Posted on 02/14/2005 1:50:46 AM PST by mc6809e
After more than a decade of development, Avida's digital organisms are now getting close to fulfilling the definition of biological life. “More and more of the features that biologists have said were necessary for life we can check off,” says Robert Pennock, a philosopher at Michigan State and a member of the Avida team. “Does this, does that, does this. Metabolism? Maybe not quite yet, but getting pretty close.”
[snip]
The researchers set up an experiment to document how one particularly complex operation evolved. The operation, known as equals, consists of comparing pairs of binary numbers, bit by bit, and recording whether each pair of digits is the same. It's a standard operation found in software, but it's not a simple one. The shortest equals program Ofria could write is 19 lines long. The chances that random mutations alone could produce it are about one in a thousand trillion trillion.
To test Darwin's idea that complex systems evolve from simpler precursors, the Avida team set up rewards for simpler operations and bigger rewards for more complex ones. The researchers set up an experiment in which organisms replicate for 16,000generations. They then repeated the experiment 50 times.
Avida beat the odds. In 23 of the 50 trials, evolution produced organisms that could carry out the equals operation. And when the researchers took away rewards for simpler operations, the organisms never evolved an equals program. “When we looked at the 23 tests, they were all done in completely different ways,” adds Ofria. He was reminded of how Darwin pointed out that many evolutionary paths can produce the same complex organ.
(Excerpt) Read more at carlzimmer.com ...
Topic: Religion
The Bible Never said the Earth was flat or the center of the Universe
Christian Answers
... Thomas H. Henderson, Christian Answers Network.
What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?
What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today.
Background
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun.[1] Aristotle was also a renowned philosopher.
Clement and Origen (185-254 A.D.), both of Alexandria, sought to reconcile Greek wisdom (Aristotle's thoughts in philosophy and sciences) with scriptural wisdom. Origen imagined separate literal, moral, and spiritual senses of Bible passages (expanded to five senses in Concordism today).[2]
Van Bebber says, "This allegorical interpretation gave birth to a new brand of Christianity. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), although not as extreme as Clement or Origen, accepted this new approach. Through Augustine the mixing of philosophy, culture, and theology became inter-twined. And, since Catholic theology recognizes the traditions of the Church as equal in authority with written scripture, changing this trend became impossible. Eventually, the roots planted in Augustine took full bloom in Thomas Aquinas" (1224-1274 A.D.).[3] The Renaissance Period (1300-1600 A.D.), the rebirth of Greek philosophy, reinforced Aristotle's philosophy and science, already embedded in Roman Catholic theology and tradition. The most serious scientific error was acceptance of an earth-centered cosmos. But this error fit well in the man-centered theme of the Renaissance.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543 A.D.) was a Renaissance man educated in the classics, law, theology, mathematics, metaphysics, languages, and astronomy. Copernicus developed a cosmology with the sun at the center, the earth rotating about a polar axis, and the earth and planets circling the sun, essentially as we know it today.[4]
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 A.D.) received a broad Renaissance education. Until 1610, when Galileo built his first telescope at age 46, he focused mainly on physics, not astronomy. He soon made discoveries which shook the foundations of the Aristotelian cosmos. He saw mountains, valleys and other features indicating change on the moon. He observed the motion of four of Jupiter's moons, now referred to as the Galilean moons. No longer could scientists say that heavenly bodies revolve exclusively around the earth. He also observed the phases of Venus, the only explanation of which is that Venus moves around the sun and not the earth.
Response to these discoveries ranged from enthusiastic to very hostile. Never fearing a fight, Galileo actively defended his evidence which supported the Copernican cosmos. Hummel states,
"He was a passionate, powerful character who could dominate any room or discussion. His talent and wit won a variety of illustrious friends in university, court and church circles, ... At the same time his biting sarcasm against those whose arguments were vulnerable to his scientific discoveries made him some formidable enemies. Galileo thrived on debate... His professional life was spent not only in observing and calculating but also in arguing and convincing. His goal was to promote as well as develop a new scientific world view."[5]
Johnston, a Catholic defending the Church, wrote that Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. Johnston claims that Galileo's position and manner had alienated many and left the Church authorities no room to maneuver. While there is some truth in Johnston's assertion, it was a minor factor in the conflict.
The primary problem, as introduced earlier, was that Aristotle's science was going out of style; but the church was still attached to him. It could not make a distinction between Aristotle and Christian teachings; and in that era, there was no distinguishment or separation of science from philosophy. For the Church, if Aristotle was wrong, Christianity was wrong.[6]
Another background factor in Galileo's conflict with the Church was the influence of the Reformation. Because Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.) and the Protestant reformation (1517 A.D.) questioned Church authority, the Roman Church lost significant power and influence. It reacted with a list of literature forbidden to Catholics. Included were any writings challenging traditional Scripture interpretation.[7]
Letter to Madame Christina
In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science."[8] The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to relinquish Copernicanism and to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.[9]
Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."[10]
He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.
"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"[12]
The Church had no problem with these solid orthodox views. Galileo was a man of faith as well as science.
Two examples from Galileo's letter help to illustrate his interpretation of Scripture dealing with science. Some say he should have left Scripture alone and just stuck to science, but he was in a "no-win situation" whatever he did, for the Roman Catholic Church's Aristotelian views were being challenged.
Job 9:6 says, "Who moveth the earth from its place..." Galileo cites the Commentary on Job (1584) by Didacus a Stunica which concluded that the mobility of the earth is not contrary to Scripture.[13] Today, creationists would term this passage "observer true." In Galileo's day, they used the equivalent phrase or expression "speaking according to appearances." That is, for us who live on the earth it does not appear to move under our feet. But Galileo's opponents would not accept this explanation.[14]
A second passage and Galileo's commentary illustrate that he felt Scripture dealing with science should not be interpreted literally. Job 26:7 states, "He stretcheth out the north over the void, and hangeth the earth above nothing." Galileo says, "St. Thomas Aquinas notes that the Bible calls 'void' or 'nothing' that space which we know to be not empty, but filled with air. Nevertheless the Bible he says, in order to accommodate itself to the beliefs of the common people (who think there is nothing in that space), calls it 'void' or 'nothing'."[15] As a side note, today we know that this verse is literally and scientifically true as written. No accommodation needs to be made for the common or uneducated person. Space is a void except for a thin layer of air surrounding our earth.
A New Book and a Second Trial
In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems -- Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication, a twelve year effort, presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered). Galileo also warned the Church of a trap they were walking into:
"Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position--eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."[16]
The Roman Catholic hierarchy and their Aristotlean-Ptolemaic advisors did not heed this advice. The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure [abandon a false opinion]. Seven of the ten Cardinals presiding signed his condemnation.[17]
The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."[18]
Historical Aftermath of the Galileo Affair
As new observations poured in, evidence grew supporting a Copernican view. The Roman Catholic Church leadership looked like fools, opening a wedge between science and religion that has increasingly widened to today. As Johnston put it, "To the popular mind, the Galileo affair is prima facie evidence that the free pursuit of truth became possible only after science 'Liberated' itself from the theological shackles of the Middle Ages. ...the Galileo case is one of the historic bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church -- the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition."[19]
Applications and Lessons Today
Application to Science
Today, Science views Galileo's conflict with Church hierarchy as a great triumph of science over religion. Today Science is king, Nature is the Creator, and God (if He exists) is irrelevant. Galileo would not have viewed it thus, for his faith in the truth of God's Word remained strong. He recognized that God is King and Creator, not Nature.
Misapplication by Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists
Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a "Two Book" concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the "Book of Nature" and the "Book of Scripture" are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The "Book of Scripture" must yield to and accommodate the "Book of Nature". Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.
The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology. For example, Galileo said, "The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics."[20] Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[21]
Lessons to Religious Authority
The Roman Curia, the religious authorities, imposed Aristotle's view upon the Bible, allowing Greek philosophy to influence its theology. They steadfastly maintained their traditions and erroneous interpretations of Scripture[22] above increasing scientific observations to the contrary. Galileo's published works remained on the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books until 1835. Not until 1981 did the Roman Catholic Church officially forgive Galileo.[23]
Van Bebber aptly states, "The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound Biblical teachings must be abandoned. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness."[24]
Lesson to All
A final lesson and warning applies to the Church, Science, and the modern Creationist movement today. Beware of holding steadfastly to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error. For instance, there are various scientific challenges to the Young-Earth Creationist position. We should hold many of our scientific views and their corresponding Biblical interpretations loosely. For we will never have all the right answers this side of heaven.
What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? [Read]
References 1.Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection (InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 27-29. [up] 2.Mark Van Bebber, "What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo?", Christian Answers Network (www.ChristianAnswers.Net: Christian Answers Network, 1995), and Hummel, pp. 173, 259. [up] 3.Mark Van Bebber, E-mail communication to Tom Henderson, December 19, 1996. [up] 4.Hummel, pp. 43-45. [up] 5.Hummel, p. 82. [up] 6.Keith Bower, "Western Civilization" (class lecture) (College Of Biblical Studies, Fall 1996). [up] 7.Mark Van Bebber, "What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo?", Christian Answers Network (www.ChristianAnswers.Net: Christian Answers Network, 1995), and Hummel, pp. 173, 259. [up] 8.Stillman Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), pp. 173-216. [up] 9.George Sim Johnston, The Galileo Affair (P.O. Box 1270, Princeton, New Jersey 08542: Scepter Press). [up] 10.Galileo, in Drake, p. 181. [up] 11.Ibid., pp.179-180. [up] 12.Ibid., p. 186. [up] 13.Ibid., p. 203. [up] 14.Ibid., p. 164. [up] 15.Ibid., p. 201. [up] 16.Galileo, 1632, in Janelle Rohr, editor, Science & Religion--Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, 1988), p. 21. [up] 17.Rikva Feldhav, Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue? (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 15-16; "Condemnation of Galileo," etc. (Institute and Museum of the History of Science of Florence, Italy (IMSS): galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/a/esenten.html); Robert Hutchins, editor, "Great Books of the Western World," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 28 (1952), p. 126. [up] 18.Janelle Rohr, editor, Science & Religion--Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, 1988), p. 24. [up] 19.George Sim Johnston, The Galileo Affair (P.O. Box 1270, Princeton, New Jersey 08542: Scepter Press). [up] 20.Charles van Doren, A History of Knowledge (Ballentine Books, 1991), p. 200. [up] 21.Drake, p. 186; Rohr, p. 13. [up] 22.Van Bebber (1995). [up] 23.Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God (Promise Publishing, 1989), p. 21. [up] 24.Van Bebber (1995). [up] Author: Thomas H. Henderson, Christian Answers Network.
Copyright © 1996, 1999, Thomas H. Henderson, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached "Usage and Copyright" page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools. www.ChristianAnswers.Net Christian Answers Network 1832 S. Macdonald Ste 101 Mesa, AZ 85210 USA
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3738ed013863.htm
GEOCENTRICITY AND CREATION
- IMPACT No. 253 July 1994
by Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D.*
© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved
1. What is geocentricity?
Geocentricity is a conceptual model of the form of the universe which makes three basic assertions about the nature of the earth and its relationship to the rest of the universe. These are:
a. the earth is the center of the universe,
b. the earth is fixed (i.e., immobile) in space, and
c. the earth is unique and special compared to all other heavenly bodies.
2. What is the History of geocentricity?
The teaching of geocentricity can be traced in western thought at least back to Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Aristotle argued, for example, that the reason why all bodies fall to the ground is because they seek their natural place at the center of the universe which coincides with the center of the earth.
A geocentric model of the universe seems first to have been formalized by Ptolemy, the famous Greek astronomer who lived in Alexandria around A.D. 130. Ptolemy's model envisioned each planet moving in a small circle, the center of which moved along a large circular orbit about the earth. This model was generally accepted until Copernicus published his heliocentric model in 1543.
The heliocentric view pictures the sun as motionless at the center of the solar system with all the planets, including the earth, in motion around it. Copernicus' heliocentric model, because it used circles to describe the orbits of the planets about the sun instead of ellipses, was as clumsy and inaccurate as Ptolemy's geocentric model. However, it was conceptually simpler. It quickly gained acceptance, though not without considerable controversy. The conflict between these two views came to a head in the well-known trial of Galileo by the Inquisition in 1632.
Starting from a heliocentric viewpoint, Kepler (1571-1630) was able to formulate laws of planetary motion which accurately described the orbits of the planets for the first time. Newton (1643-1727) was then able to explain why Kepler's laws worked based upon his famous law of gravity. This tremendous progress in understanding resulted in almost universal acceptance of heliocentricity and rejection of geocentricity.
3. What does modern science say about geocentricity?
Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true and geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's. All such attempts were unsuccessful. The most well-known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which was designed to measure the change in the speed of light, due to the assumed motion of the earth through space, when measured in different directions on the earth's surface. The failure of this experiment to detect any significant change played an important role in the acceptance of Einstein's theory of special relativity.
The theory of special relativity holds as a basic assumption that the speed of light will always be the same everywhere in the universe irrespective of the relative motion of the source of the light and the observer. The ability of special relativity to successfully explain many non-intuitive physical phenomena which are manifested by atomic particles when moving at speeds greater than about one-tenth the speed of light seems to corroborate this assumption. Thus, the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and all other experiments of similar intent) to detect any motion of the earth through space is understood by modern science in terms of relativity rather than geocentricity.
Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further to the debate. It asserts that it is impossible for a human observer to determine whether any material body is in a state of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It claims that only motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false. This shift in emphasis from an either-or argument to a synthesis and acceptance of both viewpoints is summed up by the well-known astronomer, Fred Hoyle, as follows:
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense.[1]
Relativity is the theory which is accepted as the correct one by the great majority of scientists at present. However, many science teachers and textbooks are not aware of this, and it is not uncommon to find heliocentricity taught as the progressive and "obviously true" theory even today.
4. What does the Bible teach about geocentricity?
To learn what the Bible teaches regarding geocentricity, it is necessary to consider separately the three basic assertions of uniqueness, centrality, and fixity mentioned above since the composite "theory of geocentricity" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.
The assertion that the earth is unique and special (item "c" above) is clearly and unequivocally taught in the first chapter of Genesis. The plain sense of the creation account is that all other heavenly bodies were not even brought into existence until the fourth day of creation. Thus, God had already created the earth, separated the waters above and below the atmosphere, formed the earth into continents and oceans, and brought forth vegetation upon the earth before He paused to create the solar system, the Milky Way, and all of the other material bodies in the universe. It is very clear that the creation of the earth was distinct from that of any other heavenly body.
The Biblical doctrine of the uniqueness of the earth is strongly supported by modern space exploration. In particular, every effort by scientists to demonstrate that life does or possibly could exist on other planets in our solar system has so far failed. Such efforts have only served to underscore how different the earth is in this regard from all other heavenly bodies which we have been able to study. While the earth teems with life, elsewhere space appears to be only barren and incredibly hostile to life. The earth gives every indication that it was specially designed for life, and it is unique in this regard.
In contrast to the bountiful evidence in the Bible which teaches that the earth is special, nowhere is it taught that the earth is the center of the universe (item "a" above). In fact, the Bible provides no explicit teaching on any questions relating to the form of the universe. We are not told, for example, whether the universe is finite or infinite, and no explicit statement can be found to help us know whether space is flat or curved. This is the type of information we would need to deduce whether the earth is at the center of the universe or if it even makes sense to say that the universe has a center. On matters relating to the physical form of the universe, the Bible is mute.
This leaves the more controversial assertion (item "b" above) that the earth is motionless in space to be discussed.
In fact, the Bible contains no explicit teaching on this matter either. Nowhere does the Bible set about to deal explicitly with the question of whether the earth is moving through space or not. To be sure, one can fashion implicit arguments for an immobile earth from the Bible, but in no instance do the Bible verses used to accomplish this goal rest in a context of an overall discussion of the physical form of the universe.
Evidently, while the physical form of the universe is an interesting scientific issue, it is not of very great importance Biblically. The lack of explicit Biblical teaching on this whole matter makes it impossible to call any conceptual model of the form of the universe "the Biblical view."
5. What is the role of geocentricity in creationism?
The Biblical status of the doctrine of creation contrasts sharply with that of geocentricity. The Bible opens with the explicit declaration: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and Genesis 1 goes on to outline in detail the doctrine of creation. While it is impossible to find any definitive teaching in the Bible on the physical form of the universe, it is impossible to miss the explicit teaching in the Bible that the world was supernaturally created by God, for it permeates Scripture.
Geocentricity and creationism are really separate matters. Because of the contrast in the way the Bible deals with these two issues, I believe that attempts to link geocentricity and creationism are ill-founded.
6. What can we learn of general importance from the geocentricity-helio-centricity relativity debate?
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the history of geocentricity is in connection with the question, "What role should scientific discovery play in the interpretation of the Bible?" It is surely ironic to see the incident of Galileo's trial before the Inquisition paraded as a supposedly unarguable illustration of the "mistake" recent-creationists make when they insist on a literal, supernatural, six-day creation and fail to yield to modern scientific views of how the universe came to be. "After all," we hear, "the theologians said that Galileo's heliocentric viewpoint was heresy, but now everybody knows that the theologians were wrong and Galileo was right."
In actual fact, as we have seen above, the current scientific consensus is that "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory [which Galileo held] is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory [which the theologians held] 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense."[1]
The generally overlooked lesson here is that scientific theories do not provide a very secure basis from which to interpret Scripture. In the course of the last five hundred years the weight of scientific consensus has rested in turn with each of three different theories about the form of the universe: first geocentricity, then helio-centricity, and now relativity.
This is the way it is with scientific theories—they come and go. But the Word of God endures forever. Let us be immovable in upholding what the Bible clearly teaches.
References
[1] Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973), p. 78.
Bibliography
Bouw, D. "The Bible and Geocentricity." Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, no. 41 (January, 1987), 22-25. (A more recent work by Bouw is: Geocentricity [Cleveland: Association for Biblical Astronomy, 1992].)
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
Reichenbach, Hans. From Copernicus to Einstein. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1980.
Ronan, Colin Alistair. "Copernicus" The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th ed. XVI, 814-815.
* Dr. Aardsma is Assistant Professor of Astro Geophyics at ICR.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-253.htm
Thanks for the ping!
My main research interest is the relationship between evolution and communication; I'm both in a seminar on the subject, and writing a conference paper on it at the moment.
The converse is also true, however. According to relativity it is perfectly correct to regard the earth as being in motion around the sun. A literal reading of the Bible, however, contradicts this point. Psalms 104:7 makes it very explicit that the earth is fixed and does not move. Therefore, the Bible does what relativity says cannot be done. It singles out a particular reference frame (namely the geocentric one) as being the one "correct" reference frame. Thus the Bible and relativity are contradictory. Funny, but we don't see Biblical literalists hammering away at relativity theory on FR, now do we? The obvious conclusions are that a) Relativity is incorrect. That, however, disallows the argument based on relativity that the geocentric view promoted by the Bible is a correct way of looking at the universe. (Not to mention that this view is not supported by any evidence at all) or b) The Bible should not be read literally, and it should not be used as a science text. If we assume this position, then it is very possible to reconcile the Bible with evolution.
Stop this logic nonsense.
funny how this may prove microevolution but has no hope of proving macro or life-origin huh??
why not try a memory randomly seeded with bits instead of already reproducing delimited files??
like dawkins they intelligently design the goal and prove id once again.
I never said the point was to disprove God, only that the method of testing is flawed.
This test, using intelligent beings using intelligent methods, trying to tell us things happened by chance??
That is the equivalent of a monkey typing shakespeare.
Hence the animation.
You seem to be asserting that a random outcome cannot be achieved with a modern man made device. How are the lottery numbers chosen then?
If you are claiming that the random picking of 6 numbers out of fourty equals the random chance accumulation of molecules based on simple ionic bonds can create a single cell, let alone a single living cell complete with the means to eat, move, aspire, and reproduce...then you need to think some more.
That's absurd, and I'm enlightened.
Is the logic in the mouse trap story an example of how well the ID'rs can think? I've never given much attention to the irreducibly complex concept, except to read the piece about the human eye, and when I found their logic so catastrophicaly immature, or just plain dumb, I quit trying to fathom their thoughts.
And don't forget, evolution is not random.
One of them universal truths: "If ignorance isn't bliss, then I don't know what is."
There is an incredible amount of linked articles/information and contacts..
You may be able to wrangle an interview or correspondence out of some of the researchers working on the project..
Good luck on the research..
I would be interested in seeing what conclusions you reach..
The fact that Galileo also professed to believe in God and the Scriptures is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Numerous modern supporters of evolution also believe in God, but interpret Scripture differently to you. With the awful example of the 17th Century Catholic Church at hand how can you be so certain that your scriptural interpretation is correct, when it runs counter to abundant physical evidence.
As a Christian you presumably believe that God supplied us with the inspiration for the Bible, but you have to accept that God also "wrote the rocks". Physical evidence and predictive power has to be supreme when put up against mere words that are capable of interpretation (and which were intended to supply a comprehensible story of origins to Bronze-Age men who did not have the background to understand modern theories)
Sorry, I forgot. Logic doesn't apply to this debate.
It doesn't say that in my Bible, nor any other that I have ever read.
The verse is Psalms 104:5. The Hebrew word is "mowt" and means removed. So the verse says,"[Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever."
If you are going to play the" pick at a verse" game at least get it right and know what you are talking about.
What does "removed" mean, in this context, other than "moved" then?
Just what it says. "Taken out of its place". As we know, the earths place is in orbit around our sun.
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.