Evolution vs Creation

[WildcatDan]

Curious to see what everyone thinks and then I will weigh in.

So..... Do you beleive in evolution? If so, why?

If you believe in Creation, why?

Do you subscribe to some other theory of how the earth was populated?

What is it? Be specific!

[CaptainLucid]

I think the real answer is in the fact that the entire issue is irrelevant to the way I have a relationship with a creator - God here and now. The reason I say this is because the conversation is usualy used as a tool by one party or the other to try and convince the other that they are right.

That being said, I think it is a mixture of both. The primary fact that I hold to is that there is one personal God who created everything and ultimatly me. Use evelution to try and disprove the existance of God and this is false.

It does not disproove God, it is simply an explanation of how he could have done things.

I also very firmly believe in micro evelution because I can observe this with my own eyes in my garden.

I also believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and is true. However, I think that american christians tend to misinterpret the original hebrew in genesis to suit their ends and proove their point.

A case in point is that the hebrew word for day is the same word used for many longer periods of time. I'm not saying that the entire bible is a metaphor like more liberal christians suggest and that genesis is really just a colorful fairytail.

However I also think that just because something is not mentioned in the bible does not mean that it does not exist or did not happen.

One book on creationism that I read suggested that the words for "in the beggining" can be interpreted as "in *a* beggining" or "in *our* beggining".

So in the end, I think some things do evolve, but I also think that God created man as a descrete creature with a soul.

He may (and most likely was from human remains) shorter and postured differantly, but I do not think that he came from apes.

but as I mentioned before, those are just my thoughts on the subject.

I do not think it has absolutly any effect on the fact that I have experianced a very real and personal relationship with my God today.

[CoreyDavis]

Well the issue with Evolution is you have to go farther to back and ask yourself what created what can evolve? That is enough evidence for me :cool:.

[WildcatDan]

Alrighty then... no evolutionists in the mix? How odd....

I started this topic because it is something that I am passionate about. If you guys have any questions you would like addressed I am actually co-leading a study on creationism and have delved very deeply into this stuff so ask away!

Here is my position.

I believe in a literal six day creation. As Lucid mentioned there are several Hebrew words for "day" but he is mistaken in his reference to this particular usage (nto suprising with all of the different "studies" out there). The word used to describe the days of creation is the word that is used to describe a 24 hour period.

There is another reference to "days" in Genesis that IS the other word and that is when it is describing the story of Noah - the "day" in that instance is a term used to describe a period of time. It would be like us saying "it rained FOREVER".

I believe that God created the earth, the sky, the stars, the sun and the moon, and all creatures in the air, water, and on the earth.

I believe that God created Adam and then created Eve using one of Adam's ribs.

I believe that Adam and Eve are the great great great great great great (etc) grandparents of every human on earth.

I believe the similar characteristics of every living thing in all of the awesome diversity on earth is not from a common bacterial ancestor in a pool of goop, I believe similar characteristics is evidence ofa commonCreator.

I believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old and not millions and millions of years old.
There is a lot more that I believe but I will get into that later.

Now here is the "why" I am interested so deeply in this. I don't think this subject has any bearing on MY beliefs. My beliefs are established and they are not going anywhere.

However, I DO worry about current or future generations who are subjected to the evolution theory without being given the opposite viewpoint.

Why Dan? Why are you so concerned? Because if you can discredit Genesis you can plant a seed that the whole Bible is Not Right.

Do I think it is a conspiracy? Dang right I do. It takes a lot of effort by a lot of people to bury some of the information that has been discovered in the last 25 years - but people rarely hear about it.

Here are some things I will be glad to go into more detail on....

Why the earth HAS to be old to support the evolution theory and proof that it is young.

How evolution could NOT occur by chance and the roll that "Irreducible complexity" plays.

How man used to be, not smaller, but BIGGER than he is now.

Who did Adam and Eve's kids marry? And a whole ton of other stuff...

I will stop there for now... Is there anything you guys would like to ask or comment on?

[CaptainLucid]

yeah, good post Dan. I do disagree on a few points though. I went back and checked my sources on the hebrew word for day. Both of my parents speak hebrew (not to well) and that is where I got my original info so I could swallow that they are wrong. However, to check I went back to the wife of my smallgroup leader who spent 5 years in isreal studying ancient hebrew. She has the entire torah memorized in its original form. She told me that the majority of scholars believe that the word can be used for a much longer period of time. However, there is one school of thought saying that it is literal. It is all very difficult to pin down because no one actualy speaks the original language anymore and there is very limited sources of hebrew that old. But that is just semantics.

I also believe in a basic premise that says "God does not try and play tricks on us" What I mean by this is that he would not put dinosour bones in the ground and never had them exist and things like that. Now I do beleive that we can misinterpret what he puts there, but if I see a human footprint in the ground, I'm going to assume that a human or something like a human walked there.

That being said, I have herd extreamly good arguments for the earth being as young as 10'000-6,000 years old. The best theory that I have heard I think is called the catastrophy theory and has to do with the fact that conditions on earth may have been drasticly differant than they are today because of catastrophes such as the flood. If this is true, then all of our dating techniques are totaly bogus. A good example of this is extream volcanic activity can cause highly elevated levels of carbon in the atmosphere. With such a high amount of carbon available, the original amount of carbon 14 compared to carbon 16 could have been differant and thus our techniques for carbon dating would predict much longer periods of decay in the order of 10^6.

However I have heard equaly compeling evidance saying that the earth is much older and that the bible is OK with that. One of this biggest issues that I have is that the universe as a whole can be almost exactly dated to several billion years because of the redshift in background radiation. This is a subject that I know about 100 times more about than geology and biology so I am pretty darn convinced that the universe is that old. However, I think the acount in genesis simply gives an order and an explanation of how God went about things and not a 6 day creation. I think it is better translated as God did .... then he did .... then he did .... But I totaly understand where you are coming from and you may very well be right, just my personal opinion.

But back to the original thread, I don't think man evolved from lower species. But he was made in God's image. On a side topic does the bible say that no other animals were ever created in Gods image? Do other animals have souls? Where do other animals go when they die? I think that all those questions relate very much to evelution because if animals are like us in a spiritual sense, then I could see a good argument being made that man did evolve and it is not a problem with the bible (I don't beleive this, just saying what if, and what would I say to someone who beleived that) Personaly I do think Animals have a spirit and they are not just a biological reaction. But I do think man was created in his present form by God.

[WildcatDan]

wildcatfan_7 wrote: as far as adem and eve's kids i have researched that a little and noticed one thing in the creatoion story. it first says God created man and women then says God created Adam then Eve so therefore there were other ppl on earth just not in the garden, also adam and eve had not three but i think it was 9 kids whcich many pl dont no, well i will tell u the exact verse later dont have time to look it up.

what is your postion on dinosurars and where do they fit in the bible



Actually Adam and Eve were the first people created and we don't really know HOW many kids they had. Adam and Eve lived for a LONG time and had perfect DNA so they were not limited to having kids in just the first 30 years of life like we are. Adam lived to be hundreds of years old and he and Eve had many many many children. Imagine if you will that we were fertileuntilwe were 80 years old. How many kids could we have in thattime?:shock:

One question that critics of the Bible like to ask is "Where did Cain's wife come from?"

Give up?

He married his sister. With theirperfect DNA this would not be a problem. Incest did not become an issue until much later when our DNA had been damaged by mutations.

Dinosaurs - Interesting question but not as complex and answer as you may think. They were created on day 6 with all of the other animals. They were taken on the ark with Noah (very young ones for size reasons) and then mostly died off after the flood due to environmental changes and (probably) being hunted by man. (There were MAJOR environmental changes after the flood and I will explore that in a later post). However, there is evidence in MANY cultures that dinosaurs lived well into our time period. Many different cultures have legends of "dragons" which include drawings which look a lot like a dinosaur. There have also been reports in several different parts of the world of dinosaurs existing IN THIS CENTURY. So, where do they fit in the Bible? Right along side every other animal on the Ark.

Before I go into the age of the earth let me point out one of the problems with the term "evolution". The problem is that all forms of evolution are typically lumped into one category. Does evolution exist? Yes, it does. But not like Darwin proposed. Microevolution is small changes within a species or a "kind" that cause different characteristics to show up over time - but still gives you the same "kind" of animal in the end. That part of evolution is true - that really happens and has been observed. Macro evolution - one kind of animal becoming another kind of animal has NEVER been observed and is complete bunk. Macro evolution is the part of evolution that Darwin proposed was the base of ALL life on earth. The problem with Macro evolution is that it requires billions of years for even a little bit of diversity to appear so the earth HAS to be old for evolution to work. I will have to expand on age of the Earth later - time to head home from work. ;)

[WildcatDan]

Lucid - what you described is called the Gap theory - that there were hundreds or millions of years between each "day" in the Bible. I do NOT beleive in the gap theory and I will expand more on that later tonight! Off to home!

[WildcatDan]

wildcatfan_7 wrote:

hey wildcatdan i thought that about adam and eve to until i read the creation closely it first says:

and God said Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; aand let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over all the fowl of the air, adn over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over everyhting that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created manin his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:26-27 then the bible says: and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground adn breathed into ihis nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -Genesis 2:7-

so u see thatGod firstcreated male and female then he created adam


No, you are looking at that wrong. The Genesis 2:7 passage is a reiteration of (and expansion on) what was stated in Genesis 1 - not another seperate event. It is the same event mentioned twice. Genesis 2 goes back through and explains a little bit more detail on what happened in Genesis 1. Read both chapters all the way through and you will see that is what is happening. Here is a link tochapter one and you can go to the next chapter from that site.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=31



Gap theory - refer to the same verses and you will see that the Bible gives no indication of anything more than a literal six day creation. I am not going to argue with you further about the meaning of the word DAY because I am not going to change your mind from that aspect, but let me show you in the verses themselves that it makes it pretty clear that these were literal 24 hour periods. Genesis says (several times) statements like "...there was evening, and there was morning—the first day" Exodus 20:11 says, "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." Pretty clear. Check out this timeline for some more interesting points on a young earth and a timeline from Adam to Jesus http://www.drdino.com:8080/QandA/CreationEvolution/longevity.pdf

There is a very interesting book to read if you would like to delve into how Einstein's theory (Einstein DID NOT beleive in the Bible) of relativity can explain the different relative age of the earth vs the farthest parts of the universe - Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994.- The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center - perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out". (Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1, 2 Sam. 22:10, Psalm 144:5, Ezekiel 1:22, Isaiah 48:13, Job 26:7, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 51:13, Job 37:18, Isaiah 44:24, Jer. 51:15, Psalm 18:9, Isaiah 45:12. )Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we find that we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.

The time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. (Thisexplains the red shift in background that Lucid mentioned earlier - it DOES fit both the Biblical account of a young Earth AND physics.) This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones. (most of this was taken from an article summing up the book mentioned above) There is much more interesting information on this subject in the book but it is not exaclty exciting reading.

[CaptainLucid]

I am interested where you pull that the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. I'm not dissagreeing with you, I just haven't heard a compelling argument for it yet and I would like to hear. Any verses you can point me too?

[WildcatDan]

Well, this IS where He created us in His image - AND where He sent His son to die for us. I would say that is pretty compelling evidence for us being the center of his attention.

[CaptainLucid]

I'm not so sure. Is it possible he could have created other things in his image? the bible does not say. Again, I'm not dissagreeing with you. I just like to speculate. Is it possible within a biblical context that there could be Aliens on some distant world that are also sentiant and created to have a relationship with God? perhaps they didn't sin in the first place. Perhaps they did. How about this? What if God created other universes with totaly differant rules of physics and with totaly differant concepts like no time or something. I think the bible gives us what we need to know and how God relates to us, but other things still exist. A good example of what I mean is that electricity or computers isn't exactly mentioned in the bible but that does not mean that they cannot exist. I also think that the consept of "the center of attention" is pretty abstract when it comes to God because how do you define focus for an omnipotant and omnisiant (sp?) being? If you start getting into "this is the center of God's attention" you raise other questions like "what part of the earth is the center?" is it the middle? or is it jerusalem (which many people think). Is it that hydrogen atom over there or this one a few microns away?

Again, I wish to reinforce, that I'm not dissagreeing with you, just playing the devil's advocate for the sake of discussion. I'm really likeing the discussion and it is interesting where it has lead.

EDIT: oh yeah, I am also pretty fuzzy on the "universe having bounds" bit. I can't think of any solid biblical evidance for this. even if there was a verse like "God's glory fills all creation" or something like that, you also have to remember that the bible talks about the "four corners of the earth" that statment does not mean that the earth is flat so I don't see how we can find the statment that the scientific universe has bounderies. (I do think it has bounderies, of a sort, but for totaly differant reasons)

[WildcatDan]

Lucid, you have some odd views my friend.

I find it hard to beleive that if there were aliens that there would not be SOME reference to them in the Bible. God laid out the design for us pretty well. Earth, Heaven, Hell. I guess, if you want to get into the REALLY far out, that there could be other Universes out there that God created since HE has no limits, but they would have no bearing on US whatsoever.

God created all things physical to this earth. Electricity being one of those things. He gave man a mind to reason above all other creatures, so computers are within his realm as well. A cheeseburger is not mentioned in the Bible either- but God gave us the ingredients. There are obviously things that exist that are not mentioned in the Bible. I fully believe, however, that the Bible gives us the information we need to reconcile what we see around us with God's creation of the universe.

Simple evidence for the Universe having limits or boundries - everything else within the Universe has limits or boundries.

Hmm... too tired to keep going on this right now, but I would like to get back on a less hypothetical track tomorrow. I hope what I have just posted makes sense whenI re-read it in the light of day!

[wildcatfanman3pt]

Anyone think that there is another planet and universe somewere out there that also has life and people live the same as we do here on earth? I ask myself why wouldn't there be one? I don't believe in aliens on planets such as Mars and such because we would be able to see them. But I really believe there might be a whole other world out in space. And just a matter of time were we discover it by using technology. Maybe we won't find it in our life time. But what about the next? And the next?

[CaptainLucid]

yeah, I do have 'odd' views but those arn't them. I don't believe what I was talking about, I was just throwing it out as a what if. For the most part I agree with you Dan. But even on the things I dissagree on they are only minor differances and don't really effect the core of belief. I am still shocked how conservative this group here is. I feel totaly at home. Of course, it might just be that we have scared all the liberal evolutionists into silence. I hope that is not the case. Dospeak up if you disagree.

[WildcatDan]

No - that is a matter of interpretation - (and a use of the word replenish that we don't really use that much anymore) - It just means to fill up. We use it now to mean "to fill again" but that is not technically correct.

[WildcatDan]

Ok... Lets talk about evidence AGAINST evolution.

Manyscientists say that common traits in all living things is proof that everything has a common ancestor. My view is that all living things have common traits (on the most basic of levels) because they all share a common creator and were made to live in this world's environment.

The age of the earth is critical when it comes to a discussion of evolution vs creation. Why? Because without billions and billions of years in which to work there is no way anything could have formed by evolution. Evolution relies on chance to form new organisms and lots and lots of small changes to go from one type of organism to another. Creationism allows for the awesome diversity of life to have been put here by God (or somekind of outsideintelligence) and then to have evolved within their kind as conditions on earth change.

Let me back up a second fora breif discussion on how evolution supposedly works. Billions of years ago the earth was a hunk of molten rock. After some unknown period of time it cooled somewhat and it began to rain onthe rocks. After several million years of rain some of the rocks were turned into a vast chemical soup. For some unknown reason the chemicals in the soup all got together one day and formed a simple molecule. By terrific chance there were other molecules that happened to be formed in the same part of earths soupy oceans that were attracted to each other and they became a protein. Then, several protein molecules got together (for no apparent reason) and formed a simple organism of some kind. Fun fact: the chances of one protein molecule forming by accident is 1 to 10243 against. From this simple organism all life on earth was formed - trees, grass, bushes, birds, humans, land animals, fish, sloths, hillary clinton- EVERYTHING - over billions of years.

After simple organisms were formed (scientists really don't have any idea how THAT even happened exactly) things began evolving through the process called "natural selection" which was popularized by Darwin in his book "Origin of Species by natural selection". Natural selection is a process by which favorable traits are passed on because they help an organism to survive. These variations in species are caused by mutations which give a particular animal a useful trait.

An example that Darwin noted: On the Gallapogos (sp?)Islands (where he really started forming his theory) there is a bunch of similar birds with slight differences. During rainy seasons the seeds that this kind of bird eats areplentiful and all of the birds have plenty of food. However, during a drought the only seeds that are available are contained in a hard shell. The birds with the longer stronger beaks are able to break open the shells and eat the seeds. The smaller beaked birds die of starvation. This means that the long beaked birds pass on that trait to future generations. A small change occured in the traits of the overall population of this bird in this location. This is REAL and OBSERVABLE - it is also know as micro-evolution.

Anyway, the theory goes on to say that throughthousands of these tiny changes via mutations and natural selectionthat eventually whole new organisms are formed over millions and millions of years.

There are several problems with that.

1. Age of the earth - it is not old enough (more on this later)

2. Irreducible complexity

3. Mutations are NEVER favorable. Most are deadly or cause the organism to be sterile.

Lets explore numbers 2 and 3 for now.

Irreducible complexity - this is the idea that all parts of a machine are needed for that machine to work. For a simple example we are all familiar with look at a bike. A bike without any of its critical parts is pretty useless. If you have some pedals but no chain it does no good. A pedal and chain with no gear for the chain are useless. Pedals, chain, and gear do absolutely nothing without a wheel to hook it all to. Any of the parts without all of the others is useless.

Look to nature for examples of irrreducible complexity. We have all been in science class and seen the video shot by an electron microscope where tiny little organisms are using their long tails to propel themselves through their environment. These tails are an example of a biological machine and represent irreducible complexity. All of the 35 parts of the tail are needed to make it work. There is no way that these parts would have all formed seperately and then somehow formed a working tail. The tail itself would have done nothing to help the organism - in fact it would have hindered them by making them bigger with no purpose. The motor for the tail, the connector for the tail, the drive shaft (yes, it has a drive shaft) the shaft ring - ALL are needed to make it work. These parts forming on their own would have been burden to the organism and would have DECREASED chance of survival and being passed on. That is just for a very simple organism. Consider things like the human eye or ear and how many parts rely on each other to work and you will see that the idea of these things forming by chance is almost silly.

Mutations - there is not one documented example of a mutation being a good thing. As I stated before, mutations usually cause death or sterility. In best case scenarios they just cause a trait that is undesirable and not really harmful.

Whew. I could go on but I feel like this post is too long already. Comment away!

(note to self: Mt St Helens)

[WildcatDan]

Lots and lots and lots of study. I am watching a really interesting (if you are a science nerd) video about the complexity of the human eye and ear.

[WildcatDan]

Ok... evidence for a young Earth and a young solar system (or for the Bible to be right!)

The oceans are constantly becoming more salty as minerals from the rivers dump into the ocean. Salt and other mineral deposits are left behind when water evaporates from the oceans so the salt content goes up a little bit each year. If the earth was billions of years old the oceans would be so salty that nothing could live in them. Silt and sand on the bottom of the oceans also builds up over time through river erosion- there is not nearly enough build up on the bottom of the oceans to support a billion year old earth.

Layer of dust on the moon. Not nearly thick enough for the moon to be millions of years old. There is no atmosphere to speak of on the moon and the dust is collected over time from the "cosmic dust" within the solar system. If the amount of dust on the moon was consistent with a billion year old solar system there would have been more than the 4-6 inches that we saw when Armstrong made his historic walk. In fact, NASA was suprised that the lander did NOT sink in farther than it did when it landed. They assumed that there WOULD be a really thick layer of dust on the moon.

The oldest written documents that we have discovered are between 3500 to 4500 years old (that would be about the time of the flood). The Bible has a geneology leading up to Jesus which gives us a good timeline up to Him from Adam, and we know that Jesus was alive about 2000 years ago. By those timelines the earth is about 6000 years old. The oldest living tree is estimated (by growth rings) at about 4000 - 4600 years old. The oldest manmade structures are about 3000-4000 years old.

More on this later....

[WildcatDan]

I rewatched the video last night that I pulled a lot of the young earth evidence from AND found the article I was looking forso here is a TON of young earth information....

But first let me explain again why this is so important.

Evolutionists rely on several assumptions to make their case. They take these things by faith and believe them unconditionally. "But wait a minute Dan, that sounds like a religion, not science!" Yes. Exactly. Anyway, some of these assumptions are EASILY proved false.The one I am going to address here is the evolutionist's assumption that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old. They know that without billions of years their religion is just silly.

Remember, regardless of how old some "evidence" may say the Earth is, it cannot be older than the youngest verified evidence. Make sense? Here is an example from an article I read recently....

Let’s imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years.
"That’s impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!"
"How can you prove I’m wrong?" I say.
"Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say.
"Okay," I admit, "you’re right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!"
"No!" you say. "Casio didn’t make the Databank watch until twelve years ago."
"All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then."
"Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it’s still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."
While we still can’t prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.
Ok, so that is the WHY. Here are the facts that limit the age of the universe and the age of the Earth: (these are pulled from this article (http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_06/ts_scientific_evidence.htm)- read it if you want, but I am posting the really interesting ones)

The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.

The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.

Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.

Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years and that would have destroyed all old fossils.

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)

The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution.

A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.

Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years.

The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years.

The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old.

Another factor to consider: The genetic load in man is increasing. Geneticists have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill as a result of our disobedience to the laws established by the Creator and the increased radiation from the sun. The Bible teaches that we live in a sin-cursed world as a result of Adam’s sin.
Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known.
Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.
Whew.

[WildcatDan]

Did you know that most dinosaurs nostrils would be too small if they lived in today's atmosphere?

Scientists believe that the world before the flood was very different from the world after it.

Before the flood it never rained. Water came up from the ground and the humidity would have been very high. The atmosphere would also have been under greater pressure with a higher oxygen content. There would have been a sphere of water or ice (suspended by the earth's own magnetism) in the upper atmosphere that would block out a lot of the harmful radiation from the sun and would cause the overall pressure of the atmosphere to increase.

This means that animals would not have to breathe as hard to get sufficient oxygen. Their blood would be more saturated with oxygen andrespiration would take less effort. This would allow animalsto grow much bigger than they can in todays atmosphere because their heart and lungs (and tiny little nostrils) would not have to work as hard to get O2 to their cells. This would also help plants grow larger as the increased air presure would be able to sustain larger structures.

This atmosphere would have been similar to that which can be found in a hyperbaric chamber. Hyberbaric chambers are being used more and more in medicine because the saturated oxygen has been found to be very conducive to rapid healing.

Now imagine if you will the size that a human could have grown to during this time. Humans apparently lived MUCH longer in those early days than we do now. Their lifetimes were measured in hundreds of years as evidenced by the age of Adam and Noah and several others listed in the Bible. There have been skeletons found that tell us that some humans of that time were over 11 feet tall!

The measurements for the Ark that are listed in theBiblewere based on cubits. A cubit is not a standard distance but rather a measure of distance that was unique to each person. It is the distance between elbow and fingertip. Imagine if you will how big a cubit would have been for someone who was 9 to 11 feet tall. The Ark was not a small boat.

Also imagine how smart the people of that time must have been relative to now. They were able to glean information from many many generations that were still living and were able to individually collect information for hundreds of years instead of just a few decades like we are.

Imagine how strong they would have been. Building the ark would have been much easier for a giant than it would be for a much smaller modern man.

[Mr. Peanut]

Hello. I haven't read this whole thread (I justed glanced over pg 1), but it looked like you didn't have anyone on the evol/science side to answer questions from that perspective. I'm not necessarily an expert, but I'm willing to be the 'devil's advocate' if you need one... and or, I'm willing to attempt answers to evolution questions.

BTW, my perspective is that evolution is the best available explanation for the data andimportantly, there is nothing about believing the theory that contradicts a belief in God.

[bigsky]

Yeah, Mr. Peanut and I will be willing to pitch in a little on the evolution side. BTW, dino nostrils were just fine, just as avian dinosaurs' nostrils are today.

[Caveman Catfan]

Religiously, I am not opposed to the evolution argument; however, I think it gets too much praise as the "best available" theory.

Micro-evolution - no problem here.

Macro-evolution - not sure I see it.

Abiogenesis - interesting idea that is just replete with massive holes.

(menstruation as a result ofevolution - you lost me Peanut!)

[Mr. Peanut]

Caveman Catfan wrote: (menstruation as a result ofevolution - you lost me Peanut!)

:DThe key there is that menopause is consistent with evolution... rather than a problem FOR evolution. (As is homosexuality)

[BigBlue75]

wildcatfan_7 wrote: hey wildcatdan i thought that about adam and eve to until i read the creation closely it first says:

and God said Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; aand let them have

dominion over the fish of the sea, and over all the fowl of the air, adn over the

cattle, and over all the earth, and over everyhting that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created manin his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and

female created he them. -Genesis 1:26-27

then the bible says:


Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground adn breathed into ihis

nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -Genesis 2:7-

so u see thatGod firstcreated male and female then he created adam

I mean no disrespect but that is simply NOT TRUE! (and I speak as a licensed minister, for those of you who don't know me.)

Jewish tradition holds that the author of Genesis was Moses and he wrote it around 1440 B.C. He begins by giving a general overview of the formation of the solar system, the preparation of earth for habitation, and the creation of life, which is in the verses you mentioned in chapter 1. All this was accomplished in six days.

The ten chapters that follow go into specifics and explain in greater detail about each creation, including Adam and Eve, which begins with the Genesis 2:7 reference you mentioned. No human being existed on earth prior to Adam and Eve.

You are correct in one area: Adam and Eve did have other children besides Cain and Abel; Genesis Chapter 5 is a complete accounting ofAdam's family.

I'm not saying you are intentionally doing so, but it's very easy (and very dangerous)to take scripture out of context.

[bigsky]

There areleast three traditions and an editor at work in Genesis. One of the discrepancies between the one creation myth, Genesis 1:24, and a second creation myth in Genesis 2:18. In one, the animals are created first; in two the Lord God made every beast of the field as companions to Adam, and then man gave name to all the animals, in the beginning, a long time ago.

There are dozens of creation myths from the world's religions, including many that precede and predate the stories in Genesis.

[Mr. Peanut]

Hey Bigsky. Good to see you over in these parts.

[bigsky]

Glad you made it over. Once NCCAT and Terry Wagner left, I knew that I had to as well.

I dunno if I'll venture onto the political board. Probably won't do too much religious discussion either. Two subjects that are too fractious. I remain dedicated to the "turtles all the way down" creation story however, so don't you start withme...:dude:

[jaspcat]

Mr. Peanut wrote: Hello. I haven't read this whole thread (I justed glanced over pg 1), but it looked like you didn't have anyone on the evol/science side to answer questions from that perspective. I'm not necessarily an expert, but I'm willing to be the 'devil's advocate' if you need one... and or, I'm willing to attempt answers to evolution questions.

BTW, my perspective is that evolution is the best available explanation for the data andimportantly, there is nothing about believing the theory that contradicts a belief in God.



You have mana Peanut. I don't think there's anything mutually exclusive in belief of both Creation and evolution, just shows how amazingly intricate God's work is. I see the Genesis story as an allegory for man's development of consciousness through the breath of God.

[Mr. Peanut]

jaspcat wrote: You have mana Peanut. I don't think there's anything mutually exclusive in belief of both Creation and evolution, just shows how amazingly intricate God's work is. I see the Genesis story as an allegory for man's development of consciousness through the breath of God.

Yep. If he did it, he had to 'do it' somehow... apparently it was via evolution.

Thanks for themana.

[CatScratchFever]

Creation, its just easier for me to believe.

I do think that creation & evolution are not both plausibie alternatives. Evolution has always been defined to me as a random process. Creationismis not random, but designed.

Even I accepted that God created simplelife forms first & then created more life forms from the pre-existing; I wouldn't call it evolution because I believe that God would have to intervene at each crucial step & if so then it did not happen randonly. A subtle, but important distinction.

[Caveman Catfan]

bigsky wrote: There areleast three traditions and an editor at work in Genesis. One of the discrepancies between the one creation myth, Genesis 1:24, and a second creation myth in Genesis 2:18. In one, the animals are created first; in two the Lord God made every beast of the field as companions to Adam, and then man gave name to all the animals, in the beginning, a long time ago.

There are dozens of creation myths from the world's religions, including many that precede and predate the stories in Genesis.













Much of the OT's creation story is very similar to the stories of the Babylonians, and others that predated the Genesis story. The distinction is that the OT speaks to one god and makes an issue out of the tree of knowledge, which many believe refuted the use of the temple for hedonic pleasures.

[Mr. Peanut]

CatScratchFever wrote: Creation, its just easier for me to believe.

I do think that creation & evolution are not both plausibie alternatives. Evolution has always been defined to me as a random process. Creationismis not random, but designed.

Even I accepted that God created simplelife forms first & then created more life forms from the pre-existing; I wouldn't call it evolution because I believe that God would have to intervene at each crucial step & if so then it did not happen randonly. A subtle, but important distinction.

Nothing we call 'random' would be random to an omniscient God. God would know each stage of evolution that would result from the initial conditions he set up... so, he intervened in every step (and at the same time NO steps) just by getting the ball rolling.

Anyway the 'randomness' described by scientists doesn't rule out oversight from God.

[WildcatDan]

FWIW I do believe in a literal 6 day creation. There is a lot of evidence for a young earth. If the earth is young then evolution does not have the time it needs to work. You can read back through this thread for some evidence that I presented.

[Mr. Peanut]

WildcatDan wrote: FWIW I do believe in a literal 6 day creation. There is a lot of evidence for a young earth. If the earth is young then evolution does not have the time it needs to work. You can read back through this thread for some evidence that I presented.
I've read a lot of the young earth arguments and IMO they have a lot of problems, and are (again IMO) frequently based on misunderstandings of scientific findings. Science pretty clearly points to a very old earth and universe. We can go over the arguments on either side if you are interested.

[bigsky]

True enough. CC, I think that's Enuma Elish. the Babylonian creation story, that is.

The 6k is derived from counting back the generations in the Bible.The specific assertion is that the earth was created in the Atumnal equinox six thousand odd years ago.

Almost all of the arguments against evolution, or physics, or cosmology, presented and previously unanswered on this thread are all answered by science. The seemingly portentious mysteries are hardly that.

As for the watch in the forest, it is a nice fable, but it argues neither for a new earth nor for the many diversecreation myths. Instead, it argues succinctly for exactly that which I believe, that the incredibly beautiful and ugly and comforting and dangerous universe watch was created, and wound up. We've found it, and now we need to figure out what to make of it. "In the beginning God" is a good start.

I think it's possible to argue that twelve to fourteen billion years of the universe were set in motion to create this moment here and now. Pretty anthropomorphic of us to think that, given the limitless expanse of the universe, but a theory that could be argued. But you COULD posit it.

The six thousand year new earth, as was specified since the late 1600s, isn't science. Nothing to support it is science. To present, as is done here, these laughable arguments as science is, to my thinking,as evil as those who speak against using medicine to cure an individuals' sickness and instead intimate that it is "Gods will" whether the individual lives or dies, and that prayer is the only effective medicine. I am constantly reminded inthese posts of the man whodrowns in the flood, and goes to the pearly gates, where he asks Peter, "why did I drown, I had faith that God would save me". AndPeter says, of course, that God sent the cops to evacuate you, but you refused, saying God would save you, and then God sent a boat, but you refused, saying God would save you, and then God sent the helicopter, but you refused, saying God would save you, and then God said, "what the heck, strike three and you're out".

The Creator has provided us with minds, with reason, and expects us to use that (remember to love him with all your mind, eh) which separates us from the animals to discern his will. An animal has faith in his master, but humans have reason that sets them alone on this ball of mud. It's not superstition, but reason, not faith, but inquiry that leads us to God.

Anyway, I let Peanuttake the lead on theanswersscience has to the very few and quite discredited false scientific arguments presented here. I'll challenge the assertions on theological, or, better, philosophical grounds.

In essence, the need to insist on the 6k new earth is caused bya somewhat irrational need to accept every story in the Bible as inerrant and literal truth. That's hardly needed to be Christian, and in many ways works against that faith. I already cited a discrepancy. We know it's derived at least partly from Babylonian creation myth. Many argue that the Bible reflects only a barbaric nomadic people's attempt at understanding God, among other things, but that much of the theology remains relevant today. I personally don't think that, but the Catholics and main stream Protestants certainly make a good case. The inerrantist makes a clear and easily understood statement, that every bit of thescience and the laws, every word, is as true today as it was then. It's clearly not the case, not the laws, not the science. I've often said, on these boards, that the Bible is truth or it isn't. That's a trap for the unwary, and whether it's slavery or clothing from two fibers or bacon or divorce or cousins marrying or equality of women and other races, or the waters above and the waters below, and the four corners of the earth, we know that laws and science espoused are NOT what we know as reality, truth, and morality, and that thetheology in the Biblemustspeakto a higher understanding than inerrancy and literalism in order to be relevant in today's world. Clearly, the Catholics and mainstream protestants have found that relevance without having to do battle with science and reason.

[Mr. Peanut]

Wow Wildcat Dan, you've posted a lot of info! What is the research you are doing for? Are you planning to publish? What exactly are you researching?

Anyway, I'll have to work on the ideas you've posted in smaller bites than your whole posts. Some of the things you said I've seen before, some I haven't... but, I'll answer what I can when I can. So, here we go...

Youposted - Layer of dust on the moon. Not nearly thick enough for the moon to be millions of years old. There is no atmosphere to speak of on the moon and the dust is collected over time from the "cosmic dust" within the solar system. If the amount of dust on the moon was consistent with a billion year old solar system there would have been more than the 4-6 inches that we saw when Armstrong made his historic walk. In fact, NASA was suprised that the lander did NOT sink in farther than it did when it landed. They assumed that there WOULD be a really thick layer of dust on the moon.

This is one I'm familiar with, so its a good place to start. I've read a couple arguments along these lines - that the amount of dust on the moon (and on the earth) argue against the standard theories about the age of the moon (and earth). The usual basis for theseis a measurement made in 1974 by a guy named Hans Petterson from a mountain top. Based on his measurement, he estimated that 5-15 million tons of ‘space dust’ per year are deposited on the earth, and probably 25% that on the moon… which, if you take the upper limit of the estimate would give a pretty deep dust layer. (you can probably google him if you want to know more about him or his estimation.)



But, it turns out Petterson’s estimate was way way off for reasons that are pretty clear. There are a lot of well understood current accurate ways to measure levels of ‘space dust’ entering the atmosphere of earth or the moon these days, and they all agree upon an estimate of annual entering ‘dust’ of about 20,000 tons per year, which matches very well with levels of dust on the moon. (Again, I’d suggest googling this info if you want details about how the measurements are now made and what estimation mistakes Petterson made.) So, to summarize, the amount of dust on the moon is about what would be predicted based on annual incoming dust. Also, NASA knew from imaging data and from the info sent back by Surveyor I in '66 what levels of dust were there... so, there weren't any surprises.



One thing I came across that might be of interest to some of you since the authors share your view that the earth is young is a quote from a creation science technical paper from 1993 written by folks named Snelling and Rush.



"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

[Mr. Peanut]

Wildcat Dan posted - The oceans are constantly becoming more salty as minerals from the rivers dump into the ocean. Salt and other mineral deposits are left behind when water evaporates from the oceans so the salt content goes up a little bit each year. If the earth was billions of years old the oceans would be so salty that nothing could live in them. Silt and sand on the bottom of the oceans also builds up over time through river erosion- there is not nearly enough build up on the bottom of the oceans to support a billion year old earth.



This is another one I’m familiar with, so I’ll write a bit about it too. The big thing to understand is that Sodium and other minerals enter the oceans at rates that equal their removal by a variety of processes. The estimated rate of loss of minerals like sodium is actually slightly HIGHER than the rate of entry into the oceans, but they are within the margin of error and are essentially equal. So, rather than “becoming more salty”, the levels of sodium should be pretty static in the oceans. Anyway, levels aren’t a measure of age either way as I understand it.



Here’s a link to a discussion between two creationists with a version of this argument and someone who explains what misunderstandings are presentin their science. (Be forewarned, the science guy is a bit of a smart arse… but, it’s the only linkable detailed explanation of this specific subject I saw.)

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html)



The scientific answer to the question about sedimentation levels at the bottom of the ocean is pretty similar. The summary message is that sedimentation levels match very well with what would be predicted based on the age of whichever part of the ocean floor you are looking at. New areas where floor is actively being laid down have very little sediment, older areas have more… but, the levels match well with what would be predicted based on sedimentation rate, known removal processes, and age of the area. Depending on which particular version of the ‘sediment on the ocean floor is not deep enough’ argument you look at, there are misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the forces that deposit sediment vs the forces that remove sediment and on the ages of the specific floor areas looked at. If I see a link discussing this stuff in more detail, I'll post it.

[Mr. Peanut]

Ok, I've typed up a few more. This is not a knock on any of you, but I've got to tell you - some of these arguments are so clearly off base that you've got to know that the people making them are trying to mislead. Some of these CAN'T be simple misunderstandings. The errors are clear enough that many of them are blatant attempts to fool people!

Everything in Bold is from WildcatDan's post, the rest is my response.

The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

Two problems with this argument: As I understand it, there is no evidence that the sun is currently shrinking, and 2. Even if it is, for the argument to be true we would have to assume that the sun doesn’t undergo cyclical shrinking/expanding and that the rate of each does not fluctuate… which, we certainly can’t assume.

The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

How so? I think this argument goes – comets near the sun lose mass, and so would be gone. But, new comets can enter short-period orbits… mostly after being bumped out of the asteroid belt. So, the old ones are all gone, but we get new ones from time to time.

The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.

The current rate of ‘recession’ of the moon is a little less than 4 cm per year, and this rate has undergone well understood changes over time. The moon is about 250,000 miles away from earth now, and was never closer than about 150,000 miles. If we base the moons age strictly on the CURRENT rate of recession, it would be about 2 Billion years old. But, since the current rate is accelerated vs initial rates, we know that the moon is still older than that 2 Billion estimate. At 150,000 miles from earth, the moon would have caused significantly increased tides… but nothing that would ‘erode away the continents’.

The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

This one is a pretty bad one… Both U-236 and Th-230 are decay products of Uranium-238. U-238 has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years. Any basic phys or chem. Text would tell the folks making this argument that both U-236 AND Th-230 are continually produced currently anywhere U-238 is present, and so their continued presence tells you nothing about moon age.

Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

Saturn’s rings are thought to be less than 100 million years old… their age has nothing to do with the age of Saturn or any other bodies in the solar system.

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.

Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.

I’m not familiar with these two, I’ll see if I can find some info for you on them.

Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

The first and biggest problem with this one is that Sirius is a two star system. The star that is a white dwarf is not visible to the naked eye… so, 2000 years ago, noone could see it. If they were seeing something red there, it wasn’t the star that is a white dwarf now. Plus, many sources from that time describe the ‘star’ as white.

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years and that would have destroyed all old fossils.

This is another example of considering only one part of a complex process. Erosion, volcanic activity, mountain growth, sedimentation, etc… all play a part in continental ‘geography’. The argument seems to think continents are subject only to the force of erosion… without factoring in all of the other well known forces that determine the shape/height of the continents. There are plenty of geology resources out there that can explain this stuff if you want info on it, but suffice to say the argument is clearly NOT a reasonable conclusion based on what we know of the geological forces in play.

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)
Niagara falls is estimated to be 7,000 years old… it’s age has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Why would this even be suggested?

[WildcatDan]

Mr. Peanut, I am curious, are you a scientist? I just want to know where your point of view comes from.

BigSky - I am a bit confused by this statement BTW, dino nostrils were just fine, just as avian dinosaurs' nostrils are today.
What do you mean by avian dinosaurs today?

[bigsky]

Birds are dinosaurs. We live in an age of dinosaurs. Most of the people I work with think T-Rex was a giant flightless turkey vulture, for example. But there'sno denying that dinos and birds are far more closely related than dinos and reptiles,like used to be thought. The most recent discovery of a dinosaur gender, or the ability to identify gender, came aboutin comparisons of large flightless birds and a particularMontana T-Rex. It was just announced last week as just one of the dino discoveries, along with the recent publication regardingsoft tissue in a sixty million year old T-Rex bone.

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/06/03/news/01sexoftrex.txt

[WildcatDan]

Mr. Peanut wrote:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html)


The problem with "scientific" arguments of this nature is that there are some assumptions made which should not be made. I relate this to a Christian scientist using the Bible to "prove" science. Here is one assumption of fact made that throws everything else the guy wrote into question "The Miocene lasted about 17.5 million years. Dividing... ". This is clearly a case of picking what information you want to use to prove your point.

I recently had the opportunity to debate a "christian scientist" who believed that God used evolution to accomplish the happenings in Genesis over billions of years. What killed me is that when asked tough questions, she would not give an answer, but rather would say , "Oh, science is a great thing, and we will figure that out eventually, just give us time."

A few examples of questions that she gave this answer to included, "How would the first protein have formed". "How did DNA come about from random processes and mutations?" "How does science explain irreducible complexity? (I beleive I posted something about this earlier in the thread if anyone has a question about what that means)" "What did the first sexually reproductive organism mate with?" "How would complex structures like the eye and ear form? (did you know that the eyehas the most illogical setup? - more on that if anyone is interested)

[bigsky]

Mostof those questions have relatively simple answers, Dan.

Nobody sets out to "prove science". Science postulates a theory, like relativity or string theory or evolution, and then scientist do their best to disprove it. Thousands of scientist have worked for a century to disprove evolution. The first one who does wins the Nobel prize, at the very least.

Your assertion, that science cannot explain everything and is therefore just a faith like religion, is false. Science doesn't claim to explain everything. Nor does it have an answer for everything. Medicine cannot cure every ill. That doesn't mean that you don't take antibiotics for an infection, or have your appendix taken out if it's ready to burst.

Cosmology and evolution do not argue against a Creator, or against religion. That's the truth, Dan.

[WildcatDan]

bigsky wrote: Birds are dinosaurs. We live in an age of dinosaurs. Most of the people I work with think T-Rex was a giant flightless turkey vulture, for example. But there'sno denying that dinos and birds are far more closely related than dinos and reptiles,like used to be thought. The most recent discovery of a dinosaur gender, or the ability to identify gender, came aboutin comparisons of large flightless birds and a particularMontana T-Rex. It was just announced last week as just one of the dino discoveries, along with the recent publication regardingsoft tissue in a sixty million year old T-Rex bone.

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/06/03/news/01sexoftrex.txt




I figured that is what you meant... Here are some problems with that...

For one, birds do not weigh 100 tons - as dinosaurs did. Their small nostrils ARE fine for their small bodies in todays atmosphere. A huge animal would need much bigger nostrils to accomodate the amount of air exchange that would be required to support their enormous body in today's atmosphere. Besides, there is no reason to argue over this - whether it was 6000 years ago or 600 million years ago we can (probably) agree that the atmosphere was potentially very different than when dinosaurs were aroundthanit is now.

Soft tissue lasted for 60 million years? Does that even make any kind of logical sense or is it one of those things thatrequires just as much faith as my belief that God made everything? The article makes ALL SORTS of assumptions and is very misleading by stating those assumptions as fact.

There has never been a true example of a "Kind" of animal changing into another "Kind". (read kind as "family").Sure, traits change, but things stay basically the same "Kind".

Also, feathers don't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Why would they form? How would they form? What good would a mutation that causes half of a feather do?

[WildcatDan]

bigsky wrote: Mostof those questions have relatively simple answers, Dan.

Nobody sets out to "prove science". Science postulates a theory, like relativity or string theory or evolution, and then scientist do their best to disprove it. Thousands of scientist have worked for a century to disprove evolution. The first one who does wins the Nobel prize, at the very least.

Your assertion, that science cannot explain everything and is therefore just a faith like religion, is false. Science doesn't claim to explain everything. Nor does it have an answer for everything. Medicine cannot cure every ill. That doesn't mean that you don't take antibiotics for an infection, or have your appendix taken out if it's ready to burst.

Cosmology and evolution do not argue against a Creator, or against religion. That's the truth, Dan.

That is almost exactly what she said! Wow.

There is no solid evidence FOR evolution.The very basics of life cannot be explained without some kind of outside intervention or design. It takes a HUGE amount of faith to discount the amount of evidence AGAINST evolution.

Science DOES claim to explain everything. Regardless of how much evidence there is that natural processes did not produce the awesome variety of life on earth, most scientists refuse to admit even the posibilty that God was the mechanism.

[Mr. Peanut]

WildcatDan wrote: Mr. Peanut, I am curious, are you a scientist? I just want to know where your point of view comes from.

BigSky - I am a bit confused by this statement BTW, dino nostrils were just fine, just as avian dinosaurs' nostrils are today.
What do you mean by avian dinosaurs today?

I'm a student. I play 'scientist' from time to time, but I haven't made a career out of it.

[WildcatDan]

bigsky wrote: Mostof those questions have relatively simple answers, Dan.




By the way, I am genuinely interested to hear answers to any of these questions.

Let me just add, it is really hard to tell someone's demeanor online so I want everyone involved in this conversation to know that I am 100% earnest when it comes to this subject. I do not intend to upset anyone but realy do enjoy the conversation.

[fanfromday1]

WildcatDan wrote: Mr. Peanut, I am curious, are you a scientist?
No but he did stay at a Holiday Inn.;)

[bigsky]

Me too, Dan.

[bigsky]

Dan, the article is just a newspaper article by a local hack. The science has been published about the soft tissue, and it was on the front page of every major us newspaper including the WSJ. Schweitzer's work has been bowlderized by new earthers for years.

I don't know what you mean by "very different" in reference to atmosphere. We probably don't need to argue about it because you don't think in terms of 68 million years anyway.

And again, what you say is not true about the nostrils.We've studied T-Rex enough to decide a he from a she and whether their brains resembled birds or reptiles, predators or scavengers, how their legs worked, even how their feet worked (helped make the movie, even). They were able to breathe, Dan.

[bigsky]

That is almost exactly what she said! Wow.


Now I'm the one that's confused.

[Mr. Peanut]

WildcatDan wrote: Mr. Peanut wrote:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html)


The problem with "scientific" arguments of this nature is that there are some assumptions made which should not be made. I relate this to a Christian scientist using the Bible to "prove" science. Here is one assumption of fact made that throws everything else the guy wrote into question "The Miocene lasted about 17.5 million years. Dividing... ". This is clearly a case of picking what information you want to use to prove your point.



That article explains the basic and clear mistakes that forms the basis of the claim that sodium levels indicate a young earth. Specifically, it shows that the people making the claim are leaving out many processes that affect sodium levels. Their mistake is pretty clear.

Don't let disagreements with an author about age estimates get in the way of understanding the specific errors in this arguments. The two are separate things. The idea that sodium levels indicates a young earth are simply wrong, and it is easy to point out how... whether the earth is actually young or not (meaning you could be right about a young earth, and this sodium argument would still be useless). These guys, and anyone else who pushes this argument, are misunderstanding or misrepresenting pretty clear science.

Anyway, rather than increasing, sodium levels should stay roughly the same... so, they don't indicate age. Did you have questions after reading it about how and why sodium levels should be essentially static? Do you see what is wrong with the age argument based on sodium, since it is not a measure of age? Can we agree that thisargument is off base and move on?

As for the other questions youmentioned in this post...I suggest we take this one issue at a timeor it will just get too messy! :) We can get to the bio stuff, that's actually the part of this wheremy background is, but for now... easy does it.

Can't speak for your christian scientist friend, but I can assure you I won't dodge any tough questions... that doesn't mean I'll have an answer necessarily, but I won't dodge.

[Mr. Peanut]

fanfromday1 wrote: WildcatDan wrote: Mr. Peanut, I am curious, are you a scientist?
No but he did stay at a Holiday Inn.;)
Hey! I told my wife I was studying that whole night... you trying to make her suspicious?

[ACORE]

I personally beleive in creation. I dont believe we evoled . In geneisis God says we were created in his image. We are so complex and the universe is so complex I dont think it could happen by chance. Think about how perfectly placed the earth is from the son. If it was off by just a little we wouldnt have a chance to even talk about this.

[BigBlueAngus]

Is it a total cop out to say both? I believe God created earth, Created man in his own image. I also believe man and all things living have, do and will continue to evolve. Man I sound like I am running for office or something.

[Bluesong]

I believe in creation.

God madebeast and then he rest.....God made man and then he rest.....God made woman and.....man nor beast have rested since. :ggrin:

[ACORE]

Ha . Thats a classic post. I hope my girlfriend doesnt read this.

[Mountain Cat]

I did a little spreadsheet after reading in this threadabout the 8 people populating the earth in about 4000yrs.

I now have to agree with that assertion.

Assumptions that I used:

1. equal numbers of male and female offspring every generation

2. people on average are dead by about 75yrs of age

3. Couples have on average a total of 2.25 children and have them by the time they are 25yrs old

4. Everyone is fertile, no one is homosexual, and no one is too ugly to find a mate to have said children :ggrin:

so basically, the 8 folks made 4 couples who each had 2.25 children for a total of 9 kids binging the population to 17 as they left the arK;

the 9 new adults 25yrs later had 11 kids and watched their 8 parents croak, yielding a population of 20 (17+11-8)...

after 200yrs there were 37 people living

after 500yrs there were 141 people living

after 1,000yrs there were 1,454 people living

after 1,500yrs there were 15,415 people living

after 2,000yrs there were 162,579 people living

after 2,500yrs there were 1,714,361 people living

after 3,000yrs there were 18,078,215 people living

after 3,500yrs there were 190,636,495 people living

after 4,000yrs there were 2,010,279,707 people living

after 4,225yrs there were 5,802,687,634 people living

So 5.8 Billion people could easily have come from 8 off the ark in about 4000 yrs

whodathunkit?

[Mr. Peanut]

Mountain Cat wrote: so basically, the 8 folks made 4 couples who each had 2.25 children for a total of 9 kids binging the population to 17 as they left the arK;

the 9 new adults 25yrs later had 11 kids and watched their 8 parents croak, yielding a population of 20 (17+11-8)...

after 200yrs there were 37 people living

after 500yrs there were 141 people living

after 1,000yrs there were 1,454 people living

after 1,500yrs there were 15,415 people living

after 2,000yrs there were 162,579 people living

after 2,500yrs there were 1,714,361 people living

after 3,000yrs there were 18,078,215 people living

after 3,500yrs there were 190,636,495 people living

after 4,000yrs there were 2,010,279,707 people living

after 4,225yrs there were 5,802,687,634 people living

So 5.8 Billion people could easily have come from 8 off the ark in about 4000 yrs

whodathunkit?

You've got a couple of problems with your spread sheet... But rather than go problems with the assumptions, I'll just point out that according to the bible Moses was leading 600,000 men, plus women and children into the desert around 1450 BC (? a little help from the bible scholars on these numbers, but I think they are ballpark). So, if the flood happened 4225 yrs ago, that means that based on your calcs there should have been only ?500 people total in the world at that point... rather than the numbers (worldwide pop would have to be millions at a minimum if the Jews were 1 million strong) quoted in the bible... either that, or the early people REALLY were fertile.

[Mountain Cat]

Hi Mr. Peanut,

I did not claim to put a comprehensive or accurate total solution into the spreadsheet. This is why I stated the assumptions. It would take a lot of work to include all the acurate regional historic birth rates, inumerable disasters, plagues, famines etc., that have affected the population of the regions of the world over time. I just wanted to do a little spreadsheet to see if 5B pops was possible in about 4000 yrs. It is possible.

BTW, my guess is that most families in the old days had many more children than 2.25. The reason 2.25 was chosen for my spreadsheet was to show how few it would take.

If we adjust it to 8 children, then there could be over 645,000 people in just 200 years.

If you would like to provide some your biblical and historical knowledge, I will gladly adjust my spreadsheet to see what the implications would be.

[Mr. Peanut]

Mountain Cat wrote: Hi Mr. Peanut,

I did not claim to put a comprehensive or accurate total solution into the spreadsheet. This is why I stated the assumptions. It would take a lot of work to include all the acurate regional historic birth rates, inumerable disasters, plagues, famines etc., that have affected the population of the regions of the world over time. I just wanted to do a little spreadsheet to see if 5B pops was possible in about 4000 yrs. It is possible.

BTW, my guess is that most families in the old days had many more children than 2.25. The reason 2.25 was chosen for my spreadsheet was to show how few it would take.

If we adjust it to 8 children, then there could be over 645,000 people in just 200 years.

If you would like to provide some your biblical and historical knowledge, I will gladly adjust my spreadsheet to see what the implications would be.

:)A spreadsheet like that would be tough to make accurately any way you go. I know the growth rate between 1900-2000 was .132 % per year, but I'm not sure if that is a worldwide average, or US etc. Human population expansion/contraction has not been a linear thing though, that much is clear. Exponential growth in the pop is a pretty recent thing, and pre-agriculture, populations were apparently pretty small for most of history.

[surveyor]

God told me Evolution is real.

[Mr. Peanut]

surveyor wrote: God told me Evolution is real.
:DTough to argue with that...

[Poetax]

Someone mentioned that we have tried for years to disprove evolution but there have been many more who have tried to disprove creation and have failed. One thing that scientists need and want is actual proof, something they can put under a microscope, that they can hold in their hand, smell and bisect.Without that scientists will not consider any ideas that creation is true. For me to think that some meteors hit together and boom we had living organisms is about as far fetched as gorillas turning human in the next million years. Is there proof for creation? Biblically yes, the bible has recorded events and places that have just now recently been found to prove such placed existed. The old testament told ofthe events that would happen in the new testament. There hasn't been a book like the Bible that has been rewritten as many times in as many languages that kept it main focus like the Bible. I guess since the Israelites, who actually saw miracle acts of GOD, always seem to stray away from him, made it a point to have his SON tell usthat it is good that he who has seen believes but BLESSED is HE who has not seen and still believes. Faith is not what scientists want to hear but for Christians its the basis for what we believe to be the truth.

[surveyor]

I believe both go hand in hand and at the same time have their own
separate place. The catholic church, I believe, teaches that Genesis
and much of the other creationist stories are not to be taken literal.
It's readily accepted that other humanoids existed long before "Adam
and Eve".
Adam and Eve are merely euphemisms for when humans were first cognizant
of "soul, spirit and being" - as much of Genesis is simply Euphemistic
(if that's even a word, lol).

[Mr. Peanut]

Poetax wrote: Someone mentioned that we have tried for years to disprove evolution but there have been many more who have tried to disprove creation and have failed. One thing that scientists need and want is actual proof, something they can put under a microscope, that they can hold in their hand, smell and bisect.Without that scientists will not consider any ideas that creation is true. For me to think that some meteors hit together and boom we had living organisms is about as far fetched as gorillas turning human in the next million years. Is there proof for creation? Biblically yes, the bible has recorded events and places that have just now recently been found to prove such placed existed. The old testament told ofthe events that would happen in the new testament. There hasn't been a book like the Bible that has been rewritten as many times in as many languages that kept it main focus like the Bible. I guess since the Israelites, who actually saw miracle acts of GOD, always seem to stray away from him, made it a point to have his SON tell usthat it is good that he who has seen believes but BLESSED is HE who has not seen and still believes. Faith is not what scientists want to hear but for Christians its the basis for what we believe to be the truth.

One big misunderstanding about science and creationism that I always try to point out is that - There is no opinion about God in science, one way or another. Science doesn't deal with the spiritual. Anything outside the physical world, or anything dealing with the 'meaning' of physical events is outside the scope of science. So, people seem to think that science tries to disprove God etc... when, actually, science does not even look at that sort of thing.

Whenever you hear a scientist claim there is or is not a God, it is there own personal opinion... it is NOT the opinion of "Science."

There was a great article recently discussing this, and the author was making the point that a big obstacle for science education is that individual vocal scientists have applied scientific theories like evolution in ways that it cannot scientifically be applied. Meaning, if some of the vocal scientists around had not expressed their personal opinion that evolution (or whatever) indicates that there is no God... most of this debate would go away. The vast majority of people would have no objection to learning biology and evolution, if they didn't consider it a force against their faith. It is not a 'force' directed against their faith... though, some havecertainlymisused science in that way.

The two are completely separate (faith and details about the physical world).

A separate point is that the specific argumentsAGAINST evolution used by many creationists CAN pretty easily be shown to be off base... so, in that sense, creationism has been disproven over and over. But,again, I stress that those individual examples of 'disproof' say nothing whatsoever aboutwhether there is or is not aGod.

[bigsky]

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature."

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that , compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." Albert Einstein quotations

The belief in a Creator is NOT condradicted by evolution, cosmology and science. "The heavens declare the glory of God", and it's far easier to see a Creatorin the natural universe than in the testimony of superstitious barbaricmiddle eastern nomads whose veracity on scientific and legal matters is already proved false.

[Caveman Catfan]

I think one needs to define creationism for me. I know that some Christians believe evolution does not mean that God was not the guiding hand or the creator that set evolution in a defined motion.

If creationism only means the literal meaning of the Genesis story, then I suggest the title of the thread be Creationism v. Evolutionism v. Panspermia v. some other theory.

If the Genesis account of the creation of life is not correct, that does not lead to the conclusion that abiogenesis is correct.

[Caveman Catfan]

surveyor wrote: I believe both go hand in hand and at the same time have their own
separate place. The catholic church, I believe, teaches that Genesis
and much of the other creationist stories are not to be taken literal.
It's readily accepted that other humanoids existed long before "Adam
and Eve".
Adam and Eve are merely euphemisms for when humans were first cognizant
of "soul, spirit and being" - as much of Genesis is simply Euphemistic
(if that's even a word, lol).



Most Catholic scholars believe that the creation story was borrowed, because well known, with a few important changes. Two of which I have mentioned: one god instead of many and the fruit of the tree story meant to inform that the hedonistic acts taking place in some temples at that time were not accepted.

[Mr. Peanut]

Caveman Catfan wrote: I think one needs to define creationism for me. I know that some Christians believe evolution does not mean that God was not the guiding hand or the creator that set evolution in a defined motion.

If creationism only means the literal meaning of the Genesis story, then I suggest the title of the thread be Creationism v. Evolutionism v. Panspermia v. some other theory.

If the Genesis account of the creation of life is not correct, that does not lead to the conclusion that abiogenesis is correct.

Proving creationist arguments wrong isn't support for scientific arguments (at least outside the realm of internet forums). Conversely, trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory is not support for creationism.

I think it is important to point out that there aren't any scientists using anti-creationist arguments to support their research. I don't think you can say the same thing for creationists.

[freethrow]

Posted by Mr. Peanut.

Proving creationist arguments wrong isn't support for scientific
arguments (at least outside the realm of internet forums).
Conversely, trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory is not support
for creationism.

I think it is important to point out that there aren't any scientists
using anti-creationist arguments to support their research. I
don't think you can say the same thing for creationists.


This a very true statement. There are those among us who are not
scientist that take pot shots at creationist once in a while but
serious scientist don't. They simply let the facts they discover and
their theories based on what they have discovered speak for themselves.
If it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, sounds like a Duck etc., it
is probably a duck. Creationist do not usually take that approach
though. It doesn't really matter if it looks like a duck, walks like a
duck or sounds like a duck. It is the faith in what the story says that
counts. If the story says it is not a Duck, it is not a duck. It
is not about what you can see, touch, feel or reason out that isn't taught in the bible. That won't get you to heaven? :)

[Sir Richard F. Burton]

I rewatched a PBS doc about the Scopes Trial and was enthralled by my
hero Clarence Darrow battle another one of my heroes William Jennings
Bryant. Then bam I see the debate is still happening. One
thing that is true - ultimately we crawl back so far in time to the
mystery of what is forever? If "God" has existed forever how do
we compute that in a linear timeframe. Prior to the "accidental"
creation of the universe what was there?

Creationism (nee Intelligent Design) is religon seeking an
impramatur of science in order to give it the verve that it needs to be
sold in this- an age of science \ reason.
[line]
First of all, intelligent design is not what people often assume it
is. For one thing, I.D. is not Biblical literalism. Unlike earlier
generations of creationists—the so-called Young Earthers and scientific
creationists—proponents of intelligent design do not believe that the
universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old,
or that the fossil record was deposited during Noah’s flood. (Indeed,
they shun the label “creationism” altogether.) Nor does I.D. flatly
reject evolution: adherents freely admit that some evolutionary change
occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is
loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative
Christian groups—and although I.D. plainly maintains that life was
created—it is generally silent about the identity of the creator.



The
movement’s main positive claim is that there are things in the world,
most notably life, that cannot be accounted for by known natural causes
and show features that, in any other context, we would attribute to
intelligence. Living organisms are too complex to be explained by any
natural—or, more precisely, by any mindless—process. Instead, the
design inherent in organisms can be accounted for only by invoking a
designer, and one who is very, very smart.



All of which
puts I.D. squarely at odds with Darwin. Darwin’s theory of evolution
was meant to show how the fantastically complex features of
organisms—eyes, beaks, brains—could arise without the intervention of a
designing mind. According to Darwinism, evolution largely reflects the
combined action of random mutation and natural selection. A random
mutation in an organism, like a random change in any finely tuned
machine, is almost always bad. That’s why you don’t, screwdriver in
hand, make arbitrary changes to the insides of your television. But,
once in a great while, a random mutation in the DNA that makes up an
organism’s genes slightly improves the function of some organ and thus
the survival of the organism. In a species whose eye amounts to nothing
more than a primitive patch of light-sensitive cells, a mutation that
causes this patch to fold into a cup shape might have a survival
advantage. While the old type of organism can tell only if the lights
are on, the new type can detect the direction
of any source of light or shadow. Since shadows sometimes mean
predators, that can be valuable information. The new, improved type of
organism will, therefore, be more common in the next generation. That’s
natural selection. Repeated over billions of years, this process of
incremental improvement should allow for the gradual emergence of
organisms that are exquisitely adapted to their environments and that
look for all the world as though they were designed. By 1870, about a
decade after “The Origin of Species” was published, nearly all
biologists agreed that life had evolved, and by 1940 or so most agreed
that natural selection was a key force driving this evolution.



Advocates
of intelligent design point to two developments that in their view
undermine Darwinism. The first is the molecular revolution in biology.
Beginning in the nineteen-fifties, molecular biologists revealed a
staggering and unsuspected degree of complexity within the cells that
make up all life. This complexity, I.D.’s defenders argue, lies beyond
the abilities of Darwinism to explain. Second, they claim that new
mathematical findings cast doubt on the power of natural selection.
Selection may play a role in evolution, but it cannot accomplish what
biologists suppose it can.



These claims have been
championed by a tireless group of writers, most of them associated with
the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a
Seattle-based think tank that sponsors projects in science, religion,
and national defense, among other areas. The center’s fellows and
advisers—including the emeritus law professor Phillip E. Johnson, the
philosopher Stephen C. Meyer, and the biologist Jonathan Wells—have
published an astonishing number of articles and books that decry the
ostensibly sad state of Darwinism and extoll the virtues of the design
alternative. But Johnson, Meyer, and Wells, while highly visible, are
mainly strategists and popularizers. The scientific leaders of the design
movement are two scholars, one a biochemist and the other a
mathematician. To assess intelligent design is to assess their
arguments.
[line]

In 1999, a document from the Discovery Institute
was posted, anonymously, on the Internet. This Wedge Document, as it
came to be called, described not only the institute’s long-term goals
but its strategies for accomplishing them. The document begins by
labelling the idea that human beings are created in the image of God
“one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was
built.” It goes on to decry the catastrophic legacy of Darwin, Marx,
and Freud—the alleged fathers of a “materialistic conception of
reality” that eventually “infected virtually every area of our
culture.” The mission of the Discovery Institute’s scientific wing is
then spelled out: “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and
its cultural legacies.” It seems fair to conclude that the Discovery
Institute has set its sights a bit higher than, say, reconstructing the
origins of the bacterial flagellum.



The intelligent-design
community is usually far more circumspect in its pronouncements. This
is not to say that it eschews discussion of religion; indeed, the
intelligent-design literature regularly insists that Darwinism
represents a thinly veiled attempt to foist a secular religion—godless
materialism—on Western culture. As it happens, the idea that Darwinism
is yoked to atheism, though popular, is also wrong. Of the five
founding fathers of twentieth-century evolutionary biology—Ronald
Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius
Dobzhansky—one was a devout Anglican who preached sermons and published
articles in church magazines, one a practicing Unitarian, one a dabbler
in Eastern mysticism, one an apparent atheist, and one a member of the
Russian Orthodox Church and the author of a book on religion and
science. Pope John Paul II himself acknowledged, in a 1996 address to
the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that new research “leads to the
recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”
Whatever larger conclusions one thinks should
follow from Darwinism, the historical fact is that evolution and
religion have often coexisted. As the philosopher Michael Ruse
observes, “It is simply not the case that people take up evolution in
the morning, and become atheists as an encore in the afternoon.”



Biologists
aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere
because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism;
they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science. Meanwhile,
more than eighty per cent of Americans say that God either created
human beings in their present form or guided their development. As a
succession of intelligent-design proponents appeared before the Kansas
State Board of Education earlier this month, it was possible to wonder
whether the movement’s scientific coherence was beside the point.
Intelligent design has come this far by faith. (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050530fa_fact)

[Mr. Peanut]

I think ID is off base and I realize that the majority of its 'supporters' are supporters only because it may get a foot in the door for 'anything but evolution'... but, it is (at least Behe) much more interesting than basic creationism, IMO, if for no other reason than that it is intellectually honest for the most part and based on scientific thinking.

I question the 'god of the gaps' logic of positing a 'creator' simply because the specific ID proponent thinks science won't/can't explain something... but, I think it is very interesting to look at the difficult examples of the evolution of 'complexity' as critically as possible. THAT is potentially informative... At the very least, it directs attention to the difficult 'how could this evolve' cases.

[Mr. Peanut]

Where did Wildcat Dan go? He seemed very familiar with these issues and I was looking forward to the discussion.

[bigsky]

Perhaps it's better to say, "Quick Creation" for the 6000-10,000 year old group. However, it gets a little sticky after that; is "Gradual Creation" still a divine intervention in all processes? Sort of Intelligent design? Finally there would be "basic science" which eschews all supernatural and religious explanations altogether, not rejecting them or opposing them, but just limiting the examination to the natural world, using the principle of Non Overlapping Magesteria, or (sort of a the "render unto Caesar's thing again, CC) dividing the two topics, science and religion, into the observable and testable and the untestable and accepted without evidence or proof, ie, faith.

Voltaire, one of the most famous of the Enlightenment philosophers, and therefore one of the most vilified by fundamentalists, provides a succinct quote that expresses my view, "All nature cries out that He does exist; that there is a supreme intelligence, an immense power, an admirable order, and everything teaches us our dependence on it". The key, as it is with, say, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, is that Nature provides the insight, into Natures God, that it is by using science and reason to determine theobservable laws of Nature that weinfer the existence a Creator. How then, can NOMA be a viable concept? Intelligent design becomes the Enlightenment, message, not "science and reason", does it not? I don't think so, the Enlightenment makesseveral philosophical points regardingthe Creator, for example, that we are endowed with inalienable rights. Howto prove that with science, as ID attempts to do?

WhereID fails, I think is that ID continues to exploit the God of the Gaps mentality. Oh, the watch (or eye or flagella) is too complicated, therefore there has to be a Creator. I suspect that answer will soon go by the wayside as surely as Zeus hurling thunderbolts. It could be millinia before we find out the limits of our ability to test the physical world and discover a Creator in nature. It's surely not time yet to throw up our hands and exclaim that all that can be discovered has been discovered.

[Mr. Peanut]

bigsky wrote: Perhaps it's better to say, "Quick Creation" for the 6000-10,000 year old group. However, it gets a little sticky after that; is "Gradual Creation" still a divine intervention in all processes? Sort of Intelligent design?

An omniscient God is as intimately familiar with every second 'in the past' and every second 'in the future' as he is with the 'present'. Time would mean nothing to him. He 'created' every moment of time that ever will be simultaneously, along with any thing that will 'be' in those moments...

Anyway, to an omniscient God, creation was instantaneous whether it took 6,000 years to get here or 10 Billion.

[bigsky]

I think you missed the point. I'm trying to classify different theories, not purport a new one. "Quick Creation" is a term meaning "and on the seventh he rested" on the morning of the Autumn Equinox six thousand plus years ago.

Gradual Creation would be more of the RC model.

[Mr. Peanut]

bigsky wrote: I think you missed the point. I'm trying to classify different theories, not purport a new one. "Quick Creation" is a term meaning "and on the seventh he rested" on the morning of the Autumn Equinox six thousand plus years ago.

Gradual Creation would be more of the RC model.

No, I understood you were just classifying. The only reason I quoted you is that you mentioned the question "is divine intervention the same in all processes if it was gradual creation."

I was just tossing out my opinion that the level of 'divine intervention' by an omniscient God would be identicle whether it looked like 'quick creation' or 'gradual creation' from our perspective.

Time unfolds in one direction like a movie for us. For an omniscient God, all time exists simultaneously and was created instantaneously... so, his interventionin the events of a given moment are identicle.

[bigsky]

That information will come in handy when I become a deity.

[Sir Richard F. Burton]

This would be a great discussion at a good microbrewery :)

[Mr. Peanut]

bigsky wrote: That information will come in handy when I become a deity.
:) Either when you become a deity... or the next time you meet someone who is reluctant to learn evolution because they think it removes the 'hand of God' from the world.

[scathendo]

three blind men are all holding different parts of an elephant. one man has ahold of it's ear and swearsan elephant ishuge and flat and mostly smooth. another has ahold of his trunk and he says it's long and thick, wrinkly and hairy. the last man has the elephant's tail. he claims it's skinny with hair at the end.

they all know part of the elephant but none can grasp the the whole concept. they all beleive that they know the elephant and eventually start kicking the crap out of each other to prove they are right.......but no-one knows (gnossis).

'God' or whatever you wish to call it is too big to comprehend by a human mind. scholars in all of the big three religions have reached this conclusion over and over again throughout history. most native american cultures accept that there are some things unknown and that's ok. Science does it's best to explain our cosmos withwhat they readily call 'theories'. theories can and have beendisproven. if i'm not mistaken no one has taken up arms against a'heathen' culture and tried to wipe them out in the name of science. that's not the case for christianity, islam and judaism. i say until one of us 'knows' then we should all shut-up because these old, tired, circular, arguements just keep deepening the chasms between humanity and what we need now is peace, love, and understanding!

[bigsky]

I got it that time, Peanut. Third time's the charm.

[WildcatDan]

Mr. Peanut wrote: Where did Wildcat Dan go? He seemed very familiar with these issues and I was looking forward to the discussion.
Sorry all! I have been busy at work so have not had time to post from there, then when I am at home my time is going towards getting our new server ready to go! I am looking forward to getting back into the discussion but I haven't evenhad time to even read through everything lately.

[WildcatDan]

....and then ironically I have a slow few minutes at work.

The "God of Gaps" statement is a little bit insulting from the standpoint that by His very nature God is NOT provable by science. Christian scientists "poke holes" in evolution because A. It is easy to do and B. Proving evolution wrong opens up discussion of other alternatives for how we all got onthis great big spinning rock.

It's readily accepted that other humanoids existed long before "Adam
and Eve

Accepted by who?Any time the new testament refers to Adam it is as a man, not as an idea. Even Jesusmade reference to Adam.

I recently watched an interesting video that was discussing the Cambrian explosion. I am interested to know what those of you who do believe in evolution think of the Cambrian period. Doesn't it seem a bit strange that "all of a sudden" there is this huge diversity of life that wasn't there before? For those not familiar here is a link. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html

Note to self: Get name of Chinese scientist from video...

[Mr. Peanut]

WildcatDan wrote: ....and then ironically I have a slow few minutes at work.

The "God of Gaps" statement is a little bit insulting from the standpoint that by His very nature God is NOT provable by science. Christian scientists "poke holes" in evolution because A. It is easy to do and B. Proving evolution wrong opens up discussion of other alternatives for how we all got onthis great big spinning rock.

It's readily accepted that other humanoids existed long before "Adam
and Eve

Accepted by who?Any time the new testament refers to Adam it is as a man, not as an idea. Even Jesusmade reference to Adam.

I recently watched an interesting video that was discussing the Cambrian explosion. I am interested to know what those of you who do believe in evolution think of the Cambrian period. Doesn't it seem a bit strange that "all of a sudden" there is this huge diversity of life that wasn't there before? For those not familiar here is a link. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html

Note to self: Get name of Chinese scientist from video...





There you are. Hope you find some time in your schedule.

I can't remember if I said "God of the gaps" or if it was someone else... but, I don't think it is generally intended as an insult. The problem I have with the "holes" supposedly poked in evolution, is that they generally aren't real "holes". All that I have seen are of two types: 1. Misunderstandings/misrepresentations that aren't interesting from a scientific perspective, but that appear encouraging to the uncritical onlookers (NOT an insult... there are LOTS of areas where Iam an uncritical onlooker)or 2. Areas for further research, which are certainly around - noone claims we know everything.

As for the Cambrian... Its a very interesting time and one that is informative on many fronts. Two things about that - 1. I'm not sure I would call a period estimated to have lasted ?10 - 50 million years "all of a sudden", and 2. Why discuss the cambrian explosion if convinced the world is only 6,000 years old in the first place?

Maybe we should continue with the young earth ideas before we tackle something like the cambrian.

[Mr. Peanut]

BTW, are these videos put out by someone named Hovind? His name seems to come up when I google a lot of this stuff.

[bigsky]

"God of the Gaps" is a commonly used term by Christian scientists, and it's something to avoid. I think of it as and ancient Greek's understanding of the earth's rotation as explaining that Apollo pulls the chariot of the sun. I learned it here at work from a preacher, but also ran across it in David Lamoureux's outstanding analysis of evolutionary creation: evolution exhibits plan, purpose and promise...sound familiar?

God of the Gaps does not describe science explaining God as you object to, it's using God to explain gaps in science. As we fill those gaps with knowledge, and we will as long as we inquire with science and reason, the God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller. That's what happens when God becomes the explanation for natural phenomena, or when the supernatural is used to substitute for something that eventually has a natural explanation.

[WildcatDan]

Hovind was the one who got me interested in the subject, but the latest info I have been studying(over the last year or so) is not Hovind.

Evolutionarily speaking the Cambrian would have been "All of a sudden". You can probably guess what my theory on the "Cambiran explosion" is...

The problem with the cambrian period is that there were no precursers for all the diversity found in this layer. Even scientists admit that they are not sure where all of these plants and animals came from "all of a sudden" (once again, evolutionarily speaking).

As in "Areas for futher research" I have seen two things ;)1. Evidence that goes against evolution is summarily dismissed as biased no matter how legit it may be. 2. Science will NEVER admit that it cannot explain something, and therin lies the problem. It will always be, well, we just don't understand that YET.

There ARE holes in evolution. The human eye is set up backwards. The human ear is incredibly complex. Sexual reproduction makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Mutations cause a loss of information, not a gain. Even though things do evolve as it relates to certain traits, they do not change from one kind of animal to another. DNA/RNAis far too complex to have formed by chance (no matter how much time you give it), using ANY stretch of the imagination. There are many many more holes...

[Mr. Peanut]

WildcatDan wrote: Hovind was the one who got me interested in the subject, but the latest info I have been studying (over the last year or so) is not Hovind.

Evolutionarily speaking the Cambrian would have been "All of a sudden". You can probably guess what my theory on the "Cambiran explosion" is...