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 ...
Then you are going to have some difficulty living your life, as you can't even infer from your own certain knowledge that the rest of the universe outside the room that you are currently in didn't just stop existing. So you had better stay where you are in case there is no oxygen anywhere else. Nobody is that nihilistic. You don't demand such standards of proof anywhere else in your life.
What you really mean is that you believe that evolution contradicts your interpretation of your holy book and therefore you reject it regardless of the evidence for it, which can never be so complete as to force acceptance if you are set upon rejection.
This is not an "inference." Rather, it is "founded" on prior experience.
You don't demand such standards of proof anywhere else in your life.
You misunderstand my standard. Data must be found in nature or founded upon sufficient authority.
What you really mean is that you believe that evolution contradicts your interpretation of your holy book
You assume again. I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and in microevolution thereafter. How else could Noah have gotten the entire genepool onto the ark?
Do you reject the abundant physical evidence that the earth is c 4 billion years old and the universe c 14 billion years old as well as rejecting evolution? If so you are rejecting pretty much the whole of science. I ask because anti-evolutionists seem to encompass such a wide spectrum of contradictory beliefs.
If I understand your question, Noah had a gorilla on the ark but not an eastern-lowland gorilla, a mountain gorilla and a western gorilla.
Do you reject the abundant physical evidence that the earth is c 4 billion years old..."
No, I interpret it differently.
Light was created before the stars. That gets it down to a few hundren million. It also eliminates the need for string theory.
The deluge explains the rock strata. If you do an experiment with several thousands of gallons of water, some silt and sand and a few dead critters, you get the same thing.
Here's a question:How do fish leave fossils? "Modern" ones don't.
Light was created before the stars. That gets it down to a few hundren million. It also eliminates the need for string theory.
How do you explain the light from distant supernovae that never occurred if the universe is young? Why did God create the light from such identifiable events that never happened? Is God an habitual liar?
The deluge explains the rock strata. If you do an experiment with several thousands of gallons of water, some silt and sand and a few dead critters, you get the same thing.
No such experiment has explained any such thing. The physical evidence of the age of the earth is as conclusive as any evidence ever can be.
How do fish leave fossils? "Modern" ones don't.
Fossilisation of any creature is an incredibly rare event. I would have thought the question "Why are there few fossils of modern fish?" a much tougher one for anyone who doubts evolution or supports the idea of flood geology.
I forgot to remind you about marsupials. How did they get from Australasia (and Antarctica unless you accept an ancient earth and plate tectonics) to the Middle East to board the ark? How did they get back to Australasia after the disembarkation? How had they survived in Antarctica at all? (unless you accept an ancient earth and plate tectonics)
No fish. What is the problem with insects? a few thousand species would be sufficient.
How do you explain the light from distant supernovae that never occurred if the universe is young?
Dunno. My suspicion: Light begins at infinite speed and decreases exponentially toward 'c.' TORel says that light travels at the same speed regardless of spatial frame of reference but, we have no way of knowing if it is constant over time as we have only observed it with any precision for a few decades.
No such experiment
From IRC:
Experiments in the Colorado State University
Large scale experiments required the resources of a laboratory with the latest technology. Having read their reports on sedimentology, I contacted Colorado State University in the USA. This led to a series of experiments conducted in their modern hydraulics laboratory at Fort Collins. Pierre Julien, a sedimentologist, was in charge of the experiments. They took place in large glass-walled flumes, which allowed observation and filming from above and through the sides of the tanks.
Different sized particles of sand were poured into water circulating in the flume. Variations in current velocity caused the particles to be sorted according to size. At 1 m/s superposed laminae formed laterally in the direction of the current. A reduction of velocity to 0.5 m/s caused larger particles to collect on the previous laminae, always migrating in the direction of the current. An increase in velocity back to 1 m/s caused laminae similar to the previous ones to form, mainly due to friction, on top of the stratum of larger particles. The accumulation of sediment produced a deposit consisting of the downstream part of the lower laminae, part of the sloping stratum of larger particles, and the upstream part of the upper laminae. Each individual deposit formed successively downstream and was therefore younger than the one before it. Variations in current velocity, as found in rivers and oceans, could thus cause deposits to form both vertically and laterally at the same time in the direction of the current.
The flume experiments further demonstrated the mechanical nature of stratification, whereby: (1) Particles segregated according to their size when transported by a current of variable velocity; (2) Desiccation, or drying out, of deposits caused bedding partings; (3) Stratification of the deposit, under both dry and wet conditions, formed parallel to the slope of the deposit, which could exceed 30°.5"
Fossilisation... rare event... "Why are there few fossils of modern fish?" a much tougher one for anyone who doubts evolution or supports the idea of flood geology.
What are your referring to, specifically?
Noah had a hundred years to gather the animals into the ark. Besides, they came to him, according to Gen 6:20.
That was a lame list you posted. The "American Jewish Congress" is extremely liberal and certainly doesn't represent Torah Judaism. And certainly isn't a "great many Jews." In fact, there are some excellent Orthodox Jewish scientists who have debunked macro-evolution.
I don't suppose that the Roman Catholic church represents many Christians either? Is that a liberal organisation too?
...depends on whom you ask...
No fish.
Not good enough. The flood must have been saline or clear. Most fish species could not survive a year in the wrong type of water (and their food sources all require the right salinity too). The post-flood deposition event posits massive stirring of the water.
What is the problem with insects? a few thousand species would be sufficient.
How bizarre. You reject something you call macroevolution, yet you think that a few-thousand species of insect could diverge to between 2M and 30M species within 4? thousand years. In any case, how did 8 people care for even a few thousand insect species with their manifold dietary, heating, humidity etc requirements for a year?
How do you explain the light from distant supernovae that never occurred if the universe is young?
Dunno. My suspicion: Light begins at infinite speed and decreases exponentially toward 'c.' TORel says that light travels at the same speed regardless of spatial frame of reference but, we have no way of knowing if it is constant over time as we have only observed it with any precision for a few decades.
"Dunno" is not good enough when you are proposing bizarre mechanisms for relatively simple observed phenomenae. Your suspicion is disproved as follows: Time dilation works on distant observed events as predicted from their red-shift and a constant lightspeed.
No such experiment
(snip long description of experiment)
And this experiment explains the geological column (including fossilised burrows and inserted complete coral beds and some layers of fine powdery particles that take years to settle) how?
Those genes in all the same species could have all been designed...neither you or I have any way of knowing whether it was a mutation or designed. Which do you think is more likely?
I'm Jewish. I can't explain on behalf of other religious groups what they believe.
Go read what DARWIN said about the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, on more than one occasion. Or do you disagree with Darwin's assesment of the problem of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?
You name any transitional form and I will counter with another evolutionist that is NOT a creationist that says it is NOT a transitional form...let's play!
Insects would microevolve rather quickly in the absence of numerous predators.
Time dilation works on distant observed events as predicted from their red-shift and a constant lightspeed.
The universal speed of light (relative to different spacial frames) is a function of Planck's universal constant. The observed speed of light is always going to be the same as the speed of light in the observer's frame of reference. If object and observer are in the same time frame, there's no difference (between observed c at object and c at observer). If c was once greater, one would observe "fast" space as if it were older than it really is. If I really wanted to prove my theory, I would need a to examine 'h', not c.
As to the experiment, it shows that:
A. The principle of superposition: ". . . at the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed."
B. The principle of initial horizontality and
C. The principle of strata continuity:
are all disproven because: "Strata can form laterally and vertically at the same time; 2. Strata can form in the same way as sequences of facies; 3. Strata are not always a measure of chronology. "
- quotes from http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-328.htm
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.