Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[Celtjew Libertarian]

You'd have the same effect if it was local. Occam's Razor.

But I don't think you'd have quite the consistency across legends.

Besides, one huge disaster is fewer "entities" if you will than many small ones.

[andysandmikesmom]

PH, you are such a sweet guy...

[PatrickHenry]

PH, you are such a sweet guy...

That's why everybody on FR loves me.

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks for that..a huge number of websites popped up, lots of reading for me to do...appreciate this, King...

[js1138]

There is little possibility of reconciling these two styles of argumentation.

Sure there is. Science does not make proclamations regarding ultimate truth, the afterlife, and so forth, and religion accepts that there is a kind of useful knowledge that can be accumulated through the methods of science. St. Augustine recognized centuries ago, even before Galileo, that it is folly for religion to make proclamations about the visible world that are patently false. And the New Testament distinguishes between that which can be seen and that which cannot.

[King Prout]

just passing it on - the big dogs introduced me to the cargo cult phenom about 2 years back

[js1138]

Just keep those bodily fluids pure. Plenty of vodka.

[js1138]

But I don't think you'd have quite the consistency across legends.

I suggest you read lots of legends if you think they are consistent. A few flood stories, cherry picked for consistency, do not make consistency. Bear in mind that there was significant trade between the middle east and asia.

Now if you want to speculate on an ancient worldwide flood that actually happened just a millennium or so before the earliest known writing, try the melting of the glaciers at the end of the ice age. Sea levels rising 200 feet, possibly flooding everything coastal.

[Liberal Classic]

I did not mean to imply that science and faith cannot be reconciled. I personally believe they can, and I have worked with people in scientific research, in the applied sciences, and in engineering who are also devout and observant.

However, for the purposes of this particular sub-forum, I am of the opinion there is little chance of reconciliation because, frankly, there are some people who will not be reconciled. Therefore, scientific topics should be considered toxic to the religion forum.

[andysandmikesmom]

Cargo cult placemarker...

[js1138]

No disagreement. The ability to reconcile surface contradictions does not appear to be something you can learn. Scientist know from their work that they will never answere the deep questions, and do not try.

They can, however, tell when observable facts conflict with literal interpretations of religious texts. St. Augustine had the answer.

[PatrickHenry]

I did not mean to imply that science and faith cannot be reconciled. I personally believe they can ...

Certainly. But one must be willing to accept that some prior understanding of scripture may have been mistaken. Favorite example: the solar system, which conflicts with earlier reading of scripture. But when one insists on a word-for-word literal reading of scripture, there can't be any reconciliation with science. That's why some denominations have no problem with science, while others have nothing but problems. It's a denominational issue, not a science issue.

[Coyoteman]

- Because we have WORLD-WIDE EVIDENCE of a WORLD-WIDE FLOOD...

Sorry to have to break this to you but that is incorrect.

Archaeology in the western US has not found EVIDENCE of a global flood, and no amount of protests to the contrary can change what the EVIDENCE has shown.

Now if you had prefaced your statement with, "I believe" that would be one thing. You of course are free to believe as you wish.

But for a layman to tell working archaeologists what they have or have not found is another.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

We're going around in circles. The point is, the flood stories could be, at least partially, a memory of a disaster that resulted in the genetic bottleneck.

I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm saying it's plausible.

[King Prout]

~ AN ~
APPARENT PARODY
~ PLACEMARKER ~

[Coyoteman]

- Because we have WORLD-WIDE EVIDENCE of a WORLD-WIDE FLOOD...

Sorry to have to break this to you but that is incorrect.

Archaeology in the western US has not found EVIDENCE of a global flood, and no amount of protests to the contrary can change what the EVIDENCE has shown.

Now if you had prefaced your statement with, "I believe" that would be one thing. You of course are free to believe as you wish.

But for a layman to tell working archaeologists what they have or have not found is another.

[Coyoteman]

Not sure why I got two versions of the abobe post, nor why EVIDENCE was in caps. It was not in caps in my working version or my preview. I despise the use of all caps to emphasize points.

Software is flaky tonight?

[King Prout]

infectious CAPLSLOKitis?