quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Micro evolution is pretty obviously a fact. Macro evolution on the other hand.
Would you please define what macro-evolution means before you go around making statements like this? It is very difficult to argue when you won't give an example of the process you say can't happen. I did request such a definition in my original post, for this very reason.
quote:KoM, I'm a creationist. But more, I don't believe there was death before the Garden of Eden (a Mormon doctrine). The lack of death rules out the possibility of *any* evolution before Adam came into existance.
Actually, that's a truth with some modifications. You don't need death, you just need descent with modification. (This is a total tangent, btw.) Mutations for breeding faster would be favoured, in the sense that there would be more of the fast-breeding creatures than the slow-breeding ones. Though I suppose you'll argue that there can't have been mutations in Eden either; it doesn't really matter, I'm jsut pointing out that you need more than a lack of death.
quote:My point is, I think I'm much more willing to accept that the explaination of what we have found on Earth could be even crazier than the theory of evolution because I'm willing to believe things like death isn't a universal constant, humans could live 1000 years even when there is death, and God can move planets at will.
Well, yes, if you accept supernatural explanations then some god could have poofed us all into existence five minutes ago, memories and all. It's just not a very useful way to go about things.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human, you should see the discussions going on over at Nauvoo on this subject ... there's more divergence in LDS thought than I ever knew.
Unless you, also, are another Nauvoo member in disguise, and you're already posting in those threads.... *eyes Human suspiciously*
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, yes, if you accept supernatural explanations then some god could have poofed us all into existence five minutes ago, memories and all. It's just not a very useful way to go about things.
Descartesian philosophy as applied to memory as a race? Sounds like a headache waiting to happen...
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, yes, if you accept supernatural explanations then some god could have poofed us all into existence five minutes ago, memories and all. It's just not a very useful way to go about things.
It should be noted that God is not needed in this. It's just as possible that we simply poofed into existence for no reason at all five minutes ago. There's no supernatural explanations needed.
After all, how do we know universes can't pop fully into existence all by themselves, memories and all?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that's sort of the point. Or we could all be living in the Matrix. It could be true, sure, but that's an extraordinarily weak argument. If you start accepting that sort of thing, there's really no point in arguing at all, because there is no possible way of distinguishing a good argument from a bad one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, you started this thread to have exactly this kind of argument, it seems.
Which is it? If you're simply going to equate the opposition's argument with the "popped into existence 5 minutes ago" argument, there's no point to the discussion - as you said. So why did you start it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you or human want to present any actual evidence that people lived longer, there was a literal deathless garden, and planets actually have been moved, please feel free. But the mere assertion that these things could have happened is extraordinarily weak.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not my point. You know that the people who accept Creationism rely on evidence you don't accept. Nothing they say can get you to even consider that evidence; similarly, nothing you say can get them to reject that evidence.
If you want to limit the discussion to scientific principles then there's no point even embarking on it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's true the sort of creationist who has the honesty to say "I don't care about the facts, I'm going with the Bible" cannot be argued with. But I was more looking for a dialogue with those who believe there is actual scientific evidence for their position.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The distinction you speak of doesn't exist. The scientific evidence, at best, says that, based on the scientific evidence alone, evolution is far more likely than Creationism.
It doesn't matter how strong the scientific case is against Creationsim, as long as science still allows the possibility of Creationism. And, of course, it does.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, Dag, because people don't believe in Creationism because they've been convinced by scientific evidence that it's true. So scientific evidence to the contrary doesn't disprove it, for them. It just forces them to say, "Well, we don't know how everything fits together yet. I'm sure one day we'll see the whole big picture, but until then, I'm not going to let it bother me."
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Dag, but I still see some value in forcing people to acknowledge that the only way science allows for creationism is by the sort of could-have-happened argument human makes. Hence I am interested in showing how bad the 'science' people quote in support of creationism really is. EDIT : To make it clear, there do exist people who believe that there is a good scientific case to be made for creationism. I believe some of them post on this board. Those are the people I want to have a dialogue with.
But in any case, if you feel the discussion is completely pointless, why are you even posting? You usually leave my threads at some point with your feelings hurt.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I'm not on Nauvoo. I like it here and have a hard enough time keeping up here... I don't need another forum!
Oh yeah, you did ask for a definition. I kinda understood that micro was what Darwin observed: finches. I mean, I'd have to be pretty ignorant to say the little birdies didn't evolve differences to handle their environment, because it is pretty well documented.
Macro is the leap of chromosones as I call it. "Less evolved" life forms have fewer chromos. It has been over 12 years since I've studied chromosones, so I'm not really up to discussing it much. But I remember at the time thinking that it evolution wasn't going to explain that very well. For all I know though, chromosone mutation may actually be scientificly observed and I'll feel stupid. But that is what I would call macro evolution.
About poofing into existance. One could decide to believe that but I think it is a cop out. I wasn't suggesting I was ignoring observed facts because of my beliefs. Rather, I'm just not letting it sway my beliefs about God.
Even if evolution were true, it doesn't mean there is no God. I don't really believe the Earth is as young as Adam. I just don't believe we have all the information. And I believe one day we will. Either we'll figure it on our own, or well die, go to heaven, and God will show us how he did it.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To make it clear, there do exist people who believe that there is a good scientific case to be made for creationism. I believe some of them post on this board.
Try popping by Ornery. Right now, Ron Lambert -- a 7th-Day Adventist -- is arguing for a scientific basis for Creationism. Have fun.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand what you mean about 'leap of chromosomes'. Do you just mean a change in the actual number? We see that every day in people with Down's Syndrome! Which is not a beneficial mutation, sure, but then few are. There is no reason in principle a change in chromosome number couldn't be beneficial. Indeed, come to think of it, you might find this thread of some interest.
Incidentally, there is no such thing as a 'less evolved' creature. Everything alive today has evolved for exactly 2.7 billion years.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: "Well, we don't know how everything fits together yet. I'm sure one day we'll see the whole big picture, but until then, I'm not going to let it bother me."
Hahaha. I think I just said that. But rather than bother me, I'm actually curious how it did happen. I'm always keen to hear the newest scientific discoveries.
In my opinion, we are trying to put a puzzle together, and the argument is really about what the puzzle is suppose to look like. I have a puzzle box with a picture that includes God. Seems to me people arguing for evolution have a puzzle box that says there is no God.
Then of course there are people who could care less about putting the puzzle together and are intent on just manipulating everyone else by supporting whoever makes it easier for them to get what they want. They are the real problem makers in my opinion.
And I would say the problem makers are on BOTH sides. Pat Roberston anyone???? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't consider Mormons Christian, and I'm glad because I wouldn't want to be on his side of the room if I had to choose.
Also, about Mormons. Mormon doctrine is a lot like scientific evidence. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I've heard some of the craziest stuff. But I think a lot of Mormons are trying to build skyscrapers on too little of a foundation. I don't think we have enough information to form a decent idea of what happened.
So when people start coming up with crazy ideas that God is a space traveler who landed on Earth and put Adam here, well.... That is a good story based on how we perceive the universe, but it probably has nothing to do with reality and I don't think we can know what happened until we have more evidence.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Seems to me people arguing for evolution have a puzzle box that says there is no God."
While that may be true of SOME people arguing for evolution, it's certainly not true of all of them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, Dag, but I still see some value in forcing people...
Exactly - you have no desire to learn from others, or truly understand their view, merely to force them to make an admission you think helps your desired outcome.
Try thinking of this as a discussion board.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:JT - was the book Many Waters by Madeleine L'Engle?
Thank you so much! I couldn't remember what the name of it was, although I had the vaguest tickling in the back of my brain that it was a L'Engle book. I'm going to buy that after work today.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why does having evolution mean no Adam and Eve? At some point, pre-humans became humans. God calls the first two Adam and Eve (or Adam and Chava, actually ) and imbues them with souls.
Et voilà!
The problem is for the bible literalists. Bible says Eve is made from Adam's rib, Adam is I believe made from dirt.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, that's sort of the point. Or we could all be living in the Matrix. It could be true, sure, but that's an extraordinarily weak argument. If you start accepting that sort of thing, there's really no point in arguing at all, because there is no possible way of distinguishing a good argument from a bad one.
Why is this a weak argument? Just because you have faith that the conclusion isn't true?
I think God exists. Does that make atheist arguments weak? I mean, sure, God might not exist, but if we start doubting God then there's really no point in arguing at all, because there's no way of distinguishing a good argument from a bad one, right?
quote:The distinction you speak of doesn't exist. The scientific evidence, at best, says that, based on the scientific evidence alone, evolution is far more likely than Creationism.
On multiple threads about intelligent design, folks insisted that science cannot study whether or not a Creator exists, because such a thing is not testable - and insisted that this is such a fundamentally important rule of science that it meant we could never discuss ID as a valid theory in science class. Why, then, are you now suggesting that science can say Creationism is "unlikely"? Science can either test God scientifically, or it cannot. If it cannot, then it can't comment on the probability of God.
This is the problem with attempting to demand a very strict line separating science from nonscience. It is convenient for people to use that line one way in order to keep certain ideas out of science, but people casually ignore the line all the time when it goes the other way - when attempting to attribute conclusions to science that science cannot really make according to the scientific method.
If science can't study God then it can't say anything at all about the likelihood of Creationism. The only thing it could say is that God is not necessary for its model of the universe to work. Drawing further conclusions beyond that is not the realm of science. Yet, I suspect a large majority of people draw such nonscientific conclusions from science all the time, and think science has justified them with scientific evidence.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why, then, are you now suggesting that science can say Creationism is "unlikely"?
First, I'm not any of the people you're speaking of, so the "why now" part of your question is inapplicable.
Second, I did not say that science can say Creationism is unlikely. I said that science, at best (meaning at most), can say that, when one examines scientific evidence only, evolution is more likely than creationism.
That's a very different statement than the way you summarized it.
quote:people casually ignore the line all the time when it goes the other way - when attempting to attribute conclusions to science that science cannot really make according to the scientific method.
Good thing I didn't do that. The conclusion I "attributed" (noting that I really didn't attribute it) to science was a scientific conclusion considering only scientific evidence. You're the one who then leaped from there to an assumption that I was making a statement about actual truth.
quote:This is the problem with attempting to demand a very strict line separating science from nonscience. It is convenient for people to use that line one way in order to keep certain ideas out of science, but people casually ignore the line all the time when it goes the other way - when attempting to attribute conclusions to science that science cannot really make according to the scientific method.
This is something I've pointed out time and time again. Nothing I've said in this thread even implies that I want to apply science to non-scientific matters.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second, I did not say that science can say Creationism is unlikely. I said that science, at best (meaning at most), can say that, when one examines scientific evidence only, evolution is more likely than creationism.
But that is saying that science can, even if just "at most", comment on the probability of creationism. And it can't. At most science can say Creationism is not necessary for its model of how things work.
I'm not suggesting you are intending to apply science to things science doesn't apply to. I'm just saying that it's fairly commonplace in everyday thinking for people to do so anyway - even you, who don't intend to and are probably careful not to. For that matter, I do it too. This is how scientific biases can creep into things that are not strictly scientific, in our society.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that is saying that science can, even if just "at most", comment on the probability of creationism. And it can't. At most science can say Creationism is not necessary for its model of how things work.
Not true when you only look at the scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence can be used to assign probabilities to possible ages of the earth. Since Creationism posits an age that is inconsistent with most scientific evidence, then scientific evidence, examined alone, makes Creationism less likely than evolution.
My whole point to KoM, of course, is that one can't discuss Creationism's likelihood without considering non-scientific evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, part of the problem is the confusion of what is meant by Creationism, and ID. Creationism does attempt to scientifically support it's claims (very poorly, but that's another thread). To the degree that Creationism attempts to portray itself as science, science can (and should) make assertions about its probability of being scientifically valid.
I also try not to apply science to metaphysics, but that doesn't mean science can't be applied to physical phenomena where metaphysics makes or implies scientifically observable claims. For instance, science can't speak to the existence or non-existence of God. However, science can speak to the likelihood of there having been a global flood in the past 6000 years. It can speak to the likelihood that all mankind is decended from a common ancestor that appeared 6000 years ago or so. Science can't "disprove" the bible, but it can speak to the likelihood of the literal nature of many of the events it describes.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Creationism posits any given age for the earth. Certain Christian varieties of Creationism do, based on a given particular interpretation of the Bible, but Creationism in general could date the universe at any age.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My whole point to KoM, of course, is that one can't discuss Creationism's likelihood without considering non-scientific evidence.
Actually one can. Creationism insofar as it has any bearing on science is the belief that the creation account in Genesis literally occurred and that scientific evidence exists to support that claim. Since this is a scientific claim, non-scientific evidence does not have to be considered. Where KoM goes wrong is that he assumes anyone here actually believes in this definition of creationism.
Now, if you want to define creationism as simply the belief in a divine creator, then you're right that it can't be discussed without including non-scientific evidence because there is no scientific evidence to indicate a divine creator.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think Creationism posits any given age for the earth. Certain Christian varieties of Creationism do, based on a given particular interpretation of the Bible, but Creationism in general could date the universe at any age.
Good, but human and KoM were discussing young-earth Creationism when I made my comments, and it is to that which I was referring.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure if I'm the sort of person you wish to have dialogue with, but I'm a Young Earth Creationist, if you'll remember. The reason I say I'm not sure is your statement above that you're attempting to have dialogue with those who believe that the scientific evidence supports their creationism. Well as I think I've told you before, I believe in creationism presuppositionally because of my trust in the Bible, but at the same time I do also believe that the scientific evidence is consistent with my view of the Bible (not necessarily that it unconditionally supports it).
With regard to your initial post, I do not make any distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I think both kinds "work" quite well and can be observed in nature and reproduced. In fact I may even take a faster view of their potential than you do, since I believe that all life on earth has diversified to this point from 6,000 years ago from some finite number of created kinds, through the process of evolution. So for instance, I would accept the idea that a lion and a housecat probably have common ancestors that were aboard Noah's ark, and after disembarking, their descendents evolved down different paths.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think Creationism posits any given age for the earth. Certain Christian varieties of Creationism do, based on a given particular interpretation of the Bible, but Creationism in general could date the universe at any age.
Again, this points to the problem of definitions which are absolutely critical to any debate on the subject. "Creationism" with a capital "C" generally does posit an age and pretty much tries (and so far fails) to validate Genesis with scientific evidence. On the other hand, "creationism" with a little "c" can mean whatever the person who chooses the label chooses it to mean. You can't argue against "creationism" at all because it doesn't mean anything on one side of the arguement and can mean absolutely anything on the other.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I think it is certainly possible to apply science to metaphysics, so long as you realize that once you have left the scientific method it is no longer science that you are doing.
For instance, one could say science has shown that evolution occurs. That would be scientific, because it is supposedly based entirely on the scientific method. Then one could say this provides a counterexample to the Argument by Design, and thus refutes Creationism. That would not be science. Instead, it would be a metaphysical argument that contains one premise that is scientific, but other premises that are not scientific.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My whole point to KoM, of course, is that one can't discuss Creationism's likelihood without considering non-scientific evidence.
Actually one can. Creationism insofar as it has any bearing on science is the belief that the creation account in Genesis literally occurred and that scientific evidence exists to support that claim. Since this is a scientific claim, non-scientific evidence does not have to be considered. Where KoM goes wrong is that he assumes anyone here actually believes in this definition of creationism.
I'm talking about Creationism insofar as whether it is what happened or not, not merely whether it is scientifically proveable.
"God created the Earth 6,000 years ago in the fashion related in Genesis" is not a scientific claim. Individual statements about whether this or that provides scientific evidence for this claim are scientific claims.
Science can't disprove young-earth creationism as related in Genesis strictly because God's power as related in Genesis is not limited by anything we can scientifically determine.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So for instance, I would accept the idea that a lion and a housecat probably have common ancestors that were aboard Noah's ark, and after disembarking, their descendents evolved down different paths.
Would you still accept that idea in light of the idea that evolution as science defines it requires millions of years to create such diversity? Or do you believe that maybe Noah and the flood actually happened millions of years ago? Or that evolution actually works several orders of magnitude faster than there is currently any hint of a dream of evidence for it to be able to?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Science can't disprove young-earth creationism as related in Genesis strictly because God's power as related in Genesis is not limited by anything we can scientifically determine.
I agree that science can't disprove anything that remains strictly a metaphysical claim. However, if your metaphysics lead you to make claims about the observable universe, science can certainly evaluate those claims in light of all other observations and (if not actually disprove them) can comment on the likelihood of their being accurate.
What I've been trying to get at is that the whole discussion is worthless without defining what claims are being discussed. KoM's initial post (in my estimation) was an attempt to get a scientifically arguable claim out of anyone who believes "macro-evolution" (or probably any aspect of evolution) did not occur. I think the discussion is doomed from the start because he has basically asked people to list something that would disprove their metaphysically influenced beliefs about the world if it could be shown to have happened. That is something most people are very reluctant to do.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, if your metaphysics lead you to make claims about the observable universe, science can certainly evaluate those claims in light of all other observations and (if not actually disprove them) can comment on the likelihood of their being accurate.
Which is what I've said - with the additional caveat that other, non-scientific, evidence could change that likelihood for anyone who accepts that evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, isn't it clear from my post that I think it works much faster than most think? After all I said that all species have gotten to this point after a maximum of 6000 years of evolution.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
http://www.skeptictank.org/kurtwise.htm Contains the interesting misspelling: "The key issue in origins is the chasm between naturalists and those who say Cod created everything"
You'll find that Kurt Wise, a Young-Earth Creationist AND a Harvard PhD Paleontologist believes that the Grand Canyon was formed in three weeks by the Snake River (maybe he should have said, "The Snake river...on ACID")
This is an interesting site, and it goes a long way to explain why some people (not to say anyone here, mind you) fight so hard for the Creationist POV:
quote:The details of the creation account do matter and are essential. If Adam wasn’t a real historical figure, then who is our ancestor? How do we know we are sinners? If Adam’s Fall was not a real event in history, then what is sin? If Adam and Eve weren’t created just as Genesis records, then the doctrine of marriage is meaningless. If the days of creation aren’t ordinary days, then there’s no basis for the seven-day week, and God’s Word doesn’t have to mean what the language clearly states. If the earth is millions of years old, and death, disease and bloodshed existed before sin, then the gospel is undermined
I'm not posting that to make fun of it. These people take their Bible very seriously, and see their whole world-view falling apart if science is found to be correct about any of these issues.
quote:Originally posted by Avin: KarlEd, isn't it clear from my post that I think it works much faster than most think? After all I said that all species have gotten to this point after a maximum of 6000 years of evolution.
You are then left with the interesting problem of explaining why we aren't still seeing this process going on. As I pointed out earlier, the number of species in the world is such that you would need, basically, a new one in every generation. (Incidentally, the limit wouldn't be 6k years, but whatever time you want to say has passed since the Flood.) So why aren't we seeing a new species of sheep every year?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The details of the creation account do matter and are essential. If Adam wasn’t a real historical figure, then who is our ancestor? How do we know we are sinners? If Adam’s Fall was not a real event in history, then what is sin? If Adam and Eve weren’t created just as Genesis records, then the doctrine of marriage is meaningless. If the days of creation aren’t ordinary days, then there’s no basis for the seven-day week, and God’s Word doesn’t have to mean what the language clearly states. If the earth is millions of years old, and death, disease and bloodshed existed before sin, then the gospel is undermined --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not posting that to make fun of it. These people take their Bible very seriously, and see their whole world-view falling apart if science is found to be correct about any of these issues.
It is a very fragile faith that depends on these kinds of things and that can't distinguish between fact and truth.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Where do you fall on the scale? Is this sort of adherence to the Bible that critical to your sense of place?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm really not trying to "set you up." You are free, however, to take the fifth.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Avin: KarlEd, isn't it clear from my post that I think it works much faster than most think? After all I said that all species have gotten to this point after a maximum of 6000 years of evolution.
Under the idea of a young earth in conjunction with evolution, how are dinosaurs explained? Please tell me something other then Satan put the bones there.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you believe, as the author on "AnswersInGenesis" does, that science could discredit the Bible, thereby shattering your faith, or do you believe that Science and Religious faith can somehow coexist, or somewhere else along that line (or extrapolated in one direction or the other)?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Avin: KarlEd, isn't it clear from my post that I think it works much faster than most think? After all I said that all species have gotten to this point after a maximum of 6000 years of evolution.
I find this fascinating, especially considering that one of the biggest objections to evolution in its infancy was that there simply hadn't passed enough time for such diversity to come about given the way evolution is thought to work.
I'm not trying to "set you up" either. I would like to know to what degree you've thought about how this belief fits with other of your beliefs or with the observable universe, though. Can you answer KoM's question about why evolution doesn't appear to be working at such hyper-speed today?
Do you have any theories as to how species got to Australia, or the Americas after Noah landed (presumably somewhere in Europe or Asia)?
What do you believe about Dinosaurs? Were they killed in the flood? Why?
You are, of course, free to not respond.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, on what basis can you postulate that a species every year is required? As far as I know, the idea that speciation has occured at such-and-such a rate throughout history is an idea that cannot be determined scientifically. There is no falsifiable scientific test that will disprove what I said; that's why it's not science. You mistake me for the sort of creationist who thinks their ideas are. I would say that my ideas fall more into the realm of history, not science. If we were to find a manuscript that was written say, 3000 years ago, that attempts to comprehensively document the reproductive isolation of different animal and plant groups, then perhaps we would be able to evaluate our ideas better to see what a viable rate of speciation is. But as far as we know, no one thought to do something like that 3000 years ago. So all we've got is circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted in different ways for what happened in the last few thousand years, and the scientific evidence of the last hundred or so years.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, both of you have said you're not trying to "set me up" (your quotes)! I find that funny because I never thought you were, but thanks for showing that you are genuinely trying to understand my perspective.
ssywak, in that article quoted I don't see what gives you the impression that the author thinks that science could discredit the Bible. The argument being made in the article is that a long-age view discredits the Bible, but you yourself make the equivocation that a long-age view is science. I grant you that this is the scientific majority opinion, but I don't think it is the opinion of the article's author, so it is unfair to make it seem as though he thinks that. Perhaps a more accurate statement of the author's intent is that your current perception of the findings of science discredit the Bible? If so, I would agree with him; if the Bible's historical narratives are inaccurate, then I see no reason to view the Bible's spiritual teachings as an ultimate authority - it would be then reduced to the collected wisdom of one tribe of ancient people (which seems to be a common view among both liberal theologians and non-Christians).
As to the relation between science and the Bible, I would share the view of Isaac Newton, who ardently defended a creation date of around 4000 BC before opponents of his who set that date much further back due to extra-Biblical writings. Of course those opposing ideas were not millions of years earlier, merely several thousand years earlier, but Newton used the same epistemological framework to defend the Bible: that the Bible is an accurate source of historical knowledge, and that experimental science properly interpreted would support this. Today we have odd dichotomies of knowledge where "science" actually overlaps with history considerably. History is a discipline that is primarily conducted using different authorities of written accounts, sometimes using physical evidence to corroborate the accounts in question. Now we have various scientific disciplines whose entire purpose serves to corroborate these accounts, to the extent that the science has been completely segregated from the accounts themselves. One example is geology, which often seeks to interpret evidence without regard for any framework. The argument in favor of this is that without tying yourself presuppositionally to an interpretation, you are allowed more freedom in discovering truth, but from a logical perspective, that really means you can prove less.
Since a couple of you have asked about dinosaurs, my response is that I see no reason why dinosaurs could not have lived until relatively recently, and have contributed to some of the supposedly mythological accounts of creatures such as dragons we have inherited from our ancestors.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I said I wasn't trying to "set you up" only because ssywak, in his disclaimer, seems to be implying that some of us are doing so.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, thanks ssywak for the information about Dr. Kurt Wise - your blurb about him being a Harvard Ph.D. enticed me to look up a brief bio on him, which uncovered that he did his Ph.D. under the prominent (late) evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, all the while retaining his Young Earth Creationist views. From a few of the articles I've read from him, I really like his writing, especially since he definitely seems to know evolution and has the integrity to point out to other Christians or creationists when evolutionists have a point.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and imbues them with souls.
