Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
"I tend to get suspicious when results confirm hypotheses."
I hope you don't intend to make your living as a scientist.;-)
It isn't? I think you are very mistaken. I'll give you one more chance. What does evolution "predict" about lungs and lobe-fins? It made a "prediction" about mesonychus and whales. It then changed it to a "prediction" about pakicetus and whales. I know that a "prediction" has been made concerning lungs and lobe-fins. I am certain that it is taught in classes.
Lecture 26: Getting some backbone or the origin of vertebrates
Lobe-finned fish
IMPORTANT TERMS AND CONCEPTS FROM THIS LECTURESynapomorphies of Chordata or chordates
Earliest appearance of vertebrates in the fossil record
Mineralogy of most vertebrate skeletons and why it might be beneficial
Devonian diversification of fish
Earliest fish were jawless, meaning jaws are a syanapomorphy of later fish and all other vertebrates
Differences between chondrichthans and the bony fish (ray-finned and lobe-finned fish)
Main groups of lobe-finned fish, their relationships
To which group of lobe-finned fish do you belong?
Tetrapods: Fossil Record
Tetrapods, whose closest living relatives are lungfish,
You deny that and what the "prediction" is. Why?
There is a great deal more evidence for a global flood than for evolution. If the amount of time, money, passion spent on shoving evolution down everyone's throat since the mid 1800's, were spent on uncovering and publishing evidence of a global flood--we all would be ROFL our guts out at the stupid theory of evolution. Instead, we've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. God bless Mr. Johnson for exposing the centuries old lie. He is a courgeous, fabulous scientist--who has dared to declare that the world is round.
"Mr. Johnson"?
When it comes to science I am a skeptic. I demand clean, hard facts. Where evolutionists are concerned they should make a living as theologians, for they have more faith than a Bible Belt Christian, albeit totally misplaced.
If I thought they were finite and had a reference as such I might give it a try. As it stands, I prefer not to give an incomplete list as if it would satisfy your penchant for story telling. I would be confident, however, that throughout recorded history the laws of physics have applied themselves consistently, just as God intended when He established the universe.
Since you are somewhat of a specialist in unrecorded history I'll leave it to you to convince the world otherwise.
"I demand clean, hard facts."
LOL Uh huh. Here are some clean, hard facts for you to chew on.
Someone questioned the technical reasons for translating day in Genesis 1 as indefinite period of time. I thought you would be interested in one of the reasons:
The key to understanding the series of Yoms in Genesis is in Genesis 2:4 where it says: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,;
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Ge 2:4). Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Yom in the first chapter also means an indefinite period of time, for God did not make everything in ONE day according to Gen 1. He made it in seven "days". Yet in verse four of Gen 2 the Bible contradicts itself if you insist on a one day (24 hr day)translation. I choose not to have the Bible contradict itself, but to be consistent.
I choose to believe that my God is smarter than I am and everyone else. I think God would not make such a simple mistake from one moment to the next. So the only translation that can be made, if one believes in God, is to translate each "day" as a period of time.
Then when the summary comes in verse Gen2:4 it translates as "in the period God made", referring to the seven periods previously mentioned. If Genesis first seven "days" were really days, then Genesis 2:4 would have had to say days and not day (yomim not yom). This is only one of several reasons the only conclusion that can be drawn without making God inconsistent or a "liar" is that YOM MEANS PERIOD in this context.
"I trust the laws of physics continue to perform as God established them from the beginning."
shubi: Please enumerate the laws of Physics.
"If I thought they were finite and had a reference as such I might give it a try. "
shubi: BUSTED!!! I doubt if Brew will understand why he no longer has any credibility. ;-)
Man. Leave it to someone devoted to pure scientific inquiry to start quoting the Bible for clean, hard facts.
"There is a great deal more evidence for a global flood than for evolution."
Oh really? Please enumerate that evidence.
"God bless Mr. Johnson for exposing the centuries old lie. He is a courgeous, fabulous scientist"
Johnson is a lawyer. Sigh...
Not until you provide a finite list enumerating the Laws of Physics. Go ahead. Give it a try. As for myself, I will contend no such list exists, not only because not all scientists are aware of one anothers work, but also because certain laws of physics are yet to be discovered. Guess that makes me more of a scientist than you.
You don't like it when science and the Bible work together?
Don't you believe God created science, too?
BUSTED!!!
"Not until you provide a finite list enumerating the Laws of Physics. Go ahead. Give it a try. As for myself, I will contend no such list exists, not only because not all scientists are aware of one anothers work, but also because certain laws of physics are yet to be discovered. Guess that makes me more of a scientist than you."
You said you could enumerate the Laws of Physics. I did not. I am a biologist and a minister of Christ.
I love it when yall trap yourself with your own words. You should study Proverbs a bit more. ;-)
"On the contrary. Present experience in viewing the status quo testifies that the larger and smaller things can be juxtaposed WRT the law of gravity depending on the environment. As far as I know the world has never demonstrated bigger things always to be higher and smaller things lower. It's not as though the Law of Gravity has been the only operative factor in history. "
I am getting a vision. It is two letters. Yes I see them now.
BBBBBBBBB SSSSSSSSS
What proof do you have that forty days and forty nights of rain would produce the interpretation of the Bible you espouse? (I say proof because he keeps asking us to prove stuff)
How come you keep citing the laws of Physics, when you obviously don't know what they are? Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm...
I do not see that as the only conclusion. Even the English language often uses the same word with different meanings dependent upon the context. The Biblical account of the six days of creation attache the word "one" to the word "day," where in 2:4 the word "one" is absent, much as when we say "back in the day" we do not mean a singular day, but an indefinite period of time.
So there is more than one conclusion to be drawn here. Frankly, mine makes more sense in light of the fact that it can be demonstrated from the history of language that the same word can often be used with different meanings depending on context.
You must be truly confused if you think the same word must have the same meaning every time it occurs in the Bible.
"My request is that those of us who think we'll end up with fruit flies no matter how long we breed them not be ridiculed as religious fanatics!"
I wouldn't ridicule you for that belief if you had one iota of evidence that you have a right to believe it based on some evidence. Lacking any evidence at all, you make yourself a "religious fanatic", as you base everything on faith, faith in a silly Bible interpretation NOT FAITH IN GOD.
If you had any faith in God, you would know his Word does not need defense with inane literalism.
I don't. I never claimed the Bible to be provable in a scientific sense. But as for asserting some agreement between the Bible and science WRT forty days and forty nights of torrential rains, it would be much easier to set up a microcosmic test based on a historic record than it would be to set up test based on periods of time that have never been observed or recorded but only imagined.
"Thus I would expect to find a preponderance of tiny, amoeba-type fossils in the lower strata."
How old would these fossils be?
Please refer us to some links where we can see the amoeba fossils.
Obviously our Heavenly Father knew some of his children would not believe what is written. He even had Peter address this ignorance in IIPeter 3, the whole chapter. Peter tells us that "one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day".
Peter is specific about the subject matter cause in verse 4 he says "from the beginning of the creation".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.