Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
Um...I don't care...you go write a white paper about the latest process evolutionists claim as their missing link...Kay?
TOE implies life arose from a single cell, which arose from inorganic chemicals. That is taught from grade school on. about evolution.
You do not get to pick and choose only some PART of TOE that is taught, then defend that part.
And you may bite me when you evolve large enough to accomplish such a feat.
PP: There are more scientists who adhere to the theory of evolution named "Steve" than there are scientists who do not adhere to it. Since not all scientists are named "Steve", I guess they must outnumber your scientists. Oh, one other thing, most of your scientists who like to attack evolution (without foundation) are not in the biological sciences.
Without foundation? You mean physicists, mathematicians, astronomers, cosmologists, even botanists, who are not afraid they will not gain tenure if they scoff at a "scientific," theory that has no mathematical description. If you are in the life sciences in any western university and you do not squawk "evolution is a fact," "evolution is a fact," like a deranged parrot, see if you get tenure!
So then you admit you don't care about facts?
Both are sound arguments, and ironically I've watched a program on the latter, which showed a milky volcanic brew from some location in Hawaii. On your side of the debate, here's another with statistics (Kurzweilai is one of my favorite people to read):
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=1%23610
When I was younger (Spock was my hero as a child) and working as an analytical Chemist, I was on your side of the debate. I couldn't rationalize how any sensible person could see things differently. But now that my eggs are in many baskets and I've lived a bit, I see things differently (my home page tells the story). From a scientific perspective, your argument is as sound (if not sounder) than the other chemist.
You may rest assured you aren't the among those to whom I was alluding..... they know who they are, and so do we.
;-)
It does however point out that evidence shows the centers of civilization around the world were destroyed by “natural” causes evidently simultaneously (as compared to war, etc.). The articles suggests the cause was cosmic debris – floods, tidal waves, volcanic activity, earthquakes are all mentioned as evidence. The article however indicates that the causation is not fully resolved and leaves the subject open for further speculation. Flooding is specifically mentioned in the middle east.
It is interesting that the timing mentioned in the article (” 2300 BC, give or take a century or two”) is correct for the Noah flood. It is also curious that the actual Hebrew word used for “breath” in Genesis 7 and 2 refers to a particular kind of creature, Adamic man. None of the other creatures were made with that breath of life, i.e. made a living soul (neshama).
All of this may be much ado about nothing to you and Young Earth Creationists who believe that Genesis 1-3 occurs at our space/time coordinates. However, some traditions believe that Adam was the first ensouled man, not the first physical man. And some believe that Adam was created in heaven and banished to earth, thus being a peculiar type of man among men.
It is a matter of worldviews. I am on the Plato side of the argument (especially as it pertains to mathematics).
For Lurkers, Aristotle gives priority to the senses and experience, he sees physical reality as fundamental and mathematics as an approximation. He would say that the mathematician invents the geometry to describe the physical world.
Plato on the other hand gives priority to the ideal or the forms, he sees the mathematical structure as the true reality and we are the imperfect observers. He would say that the mathematician comes along and discovers the geometry, e.g. pi, Reimannian geometry, etc.
The Aristotle-minded person is satisfied when the experiment meets the prediction, the Platonist-minded person wants it to make sense, e.g. ”why pi?”.
The Aristotle-minded person’s curiosity ends with the becoming whereas the Platonist-minded person is keenly interested in both the being and the becoming. Or to put it another way, timelessness as well as space/time.
This has been an on-going and very respectful discussion among the brightest mathematicians, physicists and philosophers and it continues even here on Free Republic. The latest thread on the philosophical discussion is: On Plato, the Early Church, and Modern Science: An Eclectic Meditation
But getting back to your question…
We Christians are even more keen on these issues than mathematical Platonists such as Max Tegmark, Roger Penrose and John Barrow. BTW, Tegmark's Level IV Multi-verse is the only closed theory because of its radical mathematical Platonism, i.e. that all existents are mathematical structures in higher dimensionality (mathematical structures are non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal).
To illustrate the difference, Plato saw the “beyond” as unapproachable, whereas we Christians have the indwelling Spirit – thus, for us, there is revealed Truth (both personally from the indwelling Spirit and in the Scriptures) which cannot be apprehended by reason alone.
For those who are metaphysically naturalist (atheist) and also Aristotlean – neither Plato’s “beyond” nor Judeo/Christian Truth exists in their definition of “all that there is”. Whereas for us, reality or "all that there is" does not begin or end within space/time coordinates.
If you wish to engage on any of these subjects, I welcome the debate - but preferably not on a thread consigned to the "smokey back room" since there would be a great deal of research required and a wide interest in the subject matter.
Equating the living God, with Ra or Thor is silly.
There are good factual reasons for believing in Christ, who is God.
What do you see as the impediment to symbiotic relationships?
Did he ever answer this question?
Only biological scientists are concerned with the TOE. Other scientists discoveries have confirmed the TOE, but fields like geology are really not that interested, except in the history of the geology.
Paleontology is a biological science that draws on geology.
But your assertion that every has to believe in biological evolution is only true so far as to be considered sane and rational, one must. I would be leery of hiring anyone that was so divorced from reality they thought Noah could get millions of animals on a boat, feed them, shovel out their waste and care for them (including their diseases and parasites) over the period of a year. I think I could find a better employee with a more stable mental state.
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.