[Tj3]

I must have missed where you said what the fossil record is. Can you give me a link or just summarize in sentence or two? To my knowledge, I have read all your posts in this thread attentively.

I'm not asking what you think it's not, but what you think it is. I'm very interested to know what you think.

Thanks,

I responded to your message in post #213.

[asking]

As requested, the Galileo debacle:



Now you know why I said it was a complicated story.


JoeT

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.

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.

[asking]

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.

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.

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.

[Tj3]

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.

No, I am not arguing with science. I simply corrected your description of what has been actually physically found in the record.

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.

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.

[JoeT777]

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.

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.

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.

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

[scaredypants]

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.

[asking]

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.

I'm just asking why you think it's there and what, in the most general terms, it means.

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.

[arcura]

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

[Akoue]

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.

That is the only way I can honestly bridge the gap between evolution and biblical scripture.

You may be thinking of me. I don't think there's any gap in need of being bridged.

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

I'm just asking why you think it's there and what, in the most general terms, it means.

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.

Sorry, I don't know what you are thinking of or what you are expecting. You need to be more specific.

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.

[Tj3]

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

The context of that passage is in reference to how longsuffering God is to sinful man.

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

[michealb]

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?

[Tj3]

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.

And I don't see how anyone of logic or reason could fail to see the evidence of 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?

I don't follow your reasoning. Please explain your premises. What are you using as the basis for your premises.

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.

[asking]

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.

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.

[asking]

Sorry, I don't know what you are thinking of or what you are expecting. You need to be more specific.

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.

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.

[Tj3]

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.

I disagree that you have been specific. Maybe you think that the topic area is much narrower than it is.

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.

[asking]

I disagree that you have been specific. Maybe you think that the topic area is much narrower than it is.

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?

[michealb]

I don't follow your reasoning. Please explain your premises. What are you using as the basis for your premises.

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.

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.

[Akoue]

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.

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.

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.