I responded to your message in post #213.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
|
I responded to your message in post #213.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Joe, Thanks for taking the time to write this up for me. This is interesting and informative. The Britannica's version was similar but shorter, and of course I summarized even more. I did know about the "found" document, which apparently some people think was written after the fact. Galileo said it was news to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
The conviction --on disobedience-- is definitely different from what I read and sounds a bit like a technicality. Is this important? I mean weren't they really after him about the heliocentrism and his slightly snotty attitude? What I read was that although he'd had the backing up the second pope, Galileo's presentation --with two sides arguing -- made the church's side of the argument look foolish and the Church was basically forced to take offense. It sounds like the whole thing was very political. But it WAS about heliocentrism, which was considered heretical, wasn't it?
It reminds me of the Scopes trial, where Scopes's conviction was overturned because the judge sentenced him instead of leaving it to the jury--a technical error. As a result, the ACLU never got to challenge the decision. They had hoped to take it to a higher court.
Tom, you must have misunderstood me. Here it says why you think science's understanding of the fossil record might be incorrect in some details.Quote:
Large numbers of scientists disagree. I might add that the fossil record is not as clear as you would like to present it. The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have see myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.
This does not say what your own interpretation of the record is. Do you not have one? It's fine if you don't. I just assumed you did, since I didn't notice that you said you didn't.
No, I am not arguing with science. I simply corrected your description of what has been actually physically found in the record.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
This is where it gets almost impossible. If you have done any studying of the fossil record, you'll know that asking for a person to interpret the fossil record is like asking a doctor how you cure disease. The answer is varied depending upon which aspect you are looking at.Quote:
This does not say what your own interpretation of the record is. Do you not have one? It's fine if you don't. I just assumed you did, since I didn't notice that you said you didn't.
What wasn't reflected in my synopsis was that the Dominicans and the Jesuits were battling for ideological edge, there had been nearly 100-years of war with the Protestants, spies and heretics were seen under every bush and around every tree. Many scholars trace the origins of the “age of enlightenment” a.k.a. the age of rationalism to the early 1600's primarily to Descartes' Discourse on the Method: " Cogito ergo sum" ( roughly, I think, therefore I am). The Roman Church justly felt it was under attack, both literally, figuratively and dogmatically. This was just one silly little play on a world stage of deadly serious ideas and events– some of which, rationalism, still plague us to this day. No, this was more about politics than heliocentrism – the Catholic response merely focused on the wrong sinner.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Well, being from Tennessee, the ACLU can go hang itself if for no other reason than their arrogant and condescending attempt to make us look like a bunch of hillbilly boobs. Just in case you need to know, I've got a pair of Sunday go-to-meeting shoes that I wear every Sunday; I only go barefooted during the week. So's we'uns be's sophisticated too - at least on Sundays.
JoeT
I’m almost certain someone has already posted this among the 11 pages of responses, but the bible was in my opinion intended to be interpreted metaphorically, and not to be read literally.
In the case of Evolution, The real question is “what is the value of one of god’s days is?” Could a day from god’s perspective be equivalent to gazillions of years in the eyes of man? If so that would make sense for me.
That is the only way I can honestly bridge the gap between evolution and biblical scripture.
I'm just asking why you think it's there and what, in the most general terms, it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This is more like asking a guy at a party what he does for a living. He says something like, "I'm a doctor; I try to help people who are sick or injured." He doesn't have to tell you how he does that for each disease.
JoeT777
Thanks much for that.
It ia very interesting.
I wonder how much that eventually lead the Catholic Church to build the very first space observatory.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
You may be thinking of me. I don't think there's any gap in need of being bridged.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredypants
scaredypants
That a day in God's time could be billions of years is believed by a great many people including me.
The bible even says that a day in God's time is a thousand years and that was written thousands of years ago when a billion of anything was not a popular belief.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Sorry, I don't know what you are thinking of or what you are expecting. You need to be more specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Again, as I said to Akoue, why don't you do as you did last time. Rather than ask me some incredibly vague question, why not give your perspective on the topic focus that is of interest to you and I'd be happy to respond, as I did before when you posted on what you thought that the fossil record looked like.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I have looked at a lot of aspects of the fossil record and just asking someone argue question like that will get you an equally vague answer like - they are there because the organic material was replaced by minerals. An answer that gives as much information as the question.
So let's not run around in circles - get to the point. Give us your viewpoint on the area of interest and that will help focus the discussion.
The context of that passage is in reference to how longsuffering God is to sinful man.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
2 Peter 3:6-9
. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
NKJV
The creation account is specific that the days are night and day, for example:
Gen 1:13
13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
NKJV
What I think is odd maybe because I'm "one those people" but I don't see how anyone of reason could believe in creation or intelligent design even people that believe in a god.
Follow me here lets say we all agree that there is a god for a moment and that he is the all powerful perfect creator of everything. So far he has stuck with a consistent design a natural, explainable, understandable one; why in the middle would he change that design? It wouldn't make sense why make everything else a natural solution but cheat on the design for life? Why not use your power and make if follow rules and appear natural just like everything else?
And I don't see how anyone of logic or reason could fail to see the evidence of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I don't follow your reasoning. Please explain your premises. What are you using as the basis for your premises.Quote:
Follow me here lets say we all agree that there is a god for a moment and that he is the all powerful perfect creator of everything. So far he has stuck with a consistent design a natural, explainable, understandable one; why in the middle would he change that design? It wouldn't make sense why make everything else a natural solution but cheat on the design for life? Why not use your power and make if follow rules and appear natural just like everything else?
Premises:
1) God created a consistent design a natural, explainable, understandable one
2) In the middle would he changed that design
3) He cheated on the design for life?
Please tell us what you were thinking of when you posted these premises, and please be specific with examples, and then we can respond more directly to your intent.
Thanks.
A friend who goes to church every week said the following in the body of an email. I would like to share it because I think it's one perspective. It also surprised me that he said this.
Quote:
I like the spiritual messages at church and I like Richard Dawkins' fierce
Anti-religious arguments. I love science and have not reconciled it all.
When the Dalai Lama was asked what he would believe if science showed that
Some Tibetan belief were false, he said he'd believe science. Good
Buddhist! That works for me.
I think I've been very specific. I am asking a big question, though, not a narrow one. I am not interested in why you think science's conclusions on this topic are mistaken. I am interested in an alternate hypothesis that accounts for the existence of the fossil record in the form it takes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You are certainly not obliged to answer the question. No one here is, of course! But if you don't answer, I will assume you have no explanation for why there is a fossil record, let alone why it takes the form it does. Since you've posted at such length on this topic, I am skeptical of the suggestion that your reluctance to answer is for lack of time and space in which to explain your views.
I disagree that you have been specific. Maybe you think that the topic area is much narrower than it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Difference types of fossils form differently. So there are various contributors. To get a good fossil, sometimes which includes skin imprints, requires very specific conditions - typically a disaster that covers the plant or animal very rapidly, before decay becomes an issue. This can happen in many ways. A recent even, Mount St. Helens showed an excellent example of how this can occur, with multiples varied layers in a matter of minutes. Others can be produced following a volcanic eruption, and being buried by ash. A major flood is another means.
I don't understand why you are explaining how fossils form. Most of us already know about that. What we don't know, is what you think they are. You already know what scientists think fossils are. You obviously don't agree that the fossil record is a history of life on Earth. So what's the alternative?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Let me try again. Assuming there is a god that made everything. It would appear that he made set rules in the universe that even he doesn't like to break. All of these rules appear to make it so that god isn't required to do the day to day maintenance of making pockets of complexity. God doesn't have to make it rain he set the rules up so that it would rain. So we know why it rains. God could just pop rain where ever he wanted it but he doesn't he used a natural explainable and understandable way to make it rain. A set of rules that allow systems to get more complex has been found for every single system that we look at. Why would a all powerful god need to divert from this pattern. Why would he have to pop life into existence if he could change the rules so that we would develop on our own or at least appear to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Really good point. Of course, you know that the answer you'll get will be along the following lines: I don't know God's ways. It's not for me to say what God decided to do things the way he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
The odd thing about this mode of response, though, is that it is often invoked by the same people who claim to know who is going to heaven, how the "end times" will play out, etc. Again, it looks like cherry-picking to me.
But it's good of you try reason.
Neither do I. Just micro evolution as demonstrated by antimicrobial resistance in bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
When we get a chance to ask God what is the real story, I have my own theory:
God is the force behind "macro evolution" - all those "beneficial" mutations were the result of His hand and all the mutations that are factually demonstrated to cause human disease are the results of the fall.
I can't recall which Phillip Yancey book it was from, but he posits that the miracles that Jesus performed were a glimpse into the perfection that was meant to be before the fall.
Again just my theory.
G&P
Muchaelb,
I believe God's design is still going on in the universe.
Even suns and galaxies are dying and being born differently.
Evolution is still going on and in some cases faster than was once believed.
Why an all powerful God would do it that way I do not know, but I do think it is marvelous.
I and others believe that God in His infinite wisdom and understanding did it that way.
We do nit have wisdom and understanding like God's, not even close.
Compare a the wisdom of a nit to an average human/
That;s an estimation of comparing ours to God's,
Peace and kindness,
Fred
asking,
Do you think that you will ever get a direct, satisfactory, answer to your question to Tj3 on what he believes about the fossil record and what it means?
I don't, but I would like to be surprised.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
That's an interesting idea. I like it because it allows for evolution to remain pretty much intact as its understood by biologists. The only difference is that instead of having random mutations whose goodness is completely contingent on the genetic and external environment in which they arise, you have mutations that are sort of preordained to be either "beneficial"/good or bad. Since (my random) mutations will either be selected for (your "good") or against (your "bad"), the only difference is that God knows ahead of time which way selection will go.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I do not know if Tom will answer. But I appreciate your inviting me to talk here and also your support. It has been an interesting discussion!
Peace,
asking
You said:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
"I am interested in an alternate hypothesis that accounts for the existence of the fossil record in the form it takes"
How they form is part of that. Once again, perhaps you should be more specific about your question. And BTW, please don't tell me what it is that I do or don't think. You are not very good at it.
I will not keep trying to guess exactly what it is that you are trying to get at. I have answered your question twice now (a question that you have refused to answer yourself), and each time you just tell me that is not the answer you are looking for.
How about you answer it, like I suggested before, and that will kick off the discussion into the area that you wish to discuss. I am not a mind reader and I do not plan to keep trying to guess what you want. If you won't answer the question that you want answered yourself and plan to carry on like this, I can only assume that you are playing games to waste my time. I answered in good faith, in an honest effort to address what I thought that you were asking - it is your turn to answer the question now.
Again, please validate your premises. First, I do not entirely agree with your first premise. God is outside of space and time, and does, on occasion, do miracles, which according to your description, would be outside the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
And you keep claiming that God somehow divert from the rules of nature, so for a second time, what are you thinking of here? Please give specific examples. I am not clear on what you have in mind.
Dear Tom,
Fred and I are asking you why you think God buried layer upon layer of fossilized organisms in the Earth's crust. When did He put them there? Why? You have told us a lot about God's intentions and statements in other contexts.
I am curious to know what you think about this problem.
Peace,
asking
Again, it is not clear what you are asking. Why does God cause leaves to die and fall off trees in the fall and grow again in the spring. Why does God make our skin the colour that it is. Why does a platypus have a duck bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I don't know God's intentions for any of us to die, but animals die, some rot, some are fossilized, some are eaten. It is the way things happen in nature.
Now I have answered three times.
Are you still refusing to answer your own questions?
It looks to me like we have two alternatives on offer here for an understanding of the fossil record:
1. The view of modern evolutionary biology (represented in the present discussion by asking) which has provided a systematic explanation of the fossil record.
2. A view which doesn't appear to have anything to say about the fossil record other than that there are in fact fossils. This view tells us nothing about them, nor about their significance as data (cf. view 1).
To each his/her own, of course, but I prefer the first view to the second, non-view, view.
I am still waiting to hear asking's details view of the fossil record. How about it asking? You ask a lot of question, but despite my request, you seems to hold off from given us your view of the fossil record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
This must be your viewpoint. I have yet to see anyone else put forward this view, nor have I heard you tells your detailed view regarding the fossil record.Quote:
2. A view which doesn't appear to have anything to say about the fossil record other than that there are in fact fossils. This view tells us nothing about them, nor about their significance as data (cf. view 1).
Then we have the Biblical view recorded in Genesis regarding creation. This is the view that I hold to.
I took asking to hold the view of modern evolutionary biology regarding the fossil record. Since this view is in wide circulation I can see no reason for her to reproduce it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Well, it's not a view, it's a non-view view, which is what I understood from your recent replies. You clai,ed not to know why fossils are thee, and you don't appear to have any account to offer of their theoretical significance. So it looks like what you have offered is a rejection of macro-evolution coupled with no account whatsoever of the fossil record. Perhaps you think it is not a "record" of anything, I don't know.Quote:
This must be your viewpoint. I have yet to see anyone else put forward this view, nor have I heard you tells your details view regarding the fossil record.
Rhetoric isn't a substitute for reasoned explanation.Quote:
Then we have the Biblical view recorded in Genesis regarding creation. I hold to God's word regarding creation.
There are variants to this view, and as I indicated, the fossil record, as any scientist who has studied it will tell you, is a very complex record. Are fossil fuels created by the same process as fossilized plants? What about fossilized trees which stand upright through dozens or hundreds of layers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
If you want to understand something, especially as wide and as complex as the fossil record, oversimplification will not help, and is counterproductive.
Kindly don't get back into mis-representing me. I provided three posts with my views, more than anyone else on here. If you want a serious discussion, then please deal with what I said, and don't mis-represent me.Quote:
Well, it's not a view, it's a non-view view, which is what I understood from your recent replies.
Not true. I was asked "...why you think God buried layer upon layer of fossilized organisms in the Earth's crust". That is a different question. How fossils come to be is one question. Why God chose to to cre4ate a process of mineralization is a completely different question. So please be honest with what I said.Quote:
You clai,ed not to know why fossils are thee,
Neither is mis-representing others.Quote:
Rhetoric isn't a substitute for reasoned explanation.
I am still waiting to hear your answers to the questions that I answered.
And evolutionary biology speaks to this. I've been quite candid throughout this thread about the fact that I accept the findings of evolutionary biology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I have not misrepresented your views in past and I don't plan to start now. I've given my own assessment of the views on offer. Others are free to agree or disagree with that assessment as they see fit.Quote:
Kindly don't get back into mis-representing me. I provided three posts with my views, more than anyone else on here. If you want a serious discussion, then please deal with what I said, and don't mis-represent me.
Again, I accept the findings of modern science, here as with regard to heliocentrism. I've been quite clear about that all along. I have no new empirical findings of my own to add to the work done by modern science. And since that work is public and well-known, I can see no reason for anyone to reproduce it here. You, however, disagree with the findings of modern science. Your view is not public nor is it well-known, so it is quite reasonable for participants in this thread to ask you to present your view. The question that is, I think, of greatest interest to many here is what you take the fossil record to show. You say you have answered that question to your own satisfaction. That is your right. Clearly, however, you haven't answered it to ours. How you proceed on the strength of that is entirely your own affair.Quote:
I am still waiting to hear your answers to the questions that I answered.
Asking.
Personally I do not see a problem with asking as you did this way, ""I am interested in an alternate hypothesis that accounts for the existence of the fossil record in the form it takes"
It seem to me that you are asking for Tom's hypothesis other than the largely accepted scientific hypothesis or theory concerning the fossil record as it exists today.
Why he has trouble understanding that I can't imagine for he does seem to be an intelligent man.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
There are variant views within evolutionary biology, and keep in mind that I am not speaking against the findings of biology. I find it interesting though, that you accept only the findings of one group of biologists. I am willing to look at all scientific findings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Many cases have been pointed out to you. Perhaps it would be best if you simply stop trying to announce what my positions are. You do an absolutely terrible job at it, and I cannot remember a single time where you accurate reflected anything that I said. If you want to discuss what I said, please just quote me in context rather than trying to put your spin on it.Quote:
I have not misrepresented your views in past and I don't plan to start now.
Quote:
I have no new empirical findings of my own to add to the work done by modern science.
Two points. One, you refuse to answer the same questions yourself, so what right do you have to harass me after I answered all three questions asked of me, even requesting that asking be specific about what he was aiming at so that my answer could be more specific. But asking won't even answer his own questions, nor clarify what he is getting at.Quote:
So you would not have any problems with the findings of leading biologists in the field such as Michael Behe.The question that is, I think, of greatest interest to many here is what you take the fossil record to show. You say you have answered that question to your own satisfaction. That is your right. Clearly, however, you haven't answered it to ours. How you proceed on the strength of that is entirely your own affair.
So, what it comes down to, if you and asking want to play games in asking vague questions and then criticizing and falsely accusing when you don't get the specific answer you want, then be aware, as I told you before, I don't play those games.
If you want to share freely our views on a particular issue, with you and asking being willing to share, then this could be a very interesting discussion. But if you are unwilling to do so, then you may as drop this part of the topic because this is just heading down the same path as the other threads.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-...tml#post947947
Post #138.
Your turn.
(Apologies for all the typos in it.)
That says nothing about the fossil record or what it says. It is merely a summary of some theories about apes and man and since there is already a discussion in another thread, if I wish to get into that sub-topic, I'll go over to that thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
But I did raise a point about the fossil record some time back and I never heard anything from you in response. Let's bring this back again and let's see if we can get an actually discussion going. Since you feel free to ask questions, I am sure that you will have no problem answering some. I said:
-----------------------------
The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have seen for myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.
-----------------------------
What does this fossil record tell us?
You are looking at #140. Go up two posts.
In any case, it's a brief summary of the last 3 billion years of life, as understood (roughly) by biologists and paleontologists (a species of biologist). As Akoue points out, this is biological doctrine at this point, so no need to go on and on about it. Everybody's heard it all before.
What's interesting is what You think the fossil record represents.
I gather that you agree that fossils are the remains of real organisms. What do you think of trilobites? There were so very many at one point and now there are none, except for the fossils. Was God inordinately fond of them at one point and then they fell from grace? What happened?
Asking,
Why to I feel that won't help much?
Why do I feel that you request will still be dodged?
I would like to know the answers to those question which I fear only I can answer adequately.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 PM. |