"Evolution".
From the man who said, "History is bunk."
Posted on 06/21/2003 10:52:07 AM PDT by UnklGene
"Evolution".
From the man who said, "History is bunk."
The 1st verse of Genesis is a stand alone: "In the beginning God created (barah) the heaven and the earth." That's it.
2nd verse: "And the earth became without form, and void (tohu bohu); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Note that here it is translated "became" instead of "was". Which is very interesting. Why?
The explanation I have heard is that between the 1st and 2nd verse occurred the "war in heaven" where Satan was cast down, etc. In which case, what happens when God deals with the earth is that earth was destroyed (became without form and void) in that war. In which case, God effectively does a "system reboot" and a "system recovery" (obviously from his good reality backup archives). Which takes 6 days (however you want to specify the length of the days.) Sounds flakey, right? But here is the benefit of this variant interpretation:
1st, there is no problem whatsoever with the age of the universe, dinosaurs, or anything else. It all happened (generally) as explained by science (although, like I said, I don't buy the "theory" of evolution per se as it exists now.)
2nd, since God is doing a system reboot, he "recovers" the damage from the war of heaven. The description can be somewhat figurative ("the face of the waters" doesn't have to mean 'water' water), but he doesn't have to recover everything in the same original order (thus he has "light" before the stars, sun, moon).
3rd, no problem with the creation of Adam. He wants to create Adam, he uses existing DNA stock and modifies it. No conflict with fossil record, etc.
And so on. See the neat thing is, this account does not have any conflict whatsoever with our understanding of geology, archeology, history, physics, or anything else. Plus it provides both an explanation for and a timeframe for the "war in heaven" to have occurred.
The funny thing is, a scientist will not, strictly speaking, have any problem with this account (because there is no scientific basis for judging it, either for or against.) But plenty of Christians will complain about it for various sectarian reasons.
Thanks. It's been a while since I've read the book....and, then there's my memory.
Other useful attributes of good theories:
(1) Good theories make predictions about things yet to be observed. Confirmation of predictions strengthens belief in the theory. It must be possible to determine unambiguously that a prediction is false.
(2) If two theories are equally successful in explaining a set of phenomena and predicting new observations, scientists generally prefer the simpler theory that postulates the smaller number of explanatory concepts or simpler concepts.
(3) In general, scientific observation implies the capacity to measure things. If you can't measure it, it's not real! If you can't measure it, you can't study it scientifically.
The "theory" of evolution as it exists today flunks all of the above criteria. What does it usefully predict? Is it simple? Can you measure stuff with it? No. So, while the "theory" of evolution is technically a theory (by dictionary definition), it is a pretty crappy one. It depends upon our knowledge of genetics for inheritance of characteristics...but provides no observable mechanism for the evolution of new species. Yes, it says that an "accumulation of mutations" can do the trick. Maybe. We know this works at the level of viruses. But not higher level organisms. Yes, insects can "evolve" in the sense that a species can become resistant to insecticides (because most of them die off and only the ones with the resistant genes have offspring) but this has not been shown to lead to new species. And so on.
My personal belief is that "evolution" may have occurred, but that it is/was guided evolution. That we live in a n dimensional universe where n = 10 or 11, not 3. And that our "structures" are therefore 10 or 11 dimensional. And that the guidance occurs from those other dimensions that we cannot perceive with our 5 senses. But that is just my belief and of course, not a theory.
What's this? Some kind on new SIM game?
How does this differ from Last Thursdayism? How do you decide which is correct?
Jeez, in a year of paleontology courses, most of the fundamental transitional forms were represented by dotted lines. They still are. Hypothetical ancestral stocks abound, but most species appear in the fossil record fully developed, even in the midst of an adaptive radiation, with a dearth of transitional forms.
The more you know, the shakier it gets, especially outside of any particular Genus. The chief factor involved at that level is the taxonomic (morphological) definition of a species, based upon fragmented skeletal (or other hard-part remains), not interbreeding viability (used with non-extinct organisms).
I also have problems with the way evolution is taught, especially when it is taught as occuring as a result of the will of individual members of a species causing morphological changes which are passed on genetically to descendants.
The entire theory depends on a genetic crapshoot in which the losers do not get to breed, causing changes in the gene pool, but rarely, (if ever) giving rise to viable, mutated offspring which will affect the genetic component of subsequent generations.
These would have to form a population of viable (capable of producing their own breeding offspring), mutated offspring in order to be a separate (new) species, and yet be a group which would be incapable of breeding with the members of the 'ancestral' species and producing viable offspring.
I am a scientist, and I remain unconvinced.
What evidence?
Even evolutionists agree that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support evolution. Rather it supports special creation.
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.