I just went through, again, the article from the National Center for Science Education that you posted. I don't think you have any idea how much this article refutes the Genesis account. The flood described here would not have covered a single mountain.
Genesis 7:
The flood described in the article does NOT match the description in Genesis. Not by a longshot. Genesis describes a literal worldwide flood, but even if you want to say it was regional, it describes a flood that covered mountains. The article you cited does not describe such a flood.
The issue here is not whether the Middle East was ever flooded. Of course it was. The issue is whether it was flooded as described in Genesis. By the very article YOU cited, the answer is a big, fat NO.
from the same article at NCSE website – right before the conclusion, it draws the curvature of the earth into the equation of what a "worldwide" flood might look like to those present on the ark. I don't see where you get the idea it refutes a regional flood as described in Genesis.
"Effects of the Curvature of the Earth
Because of the curvature of the earth, the horizon drops from where the viewer is standing. However, the drop is proportional to the square of the distance between the viewer and an object on the horizon (Young nd). From these relationships, it can be seen that a tribal chief (or Noah) standing on the deck of a large boat (Ark), perhaps 7.8 meters above the water, would not be able to see the tops of any hills as high as 15 m from as little as 24 km away across flood plains covered with water because the curvature of the earth prevents it (See the Appendix for examples of calculations). Most hills in this region that are as much as 15 m high are more than 95 km away from the river levees. Therefore, the survivors of the Flood could see only water in all directions while they were floating down the Tigris River and over the flood plains. Many of these hills would also be partly covered with water which would make their tops project less above the water level, and therefore, the curvature of the earth would make them disappear from the line of sight in even a shorter distance than 24 km.
Northeast and southwest of the nearly flat surface that contains the two rivers, the topography rises to more than 455 m in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km away, and these places are more than 160 km from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time."
I have not gone through Genesis in any systematic way, preferring to just state my position in the form of a rather casual conversation. But if that leads you to say I have not demonstrated why Genesis should be treated as fable or myth, then I will gladly rise to that challenge.
Priority one, though, is time with my kids. So, good night!
Hey I hear yah on priorities Raf. And maybe I'm starting to realize why debate isn't really my thing. There's a lot of time and effort that goes into clarifying ideas; just the couple of times I burned the midnight oil and stealing a few minutes here and there at work during some down time has shown me that. Between that and getting ready to go on vacation I'm not sure if or when I'll get back to this thought-provoking discussion. you have a good night too!
T Bone, you're neglecting what the article said. The Bible says the flood covered mountains. The article said it did not even cover HILLS. The Bible described a flood that wiped out all human life in the region. The article said it did not. The Bible describes a flood that would have carried the Ark to ararat. The article did not.
You can't document an actual error in the Bible and use it to support the claim that the book is inerrant!
Genesis 1:3 God creates light and darkness. There's evening and morning, the first day. So what's the problem? Well, on its face, nothing, except that many Christians (TWI included) now cling to "gap theory" to insert billions of years of history between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:3 takes place AFTER Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. So we are to conclude, by combining gap theory with the clear teaching of scripture, that the heavens and the earth existed for billions of years without light. Gap theory makes no sense in that light.
Question: are the days of Genesis literal 24-hour periods? Biblically, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. We only begin suggesting otherwise in history when it becomes more and more clear from the evidence that the earth is much older than a Biblical calculation would lead us to suspect. The book says evening and morning were the first day. That suggests a literal 24-hour period. Allowing Genesis to speak for itself, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion.
Genesis 1: 14-19 On day four (Wednesday) God makes/creates/whatever the sun moon and stars. Huh? How did you get three days and three nights without the sun? Where was the light coming from before the sun? (Again, I'm not going to quibble about the Bible calling the moon a "light," which it is not. I think that's nitpicking).
Now, let's look at what happens BEFORE the sun is made.
Genesis 1: 9-13 God separates the land from the sea, plants, trees, fruit, etc. BEFORE THE SUN! This didn't happen.
So here's the order of creation in Genesis: Heaven, earth, light, plant life, the sun.
Um, no. That's an actual error. In reality, it was heaven/light, sun, earth, with plant life not showing up for a couple of BILLION years.
Genesis 1:6-8 describes how God created a firmament, a literal, invisible or transparent dome, to create a bubble inside which we live. We discussed the literal nature of the firmament on another thread. I'll be happy to dig that up for you if you'd like. Modern translations like to avoid this cosmological blunder by rendering the word "firmament" as "expanse," but in honesty, it's a poor translation. The Bible clearly says that this firmament holds back water. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?" "Well, son, just like there's a blue ocean out there, there's a big blue ocean above us, too. But it's held back by a gigantic dome!"
This is the explicit teaching of Genesis. The language is not in the least bit figurative. It matches the mythology of other religions that developed in the region. Allowing Genesis to speak for itself, it's an actual, integrity-crushing error.
Genesis 1:20-23 God creates all water life and birds on earth in one day. This is not, as described on another thread, a progression from water to air over a period of hundreds of millions of years. One day, and simultaneous. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Plenty of actual EVIDENCE suggests otherwise, but the evidence is extrinsic to the text. It contradicts the text. It demonstrates the text to actually be in error.
Genesis 1:24-25 God creates the land animals. After birds. That's an actual error.
Incidentally, whales evolved from land mammals. Did you know that? It's pretty awesome. So does Genesis 1:20-23 include whales, or not? Well, it can't. Because the ancestors of those whales would not have been created until vv. 24-25! Isn't that something?
Last of all, God creates man in vv. 26-30. Despite what the King James Bible tells you, God does not tell man to "replenish" the earth. The word there is just plain "fill." Wierwille took advantage of a mistranslation to get Genesis to teach the repopulation of the earth rather than what it clearly teaches -- the first of two populations of the earth (the second coming after Noah and his multi-hundred-year-old sons and their childbearing wives.
There are so many actual errors in Genesis 1 that entire books have to be written to explain why you can still believe it as long as you believe it says something other than what it obviously says. But enough about Hugh Ross. ;)
Does Genesis 2 contradict Genesis 1 about the order of creation? Lots of critics say yes, but personally, I find the chapter just too baffling to come to a fixed opinion. Verses 5-7 seem to clearly state that man was created before there were any plants, which blatantly contradicts the previous chapter. But then v. 8 says God had planted the Garden of Eden, with no indication of when. The problem with v. 8 is that if it was sooner than v. 7, then what are we to make of v. 5, which says that there were no shrubs or plants yet? Either God planted a garden before He made man, as v. 8 implies, or after he made man, as v. 5 explicitly states.
In the middle of this garden, God places two literal trees. There is nothing in the text to indicate that there's anything metaphorical about these trees. They are trees. Remarkable, remarkable trees. And what happens in v. 17? God forbids man from eating from one of those two remarkable trees.
Let's state the obvious: there's no such thing as a tree whose fruit imparts knowledge of good and evil, nor is there a tree whose fruit grants eternal life. These characteristics are the stuff of mythology, not horticulture. In plant biology, fruit is part of the tree's reproductive process. So were these two remarkable trees intended to reproduce?
And why, out of all the places on earth, did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the ONE PLACE where it could have done the MOST damage to His creation? He could have put that tree at the North Pole. Heck, he could have put it in Argentina ;)/> and man would not have encountered it for many, many, many generations. No, He puts it right there where it can be an utterly unnecessary temptation and actually cause ALL the suffering we see in the world from the time of Adam until this very day. Why? [because it didn't. This is a myth, and myths rely on these kinds of juxtapositions]. Any explanation of Adam and Eve as a literally true story has to account for the fact that God could have out that tree ANYWHERE, yet chose to put it right where Adam and Eve would be tempted by it.
Now, before you say that Adam and Eve had to choose to obey God, or their obedience would be meaningless, bear in mind that in the future, all believers will dwell with God forever and ever without temptation, sin or suffering. So why is that possible in the future when it was not possible in Eden?
And what about the other tree? Would it not have been utterly catastrophic if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life first, THEN eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Remember, the fruit of the tree of life was NOT forbidden! Seems God was really playing with fire there, wasn't He?
Of course, God KNEW they wouldn't eat of the tree of life, so there's no real threat. He also knew they would eat of the tree of knowledge, which AGAIN raises the question: Why put the tree there, where it could do the most damage?
Read as a myth, the answer is obvious. The tree is there because it has to be there. Otherwise, there's no story of how things came to be the way they are. Stop asking such pesky questions. If you insist on this as history, you are forced to defend an act of utter divine incompetence. Seriously, what other word for it is there? If I built a crib for my baby and, in the middle of the crib, but a gigantic poisonous thumbtack sticking out from the middle of it, and told the baby "stay away from that thumbtack and you'll be okay," am I being a responsible parent? NO! You'd have me charged with child abuse, and rightly so!
But, you may argue, Adam and Eve were not babies (though they were evidently no older than babies. Then again, who knows. We don't have any sense of how much time passes in chapter 2, do we?). In any event, here's something we DO know: They were given a clear instruction to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. So they knew better than to eat from that tree. It's not like they didn't know right from wrong, after all.
Except, they didn't know right from wrong, did they? I mean, isn't that the whole darned point of the tree? They don't know right from wrong until they eat from the fruit. So what exactly was the original sin again? Disobedience? But they didn't know disobedience was evil! Talk about the punishment not fitting the crime! To punish someone for treason who did not know what treason is? Harsh.
So anyway, God tells them, "Don't do that! It's WRONG!" And Adam and Eve say, "What does 'wrong' mean?" And God says "You'll find out if you eat that completely dangerous tree that will totally kill you, cause all animal life to turn against each other in a gigantic food chain of death, the tree that I put right there, right over here, with that totally tempting fruit, right there where you can reach it, without so much as a fence around it or a guard, right there. Don't. eat. that!"
I'm sorry, WHAT?!?!?
So guess what happens in chapter 3? Yup, they eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. And then, and then and THEN! AFTER the damage is done, what does God do?
Genesis 3:24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Let me see if I've got this straight: The tree with the forbidden fruit gets no barrier, no guard, no nothing to keep man from walking right up to it, plucking the fruit off of it, and chowing down, thereby ruining EVERYTHING for EVERYONE (although it's never quite clear why Adam's sin results in animal death. Shhh. Too many questions). But, once the damage was done, God puts barriers in the way to keep them from eating the fruit from the tree He did NOT forbid.
Why, oh why, oh why did he not put a flaming sword and a couple of Secret Service Cherubim up to guard the forbidden tree when such protection would have LITERALLY done a world of good?
Because it didn't flipping happen. The whole story is absurd, and we haven't even gotten to the talking snake yet.
Well, actually, we did gloss over the talking snake earlier, and in retrospect, I see no reason to expand on it beyond what I already wrote. With that in mind, I'll just quote the earlier post here:
According to Genesis 3, snakes crawl on their bellies and eat dust in retaliation for the serpent's role in the temptation.
Why?
If it was "Satan," and not a literal snake, why punish snakes? (Never mind that snakes don't eat dust).
If this "curse" is not really being directed at snakes but at Satan, it makes no flipping sense. Satan doesn't crawl on his belly or eat dust. And there's nothing in the narrative to indicate that we're talking about anything other than the animal.
T Bone, you're neglecting what the article said. The Bible says the flood covered mountains. The article said it did not even cover HILLS. The Bible described a flood that wiped out all human life in the region. The article said it did not. The Bible describes a flood that would have carried the Ark to ararat. The article did not.
You can't document an actual error in the Bible and use it to support the claim that the book is inerrant!
On the contrary, the implication of the NCSE article I quoted in post # 102 indicates that interpreting the biblical account from the cultural perspective of the day would actually agree with the scientific evidence of a regional flood; here is a partial quote of the NCSE article:
"…Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km away, and these places are more than 160 km from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time."
As I mentioned in post # 98 interpreting the Bible in light of the cultural background is one of the principles of hermeneutics – which is a legitimate method of interpretation. Granted, it may differ from your method - but it is a valid basis for arguing the accuracy of this biblical record. The phraseology of a culture is interesting though. If someone asks me "when is sunrise and sunset today?" After checking a meteorologist's website I would respond by saying today the sun comes up at 7:20 AM and the sun goes down at 7:20 PM. However are the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" (or "sun up" and "sun down") scientifically accurate? It's actually the earth rotating to a point where I can see the sun on either the east or west horizon. The terms are from our viewpoint on earth. Even in this day and age of powerful telescopes, satellites orbiting earth, people traveling in space and unmanned robotic probes exploring other parts of our solar system – the terms are culturally acceptable.
== == == ==
Actual errors in Genesis:
Genesis 1:3 God creates light and darkness. There's evening and morning, the first day. So what's the problem? Well, on its face, nothing, except that many Christians (TWI included) now cling to "gap theory" to insert billions of years of history between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:3 takes place AFTER Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. So we are to conclude, by combining gap theory with the clear teaching of scripture, that the heavens and the earth existed for billions of years without light. Gap theory makes no sense in that light.
Question: are the days of Genesis literal 24-hour periods? Biblically, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. We only begin suggesting otherwise in history when it becomes more and more clear from the evidence that the earth is much older than a Biblical calculation would lead us to suspect. The book says evening and morning were the first day. That suggests a literal 24-hour period. Allowing Genesis to speak for itself, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion.
Genesis 1: 14-19 On day four (Wednesday) God makes/creates/whatever the sun moon and stars. Huh? How did you get three days and three nights without the sun? Where was the light coming from before the sun? (Again, I'm not going to quibble about the Bible calling the moon a "light," which it is not. I think that's nitpicking).
Now, let's look at what happens BEFORE the sun is made.
Genesis 1: 9-13 God separates the land from the sea, plants, trees, fruit, etc. BEFORE THE SUN! This didn't happen.
So here's the order of creation in Genesis: Heaven, earth, light, plant life, the sun.
Um, no. That's an actual error. In reality, it was heaven/light, sun, earth, with plant life not showing up for a couple of BILLION years.
Genesis 1:6-8 describes how God created a firmament, a literal, invisible or transparent dome, to create a bubble inside which we live. We discussed the literal nature of the firmament on another thread. I'll be happy to dig that up for you if you'd like. Modern translations like to avoid this cosmological blunder by rendering the word "firmament" as "expanse," but in honesty, it's a poor translation. The Bible clearly says that this firmament holds back water. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?" "Well, son, just like there's a blue ocean out there, there's a big blue ocean above us, too. But it's held back by a gigantic dome!"
This is the explicit teaching of Genesis. The language is not in the least bit figurative. It matches the mythology of other religions that developed in the region. Allowing Genesis to speak for itself, it's an actual, integrity-crushing error.
Genesis 1:20-23 God creates all water life and birds on earth in one day. This is not, as described on another thread, a progression from water to air over a period of hundreds of millions of years. One day, and simultaneous. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Plenty of actual EVIDENCE suggests otherwise, but the evidence is extrinsic to the text. It contradicts the text. It demonstrates the text to actually be in error.
Genesis 1:24-25 God creates the land animals. After birds. That's an actual error.
Incidentally, whales evolved from land mammals. Did you know that? It's pretty awesome. So does Genesis 1:20-23 include whales, or not? Well, it can't. Because the ancestors of those whales would not have been created until vv. 24-25! Isn't that something?
Last of all, God creates man in vv. 26-30. Despite what the King James Bible tells you, God does not tell man to "replenish" the earth. The word there is just plain "fill." Wierwille took advantage of a mistranslation to get Genesis to teach the repopulation of the earth rather than what it clearly teaches -- the first of two populations of the earth (the second coming after Noah and his multi-hundred-year-old sons and their childbearing wives.
There are so many actual errors in Genesis 1 that entire books have to be written to explain why you can still believe it as long as you believe it says something other than what it obviously says. But enough about Hugh Ross.
I disagree with your statements "This is the explicit teaching of Genesis. The language is not in the least bit figurative. It matches the mythology of other religions that developed in the region. Allowing Genesis to speak for itself, it's an actual, integrity-crushing error." ...You're assuming vp's interpretation of Genesis 1 in PFAL is the explicit teaching of Scripture. And to say "allowing Genesis to speak for itself" reminds me of the claim vp makes in PFAL – that the Bible interprets itself. i think that's a matter of opinion. i believe there are a few intellectual hurdles to address first before one can say this is what the Bible means in this section.
Due to the difference of time, cultures, languages, etc. between the original recipients and present day students of the Bible I believe an appropriate method of interpretation is called for that tries to honestly address these differences to grasp the original meaning. It is still my contention that interpreting the Genesis accounts using biblical hermeneutics will not contradict scientific evidence that touches upon the same events.
== == == ==
And for what it's worth, Ross does not subscribe to the gap theory; furthermore, I believe Ross and the other authors/books I referenced in post # 84 do NOT use the so-called science of PFAL in their work. The discipline of hermeneutics was foreign to vp. He used speculation and re-defined words of the biblical texts to force the Genesis record into a framework that does NOT harmonize with reality. The first four books by Ross, Schroeder & Levitt that i listed in post # 84 is an interpretation of Genesis from a scientific viewpoint that still reflects a proper use of biblical hermeneutics.
I would like to say something about the topic of evolution since you brought it up in your post. For the most part, our discussion has dealt with specific biblical accounts and we have both referred to other sources as to how the text should be interpreted. In my opinion, the topic of evolution is something that would be argued from logic, science and evidence rather than from specific texts of the Bible. To be upfront, I'd have to say philosophically I prefer a theory that includes God in the picture. On a technical level, I think we both will have to resort to the work of those qualified to address the issues (well, i guess that would be more of what we've been doing all along). i did happen to mention a few books by William Dembski and Michael Behe in post #84 that argue against the typical evolutionary model on the basis of intelligent design; it seems to me that the typical evolutionary model depends on chance (or luck); this is speculation at best; scientific explanations invoke causes. And from my perspective the first cause is God the creator.
I don't have time to post very much here, but I did buy a copy of The Genesis Question written by Hugh Ross. The man shows logic and reason in his evaluation of scripture mixed with science. He sees the limitation of words in the biblical Hebrew language in communication. This can cause a lack of understanding in later years after it was originally written and understood. Ross sees days as written in Genesis chapter 1 as not 24 hour periods but long periods of time which could even be in harmony with some parts of the theory of evolution.
Here is information on the Hebrew language that I found on the internet that verifies my above statement on the limitations of the words in the biblical Hebrew language.
Biblical Hebrew has a very small vocabulary (about a quarter of the size of that used by Shakespeare and approximately 1% of the 660,000+ words contained in the Oxford English Dictionary). Of these, many only occur once or are proper names and can be safely looked up when the need arises. Hebrew has no formal recognisable cases (like Greek, Latin or German, with their nominative, accusative, genitive, dative etc.) and very simple word order which can be rearranged for emphasis. Although reading right to left this aspect of Hebrew learning is quickly mastered. The alphabet has just 22 letters - all consonants and all one case. The additional vowel marks above and below the consonants are not needed for advanced reading and after all were not added until some 5-6 centuries after the New Testament era. Each Hebrew letter actually represents an early pictographic symbol, e.g., Beth (as in Bethlehem - 'house of bread') was an image of a house or tent and so also the letter name itself is the Hebrew word for 'house'.
Thanks for your input Mark and you reminded of something in "The Genesis Question" that addresses the topic of whales that Raf said evolved from land animals. Before I get to that I wanted to share something I found in The Interlinear Bible One Volume Edition, 2nd Edition, copyright 1986 by Jay Green concerning the fifth day of creation; I will quote the English translation Green offers in the side column of Genesis 1:21 so I can refer to the Hebrew word as classified by James Strong's numbering system.
Genesis 1:21, A Literal Translation of the Bible, Jay Green
And God created the great sea animals, and all that creeps, having a soul life, which swarmed the waters, according to its kind; and every bird with wing according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
For "Sea animals" in the above translation Green shows "sea monsters" in the Interlinear column with Strong's number 8577 above the Hebrew text. The number 8577 in Strong's numbering system,(or number 9490 in the Goodrick/Kohlenberger numbering system; I've listed both for those who use either resource – I have a mix of both in my library); Strong's number 8577 is the Hebrew word tannin.
I've found in the KJV that tannin has been translated differently elsewhere in the Bible; Though it is translated "whales" in Genesis 1:21 of the KJV, it is translated "serpent" in Exodus 7:9, in Ezekiel 29:3 "the great dragon (tannin) that lieth in the midst of his rivers" – Bullinger's Companion Bible notes this as referring to the great crocodile to which Egypt was likened on Roman coins, in Isaiah 27:1 it reads "He shall slay the dragon (tannin) that is in the sea", and in Jeremiah 51:34 it says "he hath swallowed me up like a dragon (tannin)". Keying off what Mark said about the Hebrew vocabulary perhaps the word tannin translated "whale" in Genesis 1:21 KJV is more of a generic or general term, rather than speaking of a specific group.
Checking online i found Wikipedia lists it as Tannin (demon), a Hebrew word for leviathan or sea dragon and in modern Hebrew means crocodile:
Now onto what Ross said about whales and the fifth "day" of creation. For brevity's sake I will mention the main points he makes in "The Genesis Question" on pages 50 thru 52: Ross states that some paleontologists criticize Genesis 1 because it has the introduction of sea mammals on "day" five before the introduction of land mammals. A careful reading of the text, however, removes the basis for their criticism – since it is speaking of sea mammals generically; however the sixth "day" narrows in on only three specialized kinds of land mammals. When the other land mammals are introduced we cannot say from the text. Scientific research will have to give us that information.
Recent discoveries reveal that the first sea mammals date much earlier than paleontologists had once thought. Fossils of four extinct species of whales – Pakicetus, Nalacetus, Ambulocetus, and Indocetus have been dated between 48 and 52 million years ago. This dating eliminates any credible challenge to the introduction of the first sea mammals on the fifth creation "day".
This dating also challenges a naturalistic explanation for a newly found change in these whales' morphology. Phosphate isotopes in the teeth of these fossilized whales tell of a rapid transition from freshwater ingestion to saltwater ingestion. Geologists and anatomists from the US and India discovered that Pakicetus and Nalacetus drank only freshwater. Ambulocetus drank freshwater at least through its formative years and Indocetus drank only saltwater.
In just 2 to 4 million years whales' physiology changed radically. The transition from freshwater ingestion to saltwater ingestion requires completely different internal organs. The number and rapidity of "just right" mutations required to accomplish such a transition defies the limits set by molecular clocks (biomolecules for which mutation rates can be determined relatively easily).
Ross goes on to say that if the whale is the evolutionists' "best example" for their theory it is actually the worst considering the following factors that severely limit their capacity for natural-process changes and rather increases the probability for rapid extinction; the six most significant factors are: relatively small population levels, long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth), low numbers of progeny produced per adult, high complexity of morphology and biochemistry, enormous sizes, and specialized food supplies. These factors limit not only the whales' capacity to change through natural selection and mutations but even their ability to adapt to change.
The same conclusions can be drawn for the so-called descent of horses. The same factors affecting whales severely restrict the horses' capacity to survive internal and external changes. Ecologists have observed several extinctions of horse and whale species during human history, but never a measurable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one.
Genesis may offer an explanation – God created the first sea mammals on the fifth creation "day". As the fossil record shows, sea mammals have persisted on Earth from that epoch until now, though not without interruption. Multiple extinctions of sea mammals imply God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones. In most cases the new species were different from the previous ones because of the changes God was orchestrating in geology, bio-deposits, and biology in prep for humans. The many "transitional" forms of whales and horses suggest God performed numerous creative acts.
On the "regional flood" and the article we're debating, I just have this to say:
You quoted the point I made but did not refute it. In fact, the information you provided supported every point I made. Namely, that the flood described in the article directly exposes the Genesis flood as an actual error. The Bible doesn't say it "looked like" the whole world was covered in water. Genesis makes explicit statements that the article you cite clearly establishes to be flat out wrong. The Bible says the flood covered mountains. The flood in the article did not. The Bible says the flood carried the ark to Ararat. The flood described in the article would not have accomplished that feat.
So in other words, I'm quoting the Bible. You're quoting an article that says the Bible is actually in error. And you're claiming that the article proves the Bible is accurate and not in error. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot have it both ways.
Mark, I appreciate your endorsement of Ross. If you'd like to apply it to something I've said, I'm all ears.
Meanwhile, back to T-Bone:
Due to the difference of time, cultures, languages, etc. between the original recipients and present day students of the Bible I believe an appropriate method of interpretation is called for that tries to honestly address these differences to grasp the original meaning. It is still my contention that interpreting the Genesis accounts using biblical hermeneutics will not contradict scientific evidence that touches upon the same events.
You can SAY that as often as you'd like, but you can only demonstrate it by finagling the Bible until it says the opposite of, or something completely different from, what is actually says.
I'm entertained by the amount of effort you've put into examining what I said about whales, by the way. I just threw that in there as an afterthought, and you're acting like you've come across the biggest gotcha against my post. Not even close. First off, Ross is wrong. Ross makes the crucial mistake of beginning with his conclusion and manipulating both facts and scripture to suit that conclusion.
The same conclusions can be drawn for the so-called descent of horses. The same factors affecting whales severely restrict the horses' capacity to survive internal and external changes. Ecologists have observed several extinctions of horse and whale species during human history, but never a measurable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one.
Couple of things: one, that there's never been a measurable chance within a species is a flat out lie on its face, but if you expand on the idea a little bit, we might be able to iron it out. On its face, though, that's a howler. Big fat lie. Try again.
Second: "much less the appearance of a new one" reflects both a simplistic and a distorted view of what evolution predicts. If Ross is trying to say that the fossil record does not show speciation, he's once again simply lying.
Again, the problem here may be the wording. To say there's never been a change within a species, much less the emergence of a new one, is rather oxymoronic. You're never going to see a new species within a species. Because you're within a species. That's like looking for high school graduates among a high school's freshman population. Duh. You've kind of defined them out of the sample population.
None of this discussion on whales, horses, speciation, etc, does a single thing to contradict the ACTUAL POINT I WAS MAKING, which is, again: Here's the order of creation in Genesis: Heaven, earth, light, plant life, the sun (moon and stars) water life, birds, THEN land animals)
That's an actual error. In reality, it was heaven/light, sun, earth, with plant life not showing up for a couple of BILLION years, AFTER water life, and birds came after (and from) land animals.
Now, if you BEGIN with the conclusion that there's no contradiction between scripture and science, then you can harmonize the two, but only by twisting both the scripture and science. The more you distort one, the less you have to distort the other. Ross accomplishes both, distorting science for those who are not scientifically literate, and distorting scripture in ways that, frankly, I'm surprised you guys are allowing. You would never let Wierwille get away with the infractions Ross is committing.
On the whole "whale" diversion, there's something worth noting here.
T-Bone has evidently gone to some trouble explaining why Genesis 1:21 mentions whales and whether that's an accurate translation. If you go back over my post, however, you will see that I made no such assertion (completely understandable, as I was not relying on the King James when I ASKED whether whales were included in the verse). I was not claiming that Genesis 1:21 included whales. If it did, it's an error. If it didn't, it's not. Minor point in the scheme of what I actually WAS addressing.
The more I review what you're sharing about Ross, the more clear it is becoming that he is absurdly incorrect about whale evolution.
In just 2 to 4 million years whales' physiology changed radically. The transition from freshwater ingestion to saltwater ingestion requires completely different internal organs. The number and rapidity of "just right" mutations required to accomplish such a transition defies the limits set by molecular clocks (biomolecules for which mutation rates can be determined relatively easily).
That is a REMARKABLE claim. It's also horsehockey, and Ross should know it. He's counting on you NOT knowing it, though.
Here's a simple task: Find one expert in cetacean biology and evolution who actually agrees with what you wrote there.
If Ross is correct in that statement, then evolution has been actively disproved. That would be a Nobel-worthy achievement in the field of science. It is just an astonishing development, one that would have the entire field of biology shaken to its foundations.
Unless, of course, it's bullcrap. It's simply not true. But again, don't take my word for it: check with real, unbiased scientists who have not started with their conclusions. Do whale biologists think whales are an exception to evolution, or that there hasn't been enough time for whales to evolve the way they have? Find one. One. (Psst: Ross is not one).
On the "regional flood" and the article we're debating, I just have this to say:
You quoted the point I made but did not refute it. In fact, the information you provided supported every point I made. Namely, that the flood described in the article directly exposes the Genesis flood as an actual error. The Bible doesn't say it "looked like" the whole world was covered in water. Genesis makes explicit statements that the article you cite clearly establishes to be flat out wrong. The Bible says the flood covered mountains. The flood in the article did not. The Bible says the flood carried the ark to Ararat. The flood described in the article would not have accomplished that feat.
So in other words, I'm quoting the Bible. You're quoting an article that says the Bible is actually in error. And you're claiming that the article proves the Bible is accurate and not in error. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot have it both ways.
The article reinforces the "world-wide" references in the text as being from the perspective of the writer. That's not – as you put it - having it both ways, when the article clearly supports an interpretation of the text on the basis of the cultural perspective.
Also the text does NOT say the flood carried the ark to Ararat - as I mentioned in post # 86, Genesis 8:4 states that the ark rested on the mountains (plural) of Ararat – that's the entire range of mountains; clearly a reference to a general region and not a specific mountain.
You can SAY that as often as you'd like, but you can only demonstrate it by finagling the Bible until it says the opposite of, or something completely different from, what is actually says.
Not really. By finagling if you mean trickery then let's review what I've done. In post # 86 I mentioned a few other verses in the Bible that make world-wide references that are clearly understood as according to the author's background.
The authors lived in a pre-scientific age. The Bible presents itself as a religious or spiritual book and not as a scientific textbook. Their use of observational or non-technical language was the accepted standard of their day. As I mentioned in post # 107, the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" are from the observer's perspective.
However, it would be anachronistic or presumptuous to superimpose modern scientific standards upon an ancient religious text. Interpreting the text according to its cultural background is not trickery – it's common sense!
Raf: I'm entertained by the amount of effort you've put into examining what I said about whales, by the way. I just threw that in there as an afterthought, and you're acting like you've come across the biggest gotcha against my post. Not even close. First off, Ross is wrong. Ross makes the crucial mistake of beginning with his conclusion and manipulating both facts and scripture to suit that conclusion.
Thanks – I really didn't put that much effort into a summary…I guess some folks are easily entertained. Perhaps you are mistaking Ross' scientific reasoning for something more than what it is; I'll say more on this further down.
Raf: Couple of things: one, that there's never been a measurable chance within a species is a flat out lie on its face, but if you expand on the idea a little bit, we might be able to iron it out. On its face, though, that's a howler. Big fat lie. Try again.
Second: "much less the appearance of a new one" reflects both a simplistic and a distorted view of what evolution predicts. If Ross is trying to say that the fossil record does not show speciation, he's once again simply lying.
I guess you missed the part about these observations being made "during human history". Ross is not referring to the fossil record. Ross' statement is clearly framed from the standpoint of scientific studies and not from the fossil record.
Could you be more specific on "what evolution predicts"? Are there any details to the predictions that we should be on the lookout for? Are we looking far beyond the current state of scientific knowledge? If it takes a really really long time by way of teeny-tiny-gradual steps of random mutations how would we know over the course of human history if the predictions came true? We might have better luck in the near future going by a modernized take on evolution which is punctuated equilibrium, developed by Niles Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould which views evolution as long intervals of near-stasis punctuated by short periods of rapid change (referred to in the Cambrian explosion link below). My position on all this is not set in stone, of course – it's just that I'd like to see these predictions pan out.
The fossil record is intriguing though – it does show speciation especially during one period - the Cambrian explosion. According to Wikipedia - the Cambrian explosion was referred to by Darwin as being one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Ross' point about the lack of observable changes in existing species goes along the lines of the scientific method; I get the idea of microevolution – evolution on a small scale – small changes within a population over a short period of time. That's not the issue here. I have no problem with that.
The evolutionist has an assumption that given the gosh-often-long periods of the past these small changes within a species could add up to large changes which explains a common ancestry in other words macroevolution – evolution on a grand scale. However, observing experiments in the present may not give us a firm scientific basis for determining how a unique event happened in the past – like the birth of a species.
The creationist could argue along similar lines of reasoning. Darwin's observation of selective breeding in plants and animals was a springboard for the theory of natural selection. Observing the repeated efforts of the breeders could lead one to think intelligent intervention was involved in the original creation of a species. But as I said, observing present day experiments may not provide a conclusive answer for a singular event that happened eons ago. Especially if the experiments cannot duplicate all the conditions of the original event in question. and that may be a lose/lose for the evolutionists and the creationists. The creationist cannot call God into the lab and ask Him to show us how He did it; the evolutionist will have to bet on the odds of making a life form from scratch.
The creationists say divine intelligence is the key factor to explain the origin of life. Evolutionists say blind luck (chance, random mutations) as the factor to explain the origin of life. Evolutionists say the appearance of intelligent design is an illusion. Creationists say the appearance of intelligent design is real. In my humble opinion the issue is philosophically driven by both sides. I think technically you could list the evidence/facts in two columns - one for each camp - and neither column would explain the origin of life.
There's nothing wrong with scientific reasoning and speculation during research - or even trying to duplicate a singularity in the past. However, without being able to test our hypothesis there's always the possibility folks could arrive at different conclusions. For example, concerning the origin of life an evolutionist could say similar traits and features indicate common ancestry. A creationist could say similar traits and features indicate a common designer. I have more to say on singularities further down.
Observation and experimentation are an integral part of the scientific method; but for what it's worth, when it comes to any work discussing the origin of the universe or the origin of life I don't look at it as ironclad or conclusive – from a technical or scientific point of view. This is simply because a singularity usually defies some parameters of the scientific method.
A singularity (which a miracle or something that is supposedly caused by the supernatural would be in that category) is difficult to observe unless you're there or happen to catch it on film or can predict when it will occur. Also it may be impossible to repeat through experiments. However, science does better with studying regularities – events that occur over and over again, or that can be predicted. That's the basis for understanding how the world works. Scientific laws are based on the repetition and predictability of events.
I'm not saying science shouldn't make an effort to explore singularities – but I think a valid strategy would be to understand them in terms of similar regularities.
Raf: Again, the problem here may be the wording. To say there's never been a change within a species, much less the emergence of a new one, is rather oxymoronic. You're never going to see a new species within a species. Because you're within a species. That's like looking for high school graduates among a high school's freshman population. Duh. You've kind of defined them out of the sample population.
I think your analogy of searching for high school graduates is inaccurate. I'm NOT looking for high school graduates among the freshman class. I'm looking for evidence that a select group of high school graduates ever attended a particular high school. One way to determine that would be to search academic records and maybe even look through yearbook pictures. We may come to find out there's no evidence to prove this select group of graduates ever attended that particular high school. Similarly the fossil record lacks transitional fossils showing common traits between an ancestral group and its supposedly derived descendants.
Raf: None of this discussion on whales, horses, speciation, etc, does a single thing to contradict the ACTUAL POINT I WAS MAKING, which is, again: Here's the order of creation in Genesis: Heaven, earth, light, plant life, the sun (moon and stars) water life, birds, THEN land animals)
That's an actual error. In reality, it was heaven/light, sun, earth, with plant life not showing up for a couple of BILLION years, AFTER water life, and birds came after (and from) land animals.
Actually I think the order of God's creative acts in Genesis follows the model science gives as to the formation of the universe and of our planet. However, more information is given about earth than about the universe (or the heavens). Text wise - the planet earth comes into the picture AFTER an awfully long series of events prior to earth's beginnings; Genesis 1:1 goes all the way back to time/space zero (or in the voice of Carl Sagan "billions and billions of years ago").
Genesis 1:2 and following, picks up at the early formative period of our planet. In the grand scheme of things Genesis 1: 2 and following is an elaboration of details God worked out as the final prep for our planet to come to life. For anyone interested in some of the details of the forming of our universe and our planet I have left some info at end of my post under general notes.
Genesis 1:1:The Bible's opening statement is not in scientific language like how an astrophysicist might state it (as I explained in post # 91) – but it gets the point across. Genesis 1:1 in the NET Bible simply states in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That is the creation of time and space. Some consider verse 1 to be like a chapter heading or summary verse.
Verse 2:Genesis 1:2 shifts the focus from the overall picture of the universe to our planet earth; the NET Bible reads "Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep…"
Verse 3 - 5: Our solar system, the stars, galaxies, etc. are already in place at this point in time (Genesis 1 verses 14 to 19 speak of the sun, moon and stars as already in existence); light from the heavens had difficulty penetrating the murky layers during the early phases of the earth's atmosphere. By verse 3, God does not have to create light – He just has to say "let there be light" – and for the first time light pierces the layers of gases that are now becoming translucent - that is day one.
Verses 6 – 8: The earth's water cycle begins – day two.
Verses 9 – 13: Then comes the emergence of land; Plant life appears in verses 11 to 13. Plants would be part of the terraforming engine to remove carbon dioxide and excessive water vapor from the air. This is day three.
Verses 14 – 19: For a very long time the light that made it through the shroud of gases above gave this world an overcast stormy look. But as the atmosphere was cleaned up, the sun, moon, and stars were becoming distinctly visible. The narrative is given from earth's perspective; in other words, this is what it looked like when looking up at the sky. This is day four.
Verses 20 – 23: The introduction of marine life and birds. This is day five.
Verses 24 – 31: The beginning of land creatures and man; This is the sixth day.
If Ross is correct in that statement, then evolution has been actively disproved. That would be a Nobel-worthy achievement in the field of science. It is just an astonishing development, one that would have the entire field of biology shaken to its foundations.
Unless, of course, it's bullcrap. It's simply not true. But again, don't take my word for it: check with real, unbiased scientists who have not started with their conclusions. Do whale biologists think whales are an exception to evolution, or that there hasn't been enough time for whales to evolve the way they have? Find one. One. (Psst: Ross is not one).
It might be interesting to hear your criteria to determine a real, unbiased scientist.
= = = = = = =
= = = = = = =
General notes: The scientific consensus seems to be that the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago. The sequence of how the universe developed over time comes from a variety of scientific models; a few websites offer diagrams/text on the evolution of the universe from the big bang, with the stars starting to form some 400 to 500 million years out from the big bang; followed by galaxies, planets, etc. starting to develop around 1 billion years out from the beginning.
Big post, can't answer all of it at once, so please be patient.
It might be interesting to hear your criteria to determine a real, unbiased scientist.
That's the easiest, so I will tackle it first. A real unbiased scientist would be one who did not BEGIN with his conclusion (that there WILL be harmony between science and scripture no matter how much I have to twist one or the other to make it happen). Ross begins with his conclusion, as do you. That's not how science works.
As far as the National Center for Science Education article and the Biblical flood, only one question needs to be asked.
Does the article describe a flood that would carry Noah's Ark to an area that could reasonably be referred to as "the mountains of Ararat"?
Ararat has two peaks (that's why it's called "mountains." It's not a mountain range like the Rockies, the Alps or the Andes).
Supposedly, definitions of "the mountains of Ararat" have been loosely interpreted to the extent that we're talking about a mountain in Cizre, Turkey (Mount Judi, about 60 miles away from Ararat, if I read correctly).
For the sake of argument, let us accept Mt. Judi because it is nice and far south of the actual mountains of Ararat.
Does the flood described in the NCSE article come anywhere near Mt. Judi?
Nope. Not even close.
Therefore, by this very article you cited, IF the flood stories of multiple cultures (not just the Hebrew culture) were an allusion to an actual, historical flood, it still does not exonerate the Bible of the actual errors committed in the telling of the story. To wit: The flood did not cover mountains, as the Bible claimed it did. And the flood did not carry the ark to the mountains of Ararat, or to the mountains 60 miles south of Ararat, or anywhere near the Turkish border, because the flood did not extend that far north!
Not really. By finagling if you mean trickery then let's review what I've done. In post # 86 I mentioned a few other verses in the Bible that make world-wide references that are clearly understood as according to the author's background.
The authors lived in a pre-scientific age. The Bible presents itself as a religious or spiritual book and not as a scientific textbook. Their use of observational or non-technical language was the accepted standard of their day. As I mentioned in post # 107, the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" are from the observer's perspective.
However, it would be anachronistic or presumptuous to superimpose modern scientific standards upon an ancient religious text. Interpreting the text according to its cultural background is not trickery – it's common sense!
Actually, by finagling, I mean calling something a matter of perspective when it's clearly and obviously not. Let's again review what the Bible says about the Flood.
The purpose of the flood was to wipe out all mankind. All of it. Not all of it in one region. All of it. Genesis 6:7.
Genesis 6:13 the end of ALL FLESH is come before me. All of it. v. 17 says all flesh will die, everything under heaven. This is God talking, by the way, not man. God's observation point is infinite. When he says all, we expect him to mean ALL all.
Now, what you're saying is, God didn't mean ALL flesh would die. He just said it. He didn't mean he was going to destroy all life. He just said it. He didn't mean he was going to flood the whole earth. He just said it. He didn't mean the flood covered mountains with 15 cubits of water. He just said it.
You know, if the Bible said the whole world was covered in water, I'd probably concede your point. But Genesis gets pretty darned specific about what it means when it says the whole world. He doesn't tell Noah to spend 120 years moving his family from an unsafe region of the world to a safer one. There wasn't going to BE a safer one. He told Noah to build an ark, because that was the only way Noah was going to survive!
I'm sorry if this offends, but it's the IDEA I'm discrediting, not the person espousing it.
Genesis 7:
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Even if we were to concede that the water did not rise as high as the Bible says it rose (an actual error), the point remains that the flood described in the NCSE article didn't cover ANY mountains, much less every mountain.
This event, as described in the Bible, did not happen. Something similar might have happened nearby, but it didn't carry a 600 year old man and his child-bearing daughters in law to Ararat, unless you want to define Ararat so loosely that it means "wherever the boat landed."
That's what I mean by finagle.
Only one of us here is going by what the Bible says. And it's not the one who believes it's true.
Thanks – I really didn't put that much effort into a summary…I guess some folks are easily entertained. Perhaps you are mistaking Ross' scientific reasoning for something more than what it is; I'll say more on this further down.
Ross is not employing scientific reasoning. I'll say more on this further down.
I guess you missed the part about these observations being made "during human history". Ross is not referring to the fossil record. Ross' statement is clearly framed from the standpoint of scientific studies and not from the fossil record.
If Ross is talking about observations made during human history, then his comment makes no sense. Let's review the comment in question:
The same conclusions can be drawn for the so-called descent of horses. The same factors affecting whales severely restrict the horses' capacity to survive internal and external changes. Ecologists have observed several extinctions of horse and whale species during human history, but never a measurable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one.
Why would anyone expect to observe a measurable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one, during the FRACTION of human history during which we have been inclined to make the observations we've made? How long have ecologists been observing these things? A couple of hundred years? Let's go to town and say 5,000 years. In evolutionary terms, that's a blink of an eye! BUT WAIT! That's not all we're seeing from Ross (or is it your summary? I'm not really keeping track).
In just 2 to 4 million years whales' physiology changed radically. The transition from freshwater ingestion to saltwater ingestion requires completely different internal organs. The number and rapidity of "just right" mutations required to accomplish such a transition defies the limits set by molecular clocks (biomolecules for which mutation rates can be determined relatively easily).
This is nothing short of a lie. Not really much more to say about it than that. Unless there's more in context than is provided in summary, it's a whopper of a falsehood.
Every scientific theory makes predictions. Evolution is not unique in this regard, and evolution does not predict the sudden appearance of a new species while observing an old one (for example, ecologists observing horses and whales observing the emergence of a new species descended from either in a short period of time, say, 5,000 years). Evolution predicts tiny changes over exceedingly large periods of time, nothing particularly noticeable from one generation to the next.
In any event, all of that is far afield from whether Genesis is correct about the order of creation described in chapter 1 versus the progression of earth and life development that we can ascertain from science. So while your discussion of microevolution and macroevolution are rather interesting, they are rather beside the point of this thread.
Actually I think the order of God's creative acts in Genesis follows the model science gives as to the formation of the universe and of our planet. However, more information is given about earth than about the universe (or the heavens). Text wise - the planet earth comes into the picture AFTER an awfully long series of events prior to earth's beginnings; Genesis 1:1 goes all the way back to time/space zero (or in the voice of Carl Sagan "billions and billions of years ago").
Genesis 1:1 lumps "time/space zero" and the formation of the earth, a period encompassing about 9 or 10 billion years, into "in the beginning." Fine, I guess. Not gonna quibble. Me, if I said something happened "in the beginning of 2014" and you later learned it happened in late August, I think you'd accuse me of being kinda sort of wrong. But again, why quibble.
Verse 3 - 5: Our solar system, the stars, galaxies, etc. are already in place at this point in time (Genesis 1 verses 14 to 19 speak of the sun, moon and stars as already in existence); light from the heavens had difficulty penetrating the murky layers during the early phases of the earth's atmosphere. By verse 3, God does not have to create light – He just has to say "let there be light" – and for the first time light pierces the layers of gases that are now becoming translucent - that is day one.
See the part I've highlighted in bold? Yeah, that's a lie. v. 14, God says "let there be..." Unless language is meaningless, before God says "let there be," there was not. v. 15 says "and it was so." It does not say "and it had already been so for a few billion years." Verse 16 says God made two great lights. It doesn't say he revealed two great lights. He wasn't writing from Earth's perspective (why would he? There was no one on Earth to make this observation). He made the stars. Not "they were already in existence." I could go on, but you get my point: what you are saying is decidedly NOT what Genesis is saying.
Genesis is pretty clear that the Sun, Moon and stars are made on day 4. You come along, KNOWING that to be untrue, and try to twist what Genesis actually says so that it now says these things were really here all along. Well, that's just not what it says. Sorry.
By the way, birds did not precede land creatures. I thought we went over that already.
Returning to the subject of what evolution "predicts," I see that there's some misunderstanding on your part of what I meant. I shall attempt to clarify.
You asked, "Are there any details to the predictions that we should be on the lookout for? ... how would we know over the course of human history if the predictions came true?"
Etc.
The problem here is, you are interpreting my use of the word "prediction" as an expectation that we will observe something as it happens. While that is certainly the case on the micro-level (which you do not dispute), it is not the case in the macro-level (which you do appear to dispute, correct me if I'm mistaken).
So let's take a step back and explain what I mean in context by "predict."
Let's say you have a crime. Murder, rape, robbery. A real ugly scene. The victim, of course, is no longer around to testify about what has happened. But you have a suspicion that the killer is a specific person. Why? Well, this person showed up at a pawn shop trying to sell some of the stolen items. You now have a hypothesis: The Seller is also The Rapist/Killer.
Working from that hypothesis, what do you expect to find back at the crime scene and other places?
Based on the hypothesis that the Seller is the Rapist/Killer, you can expect (predict) the following:
If there's DNA inside the victim it will belong to the Seller.
If there are fingerprints at the scene, they will belong to the Seller.
If there are footprints at the scene, they will match the Seller's foot size.
If there is a recording, it will show the Seller.
Note, none of these are predictions about the future. They are predictions about what you will learn about the past.
For the sake of argument, now, let's say we have the following:
There's no video of the incident, but a closed circuit camera took a photo every 23 seconds. Fingerprints all over the crime scene come back to the Seller. It's his DNA in the victim. The stolen items are all recovered in the Seller's bedroom.
After a while, you gather enough evidence so that your hypothesis, "The Seller is the Rapist/Killer" is no longer just a hypothesis. It is now a theory: an explanation of what took place that is consistent with the evidence and that can be used to extrapolate beyond what you have as evidence.
In one photo, taken at moment 1:00:00, someone matching the Seller is seen outside a window. At 1:00:23, the figure is still outside the window, but the glass is broken, and a brick is inside the house. At 1:00:46, the Seller is inside the house, on the opposite side of the window.
Now, you may look at these three photos and bemoan the fact that there are no transitional fossils photos showing that the Seller threw the brick through the window and crawled through the now broken window to get to the inside of the house. And unless you find those transitional photos, you are simply not prepared to believe that the person inside the house is the same person as the one outside the house. For example, you note, the person inside the house is bleeding, while the person outside the house is not. Clearly not the same person.
You could go that route, but you'd be an idiot.
You wrote: "The fossil record lacks transitional fossils showing common traits between an ancestral group and its supposedly derived descendants."
That is an absolute falsehood, on a number of levels.
First of all, ALL FOSSILS ARE TRANSITIONAL. What you are actually saying is that we do not have a complete fossil record of the evolution of any species, and that is, of course, true. But to say the fossil record "lacks" transitional fossils betrays an utter misunderstanding of what fossils are in the first place. All the fossils we have are transitional. That's what fossils are!
But here's what happens: I have a picture of myself from 1971 and a picture of myself today. While there are some similarities, we do not look like the same person at all. It's a pretty big gap between 1971 and 2014. But wait, now I find a picture of myself from 1992! Good, right? It shows what I looked like about halfway between 1971 and 2014 (give or take a year). But what happens? Now, instead of ONE gap, we have TWO -- one from 1971 to 1992, and the other from 1992 to 2014. Now we look for more transitional photos. We find pics dating 1983 and 2001. Awesome. We're filling in what we can, but we also now have four gaps. That's a LOT of missing photos. Can't be sure the person in the 2014 photo is a later form of the person in the 1971 photo. Not with so many missing transitional photos.
The reason there are so many gaps in the fossil record is simply that there are so many fossils.
Biologists have done a fairly decent job of classifying and categorizing these things and showing which fossils are transitional in relation to each other and which are on a different "branch," so to speak.
Of course, no list will EVER be complete, because the surveillance camera didn't take a video. It only took intermittent snapshots.
So, back to what evolution predicts.
Evolution predicts that we will find certain fossils in certain strata.
Evolution does NOT predict that we will observe one species for a period of a few hundred or even a few thousand years and observe the transformation of one species into the next. That's what Ross implied, and that was a lie.
Now, instead of using this space to debate evolution (which is not abiogenesis and does not claim to be), let's stick with the topic of whether there are errors in Genesis. If you would like to discuss evolution in further detail, please start another thread.
I raised the issue of the order of development of life on earth to show that Genesis conflicted with scientific consensus, which it absolutely does.
One more thing, as regards the Cambrian explosion and the challenge it poses to evolution by natural selection:
It doesn't. The Cambrian explosion is a popular tool of creationists to cast doubt on the fact of evolution, but it does nothing to cast doubt on natural selection as the mechanism that best explains how evolution has taken place.
I refer you to the National Center for Science Education (the same outfit whose article you cited to inadvertently establish that the Biblical flood was indeed an actual error, as I have repeatedly demonstrated).
Was the geologically fast diversification during the Cambrian too fast to be explained by normal evolutionary processes? Does the Cambrian explosion threaten the theory of evolution? To these questions researchers at the University of Adelaide offer a definitive answer: “No.”
While the rapid evolution during the Cambrian is described as geologically brief, it is important to define what that means. On human timescales, the shortest estimation for the length of the Cambrian explosion, about 10 million years, is incomprehensibly long. Moreover, the tiny Cambrian arthropods likely had much faster maturations and much shorter lifespans than humans. Our anthropocentric perception of the flow of time, in which a family might have only three or four generations per century, is very different from the number of generations Cambrian critters produced. Ten million years provides plentiful time, as Lee et al. showed. Yet creationists insist that there was not enough time for such biological complexity to arise, without ever defining why that time frame is insufficient.
Creationists will no doubt continue to pontificate about the Cambrian explosion. They create among their followers the illusion that they are remedying some deficiency in science, when in fact they contribute nothing to scientific discourse or peer-reviewed research. When actual scientific research, such as Lee et al., contradicts their unique interpretations, this gives them no pause. Their Cambrian dilemma is not about rates of evolution, but about how to hijack real science in the service of dogma.
Big post, can't answer all of it at once, so please be patient.
That is a good point. I appreciate your patience and timely responses. Something I should have done early on is excuse myself from here…for crimes against brevity. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I never took the time to write a short post, so I wrote a long one instead. This experience has given me an inkling of the time and effort one should put forth to respond in a clear and concise manner. Obviously I have a long way to go but in light of other priorities I don't see myself committing to such hard work.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
137
24
35
25
Popular Days
Aug 2
50
Sep 12
15
Oct 4
13
Jul 30
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 137 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 24 posts
Bolshevik 35 posts
TLC 25 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2014
50 posts
Sep 12 2018
15 posts
Oct 4 2018
13 posts
Jul 30 2017
11 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81: even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books And just to verify I was going provide what you
Raf
Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demo
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, I beg to differ with you; Demons do exist! I know one lives here in DC!!
T-Bone
from the same article at NCSE website – right before the conclusion, it draws the curvature of the earth into the equation of what a "worldwide" flood might look like to those present on the ark. I don't see where you get the idea it refutes a regional flood as described in Genesis.
"Effects of the Curvature of the Earth
Because of the curvature of the earth, the horizon drops from where the viewer is standing. However, the drop is proportional to the square of the distance between the viewer and an object on the horizon (Young nd). From these relationships, it can be seen that a tribal chief (or Noah) standing on the deck of a large boat (Ark), perhaps 7.8 meters above the water, would not be able to see the tops of any hills as high as 15 m from as little as 24 km away across flood plains covered with water because the curvature of the earth prevents it (See the Appendix for examples of calculations). Most hills in this region that are as much as 15 m high are more than 95 km away from the river levees. Therefore, the survivors of the Flood could see only water in all directions while they were floating down the Tigris River and over the flood plains. Many of these hills would also be partly covered with water which would make their tops project less above the water level, and therefore, the curvature of the earth would make them disappear from the line of sight in even a shorter distance than 24 km.
Northeast and southwest of the nearly flat surface that contains the two rivers, the topography rises to more than 455 m in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km away, and these places are more than 160 km from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time."
NCSE article
Hey I hear yah on priorities Raf. And maybe I'm starting to realize why debate isn't really my thing. There's a lot of time and effort that goes into clarifying ideas; just the couple of times I burned the midnight oil and stealing a few minutes here and there at work during some down time has shown me that. Between that and getting ready to go on vacation I'm not sure if or when I'll get back to this thought-provoking discussion. you have a good night too!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
T Bone, you're neglecting what the article said. The Bible says the flood covered mountains. The article said it did not even cover HILLS. The Bible described a flood that wiped out all human life in the region. The article said it did not. The Bible describes a flood that would have carried the Ark to ararat. The article did not.
You can't document an actual error in the Bible and use it to support the claim that the book is inerrant!
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actual errors in Genesis:
Genesis 1:3 God creates light and darkness. There's evening and morning, the first day. So what's the problem? Well, on its face, nothing, except that many Christians (TWI included) now cling to "gap theory" to insert billions of years of history between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:3 takes place AFTER Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. So we are to conclude, by combining gap theory with the clear teaching of scripture, that the heavens and the earth existed for billions of years without light. Gap theory makes no sense in that light.
Question: are the days of Genesis literal 24-hour periods? Biblically, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. We only begin suggesting otherwise in history when it becomes more and more clear from the evidence that the earth is much older than a Biblical calculation would lead us to suspect. The book says evening and morning were the first day. That suggests a literal 24-hour period. Allowing Genesis to speak for itself, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion.
Genesis 1: 14-19 On day four (Wednesday) God makes/creates/whatever the sun moon and stars. Huh? How did you get three days and three nights without the sun? Where was the light coming from before the sun? (Again, I'm not going to quibble about the Bible calling the moon a "light," which it is not. I think that's nitpicking).
Now, let's look at what happens BEFORE the sun is made.
Genesis 1: 9-13 God separates the land from the sea, plants, trees, fruit, etc. BEFORE THE SUN! This didn't happen.
So here's the order of creation in Genesis: Heaven, earth, light, plant life, the sun.
Um, no. That's an actual error. In reality, it was heaven/light, sun, earth, with plant life not showing up for a couple of BILLION years.
Genesis 1:6-8 describes how God created a firmament, a literal, invisible or transparent dome, to create a bubble inside which we live. We discussed the literal nature of the firmament on another thread. I'll be happy to dig that up for you if you'd like. Modern translations like to avoid this cosmological blunder by rendering the word "firmament" as "expanse," but in honesty, it's a poor translation. The Bible clearly says that this firmament holds back water. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?" "Well, son, just like there's a blue ocean out there, there's a big blue ocean above us, too. But it's held back by a gigantic dome!"
This is the explicit teaching of Genesis. The language is not in the least bit figurative. It matches the mythology of other religions that developed in the region. Allowing Genesis to speak for itself, it's an actual, integrity-crushing error.
Genesis 1:20-23 God creates all water life and birds on earth in one day. This is not, as described on another thread, a progression from water to air over a period of hundreds of millions of years. One day, and simultaneous. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Plenty of actual EVIDENCE suggests otherwise, but the evidence is extrinsic to the text. It contradicts the text. It demonstrates the text to actually be in error.
Genesis 1:24-25 God creates the land animals. After birds. That's an actual error.
Incidentally, whales evolved from land mammals. Did you know that? It's pretty awesome. So does Genesis 1:20-23 include whales, or not? Well, it can't. Because the ancestors of those whales would not have been created until vv. 24-25! Isn't that something?
Last of all, God creates man in vv. 26-30. Despite what the King James Bible tells you, God does not tell man to "replenish" the earth. The word there is just plain "fill." Wierwille took advantage of a mistranslation to get Genesis to teach the repopulation of the earth rather than what it clearly teaches -- the first of two populations of the earth (the second coming after Noah and his multi-hundred-year-old sons and their childbearing wives.
There are so many actual errors in Genesis 1 that entire books have to be written to explain why you can still believe it as long as you believe it says something other than what it obviously says. But enough about Hugh Ross. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Does Genesis 2 contradict Genesis 1 about the order of creation? Lots of critics say yes, but personally, I find the chapter just too baffling to come to a fixed opinion. Verses 5-7 seem to clearly state that man was created before there were any plants, which blatantly contradicts the previous chapter. But then v. 8 says God had planted the Garden of Eden, with no indication of when. The problem with v. 8 is that if it was sooner than v. 7, then what are we to make of v. 5, which says that there were no shrubs or plants yet? Either God planted a garden before He made man, as v. 8 implies, or after he made man, as v. 5 explicitly states.
In the middle of this garden, God places two literal trees. There is nothing in the text to indicate that there's anything metaphorical about these trees. They are trees. Remarkable, remarkable trees. And what happens in v. 17? God forbids man from eating from one of those two remarkable trees.
Let's state the obvious: there's no such thing as a tree whose fruit imparts knowledge of good and evil, nor is there a tree whose fruit grants eternal life. These characteristics are the stuff of mythology, not horticulture. In plant biology, fruit is part of the tree's reproductive process. So were these two remarkable trees intended to reproduce?
And why, out of all the places on earth, did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the ONE PLACE where it could have done the MOST damage to His creation? He could have put that tree at the North Pole. Heck, he could have put it in Argentina ;)/> and man would not have encountered it for many, many, many generations. No, He puts it right there where it can be an utterly unnecessary temptation and actually cause ALL the suffering we see in the world from the time of Adam until this very day. Why? [because it didn't. This is a myth, and myths rely on these kinds of juxtapositions]. Any explanation of Adam and Eve as a literally true story has to account for the fact that God could have out that tree ANYWHERE, yet chose to put it right where Adam and Eve would be tempted by it.
Now, before you say that Adam and Eve had to choose to obey God, or their obedience would be meaningless, bear in mind that in the future, all believers will dwell with God forever and ever without temptation, sin or suffering. So why is that possible in the future when it was not possible in Eden?
And what about the other tree? Would it not have been utterly catastrophic if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life first, THEN eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Remember, the fruit of the tree of life was NOT forbidden! Seems God was really playing with fire there, wasn't He?
Of course, God KNEW they wouldn't eat of the tree of life, so there's no real threat. He also knew they would eat of the tree of knowledge, which AGAIN raises the question: Why put the tree there, where it could do the most damage?
Read as a myth, the answer is obvious. The tree is there because it has to be there. Otherwise, there's no story of how things came to be the way they are. Stop asking such pesky questions. If you insist on this as history, you are forced to defend an act of utter divine incompetence. Seriously, what other word for it is there? If I built a crib for my baby and, in the middle of the crib, but a gigantic poisonous thumbtack sticking out from the middle of it, and told the baby "stay away from that thumbtack and you'll be okay," am I being a responsible parent? NO! You'd have me charged with child abuse, and rightly so!
But, you may argue, Adam and Eve were not babies (though they were evidently no older than babies. Then again, who knows. We don't have any sense of how much time passes in chapter 2, do we?). In any event, here's something we DO know: They were given a clear instruction to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. So they knew better than to eat from that tree. It's not like they didn't know right from wrong, after all.
Except, they didn't know right from wrong, did they? I mean, isn't that the whole darned point of the tree? They don't know right from wrong until they eat from the fruit. So what exactly was the original sin again? Disobedience? But they didn't know disobedience was evil! Talk about the punishment not fitting the crime! To punish someone for treason who did not know what treason is? Harsh.
So anyway, God tells them, "Don't do that! It's WRONG!" And Adam and Eve say, "What does 'wrong' mean?" And God says "You'll find out if you eat that completely dangerous tree that will totally kill you, cause all animal life to turn against each other in a gigantic food chain of death, the tree that I put right there, right over here, with that totally tempting fruit, right there where you can reach it, without so much as a fence around it or a guard, right there. Don't. eat. that!"
I'm sorry, WHAT?!?!?
So guess what happens in chapter 3? Yup, they eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. And then, and then and THEN! AFTER the damage is done, what does God do?
Genesis 3:24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Let me see if I've got this straight: The tree with the forbidden fruit gets no barrier, no guard, no nothing to keep man from walking right up to it, plucking the fruit off of it, and chowing down, thereby ruining EVERYTHING for EVERYONE (although it's never quite clear why Adam's sin results in animal death. Shhh. Too many questions). But, once the damage was done, God puts barriers in the way to keep them from eating the fruit from the tree He did NOT forbid.
Why, oh why, oh why did he not put a flaming sword and a couple of Secret Service Cherubim up to guard the forbidden tree when such protection would have LITERALLY done a world of good?
Because it didn't flipping happen. The whole story is absurd, and we haven't even gotten to the talking snake yet.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, actually, we did gloss over the talking snake earlier, and in retrospect, I see no reason to expand on it beyond what I already wrote. With that in mind, I'll just quote the earlier post here:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
On the contrary, the implication of the NCSE article I quoted in post # 102 indicates that interpreting the biblical account from the cultural perspective of the day would actually agree with the scientific evidence of a regional flood; here is a partial quote of the NCSE article:
"…Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km away, and these places are more than 160 km from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time."
(here again is the link to NCSE article
As I mentioned in post # 98 interpreting the Bible in light of the cultural background is one of the principles of hermeneutics – which is a legitimate method of interpretation. Granted, it may differ from your method - but it is a valid basis for arguing the accuracy of this biblical record. The phraseology of a culture is interesting though. If someone asks me "when is sunrise and sunset today?" After checking a meteorologist's website I would respond by saying today the sun comes up at 7:20 AM and the sun goes down at 7:20 PM. However are the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" (or "sun up" and "sun down") scientifically accurate? It's actually the earth rotating to a point where I can see the sun on either the east or west horizon. The terms are from our viewpoint on earth. Even in this day and age of powerful telescopes, satellites orbiting earth, people traveling in space and unmanned robotic probes exploring other parts of our solar system – the terms are culturally acceptable.
== == == ==
I disagree with your statements "This is the explicit teaching of Genesis. The language is not in the least bit figurative. It matches the mythology of other religions that developed in the region. Allowing Genesis to speak for itself, it's an actual, integrity-crushing error." ...You're assuming vp's interpretation of Genesis 1 in PFAL is the explicit teaching of Scripture. And to say "allowing Genesis to speak for itself" reminds me of the claim vp makes in PFAL – that the Bible interprets itself. i think that's a matter of opinion. i believe there are a few intellectual hurdles to address first before one can say this is what the Bible means in this section.
Due to the difference of time, cultures, languages, etc. between the original recipients and present day students of the Bible I believe an appropriate method of interpretation is called for that tries to honestly address these differences to grasp the original meaning. It is still my contention that interpreting the Genesis accounts using biblical hermeneutics will not contradict scientific evidence that touches upon the same events.
== == == ==
And for what it's worth, Ross does not subscribe to the gap theory; furthermore, I believe Ross and the other authors/books I referenced in post # 84 do NOT use the so-called science of PFAL in their work. The discipline of hermeneutics was foreign to vp. He used speculation and re-defined words of the biblical texts to force the Genesis record into a framework that does NOT harmonize with reality. The first four books by Ross, Schroeder & Levitt that i listed in post # 84 is an interpretation of Genesis from a scientific viewpoint that still reflects a proper use of biblical hermeneutics.
I would like to say something about the topic of evolution since you brought it up in your post. For the most part, our discussion has dealt with specific biblical accounts and we have both referred to other sources as to how the text should be interpreted. In my opinion, the topic of evolution is something that would be argued from logic, science and evidence rather than from specific texts of the Bible. To be upfront, I'd have to say philosophically I prefer a theory that includes God in the picture. On a technical level, I think we both will have to resort to the work of those qualified to address the issues (well, i guess that would be more of what we've been doing all along). i did happen to mention a few books by William Dembski and Michael Behe in post #84 that argue against the typical evolutionary model on the basis of intelligent design; it seems to me that the typical evolutionary model depends on chance (or luck); this is speculation at best; scientific explanations invoke causes. And from my perspective the first cause is God the creator.
edited for clarity
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I don't have time to post very much here, but I did buy a copy of The Genesis Question written by Hugh Ross. The man shows logic and reason in his evaluation of scripture mixed with science. He sees the limitation of words in the biblical Hebrew language in communication. This can cause a lack of understanding in later years after it was originally written and understood. Ross sees days as written in Genesis chapter 1 as not 24 hour periods but long periods of time which could even be in harmony with some parts of the theory of evolution.
Here is information on the Hebrew language that I found on the internet that verifies my above statement on the limitations of the words in the biblical Hebrew language.
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/introduction.htm
Biblical Hebrew has a very small vocabulary (about a quarter of the size of that used by Shakespeare and approximately 1% of the 660,000+ words contained in the Oxford English Dictionary). Of these, many only occur once or are proper names and can be safely looked up when the need arises. Hebrew has no formal recognisable cases (like Greek, Latin or German, with their nominative, accusative, genitive, dative etc.) and very simple word order which can be rearranged for emphasis. Although reading right to left this aspect of Hebrew learning is quickly mastered. The alphabet has just 22 letters - all consonants and all one case. The additional vowel marks above and below the consonants are not needed for advanced reading and after all were not added until some 5-6 centuries after the New Testament era. Each Hebrew letter actually represents an early pictographic symbol, e.g., Beth (as in Bethlehem - 'house of bread') was an image of a house or tent and so also the letter name itself is the Hebrew word for 'house'.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks for your input Mark and you reminded of something in "The Genesis Question" that addresses the topic of whales that Raf said evolved from land animals. Before I get to that I wanted to share something I found in The Interlinear Bible One Volume Edition, 2nd Edition, copyright 1986 by Jay Green concerning the fifth day of creation; I will quote the English translation Green offers in the side column of Genesis 1:21 so I can refer to the Hebrew word as classified by James Strong's numbering system.
Genesis 1:21, A Literal Translation of the Bible, Jay Green
And God created the great sea animals, and all that creeps, having a soul life, which swarmed the waters, according to its kind; and every bird with wing according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
For "Sea animals" in the above translation Green shows "sea monsters" in the Interlinear column with Strong's number 8577 above the Hebrew text. The number 8577 in Strong's numbering system,(or number 9490 in the Goodrick/Kohlenberger numbering system; I've listed both for those who use either resource – I have a mix of both in my library); Strong's number 8577 is the Hebrew word tannin.
I've found in the KJV that tannin has been translated differently elsewhere in the Bible; Though it is translated "whales" in Genesis 1:21 of the KJV, it is translated "serpent" in Exodus 7:9, in Ezekiel 29:3 "the great dragon (tannin) that lieth in the midst of his rivers" – Bullinger's Companion Bible notes this as referring to the great crocodile to which Egypt was likened on Roman coins, in Isaiah 27:1 it reads "He shall slay the dragon (tannin) that is in the sea", and in Jeremiah 51:34 it says "he hath swallowed me up like a dragon (tannin)". Keying off what Mark said about the Hebrew vocabulary perhaps the word tannin translated "whale" in Genesis 1:21 KJV is more of a generic or general term, rather than speaking of a specific group.
Checking online i found Wikipedia lists it as Tannin (demon), a Hebrew word for leviathan or sea dragon and in modern Hebrew means crocodile:
link to Wikipedia def. of Tannin
and for further study the NET Bible website shows some interesting variations depending on context:
link to NET Bible definition of dragon
== == == ==
Now onto what Ross said about whales and the fifth "day" of creation. For brevity's sake I will mention the main points he makes in "The Genesis Question" on pages 50 thru 52: Ross states that some paleontologists criticize Genesis 1 because it has the introduction of sea mammals on "day" five before the introduction of land mammals. A careful reading of the text, however, removes the basis for their criticism – since it is speaking of sea mammals generically; however the sixth "day" narrows in on only three specialized kinds of land mammals. When the other land mammals are introduced we cannot say from the text. Scientific research will have to give us that information.
Recent discoveries reveal that the first sea mammals date much earlier than paleontologists had once thought. Fossils of four extinct species of whales – Pakicetus, Nalacetus, Ambulocetus, and Indocetus have been dated between 48 and 52 million years ago. This dating eliminates any credible challenge to the introduction of the first sea mammals on the fifth creation "day".
This dating also challenges a naturalistic explanation for a newly found change in these whales' morphology. Phosphate isotopes in the teeth of these fossilized whales tell of a rapid transition from freshwater ingestion to saltwater ingestion. Geologists and anatomists from the US and India discovered that Pakicetus and Nalacetus drank only freshwater. Ambulocetus drank freshwater at least through its formative years and Indocetus drank only saltwater.
In just 2 to 4 million years whales' physiology changed radically. The transition from freshwater ingestion to saltwater ingestion requires completely different internal organs. The number and rapidity of "just right" mutations required to accomplish such a transition defies the limits set by molecular clocks (biomolecules for which mutation rates can be determined relatively easily).
Ross goes on to say that if the whale is the evolutionists' "best example" for their theory it is actually the worst considering the following factors that severely limit their capacity for natural-process changes and rather increases the probability for rapid extinction; the six most significant factors are: relatively small population levels, long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth), low numbers of progeny produced per adult, high complexity of morphology and biochemistry, enormous sizes, and specialized food supplies. These factors limit not only the whales' capacity to change through natural selection and mutations but even their ability to adapt to change.
The same conclusions can be drawn for the so-called descent of horses. The same factors affecting whales severely restrict the horses' capacity to survive internal and external changes. Ecologists have observed several extinctions of horse and whale species during human history, but never a measurable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one.
Genesis may offer an explanation – God created the first sea mammals on the fifth creation "day". As the fossil record shows, sea mammals have persisted on Earth from that epoch until now, though not without interruption. Multiple extinctions of sea mammals imply God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones. In most cases the new species were different from the previous ones because of the changes God was orchestrating in geology, bio-deposits, and biology in prep for humans. The many "transitional" forms of whales and horses suggest God performed numerous creative acts.
edited for typos and clarity
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I just noticed the recent posts and will delve into them piecemeal as the opportunity arises. Thanks for the feedback.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
On the "regional flood" and the article we're debating, I just have this to say:
You quoted the point I made but did not refute it. In fact, the information you provided supported every point I made. Namely, that the flood described in the article directly exposes the Genesis flood as an actual error. The Bible doesn't say it "looked like" the whole world was covered in water. Genesis makes explicit statements that the article you cite clearly establishes to be flat out wrong. The Bible says the flood covered mountains. The flood in the article did not. The Bible says the flood carried the ark to Ararat. The flood described in the article would not have accomplished that feat.
So in other words, I'm quoting the Bible. You're quoting an article that says the Bible is actually in error. And you're claiming that the article proves the Bible is accurate and not in error. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot have it both ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark, I appreciate your endorsement of Ross. If you'd like to apply it to something I've said, I'm all ears.
Meanwhile, back to T-Bone:
You can SAY that as often as you'd like, but you can only demonstrate it by finagling the Bible until it says the opposite of, or something completely different from, what is actually says.
I'm entertained by the amount of effort you've put into examining what I said about whales, by the way. I just threw that in there as an afterthought, and you're acting like you've come across the biggest gotcha against my post. Not even close. First off, Ross is wrong. Ross makes the crucial mistake of beginning with his conclusion and manipulating both facts and scripture to suit that conclusion.
Couple of things: one, that there's never been a measurable chance within a species is a flat out lie on its face, but if you expand on the idea a little bit, we might be able to iron it out. On its face, though, that's a howler. Big fat lie. Try again.
Second: "much less the appearance of a new one" reflects both a simplistic and a distorted view of what evolution predicts. If Ross is trying to say that the fossil record does not show speciation, he's once again simply lying.
Again, the problem here may be the wording. To say there's never been a change within a species, much less the emergence of a new one, is rather oxymoronic. You're never going to see a new species within a species. Because you're within a species. That's like looking for high school graduates among a high school's freshman population. Duh. You've kind of defined them out of the sample population.
None of this discussion on whales, horses, speciation, etc, does a single thing to contradict the ACTUAL POINT I WAS MAKING, which is, again: Here's the order of creation in Genesis: Heaven, earth, light, plant life, the sun (moon and stars) water life, birds, THEN land animals)
That's an actual error. In reality, it was heaven/light, sun, earth, with plant life not showing up for a couple of BILLION years, AFTER water life, and birds came after (and from) land animals.
Now, if you BEGIN with the conclusion that there's no contradiction between scripture and science, then you can harmonize the two, but only by twisting both the scripture and science. The more you distort one, the less you have to distort the other. Ross accomplishes both, distorting science for those who are not scientifically literate, and distorting scripture in ways that, frankly, I'm surprised you guys are allowing. You would never let Wierwille get away with the infractions Ross is committing.
But go ahead. I'm not going to stop you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
On the whole "whale" diversion, there's something worth noting here.
T-Bone has evidently gone to some trouble explaining why Genesis 1:21 mentions whales and whether that's an accurate translation. If you go back over my post, however, you will see that I made no such assertion (completely understandable, as I was not relying on the King James when I ASKED whether whales were included in the verse). I was not claiming that Genesis 1:21 included whales. If it did, it's an error. If it didn't, it's not. Minor point in the scheme of what I actually WAS addressing.
The more I review what you're sharing about Ross, the more clear it is becoming that he is absurdly incorrect about whale evolution.
That is a REMARKABLE claim. It's also horsehockey, and Ross should know it. He's counting on you NOT knowing it, though.
Here's a simple task: Find one expert in cetacean biology and evolution who actually agrees with what you wrote there.
If Ross is correct in that statement, then evolution has been actively disproved. That would be a Nobel-worthy achievement in the field of science. It is just an astonishing development, one that would have the entire field of biology shaken to its foundations.
Unless, of course, it's bullcrap. It's simply not true. But again, don't take my word for it: check with real, unbiased scientists who have not started with their conclusions. Do whale biologists think whales are an exception to evolution, or that there hasn't been enough time for whales to evolve the way they have? Find one. One. (Psst: Ross is not one).
Enjoy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The article reinforces the "world-wide" references in the text as being from the perspective of the writer. That's not – as you put it - having it both ways, when the article clearly supports an interpretation of the text on the basis of the cultural perspective.
Also the text does NOT say the flood carried the ark to Ararat - as I mentioned in post # 86, Genesis 8:4 states that the ark rested on the mountains (plural) of Ararat – that's the entire range of mountains; clearly a reference to a general region and not a specific mountain.
Not really. By finagling if you mean trickery then let's review what I've done. In post # 86 I mentioned a few other verses in the Bible that make world-wide references that are clearly understood as according to the author's background.
The authors lived in a pre-scientific age. The Bible presents itself as a religious or spiritual book and not as a scientific textbook. Their use of observational or non-technical language was the accepted standard of their day. As I mentioned in post # 107, the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" are from the observer's perspective.
However, it would be anachronistic or presumptuous to superimpose modern scientific standards upon an ancient religious text. Interpreting the text according to its cultural background is not trickery – it's common sense!
Thanks – I really didn't put that much effort into a summary…I guess some folks are easily entertained. Perhaps you are mistaking Ross' scientific reasoning for something more than what it is; I'll say more on this further down.
I guess you missed the part about these observations being made "during human history". Ross is not referring to the fossil record. Ross' statement is clearly framed from the standpoint of scientific studies and not from the fossil record.
Could you be more specific on "what evolution predicts"? Are there any details to the predictions that we should be on the lookout for? Are we looking far beyond the current state of scientific knowledge? If it takes a really really long time by way of teeny-tiny-gradual steps of random mutations how would we know over the course of human history if the predictions came true? We might have better luck in the near future going by a modernized take on evolution which is punctuated equilibrium, developed by Niles Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould which views evolution as long intervals of near-stasis punctuated by short periods of rapid change (referred to in the Cambrian explosion link below). My position on all this is not set in stone, of course – it's just that I'd like to see these predictions pan out.
The fossil record is intriguing though – it does show speciation especially during one period - the Cambrian explosion. According to Wikipedia - the Cambrian explosion was referred to by Darwin as being one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection.
link to cambrian explosion article
Ross' point about the lack of observable changes in existing species goes along the lines of the scientific method; I get the idea of microevolution – evolution on a small scale – small changes within a population over a short period of time. That's not the issue here. I have no problem with that.
The evolutionist has an assumption that given the gosh-often-long periods of the past these small changes within a species could add up to large changes which explains a common ancestry in other words macroevolution – evolution on a grand scale. However, observing experiments in the present may not give us a firm scientific basis for determining how a unique event happened in the past – like the birth of a species.
The creationist could argue along similar lines of reasoning. Darwin's observation of selective breeding in plants and animals was a springboard for the theory of natural selection. Observing the repeated efforts of the breeders could lead one to think intelligent intervention was involved in the original creation of a species. But as I said, observing present day experiments may not provide a conclusive answer for a singular event that happened eons ago. Especially if the experiments cannot duplicate all the conditions of the original event in question. and that may be a lose/lose for the evolutionists and the creationists. The creationist cannot call God into the lab and ask Him to show us how He did it; the evolutionist will have to bet on the odds of making a life form from scratch.
The creationists say divine intelligence is the key factor to explain the origin of life. Evolutionists say blind luck (chance, random mutations) as the factor to explain the origin of life. Evolutionists say the appearance of intelligent design is an illusion. Creationists say the appearance of intelligent design is real. In my humble opinion the issue is philosophically driven by both sides. I think technically you could list the evidence/facts in two columns - one for each camp - and neither column would explain the origin of life.
There's nothing wrong with scientific reasoning and speculation during research - or even trying to duplicate a singularity in the past. However, without being able to test our hypothesis there's always the possibility folks could arrive at different conclusions. For example, concerning the origin of life an evolutionist could say similar traits and features indicate common ancestry. A creationist could say similar traits and features indicate a common designer. I have more to say on singularities further down.
link to Selective Breeding article
Observation and experimentation are an integral part of the scientific method; but for what it's worth, when it comes to any work discussing the origin of the universe or the origin of life I don't look at it as ironclad or conclusive – from a technical or scientific point of view. This is simply because a singularity usually defies some parameters of the scientific method.
A singularity (which a miracle or something that is supposedly caused by the supernatural would be in that category) is difficult to observe unless you're there or happen to catch it on film or can predict when it will occur. Also it may be impossible to repeat through experiments. However, science does better with studying regularities – events that occur over and over again, or that can be predicted. That's the basis for understanding how the world works. Scientific laws are based on the repetition and predictability of events.
I'm not saying science shouldn't make an effort to explore singularities – but I think a valid strategy would be to understand them in terms of similar regularities.
I think your analogy of searching for high school graduates is inaccurate. I'm NOT looking for high school graduates among the freshman class. I'm looking for evidence that a select group of high school graduates ever attended a particular high school. One way to determine that would be to search academic records and maybe even look through yearbook pictures. We may come to find out there's no evidence to prove this select group of graduates ever attended that particular high school. Similarly the fossil record lacks transitional fossils showing common traits between an ancestral group and its supposedly derived descendants.
Actually I think the order of God's creative acts in Genesis follows the model science gives as to the formation of the universe and of our planet. However, more information is given about earth than about the universe (or the heavens). Text wise - the planet earth comes into the picture AFTER an awfully long series of events prior to earth's beginnings; Genesis 1:1 goes all the way back to time/space zero (or in the voice of Carl Sagan "billions and billions of years ago").
Genesis 1:2 and following, picks up at the early formative period of our planet. In the grand scheme of things Genesis 1: 2 and following is an elaboration of details God worked out as the final prep for our planet to come to life. For anyone interested in some of the details of the forming of our universe and our planet I have left some info at end of my post under general notes.
Genesis 1:1: The Bible's opening statement is not in scientific language like how an astrophysicist might state it (as I explained in post # 91) – but it gets the point across. Genesis 1:1 in the NET Bible simply states in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That is the creation of time and space. Some consider verse 1 to be like a chapter heading or summary verse.
Verse 2: Genesis 1:2 shifts the focus from the overall picture of the universe to our planet earth; the NET Bible reads "Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep…"
Verse 3 - 5: Our solar system, the stars, galaxies, etc. are already in place at this point in time (Genesis 1 verses 14 to 19 speak of the sun, moon and stars as already in existence); light from the heavens had difficulty penetrating the murky layers during the early phases of the earth's atmosphere. By verse 3, God does not have to create light – He just has to say "let there be light" – and for the first time light pierces the layers of gases that are now becoming translucent - that is day one.
Verses 6 – 8: The earth's water cycle begins – day two.
Verses 9 – 13: Then comes the emergence of land; Plant life appears in verses 11 to 13. Plants would be part of the terraforming engine to remove carbon dioxide and excessive water vapor from the air. This is day three.
Verses 14 – 19: For a very long time the light that made it through the shroud of gases above gave this world an overcast stormy look. But as the atmosphere was cleaned up, the sun, moon, and stars were becoming distinctly visible. The narrative is given from earth's perspective; in other words, this is what it looked like when looking up at the sky. This is day four.
Verses 20 – 23: The introduction of marine life and birds. This is day five.
Verses 24 – 31: The beginning of land creatures and man; This is the sixth day.
It might be interesting to hear your criteria to determine a real, unbiased scientist.
= = = = = = =
= = = = = = =
General notes: The scientific consensus seems to be that the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago. The sequence of how the universe developed over time comes from a variety of scientific models; a few websites offer diagrams/text on the evolution of the universe from the big bang, with the stars starting to form some 400 to 500 million years out from the big bang; followed by galaxies, planets, etc. starting to develop around 1 billion years out from the beginning.
chronology of universe
big bang timeline
history of the earth
age of the earth
earth formation
atmosphere of the earth
earth's earliest atmosphere
edited for typos and clarity
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Big post, can't answer all of it at once, so please be patient.
That's the easiest, so I will tackle it first. A real unbiased scientist would be one who did not BEGIN with his conclusion (that there WILL be harmony between science and scripture no matter how much I have to twist one or the other to make it happen). Ross begins with his conclusion, as do you. That's not how science works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As far as the National Center for Science Education article and the Biblical flood, only one question needs to be asked.
Does the article describe a flood that would carry Noah's Ark to an area that could reasonably be referred to as "the mountains of Ararat"?
Ararat has two peaks (that's why it's called "mountains." It's not a mountain range like the Rockies, the Alps or the Andes).
Supposedly, definitions of "the mountains of Ararat" have been loosely interpreted to the extent that we're talking about a mountain in Cizre, Turkey (Mount Judi, about 60 miles away from Ararat, if I read correctly).
For the sake of argument, let us accept Mt. Judi because it is nice and far south of the actual mountains of Ararat.
Does the flood described in the NCSE article come anywhere near Mt. Judi?
Nope. Not even close.
Therefore, by this very article you cited, IF the flood stories of multiple cultures (not just the Hebrew culture) were an allusion to an actual, historical flood, it still does not exonerate the Bible of the actual errors committed in the telling of the story. To wit: The flood did not cover mountains, as the Bible claimed it did. And the flood did not carry the ark to the mountains of Ararat, or to the mountains 60 miles south of Ararat, or anywhere near the Turkish border, because the flood did not extend that far north!
Pick your actual error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, by finagling, I mean calling something a matter of perspective when it's clearly and obviously not. Let's again review what the Bible says about the Flood.
The purpose of the flood was to wipe out all mankind. All of it. Not all of it in one region. All of it. Genesis 6:7.
Genesis 6:13 the end of ALL FLESH is come before me. All of it. v. 17 says all flesh will die, everything under heaven. This is God talking, by the way, not man. God's observation point is infinite. When he says all, we expect him to mean ALL all.
Now, what you're saying is, God didn't mean ALL flesh would die. He just said it. He didn't mean he was going to destroy all life. He just said it. He didn't mean he was going to flood the whole earth. He just said it. He didn't mean the flood covered mountains with 15 cubits of water. He just said it.
You know, if the Bible said the whole world was covered in water, I'd probably concede your point. But Genesis gets pretty darned specific about what it means when it says the whole world. He doesn't tell Noah to spend 120 years moving his family from an unsafe region of the world to a safer one. There wasn't going to BE a safer one. He told Noah to build an ark, because that was the only way Noah was going to survive!
I'm sorry if this offends, but it's the IDEA I'm discrediting, not the person espousing it.
Even if we were to concede that the water did not rise as high as the Bible says it rose (an actual error), the point remains that the flood described in the NCSE article didn't cover ANY mountains, much less every mountain.
This event, as described in the Bible, did not happen. Something similar might have happened nearby, but it didn't carry a 600 year old man and his child-bearing daughters in law to Ararat, unless you want to define Ararat so loosely that it means "wherever the boat landed."
That's what I mean by finagle.
Only one of us here is going by what the Bible says. And it's not the one who believes it's true.
Ross is not employing scientific reasoning. I'll say more on this further down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If Ross is talking about observations made during human history, then his comment makes no sense. Let's review the comment in question:
Why would anyone expect to observe a measurable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one, during the FRACTION of human history during which we have been inclined to make the observations we've made? How long have ecologists been observing these things? A couple of hundred years? Let's go to town and say 5,000 years. In evolutionary terms, that's a blink of an eye! BUT WAIT! That's not all we're seeing from Ross (or is it your summary? I'm not really keeping track).
This is nothing short of a lie. Not really much more to say about it than that. Unless there's more in context than is provided in summary, it's a whopper of a falsehood.
Every scientific theory makes predictions. Evolution is not unique in this regard, and evolution does not predict the sudden appearance of a new species while observing an old one (for example, ecologists observing horses and whales observing the emergence of a new species descended from either in a short period of time, say, 5,000 years). Evolution predicts tiny changes over exceedingly large periods of time, nothing particularly noticeable from one generation to the next.
In any event, all of that is far afield from whether Genesis is correct about the order of creation described in chapter 1 versus the progression of earth and life development that we can ascertain from science. So while your discussion of microevolution and macroevolution are rather interesting, they are rather beside the point of this thread.
Genesis 1:1 lumps "time/space zero" and the formation of the earth, a period encompassing about 9 or 10 billion years, into "in the beginning." Fine, I guess. Not gonna quibble. Me, if I said something happened "in the beginning of 2014" and you later learned it happened in late August, I think you'd accuse me of being kinda sort of wrong. But again, why quibble.
See the part I've highlighted in bold? Yeah, that's a lie. v. 14, God says "let there be..." Unless language is meaningless, before God says "let there be," there was not. v. 15 says "and it was so." It does not say "and it had already been so for a few billion years." Verse 16 says God made two great lights. It doesn't say he revealed two great lights. He wasn't writing from Earth's perspective (why would he? There was no one on Earth to make this observation). He made the stars. Not "they were already in existence." I could go on, but you get my point: what you are saying is decidedly NOT what Genesis is saying.
Genesis is pretty clear that the Sun, Moon and stars are made on day 4. You come along, KNOWING that to be untrue, and try to twist what Genesis actually says so that it now says these things were really here all along. Well, that's just not what it says. Sorry.
By the way, birds did not precede land creatures. I thought we went over that already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Returning to the subject of what evolution "predicts," I see that there's some misunderstanding on your part of what I meant. I shall attempt to clarify.
You asked, "Are there any details to the predictions that we should be on the lookout for? ... how would we know over the course of human history if the predictions came true?"
Etc.
The problem here is, you are interpreting my use of the word "prediction" as an expectation that we will observe something as it happens. While that is certainly the case on the micro-level (which you do not dispute), it is not the case in the macro-level (which you do appear to dispute, correct me if I'm mistaken).
So let's take a step back and explain what I mean in context by "predict."
Let's say you have a crime. Murder, rape, robbery. A real ugly scene. The victim, of course, is no longer around to testify about what has happened. But you have a suspicion that the killer is a specific person. Why? Well, this person showed up at a pawn shop trying to sell some of the stolen items. You now have a hypothesis: The Seller is also The Rapist/Killer.
Working from that hypothesis, what do you expect to find back at the crime scene and other places?
Based on the hypothesis that the Seller is the Rapist/Killer, you can expect (predict) the following:
If there's DNA inside the victim it will belong to the Seller.
If there are fingerprints at the scene, they will belong to the Seller.
If there are footprints at the scene, they will match the Seller's foot size.
If there is a recording, it will show the Seller.
Note, none of these are predictions about the future. They are predictions about what you will learn about the past.
For the sake of argument, now, let's say we have the following:
There's no video of the incident, but a closed circuit camera took a photo every 23 seconds. Fingerprints all over the crime scene come back to the Seller. It's his DNA in the victim. The stolen items are all recovered in the Seller's bedroom.
After a while, you gather enough evidence so that your hypothesis, "The Seller is the Rapist/Killer" is no longer just a hypothesis. It is now a theory: an explanation of what took place that is consistent with the evidence and that can be used to extrapolate beyond what you have as evidence.
In one photo, taken at moment 1:00:00, someone matching the Seller is seen outside a window. At 1:00:23, the figure is still outside the window, but the glass is broken, and a brick is inside the house. At 1:00:46, the Seller is inside the house, on the opposite side of the window.
Now, you may look at these three photos and bemoan the fact that there are no transitional fossils photos showing that the Seller threw the brick through the window and crawled through the now broken window to get to the inside of the house. And unless you find those transitional photos, you are simply not prepared to believe that the person inside the house is the same person as the one outside the house. For example, you note, the person inside the house is bleeding, while the person outside the house is not. Clearly not the same person.
You could go that route, but you'd be an idiot.
You wrote: "The fossil record lacks transitional fossils showing common traits between an ancestral group and its supposedly derived descendants."
That is an absolute falsehood, on a number of levels.
First of all, ALL FOSSILS ARE TRANSITIONAL. What you are actually saying is that we do not have a complete fossil record of the evolution of any species, and that is, of course, true. But to say the fossil record "lacks" transitional fossils betrays an utter misunderstanding of what fossils are in the first place. All the fossils we have are transitional. That's what fossils are!
But here's what happens: I have a picture of myself from 1971 and a picture of myself today. While there are some similarities, we do not look like the same person at all. It's a pretty big gap between 1971 and 2014. But wait, now I find a picture of myself from 1992! Good, right? It shows what I looked like about halfway between 1971 and 2014 (give or take a year). But what happens? Now, instead of ONE gap, we have TWO -- one from 1971 to 1992, and the other from 1992 to 2014. Now we look for more transitional photos. We find pics dating 1983 and 2001. Awesome. We're filling in what we can, but we also now have four gaps. That's a LOT of missing photos. Can't be sure the person in the 2014 photo is a later form of the person in the 1971 photo. Not with so many missing transitional photos.
The reason there are so many gaps in the fossil record is simply that there are so many fossils.
Biologists have done a fairly decent job of classifying and categorizing these things and showing which fossils are transitional in relation to each other and which are on a different "branch," so to speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Of course, no list will EVER be complete, because the surveillance camera didn't take a video. It only took intermittent snapshots.
So, back to what evolution predicts.
Evolution predicts that we will find certain fossils in certain strata.
Evolution does NOT predict that we will observe one species for a period of a few hundred or even a few thousand years and observe the transformation of one species into the next. That's what Ross implied, and that was a lie.
Etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Now, instead of using this space to debate evolution (which is not abiogenesis and does not claim to be), let's stick with the topic of whether there are errors in Genesis. If you would like to discuss evolution in further detail, please start another thread.
I raised the issue of the order of development of life on earth to show that Genesis conflicted with scientific consensus, which it absolutely does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
One more thing, as regards the Cambrian explosion and the challenge it poses to evolution by natural selection:
It doesn't. The Cambrian explosion is a popular tool of creationists to cast doubt on the fact of evolution, but it does nothing to cast doubt on natural selection as the mechanism that best explains how evolution has taken place.
I refer you to the National Center for Science Education (the same outfit whose article you cited to inadvertently establish that the Biblical flood was indeed an actual error, as I have repeatedly demonstrated).
http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/darwin-s-dilemma-was-cambrian-explosion-too-fast-evolution-0015109
Abstract for source article for the NCSE article:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)00916-0
Actual source article:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(13)00916-0.pdf
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That is a good point. I appreciate your patience and timely responses. Something I should have done early on is excuse myself from here…for crimes against brevity. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I never took the time to write a short post, so I wrote a long one instead. This experience has given me an inkling of the time and effort one should put forth to respond in a clear and concise manner. Obviously I have a long way to go but in light of other priorities I don't see myself committing to such hard work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I concur and am willing to call it a draw if you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
ok
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Cool.
Because we're not going to resolve creation v. evolution on an Internet message board.
Back to topic, then...
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.