Fossil Solves Mystery of Dinosaur Finger Evolution

LiveScience.com on Yahoo ^ | 6/17/09 | Jeanna Bryner

[ml/nj]

Religion and science are separate disciplines

Who said anything about religion? I really don't know what you know about science, but my degrees are in science. (macro) "Evolution" is hardly science. You evolution folks are the ones who "believe" and your belief is, IMHO, just a bit more fantastic that the one held by the Genesis crowd.

ML/NJ

[BJClinton]

Do we eat Kentucky Fried Dinosaur? According to the dogma of many evolutionary propagandists for the last decade or so, indeed we do

I stopped reading right there.

[LiteKeeper]

That certainly is an objective, unbiased attitude. Why not read the whole argument to see if there is anything of value before you make a decision?

[ZULU]

Check this site out. It was not easy to find. But ti appears to lay out the scriptural verses cited by the Medieval Chirch’s opposition to the Copernican and Galilean heliocentric theories.

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml

[ZULU]

Science is concerned with what can be concluded by examining physical evidence and conducting experiments. Faith has no place.

Religion is based on faith and the scriptures and one’s interpretation of scripture. If Christian scripture was so clear and obvious, you wouldn’t have so many different Christian sects claiming their own interpretation of scripture was the only true version.

I find it puzzling to have to define the diference between Theology and Science.

But then perhaps that explains the obtuseness of the anti-evolutionary mind.

[ZULU]

I have two degrees in zoology. I think I know the reasonableness of evolution as a scientific “theory”.

I am also a self-confessed Christian who basically believes in the Bible as a soiurce of religious and moral dogma. I have no problem reconciling my faith with scientific fact.

Its unfortunate some other individuals’ faith is so shallow they need to reject scientific facts to confirm their religious beliefs.

[BJClinton]

An “argument” that starts by claiming science claims we are eating chicken fried dinosaurs is too puerile too be worth my time.

[LiteKeeper]

Or perhaps someone has lost his sense of humor!

[ml/nj]

I think I know the reasonableness of evolution as a scientific “theory”.

Really?

So, can you make a testable prediction based upon this theory?

Can you even tell me what the theory is? Is it based in any way upon what Darwin wrote in Origin of Species? What text best explains this theory to students?

I have several texts that supposedly deal with evolution. E.g. I have Freeman and Herron's Evolutionary Analysis 3rd Edition at hand; 802 pages. It has one chapter on speciation, which is all we're talking about here. The chapter begins on page 583. It runs on to page 614. The rest is primarily fluff, not very different from the stuff in Genesis where Jacob breeds spotted goats. The index references to speciation are: 37, 102-3, 574, 583-614. In other words a book on evolution has 36 pages out of 802 pages which even attempt to touch on the topic. I haven't looked at the speciation chapter recently but my recollection is that it doesn't do much to explain how a new animal species might arise; and answers no questions that I might raise. If you think this is science, you should return your degrees.

ML/NJ

[Diamond]

A brief perusal of his page tells me that renouned Hebrew scholar and high school teacher Glenn Elert probably ought to stick to physics. This is Elert's expert characterization of Biblical heurmenuetics:

"The message here is, I think, obvious. The Bible is the literal truth only when it's convenient and doesn't conflict with overwhelming evidence. In my view, this invalidates the core of the anti-evolutionary movement in its entirety. If the Bible is open to interpretation from time to time, then it is open to interpretation at any time. If the Bible is occasionally poetic, then it is possibly poetic at any time -- even on the first page, even on the last page, even on every page."

He doesn't cite any source to substantiate his cartoon caricature of Biblical hermeneutics and scholarship. However, his his own rule of interpretation apparently requires one to ignore the context and type of the literature in question when necessary to maintain the pretense that the Bible doesn't make sense or is inaccurate in some scientific way. His logic is that because some of the Bible is poetic all of it can possibly be poetic, with the exception that Hebrew poetic literature should not be interpreted as poetry, and ordinary phenomenological language and idiomatic expressions ought always be interpreted anachronistically in a modern, "progressive" Western, hyper-literal sense where such interpretations are useful for discrediting the Bible. Thus:

Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

means that "sunrise" and "sunset" are proof that the Bible is inaccurate scientifically.

Mr. Elert has apparently never heard of phenomenological language:

Almanac

---

Key: T = Trace of precipitation; MM = data not available

June 18, 2009

Normal high:

86°

Record high:

100° (1953)

Normal low:

67°

Record low:

52° (1961)

Sunrise :

5:35 AM

Moon Rise:

1:53 AM

Sunset:

8:28 PM

Moon Set:

4:09 PM

Complete weather almanac

Detailed History and Climate

Cordially,

[Just another Joe]

Is that a brontasaurus that bird is picking up?

[Diamond]

Science is concerned with what can be concluded by examining physical evidence and conducting experiments.

[...]I find it puzzling to have to define the diference between Theology and Science.

What experiment did you conduct to arrive at that definition?

[...] the obtuseness of the anti-evolutionary mind

There you go again, smuggling transcendence into evolution.

Cordially,

[ZULU]

You asked for scriptural references relative to the geocentric beliefs of the Medieval Church. That is why I gave you that link. I didn't really read the opinions of the commentator.

My point was that theology and science are two separate disciplines and the one ought not intrude on the other. One is based on observations and experiments, the other on faith.