Posted on 07/06/2009 8:50:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
It also means that Homer predated the dinosaurs....unless.....maybe it wasn't a horse they hid in. It would explain the size.
If your morality is dependant upon creationism being "true," that's your business, but don't assume others are similarly limited.
Of course it is. You said "If evolution is true, there is no such thing as morality," which therefore makes your morality dependant upon creationism. And that's fine. If you don't think you are capable of observing a system of morality unless creationism is "true," that's your own choice.
However, for myself (and millions of other people), morality is no more affected by the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity. Understanding and accepting how the natural world works does not preclude my belief in God, nor my ability to maintain a system of morality.
Not at all. At most, if evolution is true, then your interpretation of the Bible may not be accurate. Too bad for you, but that's not my problem.
Evolution and the Bible do not mix
Again, you go much too far. If your interpretation of the Bible and evolution are not compatible, that's your problem, not mine, not that of science, and certainly not God's.
evolution is 100% external to the Bible
As is germ theory, the theory of gravity, and nuclear physics. So what? The Bible is not a science textbook. If you want to limit human understanding of the natural world to that present 2000 years ago, I suggest you turn off your computer, throw away your penicillin, and get yourself a goat.
I think you have a smaller understanding of the tenets of evolution if you don’t understand how it affects morality
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's just sophistry. My morality is not affected by understanding that species evolve through the process of natural selection any more than its affected by understanding that the earth revolves around the sun, that microbes invisible to the naked eye are responsible for infection, or that the earth may be slightly older than six thousand years old.*
*please tell me you don't also dispute any of these last three items
I don't believe you understand my point. I don't care what your Biblical interpretation is. Your interpretation of the Bible matters not one whit to my own morality, or my ability to maintain a moral system while recognizing the world around me.
Did you want to debate Biblical interpretation?
Not even a little bit. You interpret the Bible however you like. Just don't pretend that science has to modify its conclusions to suit your interpretation of a religious text, and we'll do fine.
Why is your interpretation superior?
I certainly never claimed it was. But I'm not the one insisting that my interpretation of the Bible should supercede a an entire field of science that has been supported and refined over the course of a hundred years, so that's not really my burden to bear.
If you wanna have that debate, say so.
Again, you miss the point. If you can't reconcile your own faith with the natural world, that's your problem. Its not my job, or that of science, to make you comfortable in that regard.
But if you accept the whole 4.6 billion years kit-n-kaboodle
Oh, my. You really do think that the earth is only a few thousand years old, don't you? Oh, my.
I'm not implying that your point is the latter, merely pointing out that the former is a ridiculous, wholly unsupported statement.
You can't really sit back and say that whatever I believe has to be wrong because it conflicts with what you believe.
And if that's what I were doing, we would be in agreement. However, I am not telling you that what you believe (i.e. that evolution does not occur, that if it does, it "genuinely repudiates the existence or relevance of true morality"), is wrong because it conflicts with what I believe, but what you believe is wrong because it is not supported by facts or by logic.
Which conclusions did I declare in need of change simply because they conflicted with the Bible?
You believe evolution cannot be true, and the earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old, because you believe the Bible tells you otherwise. You can hem an haw at it all you like, but that's essentially what your position amounts to. Own it.
The real pity is in you thinking science actually supports an eons-ancient earth.
Have you ever taken an earth sciences course? How about geology? Astronomy? Anthropology? Archeology? Could you please point out which of those fields supports the notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old? Because unless the textbooks have changed significantly since the time I was an undergraduate, those fields are all pretty confirm that the earth is far, far older than a few thousand years old.
Cripes, I can't believe its 2009 and I'm arguing with an adult that thinks the world is six thousand years old. And people wonder why India and China are going to eat us alive in the next generation.
For some reason, I suspect that much of that "research" took place on the AIG website or, worse, from materials provided by Kent Hovind. Am I wrong?
Why don't you peel open these planets you keep throwing at me and let's examine the contents.
I'll admit that I have no idea what that means.
Ahh, a classic set-up. You place the onus on me to "prove" my claims, but lurking in your unwritten rules of evidence is a disclaimer that no creationist research on the matter can be accepted, because a creationist rejects old-earth evolution, which is wrong. Therefore, the claim can never, in your eyes, be proven. To sidestep this amusing construct, I started consulting primarily with scientific sources (whereas before it had simply been part of the portfolio) and still found the science on old-earth evolution lacking.
However, we would need to narrow down considerably your very broad ranges of "geology, astronomy, anthropology, and archeology." Those are entire fields unto themselves, with a multitude of sub-specialties, and likewise, a plethora of sub-debates.
That's a lot of words just avoid admitting that you haven't actually taken any courses in those areas. Its more than a little sad that in 2009, a student of an accredited (presumably) college or university can skate all the way through without learning much at all about the world around him. Oh, well...America had a good run at the top, I suppose.
Well, I hate to do the job your Earth Sciences 101(b) professor should have done when you were a freshman, but each of those fields (and their multitude of sub-specialties) confirms, supports, and strengthens the position that the earth is far, far older than a few thousand years old.
If you can provide *one* field of scientific study that supports your contention that the earth is only a few thousand years old, please provide it. Otherwise, I'll accept your concession that such an idea is wholly unsupported by any legitimate science.
That's a nice way of saying you held the line and didn't let anything like "facts" or "reality" seep in and change any of your preconceived notions about the world.
Well...I'm sure that's mighty generous, but you can hardly fill the role of a "Earth Sciences 101(b)" teacher if you don't even know how illogical it is to ask me to prove a negative. We've already established that you've never taken a science course, but if you think asking you to "provide *one* field of scientific study that supports your contention that the earth is only a few thousand years old" is asking you to prove a negative, you should probably revisit your extensive debate education as well.
At some point, there were compelling arguments to convince you than, man, this evolution stuff was spot-on. So what I'm asking you to do is tell me what it was. Why don't you pick three of those persuasive pieces of evidence, from any field including the aforementioned, and let's discuss.
Generally, its considered pretty disingenuous to avoid answering someone's questions by asking your own, but nonetheless I'll do you the courtesy you were unable or unwilling to extend to me.
First, you assume incorrectly that understanding a scientific theory like evolution can be boiled down to three data points and then discussed in a vacuum. That's not how it works. Evolution is confirmed (and constantly refined and strengthened) by how tens of thousands of pieces of data fit together. Those pieces of data have accumulated over the course of a century, and pretending that evolution can be discussed intelligently by cherry-picking three pieces of data and ignoring how they fit into the larger picture is one of the reasons why creationists are able to remain so wilfully ignorant.
But, since you asked, the theory of evolution is most persuasively supported, in my humble, nonscientific opinion, by the study of molecular biology (which demonstrates the genetic relationships between related species and is an enormously powerful tool for examining how species have evolved over the millenia), the fossil record (which amounts to assorted snapshots of different species and their ancestors taken at different points in time), and laboratory experimentation that demonstrates natural selection (i.e. experiments with fruit flies, bacteria, etc., in which scientists can apply specific pressure over thousands of generations and observe the natural selection).
Now, before you start typing away feverishly at a post demonstrating the myriad ways creationists can fail to understand those areas of evolutionary theory, you need to understand that this is a two-way street. I have answered your question, so I expect you to answer mine: what field of scientific study supports your contention that the earth is only a few thousand years old?
I extended you the courtesy of providing three areas of study which demonstrate the validity of the theory of evolution. Rather than address them, you disingenuously ignore those items and ask for others. When I stated that the fossil record demonstrates the theory of evolution, I wasn't talking about just the horse fossil record, or the turtle fossil record. I mean the whole fossil record. That's why its such a powerful piece of evidence, and that's why your desire to cherry-pick certain species is a clearly a dodge. If you want to argue why the three areas actually support your notion of young earth creationism, then do it. But don't just keep asking for different responses when you've already received direct answers. That's not only rude, but very dishonest.
Then, you utterly fail to respond to my request for just *one* are a of science that supports your contention that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Weak, DLR. Very weak.
Out of curiosity, it this a "lot of words just avoid admitting that you haven't actually taken any courses in those areas"...?
No. Unlike you, I've taken (and bothered to learn from) undergraduate courses in earth sciences, biology, astronomy, and anthropology. I'm merely acknowledging that I am not a professional scientist, but unlike YEC's such as yourself, I at least make an honest effort to understand their work. Seriously, DLR...do yourself a favor and pick up a good science journal some time and give it a read. You may be surprised that you actually *like* learning about the world around you instead of just arguing with people who already have.
You have yet to respond to my question. Why do you bother typing hundreds of words if you can’t even answer a simple, direct question?
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.