Is Understanding Evolution required? [Archive]

smugg

01-16-2002, 01:10 PM

Hmm. I think this is a false dilemma. On the one hand, I do think it's important to understand what you're arguing against when you get involved in any debate. It wouldn't do you much good to go around objecting to something you aren't informed about or even a false version of the thing to which you object.

But this is science. You can't merely object to science. You are required to be skeptical about any new scientific idea or else the process breaks down. Each and every part of any scientific theory must stand up to reams and reams of data and testing. Sometimes it seems to pass and then someone comes along and throws the whole thing on its ear.

This is not what we're talking about, though. The theory of evolution is constantly being investigated and there are often new findings which require a revision of the way things are approached, but what takes place on boards like these, and what people like Kent Hovind (http://www.drdino.com) and the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) are involved in, is a rejection based not on scientific grounds, but religious ones.

The basic idea is this (and feel free to correct me if I misrepresent some of you out there -- not that I think you're shy...): The basis of all Christianity is the books of the Bible. With the exception of Catholic belief, there is no living person who can speak authoritatively for the religion as a whole. If, then, the Bible is the sole authority on what it means to be Christian, it must be 100% correct in all things or else we are left without an empirical guide to determine what to take seriously and what to ignore. The thinking might go like: "The Bible tells me what it takes to have redemption and I strongly believe in redemption. The Bible also tells me that the stars are fixed in a solid 'firmament' (Gen. 1:14-17), so I must strongly believe in that so my belief in redemption is not called into question."

The scientific community is constantly researching, testing, and questioning evolution theory. It's still holding up. It is thought of by many as the most complete set of answers modern biology has today. Does this mean that we know everything there is to know about the history of the earth's species? No. Does it mean that there is no place for God in the equation? Many scientists don't think so. The only objections are coming from Biblical literalists and there's really no room for compromise there. Either the Bible is 100% literal or it isn't.

So I guess my position is this: if everyone understood evolution, there would be no debate.

Twonky

01-16-2002, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by smugg
...but what takes place on boards like these, and what people like Kent Hovind (http://www.drdino.com) and the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) are involved in, is a rejection based not on scientific grounds, but religious ones.

I agree with you to an extent. Those kinds of sites definately promote a bias towards the creation store in the Bible, however, when you look at the 'evidence' they post, it isn't from the bible. A good site I've found is Science Against Evolution (http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org). I haven't gone through every pixel on the site, but I don't immediately see a connection between the site's findings and the Bible.

Also, to have a good debate about evolution, you can't worry about the credentials or beliefs of the person. It shouldn't matter if the person is a Bible believing Christian or an athiest with no religious beliefs. The science should stand up or fall on it's own. For example, 1+1 is always equal to 2 whether you're a Mathematics professor or a McDonalds manager.

In other words, if you write off the argument based on the persons credentials, then you're not being very 'scientific' and you're not doing what the bible says and 'test all things.'

Make sense?

Stabby

01-16-2002, 07:34 PM

It seems disingenuous to say: Your objections mean nothing until you've passed this "Evolution basics Test."

Yet, It seems like a solution to the Evolution vs Creationism debates. (which go nowhere)

How much of Evolution is counter intuitive? How else can that character of Evolution be communicated other than studying it and wrapping your head around the intricacies of time, energy and matter?

Can you do this and still be impartial?

Would such a burden squelch the debate? ( I mean, who wants to study physics, genetics and chemistry...really?)

If evolution is counter intiutive( i'm meaning counterintuitive to the uneducated. Once understood, evolution is intuitivel) can it be addressed philosophically yet not scientifically?

Stabby-------

smugg

01-17-2002, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Twonky
I agree with you to an extent. Those kinds of sites definately promote a bias towards the creation store in the Bible, however, when you look at the 'evidence' they post, it isn't from the bible. A good site I've found is Science Against Evolution (http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org). I haven't gone through every pixel on the site, but I don't immediately see a connection between the site's findings and the Bible.

They [Science Against Evolution (http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org)] regurgitate the same old objections using straw-man arguments and spurious, outdated, or downright fictitious evidence to combat 'evolutionists.' To be fair, it's probably just ignorance -- even though that's pretty inexcusable given that they post a web-site to disseminate this misinformation...

But here's how to tell whether they are scientific or religious: What science are they espousing? None, really. It's all just objections; they have no advocated science, they just don't like the science that's going on. I looked through the site for quite some time and read many of their articles (most of which are refuted in any high-school textbook) and I couldn't find one that addressed a theory they didn't object to, just ones they do. What kind of science is that? Why are they so careful to conceal what they consider the true origins of life?

It's because you can only use science to participate (even if that participation is only to detract) in science. If they were to state in any kind of scientific language that a supernatural deity created life at an identifiable point in the past, they'd need something to back it up besides, "it was written in this book (or even Book)." Can they prove it was El, storm god of the Hebrews who created life instead of Pachacamec, sun god of the Incas? They can make no positive claims because at some level they know how indefensible their own beliefs are.

Also, to have a good debate about evolution, you can't worry about the credentials or beliefs of the person. It shouldn't matter if the person is a Bible believing Christian or an athiest with no religious beliefs. The science should stand up or fall on it's own. For example, 1+1 is always equal to 2 whether you're a Mathematics professor or a McDonalds manager.

In other words, if you write off the argument based on the persons credentials, then you're not being very 'scientific' and you're not doing what the bible says and 'test all things.'

Make sense?

I agree insofar as the science should stand on its own. I do think, however, that credentials and beliefs are important issues. Credentials can let us know a person's background and answer the question of whether a person has done their homework. It's one thing to read Genesis and receive from authority that 'God did it' -- it's another thing to understand a topic as complicated, diverse, and sometimes counter-intuitive as the theory of evolution. By way of example, do a web-search on objections to evolution and notice how many times the words 'random chance' are invoked. It's a common complaint but the problem disappears when a little research is done. The theory of evolution does not claim random chance causes new species to arise; natural selection is far from random. Not all articles, though, use this argument. People who have real accreditation like Dr. Duane Gish (of the ICR -- who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley) or Dr. Michael Behe (who teaches biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania) make much more serious and worthwhile claims, even when they are ultimately misguided.

Misguided? How can you say that, oh smugg one? That's where a person's beliefs come in. These scientists are not attempting to participate in science, only to advance their beliefs. As I stated in my previous post, skepticism is required in science, and they are very selective about their skepticism. They tell themselves they 'know' the Bible is true and accept only arguments that support their predisposed beliefs.

___________________________________________

Originally posted by Stabby
It seems disingenuous to say: Your objections mean nothing until you've passed this "Evolution basics Test."

Yet, It seems like a solution to the Evolution vs Creationism debates. (which go nowhere)

How much of Evolution is counter intuitive? How else can that character of Evolution be communicated other than studying it and wrapping your head around the intricacies of time, energy and matter?

Can you do this and still be impartial?

To do so is to be impartial.

Would such a burden squelch the debate? ( I mean, who wants to study physics, genetics and chemistry...really?)

If evolution is counter intiutive( i'm meaning counterintuitive to the uneducated. Once understood, evolution is intuitivel) can it be addressed philosophically yet not scientifically?

Stabby-------

This is an excellent post -- it cuts to the heart of the issue at hand. I don't think I understand your last question, though. Can geometry be addressed philosophically and not mathematically?

Twonky

01-17-2002, 12:18 PM

But here's how to tell whether they are scientific or religious: What science are they espousing?

They are scientifically trying to prove that evolution isn't good science.

None, really. It's all just objections; they have no advocated science, they just don't like the science that's going on.

And with a name 'ScienceAgainstEvolution' you expected something else?

I looked through the site for quite some time and read many of their articles (most of which are refuted in any high-school textbook) ...

Do you have a specific example? Please quote the article and the high school text book that refutes it.

Why are they so careful to conceal what they consider the true origins of life?

Because that's not the purpose of the site. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is it important what they believe are the origins of life? Why can't the articles and research stand on their own without worrying about what the agenda is?

I agree insofar as the science should stand on its own. I do think, however, that credentials and beliefs are important issues. Credentials can let us know a person's background and answer the question of whether a person has done their homework.

Which means nothing. Again, if a mathematician were to come to you and say they proved that 1+1 is NOT equal to 2, would you care what their credentials are? Background of the person is irrelevant to debating an issue. The ISSUE is what's relevant.

It's a common complaint but the problem disappears when a little research is done. The theory of evolution does not claim random chance causes new species to arise; natural selection is far from random.

But the theory of evolution does claim that by the luck of the draw, without any evidence to support it, life was created out of nothing. For example, on the site, the first article in the disclosure sections talks about a museam that is still using a science experiment to show how life could have started even though that experiment has been shown to NOT be able to produce life. That's not very scientific to leave something like that there. We have yet to create life from nothing, yet it's still believed that's how it happened.

As I stated in my previous post, skepticism is required in science, and they are very selective about their skepticism.

So now selective skepticism isn't very scientific? Why can't people be skeptical of evolution without being called misguided?

They tell themselves they 'know' the Bible is true and accept only arguments that support their predisposed beliefs.

Wouldn't this be equal to stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove that hypothesis? Something happens or is found out that requires a modification to the hypothesis, then it's restated. That's science isn't it?

smugg

01-18-2002, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Twonky:
But here's how to tell whether they are scientific or religious: What science are they espousing?

They are scientifically trying to prove that evolution isn't good science.

None, really. It's all just objections; they have no advocated science, they just don't like the science that's going on.

And with a name 'ScienceAgainstEvolution' you expected something else?

No, you're right: it was just as reactionary as I imagined.

I looked through the site for quite some time and read many of their articles (most of which are refuted in any high-school textbook) ...

Do you have a specific example? Please quote the article and the high school text book that refutes it.

Okay, maybe I overstated myself. I don't have any high-school textbooks on me -- I must have left them in my other pants. Or my dog ate them. Yeah, that's the ticket...

Why are they so careful to conceal what they consider the true origins of life?

Because that's not the purpose of the site. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is it important what they believe are the origins of life? Why can't the articles and research stand on their own without worrying about what the agenda is?

It's the agenda which makes it inappropriate. Next time you take a science course in college, don't write your thesis on any of your own ideas, just write one called "Why [your favorite scientist] Was Wrong" without addressing what's right and see how far it gets you.

I agree insofar as the science should stand on its own. I do think, however, that credentials and beliefs are important issues. Credentials can let us know a person's background and answer the question of whether a person has done their homework.

Which means nothing. Again, if a mathematician were to come to you and say they proved that 1+1 is NOT equal to 2, would you care what their credentials are? Background of the person is irrelevant to debating an issue. The ISSUE is what's relevant.

It's a common complaint but the problem disappears when a little research is done. The theory of evolution does not claim random chance causes new species to arise; natural selection is far from random.

But the theory of evolution does claim that by the luck of the draw, without any evidence to support it, life was created out of nothing. For example, on the site, the first article in the disclosure sections talks about a museam that is still using a science experiment to show how life could have started even though that experiment has been shown to NOT be able to produce life. That's not very scientific to leave something like that there. We have yet to create life from nothing, yet it's still believed that's how it happened.

But this is not part of the science of evolution. Remember that Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species not The Origin of Life. There is, of course, scientific inquiry into where and how life originated; the two most developed ideas that I'm aware of are that either a) life arose from complex molecules under just the right conditions on earth, or b) that life was introduced to the earth from another point of origin. I've seen even wicked 'evolutionists' who are convinced that God created life. Again, evolution is the study of changes in bio diversity over time, not a study of how life can arise from inorganic material.

As I stated in my previous post, skepticism is required in science, and they are very selective about their skepticism.

So now selective skepticism isn't very scientific? Why can't people be skeptical of evolution without being called misguided?

Let's say they could make a good case against evolution. Okay, so we throw that out the window. Do they have a theory which explains how biology works instead? One which makes useful predictions and is able to explain observed phenomena?

This is what I mean by misguided. They aren't going to get anyone to change the world's encyclopedias and textbooks on evolution unless they can present a better set of explanations. Is it the law of evolution? No. Do we have a complete picture of exactly how each species is related to the others? Certainly not. Is it possible that new evidence at a future date will revolutionize the way we understand mutation or natural selection? Sure -- maybe even likely. Is evolution a conspiracy of ignorance plotted by evil atheists who just want to make sure little Timmy doesn't get into heaven? I seriously doubt it. Could thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives and careers to studying the processes of evolution have missed something as simple as "scales had to have mutated into hair" which Science Against Evolution (http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/) points out as an obvious problem for 'evolutionists.' No.

Did you know that there are still groups (or at the very least there was one as late as 1980) who maintain that the earth is flat (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm)? They apparently rely on Isaiah 40:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1011333369.html#22) for the shape of their globes and have even prepared some arguments (okay, poor ones) for how modern scientists have gotten it wrong. What I couldn't find was the scientific response. Why weren't there dozens of scientists committed to combating this ignorance?

I think there are a couple of reasons. For one thing, it's too time consuming. You could show these people pictures of the planet from orbit, you could explain that if the earth was flat, you couldn't have satellites providing video and cell phone transmissions around the world, or you could have them measure the shadow of a yardstick at different locations to measure the curvature of the earth, but all these would cut into time better spent in research or publishing. The other reason, though, is the kicker: they wouldn't believe it anyway. They would probably just find new reasons to deny the spherical quality of their own planet.

I think the same thing is happening with the Creation/evolution debate (although most creationists are far more sophisticated than the members of the Flat Earth Society). There's really a dearth of direct rebuttals to creationist objections by the scientific community and yet classrooms and documentaries all use the language of evolutionary biology unflinchingly. This is because the evidence is compelling and the people who don't see it are being kept from the evidence, are self-filtering information, or will just never let themselves accept it anyway because they feel their souls are at stake.

They tell themselves they 'know' the Bible is true and accept only arguments that support their predisposed beliefs.

Wouldn't this be equal to stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove that hypothesis? Something happens or is found out that requires a modification to the hypothesis, then it's restated. That's science isn't it?

The comparison only works if one is willing to look at all the evidence and then put aside or modify the hypothesis if it turns out to be wrong.

And here's the problem: if it was mathematics, it would just be a matter of providing an empirical proof. As science stands, though, the ultimate question is 'what answer is the most likely.' Sure, this sounds subjective -- I guess the objective part comes down to how honest each person can be to himself.

Stabby

01-18-2002, 05:18 AM

Are you suggesting, smugg, that it is a deeper problem than Evolution education, but rather an ignorance of Science in general and how it is practiced? That if someone does not understand the fundamentals of the Scientific method, they will generate valueless arguments?

What would the negative consiquences be if, at the begining of any Evolutionary debate you prefaced with the disclaimer:
Before you try to argue with me, first prove you understand the merits of the scientific method and the complex laws of evolution?

Are there any creationists reading who would be offended by such a preface, or find that such a requirement places too much of a burden on your position? Or it simply takes the fun out of the debate?

That is a good question smugg: Philosophical inquiry of nature without the use of scientific tools. I'd say yeah, you could do limited reasoning on geomitry(Plato sure had fun with his triangles). But, i'll have to think about that some. *maybe i didn't understand my own argument. :P

stabby-------

GRANTM

01-19-2002, 02:12 PM

Hi Guys and gals:
Its Grant coming out of left field again

I feel that we get bogged down by trying to infer too much in a problem that we ourselves compound and convolute.

We impose subjective matters on the objective and use objective matter to impose on subjective.

It all boils down to which came first, the chicken or the egg
and if so how?

Let science deal with that which is objective

Let "religious beliefs" deal with that which is subjective,

One does NOT counteract the other. When used properly it reinforces the other.

Please follow:

I propose that the equation of life is

Subjective = Objective

Subjective is that which is the" peace of mind" ( rationale of existence) the realm of religion

Objective is that which is the realm of the sciences

In order to maintain the equation and lead a balanced lifestyle
when one is added to one side ie; increase in science an equal
amount must be added to the other. the difference between the two is evil.

Too much "science" without "peace of mind" leads to utilizing science for that which is of personal or local benefit and therefore creates a fear. Fear begets evil

too much Religion without scientific fact leads to suppression
of freewill, as the human spirits need to strive for perfection is not allowed to flourish

Human History is an example of these manipulations of inequity

In order to maintain this balance and the pursuit of excellence of that which is the human race. It is incumbant on all of us that in order to continue to grow, we must never resolve to diminish one in order to mantain that balance.

Science is not in a position to master that which is not objective,
it cannot create matter, it cannot create that which is not there.
It was never meant to. But keeping that balance with the subjective keeps us on a greater ethical path for all of mankind to grow and prosper. Science is the Universal Objective Proof

In religion, that which is peace of mind, The human race is construed as that of the dominant specie of the earth.( The Mandate of why we are here). The wonders of the earth, which when discovered, In my case, only increases my belief in God,(By which ever name a person uses), It is absolutly necessary to allow science to flourish, for the maximum benefits to grow and appreciate the wonders on this earth and in the universe, In order to carry on properly this mandate. For with that mandate is awesome authority but equal to thats an awsome responsibility to carry out this mandate in a moral and ethical standard for the benefit of all. Religion is Universal Subjective Proof, All religions.

Yes, I agree that science has made some" Interesting" conclusions but as scientific evidence grows and the scientific pursuit continues Ther is change in the terms of reference, Old conclusions are overturned and new ones formulated and thus we grow. As science grows and more interaction between the sciences occur the better off all the sciences are.

I also agree that "religion" also has made some"interesting" interpretations as well, but again as the need for growth has changed those interpretations of religious scriptures. Our Terms of reference being greater hence Religion also grows we have a greater peace of mind.

But I also want to re iterate
Both sides of the equation, when out of balance, and/or manipulated are guilty of great crimes against Humanity.

But when the equilibrium is maintained and both sides allowed to grow, as they must, for that is the direction of mankind as mandated our spirits soar. But if one side or the other of that equation becomes too dominant, or the equation does not continually grow, don't bet on the human race for it will be a dnf
(did not finish)

In conclusion I Feel One should never use any religious scripture to negate science, for that diminishes mankinds right to the pursuit of excellence, to grow. Nor should science be used to negate religious scripture, for that too negates our subjective balance in that pursuit of excellence to grow. Any Conflict between the two usually means, as has occured innumerable times, a forced change in an interpretation or conclusion of context, an evolution of spirit if you will

Stabby

01-19-2002, 07:31 PM

Grantm

I like your Ideas of Balance.
Are you suggesting that Science and Religion stay seperated with no cross-contamination? (Ie. Objective analysis of Subjective experience, and vice versa?)

Would it then be inappropriate for a Very religious person, to set her feelings aside and really understand Evolution? Not to agree with it (because it would contradict scripture, and you've suggested this is not a good outcome of science), but just understand it.

As you state, science as made "interesting" conclusions. Is it a religious duty to Understand those conclusions? Even if they feel counter intuitive from what holy script would have one to believe?

Stabby-----

Stabby

01-19-2002, 07:38 PM

In Another debate "Filling in the Gaps" Twonky's Post (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=630)

Is an example of Twonky simply not understanding Probability.
Was it my responsibility to educate him?
Would it have been a valid for me to say: Twonky, prove to me you understand evolution before you say.

". So, evolution has taken us from a molecule to a man. There is absolutely NO evidence to support that this has happened, yet they claim it COULD have happened because of little mutations over TIME. "

As it stands now, it seems i have the daunting task of educating someone who is in antagonistic mode. What does that mean? It Means i will have very little success in communicating. Any work i do in the vein of education will be wasted, as his brain is looking for ways to "prove his point."

If i require proof of knowledge, i place too much burden on the creationist. This seems like a horrible way to Squelch the debate-- yet, what other options are there?

Stabby----------

Twonky

01-20-2002, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Stabby
Is an example of Twonky simply not understanding Probability.

Um... I understand probability. No need for education on that.

As it stands now, it seems i have the daunting task of educating someone who is in antagonistic mode.

So now I can't even ask a question or make a statement without you thinking I'm being antagonistic?

It Means i will have very little success in communicating. Any work i do in the vein of education will be wasted, as his brain is looking for ways to "prove his point."

Actually, I'll save you the trouble. You're only interested in setting me up in some kind of stereotypical argument to help prove your point. If you have some evidence I'm not aware of, I'm completely open to hearing and completely willing and able to change my view if it works out. Save your ill conceived preconceptions for someone else.

If i require proof of knowledge, i place too much burden on the creationist. This seems like a horrible way to Squelch the debate-- yet, what other options are there?

Say what you want to say and if I don't understand something I'll ask.

All I would ask of you is, keep the assumptions away from the discussion and if you have a question that needs to be answered, ask it.

Stabby

01-21-2002, 12:04 AM

You're only interested in setting me up in some kind of stereotypical argument to help prove your point.

Note how the format of the debate suggests i have a Point to prove. This is not the case.

This thread, in my opinion, was intended to be a reflection on the process. I don't have a point, but a question: Does the Antagonistic model need review?

So now I can't even ask a question or make a statement without you thinking I'm being antagonistic?
There is nothing wrong in being Antagonistic. There should be no shame in being an antagonist. The way debates work, that is your duty.

The question remains: Is demanding proof of understanding too much of a burden for the Creationist?

Stabby-----

GRANTM

01-21-2002, 11:46 AM

Hi Stabby:

Quote:
Are you suggesting that Science and Religion stay seperated with no cross-contamination? (Ie. Objective analysis of Subjective experience, and vice versa?)

Not really, What has to be done is that as scientific credibility continues growing, we must increase our own peace of mind in those areas to maintain the balance, In this current context Creationism vs evolution is an invalid discussion because there is no conflict. Lets examine at its lowest common denominator

In the beginning there was nothing.

Objetive = Subjective

1) Big Bang = God
2) Life forms = God
3) Bio diversity = religious diversity
4) adaption = diversity of religious practice
5) study = ethical and moral interpretation
6) growth = Individual Interpretation of God

Numbers 5 and 6 continuously affect of each other objectivly
and on the subjective side an effect of each other.

Note that in number 1 and 2 above science cannot properly
study objectivly because you cannot study a nothingness
any interpretation is subjective, for then you get, self justification.

Quote:
{Would it then be inappropriate for a Very religious person, to set her feelings aside and really understand Evolution? Not to agree with it (because it would contradict scripture, and you've suggested this is not a good outcome of science), but just understand it.}

Please note that I use the word adaption instead of evolution
for on both sides of the equation the jury is still out. as adaption has been proven by science adjustment to environment
as proposed by many, but scientifically analyzed by Darwin in his treatise the "Origin of the Species," What many people forget it is in the sequel the"Descent Of Man", where Darwin proposed that we are descended from the apes because of sexual practice and development of offspring, in that certain DNA molecules can be
transferred, but try as they might science cannot make a hybrid of a man-ape as has been done with other mammals eg a burrow, or in plant life. genetically modified Plants.

To Date there has never been a "controversy between science and scriptures" that cannot be resolved by reasonable thought, although mankind has tried, and tried hard, to keep one or the other down, eg Galileo, on the religious side
the making of weapons of mass destruction by scientists,

Quote:
{As you state, science as made "interesting" conclusions. Is it a religious duty to Understand those conclusions? Even if they feel counter intuitive from what holy script would have one to believe?}

I think it is the duty of every person to try to understand the concept of 'scientific notation,' and what constitutes the make up of a theory, not necessarily the therum itsself, That would be asking to much, for it imposes upon everyone to be a scientist. However before one can argue an opinion about a given Theory or Understanding they must know at least the rudiments of the theory proposed, Also any discussion or an opinion on a matter must be met with that which Questions a theorum or idea. those that question, and challenge newness of ideas without attacking
learn and grow note I am not stating here it is an acquiesence or agreement in order to grow. But That of an open but skeptical mind. A closed mind Cannot grow.

As for the intuitiveness of what Holy Scripture have one to believe, I feel that is the other way around, one believes in God , and uses his Intuitiveness to understand A Holy Scripture, with help through divine guidance. as to the interpretation for his grace, meaning, and path to follow. In order to grow we must always try to challenge ignorance and also appreciate that which maybe different from us in order for us to grow as each person is an individual.

Twonky

01-21-2002, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Stabby
<pointless sarcasm deleted>

The question remains: Is demanding proof of understanding too much of a burden for the Creationist?

I would suggest it's not. However, I see where you're going with this. As soon as someone objects to something you say, you're going to throw out the 'he just doesn't understand' card (which you've already done that a couple times with me).

When you argue like that, you're not interested in finding out truths, you're only interested in promoting your interpretation of the truth, whether it's right or wrong. Tell somebody they don't know what they're talking about, and THAT changes the focus of the argument.

I for one am ready to find out the truth. If I don't understand what's being said, I'll look it up or ask someone to explain it. If that in turn changes something I believe to be true, I'll change my beliefs. Isn't that how it normally works?

GRANTM

01-21-2002, 04:42 PM

Hi Twonky, stabby

Quote:
{I would suggest it's not. However, I see where you're going with this. As soon as someone objects to something you say, you're going to throw out the 'he just doesn't understand' card (which you've already done that a couple times with me).}

I feel that, in this argument, when you boil off the rhetoric, you are asking the same question but looking at it from differtent terms of perspective. The qualifier is that creationism vs evolution is an invalid argument to begin with. One does not contradict the other. but both sides in this "debate" forget that it is not only possible but highly probable that both theories are correct,
however I would also suggest that some preconceptions on both sides, need to be suspended to get to truth as we know it today, Truth being that which is accepted as fact, until facts change,
Fact is evolution exists today has always existed and will always exist. as environments change so to does life will evolve to meet the challenges of a continually changing environment. But still science cannot create that which is not there.

Quote:

{When you argue like that, you're not interested in finding out truths, you're only interested in promoting your interpretation of the truth, whether it's right or wrong. Tell somebody they don't know what they're talking about, and THAT changes the focus of the argument.}

When two people engage in a debate , if that debate does not take into consideration the " terms of referance" of the parties involved debate then becomes mute and no new knowledge
is gained but debate degenerates into pointless accusation
no questioning or acknowledgment of differing information.

Quote:
{I for one am ready to find out the truth. If I don't understand what's being said, I'll look it up or ask someone to explain it. If that in turn changes something I believe to be true, I'll change my beliefs. Isn't that how it normally works?}

Let us not get caught up in semantics fact does not necessarily mean truth as both truth and fact are both relative terms of expression dedicated to the here and now

as an example: the moon revolves around the Earth:
Fact yes, Truth yes, But has the Moon Always revolved the Earth?
Will the moon always revolve around the Earth? We dont Know
the answers to these two questions. In The earliest of times it was thought that everything revolves around the earth that was observable fact and therefore truth in accordance within the terms of referance at that time, This was scripturally correct also, facts changed with enlightenment and education. Yet no one changed their beliefs, but what did occur was a better knowledge to enable us to continue on our differing paths to a better understanding, of scripture as well. This change in fact did not change the scriptures, but a better understanding of the scriptures ensue.

It is mankinds weakness, his basic objection to change his Comfort Zone that causes the conflicts not science or scripture.
but the imposition on that comfort zone to reconcile theses percieved differences for thats all this debate is conception and preconception.

We as individuals must always strive for that pursuit of knowledge, I believe that when we do in is reinforcement of belief not change in beliefs it is not nor evere has been an either or proposition.

Stabby

01-22-2002, 02:13 AM

What has to be done is that as scientific credibility continues growing, we must increase our own peace of mind in those areas to maintain the balance,

Are you suggesting that Creationist thought promotes Peace of mind? Are you suggesting that only by accepting portions of Creationist thought, that you can have spiritual peace?

However before one can argue an opinion about a given Theory or Understanding they must know at least the rudiments of the theory proposed,

This seems to be the main problem in the Creationist/Evolutionist debate: the rudiments are misunderstood. How would you like someone to say: Jesus didn't exist because men are not 14 feet tall! Yet, some objections to Evolution appear almost as ridiculous.

The qualifier is that creationism vs evolution is an invalid argument to begin with. One does not contradict the other.

I cannot see how both could be correct.
Earth age claims and permanency of organism claims each contradict Evolution directly. It is obvious that a "debate" must occur. Unless you are suggesting that a Creationist can "feel" the same way about their religious nature and accept evolution. But, if this is the case, the debate has therefore been won by the Evolutionist camp.

All This is beyond the context of this debate though.
The question posed, that if creationists and Evolutions debate, must the creationist pre-qualify thier position by providing a proof they understand the Counter-Intuitive aspects of Evolutionary thought? Proving that the Question itself has problems is interesting, but seems off topic.

Stabby--------

Stabby

01-22-2002, 06:10 AM

Twonky-

Yeah, i think you're seeing where i'm comming from.

If you ask any hard-core Evolutionary biologist you'll hear over and over again the complaint that creationist just have a very misguided understanding of Evolution.

When you argue like that, you're not interested in finding out truths, you're only interested in promoting your interpretation of the truth, whether it's right or wrong.

Is asking for proof of understanding an underhanded way of promoting the interpretation or is it a first step to a useful debate?

stabby---

GRANTM

01-22-2002, 02:29 PM

Hi Stabby: Causing me to really think again are you ...
Thanks

Quote:
{Are you suggesting that Creationist thought promotes Peace of mind?}

Creationist Thought: In terms of thought, being defined as the reconciliation of the subjective, acceptance or rejection by means of reason, is the only way to justify that which is not objective,
Can any science create something from nothing? No it can't. Therefore, the thought process of how the universe formed cannot be objective, therefore for the peace of mind of the answer to that question, my reconciliation, is GOD.

Quote:
{ Are you suggesting that only by accepting portions of Creationist thought, that you can have spiritual peace?

I'd like to use an example here, in general is lets look at the time when Galileo was imprisoned for heresy for supporting his own and copernican ideas of the universe, his subsequent release and then the subsequent general acceptance of those theories furthured the sciences as they now had no reason to work in fear, this caused the religious heirarchy at the time to adopt a new view, The average man however, had no problem with the accepted practices of the church, or its teachings, and grew in both available contexts subjective and objective. for remember
education at that time was the domaine of the church.Obviously
It did nothing that affected the religious other a forced review of the suspect passages, but now there was greater peace of mind in that scientific study could proceed in peace.

Quote:
{This seems to be the main problem in the Creationist/Evolutionist debate: the rudiments are misunderstood. How would you like someone to say: Jesus didn't exist because men are not 14 feet tall! Yet, some objections to Evolution appear almost as ridiculous.}

This is one of the basic problems of mankind itself and both sides are guilty of this. As expounded by myself on earlier posts,
I feel that mankind has two major faults, His insecurity and arrogance. It is much easier to accept an all or nothing situation,
rather than looking at its parts and try understand each part of a complexity. The given are thesame, accept all or nothing. Mankind also has a tendancy to take both past and future and apply it to todays standards.

Did God create man? Yes, There is no proven scientific fact that
counters that as yet. Has man evolved? Yes, there are numerous
races of man. Can these races interact ? Yes, therefore they are of the same specie root. Was Mankind, when first created, like he is today? The answer is NO, why? because he has evolved into the now current diverse forms, the origins must be different. will mankind continue to evolve?Yes, unless we blow ourselves up first (do not need biblical scripture for that). How will we evolve? No Idea.

Quote:
{I cannot see how both could be correct.}

Nowhere in the preceeding does creationism contradict evolution.

Quote:
{Earth age claims and permanency of organism claims each contradict Evolution directly. It is obvious that a "debate" must occur. Unless you are suggesting that a Creationist can "feel" the same way about their religious nature and accept evolution. But, if this is the case, the debate has therefore been won by the Evolutionist camp.}

As for earth age claims, The age of the earth is not in the scriptures of any religious text, Where age comes from is a speculation, a conjecture , a study by which an analysis was undertaken, from biblical sources, I agree but with any scientific theory, lasts until a new and better analysis takes place, examples are the study of the vedic scriptures which put the age of the earth at 10,000. etc etc. none of which is contained in the scriptures themselves. I think it foolhardy for either side to hold to these truths as neither is scriptural nor scientific, truths that which is not confirmed are no more than truisms. eg The world is flat

{All This is beyond the context of this debate though.
The question posed, that if creationists and Evolutions debate, must the creationist pre-qualify thier position by providing a proof they understand the Counter-Intuitive aspects of Evolutionary thought? Proving that the Question itself has problems is interesting, but seems off topic.}

Stabby, Stabby, Stabby, you take me this far and then tell me we are off topic tsk. tsk. tsk, :D

If the debate itsself is to be conducted in a formalized setting such as Scientific / Ecumenical round table to derive at a mutual consent or disenting opinion, for a published article, Yes, but if you are looking at debating the issue in a forum such as this, No because just the intuitive factors alone, ie opinion, allow for this to take place here.
but all should remember that when we engage in debate, the classical formulation of argument must be respected, and not to parry and attack then run away and hide behind biblical conjecture,or scientific theorums. For a meaninful discourse to take place on this issue, as we lack the scholarsip needed to settle the issue, all we hope for is a better understanding of those who are the debaters. Let that be represented as positive.

Stabby

01-23-2002, 05:45 AM

Evolutionary Thought is not interested in explaining Original Creation, (i.e.: Big bang). That is more of a Quantuum Mechanics model.

Thus, your objection is mute in regards to Evolution being an objective method in a Subjective realm(nothingness).

New model to accomidate Evolution. (not "adaptation", which is a distraction to evolutionary intuitions)

Objective=Subjective

1) Big Bang = God
2) Chemical Behavior = Life
3) Evolution = Diversity
4) Neuro-networks = Observation
5) Consciousness = Mind, ethical and moral interpretation, Religion
6) Psychology = Individual Interpretation of God in relation to
self.
(hypothetical next step)
7) Progression= Understanding

Note How evolution, under your model, even altered to harmonize with its useage, Can't be placed opposite Creationism. The creative act took place 2 steps earlier.

The subjective can be reconciled whilst still exisiting in a pure Evolutionary model. Just shift things around some.

Was Mankind, when first created, like he is today? The answer is NO,

Then there is no reason not to say God created man as Chemicals under your model. Once again, the Subjective vs. Objective problem is still solved, with a simple switch of semantics.

But there is a problem. The linguistic tweaking of "pre-man creature" definition makes the original Creationist/Evolutionist question once again, valid.

I think, by definition, Creationism demands that humans began as one pair (adam/eve), they had arms, legs, toes and tongues (no belly buttons though). It uses Ideals to explain observations.
What you are suggesting is not Creationism-- and therefore does not provide an accurate critique of the Evolution vs Creationist debate.

You can say the evolution vs. Something sort of like Creationism is not a valid dichotomy. But, that again, would be a different topic. :)

Stabby-----------

GRANTM

01-23-2002, 11:02 AM

Hi Stabby:
Quote:
Evolutionary Thought is not interested in explaining Original Creation, (i.e.: Big bang). That is more of a Quantuum Mechanics model.

This is so, Glad we can make that distinction some creationists,
Lump all of genesis chapter 1 together . the universal creationism theory.

Quote:
Thus, your objection is mute in regards to Evolution being an objective method in a Subjective realm(nothingness).

I'll accept that ...for now:p

Quote:
{New model to accomidate Evolution. (not "adaptation", which is a distraction to evolutionary intuitions)

Lets do it! this should be fun

Revised model # 3

Objective=Subjective

1) Big Bang = God

2) Chemical Behavior = Life

No problem here if Life is construed as chemical reaction.
The reconciliation here therefore needs one more step
Organic developement from an inorganic cause I propose

2a) specieization =God
my rationale is that on the objective side we cannot make the Causal link between the formation of life from the inorganic and cannot determinization of inter-specie causality.

2B) Evolution = Instinct for survival

I believe that if we can accept 2b then it folloes that 3 is a given all I'm trying to show here is the causal effect

3) Evolution = Diversity

Yes. it addresses my concerns that unfettered evolution would be a sameness rather than diversity.

4) Neuro-networks = Observation + basic interpretive rationality

Yes a most needed step but I also add the interpretative here
as the technique of observation for survival

Therefore I believe that step 7 belongs here for it introduces
consciousness as the objective case and introduces the subjective understanding of the utilization of the Mind
5)( formally step 7) Progression = Understanding

6) Consciousness = Mind, ethical and moral interpretation, Religion

7) Psychology = Individual Interpretation of God in relation to
self.
(hypothetical next step)

Note How evolution, under your model, even altered to harmonize with its useage, Can't be placed opposite Creationism. The creative act took place 2 steps earlier. I'll accept that

The subjective can be reconciled whilst still exisiting in a pure Evolutionary model. Just shift things around some.

No problemo lets proceed with the basic development of the model then fine tune to argue over the minute except as a natural progession of developement will only bog this discourse down.

Quote:
But there is a problem. The linguistic tweaking of "pre-man creature" definition makes the original Creationist/Evolutionist question once again, valid.

If we look back at our developing model and can set aside preconcieved ideology, for the sake of discussion, accept 2a and 2 b as a subjective hypothesis of lack of objective proof not a challenge of objectivity we can reconcile that lack and thus continue .

Quote:
{ think, by definition, Creationism demands that humans began as one pair (adam/eve), they had arms, legs, toes and tongues (no belly buttons though). It uses Ideals to explain observations.
What you are suggesting is not Creationism-- and therefore does not provide an accurate critique of the Evolution vs Creationist debate.}

Of course I look upon creationism differently than the fundamentalist approach.I feel disappointed that you seem to feel
that any discourse on creationism must be that from fulmentalist.
to be meaningful.For fundamental science, and fundamental creationism is also unargueable for the same stalement will always be achieved. Can no Middle ground be attained.

You can say the evolution vs. Something sort of like Creationism is not a valid dichotomy. But, that again, would be a different topic. :)

Yes Indeed ther are very few opposites where there is not an attraction somewhere.

universe

01-24-2002, 09:47 AM

Oops! I posted without reading the second page of the thread and was then unable to delete my post.

Sorry!

Universe

Stabby

01-25-2002, 04:18 AM

No problem here if Life is construed as chemical reaction. The reconciliation here therefore needs one more step Organic developement from an inorganic cause I propose

Not a problem. Many times Fire is described as alive, or a hurricane is alive or a Star.

]2a) specieization =God
my rationale is that on the objective side we cannot make the Causal link between the formation of life from the inorganic and cannot determinization of inter-specie causality.
This is a bit too abrupt and glosses over some very interesting and notable cases. Are viruses alive? Are mitochondrion alive? Are the cells of your skin alive? Are those cells more alive than the group of cells as a whole?

Before we can jump to Species, we need to clarify the Levels of aliveness.

It is here where language fails to be any use.

2B) Evolution = Instinct for survival

I believe that if we can accept 2b then it folloes that 3 is a given all I'm trying to show here is the causal effect

I'm not sure this distinction helps clairify the Subjective counterpart to Evolution. Rather, it muddles it. I would omit this point, yet you seem to be linking it to points further along.
Evolution and Instinct are related, but at a very minimal level.

It seems that Labeling and language are very important to your notion of Subjectivity. Its almost as if i could replace your "god" or "subjective" qualifiers with "linguistic representation."

If there was no need to label reality, then Subjectivity would be a mute point. As humans, we can't do this though. We are linguistic creatures.

Maybe one of the Non-Intuitive Aspects of Evolution is its minimal appeal to Linguistic categories. All models of understanding Reality have been language dependant. Yet in seems evolution has found this a poor model.

stabby-----------

GRANTM

01-25-2002, 04:52 PM

Hi Stabby: sorry for my rushed replies, stating my busy season, I'm an Independant accountant ,my Busy season is starting.
and occaisionally I become rushed.

Quote:
{This is a bit too abrupt and glosses over some very interesting and notable cases. Are viruses alive? Are mitochondrion alive? Are the cells of your skin alive? Are those cells more alive than the group of cells as a whole?}
{Before we can jump to Species, we need to clarify the Levels of aliveness.}

Okay so unresolved difference, here, However please consider
that when I refer to specieization I am referring to the original man, not how man appears now , similarly the first creation of
the first Specie involved. not as they are tpday

My rationale for that is that natural Intra-breeding has occurred but as of yet there is no scientific proof of Inter-breeding
{eg wolves and dogs Intra breeding : Wolves and man Inter breeding) but trying to get at the base root. the first ancester of the wolf the first ancester of man.

Not the development of man. Thats evolution.

Quote:
{I'm not sure this distinction helps clairify the Subjective counterpart to Evolution. Rather, it muddles it. I would omit this point, yet you seem to be linking it to points further along.
Evolution and Instinct are related, but at a very minimal level.}

What I am trying to get at here is that "instinct" is subjective, what gives the instinct for survival, I think it CAN have great interact with Evolution, eg, basic behavior.

Qoute:
{If there was no need to label reality, then Subjectivity would be a mute point. As humans, we can't do this though. We are linguistic creatures. }

Yes Thats it in a nut shell , But we are linguistic by Nature, and therefore must use this capacity of ours for proper communication

Quote:
{one of the Non-Intuitive Aspects of Evolution is its minimal appeal to Linguistic categories. All models of understanding Reality have been language dependant. Yet in seems evolution has found this a poor model}

Of course it would, it is predominately subjective in nature,
therefore a very hard model to set up, and linguistic determination is a fleeting glimpse, ie everchanging and evolving at the same time.

Debbiek

01-26-2002, 07:27 PM

Corbin

01-27-2002, 03:10 AM

I don't have to have a master's degree in geology to understand that the world is 6000 yrs old instead of 4.6 billion. Lava is on top of Mt. Butte. Marine fossils are on top of Mt. Everest. Fossils verify global flood. The rate meteorites are generally agreed to fall, & their low numbers near fossils, show that the method used to age the earth, radiometric dating, is bunk. An atheist uses atheist scientists to explain their big bang theory, and a Christian should be listening to a Christian scientist to prove their Bible is literally the truth. Many times the debate between the 2 scientists result in the conversion of the evolutionist scientist to Christianity. Sky Angel has a many reknowned Christian scientists on their show, "Creation Network".

You don't know the first thing about radiometric dating. If you did any acual research on it, you would know that it's not "bunk". Regardless of the scientist, they will all tell you that radiometric dating is far from useless.

Radiometric Dating #1 (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html)

Radiometric Dating for Beginners (http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/radiometric-for-beginners.html)

Stabby

01-27-2002, 08:40 AM

Grant-
Good luck with the busy season.

Not the development of man. Thats evolution.

My rationale for that is that natural Intra-breeding has occurred but as of yet there is no scientific proof of Inter-breeding

Yes Thats it in a nut shell , But we are linguistic by Nature, and therefore must use this capacity of ours for proper communication

*Bolds are mine.

The imposition of your subjective language for "proper communication" causes conflict with Evolution. Evolution describes reality (organisms) that are in flux over time. Thus, to impose "names" and "distinctions" is pointless. In the above, you're hindered by development vs. Evolution, as if the labels we as humans give organisms carry any meaning. Then you need to generate Intra vs Inter breeding, to salvage your linguistic terms. It is the very way you know organisms: Language, which needs to be eliminated. Simplicity wins the day.

Returning to my original claim, as you point out, we are linguistic by nature. Thus, Evolution -which is non-linguisitic- is counter-Intuitive. And therefore, anyone who wishes to be critical of Evolutionary Thought, must first PROVE they understand this Counter-Intuitive quality.

Stabby--------------------

Stabby

01-27-2002, 08:45 AM

Note in the above exchange: Debbiek vs Corbin, the discussion quickly becomes the Corbin education series.

He really has no way to aruge with Debbiek, until she proves she understands the issues at hand. Rather than wait for this, Corbin directs her to a few educational web sites.

This exchange, again begs the question: Is understanding Evolution required?

Would it be valid for Corbin to say: i understand you have alot of passion over YEC theories, but until you prove you understand evolution(not agree mind you) i can't take you seriously.

Is that not what he's already said, in a round about way, by placing those links?

stabby----------

GRANTM

01-27-2002, 12:54 PM

[QUOTE]Hi Stabby
Quote:
Good luck with the busy season.
Thanks , coffee to keep me up. sugar to keep me going, cream for vitamin deficiency, A complete and balanced diet. :D

Quote:
{The imposition of your subjective language for "proper communication" causes conflict with Evolution. Evolution describes reality (organisms) that are in flux over time.}

Can we add the word objective just before ... Reality(organisms)
I ask this a) just to keep both sides of the basic equation equal, 2) I am not trying here to reduce evolutionay practicality, only to reconcile, that difference in scientific proof, which is that evolutionary concept proves the existence of Modern man, from Adam There has been no link made from any other specie to Adam Similar to that of any other specie, Interspeciation cannot be proven indeed there is more scientific evidence to preclude that event.my contetion is here that, God created the FIRST of inter specie, Evolution explains how that first specie developed into the hear and now. If we go back and accept that number one is correct, That unreconciled lack of evolutionary proof being you can't cross a wolf with an elephant, down to its lowest common denominator, what is the first specie that created wolf
the first specie that created elephant.

Of course this is the basic difference between Macro creationism
and Macro-Evolution. Both theories of which I feel is in error.
Macro science cannot find the connection, Macro Creationism ignores it.

Quote:
Thus, to impose "names" and "distinctions" is pointless. In the above, you're hindered by development vs. Evolution, as if the labels we as humans give organisms carry any meaning. Then you need to generate Intra vs Inter breeding, to salvage your linguistic terms. It is the very way you know organisms: Language, which needs to be eliminated. Simplicity wins the day.

Yes, I agree, too many debates and discussions aare terminated too soon because of misunderstanding of interpretaion of verbage are misconstrued.

Quote:
Returning to my original claim, as you point out, we are linguistic by nature. Thus, Evolution -which is non-linguisitic- is counter-Intuitive. And therefore, anyone who wishes to be critical of Evolutionary Thought, must first PROVE they understand this Counter-Intuitive quality.

Yes, but it must be a two-way street, from both sides, as both you and I have demononstrated that by trying to bridge that gap,
and establish, just a piece of common ground we can move a little forward. and senseably through debate such as this we have both grown a little,

smugg

01-27-2002, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Debbiek
I don't have to have a master's degree in geology to understand that the world is 6000 yrs old instead of 4.6 billion. Lava is on top of Mt. Butte. Marine fossils are on top of Mt. Everest. Fossils verify global flood. The rate meteorites are generally agreed to fall, & their low numbers near fossils, show that the method used to age the earth, radiometric dating, is bunk. An atheist uses atheist scientists to explain their big bang theory, and a Christian should be listening to a Christian scientist to prove their Bible is literally the truth. Many times the debate between the 2 scientists result in the conversion of the evolutionist scientist to Christianity. Sky Angel has a many reknowned Christian scientists on their show, "Creation Network".

In your view of the world there may be two types of scientist (Christian and atheist) but in reality there is only one type of scientist. These scientists, like all humans, come in many different colors and creeds -- even if that makes you uncomfortable. Yes, there are atheist scientists, but there are also Islamic scientists, Buddhists, Jews, and even Christians.

But here's the thing about science: it's built on evidence and logic, not an argument from authority (like scripture), so anyone who calls themselves a scientist but finds it necessary to declare their practice Christian science (and no, I don't mean Christian Science as preached by Mary Baker Eddy) are actually missionaries. If what they're doing is really science, the distinction is not necessary.

So in answer to your post, I'll say first that instead of searching out some obscure show which finally agrees with what you already believe, take a look in an encyclopedia or college biology textbook when you're looking for science and go to church when you're looking for religion. More specific points:

"Lava is on top of Mt. Butte."

I have no idea what this means or how it refutes evolution.

"Marine fossils are on top of Mt. Everest. Fossils verify global flood."

Actually, the top of mount Everest is so inhospitable that nobody has ever camped out long enough to dig for fossils -- many can't even make the trip. It is true, though, that the Tibetan Plateau, about 16,000 feet above sea level, has large sedimentary beds with plenty of marine fossils. Scientists have learned that this region was once below sea level and is being lifted by the collision of India's tectonic plate into Asia. Your "global flood" theory is cute but doesn't actually hold up to any real scrutiny. the sedimentary rock in Tibet took somewhat longer than 150 days to lay down and the sheer amount of fossils up there make us wonder how all those aquatic animals and plants made the journey in such a short time. But more than that, where's the water? If it evaporated it must still be in the atmosphere. We are talking about something along the lines of one and a half billion cubic miles of the stuff.

"The rate meteorites are generally agreed to fall, & their low numbers near fossils, show that the method used to age the earth, radiometric dating, is bunk."

Hmm. I'm not sure what the rate of meteorites fall has to do with radiometric dating. Corbin has provided some links already, but I'd like to add this one: Geologic Time and the Fossil Record (http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/visualgeology/geology101/lab6time.htm) from the geology department of San Diego State University.

GRANTM

01-27-2002, 01:41 PM

I think in the DebbieK/Corbin discourse I feel is an example of the overall problem, lack of appreciation, not determination. That is of Blind Faith, The touble with Blind faith is that they search for justifying opinion only and delagate any other opinion as nonsensical interpretation. I must say here that applies to some scientists as well. Please note I do not lump all creationists nor scientists into that grouping. It is never to be assumed that all creationist hold the same view, as it is the same that all scientists do not hold the same views. However scientific types while holding their views, are more readily able to adapt for the whole point of science is skeptivity,IE Continued challenge and therefore more readily appreciate the dissentors point of view. the objective.

The same is not that which is, blind faith, in Religion, because it is totally subjective, a mindset if you will, just a hint of objective
positive re-inforcement more impresses that into the mindset.

examples Fossils on top of Everest, plate tectonic scientists would be very surprised if there were not, because of the collision of the sub-continent of India into Asia proper would cause the Himalayas to rise and therfore as the tops erode these fossils would appear, but that opinion is discounted because the of the initial mindset and the positive re-inforcement of a minority opinion .

GRANTM

01-27-2002, 01:48 PM

Sorry Smugg: our replies overlapped,
How do you Feel about the attempt Stabby And I are making
about the reconciliation of C/E.?

Debbiek

01-27-2002, 04:30 PM

The excess water from the global flood created gorges such as the Grand Canyon, & other miniscule ones, & created differing levels of sea bottom. The occurance of the flood was created by volcanic eruptions on the sea floors.

smugg

01-27-2002, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Debbiek
The excess water from the global flood created gorges such as the Grand Canyon, & other miniscule ones, & created differing levels of sea bottom. The occurance of the flood was created by volcanic eruptions on the sea floors.

But where is the water now?

The early Hebrews (and authors of Genesis) seemed to think that the waters were from the formless void -- the chaotic waters held back by the 'firmament.' This crystal dome of the heavens had all the stars fixed to it and when there was light, people noticed it was blue. It appears they thought this was because it held up all the water which God separated to create the earth.

Some Scripture:

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
Genesis 1:6

Strong's Concordance tells us that raqiya` {raw-kee'-ah} (the Hebrew word translated here as firmament) means:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
1a) expanse (flat as base, support)
1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1b1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

We now know that there is no such thing, nor can we find evidence that there ever was such a thing. But to continue--

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Genesis 1:14

Of course, most of us no longer believe the stars are merely there for the convenience of our calendars or astrologers -- most of the stars' 'signs' have been long discredited. We now know that these 'lights in the firmament of heaven' are actually stars and planets which have their own things going on -- maybe even life of their own.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
Genesis 7:11

"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."
Genesis 7:22

It seems worth noting here that among the aforementioned dead would also be all the fresh water fish (who couldn't handle the sudden salinization of the entire earth) and most species of plant (as they were denied sunlight and carbon dioxide for several months) since they weren't included on the extremely crowded (okay, let's be honest -- there's no way Noah's box could have contained all those animals and insects) ark.

"And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."
Genesis 7:24

"And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that [was] with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;"
Genesis 8:1

The waters just up and disappeared. Now, the authors of Genesis didn't understand evaporation, thermodynamics, atmospheric pressure, or many other things we now know would make this event flatly impossible so you can hardly blame them. I suppose Yaweh could have wiggled His nose (or folded His arms and blinked His eyes -- a theological debate for another thread, perhaps) and made them go away to some other magical dimension, but that's just speculation. What evidence do we have to lead us to this conclusion?

Which brings up what may be the whole point. Even if all this were magically true, why study it? It's just a miracle. Why teach it in schools? Shouldn't we follow the evidence we do have and at least find out what God wanted us to think?

It's a fact that species appear to share common ancestry in the past. It's a fact that all the world's organisms are built with the exact same building blocks. It's a fact that the geologic column looks very old. It's a fact that the most distant objects we can see in space are so far away it takes light billions of years just to reach us.

Given all this and working from the assumption that the Jews of 3,000 years ago had the origin of our universe precisely correct, couldn't it be that God gave us all this evidence for a reason? Wouldn't it be blasphemy for us not to at least 'play along?'