Posted on 04/12/2005 11:29:22 AM PDT by presidio9
Behold the giant Galapagos tortoise! It weighs 700 pounds, lives God-only-knows how long and a couple of weeks ago when I was on the Galapagos Islands, could not be beholden at all. The tortoise we wanted to see, Lonesome George, so called because he is apparently the last of his subspecies, was in hiding. In a sense, that's appropriate because almost half of America cannot see any of the Galapagos for what they are: the home office of evolution. This is where Charles Darwin got his bright idea. It is odd to amble around the Galapagos and see the handiwork of evolution and yet at the same time bear in mind that many Americans do not accept evolution. It is belittled as a mere "theory," which is a misunderstanding of the scientific term, and even in some places where it is grudgingly accepted, it is supposed to share the curriculum with creationism, as if that - creation according to the Bible - is an alternative theory. It is, of course, just a fancy term for the creation according to Genesis, a matter of religious belief and not scientific theory or fact. Each can have its place, but not in the science curriculum.
The ongoing fight over evolution is an odd and sad one. There is nothing about Darwinian theory that cannot be ascribed to God - Darwin himself referred to "the Creator" in his "The Origin of Species" - and back when I was in college and studying evolution, my teacher began the semester by saying, behold the world of God or behold something else: It is entirely up to you.
Yet, 19 states are considering proposals that would require schools to question evolution, which is nothing less than proposals to inject religion into the curriculum. But why stop there? Why not introduce such skepticism into astronomy and have the sun revolve around the Earth or have the Earth stand still? These are questions that Clarence Darrow put to William Jennings Bryan at the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. Amazingly, they still linger.
They do so not just because, as Darwin himself conceded, there are holes in the theory of evolution, but because of an evolving political weakness in which intellectual honesty counts for less and less. Thus, you have political leaders from George Bush on down refusing to say whether they put any stock in evolution or believe, as apparently they think they should, that it is an affront and assault on religion. In 1999, Bush was asked whether he was "a creationist." He responded by not responding: "I believe children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." This proves you can go to Yale and learn nothing - not about evolution, mind you, but about intellectual integrity.
The current and ongoing assault on evolution - some Imax theaters, mostly in the South, will not show a film that makes brief references to evolution - is an assault not merely on science, but on thinking and truth and skepticism. Proponents of creationism demand that you stop thinking and instead accept religious dogma.
"There is a grandeur in this view of life," Darwin wrote about his theory.
Behold it.
"Probably on the same level as plate tectonics or that planets exist in other solar systems."
That's pretty confident.
Both are directly measurable and testable with intruments and the evidence of them is even directly observable, albeit with a very powerful visualizing instrument in the case of other planets. And, in the case of planets, we have very fine on-hand examples of what a solar system can consist.
What evidence of evolution is as strong as the evidence I just mentioned?
The selling of "Intellegent Design" is quite obviously an attempt to "prove" the existence of God by scientific argument. The method chosen is to attack evolution, which the non-scientific population doesn't understand anyway. It's obviously working.
My fear is that it will damage both science and religion in ways that neither can see today.
A massive fossil record, for one.
"Much of it is the fault of bad science education."
Perhaps we can all agree with that statement.
Science hasn't been taught well until it has been tested.
And what better fodder than addressing the best challenges thrown at it?
Beginning in Gen 2:4 God creates plants etc. before they were in the earth, because He had not yet caused it to rain.
However, I'm sure you can spin this in some way to justify your belief.
But I really wish you'd take an honest read of Genesis. And I mean READ it. Sit down and read a modern translation from Genesis 1 through 3 without stopping. The break in the stories is at Gen 2:4, where the first story comes to a conclusion, and an entirely different story begins with the words, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens".
I'm sure you'll spin it your way anyway. That's why no two denominations can ever agree.
A Free Republic depends on the 2nd amendment..
and the WILL to USE IT as intended by the founders of this Free Republic..
Cowardice to do so will result in socialism..
Socialism will NOT GO AWAY like a Moonbat when the Sun comes up..
Socialism is a symptom of the disease of a democracy..
A Free Republic is NOT a Democracy..
Like the tag line.....
"What evidence of evolution is as strong as the evidence I just mentioned?"
"A massive fossil record, for one."
I assume you meant one that proves more than the fact that a lot of different looking organisms died and got buried. And you can't be saying that people directly observed the formation of that massive record and watched organisms beneficially mutating and branching into separate species from generation to generation. And that these people are able to show evolving examples of what they observed to you so that you can see it happening for yourself.
I made a science lesson for my kids once: How can you determine for yourself that the earth is round and not flat? And they had to present it a science fair. I didn't meet a single adult there who could come up with a satisfactory experiment to prove it on their own. Nevertheless, it is as provable and observable today as it was to Jesus and his contemporaries. I seriously doubt that you can honestly say that evolution is that knowable or even as knowable as plate tectonics and extra-planetary systems.
Do you really believe that Richard Cohen would embrace the "conservative agenda" were it not for the Discovery Institute?
So it seems.
>>Proponents of creationism demand that you stop thinking and instead accept religious dogma.
Proponents of evolution demand that you stop thinking and instead accept their dogma.<<
That pretty much sums up by attitude about this whole thing. At least one side has the intellectual honesty to admit theirs is a religion.
When was rain mentioned previously in the narrative? It was not.
In the 2:4 sequence we have plants ungerminated (1) after the earth was created, (2) before there was rain and (3) before there was a man to till the earth.
In the 1:1 sequence we have the earth created before plants (check) plants created before rain (rain is unmentioned in 1:1 sequence) and before man (check).
If you want to argue that because the plants had not yet sprouted they did not yet exist, that is not specified by the text and the opposite is implied by the context. The text also draws a distinction between the creation of plants in general (sa'adeh) and the ones specifically planted in the garden (gan).
However, I'm sure you can spin this in some way to justify your belief.
There's no need to spin it, it only needs to be read with attention to detail.
But I really wish you'd take an honest read of Genesis.
As opposed to all the times I've read it dishonestly? What are you implying?
And I mean READ it.
I have, many times.
Sit down and read a modern translation from Genesis 1 through 3 without stopping.
I'll pass on the translation, thanks. I can read Hebrew just fine.
The break in the stories is at Gen 2:4, where the first story comes to a conclusion, and an entirely different story begins with the words, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens".
This is not an "entirely different story" but a recapitualation of the narrative. The generations or toledoth of the heavens and the earth is a verbal signpost indicating that we are moving in to focus on a different level of the narrative - just as when we read of the generations of Noah twice - once to introduce the specific narrative of the Flood and again to introduce the general genealogy of his numerous descendants.
I'm sure you'll spin it your way anyway.
I'm sure that even though you've used it twice in the same post, you still realize that poisoning the well is a fallacy of argumentation.
If the same author wrote Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4 as a single story, then they need some medication for schizophrenia. The style, tone, as well as specific sequences are different. We're not talking recapitulation. We're talking different.
I really like how you've picked up the word "germinated" from thin air to justify your spin. The KJV uses the term "made ... every plant", and you make up the idea that these plants were ungerminated to carry on your fiction that these aren't two different stories.
Nice.
Glad you brought up the two stories of Noah as well. More evidence that before the King James Version, and before the oldest existing Hebrew version, there existed earlier versions of Genesis that were merged together from separate sources.
But I'm sure that's not the version of dogma you were taught, and you'll defend what you were taught until the very end.
Bottom line, your version of creation does not belong in a science classroom. It belongs in a seminary.
"I just knew you could spin it."
Sorry, narby. I don't know whether wideawake is just a quick study or a genuine scholar but he's got a much better grasp on those scriptures than you pretend to.
You both might have missed the obvious: If GOD CREATED the plants and the earth he is putting them, why on earth does he need it to rain that day or the previous? Again, he's not growing them, he's creating them. That's like asking how I could possibly have a lawn since you didn't see me seeding my yard. Duh -- I put in sod.
"Bottom line, your version of creation does not belong in a science classroom. It belongs in a seminary."
And your biblical scholarship belongs in neither.
I'll pass on the translation, thanks. I can read Hebrew just fine.
Touché!
I note with interest the apologist skipping over this part.
In any case, this thread, as always, is an exercises in evolutionist misinformation, glazed with a nice frosting of ad homienm suggestions about the low intelligence or questionable motives of those who are suspicious of evolutionary dogma and sprinkled liberally with a garnish of name-calling.
When your intellectual opponents can't even accept a realistic definition of your position, you can't possibly hope to engage in a proper discussion of whether that position is correct.
Kudo's on the effort though, and thanks for making my night.
Actually, no. Jesus Christ specifically speaks affirmatively of Moses' account of Creation "in the beginning." If Moses' account is good enough for the Creator of the Universe, it's good enough for me. Is it for you?
... an assumption not universally shared by any stretch of the imagination. Personally, my Catholic school taught the multiple writers theory - that Genesis was actually written by several unknown writers. You may or may not believe that, but don't assume everyone else does as well.
"Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:4) I don't particularly care what "higher critics" and pompous-assed "scholars" think about a contrivance known as the JDEP postulate, or what incorrect teaching you happened to receive in a Catholic school. No scholar or nun is greater than Jesus Christ. Do you agree?
"Is Jesus Christ credible to speak with regard to His Creation?" Indeed Jesus would be credible for a historical account of the creation of the world if you're a Christian. That said, Jesus wasn't a historian speaking to archaeologists, giving an account of the specifics of creation.
Jesus Christ is the God of archaeologists and the God of history, too, or do you mistakenly believe that any man, whatever his supposed training or biases, knows more than the Creator of the Universe, Himself? The scripture speaks of those who are "wise in their own conceit," and who thereby subsequently wallow in their own foolishness. (Proverbs 26:12). I'll even challenge you to produce one archaeolgical find that contradicts a thing that Jesus Christ or Moses said or wrote.
The context of your posting was in terms of Christianity. My reply to you is in the context of Christianity, also.
He was, however, a messenger delivering a message. He often did so through the use of parables or stories. It's quite likely that the message of Genesis was more important for Jesus than the story/(ies) of Genesis.
Back to question 1: Jesus Christ is God. Do you agree?
If so, then as God, He is also the law giver and law interpreter. He is far more that just “a messenger.” Jesus Christ affirmed Moses’ creation account as part of a response to a matter posed to Him about a question of law. Jesus did not only speak in parables. Do not confuse when Jesus is speaking to a matter of law, and when He is speaking in parables.
"Do you believe what Jesus Christ says about His Creation?" Yes. Do I believe he's saying what some claim he's saying? No.
I think you have a problem with what Jesus said about his own Creation, because you do not appear to believe His own words about the subject. That, however, is a matter you will have to take up with Him, not me.
"The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18). They are the Law. The finger of God wrote plainly that the entire Creation came to be in the space of six literal days." Which part of the 10 Commandments states that creation came to be in six literal days?
Speaking of the commandment regarding observing the Sabbath: Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Next question?
Or are these two entirely unrelated things you're trying to join so that credibility from one statement can be handed to another which lacks support?
Jesus Christ tied His personal credibility regarding who He is straight to the writings of Moses (John 5:45-47). Jesus links Himself directly to the credibility of the writings of Moses. That's good enough for me. Is it for you?
Genesis was either written by Moses (a man), a group of men, or by 'the finger of God'. If God wrote it, the God's in need of a good shrink, as per the conflicting sequences of creation contained within Genesis.
Genesis was written by Moses. Jesus Christ says as much. Moses also wrote Exodus. Jesus Christ inspired and spoke through Moses and the prophets. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God….”(I Timothy 3:16), “…holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (I Peter 1:21), “God who…spoke in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, has…spoken to us by his Son,…by whom also He made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)
You have been shown where the book of Exodus clearly says the finger of God wrote the actual Ten Commandments. Six literal days’ creation account is Jesus Christ’s own choice of words. It is a statement of fact in God’s own words. The Ten Commandments is the Law of God; it is not a parable, nor are any of the Commandments open to debate. One accepts them at his pleasure and rejects them at his peril.
Just admit that you choose not to believe Jesus Christ. If you won’t admit it outright, we’ll let your sophistry speak for itself.
If Moses or other men wrote it, then it's only as perfect as they were. I seem to remember a story in Genesis regarding the perfection of humans - or rather, the lack thereof.
Jesus Christ is God, therefore He is perfect as is His opinion of the words He inspired Moses to write. Will you stand there and question Christ’s own credibility on this matter? Apparently so.
"If we agree that question #1 is true, and that God wrote the Ten Commandments, it is equally true to say that Jesus Christ wrote the Ten Commandments. The writer of the Law is clear. Do you believe the writer of the Ten Commandments?" You're really stretching here, but we're right back to square 1. This is known as a Complex Question, and it is a logical fallacy.
We’ll take it then that your answer is, “no,” you do not believe the writer of the Ten Commandments, which means that you do not believe Jesus Christ. But we figured that out earlier, didn’t we?
I am a natural scientist by training and by evidence of professional accomplishments over the past 25 years. I routinely resolve complex questions. I know those who are scientists who try to make things seem more complex than they really are.
I don’t know whether you happen to call yourself a scientist of any accomplishment or not, but I do recognize someone who mistakenly believes he has to make belief in the credibility of Jesus Christ something more complicated than it actually is.
Bluntly speaking it’s a yes or no answer. Either you believe Him, or you don’t.
I see it in the world of science all the time. One’s ego tends to make things unnecessarily complicated. Whether it’s the study of science or the study of scripture, one only begins to obtain understanding of the truth, when one finally masters the ability to put their ego aside long enough to do so.
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.