Posted on 07/09/2006 8:40:40 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Reason to Believe A leading geneticist argues that science can lead to faith.
Reviewed by Scott Russell Sanders
THE LANGUAGE OF GOD
A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
By Francis S. Collins
Here we are, briefly, under the sun, one species among millions on a gorgeous planet in the remote provinces of the universe, our very existence a riddle. Of all the words we use to mask our ignorance, none has been more abused, none has given rise to more strife, none has rolled from the tongues of more charlatans than the name of God. Nor has any word been more often invoked as the inspiration for creativity, charity or love.
So what are we talking about when we talk about God? The geneticist Francis S. Collins bravely sets out to answer this question in light of his scientific knowledge and his Christian faith. Having found for himself "a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews," he seeks to persuade others that "belief in God can be an entirely rational choice, and that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science."
As a researcher who helped discover the genetic basis for cystic fibrosis and other diseases and as the director of the Human Genome Project, Collins brings strong credentials to the scientific side of his argument. For the spiritual side, he draws on Christian authorities such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis. His aim is to address "extremists on both sides of the science/faith divide." On one extreme are those scientists who insist that the universe is purely and exclusively matter, and on the other are literal interpreters of the Book of Genesis who reject the last two centuries of scientific discovery.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Metemorphic rock is not composed of sediment, except for a few scattered particles here and there. It is primarily clays.
You bet. Even better, I have geodetically mapped the water marks around the rim of the valley.
"Have you ever measured the bedding planes in the formations lining the western edge of the valley?"
You obviously don't understand the issue. This is not about bedded strata; it's about the lasting effect of a body of trapped water having remained at a particular level for a sufficient period of time to erode the 'shore' and thus prove that the event occurred. The valley has a well defined edge to the east, but to the west, the inter-leave of numerous ranges of what is known as the Franciscan melange breaks up the appearance of an edge, but the evidence is nevertheless still there; one only has to follow the particular contours to locate it.
"Do you *seriously* believe they are flood deposits??"
All of the accessible features on the surface of the earth, except for the rifts that have been generated by recent tectonic travel, are in the condition that they are in due to the flood. Flood 'deposits' are the alluvial features.
What is marble, O beyond-my-level one?
None of the ways in which you are beyond my level are at all admirable. I am not the one who is misrepresenting the content of mainstream geology on this thread. You have misrepresented what mountains are and what the evidence is from old sediment layers. Now you are misrepresenting what can happen to sediments.
You may disagree with mainstream geology, obvoiusly. However, while anyone is entitled to his own interpretation, he is not entitled to his own facts.
The oldest "sediments" are very rare and often are too metamorphosed to contain discernible fossils, although their isotope signatures may point to life having been present. Look up "metamorphic" sometime.
Despite multiple lines of evidence for a 4.5 gigayear age of the Earth, for a long time the oldest detected lithospheric rock was 3.8 billion. (I think very recently that has been upped to about 4 billion even.) Very little indeed is around from more than three gigayears ago. Immediately Precambrian rocks still aren't very common, although that's only half a gig back. The scarcity or abundance of a given age of rock is a function of that age. That's the picture you expect when the old ones are getting eaten.
Subduction is the answer. We know it happens. It has already eaten most of the oldest rocks on Earth.
In a YEC model, the old ones wouldn't exist at all. Everything would in fact be about the same age, radiometrically, which is younger than springtime. There wouldn't be anything in the world anywhere (if it came from living things) which wouldn't be datable by C14.
Now, that's a creation model making scientific, falsifiable predictions. Hooray!! The only problem is, all the predictions have long ago been falsified.
I can only conclude we are looking at different planets. Geologically, I don't even see how we can continue to meaningfully converse.
You just figured that out?
Creationists are looking at the real Earth, while you look to imagine up an earth sufficiently old for all your dreams to come true. It isn't going to happen.
Marble is calcium carbonate with various impurities acquired as the solution from which it recrystallized passed through other substances. Marble varies considerably from place to place.
I think this post pretty well says it all... =:^D
http://www.fi.edu/fellows/payton/rocks/create/metamorph.htm
This is mainstream, evidence-based geology. Not a 10,000-mile-high mountain in sight.
You may have your own cultist version of anything at all. However ... remembering how FR views things ... it can be called very bad manners to claim that your version IS the mainstream version when such is far from true.
You miss his point. You are an AM radio questioning the existence of FM. You will not get his point until you have, as he did, a defining epiphany, as ALL Christians have.
His message is not for you - yet.
"Among Collins’s most controversial beliefs is that of “theistic evolution”, which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further." And yet Collins is a refutation of his own assertion ... to be 'born again' is to take another step up (or along) the stairway/pathway of selection, as Romans so aptly describes the process of salvation/justification/glorification!
Really? When? And what did you map? And what, in your mind, is the definition of "geological mapping"? Was it done with an emphasis on stratigraphy? petrology? hydrology? sedimentology?
(psst... That would be "Noah's wife's mtDNA...)
Oh, my. Now that IS a schisty geological analysis! Thanks for the rather gneiss display of your knowledge of Geology! It's slated to go down in the annals of "this is your brain on creationism", I'm sure!
A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphic_rock - "The protolith may be sedimentary rock, igneous rock or another older metamorphic rock."
B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay - "Clay is a term used to describe a group of hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates minerals (see clay minerals), that are typically less than 2 ìm (micrometres) in diameter."
No, you're looking at "make-believe Earth", not the real one.
It was gneiss allright, but don't take it for granite.
Sometimes I marble at what people will say.
ps. Re: Noah's wife's mtDNA. Of course (duh!).
I just don't phyllite having a pun war right now....
It's goofy, certainly, but -- wouldja believe it? -- it's not goofy enough to make the list.
Fuel depots often require hydro contour plotting to determine the possible extent of contamination due to fuel leakage. Some you might loosely call stratigraphic in that it plotted the workable limits of a strata of mechanically competent material for a proposed quarry purchase. You never know what's going to come up.
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.