Ohhh, about as much as the likelyhood of an evolutionary biologist denying creationism keeping his job at that Kentucky museum, ya think?
Besides, he wouldn't have the "I'd better mouth the evolutionary party line, lest they fire me." song-and-dance if he actually believes that evolution was true, now would he? ... I think not.
<_<
Maybe he does.
What evidence (and an experiment would be great) convinced you that evolution must be true?
Far as I know, most who believe in evolution believe it because someone simply told them it was true. Someone told them there was a complete fossil record, and they just believed it.
Kinda like the guy who said he found an old document with some greek words . . .and many just assumed he was right. Then went around laughing at folks who didn't have "The Truth."
...Forget about the dinosaurs on the Ark. How did Noah find two of every animal no matter how small? How did Noah determine the sex of the gnats? Did he keep predators and their prey separate? If so, how did the predators survive? If he didn't, how did those species occupying lower levels of the food chain survive? How did the kangaroos and koala bears get to the Fertile Crescent all the way from Australia? Did they swim or did God beam them aboard and then back?
Some folks do not interpret the flood of Noah's day as being global but local – and considering the likelihood that God may have helped Noah in the evacuation - some of these issues would become a moot point. The male and female creatures appear to come toNoah of their own accord in verses 9 and 15 of Genesis 7. It seems the point of the flood was to snuff out man and animal [verses 17 to 24] – some things come to mind – just thinking out loud here with the following questions: How far had man and land based animals migrated by this time? Is it possible the flood was limited [local] in that it was confined to a specific area impacted by the sins mentioned in Genesis 6? Would there be geological and archeological evidence to indicate such a deluge happened and to what extent?
Genesis 7:6-24 NIV
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c]21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
What convinced me that evolution is more than 'just a theory' (ie., a word that many people mistake for just 'guesswork'), is how its a lot more compatible with biological, natural, astronomical, and other laws and sciences; plus the explanations given by the evolutionary biologists just flow a lot smoother and more logically than the biblical account. Whereas those defending the biblical account, (when all is said and done) are doing only that; defending the biblical account, ... even when they try to 'scientize' it up by supporting the well known natural and biological arguments, except when they contradict the biblical account. Then it shifts into a "It's a valid argument, so long as the validity of the Scriptures remain inviolate! That is the line that *cannot* be crossed, --- no matter what!" knee-jerk mode.
I've seen that mode practiced in TWI and I've seen it in many mainstream, fundamentalist churches. Yes, there are scientists that play that same kind of *stoopid* mode re: evolution, but they are the isolated individuals whose egos surpass their professionalism. (And they should know better!) When the church/believer does that mode, it is because their Genesis doctrine requires them to.
Oh, and the flaw of asking for an experiment of proving evolution is based on the flaw that it (like each and every other scientific premise) can be proved by one experiment. ... Typical short-sighted, American culture based "I want to see it NOW!" thinking. Evolution can't be proved in one sitting, mix all the chemicals into a big beaker, enter the formula into Excel, and hit the Enter key, ... and *POOF* there ya are, complete with HP quality color printout to take with you.
Evolution is shown to be true because of the accumulation over the years of related and supporting facts, scientifically determined theories, and other reliable information to the point where it becomes a 'preponderance of the evidence' situation. Ie., the amount of facts gathered lean FAR more towards supporting evolution than it _ever_ could the 6 day, Young Earth, Genesis account. ... By a landslide! The only people who dispute this finding are the ones who have the aforementioned 'mental block' of refusing to challenge the Genesis account (no matter the solidity of the challenging info), and even go to ridiculous extents of ((gag)) 'reasoning', just to protect the reputation of the Genesis account. Thus we have examples like 'Dr.' Kenneth Hovind.
I hope this helps clear things up as to the why I see it the way I do.
Microevolution is not macroevolution. There is a difference.
Which makes it non-science. How can you perform the scientific method without an experiment?
This is simply false. Evolution is evolution, and the only ones I've heard using terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are creationists.
Additionally, your understanding of the scientific method is extremely flawed. Science is based off of observation. The scientific method is a standardization of how to make these observations and report on them. According to your standards, astronomy is also a non-science because we are unable to create stars.
This argument is silly. Yes there are fossils. No, there is no complete fossil record to verify that species evolved from common ancestors.
What is lacking in the fossil record? I hear claims from creationists all the time, but the truth is that we have an amazingly good fossil record available and it's getting better all the time. While there is certainly a constant refining of details that sometimes makes us change our views of things (e.g. Tyrannosaurus Rex being a scavenger rather than a killer) there is more than enough evidence to show evolution happening over the past.
This has many sides. Are neandertals a different species? Maybe, maybe not.
Actually they are a different species. Homo neanderthalensis is different than homo sapien. Both were two different types of humanoid that had evolved from earlier species.
Still, no complete fossil record.
Please provide some evidence of this, because actual scientists seem to disagree with that.
(and in this "fossil record" numerous "fossils" were found to be true fakes (planted as practical jokes in some cases), although the impact that they had for the evolution argument remains.)
Other than the Piltdown man and a handful of other fakes, the fossil record is overwhelmingly accurate and paleontologists are getting better at differentiating between fakes and the real thing. You are inaccurate in claiming that "numerous" fossils were found to be fakes, unless you are including the capsules that Toys R' Us sells to put into water and it grows into a sponge dinosaur.
The fact is, science is constantly changing, but that doesn't mean it is not the most accurate means we have for understanding the world. Creationists that oppose evolution are usually charlatans who demand much of science, but refuse the answers when they are given. They also blow the unknowns out of proportion in order to create doubt, and insert nonsense into the debate in order to confuse people. You've undoubtedly been fed a line of creationist B.S. but you don't see it yet. You've been tricked into rejecting reality for a more pleasant myth. It is easier to believe The Invisible Sky Giant waved his magic wand and life suddenly appeared on the planet than to understand that the universe is a complicated place that we can't completely comprehend.
Also for the record, there won't be a complete lesson on evolution here from me or anyone. This is a message board, not a college. Where things like creationism that don't require facts or evidence can be explained quickly and easily, science like evolution requires lots of reading, time, and better teaching than I am capable of. If you truly want to learn about it, go to college and take a bunch of science classes.
I think literal creationism is a dangerous idea because it rejects rationality and science in favor of fairy tales. I wish religious people would make up their minds as to what they want to believe. It seems like science is evil and the enemy except when religious people get things like penicillin. Why don't religious fundamentalists rely only on prayer and priests when they are ill and let us that value science stick with medicine and doctors? That would surely be a valid experiment to test Darwin's natural selection.
We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis.
On a side note, unfortunately one of the people that are in a video in that museum runs a porno site or did something illegal related to sex, and as a result most of the top hits in google are related to that.
Vegan, interesting, isn't it, that they don't provide that information. You'd think, if for no other reason than to lend credibility and validity to the place they'd give the background of these brilliant scientists.... <_<
Jerry Falwell says that Ham is "the most informed creationist in American" and that the museum is "going to be a mini-Disney World."
This is the founder's own website and he lists scientists who supposedly accept Biblical creation, but doesn't list them as being part of the actual museum.
Vegan, interesting, isn't it, that they don't provide that information. You'd think, if for no other reason than to lend credibility and validity to the place they'd give the background of these brilliant scientists.... <_<
This is the founder's own website and he lists scientists who supposedly accept Biblical creation, but doesn't list them as being part of the actual museum.
What is also interesting is that upon perusing a small sample of these creationist "scientists", none of them seem to have published their claims in peer reviewed scientific journals. Instead, they publish through religious books and online.
Over 800 scientists in the three states surrounding the museum -- Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio -- have signed a statement sponsored by NCSE reading, "We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."
Why are kangaroos and koalas only found in Australia? Why was the coqui treefrog only found in Puerto Rico until recently? (It stowed away on a ship and now sings happily in Hawaii now also.) If the kangaroo, koala and the coqui emerged from the Ark on Mt. Ararat, wouldn't their populations be more evenly distributed across the globe. How did they survive the en masse swim across shark infested waters to their present habitats? When did they unlearn to swim? Wasn't it because of the unique flora and fauna of the very isolated Galapagos that gave rise to the notion of natural selection and evolution in the first place?
What provisions were made on the Ark for the climatic needs of penguins, polar bears and walrus? Did the Ark have refrigerated compartments? How about the tropical rainforest environment necessary to sustain the toucan and howler monkeys? A steam room maybe?
In answer to Bolshi's question about Dr. Collins not denying evolution because of his fear of losing his position, Dr. Collins in his book indicated if credible evidence was found that challenged natural selection as the explanation of why life is on earth it would come forward. Nobel Prizes and grant money follow such discoveries.
Robin- this article is dated, April 7 2007..He has a video on CNN, he is being interviewed.
I have been to his labs..
I would do a study on the "Days of Peleg in Genesis" It goes into the flood and a little on the Ice Ages.
ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.
I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.
I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
This is simply false. Evolution is evolution, and the only ones I've heard using terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are creationists.
Are you sure of this statement? These terms were made by creationists and notevolutionists?
Additionally, your understanding of the scientific method is extremely flawed. Science is based off of observation. The scientific method is a standardization of how to make these observations and report on them. According to your standards, astronomy is also a non-science because we are unable to create stars.
What is lacking in the fossil record?
Ever heard of the missing link(s)?
I hear claims from creationists all the time, but the truth is that we have an amazingly good fossil record available and it's getting better all the time. While there is certainly a constant refining of details that sometimes makes us change our views of things (e.g. Tyrannosaurus Rex being a scavenger rather than a killer) there is more than enough evidence to show evolution happening over the past.
Simply stating you haven't seen a complete fossil record that documents the branching of two species for certain will be fine. What does T-Rex's behavior have to do with anything?
Actually they are a different species. Homo neanderthalensis is different than homo sapien. Both were two different types of humanoid that had evolved from earlier species.
Please provide some evidence of this, because actual scientists seem to disagree with that.
Other than the Piltdown man and a handful of other fakes, the fossil record is overwhelmingly accurate and paleontologists are getting better at differentiating between fakes and the real thing. You are inaccurate in claiming that "numerous" fossils were found to be fakes, unless you are including the capsules that Toys R' Us sells to put into water and it grows into a sponge dinosaur.
You can read a high school biology book. Very good. Come on. This insulting attitude is the evolutionists biggest weapon, "oh, you don't see it? You must be stupid."
The fact is, science is constantly changing, but that doesn't mean it is not the most accurate means we have for understanding the world. Creationists that oppose evolution are usually charlatans who demand much of science, but refuse the answers when they are given. They also blow the unknowns out of proportion in order to create doubt, and insert nonsense into the debate in order to confuse people. You've undoubtedly been fed a line of creationist B.S. but you don't see it yet. You've been tricked into rejecting reality for a more pleasant myth. It is easier to believe The Invisible Sky Giant waved his magic wand and life suddenly appeared on the planet than to understand that the universe is a complicated place that we can't completely comprehend.
Why always make it a creationist conspiracy? I just don't see any certainty in the evolution argument, too many holes (And I did first believe in evolution)
Also for the record, there won't be a complete lesson on evolution here from me or anyone. This is a message board, not a college. Where things like creationism that don't require facts or evidence can be explained quickly and easily, science like evolution requires lots of reading, time, and better teaching than I am capable of. If you truly want to learn about it, go to college and take a bunch of science classes.
So you admit to swallowing the pill. You know little of science, like most Americans. (and again, calling me stupid)
I think literal creationism is a dangerous idea because it rejects rationality and science in favor of fairy tales. I wish religious people would make up their minds as to what they want to believe. It seems like science is evil and the enemy except when religious people get things like penicillin. Why don't religious fundamentalists rely only on prayer and priests when they are ill and let us that value science stick with medicine and doctors? That would surely be a valid experiment to test Darwin's natural selection.
You know not what you speak of. I wish people would have the guts to think for themselves.
Why are kangaroos and koalas only found in Australia? Why was the coqui treefrog only found in Puerto Rico until recently? (It stowed away on a ship and now sings happily in Hawaii now also.) If the kangaroo, koala and the coqui emerged from the Ark on Mt. Ararat, wouldn't their populations be more evenly distributed across the globe. How did they survive the en masse swim across shark infested waters to their present habitats? When did they unlearn to swim? Wasn't it because of the unique flora and fauna of the very isolated Galapagos that gave rise to the notion of natural selection and evolution in the first place?
What provisions were made on the Ark for the climatic needs of penguins, polar bears and walrus? Did the Ark have refrigerated compartments? How about the tropical rainforest environment necessary to sustain the toucan and howler monkeys? A steam room maybe?
In answer to Bolshi's question about Dr. Collins not denying evolution because of his fear of losing his position, Dr. Collins in his book indicated if credible evidence was found that challenged natural selection as the explanation of why life is on earth it would come forward. Nobel Prizes and grant money follow such discoveries.
Don't know about the Ark. But the possum is found in the Americas.
How did the the proton pump evolve? (Or any membrane protein for that matter)
Robin- this article is dated, April 7 2007..He has a video on CNN, he is being interviewed.
. . .
I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
Did he happen to mention how much we really know about the genome? there's so much, and the evolutionary mechanism is so poorly defined. A few changes here and there? come on.
Why are kangaroos and koalas only found in Australia? Why was the coqui treefrog only found in Puerto Rico until recently? (It stowed away on a ship and now sings happily in Hawaii now also.) If the kangaroo, koala and the coqui emerged from the Ark on Mt. Ararat, wouldn't their populations be more evenly distributed across the globe. How did they survive the en masse swim across shark infested waters to their present habitats? When did they unlearn to swim? Wasn't it because of the unique flora and fauna of the very isolated Galapagos that gave rise to the notion of natural selection and evolution in the first place?
What provisions were made on the Ark for the climatic needs of penguins, polar bears and walrus? Did the Ark have refrigerated compartments? How about the tropical rainforest environment necessary to sustain the toucan and howler monkeys? A steam room maybe?...
Please re-read my post # 53. Perhaps I was not clear enough in expressing my opposition to the traditional view of Noah's Ark/Flood that you're talking about – so I will elaborate a little more. None of this is conclusive of course, but like you, I have questions/thoughts that challenge assumptions.
Why is it assumed the entire zoological spread of creatures owe their existence to Noah's Ark? I tend to think God aimed His wrath at the sinful people mentioned in Genesis 6. And, considering that any geographical references before the flood are confined to the Mesopotamian area – leads me to assume that was as far as humanity had spread. There would be no reason for God to pour out His wrath on say the penguins, polar bears, and walruses in regions where no human had yet reached.
A global flood assumes that all living creatures descended from the pairs on the Ark. But given the dimensions of the Ark - I don't think there would have been enough room for all the animals nor would it have been feasible for only eight humans to properly care for them all. Nor does it allow for enough time for the natural evolutionary processes to account for the wide variety of species. I lean towards a local flood – Noah being commissioned to save animals indigenous to his area.
... and since when were Creationists a 'race' of people?
Hiding behind the race card, I see. ... Desperate, really desperate.
well you didn't want to talk strictly science, and wanted to bash other people's attempts to solve the riddle.
Just thought if people are ready to accept evolution without really understanding it, deciding there's no other possibility, then they are ready to accept the social implications.
Just thought if people are ready to accept evolution without really understanding it, ...
On the contrary, I know that many (if not all) of us who learned and accept evolution as factually true want for people to understand it. See what it all consists of, and all. ... As hard as this may be for you to believe this, I don't want you to accept evolution simply because some authority figure says so. You make up your own mind on that. But when the growing evidence is leaning more and more towards evolution, and you have the biblical literate people go ape-s**t over that, and for no better reason than that it is challenging what their scriptures say, then they really have no solid standing to accuse evolutionary biologists of blindly accepting anything. Ie., it would clearly be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
deciding there's no other possibility, then they are ready to accept the social implications.
And what (terrible I presume?) social implications would that be? :o
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
17
23
55
Popular Days
Jun 18
28
Jun 14
26
Jun 20
23
Jun 19
20
Top Posters In This Topic
oenophile 8 posts
likeaneagle 17 posts
GarthP2000 23 posts
Bolshevik 55 posts
Popular Days
Jun 18 2007
28 posts
Jun 14 2007
26 posts
Jun 20 2007
23 posts
Jun 19 2007
20 posts
Bolshevik
Maybe he does.
What evidence (and an experiment would be great) convinced you that evolution must be true?
Far as I know, most who believe in evolution believe it because someone simply told them it was true. Someone told them there was a complete fossil record, and they just believed it.
Kinda like the guy who said he found an old document with some greek words . . .and many just assumed he was right. Then went around laughing at folks who didn't have "The Truth."
Where's the hard evidence for macroevolution?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Some folks do not interpret the flood of Noah's day as being global but local – and considering the likelihood that God may have helped Noah in the evacuation - some of these issues would become a moot point. The male and female creatures appear to come to Noah of their own accord in verses 9 and 15 of Genesis 7. It seems the point of the flood was to snuff out man and animal [verses 17 to 24] – some things come to mind – just thinking out loud here with the following questions: How far had man and land based animals migrated by this time? Is it possible the flood was limited [local] in that it was confined to a specific area impacted by the sins mentioned in Genesis 6? Would there be geological and archeological evidence to indicate such a deluge happened and to what extent?
Genesis 7:6-24 NIV
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I can see where this thread is heading.......
Is there still room in the basement.....?;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah – but I heard it got flooded and there’s some prehistoric creatures swimming around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
What convinced me that evolution is more than 'just a theory' (ie., a word that many people mistake for just 'guesswork'), is how its a lot more compatible with biological, natural, astronomical, and other laws and sciences; plus the explanations given by the evolutionary biologists just flow a lot smoother and more logically than the biblical account. Whereas those defending the biblical account, (when all is said and done) are doing only that; defending the biblical account, ... even when they try to 'scientize' it up by supporting the well known natural and biological arguments, except when they contradict the biblical account. Then it shifts into a "It's a valid argument, so long as the validity of the Scriptures remain inviolate! That is the line that *cannot* be crossed, --- no matter what!" knee-jerk mode.
I've seen that mode practiced in TWI and I've seen it in many mainstream, fundamentalist churches. Yes, there are scientists that play that same kind of *stoopid* mode re: evolution, but they are the isolated individuals whose egos surpass their professionalism. (And they should know better!) When the church/believer does that mode, it is because their Genesis doctrine requires them to.
Oh, and the flaw of asking for an experiment of proving evolution is based on the flaw that it (like each and every other scientific premise) can be proved by one experiment. ... Typical short-sighted, American culture based "I want to see it NOW!" thinking. Evolution can't be proved in one sitting, mix all the chemicals into a big beaker, enter the formula into Excel, and hit the Enter key, ... and *POOF* there ya are, complete with HP quality color printout to take with you.
Evolution is shown to be true because of the accumulation over the years of related and supporting facts, scientifically determined theories, and other reliable information to the point where it becomes a 'preponderance of the evidence' situation. Ie., the amount of facts gathered lean FAR more towards supporting evolution than it _ever_ could the 6 day, Young Earth, Genesis account. ... By a landslide! The only people who dispute this finding are the ones who have the aforementioned 'mental block' of refusing to challenge the Genesis account (no matter the solidity of the challenging info), and even go to ridiculous extents of ((gag)) 'reasoning', just to protect the reputation of the Genesis account. Thus we have examples like 'Dr.' Kenneth Hovind.
I hope this helps clear things up as to the why I see it the way I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
This is simply false. Evolution is evolution, and the only ones I've heard using terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are creationists.
Additionally, your understanding of the scientific method is extremely flawed. Science is based off of observation. The scientific method is a standardization of how to make these observations and report on them. According to your standards, astronomy is also a non-science because we are unable to create stars.
What is lacking in the fossil record? I hear claims from creationists all the time, but the truth is that we have an amazingly good fossil record available and it's getting better all the time. While there is certainly a constant refining of details that sometimes makes us change our views of things (e.g. Tyrannosaurus Rex being a scavenger rather than a killer) there is more than enough evidence to show evolution happening over the past.
Actually they are a different species. Homo neanderthalensis is different than homo sapien. Both were two different types of humanoid that had evolved from earlier species.
Please provide some evidence of this, because actual scientists seem to disagree with that.
Other than the Piltdown man and a handful of other fakes, the fossil record is overwhelmingly accurate and paleontologists are getting better at differentiating between fakes and the real thing. You are inaccurate in claiming that "numerous" fossils were found to be fakes, unless you are including the capsules that Toys R' Us sells to put into water and it grows into a sponge dinosaur.
The fact is, science is constantly changing, but that doesn't mean it is not the most accurate means we have for understanding the world. Creationists that oppose evolution are usually charlatans who demand much of science, but refuse the answers when they are given. They also blow the unknowns out of proportion in order to create doubt, and insert nonsense into the debate in order to confuse people. You've undoubtedly been fed a line of creationist B.S. but you don't see it yet. You've been tricked into rejecting reality for a more pleasant myth. It is easier to believe The Invisible Sky Giant waved his magic wand and life suddenly appeared on the planet than to understand that the universe is a complicated place that we can't completely comprehend.
Also for the record, there won't be a complete lesson on evolution here from me or anyone. This is a message board, not a college. Where things like creationism that don't require facts or evidence can be explained quickly and easily, science like evolution requires lots of reading, time, and better teaching than I am capable of. If you truly want to learn about it, go to college and take a bunch of science classes.
I think literal creationism is a dangerous idea because it rejects rationality and science in favor of fairy tales. I wish religious people would make up their minds as to what they want to believe. It seems like science is evil and the enemy except when religious people get things like penicillin. Why don't religious fundamentalists rely only on prayer and priests when they are ill and let us that value science stick with medicine and doctors? That would surely be a valid experiment to test Darwin's natural selection.
Edited by Mister P-MoshLink to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
I looked on the site, and I couldn't find anything about the scientists. Does anyone know their names, or is there a link that tells me who they are?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It should be no surprise that real scientists overwhelmingly reject what this museum offers:
On a side note, unfortunately one of the people that are in a video in that museum runs a porno site or did something illegal related to sex, and as a result most of the top hits in google are related to that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Vegan, interesting, isn't it, that they don't provide that information. You'd think, if for no other reason than to lend credibility and validity to the place they'd give the background of these brilliant scientists.... <_<
I did a little googling on it:
Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis is the founder.
He received endorsement from Jerry Falwell.
The rest of this article sounds like what we were taught in TWI....
This is the founder's own website and he lists scientists who supposedly accept Biblical creation, but doesn't list them as being part of the actual museum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
What is also interesting is that upon perusing a small sample of these creationist "scientists", none of them seem to have published their claims in peer reviewed scientific journals. Instead, they publish through religious books and online.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I still can not find a darn thing mentioning any scientists who actually worked with or contributed any learning to the museum.
I did find this, however....
... and an awful lot of other articles like it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
T-Bone and Bolshevik,
Why are kangaroos and koalas only found in Australia? Why was the coqui treefrog only found in Puerto Rico until recently? (It stowed away on a ship and now sings happily in Hawaii now also.) If the kangaroo, koala and the coqui emerged from the Ark on Mt. Ararat, wouldn't their populations be more evenly distributed across the globe. How did they survive the en masse swim across shark infested waters to their present habitats? When did they unlearn to swim? Wasn't it because of the unique flora and fauna of the very isolated Galapagos that gave rise to the notion of natural selection and evolution in the first place?
What provisions were made on the Ark for the climatic needs of penguins, polar bears and walrus? Did the Ark have refrigerated compartments? How about the tropical rainforest environment necessary to sustain the toucan and howler monkeys? A steam room maybe?
In answer to Bolshi's question about Dr. Collins not denying evolution because of his fear of losing his position, Dr. Collins in his book indicated if credible evidence was found that challenged natural selection as the explanation of why life is on earth it would come forward. Nobel Prizes and grant money follow such discoveries.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Robin- this article is dated, April 7 2007..He has a video on CNN, he is being interviewed.
I have been to his labs..
I would do a study on the "Days of Peleg in Genesis" It goes into the flood and a little on the Ice Ages.
ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.
I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.
I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.c...tary/index.html
Belle- this is a link to the page on CNN where you can ind coverage of the Museums being built...Listen carefully it does mention SCIENCE:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You know not what you speak of. I wish people would have the guts to think for themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Don't know about the Ark. But the possum is found in the Americas.
How did the the proton pump evolve? (Or any membrane protein for that matter)
Did he happen to mention how much we really know about the genome? there's so much, and the evolutionary mechanism is so poorly defined. A few changes here and there? come on.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Bolshevik- this article is not a White Paper..Its a human interest story.
reasons.org is aawesome website....they take live calls fromall the US
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Please re-read my post # 53. Perhaps I was not clear enough in expressing my opposition to the traditional view of Noah's Ark/Flood that you're talking about – so I will elaborate a little more. None of this is conclusive of course, but like you, I have questions/thoughts that challenge assumptions.
Why is it assumed the entire zoological spread of creatures owe their existence to Noah's Ark? I tend to think God aimed His wrath at the sinful people mentioned in Genesis 6. And, considering that any geographical references before the flood are confined to the Mesopotamian area – leads me to assume that was as far as humanity had spread. There would be no reason for God to pour out His wrath on say the penguins, polar bears, and walruses in regions where no human had yet reached.
A global flood assumes that all living creatures descended from the pairs on the Ark. But given the dimensions of the Ark - I don't think there would have been enough room for all the animals nor would it have been feasible for only eight humans to properly care for them all. Nor does it allow for enough time for the natural evolutionary processes to account for the wide variety of species. I lean towards a local flood – Noah being commissioned to save animals indigenous to his area.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Proof that irony is indeed entertaining.
A line uttered by a creationist: "I wish people would have the guts to think for themselves."
((Wiping tears away)) Thanks for the hearty laugh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Narrow thinking.
So, which race of people do you think is more highly evolved?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... and since when were Creationists a 'race' of people?
Hiding behind the race card, I see. ... Desperate, really desperate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
well you didn't want to talk strictly science, and wanted to bash other people's attempts to solve the riddle.
Just thought if people are ready to accept evolution without really understanding it, deciding there's no other possibility, then they are ready to accept the social implications.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
T-Bone - Just a quick question/comment:
Isn't there fairly strong evidence that the continents were once connected and have "spread" apart over thousands of years?
I'm really just watching and reading here.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And what (terrible I presume?) social implications would that be? :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.