Posted on 02/06/2014 10:05:21 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Amazing!
Pat Robertson, the 2,000 leg-presser?...
The creator of the age-defying protein shake?...
He is suddenly now the go-to guy for the MSM (and their voice of reason) when it comes to Ken Ham and his debate w/Bill Nye?
Pat Robertson: Marginalized to Oracle[ized] in a flash! And in Virginia, not Delphi, of all places, too!
BTW, isn't Bill Nye one of those Anthropogenic Global Warming guys, and a believer that man is the main cause of Gorebal Warming?
Alleged "micro" and "macro" evolution are in fact exactly the same thing, over different periods of time.
Small DNA changes (micro) which happen in every generation accumulate over long periods of time to make larger (macro) differences among various populations.
Of course, if you imagine the Earth as only 6,000 years old, then obviously there has been no long period in which macro evolution could happen.
But all the scientific evidence suggests "macro" is exactly what did happen.
First of all, the "literal interpretation" (whatever that might mean) is not science, period, it's religion and cannot be taught as "science".
Second of all, both Old Testament (Psalms 90:4) and New (2 Peter 3:8) make clear that God's view of time is vastly different from our own.
Third, Genesis itself provides no scientific specifics on how God accomplished His creations.
We are therefore free to fill in the details with whatever scientific evidence and theories seem best.
Those are some of the basics on which all of western civilization's natural-science is built.
Let's deal with mistakes and assumptions based on those mistakes. You assume, for example, that your sentence above its correct.
In reality, it isn't. You have misused the word "loose".
Now, what if in the text, that you say can't be taken literally, you are also making assumptions that are not warranted?
This is by no means an attempt to correct your sentence; it is rather an attempt to show how assumptions have consequences.
Everything I’ve read so far says that neither man did a particularly effective job in the debate.
This argument between faith and observed reality will not end anytime soon. The very ground beneath our feet and the sky above our heads contradicts the creationist and, in particular, young earth beliefs. Certainly there are come clever wordsmiths pushing some absurd ideas like the global flood. Disagreeing with them is like fighting tar baby and I’m too old and impatient for that.
I’ve mostly given up commenting on these threads but they are being pushed to the point that it’s irritating to read FR lately.
FRiend, only a small number of Free Republic posters seem to me totally beyond the reach of ordinary reason.
But there are a number of topics, and evolution vs. creationism is one, where good people have serious and passionate disagreements.
The important point to remember is that these people are all our friends, our families and political allies.
They should be treated as such, even amidst the most passionate of disagreements.
Indeed, dear brother in Christ! I pinged you to a similar discussion on another thread in case you wish to pursue this sidebar over there as well.
Sorry, but that is just anti-science propaganda -- scientifically there are no "kinds", and there is no separate process for "changes within" versus "changes between different" categories.
It's all just evolution.
Your word "kinds" is strictly a theological concept, not science.
Instead, science classifies all life into eight major and dozens of lesser categories: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, family, order, genus, species... then sub-species, breed/variety, form, race/ethnicity/nation...
Precise definitions of what, exactly, makes for separate classifications have been revised to account for results of detailed DNA analyses.
These have "upgraded" some populations to separate higher categories, while "downgrading" others to just sub-groups of a lesser classification.
One key dividing line between separate sub-species, species & genera, for example, is the ability & enthusiasm of various populations to interbreed.
But remember, this "line" is no line at all -- it's a continuum along which some groups interbreed eagerly, while others cannot even be forced to interbreed.
Point is: long-term DNA changes within separated populations make them increasingly unwilling or unable to interbreed with other populations.
The extent of these DNA changes is strictly a function of time and location, having nothing to do with the theological idea of "kinds".
MeshugeMikey: "That being said one cannot add up changes within a given species and arrive at a sum of changes between species."
Sorry, but your sentence is utterly without scientific meaning.
Extensive DNA analyses show that there are calculable rates of mutations in separated populations.
In the short term, these changes may have no practical effects -- i.e., human "races" still avidly interbreed -- but over longer terms interbreeding becomes increasingly difficult to impossible.
A good example would be African & Asian elephants.
Bottom line: nothing in science has anything to do with the theological concept of "kinds", and any discussion of "kinds" is necessarily unscientific.
The absence of "kinds" makes the creationists concept of "micro" versus "macro" evolution scientifically invalid.
Kinds translates into modern english...as Species.
Having watched the whole “debate”, I can agree with you wholeheartedly.
the ones guys reliance on the concept of “natural”.. { God has no part in the “natural” world??]
the other guys insistence on knowing the precise length of the 7 “days” of creation..
rigidity of that sort doesnt allow getting to the bottom “line”
I heard they pretty much stuck to the crevo talking points.
Thank you, sister.
Sorry, but in no possible way is that true.
Just consider, the total number of species on Earth is said to be circa nine million, around two million of them named, with 13,000 more added each year.
Of those circa 6,000 are mammals, 10,000 each birds and reptiles, 30,000 fish and 300,000 plants.
Point is: there is no possible way all those "species" would fit into Noah's Ark, or even 100 Arks.
That's why, in his debate with Bill Nye, Ken Ham suggested "kinds" equates to some higher biological classification, such as: genus, order, family or class -- of which there are progressively fewer -- at some point few enough that "two of each" might conceivably squeeze into Noah's Ark.
Well, that's Ham's "solution" to the "problem" of too many species, but his solution itself raises problems, for example:
So, no matter how you look at it, biblical "kinds" make no sense scientifically.
It was an “entertainment” event as much as a debate. and nobody won the debate
The best you can do? So the earth is 40,000 years old?
Absolutely there is room for a lot of interpretation. Literal creationists will burn themselves in effigy before admitting carbon dating is valid, and the earth is over 40,000 years old. Granted they have arguments for every case but you just can’t be inflexible and claim Noah’s Ark accounts for all life on earth.
The people back then had no concept what comprised earth. No antique globes have surfaced I’m aware of. The earth they knew was flooded but most certainly there were a few spots left high and dry.
Pat Robertson Blames Earthquake on Pact Haitians Made With Satan
...and Hell freezes over and all the little devils go iceskating.
Indeed, I'd bet you a day's pay that not one person in a thousand, including Christians, can tell you: what, precisely, is the theological point of Noah's Ark story?
Do you even know? ;-)
The entire point, the reason for this elaborate story about a great flood and Noah's Ark, is God's promise that it will never happen again! (Genesis 9:11-17)
So all this falderal & hoopla over the size, sea-worthiness & capacity of Noah's great Ark, misses the main idea.
The point is not "how big was the Ark and how many animals could it hold?"
The point is: a world flood will never happen again.
And doesn't science, in all it's amazing investigative prowess, more-or-less "prove" to us that God's promise is 100% reliable?
So, what exactly is the problem here between science and God?
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.