| Author | Message | ||
     charles pastrano (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 160 Registered: 08-2002 |
Did anyone catch Penn and Teller on Showtime regarding the intelligent design theory and evolution? Apparently this Intelligent Design theory was passed in a school district in GA. I believe Cobb County. What kind of bullshit is that? | ||
| Greg French (Gregfrench) Senior Member Username: Gregfrench Post Number: 257 Registered: 11-2002 |
I didn't see it, but if Penn and Teller did it, it was probably a joke. Intellegent design? It has got to be a joke. Actually, I think "Intellegent Design" is one of those catch phrases that is used now because people get all upset when you say "Evolution" People really gotta get their head out and see the evidence. "Evolution. You don't have to believe in it to do it." | ||
| charles pastrano (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 162 Registered: 08-2002 |
Greg it was very serious. The show is Friday evenings called Bullshit. This school district in Georgia passed Intelligent Design to be taught in the public school system. It was invented to try and make a loophole in the law to allow religion in the public school system. Evolution is fine. Itelligent Design is Creation- the thought that the world animals etc. was created in 6 days according to the bible. | ||
| Greg French (Gregfrench) Senior Member Username: Gregfrench Post Number: 258 Registered: 11-2002 |
So where is the intellegence in designing me with non-functioning nipples? Intellegent design is fine to teach in public schools as long as it isn't being offered under the heading of "Science" It needs to be in a religion or theology class. Teaching religious beliefs as science nullifies the scientific method, because you can't test a hypothesis based on beliefs. Since the scientific method is the primary set of rules used in ALL science, teaching creationism as a science nullifies science as a whole. You can't test a hypothesis based on religious belief. Hypothesis: "God made the world and everything in it" Prove it. Sorry. I can't. There is no evidence. But if you don't believe it you are going to Hell. Ok. Prove that! Sorry. I can't. It is just a belief. Hypothesis: "Organisms change over time to survive best in their environment" Prove it. Ok...the deeper into the fossil record you go, the further back in time you go. Older organisms were different than modern ones. They seem to have changed to better fit their needs. Looks like the ones who had an advantage survived to pass their traits on to their offspring. Seems simple enough to me. Why doesn't everyone get it? | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 21 Registered: 03-2003 |
My nipples don't work. Out comes breakfast. Lol. Stacey | ||
| Shawn McKenzie (Shawn) Member Username: Shawn Post Number: 42 Registered: 10-2002 |
From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical. Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene. The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68. It's evidence like this that makes me doubt the evolution theory. | ||
| Sean Hanagan (Seanh) Member Username: Seanh Post Number: 208 Registered: 05-2002 |
Shawn, You should doubt the theory becase that's how science works. With doubt comes a hypothesis, experimentation, and support or lack thereof for the hypothesis. In science the null hypothesis rules. You can never really say what is the cause you can only say what was not the cause. As a scientist I must say that the theory is just that, a theory. However there is strong support over and over for the theory which would lead one to believe it is the most logical explanation. Keep searching to find the truth. Freethinkers Rule! | ||
| Kevin Bridges (Craniac) Member Username: Craniac Post Number: 62 Registered: 02-2003 |
If evolution is a fact or even comes close to working try explaining the bactrerial flagellaum moter (spelling is not my strong suit) Also can anyone point to a change through selective breeding that adds information to D.N.A ? | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1886 Registered: 02-2002 |
Jeez, where do I begin...... Okay, first: although it's not been mentioned in this thread before this point, it's something that often comes up and gets overlooked or misconstrued, so let me start with it. The fossil record is incomplete, and should be expected to be such, given that fossils are rare. No, not rare in the sense that you can't go and find them, but rare in the sense that most organisms aren't preserved. Things die. Their remains are eaten, or rot away. One once in a while, conditions are right such that a critter gets buried and preserved, on its way to being a fossil. When taking that into consideration, the vast amount of fossils we can go find in the rock record is astounding. Now, lets look at comparative morphology. Well, no, not really, let's compare morphology of a phylum from one millenia to another (whereas comparative morphology is actually comparing similar structures in different organisms... we'll get to that). Go back to early in the fossil record, and things were somewhat simple. As time passed, niches are filled... you see a development of more interesting structures. Now, one thing that is usually left out of these discussions by non-paleontologists are the roles that extinctions play in evolution. Shawn above quoted someone trying to demonstrate that successful mutations are almost mathematically impossible to have occur... but, that's over-contrived for the purpose of writing such a book. (Note: if that WERE true, Shawn, cancer wouldn't happen!) It's true that successful mutations leading to the development of a new species don't occur daily, but, they do occur much more often than those numbers would lead one to believe. What happens is that critters settle into their environments, everything's living along in something resembling harmony... then POW, you have an extinction. Not just a couple of things, but I mean a MASS EXTINCTION. If you look at geologic time during the Phanerozoic Eon, the divisions between the different Eras are marked by extinctions: the end of the Paleozioc Era was the great Permian Extinction, which led to the Mesozoic, and then at the KT boundary we had the end of the Cretaceous Period afterwhich no more dinosaurs were around. (And, looking at the change between Periods, such as the Devonian to the Missippian (or lower Carboniferous for our European friends) or the Triassic to Jurassic, also are defined by extinctions, albeit much smaller than the Era-defining ones). What happens after an extnction is a blossoming of new species... all of that habitat is opened up, the competition has changed, and different advantages will lead to new heirarchies. Look at the Mesozoic fossil record, and compare it to the Cenozoic... you had a dinosaur-dominated terrestrial environment succeeded by a mammal-dominated world. Why? Dinosaurs were having a rough time anyway due to stagnation and disease anyway, and couldn't cope with the environmental change. Big meat eaters need lots of meat, big plan eaters are needed to be that meat, lack of adequate vegetation from lack of sunlight because of the encircling debris clouds really hurt the bigger ones. Reduced light also reduced climatic temperatures, so a pseudo-warm-blooded dino critter couldn't keep pace with true warm-bloods... also, mammals at that point were small so they didn't require the same consumable mass, were mostly egg-eaters/opportunist omnivores, could keep themselves warm along with their young, could provide milk for their young, and thus had a totally different set of tools with which they survived. Kevin: selective breeding is manipulating within a species, you are not generating new species. You can breed wolves into dogs, and take different populations of those dogs and selectively breed them to enhance different traits, thus generating new breeds. But those breeds can still be cross-bred, they're still the same species.... dogs can be crossed back with wolves, they're still the same species.... you've not added or removed information in the DNA, you've just forced parts to be recessive. Sean, part of the problem that science (as a community) has today is with the acceptance of evolution is the difference in definition of theory. What the average joe on the street thinks of as being the definition of a theory is actually in science just a hypothesis. A LOT of testing, retesting, weeding out of bad ideas, combinations of multiple good ideas, etc., go into the formation of advanced hypotheses, long before they reach the point of being referred to as a theory. When modern science gets to the point that something is called a theory, it's because there isn't any other adequate explanation. Sure, there are plenty of fuzzy details... (it's actually like trying to describe the entire room in which the table is in in which the bowl of fruit sits on in which we're hiding inside the orange seed, and thus our painting looks like a Picasso instead of an Ansel Adams photograph), but, we've got a really good skelton roughed out, and everything else that is found helps to clarify the picture. Back to Shawn's mutations: Every time an organism reproduces, its offspring contains mutations that make it a little different from its parents. Most of those, actually, are harmless, but not beneficial. Blue eyes versus brown eyes, left or right handed, red or blond or brunette, tall or short, etc. etc.... And, of the mutations that do occur that significantly impact an organism, most are harmful, and lead to that one being singled out to die off... it is a gazelle that has misformed legs, so it can't get up and run, so the lions get it. It is the too-large-in-the-womb cub that kills it and its mother, thus the vultures dine. But then, there's the deer on the forest-edge plain.... it doesn't choose to change, but, for some reason, this new deer has a neck that's a bit longer than its classmates' necks... it can nibble leaves a bit higher than anyone else... so, it thrives and passes on its genes. There had been another deer a few years earlier that had been the same way, and its grandaughter happens to become a mate to this one. Eventually, as the low-nutrient grass invades and drives the forest to become savannah, the longer-necked deer are doing better, because they can still get to the higher leaves in the remaining trees. Because the mutation for a longer neck is present, genetically, they run with it and end up being giraffes. It doesn't take long, only a few million years, if even that much... Okay, I'll put my soapbox away for the moment, but, I'll be back....  Oh, FWIW: I have taught both physical and historical geology in college, if that happens to be germane to this discussion.... -L | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1887 Registered: 02-2002 |
Oh, a couple of unfinished thoughts from above: Once you delve into the fossil record, lok at how things came about... Go to the earliest Paleozoic, to the Cambrian period. Prior to then, you had no hard-part presevation, eveything is soft-bodied things akin to jellyfish or worms. But in the Cambrian, you start to see trilobites, brachiopods, snails, clams, corals... still simple invertebrates, but, more complex than what had been.... Things like lancelets made the jump from invertebrate to the start of the notochord, and then into early fishes. Lungfish transitioned into amphibians. (Note: not replaced! There are still lung fish, and earlier fish... but a small segment became something else...) Amphibians advanced, and transitioned into reptiles. Small dinsoaurs evolved into birds. Early mammals came about, and were minding their own business, not realizing they were lying in wait, until the opportunity arose. It's awe-inspiring, actually, to see how evolution has worked. Comparative morphology: this is where things are neat. Ever look at a bat's wing? Notice how similar it is to your own hand? Why would that be? What about vestigial limbs in snakes and whales? Start with a common an ancestor, and work from there.... start as a generalist, then let it fill niches... again and again.... diets will change, things will change their mobility-design, things will grow larger, etc. etc. What I find incredulous is the rejection of evolution from some people's theology. IMHO, evolution working as beautifully as it does would be more of an argument for a diety... People are too hasty to box God up into an old man on a throne in the sky.... can't the laws of physics, of chemistry, of biology, can't they also be the part of the nature of God? -L | ||
| charles pastrano (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 164 Registered: 08-2002 |
Thanks well put. It is still ashame that this Creation theory is allowed to be taught in a public school. | ||
| Ross Thoma (Rossthoma) Member Username: Rossthoma Post Number: 164 Registered: 08-2002 |
I think that people have a hard time seeing evolution because it nullifies the belief that we are here for a greater purpose and that scares people. Leslie, I think that we ( I mean people involved in the earth sciences) can grasp it easier since we get our hands dirty in it and see the small nuances in biodivercity. If it was so cut and dry pathogens would not be able to "evolve" so our medications loose there effectiveness. RT | ||
| charles pastrano (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 165 Registered: 08-2002 |
Since the show aired my wife has been struggling with the two thoughts and her religion. She was taught the evolution side in school and believes the concept. However after seeing the religious version of creation she is even more skeptical of her religous view. She asked me what do we teach our children? I said that I plan on posing both sides as a merged concept. I explained people cant take the bible literally word for word. I cant accept this and will not teach my children this way. My thought process is I dont think it was six days to creat the earth but six million or billion years. Whatever it was a long time. I believe animals evolved as Leslie explained. I will continue to tell the stories of the bible but the way I view it. It may have flooded where Noaha lived and he may have built a big boat and put his animals etc, but he didnt have every living creature in the world. there is no way. My point is the bible may be filled with historic stories fact, fiction or a little enhanced, but it has a good strong moral value for kids to grow with. Thank you Leslie, Shawn and Ross for your wonderful examples on both sides. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 419 Registered: 07-2002 |
Adaptation and Survival of the Fittest can be proven, can be observed. Origin of the Spiecies cannot. There IS scientific evidence for both Creation and Evolution, the fact is you have to BELIEVE in which ever one you want to BELIEVE in. | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 22 Registered: 03-2003 |
Charles, Suggested reading, 'Why Christianity Must Change or Die' by Bishop John Shelby Spong. Stacey | ||
| Greg French (Gregfrench) Senior Member Username: Gregfrench Post Number: 259 Registered: 11-2002 |
How many of us are earth-type scientists on here? I teach High school Physical science, marine science, and biology (Yes...including Evolution) | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 23 Registered: 03-2003 |
I teach middle school, social studies and science. It is a classic liberal arts situation, I have just enough knowlege to piss people off. LOL :-) I can follow this one, but participate..... Stacey | ||
| Land Rover Certified Used A**hole (Jason) Senior Member Username: Jason Post Number: 388 Registered: 04-2002 |
I teach A & P and Bio labs at the University, and will be a PhD student in biology this summer. I'm also a Christian. Whether you choose creationism or evolution, you have a faith in that notion explaining our current existance. What is faith? Belief based on limited evidence. Evolution has been discussed as a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has been accepted to be true. As a hypothesis, it is only valid until it is disproven. The easiest example I can give is basic High School mathematical proofs. The proof of the particular theorem starts off as a hypothesis. The proof is finished when plausible arguing hypotheses are disproven. That is, you cannot prove anything, only disprove the arguing hypothesis. That way, the hypothesis still remains tenable (whether accepted as a theory/theorem or not) until another competing hypothesis comes around that may refute the hypothesis/theory. Scientific method works the exact same way. Scientists can not and have not proven anything regarding evolution. Merely they have disproven competing hypotheses that has formed the notion of the theory today. Keep in mind while the basis of the theory of evolution remains constant (e.g. the underlying concept), the explanation for how species have evolved/are evolving is constantly changing as old hypotheses are refuted and new tenable ones take their place. So what's the point of my rambling? Without telling you what I believe in, as my philosophy doesn't mean a lick until there's a PhD after my name, I will tell you this: I am increasingly frustrated by the arrogance and ignorance on both sides of the argument (not calling you guys out...but in general those who proclaim evolution vs. creation). Quite simply, you cannot prove anything, evolution or creation or anything else, and simply refuting another hypothesis without disproving it because you "think" it's illogical puts you in the same boat as those early thinkers who believed the Earth to be flat. I'd suggest reading "Strong Inference" by John Platt. It's a well-detailed explanation of the scientific method. As far as I know, creationism has NOT been disproven and evolution has NOT been disproven. They both remain to be tenable hypotheses. | ||
| Greg French (Gregfrench) Senior Member Username: Gregfrench Post Number: 260 Registered: 11-2002 |
Yes...but how can you test the creationists ideas? I agree that it is healthy to look at both sides, and both are ok to teach in school. Just don't teach creationism as a science. It is not a science, and does not belong in a science curriculum. | ||
| charles pastrano (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 166 Registered: 08-2002 |
The whole point is not what is right or what is wrong. It is whether Creation or Intelligent Design should be taught in a Public school system. It shouldnt! Intelligent design is based on religion. It was invented to create a loophole in the law.(Separation between Church and State)It is absurd to think the people in GA allow this to be taught in their public schools. | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1889 Registered: 02-2002 |
Whoa, stop, let's back that up, Jason.... "As far as I know, creationism has NOT been disproven " Haven't had historical geology, eh? Okay, first, let's clarify the definition of Creationism. God, as an old man sitting on a throne in the clouds, popped this planet together in six 24-hour periods, about 6,000 years ago. That's it. Nothing else. That has, beyond any shadow of a doubt, been disproven: that the Earth was made just 6,000 years ago. See, let's switch to history mode for a bit... During the post-Middle Ages, a lot of monastic thought was bent towards calculating the age of the Earth. Actually, it had gone on longer than that; Judiasm was an old religion, Greek and Roman mythology was still an active religion, and Christianity sprang from Judiasm. The Jews themselves weren't so concerned about the details of when the Earth was created, what did it matter? Christianity was the new kid on the block, and needed validation on the world-wide stage... by tying into its Jewish history, it could acheive for itself a level of respectability, of being the genuine article. So began the game of trying to learn the Bible's history to the point of being able to surpass the Jews with it, claiming it as their own. Now it didn't take long for politics to meld in, and the Roman Catholic church took power and ran on the back of the Empire, catapulting this revolt into the largest religion to come along at the time. But how does that tie in here? The Catholic church ran the world by its interpretation of everything... and without having anything else to base anything on (ie, a strong scientific method that had been testing things for centuries), it went with the best-fit translation of the Bible that it could manage, after choosing what it wanted included or not. Fast forward to the age of Enlightenment... people start to really come up with a set of observations that start to grow into the foundations of science. What they're finding, though, doesn't mess with the young Created Earth theory of the church's interpretation. (More about that in a minute). Long before Bishop Ussher was on the scene, the theologians were trying to draw up the timeline of the Bible. They were taking known historical dates of events that could be correlated to Biblical events, then counting back generations given a number of years per generation, and ended up with a hypothetical time when Adam was created in the Garden. As the years passed, new monks would try to improve the estimate. Once Bishop Ussher was involved, it was to the point where they were tweeking it, and he came up with a date for the beginning of Creation to have been on a certain day (the 12th? I don't recall off the top of my head) in October in 4004 BC (I think it was at 6pm in the evening, if I remember correctly). Well, what was going on in the world at this time that hadn't happened before? Literacy. Gutenberg's printing press started making copies of the Bible a century or so before, and other printed literature too, thus making it possible for more people to become literate than just monks. By the time Ussher was doing his figurings, the Bible was "a best seller", with lots of presses printing it. Well, one of the publishers (Oxford, I believe), heard about Ussher's hypothetical date, and printed it in the margin of the Bible as an interesting aside. After a number of years, someone realized that it wasn't really appropriate to be there, and removed it. But by that point, it was established into a collective subconscious that the Earth was started in 4004 BC. [FWIW, Ussher himself would be appalled at the literal credence given to his date by modern Creationists.] Now. let's look at the history of the science of the age of the Earth. At first, there were some really, um, "interesting" thoughts coming about regarding the age. Darwin's ideas, in order to work, needed time; you can't start with one critter and evolve into a plethora of organisms overnight. Geology was just starting out as a science at the time... Smith, Hutton, and Lyell were really taking note of the strata, and that processes seen at work today have been at work for a long time to shape what is seen underfoot. Neither camp really had any idea of the real age of the Earth, they just knew it would have to have been millions of years. (Getting down to the nitty-gritty of figuring out the real age is a separate story.....) For quite some time, no one was really that worked up about the fact that scientists were working out that the age of the Earth seemed to be indicating that it was really old; but, when the Theory of Evolution started to indicate that there was a common ancestor between apes and humans, well, many simpletons took offense and misunderstood it to mean that evolutionary biologists were saying that man descended from ape (which is not true). It did help spark a growth in fundamentalism, where people began trying to take the Bible completely in a literal sense of being accurate in everything. Now, let me step aside here and recall something that a very wise pastor once said: "There's a difference in taking the Bible literally and seriously." Why was the Bible written? Was it meant to be a science book? Was it meant to be a history book? Or, was it meant to be a book about faith in God? Would you try to use a science book to figure out the history of Napoleonic wars? Would you use a history book to figure out how to develop a space program? True, the development of some parts of science is historical, and history has been affected by science along the way, and thus each is mentioned and included in the other, but are not each striving to be exact in both disciplines, only in one. So, why do people try to use the Bible as other than a book on faith? More to come..... -L | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1890 Registered: 02-2002 |
To continue.... If you delve into the native language of Genesis, ie Hebrew, there's some interesting bits there. First, the word in that first chapter that was translated as "day" once it was written in English, actually is more accurately defined as "a period of time". [And regardless, "Do not forget this, with the Lord... a thousand years are like a day."] And, look at the order of the Creation: you start with nothing, it was "formless". Then light was made. The next "day", water was formed, with the sky. Then the "day" after that, land was brought forth. And vegetation. "Day" four, the sun and moon were created.... [hmmm... isn't a day defined by periods of sunlight? Would it be possible to have a day and a night w/o the sun? ] Anyway, what's interesting is: you start with the rough earth, you create an ocean, you bring life into being, vegetation, then water critters, and so on and so forth. Then last, man was made. Now, what's so different about that and Evolution? What about what people were made from? "The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground"... Hmmm.... let's look at that.... dust of the ground, elements, etc., such as carbon and oxygen iron and etc.... wait, isn't that what we're composed of? Then a bit later, Cain killed Abel, and was cursed, but... Cain was afraid that he would be killed, and so God put a mark on him, and he went east into Nod and found a wife.... uh, who was he afraid was going to kill him? Who did he marry? Let me take a minute here to clarify some things... I'm not trying to belittle anyone for believing in the Bible; I, too, am a Christian. While I may seem to evicerated the first couple of chapters of Genesis here, let me point out, I think that what is read just needs a proper interpretation.... A lot (most? all?) of early cultures were polytheistic, whereas there was a farmer in the Tabriz Valley who started the first monotheistic belief set.... The Bible is a book, it is a bunch of words, about The Word. It has been penned by human hand, and was molded by the same... parts were left out, words mis-translated, phrases corrupted.. it was shaped to be what the church wanted it to be. But even considering that, it's not "wrong", but, more accurately, collectively it's that what it is about is "right"... Ever see an accident? When the officer starts asking different witnesses what happened, when all of the version match up exactly, he know that they're in cahoots together.... What REALLY happens is that person A saw it from one perspective, person B saw it from the other side of the street and describe it a bit differently than the first, and person C has yet another version. But, when you take the multiple accounts, even if each has a modicum of error in it, you can piece together an accurate version of what happened. Thus is the Bible: even if there are things in it that aren't "perfectly right" but were only close to right, by cross-referencing and reading and studying what is said about something elsewhere in it, one can arrive at a logical consensus on what is truly meant, regardless of the nuances of details.... L8R... -L | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 420 Registered: 07-2002 |
I agree with you, but I think you left out a few very key points about the first chapter of Genesis. I will get into it later. i.e. timelines etc... But you are right, man's interpretation of what God does is, to say the least, a bit screwy. This is why people STUDY, or should study, the Bible for a life time. | ||
| Ross Thoma (Rossthoma) Member Username: Rossthoma Post Number: 165 Registered: 08-2002 |
I am a forest and fish & wildlife tech and majored in and tutored science in school. I also worked for 6 years in the oil and gas exlporation field. Now When debating the Creation vs Evo with close minded a close minded person it is difficult to be on an even footing. When defending science there is no easy way so skirt the facts due the the scientific method, while with religion there is always "god has a plan and we are apart of it"or "who are we to question god" to fall back on, kind of like the slamming door efect. On the "the world is flat" comment. To prove or disprove something you have to look at it from different angles. Standing in a desert the earth is flat, flying in low orbit and looking down (from outside the box) our perceptions change and new thing are revieled. Perhaps one day the scientific method will eventually rule out everything else and leave only creation, or perhaps it will not. Ross Thoma | ||
| Land Rover Certified Used A**hole (Jason) Senior Member Username: Jason Post Number: 389 Registered: 04-2002 |
Some great explanation Leslie. I, too, agree with much of what you have written. You chose to pick my interpretation of creationism as the literal translation of Genesis. I, of course, never mentioned my interpretation of creationism; I additionally stated "Without telling you what I believe in" to further distance the arguement of creationism, but rather emphasize my argument on the interpretation of evolution as "fact" considering how the scientific method actually "proves" (or rather, "disproves") hypotheses. Furthermore Leslie, as from your writing I would suppose you belive in a very similar idea of creationism that I do, creationism has not been disproven. Has creationism been ruled out as a hypothesis explaining the big bang (again, not the literal translation of creation, but the concept of creation)? Has creationism been ruled out as explaining the emergence of reasoning, free thinking in humans? (I lean towards believing that the creation of man as detailed in Genesis is what differentiated man from ape; that is reason, logic, free-thought, etc) I think this may explain that we share the same views on both creation and evolution. Am I mistaken? BTW, reread my post. | ||
| Land Rover Certified Used A**hole (Jason) Senior Member Username: Jason Post Number: 390 Registered: 04-2002 |
Ross, that was my point! The scientific method only works to disprove hypotheses. To rule the hypotheses out. The remaining hypothesis is tenable, or plausible, probably, possible, etc. It simply has not been ruled out...yet. As you stated, over time and technology, it may or may not be ruled out. It may be proven after exhausting all plausible competing hypotheses, much in the way a mathematician proves a theorem. Maybe to shorten this, even with all of the knowledge we have, we are still severely limited. Scientists have to act both within their expertise and as historians. With any theory, we must be careful to differentiate what we know from what we hypothesize. This does not say one cannot argue evolution from every corner of the knowledge-base, but that person must realize there may always exist another possiblity. Forgetting this demonstrates both arrogance and ignorance. Since there are many educated and well-versed members on this board, I'm sure many are familiar with the Rosenthal Effect. Again, Platt's "Strong Inference" details these pitfalls. | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1891 Registered: 02-2002 |
"Creationism", by definition, is a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis occurring during a week 6000 years ago. If someone takes the point of view that God created everything THROUGH what is observed in science, ie that the natural processes like tectonics and evolution are God's "tools" for creation, then that does NOT fit the book-definition of Creationism.... What's interesting is the rather large number of scientists I know that are Christian; we don't pitch the Bible out the window, we just can read it and realize that nature IS God. Part of the problem that fundamentalists have with that idea, though, is that it begins to resemble the "Mother Nature", the "Gaia"-type pagan ideas from the older religions of the world, when one meshes the Bible and science together. A lot of discussion about the "Big Bang" is still going on, the data being thought over, re-interpreted, etc... What's happened the last 10 billion years in the universe are much more clear than what happened before that, at its inception. Yes, there is a model of thought that God's finger started the "Big Bang", and everything has run on its own since then for the most part... very much akin to the Deist's "Clockmaker" theology, that God made it and started it ticking, but has left his hands off of it since. That is NOT "Creationism". It's very important to distinguish that: Creationism is not about whether or not God did it, but that God did it in one literal week. I agree, I think you and I are thinking along similar lines in regards to the God-nature question... I'm going to stand by my statement that Creationism HAS been disproven; but I wholly agree that that does not mean that the whole running of the universe wasn't started by God. Back to my question about the definition of God: as I said, people picture an older fellow with long flowing beard and robes hanging out in the clouds.... we as humans have made God into our image, thinking that that runs true because we were "made in God's image". If we include the laws of physics and mathematics and chemistry, etc., to be part of the nature of God, if we don't chain God to be limited to a super-human kind of role, then God fits better into both the religious version and also as part of the universe, of everything. It strengthens those ideas that each of us actually IS a part of God, that God IS everywhere.... Anyway, better get to work now, lol... -L | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 422 Registered: 07-2002 |
6000 years, I would say more like 10-15k, but I'm not and expert. I like the way you think Leslie, but for the sake of comparing the science of evidence lets examine the first chapter of Genesis again. First, for the sake of argument, lets assume there is a God. Therefore, we must assume that this God is who he says he is. In other words, who are we to argue? If he is who He says He is, then we must assume that when he says he created the world in 6 days - why not? All powerful is all powerful right? However, I believe God is more creative than that. If he were to take the initiative to create all this, would he not treat it in much the same way we all treat our favorite hobbies? Say the rebuilding of a Series Land Rover for show - much care and attentive work would go into it. Even if we had the money to spend on hiring a full time mechanic, with no expense spared on the shop or parts used. We would still want to take our time to enjoy the process, to do it right. That is how I see the character of God in the work of creation. Now, back to the 6 days mentioned in the Bible. It has all ready been stated that to God, a day is like 1000 years. That is an arbitrary number - poetic interpretation of how "time" passes for God. But lets assume that it really is 1000 years per day, that would mean 6000 years of creation before it is "done". I don't have a Bible in front of me right now, but the first verse goes something like: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth became formless and void." Read it again, what comes out at you there? First, he created the heavens and the earth FIRST - later we see that he evidently has to create them again! What is going on here? Well, read the next few words and you come to the word "became" as in it "...became formless and void" Many people believe that there is something like a 10,000 year interval here where there was a destruction of sorts, or war - say, when satan decided to take 1/3 of the angels and turn against God, and as a result there was war in heaven and on earth - War finished, creation resumes. "And the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the face of the deep." We now have some 1000 years for the first day, 10,000 years added to that for the "war" (This is where JRR T. got his idea of Middle Earth - the time between times.) Then another 5000 years on top of that for creation of the rest of the world. That would provide for some pretty old rocks being around before any lifeforms. Again, I don't have a Bible in front of me so I can't be too detailed, but the next really interesting thing to look at is when God creates the plants and the seeds of the earth, we then hear that a day or two later, there is no vegitation on the earth, suggesting that there is a certain amount of time that is being taken to allow the plants to grow and mature. If this is the case, then why would it not be that it took a certain amount of time for Adam to grow to the point where we see that God creates Eve from his own body. Time, time, time passing all the time. We read it all in less than 5 minutes and most of us - I assume - are under the age of 50 or 60, what do we know about time? Next, about Caine and Able - they were quite old when the murder occured, and the Bible does not go into detail about the other things that are going on in the background, but the Lord had told Adam and Eve to procreate the earth - I assume that is what they were doing for the 800? 900? years that Adam lived. (Again, no Bible in front of me.) We also know that the flood did occur. There is a story about a world wide flood in every ancient civilization. Some even include the story of a single family being saved by building a boat. We know that the Grand Canyon even could have been created in a matter of just a few years of run-off and erossion - after all, it is all sedimentary rock and sand stone down to where the Colorado now runs - bedrock. How do we know this? How do we account for the thousands of layers of earth that are supposedly millions of years old? Have you ever mixed different types of sand into a large aquarium, stir it up, then let it settle, it will settle in layers within a few hours. Think of that on a large scale. Look at Mt. St. Helens; First, the destruction of a reletively small, single, volcanic explosion. What if all the thousands of volcanos in the world - I can see some 20-30 from where I live - were blowing all at once? We would have entire contentents formed in a short time, we would have floods and mountains being created before our eyes. The entire Cascade mountain range is a giant fold in the earth with lava spouting up here and there to create various peaks. You can see the history of this mountain range in an hour or two of driving from west to east. And finally, look at what happened after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. There is a 3000' foot deep gorge on the foothills of the mountain that was formed in 4 days! It was recorded on video. And there are some 250 layers of ash, rock, sediment and even fossils in this gorge. And it was not formed by lava or an explosion, it was formed by a medium sized lake being plugged by logs and earth, then breaking free all at once. Just like the 60 mile long Columbia River Gorge, we know that it was initially crated in a single event - the Mazama (sp?) flood - which incidentally occured about 10,000 years ago, which coincides with fossil records around the world, ancient tales, and even the Biblical timeline for the Biblical flood. In the end, we could argue about this till the cows come home. But in then end, it is like I said in my first post, you have to believe in what you are going to believe. Your relationship with God is between you and God. I can't argue you into Christianity. But to be on the safe side - maybe you should at the very least, just ask Him to try to prove it to you once - just once, then get on with your life. Your last thing about the definition of God... cool. Hey, if Heaven is just going to be a giant church service in the sky, then I don't want to go either. But I believe it will be a paradise of wilderness and pristine creation hundereds of times better than any national park or preserve. He took 6000 years to create the first paradise... And He is still working on Version 2.0. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 551 Registered: 09-2002 |
Greg, it's all bean-counters - you've got them for the same reason Land Rovers have provisions for both left- and right-hand steering wheel locations. Guess little savings here and there are a part of intelligent design. Charles, the evolution theory as an explanation of biodiversity appears amazingly dumb to me (nothing wrong or bad about Darwin, but it was a while ago). The Bible's script of the world creation in 6 days looks like a great over-simplification as well. I see no more harm in teaching intelligent design idea to the kids than evolution theory. peter | ||
| Charlie Fok (Verboy) New Member Username: Verboy Post Number: 6 Registered: 03-2003 |
Many of you here are christian, so either way you will have bias. I have no believe except for... Capitalism I guess. So, I want to share my view with you. I was educated in a baptist school throughout my childhood until I finish highschool. Both creationism and evolution was taught in school (Creation was only taugh in Bible class). My view of creation is that... God=nature. So, yes, Nature (God) created everything. To me, creation=evolution. Didn't human used to (and still) worship everything happened in the nature? What do we get here, god of say..SUN, RAIN, FIRE, WATER, and hey, many "more advanced" Asian cultures still worship special shaped rocks! So, let me pick one here.... God of SUN (not necessarily Apollo... tribes worship their version of the God of Sun). Yeh, I believe the sun created everything on earth. I am a immigrant, and I worship the American style of Capitalism. What's the different between Philosophy and Religion: Philosophy is something that you don't have to believe it if you think it is wrong. Religion is something that you will still believe in if you know it is wrong (ie, communism, creationism) | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1896 Registered: 02-2002 |
Many people believe that there is something like a 10,000 year interval here Heard that one. However, that's bantered about by the fence-post-sitters, those who want to be Creationists but realize that the 4004BC is impossible to meet, so, they try to stretch it to the 10k-15k time range. According to the Creationist-purists that I've argued with before, "It isn't in the Bible, so that didn't happen".... True Creationists stick with the literal 6-day version. Sure, lots of people try to hybridize it to get it to fit better, like the 6000-year creation, but, it is still fallacy. Not every ancient civilization: the flood-story is completely absent from African cultures, except where it was introduced later from Biblical contexts. Ever read about Gilgamesh and Enkidu? Run-off and erosion did create the Grand Canyon, but not in a few years... roughly it occurred over the last 2 million years... It was about 6 million years ago that tectonics finally had the general continental configuration, setting the course for the Colorado River. The upper capstones took a bit to get eroded through, which locked in the stream's path. The Pleistocene Epoch, marked by glacial activity north of there, altered the climate to encourage that last push of erosion over that last 2my. Creating those layers like your aquarium isn't that simple. On the seafloor, you deposit the sediment, bury it and lithify it. Then again. Now, uplift it to erode it off to create an unconformity. Have it subside, so more deposition occurs. And more. Then, you tilt the beds, and erode off some more. Then, deposit more on top of that. It ain't gonna all happen in a weekend... Also, if you look at most sedimentary rock, it in and of itself isn't where the age of it comes from. Most sedimentary rock may contain fossils, with which you can establish a relative age: ie, this layer is older than that one, but younger than this other. Law of superposition works there, too, but, you can have overturned beds, etc. For absolute age-dating, you have to find your igneous rock, or metamorphic like the two-billion-year-old Vishnu schist at the bottom of the canyon, or interbedded lava flows, like the basalt that was on top of the plateau a million years ago, that actually flowed down into the canyon. I've actually hiked into the crater of Mt. St. Helens, right up to the lava dome, dodging that danged chasm. Look at what that is cut in: not in sandstones, or basalt, but in mostly unconsolidated pumice and volcanic debris... that crap ground the soles off my Danners. It's not hard to wash away ash-piles. And, the Columbia River Gorge was NOT a single event; Look at all of the upper Channelled Scablands over eastern Washington, at all of the Coolees. It was glaciation that closed off the river, creating (huge) Lake Missoula. What does ice do? It floats! The glacial dam would float up, and BAM, you had a huge flood. Then, the glacer above the river's level would ooze back into place, blocking it off, creating Lake Missoula v.2. And then again, BAM, big flood. Then v.3, and so on and so forth.... Watch a glacier's methodical work. Look at its seasonal deposition: you can see light and dark sediment layers, which are varying according to being summer or winter. Over the course of a few years, you can watch the deposition occur, and see how the layers accumulate. Counting back by pairs, you can tell how long a glacier has been depositing in that location: there are places where you can see that a glacier has worked for 40,000 years. No way to fit a 10-15k-year-old earth into that picture. I can't argue you into Christianity. True, I'm already there.... I just realize that the Old Testament is a collection of oral traditions that were passed down for generations, and are a product of the societies of their authors. You have to read into it: the importance of Noah isn't in that there was a farmer who lived where the Back Sea flooded in, but what's important is that even in the face of destruction, Noah remained faithful to the Lord. Look at Job... how many people think it's a shame that the Lord allowed Job to go through all of that? just ask Him to try to prove it to you once Why? Look at Thomas... he was all the example one needs, THAT is a matter of faith, not proof. I'm not trying to argue about God's inexistence here, I'm just arguing that the Earth is 4.65 billion years old, and was created via means that can be described as natural forces. That's the science part. Now, jumping to the non-scientific side, I believe that those processes used are God's tools... which, is a matter of faith, and can't be proven or tested, by definition.... IMHO, FWIW.... -L | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 425 Registered: 07-2002 |
Your right, we're right. Actually, I realized that I was directing my writing to you Leslie, but I didn't really mean to, I was more talking to the people above. The Doubting Thomas who waited for proof - maybe he shouldn't have, but he did. Anyway. did you miss that I was saying that my time lines were only meant to explain the fact that you can find very old rocks - older than the Bible "literally" says is possible. I am pure creationist, that is why I say God could have done it in 6 days or 6 minutes if he wanted to. I believe that he did it in approximately "earth time" 16,000 years. But maybe there was no time before he created the sun and the moon! I'm just saying I don't think you can say I am not a creationist because I don't think God did it in 6 literal days - by saying that I am not limiting Him or His power. In fact I tried to show that it was a function of His love for what He was doing that caused Him to take His time. This view is not limited to a few. Ask the Genesis Foundation, or the science teachers at various Biblical Seminarys - My father has been to and taught at several different ones. You may be right about the Columbia Gorge being more than one event - well of course you are right, because it is still being made! But I am saying that it's initial creation was the Missoula flood - at least that is what my notes from class said. About the layers, you say they are layed down, then turned and mixed again over time - to put it in simple terms. Then isn't it a pretty good assumption that a place like the G.C. was - at least the layers - created in a single event - if not, we wouldn't get layers. Look at a river delta, it happens over time, but create a huge flood and you would have a new land mass of layers. It's just that I have seen this stuff take place. I've seen the video of the creation of that gorge on Mt. St. Helens the water cutting through rock and ash. Given a larger event, why would it not be possible? More later?... | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 426 Registered: 07-2002 |
...How about now. I guess, mainly I just want to make sure you know that it is more a factor of tradition that we believe that the world was created in 6 days. Maybe it was, maybe 6 days was a different measurement than what we use. And maybe, as far as earth evolution and geology is concerned - 6 million years 50 million years actually has past - why not? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I believe God created all nature, I think differently about how it might have occured, but it was done and that is enough for me. Isn't it wierd how we look at the same evidence and see different outcomes? It does all come down to your faith in God and what he did for mankind. Even the creation of the world is a drop in the bucket and inconsequential. But if I wasn't a Social Studies teacher, I would love to do earth science. I love this stuff. Oregon is one of the most geologically diverse places around. It is amazing that I can ride my bike or walk into multiple volcanic craters in various Portland parks. Or drive a couple hours and see a caldera, lava cave, "new" lava flows on top of the modern landscape, and miles and miles of pumice or pure obsidian all within eyesite of a single spot. Not to mention a spot like Ft. Rock, or an ancient underground lava and steam explosion that looks like an impact point from a meteor. And the best way to see these is in a Land Rover of couse. And just to let all you know, just like in social studies - I would present both sides. That is one thing I will go to the mat over. That there is scientific evidence for both creation timelines and evolutionary timelines. Anyway, I'm done. | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1900 Registered: 02-2002 |
Ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? There's an alternate version of creation in there, which is different from yet akin to this idea, that God made dinosaur bones and put them into place in the sediment along the way, just to fool people into thinking that they had existed, and thus it was a test to see if you believed what you saw or what you read in the Bible. I'd hate to subsribe to that belief, because a God that malicious would not be rightly loved. But let me ask: why take 6 days? Why not create it instantly? Or, why try to say it was in 6000 years instead of 6 days? Why bother to try to justify it to "science" when science already has thrown out the possibility of it being anywhere near that young? I didn't miss your lines: the problem is, that's only a version of excusitis to explain how they can exist, trying to force it to mesh with a Creationist point-of-view. If you take a Creationist POV at the on-set, whatever is seen is going to be interpreted to fit into what the pre-established framework is. And, anything else said is taken in context (or rather, out of context), to reaffirm that POV. Like what you read my deposition of the G.C. to be: I was saying completely the opposite of what you took it to mean, I was saying that it was MANY events over GREAT spanses of time, in no way did I try to say that it was a single depositionary event. Water and ice are powerful erosive forces. But, usually, they need LOTS of time in order to work. Yes, floods can quickly change a smaller environment, but even big floods (like the Scabland's channelling) still require multiple events over the course of ages to make a dent in it. If The Noachian Flood did carve out the G.C., then why would the basalt flows on the rim of the canyon be older 10-15k years old? How could they be a million years old, if Noah was floating around before then? I don't doubt that your notes said that, but, it's not geologically correct, nor plausible. At the start of the day, I keep my science separate from my religion; then at the end of the day, I step back and see how they actually complement each other, even though I strive to work on them independent of each other. Don't take this as hateful bantering; I see myself as a reconciler between genuine scientifically-based geology and Biblical understanding. Not because it really matters, given that as a Christian the New Testament is the bread-and-butter, and the Old Testament is a backdrop for perspective on it; I know I can't change anyone's beliefs, but, because that early part of Genesis is in the Bible, I strive to interpret it in a way to allow fundamentalists to understand that they don't have to toss science out of the window. FWIW... -L | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1901 Registered: 02-2002 |
Lol, I was typin', honest! Thing is, That there is scientific evidence for both creation timelines and evolutionary timelines.... That's not the work of science! Science investigates timelines, with no prejudice for either. At the end of the day, you then look at the result of the science, and see where it puts you. Anytime one goes in with a preconceived notion, the results will be skewed. If you said "Let's look at the evidence from a Creationist standpoint", that's what you're going to see. If you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, that's what you're going to see. The hitch here is, that the evolutionary viewpoint is a result of the science: it's not that we're talking about two competing religions, we're comparing a belief-set against scientific evidence. The truth of the matter is, geology is a science of catastrophies with enormous amounts of time between. Most geologic "work" is done quickly, and then sits around. Then another little bit is done, and then sits around again. Look at a sandstone bed: each of those small sets of cross-beds within a bed probably represents a storm-event, a hurricane. In one bed, you may have the record of thousands of hurricanes... and how many times over did a big hurricane actually wipe out the development of that bed, and what you see are only the last thousand smaller storms? All I ask is, look at the science independent of the religion; then, step back and see how the religion will fit the evidence. -L | ||
| Carter Simcoe (Carter) Senior Member Username: Carter Post Number: 2100 Registered: 04-2002 |
the book of Genesis was an attempt to explain something that couldn't be explained at the time and now people feel the need to make current science fit the description so that they can justify their religious beliefs that they feel they need to be fulfilled. The bible might be good for some historical knowlege but as for science I'm calling bull-shit. IMHO, FWIW, yada yada yada, -Off the organized religions bandwagon and never felt better. | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1902 Registered: 02-2002 |
LOL! All religions have a "creation myth". How true. And, if God did show up at any point 200 years ago or earlier and said "This is how I did it using geology", well, no one could have understood, they didn't have the background to grasp the concept of billions of years being involved. But, taking that into account, and looking at my brief outline in my fourth post: Anyway, what's interesting is: you start with the rough earth, you create an ocean, you bring life into being, vegetation, then water critters, and so on and so forth. Then last, man was made. Now, what's so different about that and Evolution? See what I mean? I wholly agree, the Bible's not a science book, but, it's not far off the mark, if you don't take "day" to be literal, and allow for artistic license.... I wholly agree with you, and will re-emphasize what I said earlier: the Bible is a book on FAITH, it is not a history book nor a science book. +++++++++++ Now, here's a new thought to throw into this mix: If, if there was no way to explain the creation of the earth via "natural processes", ie, that the Earth just HAD to have been the result of the Divine's handiwork, then, well, there'd be no real way to deny the existence of God, no? And thus, you wouldn't have a choice in believing or not. But, if... if the world was made by God in a manner that used "natural processes" so that someone could stand and honestly argue that the end-result was sole the work of those natural processes, then, in that case, it allows someone to use faith to believe whether or not God did it, by whatever means.... Interesting, eh? -L | ||
| Carter Simcoe (Carter) Senior Member Username: Carter Post Number: 2101 Registered: 04-2002 |
Oh don't worry Leslie, I posted that in total agreement w/ you. However SOME of the historical information in the bible is probablly true, still not the best historical refences in most cases though, and as for science most nursery rhymes are more accurate. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 428 Registered: 07-2002 |
One instance, at least (there are more): Historically, Pontus Pilate did not exist - probably because the Romans decided to erase his memory - he was thought to be a Biblical myth. But a box seat in a hippodrome with his name and title inscribed on it has now been dug up on the Northwest Coast of Israel. Several entire towns were also thought to be fabels of the Bible until they were dug up by modern archaeologists. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 429 Registered: 07-2002 |
I guess I'm not done. Leslie, I think you are missunderstanding me. I did say that God could have created everything in an instant - absolute power is absolute power. I am trying to meld the two, science and creation, together. But I would have to say also, that any science is bias in some way. That is the ultimate problem, how to create an experiment that is not bias or flawed. That is what we are seening here. You cannot truely recreate the creation of anything, you can only interpret the signs that are in the evidence. That is why I say that I look at the Grand Canyon and see a phenominal work of God, and when I think about it, I see evidence of The Flood. No, it was not created in a single flood, but I would say that if you believe in The Flood, that would be what started it, and got it off on a big start at that. Also, you said: "The Noachian Flood did carve out the G.C., then why would the basalt flows on the rim of the canyon be older 10-15k years old? How could they be a million years old, if Noah was floating around before then?" Are you talking about the Grand Canyon or the Columbia River Gorge, because I was talking about the C.R.G. (lol, that could stand for Colorado River Gorge.) when I referred to my notes from a class that I took on it. Why wouldn't the dating process be in error - it's happened. (My dating process was really in error in high school.) Humans aren't perfect in their science. Even Eienstien's theory of time and the constancy light speed is now being seriously questioned. Again, my main point is that pure evolutionary (geological) science can be looked at in different ways with just as much intelligent thought behind it. And that I was not trying to squeeze science into Christianity, it does not need to be squeezed, it fits. If God created, then he also created the very science you are talking about and the answer to exactly how it all came about is both scientific and faithbased. (not to mention you have to have faith in science and in what scientists are tell you.) I do not doubt your faith in God. And I hope you do not doubt my faith in science. I do doubt man's interpretation of science though. Look at it the way a historian looks at history. We know the truth is out there. But it is more than just doing research, it is interpretation, there is no getting around it. And yes, science is much more concrete than history or faith, but that does not make them any less real or any less connected by the one thing that they all have in common - they were all created by God. Basically, I do not separate God and science. I think science, even your interpretation of it, actually serves to prove the existence of God. But, I am on track with you when you say that you keep the science and your faith separte while at work. I understand what you are saying and agree that that is the way it has to be done (to a point) - or we would all either be anarchists or monks with no in between. The advent of a new science - evolution - does not disprove God or what he did. But it serves as a very convienient way for man to reject God for a reason. The Christian hysteria over evolution is an overeaction to the simple fact that it is not science that rejects God, it is man. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 554 Registered: 09-2002 |
personally, i'd ask for more time to verify the stability of a system with so many degrees of freedom - but this is only up to my miniscule intelligence. A major mutha figured it was enough to go through a few day/night cycles to sort out the bugs. I like that - as an excuse not to stick any kind of plastic fish to my car | ||
| Kevin Bridges (Craniac) Member Username: Craniac Post Number: 66 Registered: 02-2003 |
Call me a stupid Christian.....Oh well. I believe the Bible. I will confess Christ before man. He says he will confess me before God. As for the creation "days" being a thousand years, if you look at it the days, day three He created trees, herbs,etc. The sun and moon were not created untill the next day. I dodt know if the trees and herbs and such could live for a thousand years w/o the sun. I respect your beliefs but also must agree with R.B Baily, Jeremiah 29:13 states it pretty clear (if you believe that sort of thing)" And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart" And anyway God has a lot more to loose if its a lie than I do | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1903 Registered: 02-2002 |
R.B., I wasn't misunderstanding you, I was partially agreeing with you, lol... I realize that you were referring to the Columbia River George (thanks for that memory, Walt! lol) and not the Grand Canyon when mentioning the flood, but as you mentioned above (and have other Creationists), the G.C. is quite often used as the example. It is at the G.C. where one-mya basalts flooded out on the plateau and then over the rim. The C.R.G. is also carved in basalt plateaus, but were the result of the Yellowstone hot-spot's track underneath that portion of the continent. Errors in the dating process: it's a given that there is an amount of inaccuracy in any measurement, that there is a tolerance that is as good as you can get. Hence, there's always a search for better methodology, for a better clock. Most people know about C-14 carbon dating as a way of measuring the amount of radioactive decay, but that's only valid for a recent range of time: with a ~5700 year half-life, you can only date things back to about 50,000 years, but that's being pushed to 100,000. When you want to look at older things, you can use Ur-Pb (two varieties), Pb-Pb, K-Ar, or Rb-Sr... those are your more common ones. Potassium-Argon, for example, has a 1.2my half-life, this, it is useful for dating things from the late Precambrian back into the Archean. One good thing about K-Ar is that argon doesn't react; so, it suffers less loss of daughter-product. Oh, you're right, there are all sorts of places for possible errors in a dating: perhaps the sample is contaminated from earlier or later rocks, perhaps weathering has leached out product, etc. etc. Problems like these are known and watched for when selecting materials to be tested; hence, you can't jsut go testing everything, you have to be looking at sampling something within a given set of parameters. So, while there is possibly a slight variability in the result, and there could be an occasional wildcard out there from poor technique, you can't claim that for the whole suite of testing.... it's not like this is something "rare" that has only been done a few times and is questionable; the thing is, this part of the science is well researched... look at atomic weapons, nuclear power plants, radiation therapy, imaging spectra of different wavelengths: the physicists have this down pat. You're seeing my point that science and religion can fit, and that the science is of God, but, you aren't understanding the geology... The thing is, it's not just a couple of lines of evidence that happen to make it look like it's old, it's that OODLES of independent lines of reaseach within geology continue to converge at the Old Earth theory... However, I think you'd be a good candidate to get a BS in geology... you'd sure make class interesting! Peter, LOL! How about this one?  -L | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1904 Registered: 02-2002 |
PS: Kevin, you snuck in there whilst I was typing. And where have I said anything contrary to Christ? I've said it before, and I'll continue to say, that's where my faith is. -L | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2101 Registered: 02-2002 |
I've cruised through a good bit of the above text, and I just gotta say....Leslie, man, sometimes you just have to sit back and be content knowing what you know... | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1905 Registered: 02-2002 |
Blue, it'd be easier, that's for danged sure, lol... But, I've been on that stump so many times before, I find myself on it again before I realize it... Yep, I need a chill pill......  -L | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 559 Registered: 09-2002 |
awesome, Leslie, I'd take this one! | ||
| charles pastrano (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 169 Registered: 08-2002 |
Leslie your insight on this whole thing is appreciated. My wife and I have learned alot about the evolutionary process. Thank You for taking the time. Charles | ||
| Kevin Bridges (Craniac) Member Username: Craniac Post Number: 68 Registered: 02-2003 |
Leslie, I wasen't speaking to any one person, just stating where I stand on the issue. Also I have read some interesting things regarding using helium and zircons in the dating process. Have you heard of this? Sorry about the misunderstanding. BTY why did the homosexuals take our rainbow and the evolutionists take our fish? Cant they find a transitional species to ralley around? | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 431 Registered: 07-2002 |
Leslie, Actually if I get my choice, other that a Modern History Degree, I will probably get a masters in Archaeology. I've done some study already in the Middle East and in S. California, it's fun stuff. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 432 Registered: 07-2002 |
Besides, it would be a good excuse to travel with my son and insist on using a D-110! | ||
| Jason Gustavson (Prescottj) Senior Member Username: Prescottj Post Number: 481 Registered: 12-2002 |
Wow that took the better part of my morning/afternoon to read this. And all I would like to say is  Have these come out yet? | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1906 Registered: 02-2002 |
Jason: ROTFLMBFAO!!! We tried a Cliff's Notes version, but, it ended up being larger than War and Peace by the time I had the footnotes keyed out..... Charles, For that alone, it was worth it. Email me direct if you've got questions, etc., if ya want... I can ramble off line as well as on... Kevin, Ah, I see, my misunderstanding... Zircons act as "preservation capsules"; part of the problem, actually, the BIG problem, in doing radio-isotope dating is loss-of-daughter-product. A zircon (or other crystal) forms, and captures material as an inclusion. As the parent material decays, the daughter-product is also trapped within the inclusion. Thus, you have a discrete package for sampling that should be rather accurate. When the 2 uraniums (235 or 238) decay into leads (207 and 206), helium is a by-product. Usually, both Ur-Pb ratios are checked (along with Pb-204). If the two ratios agree, then the date is most likely correct. If the dates are way off from each other, either there's been daughter loss, or incorrect lab procedures followed (or something else), and has caused an error. R.B.: Archeaology is fun; but, I hope you like teaching! Not that many professional jobs outside of academia.... it makes a great accompanying hobby to geology, BTW.... -L | ||
| Shawn McKenzie (Shawn) Member Username: Shawn Post Number: 46 Registered: 10-2002 |
Kevin, that is awesome! Made my day (war notwithstanding) Cheers, Shawn | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 570 Registered: 09-2002 |
speaking of the rainbow - it looks like it is very regional. in other parts of the country rainbow sticker may not necessarily lead to conclusions. while back home in RU, i've enjoyed seeing a guy wearing a black baseball cap with white bold letters FAG on it. no, he didn't have a clue. who cares, GAP, FAG,... |
