Replies

Question for the evolutionists. Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution and accept a literal Genesis account of creation? If so, second question, what kind of evidence would it take. Please describe.

Question for the ~~evolutionists~~ you. Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution and accept a literal ~~Genesis~~ Mahabharata account of creation? If so, second question, what kind of evidence would it take. Please describe.

Answer, NO!! There is not, why, because I was raised a Roman Catholic, and here is what the biblical scholars of the Roman Catholic church have to say about A literal interpretation of the bible.

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0156.htm

VATICAN CITY, Italy - The Vatican criticized a literal interpretation of the Bible
and said the fundamentalist approach to scripture was “a kind of intellectual suicide.”
A Vatican document said fundamentalism “refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been
expressed in human language... by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.”
The 125-page document, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, was written by the Pontifical Biblical Com-mission, a group of scholars who assist the Pope in the study of scripture.
It noted that a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible had been gaining strength. The Vatican is
increasingly concerned about the number of Catholics, especially in Latin America, who have abandoned the church for fast-growing fundamentalist sects.
“The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life,” the document said. Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide.”
A fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible began during the Reformation, when Protestants showed an increasing concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of scripture.
The document said fundamentalism refused to admit that there was a human element in the transmission of the Word of God.
One member of the commission, Jesuit Father Joseph Fitzmyer, said fundamentalists failed to recognize that several years elapsed between the time Jesus spoke and the time when the gospels were written.
“There was no stenographer, no one with a tape recorder on that time,” said Fitzmyer.
From The Star, 1994 Manila, Philippines

Did you see this?
Here let me spell it out...

A fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible began during the Reformation, when Protestants showed an increasing concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of scripture.

Do you get it yet?

A literalist interpretation of the bible is a fairly new phenomenon.

Again, I thought you had a degree in this stuff, shouldn't you KNOW this?

How about this part?

A Vatican document said fundamentalism “refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been
expressed in human language... by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.”

Do you understand what that means?

Perhaps you do, but you obviously do not care.

Literalism is a relatively NEW phenomenon. And to twist what I said into something I didn't, should be above even you.

Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution and accept a literal Genesis account of creation? If so, second question, what kind of evidence would it take. Please describe.

Sure. If an entity materialized before me, gave evidence of omnipotence, solved a couple of unanswered questions in a convincing way, and then told me he desgined the whole thing, with plausible answers for a few questions about inconsistencies in Genesis, and many questions about the inconsistencies between Genesis and virtually every field of science, I'd be happy to accept the Genesis creation story.

Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution and accept a literal Genesis account of creation?

The geologic column could look like the residue of a great flood. (But it's a little late for that.)

The paleontological record could show that all the modern species have been around from the beginning. (But it's a little late for that.)

The preponderance of evidence could show that the earth is about 6K years old. (But it's a little late for that.)

I could go on, but the problem is that all the really important evidence is in already. Similarly, it's too late to prove the phlogiston theory of fire. It's already been conclusively shown to be wrong.

Question for the evolutionists. Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution and accept a literal Genesis account of creation? If so, second question, what kind of evidence would it take. Please describe.

That would take many examples of 2000 year old dinosaur bones (not fossils), the name of Cain's wife, a newly discovered Dead Sea scroll with an explanation of how all the sauropods fit into an ark that was way too small, wake up in the morning and find all our technology was just a dream, and receive lots of ice cream (my wife bribes me with ice cream, too). ;)

But seriously, you'd have destroy an awful lot of data to make it work. I don't see how it's possible.

Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution and accept a literal Genesis account of creation? If so, second question, what kind of evidence would it take. Please describe. RWP: Sure. If an entity materialized before me, gave evidence of omnipotence, solved a couple of unanswered questions in a convincing way, and then told me he desgined the whole thing, with plausible answers for a few questions about inconsistencies in Genesis, and many questions about the inconsistencies between Genesis and virtually every field of science, I'd be happy to accept the Genesis creation story.

That's a good start, but I'd have to have a few days to be convinced that I wasn't delirious. If you've ever had a close relative or friend become delirious due to fever, infection, or drug reaction, you come away with an altered sense of what kinds of imaginary worlds the human mind can create when it's on the fritz.

Any story that replaces evolution will have to explain all the data that points to evolution in a consistent and coherent way. Nothing on this thread so far is even consistent with the data.

Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution and accept a literal Genesis account of creation? If so, second question, what kind of evidence would it take. Please describe.

There are three tasks that the evidence would have to perform.

The hard task is that it would have to provide much of the (hitherto undiscovered) evidence we would expect easily to have found, were the Biblical account factually true.

The much harder task is that it would have to discredit several enormous bodies of evidence that objective scientists have painstakingly compiled over the last five hundred years, evidence from which our currently accepted models have been derived.

The very hardest task is that it would have to explain why the accepted models have hitherto worked so startlingly well, both qualitatively and quantitatively, and coming both from the direction of observation and from the direction of theory. Furthermore, the new evidence would also have to explain why the Biblical claims have hitherto been in such miserable disagreement with the old evidence.

Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution and accept a literal Genesis account of creation? If so, second question, what kind of evidence would it take. Please describe.

Er, if I may offer two cents to the discussion…

I am from the Creation/Intelligent Design camp and thus the challenge was not addressed to me --- however I believe there are a few things which would get the attention of the science community. For instance:

1. If the sound waves in the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation which were captured when light formed and went its way actually said something from Genesis in an ancient Hebrew dialect, e.g. “In the beginning, God created” or “Let there be light” etc. --- then I believe the rabbis and Christian theologians would be asked to the table to help figure it all out.

2. If the research into biogenesis/abiogenesis or the big bang concluded that there was a substantial algorithm necessary to initiate life or the universe, e.g. process, conditionals, recursives, autonomy, symbolizations – then I believe the intelligent design scientists would be asked to the table as well.

3. If the scientists were faced with an undeniable miraculous event which specifically tied back to the Bible – something stronger than the Bible Code or the Shroud of Turin -- then they would question materialist epistemology altogether.

Personally, I do not believe God will allow any of this to happen – or reveal Himself so directly before the time comes. I say this because it would work against faith and would be inconsistent with the Word in 1 Cor 1:21-29 and Matt 13:10-11.

Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution

The classic "rabbit fossil in a preCambrian rock" would certainly count. In fact, any well-documented out-of-place fossils would certainly throw the standard theory for a loop.

Another thing that would cause one to doubt the ToE would be finding that the clasification of organisms based on different proteins, genes, "junk" dna, etc., gave different phylogentic trees, or no tree at all.

So far, none of this has happened, but logically it *could*

and accept a literal Genesis account of creation?

If "literal Genesis" means YEC, I can't really think of anything - there's just too much overlapping redundant evidence for the earth being billions of years old. You'd have to, anong other things, show that the rates of radioactive decay have changed (in a consistent manner across isotopes), while at the same time preserving the other laws of physics. I can't imagine what sort of esperiments/observations could cause such fundamental changes in so many independent branches of knowledge.

I need to rephrase this, I have realized.

A: as far as evolution, if there is evidence out there that disproves evolution, I will look at it, but until science itself decides that the theory is unable to compete with the new theory, THEN I will accept the new theory, but creationism ain't it.

B: as far a literalist interpretation of the bible, NO, never in a million years. Why? because I know FAR too much about the history of the bible, to ever take it literally.

It is a GREAT book, but it is mainly allegorical and morality based, it is NOT meant to be taken literally.

Man is a spiritual creature, and that is where the bible reaches, not to the brains, as in literal, but to the spirit, or the soul.

So, there is no way that I would ever take the bible literally, it would blind me to the magnificence of god's creation as shown through the scientific process.

The more that is discovered through science, the more wondrous it becomes.

There, and on that note, I bid EVERYONE a good night and have a great week, I will see you all on Sunday night after my homeschooling astronomy trip, cross your fingers and hope I catch some fish, because trout is on the menu for Friday!!