is yet another option.

Yes, with random mutations and external selection pressures you can get germs that are better suited to one environment or another, and I don't know any creationist who disagrees with that either. But first you have to get a germ (or some other initial life) from random chance (natural selection can't do anything at all here). If getting this initial life is to improbable, that would be enough for creationists to say life was designed. Also, are the random mutations that would get you from germs to something like mammals probable enough to do the job in the amount of time we have. Creationists argue no, evolutionists argue yes. The actual calculation would be quite complex, so one has to make reasonable simplifying assumptions, and this is in part why creationists and evolutionists differ, they disagree on what would be reasonable assumptions.

So by reasonable probability you would accept observation of RM+NS+GD?

I think RM is random mutation and NS is natural selection, but I'm not seeing what GD is. In any case, I don't know the probabilities, and didn't claim I did. All I argue is that using probabilities to argue that something isn't random and therefore must be designed is perfectly reasonable. Whether it can be done to argue between evolution or creation is another matter which I did not intend to get into.

But my dear Uboat... thats the rub. You do have to show a designer. Not only that, you must know it's motivations, and be able to reproduce its work.

I have no need to show a designer to determine whether something could have reasonably happened by random chance. All I need to know is what are the probabilities involved.

JonF

September 7th 2006, 12:17 PM

What about the peppered moth experiement. AiG says it was all a hoax?.
Well, that's certainly wrong.

There were some photographs of moths that were staged for illustration purposes, and should have been clearly identified as being staged; but they weren't identified as such. However, this does not affect the observations, data, or theory; the peppered moth is an excellent example of natural selection in action.

The early experiments could have been designed better, and later experiments made up for this lack.

It's not absolutely sure what selective pressures caused the change in the moth coloration; differential bird predation (i.e., birds catch poorly camouflaged moths more easily) is certainlyl a part of it, an almost certiainly a very large part of it; but there's still arguments about exactly how much.

The details can get pretty complex. More discussion and pointers to much more detail: Index to Creationist Claims: Peppered Moth (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB600)

Gaytheist

September 7th 2006, 12:18 PM

Jane:
No time yet for what you asked for, it will take a while.
Let's either drop Luther for now or start another thread. It's interesting, but doesn't belong here.

I'm glad we continued to talk. A lot of threads in this forum degenerate into shrill invective and I'm glad we avoided that.

I just wanted to drop in to remark that:

As a Christian and a firm Sola Scriptura gal, I believe everything is subject to Scripture, including science. is a problem. This may or may not be correct theologically or scripturally, but it's wrong scientifically. What I mean is, science is based on examining the evidence, the things that can be observed and measured, and devoloping and testing hypotheses based only on that evidence. If you start with your conclusion--what scripture says happened--you're not doing science. If you think that scripture is a better way to learn the truth than science, fine, study scripture. But if you want to do science, you have to work only with what can be observed and measured--the world.

Gaytheist

September 7th 2006, 12:20 PM

I have no need to show a designer to determine whether something could have reasonably happened by random chance. All I need to know is what are the probabilities involved. And how could you possibly do that, when you're working with a data set of 1?

UBoat

September 7th 2006, 12:28 PM

Although your conclusion is correct it is not because of your reasoning. In using the ability to mate to define "species," simple interbreeding is not enough. The interbreeding must be be heritable---the rare fertile mule or henny is not sufficient to bring such interbreeding to that level . Species are no longer defined by their ability to successfully breed--to perpetuate the linage--although the criterion is good enough for general discussions.

I never said that simple interbreeding was enough to define "species." In fact, if you read carefully, I think you'll find I noted this. Simple ability to interbreed is, however, enough to define "kind."

So your definition of "kind' would be: A group of differing organisms, to whatever extent, that can interbreed among themselves?

Finally! Somebody gets it. Now was that so difficult or hard to understand.

Still leaves Noah and the kids with a whole lot of critters to round up and baby sit.

Everybody seems to be rather hung up about Noah. I have no interest in debating the logistics of the ark. I have just been trying to get people to see that "kind" is not so difficult a concept. And that doesn't change whether Noah could get them all aboard or not. (As an aside, the Genesis seems to indicate that God brought the "critters" to Noah, so he wouldn't have had to round them up, just load them aboard.)

So you are saying, what, the "horse kind" had the genetic programming for the two horse species, the two ass species, and the three zebra species? And that somehow each of these seven separate genetic codings were able to express themselves while at the same time suppressing the other six? Got a mechanism for this odd bit of genetic legerdemain? And just what kind of animal do you suppose this all-purpose horse-kind was? An animal that gave birth to an ass, then gave birth to a zebra, then another ass, then a horse or two? How do you suppose such an animal came about? Think horse-ass-zebra kinds were roaming the country along with the martin-ermine-fisher-mink kinds?

I'm not sure what you're on about here, it seems somewhat confused. Look, a (human) couple can contain in their DNA enough information for a wide variety of skin colors (even though they themselves can exhibit at most two - one for each of them). Now, if there are enough different genes that control variations on a certain feature, then a single couple can produce offspring with a all that variation. This variation could then theoretically subsequently be used in natural selection to result different species, just as in evolution.

But it's nice to see you recognize speciation, a distinct evolutionary process.

I have no problem with speciation, and I don't know of any YEC's that do either. The difference between creationists and evolutionists seems to be more along the lines of how far is it valid to extrapolate back to find the original.

The Plain Jane

September 7th 2006, 12:51 PM

Jane:
No time yet for what you asked for, it will take a while.
Let's either drop Luther
Finally!

for now or start another thread.
Already have.

I'm glad we continued to talk. A lot of threads in this forum degenerate into shrill invective and I'm glad we avoided that.
Me too.

I just wanted to drop in to remark that: is a problem. This may or may not be correct theologically or scripturally, but it's wrong scientifically. What I mean is, science is based on examining the evidence, the things that can be observed and measured, and devoloping and testing hypotheses based only on that evidence. If you start with your conclusion--what scripture says happened--you're not doing science. If you think that scripture is a better way to learn the truth than science, fine, study scripture. But if you want to do science, you have to work only with what can be observed and measured--the world. It is only a problem if you don't believe in the supernatural. I'm open to evolution, but I won't be easily swayed. As I said before, you can only draw evolution from the Bible if you put it there. Why would God lie to the Hebrews? Why would God's word mean something different for the Hebrews and not for us? As you can tell, I am not a relativist. I believe that God's Word has one meaning and one meaning only. I came to TWeb to find that meaning. Did God lie? If evolution is true it poses a problem for me (maybe not for other Christians but for me) because I believe the Word speaks to every generation, every culture, every nation. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." So says the Holy Ghost through Paul. See my problem? Can you at least try to understand? I'm sorry for my ramblings, again, haha. But if God lied about evolution, then He lied about everything else. Somewhere it says in the Bible God can not lie. But we'll see if He did.

The Plain Jane

September 7th 2006, 01:13 PM

In my English Literture class we studied Lord Alfred Tennyson. Actually, just as we were approaching this, I became very...sick...and couldn't be there for all the discussions. But he wrestled with the same thing I'm wrestling with and this is how he rectified it:

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law—
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed—

.....

Are God and Nature then at strife,
That Nature lends such evil dreams?
So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life;

.....

Not only cunning casts in clay:
Let Science prove we are, and then
What matters Science unto men,
At least to me? I would not stay.

Let him, the wiser man who springs
Hereafter, up from childhood shape
His action like the greater ape,
But I was born to other things.
~~In Memoriam A.H.H.

I haven't decided yet wheather or not to follow his example.

UBoat

September 7th 2006, 01:27 PM

OK. Organisms with a common ancestor belong to the same kind.

Yes, simple wasn't it?

And you haven't yet given your estimate of how many kinds Noah took on the Ark.

Nor do I intend to. My purpose here has never been to argue how many kinds there are, or the feasibility of Noah getting them all on the ark. I'm just trying to point out that the idea of a "kind" is not so difficult as people seem to be making it out to be.

Snarf

September 7th 2006, 01:33 PM

I never said that simple interbreeding was enough to define "species." In fact, if you read carefully, I think you'll find I noted this. Simple ability to interbreed is, however, enough to define "kind."

Finally! Somebody gets it. Now was that so difficult or hard to understand.

Everybody seems to be rather hung up about Noah. I have no interest in debating the logistics of the ark. I have just been trying to get people to see that "kind" is not so difficult a concept. And that doesn't change whether Noah could get them all aboard or not. (As an aside, the Genesis seems to indicate that God brought the "critters" to Noah, so he wouldn't have had to round them up, just load them aboard.).
Of course you don't to talk about Noah, because if you did then you would have to admit that if all non-interbreeding groups of organisms were individual "kinds," then the whole ark story becomes impossible; this is critical for creationists because you have to explain how all the animals alive today managed to develop from those on the Ark.

Simply put, you have no interest in discussing things that force you to see the errors of YEC-which is evidence of a brainwashed "yes master" mentality.

UBoat

September 7th 2006, 01:49 PM

You were the one who said:
"If organisms were created to reproduce after there kinds, then two organisms would be of the same kind if they share a common ancestor. "

You don't know if your parents are of the same kind?

Sorry, shouldn't have assumed you could think. I don't have all the genealogical records for my parents that would prove that they came from a common ancestor. So, if I was just looking back at their parents, grandparents, etc. I'd have to extrapolate somewhere. However, I also said that this definition would not be terribly useful scientifically, for that reason. I did, however, proceed to give a correlated definition of kind that is testable. I said that two organisms would be of the same kind if they could reproduce. I am here, so my parents were obviously able to reproduce, and so must be of the same kind.

I haven't personally tested it, but the incompatibility of many species is recorded in the scientific literature.

That's nice, nobody would expect them to all be compatible. But have you shown that none (or almost none) of them are compatible. I think this would require much more testing than has yet been done.

One elephant eats 150-200 lbs. of food A DAY, and drinks 30-50 gallons of water.
The amount of food and water required to keep ONE elephant alive for 100 days would be over ten TONS, and this is just one of the thousands of animals on the ark.

If I've gotten side tracked I'm sorry, but I don't care to argue about the ark. Just arguing that "kind" is fairly easy to define. But a note on the above - that is probably for a full grown elephant, what about a young elephant as many creationists would probably argue were on board instead of the adult?

But your answer will priobably be "I don't know about these things." If so, do you enjoy being ignorant and blindly thinking what AiG tells you to think?

I found it usually good to not try to argue things I don't know, rather than arguing anyway and looking like a fool like some do. As I learn I'll argue more, but don't ever expect me to argue about Noah and the ark. I find my field of particle physics much more interesting to learn about. As far as AiG is concerned, I've only mentioned them in a correction I made to Gaytheist. Whether you believe somebody is correct or not, it's still a good idea to get it straight what they're actually saying. Beyond that, I've never stated that I believe AiG, blindly or otherwise.

UBoat

September 7th 2006, 02:05 PM

Of course you don't to talk about Noah, because if you did then you would have to admit that if all non-interbreeding groups of organisms were individual "kinds," then the whole ark story becomes impossible; this is critical for creationists because you have to explain how all the animals alive today managed to develop from those on the Ark.

I don't talk about Noah because I'm not a biologist who could, with any kind of confidence, give an estimate of the number of kinds there would have had to have been on the ark, and because it is irrelevant to my contention that "kind" is easily definable. Whether or not Noah could fit all the kinds on the ark, or if they could diversify into what we see today has no bearing on ones ability to define what is meant by a kind.

Simply put, you have no interest in discussing things that force you to see the errors of YEC-which is evidence of a brainwashed "yes master" mentality.

I don't believe I have actually claimed that YEC is correct or that evolution is wrong. Being able to understand what a "kind" is does not make one a creationist and, in fact, is very important for an evolutionist to understand if they wish to try to argue with a creationist.

Snarf

September 7th 2006, 02:21 PM

I don't talk about Noah because I'm not a biologist who could, with any kind of confidence, give an estimate of the number of kinds there would have had to have been on the ark, and because it is irrelevant to my contention that "kind" is easily definable. Whether or not Noah could fit all the kinds on the ark, or if they could diversify into what we see today has no bearing on ones ability to define what is meant by a kind.

Au contraire, it is very relevant to the definition of "kind." Any definition of a word has certain consequences. Whether or not those consequences occur are at least partly due to the validity of a definition.

You have defined "kind" as being a group of interbreeding organisms which cannot breed with others. God told Noah to fit 2 or 7 of every "kind" onto the ark. If there are 10,000 interbreeding groups of organisms (a gross underestimate) then Noah would have had to feed and take care of 20,000 "kinds," including the aforementioned elephants. If this is not possible, and it is easy to show that it isn't, then there is clearly something wrong with your definition of "kind."

I further add that you've mentioned your ignorance of such matters several times now-don't you think that it's wiser for an ignoramus to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?

Minnesota

September 7th 2006, 02:48 PM

I never said that simple interbreeding was enough to define "species."
I know you didn't; however, when you said , "Horses and donkeys can interbreed though they are different species, so species are not necessarily defined exactly by ability to reproduce." the implication is that in some inexact way they are.

Finally! Somebody gets it. Now was that so difficult or hard to understand.
Of course not, but in light of the insurmountable difficulty it imposes on Noah--very, VERY few species are able to successfully interbreed, which leaves Noah with an incredible number of organisms to bring aboard--you wouldn't agree to such a definition. Of course if you don't by the Noah fable, fine.

Everybody seems to be rather hung up about Noah. I have no interest in debating the logistics of the ark.
I understand your reticence. The problem the story creates for the creationist is one they all try to keep in the closet.

I have just been trying to get people to see that "kind" is not so difficult a concept.
No it's not, in fact yours is just about synonymous with the older, popular definition of species.

And that doesn't change whether Noah could get them all aboard or not.
I beg to differ. With between an estimated 5,000,000 and 30,000,000 species now living on the planet, taking only a fraction of them on board would have been an impossible task. Then you have the no so small problem of feeding and watering them, and taking care of their waste. So, the Ark logistics DO, in fact, figure into the creationist equation. Want to equate kinds with those forms of organisms that can only successfully breed among themselves, then the Noah issue becomes a HUGE sticking point. Want to do away with the Noah myth? Fine.

Look, a (human) couple can contain in their DNA enough information for a wide variety of skin colors (even though they themselves can exhibit at most two - one for each of them). Now, if there are enough different genes that control variations on a certain feature, then a single couple can produce offspring with a all that variation.
Variation in coloring is hardly on par with selecting for specific species. A species is almost always more than a single differentiation. Horses, for example differ from asses in construction of their

Mane
Tail
Ears
Neck
Back
Wither
Rump
Forelock
Hooves
Legs
Vocalization
Number of diploid chromosomes (horses:64 or 66; asses:62, 54-56; zebras: 32-46)

Disregarding zebras for simplicity sake, if horses and asses came from one horse/ass kind each of these features would have to be expressed in a very specific combination for each, no mixing of the above features--no animal with a horse tail with ass legs. If there were, it would take evolution, and a lot of it, to pare the resulting combinations to just those animals with the specific characteristics that now distinguish horses from asses.

I have no problem with speciation, and I don't know of any YEC's that do either.
Let me introduce a few

Henry Morris, Ph.D. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=260)

Pathlights (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/11spec01.htm)

CreationDesign (http://www.creationdesign.org/)

UBoat

September 7th 2006, 02:49 PM

Au contraire, it is very relevant to the definition of "kind." Any definition of a word has certain consequences. Whether or not those consequences occur are at least partly due to the validity of a definition.

You have defined "kind" as being a group of interbreeding organisms which cannot breed with others.

And I can make this definition whether or not such even exists.

God told Noah to fit 2 or 7 of every "kind" onto the ark. If there are 10,000 interbreeding groups of organisms (a gross underestimate) then Noah would have had to feed and take care of 20,000 "kinds," including the aforementioned elephants. If this is not possible, and it is easy to show that it isn't, then there is clearly something wrong with your definition of "kind."

Or the story is wrong, or you've screwed up with your little excercise.

I further add that you've mentioned your ignorance of such matters several times now-

Yes. It would be dishonest of me to claim I knew something I didn't, and if I didn't respond at all to the repeated requests that I give a number I'd expect to keep getting harrassed for not answering. I thought explaining why it's not relevant would help, but obviously some people are too thick to get it.

don't you think that it's wiser for an ignoramus to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?

Yes, but you keep doing it anyway.

Snarf

September 7th 2006, 04:12 PM

And I can make this definition whether or not such even exists.

Yes, but the the definition of a thing which does not exist is useless--I can define "Christian" as being a person with an IQ of 50. Does that make it right?

Or the story is wrong, or you've screwed up with your little excercise.
Creationists place great emphasis on the Noahic flood. This is why they do not identify "kind" the same way as you, because they recognize the problem with the definition.

Yes. It would be dishonest of me to claim I knew something I didn't, and if I didn't respond at all to the repeated requests that I give a number I'd expect to keep getting harrassed for not answering. I thought explaining why it's not relevant would help, but obviously some people are too thick to get it.

One could always say "I don't know," which you do and that is good-I wish more YECs would admit it. Ignorance can be fixed-stupid is forever. But when one is willfully ignorant, then one shouldn't be declaring definitions of that which they do not know.

bandecoot

September 7th 2006, 09:33 PM

If I know the probability of something coming about randomly (I don't claim that I do for evolution), then I can certainly make a judgement on whether it's reasonable to believe that it came about randomly. And if I've found that it couldn't have (reasonably) come about randomly, I'm left with the alternative that it came about because of some specific force of nature which must bring such things about, or it was designed.

Scientists rule out the possibility of things having happened by random chance all the time. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I understand how natural selection works and know that it itself is not random. But natural selection can only work on variations which come about by mutations or other random processes, so the process of evolutionary change as a whole is random.

Yes, with random mutations and external selection pressures you can get germs that are better suited to one environment or another, and I don't know any creationist who disagrees with that either. But first you have to get a germ (or some other initial life) from random chance (natural selection can't do anything at all here). If getting this initial life is to improbable, that would be enough for creationists to say life was designed. Also, are the random mutations that would get you from germs to something like mammals probable enough to do the job in the amount of time we have. Creationists argue no, evolutionists argue yes. The actual calculation would be quite complex, so one has to make reasonable simplifying assumptions, and this is in part why creationists and evolutionists differ, they disagree on what would be reasonable assumptions.

I think RM is random mutation and NS is natural selection, but I'm not seeing what GD is. In any case, I don't know the probabilities, and didn't claim I did. All I argue is that using probabilities to argue that something isn't random and therefore must be designed is perfectly reasonable. Whether it can be done to argue between evolution or creation is another matter which I did not intend to get into.

I have no need to show a designer to determine whether something could have reasonably happened by random chance. All I need to know is what are the probabilities involved.

Lies, damned Lies and Probability.

This is where ID and its sister YEC fall over, they wont do any work. Go find some evidence for your designer. write it up and publish it. Try Nature first or even PNAS.

(BTW GD stands for Genetic Drift, Look it up sometime)

The Plain Jane

September 7th 2006, 11:06 PM

Lies, damned Lies and Probability.

We can use the word damn? Because I have wanted to use that word A LOT.
Wow, learn something new everyay.

bandecoot

September 8th 2006, 03:47 AM

We can use the word damn? Because I have wanted to use that word A LOT.
Wow, learn something new everyay.

I was expecting a moderation for it. I may still get one. Keep it it Disney and its all good.

HRG_new

September 8th 2006, 07:16 AM

ETA: I realised after posting this the 'proclaim caesar as a god' is likely not the only reasons, and that early on, most persecution was from the Jewish authorities, not the Romans. It was later, with the despot Nero who blamed the christians for burning Rome that things got really bad. But I am not a historian, so forgive any inaccuracies. The point is that Christianity found itself at odds with the government in Rome the same way it finds itself at odds with governments today. Especially repressive governments.

Please note that the stress is on "today". For the larger part of its history, Christianity was the ally of repressive (to a greater or lesser degree) governments.

HRG_new

September 8th 2006, 07:22 AM

Fair enough. I suppose it is unavoidable, the same is true of atheists and their unreasonable idiocy in regards to the rez.

You mean our insistence of supporting the genuineness of a 1:1010-statistical outlier - the claim that one out of 1010 dead bodies did not stay dead - with independent evidence which is appropriate to that magnitude ?

Apologists claim that people would not die for a lie, would not hallucinate etc. But these regularities are far less well confirmed that the one about dead bodies. Why should we assume that the better-confirmed regularity has been violated ?

HRG_new

September 8th 2006, 07:30 AM

If I know the probability of something coming about randomly (I don't claim that I do for evolution), then I can certainly make a judgement on whether it's reasonable to believe that it came about randomly.

Any specific event becomes arbitrarily improbable if described in sufficient detail.

And if I've found that it couldn't have (reasonably) come about randomly, I'm left with the alternative that it came about because of some specific force of nature which must bring such things about, or it was designed.

But for the latter you need an estimate for the probability of the existence of a designer with sufficient powers and suitable motivations.
And of course you also have to estimate the probability that the designer would decide to plan and create exactly the situation which we observe.

Any probabilistic argument requires a comparison. To prefer an explanation B over an explanation A, it is not sufficient that A is improbable; you must show that B is less improbable than A. Perhaps we come to the conclusion that the emergence of the kind of life, resp. of intelligent life which we find in this universe is extremely improbable, independent on whether it was designed or not. So what ?

Jorge

September 8th 2006, 07:55 AM

Please note that the stress is on "today". For the larger part of its history, Christianity was the ally of repressive (to a greater or lesser degree) governments.
You really stink as a philosopher (a point I've made more than once) and now I see you're just as bad, if not worse, as a historian. Hopefully you're better at your 'day job'. If so, I suggest you hang on to it real tight! :lol:

Jorge

jason

September 8th 2006, 07:57 AM

You mean our insistence of supporting the genuineness of a 1:1010-statistical outlier - the claim that one out of 1010 dead bodies did not stay dead - with independent evidence which is appropriate to that magnitude ?

Apologists claim that people would not die for a lie, would not hallucinate etc. But these regularities are far less well confirmed that the one about dead bodies. Why should we assume that the better-confirmed regularity has been violated ?
Just keep telling yourself that. You believe far less likely events that are significantly more absurd. But hey, you just invoke your magic word and that solves all problems for you.

Your credulity knows no bounds.

Jason

Jorge

September 8th 2006, 08:00 AM

You mean our insistence of supporting the genuineness of a 1:1010-statistical outlier - the claim that one out of 1010 dead bodies did not stay dead - with independent evidence which is appropriate to that magnitude ?

Apologists claim that people would not die for a lie, would not hallucinate etc. But these regularities are far less well confirmed that the one about dead bodies.

Why should we assume that the better-confirmed regularity has been violated ?
Try this one : why should you assume that the NEVER-confirmed event 'abiogenesis' happened? :huh:

Jorge

Jorge

September 8th 2006, 08:14 AM

Just keep telling yourself that. You believe far less likely events that are significantly more absurd. But hey, you just invoke your magic word and that solves all problems for you.

Your credulity knows no bounds.

Jason
Absolutely! I can't let this one slip by without a comment.

Such people (as HRG) use the expression 'blind faith' with the utmost contempt against us that believe in God. They regard themselves as 'intellectually superior' ... 'above the ignorance of dumb Christians'.

Yet, as you say, Jason, upon careful analysis one realizes that these people actually display unbounded credulity! For example, they cannot believe in "God created..." but they ARE able to believe in "It created itself ... it spontaneously appeared (over time) by itself."

If these people had an ounce of truth/common sense in them they'd at least acknowledge the fact that their faith is far greater than our (Christian) faith. To wit : it'd be much easier to believe that gremlins built the Great Pyramid than to believe that this pyramid just 'happened' all by itself, even if one allows a billion years for this to happen. Wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, just something to consider. The lesson will be wasted on HRG, for sure.

Jorge

oxmixmudd

September 8th 2006, 08:43 AM

Please note that the stress is on "today". For the larger part of its history, Christianity was the ally of repressive (to a greater or lesser degree) governments.

I am sure that is true, of course, until the last 2 or 300 years, all there were were repressive governments! But I was specifically comparing the early persecution of the Church with current persecution of the Church. Unfortunately, during the reign of the RCC, things got pretty muddy on that front as politics and religion mixed in a hideous mess. Hence the Establishment Clause in the US constitution. Power and Religion mix poorly, and the world is suffering yet again as the Militant Islamics push to create yet another worldwide religious state. Of course, it may be more that Religion provides the kind of centralised power that facilitates corruption. Centralized/Unrestrained power does not need religion to be oppressive, as we see in Dictatorships and Communism.

But I digress ...

Jim

Tickle Me Goody

September 8th 2006, 09:58 AM

Try this one : why should you assume that the NEVER-confirmed event 'abiogenesis' happened? :huh:

Jorge

I can explain that one, Jorge.

People who assume that MN is the only correct way to see the world have totally closed their minds to anything else. Atheists will demand that you prove the existance of God but they just take the exclusivity of naturalism on faith. It is their religiuon.

GG

oxmixmudd

September 8th 2006, 10:53 AM

Snarf

September 8th 2006, 12:24 PM

Absolutely! I can't let this one slip by without a comment.

Such people (as HRG) use the expression 'blind faith' with the utmost contempt against us that believe in God. They regard themselves as 'intellectually superior' ... 'above the ignorance of dumb Christians'.

Yet, as you say, Jason, upon careful analysis one realizes that these people actually display unbounded credulity! For example, they cannot believe in "God created..." but they ARE able to believe in "It created itself ... it spontaneously appeared (over time) by itself."

Jorge

Just like flowers, hurricanes, icebergs, etc. all manage to appear over time by themselves.

Snarf

September 8th 2006, 12:26 PM

bandecoot

September 8th 2006, 08:31 PM

Try this one : why should you assume that the NEVER-confirmed event 'abiogenesis' happened? :huh:

Jorge

Look around you horhey. Something happened. Now show the method and mechanism (A hypothesis will do) by which your Idea of God produced the biodiversity of the modern world.

Should be simple for such a brilliant mind like you.

Jorge

September 9th 2006, 08:30 AM

Jorge

September 9th 2006, 08:38 AM

In a way you are correct - BUT - the minds are closed all the way around here. But this is only true as regards abiogenesis. You can't (and haven't successfully) made the same argument fly as regards age of the Earth, or even evidence for evolution. The only minds truly closed there are YEC minds. (although if there was equal evidence on both sides we could test how open the atheist side is)

Jim
Hang on, Jim, while I help you spell b-o-l-o-g-n-a.

In fact, sing along, Jim (you know the tune):

Your bologna has a first name, it's O-s-c-a-r
Your bologna has a second name, it's M-e-y-e-r
.
.
.

'Cause Jim and Oscar have a way
with b-o-l-o-g-n-a.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jorge

Jorge

September 9th 2006, 08:50 AM

No, lots of people who believe in God, like me think that MN is the only correct way to explain how things happen. Our minds can be changed when people like you present evidence for God.
Uhhh, is it just me or did ol' Snarfee-poo just babble yet more Plutonium-logic nonsense?

Note : first he says that "lots of people who believe in God, like me"

Okay, so he believes in God, right?

Good, we have that firmly established.

Then he says, "Our minds can be changed when people like you present evidence for God".

Errr ... if he already believes in God then why would his mind be changed when
(i.e., by implication, after) evidence for God has been presented?

That's why I stopped chatting with Snarfee-poo : I couldn't stop the room from spinning. :dizzy: :metro:

Jorge

Barry Desborough

September 9th 2006, 08:59 AM

I can explain that one, Jorge.

People who assume that MN is the only correct way to see the world have totally closed their minds to anything else. Atheists will demand that you prove the existance of God but they just take the exclusivity of naturalism on faith. It is their religiuon.

GG

Thanks for the "explanation" but I assure you it wasn't necessary. In fact, your last sentence is one that I thrust down their throat every chance I get (like here ... and this upsets them to no end :hehe:).

IOW, they deeply resent being placed into a religious category thereby being labeled as being religious (which is exactly what they are!) and deny it with the passion of a hen defending its chicks. Got'ta love it! :lol:

Jorge

I see you'll take an 'explanation' of an atheist's position from a theist, but not from an atheist.

What 'upsets' one is that explaining the actual position is like nailing jelly to the ceiling.

I can understand how threatening it is to entertain the notion that one can live without taking any position on the existence or non-existence any gods on faith, but there we are. Deny it all you want. It will not affect the actual situation.

I'll try one more time. Pretend I believe in pixies. If I keep prattling on about pixies to you enough, you might get weary enough to ask me to prove their existence. My retort that your apixieism is just as much a faith position as my pixieism would, I imagine, strike you as nuts.

Jorge

September 9th 2006, 09:53 AM

I see you'll take an 'explanation' of an atheist's position from a theist, but not from an atheist.

What 'upsets' one is that explaining the actual position is like nailing jelly to the ceiling.

I can understand how threatening it is to entertain the notion that one can live without taking any position on the existence or non-existence any gods on faith, but there we are. Deny it all you want. It will not affect the actual situation.

I'll try one more time. Pretend I believe in pixies. If I keep prattling on about pixies to you enough, you might get weary enough to ask me to prove their existence. My retort that your apixieism is just as much a faith position as my pixieism would, I imagine, strike you as nuts.
What an absolutely preposterous analogy, BD. :no:

There are entire libraries filled with the works of Biblical scholars in all fields - history, archaeology, linguistics, etc., spanning millenia - to support Christianity (including Jesus Christ / the God of the Christian faith).

Aside from works of pure fiction, what scholarly evidence do you have for your pixies?

Yet you will find enough scholarly evidential material to keep you busy reading/studying for decades, if you wish. And in all that material you won't find anything to refute Christ and the Christian faith.

People have tried (boy, have they ever!) to refute Christ and many instead ended up converting to Christianity (now there's scholarly honesty for you - they followed the evidence to the only possible conclusion.)

Pixies, anyone? :lol:

Of course, assuming you were unaware of all this then you are 'pardoned' on the basis of ignorance.

Jorge

Barry Desborough

September 9th 2006, 10:12 AM

What an absolutely preposterous analogy, BD. :no:

There are entire libraries filled with the works of Biblical scholars in all fields - history, archaeology, linguistics, etc., spanning millenia - to support Christianity (including Jesus Christ / the God of the Christian faith).

Aside from works of pure fiction, what scholarly evidence do you have for your pixies?

Yet you will find enough scholarly evidential material to keep you busy reading/studying for decades, if you wish. And in all that material you won't find anything to refute Christ and the Christian faith.

People have tried (boy, have they ever!) to refute Christ and many instead ended up converting to Christianity (now there's scholarly honesty for you - they followed the evidence to the only possible conclusion.)

Pixies, anyone? :lol:

Of course, assuming you were unaware of all this then you are 'pardoned' on the basis of ignorance.

Jorge

You're rotating, Jorge. The initial complaint was that atheists ask you to prove the existence of your God, rather than allowing you a position based on faith. Apart from the fact that not all atheists ask you this, you maintained that asking for proof was unacceptable because atheists too have a faith position.

Now you do offer an indication of what you consider to be evidence. Is it acceptable for atheists to ask you for evidence or not?

Jorge

September 9th 2006, 10:23 AM

You're rotating, Jorge. The initial complaint was that atheists ask you to prove the existence of your God, rather than allowing you a position based on faith. Apart from the fact that not all atheists ask you this, you maintained that asking for proof was unacceptable because atheists too have a faith position.

Now you do offer an indication of what you consider to be evidence. Is it acceptable for atheists to ask you for evidence or not?
The evidence you ask for is plentiful and available. Why else do you think that the once-foremost Atheist, Anthony Flew, has renounced his Atheistic position?

You can certainly ask for evidence but all indications are that you really don't care to 'see' it.

Jorge

Barry Desborough

September 9th 2006, 10:51 AM

The evidence you ask for is plentiful and available. Why else do you think that the once-foremost Atheist, Anthony Flew, has renounced his Atheistic position?

You can certainly ask for evidence but all indications are that you really don't care to 'see' it.

Jorge

I can't see how I've indicated that to you, given that I've never seen you mention any evidence before.

As I said, this really belongs in apologetics.

As it is, I am aware of the evidence and I find it unconvincing. You evidently do find it convincing. If you do want to discuss the evidence, I suggest you open a thread in apologetics. There, hopefully, we would at least share the common ground that the subject would be restricted to what the evidence is and how we evaluate it. We would not need to project fantasies about what each other believes. It could be a refreshing change from all the irrelevancies that keep creeping into these natural science discussions.

oxmixmudd

September 9th 2006, 01:24 PM

Hang on, Jim, while I help you spell b-o-l-o-g-n-a.

In fact, sing along, Jim (you know the tune):

Your bologna has a first name, it's O-s-c-a-r
Your bologna has a second name, it's M-e-y-e-r
.
.
.

'Cause Jim and Oscar have a way
with b-o-l-o-g-n-a.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jorge

Empty words. You will not stand up and be counted. When asked to produce evidence that supports a young Earth, most of what you do is point to links and AIG and ICR, most of which fail the most trivial inspection. Your best evidence so far is residual c14, and you won't even discuss that!

Jorge - if your conscience requires you to stick with a YE view - then I applaud your faithfulness to that. But you have no viable scientific case for that. You know it. And the "Open challange to Jorge" thread proves it. So quit pretending, or stand up and make your case - scientifically.

Jim

The Plain Jane

September 9th 2006, 01:34 PM

Empty words. You will not stand up and be counted. When asked to produce evidence that supports a young Earth, most of what you do is point to links and AIG and ICR, most of which fail the most trivial inspection. Your best evidence so far is residual c14, and you won't even discuss that!

Jorge - if your conscience requires you to stick with a YE view - then I applaud your faithfulness to that. But you have no viable scientific case for that. You know it. And the "Open challange to Jorge" thread proves it. So quit pretending, or stand up and make your case - scientifically.

Jim

Really Jorge, can't you at least paraphrase what AiG and ICR state? I mean, I did so eariler in the thread. It makes the discussion more, um, engaging if you approach it in that manner.

Please, according to Gaytheist you, YM, and I are the only Creationists here. And frankly, we are all in this together and you and YM are making me look like an ***. So please, support your cases with direct discussions, and people will take you seriously. Because without direct discussions you show others that you really don't know the material very well.

Btw, spelling bologna--because you disagree with someone--in such a insulting manner is not very Christ-like.

Jorge

September 9th 2006, 04:33 PM

Empty words. You will not stand up and be counted. When asked to produce evidence that supports a young Earth, most of what you do is point to links and AIG and ICR, most of which fail the most trivial inspection. Your best evidence so far is residual c14, and you won't even discuss that!

Jorge - if your conscience requires you to stick with a YE view - then I applaud your faithfulness to that. But you have no viable scientific case for that. You know it. And the "Open challange to Jorge" thread proves it. So quit pretending, or stand up and make your case - scientifically.

Jim
Whatever you wish to believe, Jim. I've stated and proven to an adequate level that my scientific case is every bit as powerful as that for OE. You just can't seem to understand that there's science and then there's "science". You just can't seem to understand the role of interpretation and metaphysics in so-called "scientific" conclusions. You just can't seem to understand a number of things that would resolve the conflict that you have with YEC.

BTW, I didn't go into discussing the 14C topic because, and this is for the umpteenth time :
the core and final resolution of the matter will NOT be found in empirical evidence.

Try harder to understand and if after that you find you still can't then be well. Just stop thinking that OE is "firmly founded on scientific evidence". Such a statement is embarrassingly naive.

Jorge

oxmixmudd

September 9th 2006, 05:14 PM

Whatever you wish to believe, Jim. I've stated and proven to an adequate level that my scientific case is every bit as powerful as that for OE. You just can't seem to understand that there's science and then there's "science". You just can't seem to understand the role of interpretation and metaphysics in so-called "scientific" conclusions. You just can't seem to understand a number of things that would resolve the conflict that you have with YEC.

BTW, I didn't go into discussing the 14C topic because, and this is for the umpteenth time :
the core and final resolution of the matter will NOT be found in empirical evidence.

Try harder to understand and if after that you find you still can't then be well. Just stop thinking that OE is "firmly founded on scientific evidence". Such a statement is embarrassingly naive.

Jorge

How very convenient. You say you believe in YEC because of the scientific evidence, but you also say discussing the scientific evidence is futile, and that it all boils down to ideology. Then you go on to say the OE is not firmly founded on scientific evidence, but again, you will not lower yourself to discuss said evidence or back said claim up, other than to claim such discussion misses the core of the matter and it's all ideology anyway.

And of course, you won't even back up the claim it's all ideology. At least, not when asked to.

So in your world, AIG and ICR are useless organizations, yet you link to them when asked to provide evidence. So what is the point of YEC Jorge? If it doesn't matter, if it is all ideology, why bother making any 'scientific' claims at all?

But it does matter. Because the claim the evidence supports a Young Earth is provably false. That is why you will not discuss the issue. That is why you hide behind ideology. There may be a few oddities out there one can lean on if one is already predisposed to believe the Earth is young as part of one's theology, but there is no where near enough out there that will take an objective, unbiased observer to that conclusion. Not even close.

What is out there can only convince the already convinced, or the ignorant.

But I invite you once again to try. I'll ask anyone to try. The Bible is far easier to understand, and almost provably supernatural, IF YEC can be established scientifically. And you know that. And if you had a case, you'd make it, because the impact of a solid case for YEC would likely be a major revival of the Christian faith.

Jim

Jorge

September 9th 2006, 09:23 PM

How very convenient. You say you believe in YEC because of the scientific evidence, but you also say discussing the scientific evidence is futile, and that it all boils down to ideology. Then you go on to say the OE is not firmly founded on scientific evidence, but again, you will not lower yourself to discuss said evidence or back said claim up, other than to claim such discussion misses the core of the matter and it's all ideology anyway.
This is almost as tiresome as arguing with a fanatical Atheist.

And of course, you won't even back up the claim it's all ideology. At least, not when asked to.
Done that many times here on TWeb.

So in your world, AIG and ICR are useless organizations, yet you link to them when asked to provide evidence. So what is the point of YEC Jorge? If it doesn't matter, if it is all ideology, why bother making any 'scientific' claims at all?
I DID NOT SAY IT WAS ALL IDEOLOGY!!!!!!! I said the crux of the matter is ideological with science serving in a supportive role. Tell me truthfully, you weren't a very good student, were you.

But it does matter. Because the claim the evidence supports a Young Earth is provably false.
"Provably false"? Hmmm ... so you're saying that the many competent scientists that are also YECs are ... what? Dumb? Crazy? On drugs? Lying to themselves? Ignoring the "facts"?

Or maybe you're just saying that about me (?). In any event, you just can't get the point, can you.

That is why you will not discuss the issue. That is why you hide behind ideology. There may be a few oddities out there one can lean on if one is already predisposed to believe the Earth is young as part of one's theology, but there is no where near enough out there that will take an objective, unbiased observer to that conclusion. Not even close.
Why don't you just accept that ya ain't understanding and leave it at that? Maybe later you will.

What is out there can only convince the already convinced, or the ignorant.
Okay, so guys like Baumgardner, Humphreys, and the hundreds of other PhD scientists are living a lie, or are ignorant or both while OECs, PhD or not, are firmly anchored in science and truth. That is your message, right?

But I invite you once again to try. I'll ask anyone to try. The Bible is far easier to understand, and almost provably supernatural, IF YEC can be established scientifically. And you know that. And if you had a case, you'd make it, because the impact of a solid case for YEC would likely be a major revival of the Christian faith.
You want a "solid case" for YEC when I have stated at least a dozen times that THERE IS NO SOLID CASE by way of empirical evidence for any position be it YEC, OEC, Humanism, Atheism ... whatever.

I've asked before and I'll ask again, nicely : drop this topic (at least with me) as you seem unable to grasp the message. Thanks in advance.

Jorge

wattsr1

September 9th 2006, 10:10 PM

[snip]

I DID NOT SAY IT WAS ALL IDEOLOGY!!!!!!! I said the crux of the matter is ideological with science serving in a supportive role. Tell me truthfully, you weren't a very good student, were you.

[snip]

Then Jorge you will go back and discuss that scientific aspect with Jim - yes or no?

oxmixmudd

September 9th 2006, 11:28 PM

Okay, so guys like Baumgardner, Humphreys, and the hundreds of other PhD scientists are living a lie, or are ignorant or both while OECs, PhD or not, are firmly anchored in science and truth. That is your message, right?

People Like Baumgardner and Humphreys do not base their conlusions about age on the scientific evidence. And they use their brilliant minds to try to contrive something, anything, that will give something that just might back up what they believe. But no one, no matter how smart, can cover every angle, and that is why their contrivances continue to fail.

And yes, the conclusion that the scientific evidence demands is an Earth 4.5 billion years old. There is no other reasonable conclusion from what is known today about the natural world.

You want a "solid case" for YEC when I have stated at least a dozen times that THERE IS NO SOLID CASE by way of empirical evidence for any position be it YEC, OEC, Humanism, Atheism ... whatever.

You are correct on all counts, except OE. There is no solid empirical case for YEC, Humanism or Atheism. There IS an overwhelming empirical case for the age of the Earth being in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years.

I've asked before and I'll ask again, nicely : drop this topic (at least with me) as you seem unable to grasp the message. Thanks in advance.

Jorge

I'm not the one who took my comment to another twebber about what there was evidence for and called it bologna. If you don't want to discuss the evidence, then don't challange my opinion of it. If you want to discuss or challange my opinion about the evidence, then feel free. But make up your mind!

Jim

Gaytheist

September 10th 2006, 12:33 AM

TheGreenMan

September 10th 2006, 02:24 AM

I've stated and proven to an adequate level that my scientific case is every bit as powerful as that for OE.
Jorge, since you always seem to be saying that you repeat the same thing over and over again may I suggest that in this case you:

Write up a post which discusses, in a little depth, your scientific case for a young Earth and request it be made a stickey. Even if it doesn't get made a stickey you could at the very least point people to it when asked the question.

wattsr1

September 10th 2006, 02:47 AM

People Like Baumgardner and Humphreys do not base their conlusions about age on the scientific evidence. And they use their brilliant minds to try to contrive something, anything, that will give something that just might back up what they believe. But no one, no matter how smart, can cover every angle, and that is why their contrivances continue to fail.

Gidday Jim,

Of course the above is precisely what Jorge believes we are doing. The irony is that if Jorge can contemplate this for one group of humans, then why can he not contemplate it for his own group?

And if both groups could conceivably be acting out of sheer blindness and ideology, then it is time to look at the data and the strength of the argument. That is something which can be examined.

Jorge is afraid to do this. Hence all his bluster and pretence.

Jorge's argument is easy to make. Simply deny, deny, deny and pretend otherwise, pretend otherwise, petend otherwise. While doing the dishes I contemplated some other issues that are contentious, in that there is a group of people who claim they are bunk - on scientific grounds:-

1) Vacinations. They are not safe and it is better not to give them to children.
2) AIDS. It is not caused by a virus.
3) The earth. It is flat.
4) The postion of the earth in the cosmos. It is fixed at the centre and the universe revolves around it.

I wonder if Jorge is prepared to use his "it's mostly ideology therefore I have no need to look at the data" excuse to accept that the earth is flat and fixed at the centre of the universe, that AIDS is not caused by a virus and that vacinations are not good for children?

Regards, Roland

wattsr1

September 10th 2006, 02:54 AM

If I grasp the crux of Jorge's position, it is a kind of Christian post-modernism that I have encountered in various setting before. It posits that we can't know anything with certainly, so our adherence to various positions must be based on something other than certainty, such as religion, ideology, or bias.

What it ignores is that we can know things with various degrees of certainty, based on the strength of the evidence, and without resort to bias. My belief that the floor will be under my feet in the morning may not be 100% certain, but it is based on sufficient evidence for me to rely on that belief. Someone's belief that the Raelians are coming to get them in their spaceship is not based on the same quality or quantity of evidence. In much the same way, there is more than sufficient evidence in support of our planet being >4 billion years old, and almost none, and much against, it being <10,000 years old.

Jorge's failure to present such evidence when invited corroborates this point.

Oh how correct you are GayTheist. The number of wee lectures I have received from creationists and IDers about bias, axioms and assumptions and therefore why I should doubt ToE to the point of not accepting it.

Of course such people quite happily continue to accept their own science (be it mainstream or not). Somehow that same lecture about bias, axioms and assumptions does not apply.

One thing which often comes from the YEC camp is the notion "you were not there to observe macro evolution, therefore how do you know". Yet those same people happily accept so much other mainstream science, despite the fact that "no one was there to observe, or no one can be there to observe".

It really is a case of double standards.

Regards, Roland

Tiggy

September 10th 2006, 02:56 AM

You want a "solid case" for YEC when I have stated at least a dozen times that THERE IS NO SOLID CASE by way of empirical evidence for any position be it YEC, OEC, Humanism, Atheism ... whatever.

I've asked before and I'll ask again, nicely : drop this topic (at least with me) as you seem unable to grasp the message. Thanks in advance.
Jorge to English Translation:

"Waaaah! Waaah! Look guys, you've proven me to be an idiot a dozen times over, and my ego can't take the continued pounding anymore. I can't provide positive evidence for a damm thing about my YEC fantasy, and I have no answer for the tons of old earth evidence (like the C14 calibration) that blows away my YEC crap. PLEASE, I BEG YOU - let me save a teeny bit of face by now claiming there is no empirical evidence for any position, and PLEASE STOP MAKING ME LOOK LIKE SUCH A JERK! Waaaah! Waaaaahh!"

Sorry Jorge you intellectual dishonest coward. There are indeed cubic miles of solid empirical evidence for an Earth tremendously older than 6000 years. And as long as you keep running your big mouth, no amount of pathetic whining by you will stop us from confronting you with it.

Deal with the old Earth evidence like a man, for once in your cowardly life.

- Tiggy

Jorge

September 10th 2006, 08:44 AM

Of all the posts (by O-Mudd, wattsr1, Tiggy, others?), yours is the only one sort'a-worth responding to in that I've already answered the others and, as for Tiggy, he doesn't even register as a 'blip' on the radar screen.

If I grasp the crux of Jorge's position, it is a kind of Christian post-modernism that I have encountered in various setting before. It posits that we can't know anything with certainly, so our adherence to various positions must be based on something other than certainty, such as religion, ideology, or bias.
A correction : Adherence to any position has never been based on any empirically-derived certainty for the simple fact that no one has ever possessed such certainty (this is especially true for Atheists since 'certainty' for them is to be determined solely in materialistic terms - tentative, impermanent and non-absolute).

Therefore, it is by necessity that your adherences be ultimately determined by factors outside of the empirical evidence since said evidence always leaves things far short of a conclusive answer.

What it ignores is that we can know things with various degrees of certainty, based on the strength of the evidence, and without resort to bias.
I've ignored no such thing - in fact, I've loudly proclaimed it! Specifically I've said is that since the evidence leaves things 'short' of definitive answers then each of us must resort to factors outside of empirical evidence. IOW, the chasm between 'certainty' and what you know (or at least think you know) is bridged with something other than empirical evidence. That, then, is the true foundation for your beliefs.

My belief that the floor will be under my feet in the morning may not be 100% certain, but it is based on sufficient evidence for me to rely on that belief. Someone's belief that the Raelians are coming to get them in their spaceship is not based on the same quality or quantity of evidence. In much the same way, there is more than sufficient evidence in support of our planet being >4 billion years old, and almost none, and much against, it being <10,000 years old.
The above transitions from strawmen to ignoring the point I've been making.

Jorge's failure to present such evidence when invited corroborates this point.
Asked and answered.

Jorge

Barry Desborough

September 10th 2006, 08:52 AM

Specifically I've said is that since the evidence leaves things 'short' of definitive answers then each of us must resort to factors outside of empirical evidence. IOW, the chasm between 'certainty' and what you know (or at least think you know) is bridged with something other than empirical evidence. That, then, is the true foundation for your beliefs.
Jorge

This ignores the fact that, despite not providing certainty, evidence for and against many notions is most definitely not even. A sense of certainty is not required.

Jorge

September 10th 2006, 09:29 AM

This ignores the fact that, despite not providing certainty, evidence for and against many notions is most definitely not even. A sense of certainty is not required.
One day I hope to understand why you et al. keep missing the point.

We must ALL live our lives with uncertainty - that is a given. So your statement that "a sense of certainty is not required" is superfluous. My point is that given the uncertainty that we all have ('uncertainty' from an empirical evidence POV), then we are forced to decide by introducing factors OUTSIDE of empirical evidence.

Geesh ... it's enough to drive a man to drink. I think I'll do that (get a glass of lemonade). :smile:

Jorge

Barry Desborough

September 10th 2006, 11:39 AM

One day I hope to understand why you et al. keep missing the point.

We must ALL live our lives with uncertainty - that is a given. So your statement that "a sense of certainty is not required" is superfluous. My point is that given the uncertainty that we all have ('uncertainty' from an empirical evidence POV), then we are forced to decide by introducing factors OUTSIDE of empirical evidence.

Geesh ... it's enough to drive a man to drink. I think I'll do that (get a glass of lemonade). :smile:

Jorge

Perhaps because the point keeps changing. You'd just said,

...the chasm between 'certainty' and what you know (or at least think you know) is bridged with something other than empirical evidence. That, then, is the true foundation for your beliefs.

I was saying that it is not necessary to bridge the chasm between certainty and empircal evidence.

Look, let's make it really simple, so we don't misunderstand each other. There are two sorts of uncertainty.

One form of uncertainty comes from situations where the evidence is equivocal. It is difficult to choose between the evidence for something and the evidence against. Here, we can quite happily say that we are not sure which side of a question is correct, and there is no 'chasm' to be leapt.

The second form of uncertainty, philosophical uncertainty, comes when there is clearly a preponderance of evidence, even an overwhelming amount of evidence, favouring one side of a question. Here, we can say we are confident that the favoured side is correct, but not at the absolute, philosophical level. Unless we lust after a sense of absolute certainty unattainable by reason, we do not need to 'decide by introducing factors outside of empirical evidence'.

On the other hand, we can embrace unreason even if the evidence is against us, if we lust after a feeling of certainty so much. If our faith is not strong enough, we try to delude ourselves about the evidence, and we project our own failings onto others who disagree with us.

Jorge

September 10th 2006, 12:56 PM

Perhaps because the point keeps changing.
"I" keep changing the point? "I"? Somebody hand me my gun, please. :eek:

I was saying that it is not necessary to bridge the chasm between certainty and empircal evidence.

Look, let's make it really simple, so we don't misunderstand each other. There are two sorts of uncertainty.

One form of uncertainty comes from situations where the evidence is equivocal. It is difficult to choose between the evidence for something and the evidence against. Here, we can quite happily say that we are not sure which side of a question is correct, and there is no 'chasm' to be leapt.

The second form of uncertainty, philosophical uncertainty, comes when there is clearly a preponderance of evidence, even an overwhelming amount of evidence, favouring one side of a question. Here, we can say we are confident that the favoured side is correct, but not at the absolute, philosophical level.

Unless we lust after a sense of absolute certainty unattainable by reason, we do not need to 'decide by introducing factors outside of empirical evidence'.
As is typical in Clintonese, your aim here is to muddy the waters just enough to "win" your hopeless case.

Specifically, you are trying to get people to lose sight of what we're discussing here. In this debate each side must realize that there is NO clear preponderance of natural evidence, there is NO overwhelming amount of natural evidence. In fact, the 'evidence' itself is being questioned since much of it is 'evidence' ONLY under certain interpretations. And even when we agree on the interpretation, we also agree that it's a tentative position subject to our present ignorance and to future discoveries.

You want to "make it simple" so let me do that for you. Example : a person that has no science background at all but is a deeply devoted Christian points to the incredible complexity of the human brain and says to you, "See, there's solid evidence for the omnipotent Creator of the Bible." Do you take this as 'solid evidence' for the Creator? This person certainly does and the brain is tangible evidence.

No, of course you don't. Here's what you do : you give an alternate interpretation to the incredibly complex human brain - isn't that right? And under your interpretation that same observation becomes "supportive evidence" for you. So, which side does the human brain constitute evidence for?

Are you catching on?

On the other hand, we can embrace unreason even if the evidence is against us, if we lust after a feeling of certainty so much. If our faith is not strong enough, we try to delude ourselves about the evidence, and we project our own failings onto others who disagree with us.
My gun ... [i]where is my gun?!?!? :teeth: :lol:

Jorge

YeshuaMarine

September 10th 2006, 01:33 PM

One day I hope to understand why you et al. keep missing the point.

We must ALL live our lives with uncertainty - that is a given. So your statement that "a sense of certainty is not required" is superfluous. My point is that given the uncertainty that we all have ('uncertainty' from an empirical evidence POV), then we are forced to decide by introducing factors OUTSIDE of empirical evidence.

Geesh ... it's enough to drive a man to drink. I think I'll do that (get a glass of lemonade). :smile:

Jorge

Well I disagree with this Jorge. I do not live in any bit of uncertainty. I am absolutely certain of what I believe, regardless of whether anybody likes this fact or not. So the uncertainty bit, I disagree with.

Another thing, is while I agree that Young Earth Creation Scientist's arguments are much more sound and probably better proven based on empirical evidence than Old Earth Creation Scientists, I have no problem with Old Earth Creation Scientists at all. I think OEC is a perfectly legitimate position to take. I do have a problem with Evolutionism however, since I totally disagree with anything it has to provide (and I've been to Panda's Thumb, Talk Origins, Entouch, you name it...I've seen their evidence...and it simply doesn't stand under scrutiny). So Theistic Evolutionism is a contradiction of terminology, and I disagree with it completely.
But the YECS and OECS thing is really overrated, because it really doesn't matter one way or the other to me. All I can say is that Creation Science just makes sense. The Old Earth and Young Earth debate is simply insignificant.

Jorge

September 10th 2006, 02:29 PM

Well I disagree with this Jorge. I do not live in any bit of uncertainty. I am absolutely certain of what I believe, regardless of whether anybody likes this fact or not. So the uncertainty bit, I disagree with.
I hate to have to say this but that's twice you've disagreed with me due to not paying careful attention.

The uncertainty that I speak of has to do with the 'certainty' arrived at solely based on tangible evidence - the way materialists say it should be. That kind of 'certainty' is and shall always be uncertain.

The kind of certainty you speak of is one that I share also. I am absolutely certain of God, my relationship with Him, my salvation, and many other things related to this.

Please read more carefully / give me the benefit of the doubt when something appears 'strange' to you.

Another thing, is while I agree that Young Earth Creation Scientist's arguments are much more sound and probably better proven based on empirical evidence than Old Earth Creation Scientists, I have no problem with Old Earth Creation Scientists at all. I think OEC is a perfectly legitimate position to take. I do have a problem with Evolutionism however, since I totally disagree with anything it has to provide (and I've been to Panda's Thumb, Talk Origins, Entouch, you name it...I've seen their evidence...and it simply doesn't stand under scrutiny). So Theistic Evolutionism is a contradiction of terminology, and I disagree with it completely.
My turn to disagree and I doubt that I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. It's all interconnected, you can't have one without the other. Evolution absolutely demands billions of years and so if you disagree with evolution you should, at least in part, "have a problem" with OECs. But it's more complicated than that ...

You now need to look at the theological aspect (forget for the time being the science) and ask if billions of years can be reconciled with original sin, the Fall, pain suffering and death, etc.

I've never been able to make that reconciliation nor have I seen anyone else do it without distorting, adding to, deleting from, mythologizing and/or re-interpreting Scripture in ways that can only be called unorthodox (in the best cases) or blasphemous (in the worst cases).

Do you know of anyone that in your mind has accomplished said reconciliation in a palatable way?

But the YECS and OECS thing is really overrated, because it really doesn't matter one way or the other to me. All I can say is that Creation Science just makes sense. The Old Earth and Young Earth debate is simply insignificant.
As I just finished explaining, the YE/OE debate is, IMHO, critical. If Genesis isn't accurate then why not Exodus, Ruth, Jeremiah, Daniel, Luke, Acts, Romans, Revelation, or any other book in Scripture?

If I were an Atheist, that would be one of my principal questions directed at Christians, namely, how can you trust some parts of the Bible and not others? Who makes the decision? Is it a personal thing?

I don't think so, YM. It's an all-or-nothing. There is absolutely no good reason for anyone to abandon Genesis. There are, of course, many wrong reasons. Once the foundation - "In the beginning God ..." - is toppled, the rest becomes an easy target. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is doing poorly and worse as time goes by.

I suggest you need to re-think your stance on this important matter.

Jorge

YeshuaMarine

September 10th 2006, 02:42 PM

I hate to have to say this but that's twice you've disagreed with me due to not paying careful attention.

The uncertainty that I speak of has to do with the 'certainty' arrived at solely based on tangible evidence - the way materialists say it should be. That kind of 'certainty' is and shall always be uncertain.

The kind of certainty you speak of is one that I share also. I am absolutely certain of God, my relationship with Him, my salvation, and many other things related to this.

Please read more carefully / give me the benefit of the doubt when something appears 'strange' to you.

That clears that one up :wink: Fair enough.

My turn to disagree and I doubt that I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. It's all interconnected, you can't have one without the other. Evolution absolutely demands billions of years and so if you disagree with evolution you should, at least in part, "have a problem" with OECs. But it's more complicated than that ...

You now need to look at the theological aspect (forget for the time being the science) and ask if billions of years can be reconciled with original sin, the Fall, pain suffering and death, etc.

I've never been able to make that reconciliation nor have I seen anyone else do it without distorting, adding to, deleting from, mythologizing and/or re-interpreting Scripture in ways that can only be called unorthodox (in the best cases) or blasphemous (in the worst cases).

Do you know of anyone that in your mind has accomplished said reconciliation in a palatable way?

As I just finished explaining, the YE/OE debate is, IMHO, critical. If Genesis isn't accurate then why not Exodus, Ruth, Jeremiah, Daniel, Luke, Acts, Romans, Revelation, or any other book in Scripture?

If I were an Atheist, that would be one of my principal questions directed at Christians, namely, how can you trust some parts of the Bible and not others? Who makes the decision? Is it a personal thing?

I don't think so, YM. It's an all-or-nothing. There is absolutely no good reason for anyone to abandon Genesis. There are, of course, many wrong reasons. Once the foundation - "In the beginning God ..." - is toppled, the rest becomes an easy target. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is doing poorly and worse as time goes by.

I suggest you need to re-think your stance on this important matter.

Jorge

Nope, I don't reject Genesis. I know OECSs who believe that the Earth's Creation happened in 6 days. These OECS's, I have no problem with. Thats fine. They just believe the age of the Earth to be in question. Is it 6000 years, or 100s of millions of years to 5 billion years...who knows?

I disagree with Evolutionism's position on changing the age of the earth 2 billion years older and older every year. Before the turn of the century, I'm sure we'll "discover" that the earth is some 6 trillion years old. So that is just plain silliness and nonsensical (maybe laughable at best.)

Just to let you know, the terminology I use here is Creation Science, not Creationism.

I believe Creation Science to be valid Science, so I refer to it as Creation Science. Evolutionism is simply Philosophical at best, perhaps Mythological at worst.

wattsr1

September 10th 2006, 04:58 PM

[snip]

A correction : Adherence to any position has never been based on any empirically-derived certainty for the simple fact that no one has ever possessed such certainty (this is especially true for Atheists since 'certainty' for them is to be determined solely in materialistic terms - tentative, impermanent and non-absolute).

Therefore, it is by necessity that your adherences be ultimately determined by factors outside of the empirical evidence since said evidence always leaves things far short of a conclusive answer.

[snip]

What an utterly odd thing to say Jorge.

When I question you about accepting Job 37 and 38 literally, you used to get all defensive and simply avoid the question. Now you tell me that some verses of the Bible are literal while others are figurative. So when I ask you what your justification is for taking Job 37 and 38 figuratively rather than literally, then you avoid me.

Yet by the above, you have given yourself full licence to take Job 37 and 38 literally. So why, in one way or another do you continually avoid the question about Job when I ask it?

So back to my question Jorge, why do you not take Job 37 and 38 literally? Why do you choose to accept God and take Gen 1 literally and abandon modern biology, but abandon God, take Job 37 and 38 figuratively and accept modern meteorology?

That is, why do you make your own interpretative choices with respect to the Bible but point the finger at everyone else for exactly that same reason, if you happen to disagree with them?

You operate under double standards. What is your justification for this?

Regards, Roland

JonF

September 10th 2006, 08:20 PM

I disagree with Evolutionism's position on changing the age of the earth 2 billion years older and older every year.
As I posted in more detali in another thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1647235&postcount=936), this just doesn't happen, and hasn't nappened for well over 50 years. So there's no disagreement except between yuo and your strawman.

oxmixmudd

September 10th 2006, 09:32 PM

I disagree with Evolutionism's position on changing the age of the earth 2 billion years older and older every year. Before the turn of the century, I'm sure we'll "discover" that the earth is some 6 trillion years old. So that is just plain silliness and nonsensical (maybe laughable at best.)

As JonF said, the estimated age of the Earth has remained stable for quite some time.

What I say next I say out of respect and concern, and truly to try to help you as you evaluate the YEC/OEC/OE arguments. You must be very careful to make sure you are looking at the most up to date research/writings on both sides. The arguments for YEC rise and fall with the discoveries of mainstream science, and they typically find themselfs in the cracks of our knowledge. As old problems are solved (like the number of solar neutrinos), old 'evidences' for youth fail. As new 'mysteries' are uncoverd, new 'evidences' appear. One of the key components leading to my abandonment of YEC has been watching argument after argument for youth fall to a more complete understanding of the natural world.

So be careful what you base your trust in YEC upon. The arguments for youth are like sand. And you know what Jesus said about building one's house on the sand. If it is a pure faith stance, fine. But it you try to support it with science, the set of supportive theories will vary from year to year and decade to decade, and you must keep current to avoid putting forward an argument already fully discredited.

Jim

Barry Desborough

September 11th 2006, 01:57 AM

Specifically, you are trying to get people to lose sight of what we're discussing here. In this debate each side must realize that there is NO clear preponderance of natural evidence, there is NO overwhelming amount of natural evidence. In fact, the 'evidence' itself is being questioned since much of it is 'evidence' ONLY under certain interpretations. And even when we agree on the interpretation, we also agree that it's a tentative position subject to our present ignorance and to future discoveries.
Jorge

Excellent! The position that there is no clear preponderance of natural evidence is one that we can debate. We can now stop all the vacuous 'it's all ideology' crap and get down to the actual evidence and the specifics of how we interpret it. Let's start by getting back to Tiggy's_C14_thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=81273&goto=newpost). See you there!

Jorge

September 11th 2006, 08:26 AM

What an utterly odd thing to say Jorge.

When I question you about accepting Job 37 and 38 literally, you used to get all defensive and simply avoid the question. Now you tell me that some verses of the Bible are literal while others are figurative. So when I ask you what your justification is for taking Job 37 and 38 figuratively rather than literally, then you avoid me.

Yet by the above, you have given yourself full licence to take Job 37 and 38 literally. So why, in one way or another do you continually avoid the question about Job when I ask it?

So back to my question Jorge, why do you not take Job 37 and 38 literally? Why do you choose to accept God and take Gen 1 literally and abandon modern biology, but abandon God, take Job 37 and 38 figuratively and accept modern meteorology?

That is, why do you make your own interpretative choices with respect to the Bible but point the finger at everyone else for exactly that same reason, if you happen to disagree with them?

You operate under double standards. What is your justification for this?

Regards, Roland
Quit wasting my time, Roland.

I do not avoid questions - I avoid you. I avoid you because you do not wish to learn.

I take certain Bible verses literally and others figuratively based on a number of factors. Just as in our own speech we say things that are sometimes meant to be figurative, literal or, in some cases, both.

I do not "abandon" biology nor do I "abandon" God - you are simply and totally ignorant and/or confused here.
So why don't I try to help? I have tried but, as I said, you've demonstrated no desire to learn.

I do not make "my own" interpretative choice - God's Word is not for anyone's personal interpretation.

Finally, I disagree with, say, OECs because they must distort, re-interpret, add to, delete from and mythologize God's Word in order to accommodate certain edicts of naturalistic science. Simply and concisely put, they do not realize the grave implications of what they are doing.

Now I'll ask again, quit wasting my time. Thanks in advance.

Jorge