Posted on 01/22/2006 4:28:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry
LOL!
Nobody's mentioned Thermodynamics lately, either.
That one lie really bothers me, though. In part because it's been so thoroughly debunked, even by creationist sites, and in part because it's not relevant.
Even if Darwin had "found religion" and somehow decided to deny his own work on his deathbed, it wouldn't change the validity of the theory. It wouldn't change the evidence. It wouldn't change the support. It wouldn't change the reality.
And yet, they keep dragging that old lie out as though it could possibly mean anything even if true. The ultimate in wishful thinking.
Really? I've never noticed you giving 10 seconds open-minded consideration of evolution. Just the same old same old every time.
That's because they don't have the first clue what science is. They imagine that "Darwinism" is a religion that relies on nothing but Darwin's "revelations" (plus a few bogus fossils like Piltdown Man). That's how they see it. Looking at things that way, if Darwin had denied evolution, that would cause his followers to doubt their "faith." An analogy would be if Moses had, on his deathbed, confessed that he made up the story about getting the Ten Commandments from God.
Alas for the creationists, Darwin's work isn't theology; it's science. It relies on objectively verifiable data. Therefore his personal recantation wouldn't mean anything -- even if he actually had lost his marbles at the end and reverted to creationism. Just as Galileo's actual recantation doesn't change anything about the evidence for the solar system.
Everything else? eg...
A 4.5 billion year old earth?
A 14 billion year old universe?
No global flood in the last several-hundred million years?
No global ecology saved by 8 people on an ark?
The common descent of all life on earth *except* the human race?
Are you open to all of those propositions?
A 4.5 billion year old earth?
Yes - maybe + - a billion here or there
A 14 billion year old universe?
Yes - probably older
No global flood in the last several-hundred million years?
Will wait and see if Noah's ark is discovered
No global ecology saved by 8 people on an ark?
Not sure what you mean by global ecology
But what I believe doesn't affect anyone else. Humans have intelligence and common sense and we can arrive at different conclusions.
The common descent of all life on earth *except* the human race?
No problem with the common descent of species.
I think what he means by "global ecology" is the fact that if there was a global flood as the story tells, all the life on earth would have arisen from the specimens contained on the arc.
That's why I never understood why Adam and Eve were such a big deal - if the stories are true, we're as much children of Noah as we are children of Adam, no? ;-)
In any case, there's no evidence for it. In fact, speciation would seem to discount any notion of a global flood in the last several million years.
I wonder if John Gould is any kin to the late Stephen J. Gould.
As always you have provided a good article for thought, and throughout the thread, have also provided valuable links for further reading...
Many thanks...
"global" (a.) - worldwide
"ecology" (n) - a system of interacting plants and animals in a particular environment
I am not sure about vegetation. I'll have to read up on what affects a flood would have.
Salinization would only be a problem if the water evaporated rather then got sucked up by the mouth of God as would be assumed by a flood myth.
If spores were in the air and floating, seems they could have ended up spread out quite a distance.
I don't believe the Bible says that the flood waters got sucked up by the mouth of God. What version is that in?
No, they're not related. Stephen Gould was the grandson of Hungarian-Jewish immigrants.
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.