Akoue,
You said to Tj3, "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."
I agree.
Fred
|
Akoue,
You said to Tj3, "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."
I agree.
Fred
Please do.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Doctrine, eh? So are you saying that all biologists must agree with this, or do you acknowledge the fact that there are variants in views on this topic amongst biologists?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Fossilized remains. Too bad you did not asked that before starting on to 20 questions. If that was what you were trying to get at, we could have gotten to the point much faster. That is why I was asking you to get to the point and be specific.Quote:
I gather that you agree that fossils are the remains of real organisms.
I don't really stay awake at night thinking about them. Why, again, what is your point? What do YOU think about them?Quote:
What do you think of trilobites?
Have you ever heard of something called extinction?Quote:
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?
BTW, maybe you will answer my previous question one of these times. You seem to like asking them, but you rarely answer questions. Let's try again (third time posted):
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?
TJ3,
PLEASE,
Do you agree or disagree with what modern popular science says about the fossil record?
Once again what does the fossil record mean or say to you?
There are variant views amongst modern science, and as a man of science, I accept modern science and find it in concert with the Bible. It is for that reason that I reject the theory of macro-evolution, as do thousands of other scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
If you want to see a good book on evolution, try this one written by a leading scientist in the field:
Amazon.com: The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism: Michael J. Behe: Books
It is an excellent book. I don't agree with everything that he says, but it is an eye opener based upon the latest scientific findings.
Yeah, I thought you'd like that word! I don't acknowledge any substantive variants on the big picture. You can find people arguing about details but not about (1) common descent with modification or (2) the overall structure of our family tree and the order in which organisms have evolved. All biologists DO agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Probably give you nightmares. :)Quote:
I don't really stay awake at night thinking about [trilobites].
Well, why does God extinguish His own Creations?Quote:
Have you ever heard of something called extinction?
Were they on Noah's Ark?
Yup. The layers are often turned upside down, tangled up, or on their sides. You name it. I learned that in Geology 10. But figuring out the order in which they were originally formed is not that hard, I learned in geology 10. It's mainly a mapping problem. And if you get really confused, there's always radiometric dating.Quote:
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.
I have no way of knowing what you saw at Joggins, NS (or where that is). But it's totally possible for a fossilized tree to be unburied and reburied under different sediments. Sure. It could happen. It doesn't disprove anything.
Your turn. If the fossil record is not a picture book record of macroevolution, what is it? Why is it there? Why would God create such a complex puzzle for us to work out? Tens of thousands of dedicated humans work for as many lifetimes to get the answer and you say they are all wrong? So what's the right answer?
EDIT: I just googled Joggins. Very cool!
Tj3
Then you agree with the modern popular view that the fossil record covers millions of years. I'm surprised, for I thot not.
That is why we keep asking what the fossil record says to you.
Thanks for your answer.
No I'm no interested in what that book says.
Thanks anyway.
Fred
I have done a great deal of reading and have found many variants. Many scientists are open to being flexible in adapting their views to the latest discoveries.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Maybe all you talk to.Quote:
All biologists DO agree.
Does he/ Death started with sin.Quote:
Well, why does God extinguish His own Creations?
Rom 5:12-13
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
NKJV
So it is not God who caused the death or extinction of animals, but sin which entered the world when Satan rebelled against God, and when man followed Satan in that rebellion.
No all animals were on Noah's ark. Animals which could live in water would be in the water.Quote:
Where they on Noah's Ark?
Good. Because your description was that of a nice neat set of layers exhibiting what you wanted to see in order. It isn't at all like that.Quote:
Yup. The layers are often turned upside down, tangled up, or on their sides. You name it. I learned that in Geology 10.
Wow! That surprises me. I never heard of a person who has an interest in fossils who never heard of Joggins before. It is considered one of the top sites in the world for fossils, which is why it was designated a world heritage site.Quote:
I have no way of knowing what you saw at Joggins, NS (or where that is).
Do a bit of research. The pictures of the trees are common.
Inside rock. Hmmm.Quote:
But it's totally possible for a fossilized tree to be unburied and reburied under different sediments. Sure. It could happen. It doesn't disprove anything.
Already answered. If you have more specific questions, then please quote what I said and indicate what additional detail you would like regarding my comments.Quote:
Your turn. If the fossil record is not a picture book record of macroevolution, what is it? Why is it there?
Life is complex. Ever studied a "simple" single cell? It is more complex that any chemical refinery on the face of the earth. Why did God create life and the universe with such universal majesty and complexity? Perhaps so that may would have no excuse in recognizing that there is in fact an intelligence behind the design of all creation. I am not going to claim to know the mind of God, though.Quote:
Why would God create such a complex puzzle for us to work out?
See, that is what I mean by mis-representing me. I just finished saying the opposite and then you post this mis-reprsenting me. Is mis-representation necessary to prove your points?Quote:
Tens of thousands of dedicated humans work for as many lifetimes to get the answer and you say they are all wrong? So what's the right answer?
You claim that ALL biologists agree. Perhaps that is because you are unaware of the wider diversity of views amongst biologists, and maybe that is why you don't think that other views are acceptable. But in saying so, you are in fact doing what you accuse me of - claiming that all biologists who fail to agree with you are automatically wrong.
Grab yourself a copy of the "Edge of Evolution". Don't worry, it won't stick probes into your brain and force you to do its bidding. I read all sorts of science books from all sorts of varying perspectives which is one reason I know such varying perspectives exist). I highly recommend that you considering broadening your scope and pick up a book or two which may present a view which is divergent to your own.
No, that is one view. Other modern scientific views disagree and I must go where the evidence leads.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I thought that you said that were interested what leading edge scientific research by leading scientists has to say.Quote:
No I'm no interested in what that book says.
Behe is not a "leading scientist". In fact, he's something of a joke in the broader scientific community.
Tom, what other LEADING scientists favor your view. It would be preferable if you could point to some who aren't affiliated with the Discovery Institute (which, as you must know given your vast scientific knowledge) is a pariah in the scientific community.
According to your understanding of "where the evidence leads", what is the approximate age of the earth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Perhaps in your circles. But I am not sure that may other scientists would be welcomed in your circles either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I am sure that ANY scientist that I gave you the name of, or any organization of scientist would be rejected by you. Asking told me that ALL biologists agree. That may true if you take the approach of rejecting all who disagree with you. I don't. I accept and listen to scientists of all opinions because I am interested in truth.Quote:
It would be preferable if you could point to some who aren't affiliated with the Discovery Institute (which, as you must know given your vast scientific knowledge) is a pariah in the scientific community.
asking
Ye, that would be VERY interesting.
Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Yes, yes, that's fine. Now, can you name any scientists not affiliated with the Discovery Institute who take the view you describe?
Ps: For anyone out there who hasn't heard of the Discovery Institute: Academic scientists have obliterated the work it's produced and it is regarded as a complete joke. These aren't my circles: It's been well-publicized.
Humor me
1. I have sat here and read this entire thread from beginning to end in one, continuous sitting. I am absolutely absorbed in the discussion (except for the occasional pissin' matches) and I almost hate that I have reached the most current entry, because that concludes my night's reading on the topic. It's just as well though, I'm really needing a smoke break!
2. From the time that I first read the title of this thread, until my decision to make this post, I kept waiting for the topic of Divine Intervention to pop up, but it never did. Is that not a viable element to the relations between Biblical account of creation and evolution?
3. Does anyone have know of reference in the bible that speaks of what Adam and Eve actually look like? Physical characteristics, anything? I searched and could not find one. For this thread's title's sake, I wan't to propose a spin on things. Preposterous as it may seem, it's a spin, humor me.
a. Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
b. Genesis 6:4, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them"
I offer this only because of the idea that man was not descendant from our modern apes, but that our modern apes and humans share common ancestry. And for lack of better example of my thought process, I am using a. and b. as a spin on things. God created man in his image, man and woman, and they began to multiply from the joining of the two that were created. Well, here comes the "sons of god", and correct me if I'm wrong, but they are not "man". Ok, now we have offspring from this union.
Would this not be un-arguably "Divine Intervention" in it's most basic form?
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'd like to offer my thoughts in response, but it would help if you could help me understand one thing a little better (otherwise, I think I may end up veering off-course from what you have in mind): Are you thinking that those who are mentioned in a. and b. are ancestors from whom modern humans have evolved? I think your answer will be yes, but I just want to be sure I'm understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by vwdieseljunkie
Read mostly or read about. Too many to talk to them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'm not aware of anyone with any real credentials besides Behe and Wells, and even Wells has said he got his PhD in genetics specifically so he could have the credentials to attack evolution. Too bad he didn't get a PhD in zoology or botany. Behe is kind of an embarrassment to his institution, but he's a credit to academic freedom!
I read a review of his book (in the New York Review of Books) and it seemed to say he'd backed down a lot compared to his first book. I tried to read his first book. He's a pretty good stylist, but he's just wrong and misleading about so many things, I couldn't finish it.
So you are saying the trilobites sinned?Quote:
Does he/ Death started with sin.
Rom 5:12-13
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
NKJV
So it is not God who caused the death or extinction of animals, but sin which entered the world when Satan rebelled against God, and when man followed Satan in that rebellion.
They lived long before any humans every lived on Earth, so I don't see how you can blame human sin for the demise of the trilobites, poor things.
So, what about T. rex et al?Quote:
No all animals were on Noah's ark. Animals which could live in water would be in the water.
Viewed through time, it IS like that.Quote:
... your description was that of a nice neat set of layers exhibiting what you wanted to see in order. It isn't at all like that.
It's like opening up a jigsaw puzzle. It's a mess, but once you get it sorted out, the pattern is clear. The pieces fit together AND the picture reinforces that you've got it right. The fossil record is the same. Once you sort out where all the layers are supposed to be, the overall pattern is clear. And in many parts of the world, like the Grand Canyon, you have a continuous record over millions of years with no disentangling necessary. I personally don't think you can get any closer to a miracle of creation than that. But that's just me.
They do. But let's stay focused on trying to find out what you think fossils represent.Quote:
You claim that ALL biologists agree.
Why do you think that in ancient times there were only bacteria, and then later, there were eukaryotic cells (the ones with their genes in a nucleus), and later multicellular organisms? Why do you think these organisms appear in that order?
Well, it's a question I have never posed or even put much thought into until this context came up, but have offered merely as an example of how the Bible speaks of an intermingling of what I am guessing to be 'divine' creatures (sons of god, specifically identified as NOT being 'man', or the created 'man') and the created 'man', and there being an offspring from this union. Would said offspring be man, or divine? Either way, doesn't this throw a monkey wrench in what 'man' was originally created to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I'm confused. What were the giants in the earth?
Also, New York originally asked where the daughters came from, since Adam and Eve had sons. Or at least that's what I understood. Is there still a daughter problem?
I could take this in depth, but it would be very distracting to this thread, and not beneficial to the topic. But in my understanding they were the "Nefilim" or by some translation "the giants that fell from the sky"Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Well, apparently there is more than one "man" on the earth at this time according to the sumerians.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
(not trying to railroad this thread, I hope it isn't viewed as such)
If I'm understanding your idea--and I may not be, so please set me straigth if I go off the rails--your thought is not that Adam and Eve are descended from some earlier species, but that, after Adam and Eve, there was via an act of God some interbreeding between humans and Nephilim which altered human evolution. This is interesting in its own right, but it may be orthogonal to the main question, inasmuch, if I'm understanding correctly, you are allowing for evolution--you're just suggesting that evolution may have been a one-time event that came along after Adam and Eve.Quote:
Originally Posted by vwdieseljunkie
Am I totally messing up your point?
First off let me apologize, as I am NOT very good at getting to the point and tend to be long winded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
But basically yes, for the purpose of this conversation, Adam and Eve are not decedended from anything, as they are created as per the biblical story by God.
Asking, where the daughter's of man come into play, all I can fall back on is Gen 6:1 "Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them"
So I have to guess that daughters were born to Adam and Eve, since they had only sons at that point
Here is one last thought.Quote:
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men
I'm thinking a lot is riding on this one phrase, which may simply be a backhanded way of minimizing women's connection to God. Are women anywhere in the bible described as the daughters of God rather than the daughters of men? ARE there any daughters of God? (I searched an online Bible and didn't find any.) I'm thinking these sons of God are also sons of men, one and the same, but elevated for stylistic effect. Just a thought.
asking,
The bible does not say that Adam and Eve did not have any daughters or more children after.their two sons.
They could have had a dozen or more kids,
Not at all. You don't have anything to apologize for.Quote:
Originally Posted by vwdieseljunkie
I, however, do. I'm really beat and need to give your idea some thought. So it's to bed with me and I'll offer my two-cents (for what it's worth) tomorrow. So come back and talk with us, okay?
There did seem to be a specific division between the "sons of god" and the "daughters of man" in that there is no mention of the "sons of man" there.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Gen 6:1-8
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive[a] with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
5 Then the LORD[b] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Finally the last word on this subject
YouTube - Dogbert and the theory of evolution
I agree, They should shut down medical research and increase prayer circles THEN some people will get healed!Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Yes, but why? Already you have rejected all scientists that you know of who disagree with you. Asking says all biologists agree, which appears to mean that he rejects biologists who disagree as scientists. This is sounding very much like a religion where those who dare to consider ideas contrary to what the unproven theory held by many are consider essentially heretics to the religion of evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
So you do know of scientists who do not agree. Therefore we know that not all agree with your position. And though YOU may consider Behe to be a problem, he is well respected by others.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I find it a bit disconcerting for scientific freedom of thought when those who consider alternate views based upon the evidence are considered to be heretics to the doctrine of the religion of evolution.
No, I said that nature was affected by man bringing sin into the world.Quote:
So you are saying the trilobites sinned?
This timeline is according to your opinion.Quote:
They lived long before any humans every lived on Earth, so I don't see how you can blame human sin for the demise of the trilobites, poor things.
They are dinosaurs. So?Quote:
So, what about T. rex et al?
Where did you buy your time machine? If you don't have one, then what you are telling me is that despite the fact that the layers are not like that, you interprt them in a manner which fits your beliefs.Quote:
Viewed through time, it IS like that.
But you just admitted above that they don't all agree. So are you denying that biologists who disagree are actually biologists?Quote:
They do.
Circular reasoning. This is your interpretation. Then you make it a "fact" and demand that others explain events around an unproven timeline.Quote:
Why do you think that in ancient times there were only bacteria, and then later, there were eukaryotic cells (the ones with their genes in a nucleus), and later multicellular organisms? Why do you think these organisms appear in that order?
I love it!Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Often truth can be presented in a humorous manner.
If Darwin considers himself an evolved monkey, then May be some monkeys were smart enough not to evolve into Darwin like thinkers.
I reject TWO people who could possibly be considered biologists. I know of no other creation "scientists" who actually have any training in biology. I am not going to acknowledge the opinions of scientists and engineers outside of biology proper (e.g. chemists are not biologists). If you want to put up some more people with credentials as biologists, I'll consider them. But I can't think of any off the top of my head. The point is that all biologists (except for Behe and Wells, if they can even be considered biologists) do not consider the theory of evolution in any way controversial. Two people out of tens or hundreds of thousands is basically fruitcake country. If there are one or two more out there somewhere, that doesn't alter my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Name one bona fide biologist in the National Academy of Sciences who respects Behe's arguments about evolution. (Saying nice things about him personally does not count.)Quote:
And though YOU may consider Behe to be a problem, he is well respected by others.
•Tj, You wrote that trilobites went extinct after Adam and Eve because they sinned.
And your timeline says what? When did the trilobites go extinct, or at least approximately how long after the fall? And when would that be, in round numbers, in years?Quote:
... I said that nature was affected by man bringing sin into the world.
This timeline is according to your opinion.
•You said that trilobites were not on the Ark because they were aquatic. So I asked if Tyrannasaurus rex were on the ark.
Ark? No ark? Inquiring minds want to know what you think about this.Quote:
They are dinosaurs. So?
I admire both your tenacity and your forbearance.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
"Perseverance furthers"--The I Ching
Asking,
I still have seen nothing from you other than some vague comment to the extent that athere are ways in which it could happen, regarding the question that I asked you. If you wish to play twenty questions, surely you can provide an answer to this one:
-----------------------------
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?
Your cohort on here, Akoue tossed out an entire scientific institution without so much as a gander at the credentials. I find it interesting how this whole thread has changed ever since the so-called "proof" for macro-evolution was shown to be not what it was claimed to be. Instead of discussion the topic, it is now a witch-hunt - whoever does not agree with evolution suddenly is labelled as incompetent or a "fruitcake".Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Kind of remainds me of what was done to Galileo and others. This is yet more evidence that evolution is a religion and those who do not hold to the line given by the "rpiests" of evolution are designated heretics.
Then we see the mis-representations like this, which I never said, but was entirely fabricated. If we cannot keep it honest, then why discuss? If you disagree and think that I did say it, bring forward the quote where I said, as you claim, that trilobytes went extinct because they sinned. Apologies will be accepted anytime.Quote:
Tj, You wrote that trilobites went extinct after Adam and Eve because they sinned.
Again, if you must fabricate stories to defend what you believe, then is it really worth believing?
I have no way of telling exactly how many years, and why would that matter in any case? It does not in any way validated a transition from one species to another.Quote:
And your timeline says what? When did the trilobites go extinct, or at least approximately how long after the fall? And when would that be, in round numbers, in years?
Please, asking, please read more carefully. Once again you have mis-represented what I said. I made a general comment.Quote:
You said that trilobites were not on the Ark because they were aquatic. So I asked if Tyrannasaurus rex were on the ark.
All animals which were required to be on the ark to survive would had to have been on the ark.Quote:
Ark? No ark? Inquiring minds want to know what you think about this.
But again, what does this have to do with your failed attempt to prove species transition?
Well...
I have been following your discussion lightly.
I would call myself Christian, because I believe in God, and I believe in the message of Christ.
However, I cannot see any reason, to make such a cruel comparison of the Bible against the Evolutionary theory. Even if I believe in a God, why must the Bible, that is written by humans (whose knowledge is ever expanding and exchangable) be an objective source of information? If God created the humans, he apparently created them in such a way, that they do not need the truth to be served in script (Old Testament, New Testament, Islam,etc), but instead more likely would create the human in such a way, that She can find the truth on her own...
... which leads to science. Science is a way, of trying to measure, understand the Universe with all its phenomenons in an objective way, in a way that is independent of religious or any ideological background. The Bible, and other religious books, are created to form a subjective mind path. There is no possibility at all, to compare a evolutionary theory to the Bible, since one science is the search of Truth, and the Bible is the claiming of Truth. Perhaps, are you right, that evolutionary theory is incomplete or wrong or just a theory, but it still has the aim of understanding things at a deeper and more concrete level than what faith can give. Simply, science and religion are two things that are not to be mixed, and the Intelligent Design-phenomenon, is the worst way of how to manipulate objective science into subjective religion.
At the same time... if I were God, would I really work so hard to create all species one by one, or would I simply just say "Dear Universe, evolve in structure and in life?" A good programmer, would see that the latter mechanism would save much time, compared to the former, so there is no way, in which evolutionary theory has to contradict the existence of a God.
Erratum:
Sorry, I of course meant Islam's Koran, when I counted written works.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:00 AM. |