Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Newton predicted that the world would end in 2060. Better tell the Grandkids ...
The review makes nothing clear and the "logical errors" sounds like wishful thinking on their part.
Here's what Sternberg says about it. He doesn't identify by name the three scientists who reviewed the work. He does, however, note that Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order.
How I "want it" is utterly irrelevant to the issue, which is the content and meaning of Rev. Dyson Hague's essay, The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis, which you posted. My goal here is to accurately understand the claims that Hague makes in his article. Your goal is to read your opinions into Hague's text.
You are reading your ICR style creationism into Hague's text. It isn't there.
Hague doesn't say, or even imply, that the "days" in Genesis are twenty-four hours. Indeed it should be clear that he contemplates the possibility that they are long ages if you examine the passage I showed you earlier. Hauge first summaries the sequence of creation and then makes a point, in favor of the veracity of Genesis, of highlighting the "comparability" of this sequence to the findings of eminent scientists, which is to say conventional geologists (such as he cites elsewhere, i.e. Dana, Dawson, etc, all of whom were old-earthers).
How are six twenty four hour days, or any such brief period, as your view requires, "comparable" to the vast ages of mainstream geology?
Why does Hague refer to the earth "gradually being fitted for God's children"?
Now, it may be that Hague considered a young earth scheme of some type a possibility. If so it is only hinted at, at best, when Hague precedes a reference to "those countless aeons" the trilobite existed with: "If, as they [the geologists] say, the strata tell the story of countless aeons..."
So I'll give you an "if". Other than that you've got nothing.
Let's summarize:
Hauge, via the credence he gives to the account in Genesis of the origin of races, suggests that the origin of mankind is recent relative to the span of written history. I agree with you completely on this point.
Your next step, however, in claiming that he was thereby affirming that the earth, or life apart from humanity, was comparably recent is completely gratuitous. It's not in the text explicitly, nor is there anything in the text that justifies it by inference.
Your problem goes beyond the fact that Hague says nothing about the Genesis "days" being short. It's also the historical context. Debate about the antiquity of man had been raging for four of five decades by the time this essay was written. All of those debates assumed an ancient earth, and that other lifeforms had preceded man by long ages. Because of this context, if Hague was intending to put forward a different view he would not have left it to inference. He would have been explicit because he would have understood that, otherwise, any educated contemporary reader would have misinterpreted him, assuming the then standard framing of the question of man's antiquity.
The FOXP2 gene seems to also be critical in vocal learning even in widely different species:
Fascinating.FoxP2 Expression in Avian Vocal Learners and Non-Learners
Abstract: Most vertebrates communicate acoustically, but few, among them humans, dolphins and whales, bats, and three orders of birds, learn this trait. FOXP2 is the first gene linked to human speech and has been the target of positive selection during recent primate evolution. To test whether the expression pattern of FOXP2 is consistent with a role in learned vocal communication, we cloned zebra finch FoxP2 and its close relative FoxP1 and compared mRNA and protein distribution in developing and adult brains of a variety of avian vocal learners and non-learners, and a crocodile. We found that the protein sequence of zebra finch FoxP2 is 98% identical with mouse and human FOXP2. In the avian and crocodilian forebrain, FoxP2 was expressed predominantly in the striatum, a basal ganglia brain region affected in patients with FOXP2 mutations. Strikingly, in zebra finches, the striatal nucleus Area X, necessary for vocal learning, expressed more FoxP2 than the surrounding tissue at post-hatch days 35 and 50, when vocal learning occurs. In adult canaries, FoxP2 expression in Area X differed seasonally; more FoxP2 expression was associated with times when song becomes unstable. In adult chickadees, strawberry finches, song sparrows, and Bengalese finches, Area X expressed FoxP2 to different degrees. Non-telencephalic regions in both vocal learning and non-learning birds, and in crocodiles, were less variable in expression and comparable with regions that express FOXP2 in human and rodent brains. We conclude that differential expression of FoxP2 in avian vocal learners might be associated with vocal plasticity.
If I worked in a genetics lab with the appropriate equipment and techniques, the first thing I'd want to try would be to replace a parrot's FOXP2 gene with the human version, then hatch a chick with the resulting genome and see whether there's a quantum leap in its ability to learn and use grammar-based language.
enjoy your little book
Maybe I missed it.
Did anyone "get" your post?
Wouldn't that be the Hindu numerals which Arabs transmitted to the west?
More like what a book says God said. When the evidence contradicts the writing, it comes down to, "who're you going to believe? Me, or you're own lying eyes."
Now I have seen everything. They want everyone to accept their view on the Bible, but discourage people from actually reading the Bible!
That is exactly why creationist (YECers) whatever are a stain on Christianity.
Whatever you think it says, it doesn't.
Synchronic dating and 39 other methods date the Earth and the universe as old. [14 some billion years for the universe and some 4 billion years for the Earth]
Carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years so don't come back with anything about that or I may die of laughter.
They missed Christ's birth by about 4 years too. 4BC is no accepted.
Learn to read, it does say just that.
You just refise to believe what the Bible says.
You need to face that.
Here we call a creationist someone only if they believe in nonsense and are pretty much outside the ability of logic to understand. It is those that believe in a 6000 year old Earth and that Noah could really take all those animals on a small wooden boat for a year, those that will not accept Theories as scientific fact etc.
Just because someone believes God created everything, doesn't mean he or she is a creationist. We, who have full brain functioning, do not appreciate being lumped with creationists.
It's there, you just refuse to accept it.
Not my fault you want to believe in the evolutionary fairy tale
Who cares what Newton thought about evolution? He was a mathemetician not a biologist.
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.