Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back
The New York Times ^ | 9/20/2005 | CORNELIA DEAN

Posted on 09/20/2005 7:02:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 1,261-1,272 next last
To: bvw
I find it odd that you would seem to hold to a love of predeterminism. That is, YOUR perfect world would be all Christmas magic, sugar-tart perfect and candy-cane good 24/7 -- forever. What a nonsense perfection that would be.

No, I just find it odd that you see signs of a designer in things that eat children's eyes.

It just strikes me as odd.

721 posted on 09/21/2005 5:31:48 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis

I wouldn't even bother, my friend - trying to turn the discussion into something about me is basically a white flag of surrender on the actual topic at hand.


722 posted on 09/21/2005 5:41:48 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: stremba
"The Bible actually says that light was created on the first day, plants on the third and the sun on the fourth. The plants therefore could have had light on the third day. Plants require light to live, not the sun."

True. But when one tries to say that the "days" were longer than a 24-hour period, they have to account for the idea that id the days were extremely long, with an equal amount of light and day, the plants could not have lived.

That point is where I stump the evolutionary creationists every time.

They can't account for that.
723 posted on 09/21/2005 5:48:49 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Nope, God can always do it again if He so chooses. :-)

As a matter of fact, He may have done it before an we just don't know it.


724 posted on 09/21/2005 5:49:58 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
"As a matter of fact, He may have done it before an we just don't know it."


The age of the dinos is not proof that another age was?
725 posted on 09/21/2005 6:00:11 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'

Why could plants not survive a million year "day" with equal amounts of darkness and light? Who says that there had to have been 500000 years of darkness followed by 500000 years of light?


726 posted on 09/21/2005 6:06:35 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Consider Isaiah 47 the whole chapter.


727 posted on 09/21/2005 6:11:36 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'

What and who does light signify? What and who does darkness signify?


728 posted on 09/21/2005 6:15:09 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Well, as you must have noticed by the other responses to your post on this, science oriented folk already know that every smidgen of every bit of every science is tentative.

The problem I see is that we are not anywhere nearly as aware as we should be that, since "scientists say" is considered to be a highly authoritative statement, we're asking the public to let us have it both ways without
explaining why we should.

Generally it works out ok, but, in the case of evolution, with many opposed on religious grounds, everything seems both more tentative and more dogmatic than it really is.

Since, in practice, we cannot put disclaimers on everything, and putting disclaimers on only some things makes them seem more tentative than they really are, perhaps you could suggest another alternative. My own first thought would be a public education program of some sort teaching how science really works, but that sounds expensive.

Another idea, closer to your suggestion, would be a flyer handed out when people enter a museum; the downside there being only fairly science oriented folk tend to go to science museums in the first place.

Are you game to comment on my comments on your comments on my comments? :-)

729 posted on 09/21/2005 6:19:33 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'

Further your argument is not so strong as you think. Study of modern science shows that the Bible could be literally correct AND the universe could be 12-15 billion years old.

Relativity theory tells us that there are no preferred reference frames. That is the reference frame of the early universe and our current reference frame are equivalent. This means that if you make the same measurement from both of these reference frames and find a different value for this measurement, then we cannot say that one measurement is correct and the other is incorrect.

Relativity further states that time is a measurement that is dependent on your reference frame. This implies that it is possible for two different observers to differ in their measurement of the duration of a given event. One circumstance in which this is possible is when one observer is in a low gravitational field and the other is in a high gravitational field.

Consider now big bang cosmology. This states that all the energy (which is equivalent to mass via relativity) in the universe was once confined to a very small space in the early moments of the universe. This implies that there was a very large gravitational field present during this time, much higher than what we now experience. Relativity tells us that an observer in a low gravitational field would measure a longer duration for an event than an observer in a high gravitational field. Therefore, an observer (ie. God, from whose point of view the Genesis creation account must be written) in the early moments of the universe would measure the duration of time passing during the creation process (It's interesting that both the Bible and modern science state that creation involves a process and not just God instantaneosly speaking everything into existence, isn't it?) as a much shorter time (ie. six days) than an observer in the present universe would (ie. 12-15 billion years).

I personally fail to see why people find such conflicts between science and religion. In my mind, science is just the study of God's creation. Unless you really believe that science is a construct of Satan, how could science and religion possibly conflict? Of course, science doesn't specifically deal with religious questions; that's just not the nature of science. However, science also cannot conflict with religion. Both are means of discovering the truth of creation.


730 posted on 09/21/2005 6:20:47 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton

How do we know that these 13 physical constants are not really related in some way? That is, how do we know that there isn't just one underlying constant that gives rise to the apparent 13, but we don't realize it because we lack a unified field theory or some other more comprehensive theory in physics? For example, at one time, there was no reason to believe that the vacuum permissivity (which if you are not familiar deals with the strength of attraction or repulsion caused by electrical charges) and the speed of light were not separate physical constants. After the work of Maxwell, we now recognize that they are not independent constants, but rather are related. In a similar vein, it may very well turn out that these 13 constants are all related in some way to the fundamental structure of the universe. Even if this is not the case, however, the fact that there are 13 constants that have to have a precise value for us to exist is only evidence of a creator for those who already believe. It can also be evidence, for example, that we were just extremely lucky.


731 posted on 09/21/2005 6:28:46 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: stremba

"Why could plants not survive a million year "day" with equal amounts of darkness and light? Who says that there had to have been 500000 years of darkness followed by 500000 years of light?"

It's funny that this idea has to be invoked to make the long day theory real, isn't it?

The Bible makes no account for that idea, but many just add it to justify their own view.

The statement that the "evening and the day were the first day" just sums it up.

God is God. Tell me why he needs an extremely long period of time.

The Bible says He created most things by His voice, i.e., "and God said".


732 posted on 09/21/2005 6:33:28 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: stremba

"Why could plants not survive a million year "day" with equal amounts of darkness and light? Who says that there had to have been 500000 years of darkness followed by 500000 years of light?"

It's funny that this idea has to be invoked to make the long day theory real, isn't it?

The Bible makes no account for that idea, but many just add it to justify their own view.

The statement that the "evening and the day were the first day" just sums it up.

God is God. Tell me why he needs an extremely long period of time.

The Bible says He created most things by His voice, i.e., "and God said".


733 posted on 09/21/2005 6:33:30 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

I thought it was only the strange quarks that are liberals...oh well, learned some new physics today.


734 posted on 09/21/2005 6:35:30 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: stremba

"Further your argument is not so strong as you think. Study of modern science shows that the Bible could be literally correct AND the universe could be 12-15 billion years old."

Now, list me one single scientist whoever prophesied his place of birth, family of origin and mode of death.

A Bible that is so clear in it's prophetic sense concerning a coming Messiah is worth more than any one else's view on the origin and species of our planet.

The same Bible that told us that He made it all in 6 days also says He placed the stars in the sky and knows them by name.

PS- I won't be able to go back and forth on this all day, as I am at work.


735 posted on 09/21/2005 6:37:36 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'

Peter, that designated founder of the "church" tell us how long these days of creation were and they were not one of our 24 hour days.

Now depending upon where you live on this planet a day is not split into half and half.


736 posted on 09/21/2005 6:38:43 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Baghdad Bob?


737 posted on 09/21/2005 6:49:18 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
What and who does light signify? What and who does darkness signify?


The light symbolizes Christ, as stated in John 1. Jesus referred to Himself as the light of the world.

The darkness symbolizes sin, or a veiled mind concerning truth. The Bible itself is a mystery, and we need to stay in it to have revelation.

I am of the opinion that the light created on the first day was for two purposes.

First, it was used to create time. This is why God calls Himself "The Ancient of Days". In other words, He is older than time itself. He abides in a realm without the restrictions of time.

Second, I think that the "light" on the first day was symbolic of Christ's pending appearance. As stated already, Jesus called Himself the "Light of the World". In one place the scriptures say that Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundations of the Earth." Since we know that "light" (in the sense of Jesus' character) is illumination of the mind, I think it's fair to say that possibly the light on the first day also demonstrates that there was a plan to bring Jesus on the scene at a later day.

One strong reason to believe that is that John 1 declares Jesus is the Creator, as I already laid out in an earlier post. It would seem fitting that the one who created the light would tell a story through it.

In another place, Jesus is called the Sun of Righteousness. The Bible tells us that "one day is worth a thousand years, and thousand years is worth a day". This is given to help us hold a prophetic time line.

Our sun was created on the 4th day, and the Lord was born on the Earth on the 4th day (4th 1000 year period).

With all that. I like to major on the majors and minor on the minors. God id not half as interested in what we believe about creation as He is about whether or not we accept Jesus.
738 posted on 09/21/2005 6:49:46 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

Your definition is a bit faulty. From everything I've seen a system is defined to be IC if removal of any part of that system results in a loss of functionality of the system. There's nothing in that definition that says that the reduced system cannot perform some OTHER function or that there must be no survival advantage to an organism possessing only some subset of the individual parts. There are really three claims made in the whole IC argument for intelligent design. Namely:

1) that there exist systems in organisms that are irreducibly complex, a claim which I don't dispute. The bacterial flagellum is an example of such a system.

2) That irreducibly complex systems cannot have resulted from an evolutionary process, a claim that has been debunked. For example, it's been shown that all of the parts making up the bacterial flagellum give a survival advantage to the bacterium, most as parts of an excretory system. This claim can be further debunked by the realization that evolution can lead to a LOSS of parts and not just a gain. A system could evolve in such a way that there are redundant parts present, the redundant parts could then be lost and an IC system formed. That is, a system with parts ABCD and E could evolve in stepwise fashion starting with A, proceeding to AB, etc. with each step performing the function incrementally better. However it's possible for parts A and B to be redundant, ie. CDE performs the function just as well as ABCDE. An organism that lost A and B would then be left with an IC system since systems CD, DE, CE, C, D and E lack the functionality of the system. Therefore, the claim that an IC system cannot evolve is false.

3) The presence of an irreducibly complex system implies that there must have been an intelligent designer responsible for that system, a claim that is patently unfalsifiable, and hence unscientific. Note that claim 2 is usually presented as the main justification for asserting this claim. The falsity of claim 2 really eliminates any rational basis for asserting this claim, rendering the whole ID idea a philosophical/religious one rather than one with basis in rationality or science.


739 posted on 09/21/2005 6:50:12 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I'm finally egged on to comment the Pascal's wager thing.

Here's my take: true belief is not the same as professed belief. I should hope that God can tell the difference. So, the phrase "choose to believe in God" is senseless.

And a good, kindly, honest, upright atheist has it all over a mean-spirited, dishonest, conniving so-called believer any day in my book, and I suspect in God's book also.


740 posted on 09/21/2005 6:55:06 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 1,261-1,272 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson