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 ...
Mutation is far more likely. A designer wouldn't put rubbish genes that don't work into 3 separate species?
What are your referring to, specifically?
I will leave it as an exercise for you to ponder why the total lack of modern forms in the fossil record (below the very uppermost strata) is a problem for flood geology and a vindication for the ToE. Not that flood geology needs any more problems as it predicts nothing, is inconsistent with observed reality in too many ways to enumerate quickly, and would require numerous miracles to even come close to working.
Evolution is a weak theory that I don't believe in. I KNOW G-d exists.
B: Translation: "I've been brain washed" TOE is among the pillars of modern science. To say it is weak theory belies a profound ignorance. And, many people accept evolution and God existence, like the Pope.
B: You can tell when a creationist has no argument, they claim that God and TOE are mutually exclusive. I suggest they try worshiping the real GOd and not the false one they created in their own image.
First of all, Genesis is older than ToE. The burden of proof rests with ToE. Secondly, what does ToE predict? All ToE does is try to cram observations into a coherent body. Coherency is not proof.
Then ...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.
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?
B: Congratulations. You've falsified your favorite Bible story. There is no evidence for a genetic bottleneck 4000 years ago. The variation of the human genome requires at least 100,000 years to obtain. Hence, considering the entire "genepool" rules out this particular Biblical tale. Its always amusing when creationist contradict themselves.
/sarcasm
Of course they aren't, as the entire story is a myth that wasn't thought through at any level by the people who wrote it (who had no knowledge of the diversity of species anyway). They didn't think about the practicality of 8 people looking after a world's ecosystem in a 450ft wooden boat with one opening 2ft square in the top deck. They didn't think about what everyone would eat when they disembarked. They didn't know that there would be no topsoil (requires live earthworms) for decades, or what the predators would eat the moment they disembarked etc etc etc
I note you haven't explained how marsupials got back to Australia, or knew how to go back there, or how they survived on Antarctica.
Non-answer gobbledegook about light-speed noted.
Stuff about irrelevant ICR experiments
None of the stuff that you mention explains the phenomena that are seen in real strata in the real world, like interposed fully-formed fossil coral beds, like fossilised burrows, like thick layers of powdery material where the powder is so fine that the grains take years to fall onto the sediment, Like interposed igneous strata, coal formations, like radiometric dates that get steadily and consistently older the deeper down the column we go etc etc etc.
No but it is a cult, just like evolution. True Christianity is almost as rare as evidence for evolution. And that an absurd theory is widely held, neither means it is accurate, nor the holders of that theory exhibit profound intelligence.
What is the difference in this context between microevolution and macroevolution?
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.
B: No you interpret it wrongly.
Light was created before the stars.
B: You mean the cosmic microwave background. Which ceased being in the visible spectrum a few million years after big bang.
That gets it down to a few hundren million.
B. Wrong. The age of the Earth is 4.55 billion years old give or take 50 million years. The universe is 13.7 billion years in age give or take one billion.
It also eliminates the need for string theory.
B: What are you smoking? And creationists claim evolution is a fairy tale? LMAO!
The deluge explains the rock strata.
B: Even DiVInci realized the Noachian Deluge didn't explain rock strata. Say, Derheim.. can you explain how angular uncomformities and salt deposits form in a flood? We'd really like to know.
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.
B: Done that experiment many times. But I've never seen stacked reef complexes, angular uncomformities, salt deposits and a billion other things result from it.
Here's a question:How do fish leave fossils? "Modern" ones don't.
B: Yet more ignorance. You can find plenty of recent fish fossils in lakes and elsewhere. In fact fish otoliths are good barometers of environmental changes in lakes.
B: You know nothing about anything you wrote of. Not one thing. None, nada, zilch.
This is your premise, not my contradiction. It is based on average lifespans similar to or shorter than ours, rather than the ones described in the Mosaic account. Noah lived another 350 years after the flood. Abraham (born 400 years later) lived 175 years. The numbers become more "familiar after that. This additional opportunity for more separate bloodlines more than explains your misconception.
I love it when evolutionists accuse others of believing in fairy tales.
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.
B: It never ceases to amaze me when fundamentalist Christian buttheads think they speak for the Jews. Evolution does not touch on any salvational issues for us. Its not a problem. Even the Late Rabbe Shneerson said it didn't matter. You can believe the world is 6000 years old, or not. It doesn't amtter.
B: Please post a list of Orthodox Jews who have debunked macro-evolution. I'd like to see it.
And none of this contradicts the Mosaic account. your point, please? As for Antarctica, is there any proof those fossils couldn't have arrived there during the flood?
First of all, Genesis is older than ToE. The burden of proof rests with ToE. Secondly, what does ToE predict? All ToE does is try to cram observations into a coherent body. Coherency is not proof.
Lack of attempt to answer my question noted. Comments to your fresh comments interspersed following:
First of all, Genesis is older than ToE. The burden of proof rests with ToE.
Age of theories is irrelevant when assessing how well they correspond with observed reality.
Secondly, what does ToE predict?
ToE makes numerous succesful predictions. One was that marsupial fossils would be found in Antarctica. Do you know how geologists and biologists were able to predict this?
All ToE does is try to cram observations into a coherent body. Coherency is not proof.
No scientific theory is ever proven. Proof is for geometry. All any scientific theory does is combine observations into a coherent body, from which predictions are made and falsifications attempted. ToE makes numerous succesful predictions and has survived all attempts at falsification. No scientific theory can have any higher accolade than being consistend with observed data.
And none of this contradicts the Mosaic account. your point, please? As for Antarctica, is there any proof those fossils couldn't have arrived there during the flood?
But it completely contradicts the ICR flood geology hypotheses. And marsupial fossils are *only* found in Australasia and Antarctica. Have you worked out why that is yet? (hint: it is really easy to see why if you reject flood nonsense and accept mainstream science of plate tectonics and ToE)
I guess you are just responding to people on this thread in general and nothing that I have said since I didn't say they were "mutually exclusive." I just don't believe in the theory of macro-evolution. If you want to call me and all the scientists who also don't accept it ignorant, that's your deal.
I'd agree with that except I haven't seen any recent examples of "fundamentalist Christian buttheads" speaking for Jews. Have you?
All what scientists? Cite some peer-reviewed papers please.
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.