[Tj3]

As I recall, asking asked you Sunday what you make of the fossil record. Maybe we can get back on track with that.

I have thought about how to answer this a great deal - the problem is that entire volumes of books have been written answering this question and you expect me to provide an answer to a very general question in a short message. As about the fossil record in generalities is like asking someone to describe what you think about the findings regarding astro-physics and astronomy.

The fossil record is simply the remains of animals and plants which have fossilized. It is not clear exactly what you are getting at, so rather than asking me a question which is far too broad, why don't you kick off the discussion by telling us your views of the fossil record, specially the area that you are interested in discussing. BTW, just a reminder, we have been through this process before so as a pre-emptive comment and reminder so we don't go down the wrong path, I do not play 20 questions, so please take this opportunity to kick off the discussion on the fossil record by presenting your views.

[Akoue]

Again, it appears to me that you are just being argumentative. what exactly do you think will move the earth?

Am I being argumentative if I answer your question? Gravity moves the earth (I've said it about a dozen times). Apparently you disagree. Which, as I've also said repeatedly, if fine by me. It just puts your relation to modern science in a rather different light, which helps me better to understand where you're coming from in your denial of evolution. Now, as I've also already suggested, let's return to asking's question of you regarding the fossil record.

[asking]

Tom,
I think Akoue's point is very relevant. The question of the infallibility of the Bible (and the infallibility of its major interpreters) is central to this discussion.

Galileo's statement that the Earth moved was considered heretical in his time because it contradicted the Bible. I don't see how the Church's interpretation of the passages cited by Akoue can be considered less legitimate than a 20th century American's. If the Vatican said it didn't move, I assume they knew how to read the Bible. (Only recently has the Church itself formally recanted on this issue.)

The Catholic church thought that the passage,

He set the earth on its foundations,
So that it should never be moved.

Meant the earth did not move and the Church was prepared to argue the point.

How can a man set himself above both the Vatican in interpreting the Bible and all of modern biology in interpreting the fossil record? It seems you are saying the Bible is infallible in one respect but not in another and to defend that you deny it says something that it does say repeatedly and clearly.

[Tj3]

Am I being argumentative if I answer your question? Gravity moves the earth (I've said it about a dozen times).

Gravity keeps the earth in its place.

Now, as I've also already suggested, let's return to asking's question of you regarding the fossil record.

Why don't you read my post before constantly repeating the same question?

[Tj3]

Tom,
I think Akoue's point is very relevant. The question of the infallibility of the Bible (and the infallibility of its major interpreters) is central to this discussion.

Galileo's statement that the Earth moved was considered heretical in his time because it contradicted the Bible.

No, it was that Galileo did not consider the earth the center of the universe. As for it contradicting the Bible, no it was because it contradicted the teachings of one denomination.

This, in any case, has zero to do with the topic at hand. The Bible is accurate when taken at face value, without man's private interpretation.

[Akoue]

Why don't you read my post before constantly repeating the same question?

Come one, you know how the site works. You posted yours while I was writing mine, so I hadn't seen it yet. (And I just knew you would do this!)

[Tj3]

Come one, you know how the site works. You posted yours while I was writing mine, so I hadn't seen it yet. (And I just knew you would do this!)

Perhaps a little patience would help. Give one a chance to post and for you to see if one has posted an answer. I am not here at your beck and call to answer questions at the crack of your whip. And I see somehow, your lack of patience in waiting for my answer has now become somehow my fault.:confused:

[Akoue]

No, it was that Galileo did not consider the earth the center of the universe. As for it contradicting the Bible, no it was because it contradicted the teachings of one denomination.

This, in any case, has zero to do with the topic at hand. The Bible is accurate when taken at face value, without man's private interpretation.

The topic of the thread concerns the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. The compatibility of the Bible and other scientific domains is quite relevant--and the OP has registered his own interest in the present question.

So gravity keeps the earth "in its place" as you say. The earth stays in place. It neither rotates on its axis nor orbits the sun. This is your view. We've got it.

[Tj3]

So gravity keeps the earth "in its place" as you say. The earth stays in place. It neither rotates on its axis nor orbits the sun. This is your view. We've got it.

Do you take joy in mis-representing me? Why do you think that anyone should even engage in discussion with you with you refuse to interact in a respectful manner?

[Akoue]

Perhaps a little patience would help. Give one a chance to post and for you to see if one has posted an answer. I am not here at your beck and call to answer questions at the crack of your whip. And I see somehow, your lack of patience in waiting for my answer has now become somehow my fault.:confused:

That's right. Because I was replying to your *previous* post.

[Tj3]

That's right. Because I was replying to your *previous* post.

Again, perhaps a little patience would help avoid this issue, so just exercise patience after you ask questions and allow time for others to reply.

Also keep in mind that no one is required to answer your questions. Engaging in a respectful exchange (i.e. not mis-representing others) will help encourage response.

[JoeT777]

Galileo's statement that the Earth moved was considered heretical in his time because it contradicted the Bible.

Just being a stickler for detail (without commenting on the discussion here); Galileo was seen as a heretic because he denied that God was the cause of creation. Not because he supported a heliocentric universe.

JoeT

[asking]

I have thought about how to answer this a great deal - the problem is that entire volumes of books have been written answering this question and you expect me to provide an answer to a very general question in a short message. As about the fossil record in generalities is like asking someone to describe what you think about the findings regarding astro-physics and astronomy.

The fossil record is simply the remains of animals and plants which have fossilized.

I have posted at length elsewhere explaining the overall pattern in the fossil record and how it tells in actual pictures (like a children's book) the history of the evolution of life on earth, from the simplest bacteria and the first photosynthetic microbes, to the first animals and terrestrial plants. It is an amazingly complete record and it's in order. You say it does not suggest macroevolution and that hundreds of thousands of biologists are all mistaken in believing this.

So then, tell us what you think the patterns in the fossil record do suggest. Why is it there? Why did God lay it down precisely as He did? Why are there no fossil sharks 2 billion years ago, but yet they appear in rocks that are 400 million years old? Why are there no palm trees in 600 million year old rocks, but there are in 360 million year old rocks? Why do modern birds have hips that look like those of reptiles that lived 70 million years ago? Explain the pattern of increasing complexity and diversity in the fossil record in a way that is consistent with what the Bible says.

[Tj3]

I have posted at length elsewhere explaining the overall pattern in the fossil record and how it tells in actual pictures (like a children's book) the history of the evolution of life on earth, from the simplest bacteria and the first photosynthetic microbes, to the first animals and terrestrial plants. It is an amazingly complete record and it's in order. You say it does not suggest macroevolution and that hundreds of thousands of biologists are all mistaken in believing this.

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.

[asking]

Just being a stickler for detail (without commenting on the discussion here); Galileo was seen as a heretic because he denied that God was the cause of creation. Not because he supported a heliocentric universe.

JoeT

Are you certain? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Church claimed he was enjoined from discussing Copernicanism in 1616 and used that against him.

Britannica says that on June 21, 1633, Galileo was found of guilty of "having held and taught" the Copernican doctrine and was ordered to recant, which he did.

[Akoue]

Are you certain? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Church claimed he was enjoined from discussing Copernicanism in 1616 and used that against him.

Britannica says that on June 21, 1633, Galileo was found of guilty of "having held and taught" the Copernican doctrine and was ordered to recant, which he did.

Turns out the whole thing was really complicated. It wasn't the "holding" that was the problem so much as the "teaching". There is some evidence that he was instructed to delay teaching it because it was so radical and there was concern that the dissemination should proceed slowly. He went ahead anyway. The most recent comprehensive work by Ernan McMullin shows that the situation was handled badly on all sides.

[asking]

Yes. It sounds like Galileo was rather provoking. He was also writing in Italian instead of Latin (right?), which made everything he wrote so much more accessible. Annoying guy.

Joe, maybe you were thinking of Bruno?

[arcura]

Science says the earth moves.
It rotates and obits the sun.
I believe that.
I also believe that the author of those passages believed that it did not move and did so because of his personal observation.
A;so if the earth sit still on a foundation where is it?
I've never seen a view from any satalite or spce station that shows a foundation of any sort including the giant turtle some folks once believed the world sat on.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Fred, thanks for reminding us of the giant tortoise. I had forgotten about that.

Like Copernicus before him, Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism got him into trouble, as we all know, due to a perceived conflict between it and the Bible. The Biblical verses that, taken on their face, affirm a stationary earth are:

Ps.93.1: "The world will surely stand in place, never to be moved."
Ps.96.10: "The world will surely stand fast, never to be moved."
Ps.104.5: "You fixed the earth on its foundation, never to be moved."
I Chronicles 16.30: "he has made the world firm, not to be moved."

Now, read metaphorically or allegorically, these passages present no obvious problem to anyone who accepts heliocentrism. Read literally, they do present a problem, since each clearly affirms that the earth does not move. This clearly does not comport with either the earth's rotation nor its orbit of the sun. There can be no question, though, that accommodating heliocentrism requires some hermeneutic finessing of Scripture, and this, again, means that a supine literalism forces a choice upon the reader: Either accept the prima facie meaning of the passages and reject heliocentrism or accept heliocentrism and interpret these passages non-literally. This much is clear.

As anyone who has been following this thread knows, I have brought this up not to change the subject away from evolution, but rather to attempt to get a clearer view of the conflict many claim to find between the Bible and modern evolutionary theory. If, as many are inclined to do, we are to adopt a non-literal reading of the passages cited above in order to accommodate heliocentrism, I can see no good reason not to adopt a non-literal reading of Gen.1-2 in order to accommodate the findings of evolutionary theory. If, on the other hand, we are to adhere to a literal interpretation of Gen.1-2, and so reject evolution as it is now understood, then we are obliged to adhere to a literal interpretation of the above passages and so reject heliocentrism. To do otherwise is to be inconsistent in our reading of Scripture. In other words, I have sought to offer a deflationary alternative to the perceived conflict between Scripture and science.

Since the earth is in fact moved (it isn't a self-mover), we have good reason to suppose that the above passages are best read non-literally. And this seems to me to provide us reasonable grounds for supposing that other passages of Scripture that are perceived by some to conflict with science ought also to be read non-literally. The notion that we are to adhere to a supine literalism, according to which the words of the Bible "speak for themselves" (a phrase which is itself little more than a rhetorical flourish) obliges the rejection of celestial mechanics.

In like fashion, a supine literalism obliges one to reject evolutionary biology, not on the merits, but just in virtue of its failure to reflect the surface meaning of Gen.1-2. This is to say, then, that the rejection of evolution carries with it the rejection of heliocentrism, which is rather more, I suspect, than many evolution opponents bargained for.

We do not typically feel that we need to await a complete scientific description of the physical universe in order to accept the findings of astronomy; neither should we feel the need to await a complete biological description of all life in order to accept the findings of evolutionary biology. Scientific theories are all, by their nature, provisional descriptions of physical phenomena. The absence of completeness is not evidence of falsehood. Were we to impose completeness as a demand on the acceptance of the findings of science, we would be left in a perpetual cognitive limbo, and this would imperil the viability of applied sciences such as engineering and medicine. I can see no plausible grounds for adopting such a stance.

As I see it, then, the burden of proof rests not with the proponents of evolution, but with those who claim to find a conflict between evolution and Gen.1-2. It is for them to provide a compelling case for a supinely literal interpretation of Gen.1-2, taking into account the high price they pay for their literalism in the form of the rejection of heliocentrism. I am aware that others will not accede to my assessment of the burden of proof, and I am fine with that. So long as we are all clear about the options that are available to those who would adduce Scripture as grounds for rejecting the findings of evolutionary biologists.

It is important to keep in mind that as soon as one reads the passages I cited above in such a way as to accommodate heliocentrism one has already abandoned a supine literalism that claims to take the words of the Bible at face value.

[asking]

I would really feel better getting up in the morning if I knew there was a giant tortoise down there. I have never liked this whole business of whirling around at 700 mph (more like a 1000 at the equator) and also hurtling through space, never knowing when we are going to slip our alleged mooring and launch into space (say 'goodbye' to Pluto) or plunge into the Sun.