Posted on 04/05/2005 7:42:56 AM PDT by bedolido
Or perhaps a distant common ancestor. (Probably a rich one, middle names are for stroking rich ancestors.)
A 600ft uncompacted layer of rock and soil fell into the North Fork Toutle , but that was a landslide of the North face of the volcano and will never be "stratified".
Next were the pyroplastic (lava) flows, up to 120ft thick (after cooling). Those too, will never be "stratified".
Following that is the lahars (ash mud erosion); This flow filled 26 ft of the Columbia River. There will be strata downstream where the Columbia enters the ocean.
Least of all is the airborne ash and pumice. That was about a foot thick 10 miles downwind and 1/2 inch at 300 miles. Whatever doesn't wash downstream will be obvious as a discreet layer.
(Hint: Avoid getting your "facts" from geology undergrads posting on creationist web sites)
I don't personally see why people see such a conflict between religion and Darwinian evolution. A natural explanation of life's origin does not preclude God's involvement, if you believe natural laws are a consequence of God's will.
Simple and true. Nice.
It's the scientism that creates the conflict (along with perhaps a dash of opportunism on the part of some religious folk). Naturalism is much more that simply positing "the uniformity of natural causes." Most Christians who do science accept that as the fundamental faith statement that makes science possible. But the presupposition of naturalism, once accepted, tend to lead the investigator to insist that the discovered results cannot point to a supernatural creator, as if this would spell the end of "science". This changes the whole nature of the discipline from that "before 1859". (Obviously, I believe that good science leads toward the identity of the Creator.)
BTW your post #203 makes your position a lot clearer.
It seems we only disagree on the definition of words. What you call naturalism I would refer to as scientific materialism, which is a religion in its own rite. I concur that there needs to be more open discussion between science and religion; if there was I think some great schisms in public opinion could be bridged (with the usual exception, of course, of the excessively radical fringes on both ends). As Einstein pointed out (much more eloquently than I), science and religion are indispensible to one another. I just think we're all better served if we remember the limitations of each.
Much has been written in "E" publications about the increasing intelligence of the homid line of crestures: how it's his BRAIN POWER that has given him advantage over ALL the other species.
One would think that Albert Einstien would be the pinnacle of Man, with his super intellect.
But what of his children and grandkids?
Where ARE they?
What do THEY do?
Have the 'smart' genes, that ol' Al got, simply vanished?
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man." -- Albert Einstein
Evidence of ID abounds. You have to close your eyes to deny it. Your simpleton throw-away lines about pink fairies on the dark side of the moon are simply nonsense and discredit a physicist who should pride himself on logical reasoning.
No phenomena exists for which "pink fairies", or "green elves" provide a solution. Tremendous evidence exists for which ID provides a solution.
You are the man operating with blind religion, a religion that denies the existence of God. It is shallow and requires great contortions to maintain that denial.
"The undevout astronomer must be mad." -- William Herschel, astronomer"All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths come on high and contained in the sacred writings." -- John Herschel, Astronomer
"Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God." -- Johann Kepler, Scientist of Astronomy
"With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power." -- William Thompson Kelvin, Physical Scientist, Mathematician, Inventor
Ask yourself this question, "What force is it that first motivated molecules in a puddle to reproduce and then afforded them free will"? What is that force? No chemical processes have been discovered which motivates molecules to reproduce themselves in the first instance.
Then also ponder what exactly is a "field"? (magnetic field, or gravity, for instance). Magnetic fields do not exist in our dimension, but we know they exist because they have a force in our dimension that we can measure. We know it exists ONLY by its measurable actions in our dimensions, yet the fields themselves have no dimension. They cannot be seen, they have no depth, width, height, taste, odor or mass. Our senses cannot directly perceive a magnetic field, or gravity, or strong or weak fields.
Yet we know they exist by their actions in our world.
This is the same way we know ID exists. We see its results in our everyday world even though we cannot directly perceive it ourselves, just like all of the fields which form the basis of physical science.
"The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me there must be a God...." -- Paul Davies, Physical Scientist"This beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...." -- Isaac Newton
"The intellectual beauty of the order discovered by science is consistent with the physical world's having behind it the mind of the Divine Creator." -- John Polkinghorne, Physicist
It's interesting to note that as a Christian I am more open-minded than you!
[BTW: I have peer-reviewed scientific articles affirming the power of intercessory prayer (when the patients had no idea they were being prayed for). Another example of the effects of a force that we cannot see, yet acts in our own dimension in a measurable way.]
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Albert Einstein
Consider also the fact that Christians and Christian society have accelerated the advancement of science and technology at an exponentially greater pace than anybody else in the history of mankind.
The same is true for the worldwide expansion of liberty.
Those who believe Christianity stifles science or enslaves men simply do not understand what it means to be a Christian, (particularly a Protestant) or have accepted without challenge the deliberate attacks by the anti-Christians (socialists).
""The Christian Religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity to its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." -- Thomas Jefferson, Mar 23rd, 1801 letter to Moses Robinson
"We are an age characterized by the perfection of methods and the confusion of goals." - Albert Einstein
"The heavens declare the glory of God and the expanse shows the work of his hands." - Ps. 8
Our science today is infantile. We know little more about biology, the mind, the reproductive system, the cell than we did 100 years ago.
Our current mathemathics have reached limits in its ability to describe natural phenomena. We use the most tortuous mathematical language to describe quantum physics, large scale systems, chaotic behaviour, or other non-linear dynamical processes. It is no longeer adequate. We require a new paradigm in scientific language and modelling. We are babies goo-gooing and gaa-gaaing. We get our point across but the fidelity is poor.
We have barely begun to understand the universe. We better keep an open mind.
>Wow, just how ignorant are you? Science explains it just fine.<
Please enlighten me. How does science explain the origin of matter?
I've done research in genetic (evolutionary) programming. A program I use develops the formula for the area of a circle, without pi being originally present. It derives the formula on its own using evolutionary processes. The processes are very powerful and we use them to help solve very difficult problems.
But these processes do not disprove creationism. They affirm a higher creative power.
In your Dawkins program you have made several "Divine" creations.
1) You, God, have created the original material with which to work, the "1/8th of the character strings in the "population"". You have assigned certain properties to this material.
2) You, God, have created a set of rules, in step 2, by which the selection process will proceed. Since when do molecules make such decisions?
3) What force drives them to "breed" in the first place?
Why should they come together?
Evolutionary processes do take place within prescribed limits and only under the conditions previously CREATED by some creative power.
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.