What Drives Creationists
David W. Robertson
evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
of macro-evolution.
Indeed, creationists challenge almost any scientific data that
contradicts the way that they interpret the Bible.
[I say almost because creationists deny that the Sun revolves around
the Earth, although the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the
Earth (Joshua 10:12-13).]
When it comes to the interpretation of Genesis 1, creationists insist
on a literal interpretation because they don't understand how a
non-literal interpretation could teach a spiritual truth.
In my report "Creationism On Trial" I explain that God has used
non-factual stories to convey spiritual truth.
As I see it, creationists have completely missed the spiritual message
of Genesis 1. This error is due in part to a mistranslation of Genesis
1:2, a verse that sets the stage for the rest of Genesis 1.
[See my report for an explanation.]
Creationists are so far removed from the ancient Hebrew culture that
they don't understand the spiritual message that Genesis 1 gave the
ancient Hebrews. Many creationists strive to be disciples of Jesus,
but they don't pursue scholarship when it comes to the Old Testament
and ancient Hebrew culture.
For Christians who are young-earth creationists, the issue driving
their theology is the concept of the entire Bible being God's Word.
The Apostle Paul stated that all scripture is God-breathed. The Bible
also says about God "Your Word is truth."
Creationists don't understand how Genesis 1 can be God-breathed and
truth if Genesis 1 isn't interpreted literally.
Creationists (in general) aren't acquainted with the culture of
ancient Mesopotamia where the Hebrews lived.
In Mesopotamia the Hebrews were exposed to creation stories which led
people to believe that "the gods" could turn the Earth into a chaotic
mess at any given moment. The Hebrews feared that they would have a
chaotic future.
Thus Genesis 1:2 says that in the beginning the Earth was a chaotic
mess. [See my report for an explanation of Genesis 1:2.]
Then the rest of the chapter describes God intentionally transforming
a chaotic Earth into an orderly Earth. This story taught the Hebrews
that the real God wasn't going to subject them to chaos, that God had
established order in the Universe.
*******************************************************************************
Side Issue:
According to Genesis 1 God made seed-bearing plants and fruit-bearing
trees on the third day, and then He created the Sun on the fourth day.
If I correctly recall my botany lessons, seed-bearing plants and
fruit-bearing trees need the sunlight in order for photosynthesis to
occur. Without photosynthesis such plants and trees will die.
So if Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally, then how did the
plants and trees survive without sunlight? [And heat? The sun gives
the heat that makes it possible for trees to live.]
Glenn
"David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com..
..
> Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
> evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> of macro-evolution.
No. Evolution theory could not, and if it did, you would have
no idea what "creationists" would say.
>
> Indeed, creationists challenge almost any scientific data that
> contradicts the way that they interpret the Bible.
No. Creationists, like most everyone else, challenge anything
they do not believe is true or sound. Doubtless there are some
people who think they have interpreted everything in the Bible
correctly, but not all. I am one that does not.
> [I say almost because creationists deny that the Sun revolves around
> the Earth, although the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the
> Earth (Joshua 10:12-13).]
>
No. Strike three.
(Interlinear Bible) Joshua 10:12-13:
"Then Joshua spoke to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah gave the
Amorites up before the sons of Israel: and he said, Sun, stand still
before the eyes of Israel in Gibeon! And, Moon, stand still in the valley
of Aijalon! And the sun stood still, and the moon stood still, until the
nation was avenged on its foes. Is it not written in the Book of the
Upright? Yea, the sun stood still in the middle of the heavens,
and did not hasten to go down for a full day."
I suppose you would have a literalist believing that the Moon stood still
in a valley, and that that Sun stood still before eyeballs in Gibeon.
You can either choose to believe that this is just a fairy tale
or an observation by a person. But those passages show no indication
of an attempt to claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
The phrase "the Sun goes down" continues to be used to this day.
Perhaps you challenge almost any scientific data that contradicts
the way you intepret the Bible.
snip
Boikat
"David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com...
> evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> of macro-evolution.
> Side Issue:
>
> According to Genesis 1 God made seed-bearing plants and fruit-bearing
> trees on the third day, and then He created the Sun on the fourth day.
>
> If I correctly recall my botany lessons, seed-bearing plants and
> fruit-bearing trees need the sunlight in order for photosynthesis to
> occur. Without photosynthesis such plants and trees will die.
>
> So if Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally, then how did the
> plants and trees survive without sunlight? [And heat? The sun gives
> the heat that makes it possible for trees to live.]
Well, if interpreted litterally, one day without sunshine would not have
killed the trees, an one assumes a temparate climate since there is menton
of water, but not ice.
But YECism is still balderdash.
Boikat
>
Mark Isaak
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>"David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com..
>..
>> Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
>> evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
>> of macro-evolution.
>
>No. Evolution theory could not, and if it did, you would have
>no idea what "creationists" would say.
Evolution theory *does* allow for God to be the creator of the
evolutionary process, and yet creationists *do* deny the occurrence of
macro-evolution. It is hard for facts to be plainer than those two.
>> Indeed, creationists challenge almost any scientific data that
>> contradicts the way that they interpret the Bible.
>
>No. Creationists, like most everyone else, challenge anything
>they do not believe is true or sound.
When you are agreeing with someone, it is customary not to prefix what
you say with "no."
>> [I say almost because creationists deny that the Sun revolves around
>> the Earth, although the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the
>> Earth (Joshua 10:12-13).]
>>
>No. Strike three.
>(Interlinear Bible) Joshua 10:12-13: [snipped]
>
>I suppose you would have a literalist believing that the Moon stood still
>in a valley, and that that Sun stood still before eyeballs in Gibeon.
>
>You can either choose to believe that this is just a fairy tale
>or an observation by a person. But those passages show no indication
>of an attempt to claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
David is indeed wrong here, but not for the reason you give. Some
creationists do indeed claim that the earth is fixed and the sun
revolves around it. Tom Willis is the most prominent. He claims Ps.
19:1-6 and Ps. 93:1 as further justification.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Ross Langerak
"David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com...
> evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the
occurrence
> of macro-evolution.
Creationists are trying to prove that God exists. They believe they
can do this by proving that the Earth, life, and the Universe must
have been created. They see evolution as an obstacle to this proof.
This is why they oppose evolution, and it is also why they see
evolution as atheistic and anti-God.
Mark Isaak
<boi...@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com...
>> Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
><sorry 'bout the snip to the "side issue", but..>
>
>
>> Side Issue:
>>
>> According to Genesis 1 God made seed-bearing plants and fruit-bearing
>> trees on the third day, and then He created the Sun on the fourth day.
>>
>> If I correctly recall my botany lessons, seed-bearing plants and
>> fruit-bearing trees need the sunlight in order for photosynthesis to
>> occur. Without photosynthesis such plants and trees will die.
>>
>> So if Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally, then how did the
>> plants and trees survive without sunlight? [And heat? The sun gives
>> the heat that makes it possible for trees to live.]
>
>Well, if interpreted litterally, one day without sunshine would not have
>killed the trees, an one assumes a temparate climate since there is menton
>of water, but not ice.
Also, lots of mythologies, including Biblical, allow light from an
unnamed non-sun source.
>But YECism is still balderdash.
Indeed.
Glenn
"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:u4v300ll3icqn44f0...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:00:38 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> >"David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com..
> >..
> >> Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
> >> evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> >> of macro-evolution.
> >
> >No. Evolution theory could not, and if it did, you would have
> >no idea what "creationists" would say.
>
> Evolution theory *does* allow for God to be the creator of the
> evolutionary process,
"Allow"? Simply amazing, Mark.
>and yet creationists *do* deny the occurrence of
> macro-evolution. It is hard for facts to be plainer than those two.
Why, because you claim this is fact? Evolution theory does no such
thing.
>
> >> Indeed, creationists challenge almost any scientific data that
> >> contradicts the way that they interpret the Bible.
> >
> >No. Creationists, like most everyone else, challenge anything
> >they do not believe is true or sound.
>
> When you are agreeing with someone, it is customary not to prefix what
> you say with "no."
Thank you, but I was not agreeing.
>
> >> [I say almost because creationists deny that the Sun revolves around
> >> the Earth, although the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the
> >> Earth (Joshua 10:12-13).]
> >>
> >No. Strike three.
> >(Interlinear Bible) Joshua 10:12-13: [snipped]
> >
> >I suppose you would have a literalist believing that the Moon stood still
> >in a valley, and that that Sun stood still before eyeballs in Gibeon.
> >
> >You can either choose to believe that this is just a fairy tale
> >or an observation by a person. But those passages show no indication
> >of an attempt to claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
>
> David is indeed wrong here, but not for the reason you give.
And the reason is what you explain below?
>Some
> creationists do indeed claim that the earth is fixed and the sun
> revolves around it. Tom Willis is the most prominent. He claims Ps.
> 19:1-6 and Ps. 93:1 as further justification.
>
Ridiculous.
R. Dunno
>
> (Interlinear Bible) Joshua 10:12-13:
> "Then Joshua spoke to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah gave the
> Amorites up before the sons of Israel: and he said, Sun, stand still
> before the eyes of Israel in Gibeon! And, Moon, stand still in the valley
> of Aijalon! And the sun stood still, and the moon stood still, until the
> nation was avenged on its foes. Is it not written in the Book of the
> Upright? Yea, the sun stood still in the middle of the heavens,
> and did not hasten to go down for a full day."
>
> I suppose you would have a literalist believing that the Moon stood still
> in a valley, and that that Sun stood still before eyeballs in Gibeon.
I think the writer that penned that passage didn't consider that
what he described would appear differently from other nearby
vantage points (south of Gibeon for instance).
>
> You can either choose to believe that this is just a fairy tale
> or an observation by a person. But those passages show no indication
> of an attempt to claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
>
>
> The phrase "the Sun goes down" continues to be used to this day.
And it always goes down after being up for a "full day".
Rubystars
"David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com...
> evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> of macro-evolution.
They've been taught that evolution is a rival religion, and that its entire
purpose is to deny the "true history" of the world as revealed in the Bible.
They believe it is there to give "an excuse" so people don't have to be
accountable to God.
In fact its very hard for many rank and file creationists to grasp the
concept of theistic evolution because in their minds, evolution is for and
by atheists and serves no other purpose but as a godless philosophy.
It's very hard for them to see it on its own merits, as a scientific theory
which explains natural phenomena.
> Indeed, creationists challenge almost any scientific data that
> contradicts the way that they interpret the Bible.
> [I say almost because creationists deny that the Sun revolves around
> the Earth, although the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the
> Earth (Joshua 10:12-13).]
Whether that verse makes such a claim or not (I've heard Joshua's long day
interpreted many ways), what the creationists can't seem to understand is
that as far as science is concerned, those claims are irrelevant. They can't
grasp that the Bible is not scientific evidence in its own right, any more
than any other religious book is.
> When it comes to the interpretation of Genesis 1, creationists insist
> on a literal interpretation because they don't understand how a
> non-literal interpretation could teach a spiritual truth.
I think it's more that they've been taught it as a literal story and they
believe in it and they feel that if one part of their doctrine crumbles the
rest of it might as well, so they become defensive on even the tiniest
details and even fabricate things they then claim comes directly from the
text itself (such as the oft-repeated claim that the Grand Canyon was
created by Noah's Flood).
<Snip>
-Rubystars
Glenn
"R. Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc04b6q....@kvnet.org...
> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> >
> > (Interlinear Bible) Joshua 10:12-13:
> > "Then Joshua spoke to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah gave the
> > Amorites up before the sons of Israel: and he said, Sun, stand still
> > before the eyes of Israel in Gibeon! And, Moon, stand still in the valley
> > of Aijalon! And the sun stood still, and the moon stood still, until the
> > nation was avenged on its foes. Is it not written in the Book of the
> > Upright? Yea, the sun stood still in the middle of the heavens,
> > and did not hasten to go down for a full day."
> >
> > I suppose you would have a literalist believing that the Moon stood still
> > in a valley, and that that Sun stood still before eyeballs in Gibeon.
>
> I think the writer that penned that passage didn't consider that
> what he described would appear differently from other nearby
> vantage points (south of Gibeon for instance).
Or the moon literally occupied the space of the valley of Aijalon so
everyone ran over to Gibeon and got blinded by an eyefull of the Sun there.
>
> >
> > You can either choose to believe that this is just a fairy tale
> > or an observation by a person. But those passages show no indication
> > of an attempt to claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
> >
> >
> > The phrase "the Sun goes down" continues to be used to this day.
>
> And it always goes down after being up for a "full day".
>
Pure speculation. The sun does not stay up all day. Only at noon and
in Gibeon.
David Sienkiewicz
> "David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com..
> ..
> > Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
> > evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> > of macro-evolution.
>
> No. Evolution theory could not,
Why not, sheldon?
There are many, many christians - real christians, sheldon, not just
loud-mouthed frauds like you - who have no problem with God as the
impetus for evolution.
What do you say to them, sheldon?
> and if it did, you would have
> no idea what "creationists" would say.
How do you know THAT, sheldon? You can barely read and certainly are
no judge of what others know or would say.
> > Indeed, creationists challenge almost any scientific data that
> > contradicts the way that they interpret the Bible.
>
> No. Creationists, like most everyone else, challenge anything
> they do not believe is true or sound.
Pretty much sounds like the same thing expressed in another way,
sheldon, so don't look now, but you just agreed with him. The key
phrase, of course, is "do not believe is true and sound."
> Doubtless there are some
> people who think they have interpreted everything in the Bible
> correctly, but not all. I am one that does not.
How do you interpret, "if a man strikes you on one cheek, turn to him
the other, also?"
> > [I say almost because creationists deny that the Sun revolves around
> > the Earth, although the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the
> > Earth (Joshua 10:12-13).]
> >
> No. Strike three.
> (Interlinear Bible) Joshua 10:12-13:
> "Then Joshua spoke to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah gave the
> Amorites up before the sons of Israel: and he said, Sun, stand still
> before the eyes of Israel in Gibeon! And, Moon, stand still in the valley
> of Aijalon! And the sun stood still, and the moon stood still, until the
> nation was avenged on its foes. Is it not written in the Book of the
> Upright? Yea, the sun stood still in the middle of the heavens,
> and did not hasten to go down for a full day."
>
> I suppose you would have a literalist believing that the Moon stood still
> in a valley, and that that Sun stood still before eyeballs in Gibeon.
Some literalists believe precisely that, sheldon.
> You can either choose to believe that this is just a fairy tale
> or an observation by a person.
Or something in-between, sheldon. Consider not thinking in such
black-and-white terms, if you are capable.
< snip >
Glenn
"David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:35fa3772.04011...@posting.google.com...
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:<WvlMb.63$T31.1...@news.uswest.net>...
> > "David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com..
> > ..
> > > Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
> > > evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> > > of macro-evolution.
> >
> > No. Evolution theory could not,
>
> Why not, sheldon?
You really think I would reason with you!
>
> There are many, many christians - real christians, sheldon, not just
> loud-mouthed frauds like you -
Ah. I'll wait for the rush of posters to the defense of
my feelings.
snip
C. Thompson
> "Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:u4v300ll3icqn44f0...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:00:38 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
>> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com..
>>> ..
>>>> Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
>>>> evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the
>>>> occurrence of macro-evolution.
>>>
>>> No. Evolution theory could not, and if it did, you would have
>>> no idea what "creationists" would say.
>>
>> Evolution theory *does* allow for God to be the creator of the
>> evolutionary process,
>
> "Allow"? Simply amazing, Mark.
It is amazing that creationists don't see it. Evolutionary theory, for the
bazillionth time, makes no comment about any entity who might have started
the process. It makes no comment about how life began. It is simply a set
of observations about what has happened.
>
>> and yet creationists *do* deny the occurrence of
>> macro-evolution. It is hard for facts to be plainer than those two.
>
> Why, because you claim this is fact? Evolution theory does no such
> thing.
Are you saying here that macroevolution has occured? A simple yes or no
will do...
>>
>>>> Indeed, creationists challenge almost any scientific data that
>>>> contradicts the way that they interpret the Bible.
>>>
>>> No. Creationists, like most everyone else, challenge anything
>>> they do not believe is true or sound.
>>
>> When you are agreeing with someone, it is customary not to prefix
>> what you say with "no."
>
> Thank you, but I was not agreeing.
Therefore, the bible is not true and sound. Thank you.
>>
>>>> [I say almost because creationists deny that the Sun revolves
>>>> around the Earth, although the Bible says that the Sun revolves
>>>> around the Earth (Joshua 10:12-13).]
>>>>
>>> No. Strike three.
>>> (Interlinear Bible) Joshua 10:12-13: [snipped]
>>>
>>> I suppose you would have a literalist believing that the Moon stood
>>> still in a valley, and that that Sun stood still before eyeballs in
>>> Gibeon.
>>>
>>> You can either choose to believe that this is just a fairy tale
>>> or an observation by a person. But those passages show no indication
>>> of an attempt to claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
>>
>> David is indeed wrong here, but not for the reason you give.
>
> And the reason is what you explain below?
Yes, as a matter of fact. It is an excellent example.
>
>> Some
>> creationists do indeed claim that the earth is fixed and the sun
>> revolves around it. Tom Willis is the most prominent. He claims Ps.
>> 19:1-6 and Ps. 93:1 as further justification.
>>
> Ridiculous.
Yes, Tom Willis is ridiculous. But then, so is most creationism.
Chris
Steve Watson
> news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com..
> ..
> > Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
> > evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> > of macro-evolution.
>
> No. Evolution theory could not, and if it did, you would have
> no idea what "creationists" would say.
Really, Glenn? Which part of evolutionary theory explicitly or
implicitly excludes God as the originator of the process? Would this
be in the same way that gravitational theory excludes God as the one
who ultimately keeps the planets in orbit? Both theories say nothing
one way or the other about God's involvement. (It is a matter if
empirical observation that, whatever the Almighty may be doing, he's
darn subtle about it -- but that's a different argument).
[rest snipped]
-- Steve
(sacrificing young goat to Google, while clicking on "Post
Message"....)
Louann Miller
(David W. Robertson) wrote:
>When it comes to the interpretation of Genesis 1, creationists insist
>on a literal interpretation because they don't understand how a
>non-literal interpretation could teach a spiritual truth.
Exactly. Which theologians have gotten since about 400 AD. But knowing
theology is just as suspicious to fundamentalists as knowing science
-- to them, 'literal interpretation' doesn't require knowing anything
about the culture, language, or context of the original text. What
their preacher tells them based on what his childhood preacher told
him in 1950 based on what previous preacher read secondhand in a
commentary on Luther is 'obviously right,' and they truly believe that
has something to do with the text.
Louann
--
The full text of the 2003 evolution debate between Nowhere Man and Lilith
can be found at http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/debate/nm-lilith-1/
Barbarossa
C. Thompson <rockw...@hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
btu7di$ths$1...@pat.cis.cuny.edu...
> Glenn wrote:
> > "Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> > news:u4v300ll3icqn44f0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:00:38 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> >> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "David W. Robertson" <davidwr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com..
> >>> ..
> >>>> Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
> >>>> evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the
> >>>> occurrence of macro-evolution.
> >>>
> >>> No. Evolution theory could not, and if it did, you would have
> >>> no idea what "creationists" would say.
> >>
> >> Evolution theory *does* allow for God to be the creator of the
> >> evolutionary process,
> >
> > "Allow"? Simply amazing, Mark.
>
> It is amazing that creationists don't see it. Evolutionary theory, for
the
> bazillionth time, makes no comment about any entity who might have started
> the process. It makes no comment about how life began. It is simply a
set
> of observations about what has happened.
Correction: How it could/might have happened. We still have no time-machine
to
check whether it really happened the way evolutionists think it happened.
<snip>
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
Dana Tweedy
"Barbarossa" <fa07...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:40033218$0$1811$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
>Correction: How it could/might have happened. We still >have no
time-machine
> to
> check whether it really happened the way evolutionists think it happened.
>
> <snip>
>
> Kind Regards,
> Barbarossa
Hi Barbie. Why do you think we need a time machine? Why can't we simply
study the evidence left behind?
DJT
>
>
Barbarossa
Dana Tweedy <twe...@cvn.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
btvco5$bnokg$1...@ID-35161.news.uni-berlin.de...
Hi Dana Tweedledeedum!,
What evidence? You mean those fossils that were found in different layers?
This is how it goes. First we agree that certain layers represent certain
eras.
Then we find fossils in those layers and conclude that they belonged to
those
eras. That is not evidence. That is only assumptions!
Evolutiontheory is just a theory and nothing more.
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
Frank J
> Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
> evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> of macro-evolution.
When, ironically, "microevolution" is all that's needed to "justify"
the "social Darwinism" they so despise.
>
> Indeed, creationists challenge almost any scientific data that
> contradicts the way that they interpret the Bible.
> [I say almost because creationists deny that the Sun revolves around
> the Earth, although the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the
> Earth (Joshua 10:12-13).]
Don't forget the OECs and IDCs who deny the young earth too. And the
non-Biblical anti-evolutionists, each with their own failed account.
>
> When it comes to the interpretation of Genesis 1, creationists insist
> on a literal interpretation because they don't understand how a
> non-literal interpretation could teach a spiritual truth.
I think that most of the professional ones do, but are afraid that the
"masses" cannot:
http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml
(snip)
AC
We have a corpse. We have a bullet in the corpse. It's only an assumption
that the bullet had something to do with the demise of the person.
Interesting logic you have there. And yet you would have us believe, on
fantasy alone, that Satanists rule the world.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Dana Tweedy
snipp
> >
> > Hi Barbie. Why do you think we need a time machine? Why can't we
simply
> > study the evidence left behind?
>
> Hi Dana Tweedledeedum!,
Hi back Barbie.
>
> What evidence? You mean those fossils that were found in different layers?
The fossil record is certianly one line of evidence that supports the
theory, but not the only one, and not even the best. Besides fossils, we
also have genetic evidence, evidence from molecular studies, evidence from
comparitive anatomy, and biogeography.
> This is how it goes.
What makes you think you know enough to tell 'how it goes'?
> First we agree that certain layers represent certain
> eras.
Well, no, the layers are dated using multiple means. Some are subjective,
some are objective.
> Then we find fossils in those layers and conclude that they belonged to
> those
> eras.
Obviously fossils contained in layers of rock are the same age as the
layers. What other means would they get into the rocks?
> That is not evidence. That is only assumptions!
What would you consider to be evidence? Can you please identify what you
feel are the assumptions here?
>
> Evolutiontheory is just a theory and nothing more.
A theory is all it needs to be. That's like saying an aircraft carrier is
just a ship. Scientists use the word "theory" in a different sense than
it's used by the general public.
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
http://webhome.idirect.com/~kehamilt/foscimeth.html
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node6.html
DJT
R. Dunno
>
> "R. Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnc04b6q....@kvnet.org...
>> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > (Interlinear Bible) Joshua 10:12-13:
>> > "Then Joshua spoke to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah gave the
>> > Amorites up before the sons of Israel: and he said, Sun, stand still
>> > before the eyes of Israel in Gibeon! And, Moon, stand still in the valley
>> > of Aijalon! And the sun stood still, and the moon stood still, until the
>> > nation was avenged on its foes. Is it not written in the Book of the
>> > Upright? Yea, the sun stood still in the middle of the heavens,
>> > and did not hasten to go down for a full day."
>> >
>> > I suppose you would have a literalist believing that the Moon stood still
>> > in a valley, and that that Sun stood still before eyeballs in Gibeon.
>>
>> I think the writer that penned that passage didn't consider that
>> what he described would appear differently from other nearby
>> vantage points (south of Gibeon for instance).
>
> Or the moon literally occupied the space of the valley of Aijalon so
> everyone ran over to Gibeon and got blinded by an eyefull of the Sun there.
So the moon was actually down in the valley of Aijalon, the inhabitants
fled, to Gibeon, and were rendered powerless by the blinding Sun there.
Is this correct?
>>
>> >
>> > You can either choose to believe that this is just a fairy tale
>> > or an observation by a person. But those passages show no indication
>> > of an attempt to claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
>> >
>> >
>> > The phrase "the Sun goes down" continues to be used to this day.
>>
>> And it always goes down after being up for a "full day".
>>
> Pure speculation.
That in casual language people frequently refer to daylight
hours as "day"?
> The sun does not stay up all day.
Of course not. Unless you're in a polar region at a particular time.
What I was referring to was the casual use of language.
> Only at noon and
> in Gibeon.
Gibeon is now on my wish list of places to visit.
Joe Cummings
(David W. Robertson) wrote:
>Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
>evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
>of macro-evolution.
>
(Great big space-saving snip)
>
>So if Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally, then how did the
>plants and trees survive without sunlight? [And heat? The sun gives
>the heat that makes it possible for trees to live.]
Interesting question.
However, I think the question needs widening and deepening.
What interested me about Talk.Origins right at the beginning was the
very fact of it existing at all. The vast majority of Christians have
no problem with evolution and science generally, insofar as they think
about it. Creationism is a mainly US phenomenon, and the question
might be better posed: "What drives some Americans to disbelieve
evolution?"
When people read or hear of the fierce controversy in the US
about evolution, there is genuine puzzlement, followed quite often by
"...well, they're Americans, after all," with the implication that our
transatllantic friends do the oddest things.
It's possible to discuss a scientific controversy withoout
acerbity, but the discussion on evolution/creation seems fro here to
have reached levels of intensity more reminiscent of a civil war than
a scientific discussion. A possible further question might be: " Why
does a discussion in the US about evolution give rise to such
bitterness and enmity?"
It's when we start to probe a little deeper that interesting
things emerge. When we examine the discussion, for instance, on the
mechanics of evolution, one of the big surprises is the way in which
it is conducted. It can be said that there are two discussions going
on: one, from the evolutionist, mainstream science point of view,
which is quite happy to correct mistakes and concede points if valid,
and another, which can only be described as being of a political
nature. From this point of view, the creationist is never, ever
wrong, or, if s/he is,, s/he refuses to acknowledge it. Debating
points are scored, misrepresentation is too frequent for it to be put
down merely to ignorance of the subject matter.
(There's an amusing discussion going on at present: Pagano has
claimed that the discovery of design will falsify naturalism, and
defeat atheism. Obviously a dotty claim, but I have been asking him
to substantiate this claim. To no avail; I assume he's followed type
and gone to ground on this particular issue. - This rather than have
to admit to a Darwinist that he was perhaps exaggerating his case.)
In fact if we look at the postings of many creationists, one
gets the overwhelming impression that they are conducting a political
campaign rather than trying to arrive at the truth. Darwin, and
evolutionists generally, they regard as political enemies. Note the
number of times scientists are characterised as "atheists" or
"secularists."
The parallels between creationism and Lysenkoism - a
pseudo-science that created huge damage in the former Soviet Union
when it was adopted as politically approved "science" - are
remarkable:
People in the Soviet Union were passionately in favour of
Lysenkoism, although they were unable to explain what Lysenkoism was
or what was wrong with mainstrream genetics, just as many creationists
send a posting to talk.origins, possibly based on something their
preacher has said, and when they are corrected they disappear never to
return, because they haven't really studied the subject, they're
merely repeating the "party line."
It also seems wincingly obvious that when a proposal is made
for "equal time," to be granted to creationism or for "intelligent
design" to be taught, the proposers are very often shown up to be
ignorant of the subject of genetics or even biology..
Of course, in the Soviet Union, mainstream science itself
wasn't being attacked, it was "bourgeois science" and here in our
little battleground of talk.origins, it isn't mainstream science
itself that is being attacked, it's "secular" and "atheist" science.
Just keep a sharp eye out for the number of times the word "scientist"
carries with it an epithet.
The political nature of much anti-evolutionism is seen most
clearly in the statement about the "Wedge;" its stated aim is the
"overthrow of materialism," and a POLITICAL strategy is outlined to
this end.
Why? Because a philosophical viewpoint - materialism - is
blamed for all the social evils of the modern world. The criticism of
these evils forms a catalogue of conservative positions on social
issues.
Note this:creationism is a marker for a complete conservative
world outlook, and not at all a mere critique of various
interpretations of the Bible.
I think it is this, more than any argument about texts, that
drives the creationists.
I'd like to continue this, but I have to go to Blighty (qv)
for a short spell. Perhaps on my return the opportunity may arise for
a more leisurely discussion of this interesting topic.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Peter H. Proctor
<fa07...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Hi Barbie. Why do you think we need a time machine? Why can't we simply
>> study the evidence left behind?
>What evidence? You mean those fossils that were found in different layers?
>This is how it goes. First we agree that certain layers represent certain
>eras. Then we find fossils in those layers and conclude that they belonged to
>those eras. That is not evidence. That is only assumptions!
There are two possible explainations for the geological record:
1) The world is actually as old as it seems. OR
2) Whether it is true or not, G*d wants us to believe the world is
old. Otherwise, why bother with all those fossiles, isotope
ratios, red shifts, etc. ?
In which case, creatioinsts committ blasphemy. Remember,
HE says that we can read his will in HIS creation.
>Evolutiontheory is just a theory and nothing more.
True, theories are merely artificial constructs invented to
explain "observables". Just part of the general toolbox of science.
The difference is that G*d seems to have gone to extraordinary lengths
to make this particular theory unfalsifiable. The Lord does work in
mysterious ways.
Dr P
Barbarossa
>
> "Barbarossa" <fa07...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:40033ab9$0$296$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> snipp
>
> > >
> > > Hi Barbie. Why do you think we need a time machine? Why can't we
> simply
> > > study the evidence left behind?
> >
> > Hi Dana Tweedledeedum!,
>
> Hi back Barbie.
Hi Back Dana Tweedledeedummie,
> > What evidence? You mean those fossils that were found in different
layers?
>
> The fossil record is certianly one line of evidence that supports the
> theory, but not the only one, and not even the best. Besides fossils, we
> also have genetic evidence, evidence from molecular studies, evidence from
> comparitive anatomy, and biogeography.
So, there is genetic evidence that I evolved from the prokaryots? Please
give me
all, and I repeat, all the evidence from scratch (4.5 billion years ago). No
assumptions please but all the hard evidence.
So, the bones in my hand show some resemblance with the structure in let's
say the feathers of a bird. Is that evidence for evolution? No, again, it is
assuming
and not evidence at all. With the same we could also conclude that an ID-er
likes to recycle or to use same sort of constructions to create different
lifeforms.
So, it is no evidence for evolution at all.
<snip>
> > Then we find fossils in those layers and conclude that they belonged to
> > those
> > eras.
>
> Obviously fossils contained in layers of rock are the same age as the
> layers. What other means would they get into the rocks?
Natural catastrophes. Tectonic plates on the move. Vulcanic eruptions.
Earthquakes. Floods. Remember that a few billion years ago the moon
stood much closer to the Earth than today, so it caused huge floods and
vulcanic activity.
> > That is not evidence. That is only assumptions!
>
> What would you consider to be evidence? Can you please identify what you
> feel are the assumptions here?
See above,
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> > The fossil record is certianly one line of evidence that supports the
> > theory, but not the only one, and not even the best. Besides fossils,
we
> > also have genetic evidence, evidence from molecular studies, evidence
from
> > comparitive anatomy, and biogeography.
>
> So, there is genetic evidence that I evolved from the prokaryots?
Yes, there is. It's called DNA.
> Please
> give me
> all, and I repeat, all the evidence from scratch (4.5 billion years ago).
No
> assumptions please but all the hard evidence.
That would be a rather tall order, considering this is a newsgroup, not a
university genetics course. I can point you in the direction of the
evidence but you have to do your own work here. Also, "from scratch" I
presume you mean abiogenesis, which is still under investigation, with no
clear answer as to how the first life form began. As far as the genetic
evidence for evolution, please see:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/eukevol1.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020207075601.htm
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/93/1/166.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/3/14
http://www.denovobio.com/pdf/deNovoBiologic.pdf
http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/students/w96/joshbond/symb.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9608053&dopt=Abstract
This gives a list of journal references for prokaryote to eukaryote
evolution:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~perkinss/teaching/EME/Eukmicrobesrefs.pdf
I also need to know what you consider to be "assumption" and which you
would consider to be "hard evidence".
>
> So, the bones in my hand show some resemblance with the structure in let's
> say the feathers of a bird.
No, the bones in your hand are not related to the structure in a bird's
feather. Bones are part of the internal skeleton of a vertibrate, while
feathers are a derived characteristic common to the class Aves.
>Is that evidence for evolution?
No, it's a reflection of your own ignorance. The bones in the forearm of a
human and the feathers on a bird are not homologus structures, by any
stretch of the imagination.
> No, again, it is
> assuming
> and not evidence at all.
What is "assumed" here? Feathers and bones are radically different
structures with radically different derivation.
> With the same we could also conclude that an ID-er
> likes to recycle or to use same sort of constructions to create different
> lifeforms.
Do you have any evidence of an "ID-er"? Why would an intelligent designer
choose to re-use structures, rather than build structures for a specific
purpose?
> So, it is no evidence for evolution at all.
No one said it was. Feathers are a derived form of reptilian skin scale.
Bones are derived from entirely different structures.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Then we find fossils in those layers and conclude that they belonged
to
> > > those
> > > eras.
> >
> > Obviously fossils contained in layers of rock are the same age as the
> > layers. What other means would they get into the rocks?
>
> Natural catastrophes.
What kind of natural catastrophe is capable of putting fossils inside an
already existing rock strata?
> Tectonic plates on the move.
Will move the fossil bearing strata from one location to another, but not
put the fossils in the rocks.
> Vulcanic eruptions.
May cause a layer of strata to form, with fossils inside, but won't place
fossils inside an already existing rock strata. Also, volcanic eruptions
provide lava sills and incursions, that allow the objective dating of the
fossil bearing layers.
> Earthquakes.
Earthquakes are the result of Tectonic plates on the move. Again, they will
move fossil bearing strata, but not place fossils into the strata.
> Floods.
A flood will make it's own fossil bearing strata, but again won't place
fossils into an already existing rock layer.
> Remember that a few billion years ago the moon
> stood much closer to the Earth than today, so it caused huge floods and
> vulcanic activity.
Citation for this claim please. The moon was a bit closer "billions" of
years ago, but not enough to cause "huge floods" and volcanic activity.
Also, billions of years ago, the only life forms we know of were primarily
blue green algae. Why would floods and volcanoes "billions" of years ago
account for the fossil record as we see it today?
>
> > > That is not evidence. That is only assumptions!
> >
> > What would you consider to be evidence? Can you please identify what
you
> > feel are the assumptions here?
>
> See above,
Barbie, you are going to have to do better. You haven't answered either
question above. Please, again:
What would you consider to be evidence?
What do you feel are the assumptions?
DJT
Alan Jeffery
for your Jeezuz. Straighten all us evolutionist/atheists out.
Alan Jeffery
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
<snip>
> So, the bones in my hand show some resemblance with the structure in let's
> say the feathers of a bird. Is that evidence for evolution? No, again, it is
> assuming
> and not evidence at all. With the same we could also conclude that an ID-er
> likes to recycle or to use same sort of constructions to create different
> lifeforms.
<snip>
Allow me once again to ask my eternally unanswered question:
How do we test your hypothesis. Let's take your
hypothesis and put it through the scientific method,
shall we?
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe, for instance, that humans and chimps share
unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C
gene.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis,
that is consistent with what you have observed.
OK, your proposed hypothesis is "an intelligent
designer used a common design to produce both
chimps and humans, and that common design
included placing a broken vitamin C gene in both products."
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
Here is your chance to shine. What
predictions can we make from your hypothesis. If an
Intelligent Designer used a common design to
produce both chimps and humans, then we would
also expect to see . . . . . . . . . . . .?
Fill in the blank.
And, to better help us test your hypothesis, it's most
useful to point out some negative predictions ---
things which, if found, would FALSIFY your
hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that your
hypothesis is wrong. So, then --- if we find (fill in the
blank here), then the "common design"
hypothesis would have to be rejected.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further
observations and modify the hypothesis in the light
of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no
discrepancies between theory and experiment
and/or observation.
Well, we seem to be sort of stuck on step 3.
Help us out here. Give us some testible predictions
from your hypothesis. Tell us how to go about
testing them.
Or, would you rather than we just skip steps 3,4 and
5, and just take your religious word for it that your
hypothesis must be true. Is that, after all, what ID is
all about?
Take note here --- there are NO limits
imposed here on the nature of your predictions,
other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3,4
and 5 (whatever predictions you make must be
testible by experiments or further observations.) You
are entirely free to invoke whatever deities or
supernatural causes that you like, in whatever
number you like, so long as you follow along to steps
3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities
or causes using experiment or further observation.
Want to tell us that the Good Witch Glenda used her
magic non-naturalistic staff to POP these genetic
sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine ---
just tell us what experiment or observation we can
perform to test that. Want to tell us that God didn't
like humans very much and therefore decided to
design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works
for me -- just as soon as you tell us what experiment
or observation we can perform to test it. Feel entirely
and totally free to use all the supernaturalistic
causes that you like. Just tell us what
experiment or observation we can perform to test
your predictions.
Let's throw methodological
materialism right out the window. Gone. Bye-bye.
Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits,
demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies,
magic star goats, whatever god-thing you like. Feel
free to include and invoke all of them. As many as
you need. Show us all how to apply the scientific
method to whatever non-naturalistic science you
choose to invoke in order to subject your hypothesis
"genetic similarities between chimps and humans
are the product of a common design" to the scientific
method.
I look forward to your not answering this question. Again.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Mike Dworetsky
"Joe Cummings" <joseph....@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:2im700dd9m522bqom...@4ax.com...
POTM nomination!
I think you have seen through to the essence of the problem, and summed it
up nicely. Although, there is a bit of this in the UK as well (though not
with much political clout yet).
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Seppo Pietikainen
Seconded!
Seppo P.
Victor Eijkhout
> Note this:creationism is a marker for a complete conservative
> world outlook
Where "conservative" stands for "wants to uproot many aspects of life to
suit their prejudices". I'd have written "reactionary right-wing" here.
These jokers give conservatism just as bad a name as they do
Christianity.
V.
--
email: lastname at cs utk edu
homepage: cs utk edu tilde lastname
Barbarossa
Alan Jeffery <observa...@xtra.co.nz> schreef in berichtnieuws
aM1Nb.11274$9k7.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Why is someone daring to question evolutionism a fundy? That is a conclusion
that is completely and utter without any proper logic.
It is utter bullshit that when you dare to question science and evolution
you must
be a fundy.
It is the same bullshit that when you criticize creationism or ID-ism that
you are
a darwinist or evolutionist pur sang.
You see, most wisdom and progression in history happened by people daring to
question things.
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa.
Barbarossa
>
> "Barbarossa" <fa07...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:400494dc$0$1162$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> snipping
>
> > > The fossil record is certianly one line of evidence that supports the
> > > theory, but not the only one, and not even the best. Besides fossils,
> we
> > > also have genetic evidence, evidence from molecular studies, evidence
> from
> > > comparitive anatomy, and biogeography.
> >
> > So, there is genetic evidence that I evolved from the prokaryots?
>
> Yes, there is. It's called DNA.
Oops??? So, because prokaryots have DNA and I have DNA that looks
a bit like that of prokaryots I evolved from prokaryots?. Again, that is not
evidence, it's assuming and assuming and assuming again. It's the same as
stating: "wow, I have chalk in my bones. There are caves with lots of chalk
in it.
So, I evolved from chalkcaves"
> > Please
> > give me
> > all, and I repeat, all the evidence from scratch (4.5 billion years
ago).
> No
> > assumptions please but all the hard evidence.
>
> That would be a rather tall order, considering this is a newsgroup, not a
> university genetics course. I can point you in the direction of the
> evidence but you have to do your own work here. Also, "from scratch" I
> presume you mean abiogenesis, which is still under investigation, with no
> clear answer as to how the first life form began.
So you have no"clear answer" or let alone evidence how life started from
scratch, yet you base your whole life on that idea. And you accusing others
of using strawmen? You got some guts I must admit.
<snip>
> > So, the bones in my hand show some resemblance with the structure in
let's
> > say the feathers of a bird.
>
> No, the bones in your hand are not related to the structure in a bird's
> feather. Bones are part of the internal skeleton of a vertibrate, while
> feathers are a derived characteristic common to the class Aves.
>
> >Is that evidence for evolution?
>
> No, it's a reflection of your own ignorance. The bones in the forearm of
a
> human and the feathers on a bird are not homologus structures, by any
> stretch of the imagination.
Okidoki, wrong example, I was not my intention to talk about feathers. It
was my intention to talk about the bonestructures inside the wing of a bird.
See, years ago when I was younger I worked at a chickenslaughter and
when the ckickens where slaughtered and hanged on hooks in the ceiling they
resembled little babies hanging upside down without heads. So, because
the bonestructure of chickens resemble my bonestructure or because my
bonestructure resembles the bonestructure of another organism that is
evidence for evolution? Nope, it is not. It is assumptions. An ID-er could
well use same sort of structures for different animals.
<snip>
> > > > Then we find fossils in those layers and conclude that they belonged
> to
> > > > those
> > > > eras.
> > >
> > > Obviously fossils contained in layers of rock are the same age as the
> > > layers. What other means would they get into the rocks?
> >
> > Natural catastrophes.
>
> What kind of natural catastrophe is capable of putting fossils inside an
> already existing rock strata?
>
> > Tectonic plates on the move.
>
> Will move the fossil bearing strata from one location to another, but not
> put the fossils in the rocks.
And how can you be sure of that?
> > Vulcanic eruptions.
>
> May cause a layer of strata to form, with fossils inside, but won't place
> fossils inside an already existing rock strata. Also, volcanic eruptions
> provide lava sills and incursions, that allow the objective dating of the
> fossil bearing layers.
Idem, how can you be sure of that?
> > Earthquakes.
>
> Earthquakes are the result of Tectonic plates on the move. Again, they
will
> move fossil bearing strata, but not place fossils into the strata.
Idem, how can you be sure of that?
> > Floods.
>
> A flood will make it's own fossil bearing strata, but again won't place
> fossils into an already existing rock layer.
Landslides will destroy layers so that fossils can be put elsewhere.
Vulcanic
explosions or eruptions can crush pieces of rocks and eject fossils into
other layers. Floods cause erosion of layers of rocks. So, lady, Dana
Tweedy, you cannot be sure at all when you find a fossil in a certain layer
that it died there and has stayed there all the eons. When for example the
vulcan at Santorini - Greece exploded in 1450 BC rocks where ejected
and landed into Egypt!
> > Remember that a few billion years ago the moon
> > stood much closer to the Earth than today, so it caused huge floods and
> > vulcanic activity.
>
> Citation for this claim please. The moon was a bit closer "billions" of
> years ago, but not enough to cause "huge floods" and volcanic activity.
> Also, billions of years ago, the only life forms we know of were primarily
> blue green algae. Why would floods and volcanoes "billions" of years ago
> account for the fossil record as we see it today?
About a year ago I saw an astronomical documentary on Disovery Channel
and it was titled "What if we had no moon". Real astronomers were talking
about the history of the moon and told the audience that the moon was much
closer to the Earth a few billion years ago, causing cataclism-like floods
all
over the world. And because of the gravitational effects huge vulcanic
activity.
The moon is now slowly moving away from us. Total eclipses of the Sun will
become more and more rarely. A few hundred million years from now the
moon will be so far receeded that its stabilizing effect on th polar ax of
the
Earth fails and the Earth will start to tumble ramdomly and eventually one
side
of the Earth will be directed to the Sun forgood and the other half in
bitter
freezing conditions. Yep, the end!
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
Dana Tweedy
>
> Dana Tweedy <twe...@cvn.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
> bu28dd$cti7t$1...@ID-35161.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Barbarossa" <fa07...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > news:400494dc$0$1162$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> > snipping
> >
> > > > The fossil record is certianly one line of evidence that supports
the
> > > > theory, but not the only one, and not even the best. Besides
fossils,
> > we
> > > > also have genetic evidence, evidence from molecular studies,
evidence
> > from
> > > > comparitive anatomy, and biogeography.
> > >
> > > So, there is genetic evidence that I evolved from the prokaryots?
> >
> > Yes, there is. It's called DNA.
>
> Oops??? So, because prokaryots have DNA and I have DNA that looks
> a bit like that of prokaryots I evolved from prokaryots?.
Yes, however the prokaryotes that are alive today are not the prokaryotes
that eukaryotes evolved from.
> Again, that is not
> evidence, it's assuming and assuming and assuming again.
You seem to be saying that any evidence is "assuming". Exactly what
definition of "assuming" are you using?
> It's the same as
> stating: "wow, I have chalk in my bones. There are caves with lots of
chalk
> in it.
> So, I evolved from chalkcaves"
Except that chalk caves are not living things, they are the remains of
living things. The calcium carbonate in our bones is similar to the
calcium carbonate in chalk. It shows the relationship between living
things.
>
> > > Please
> > > give me
> > > all, and I repeat, all the evidence from scratch (4.5 billion years
> ago).
> > No
> > > assumptions please but all the hard evidence.
> >
> > That would be a rather tall order, considering this is a newsgroup, not
a
> > university genetics course. I can point you in the direction of the
> > evidence but you have to do your own work here. Also, "from scratch" I
> > presume you mean abiogenesis, which is still under investigation, with
no
> > clear answer as to how the first life form began.
>
> So you have no"clear answer" or let alone evidence how life started from
> scratch, yet you base your whole life on that idea.
What makes you think I base my whole life on any particular hypothesis of
abiogenesis? Again, please understand that evolution and abiogenesis are
not the same thing. We have plenty of evidence of evolution, but less
evidence of abiogenesis.
> And you accusing others
> of using strawmen? You got some guts I must admit.
Thank you. But what "strawman" are you claiming that I'm using? We don't
know exactly how life began, true, but we have a very clear picture of how
life evolved.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > So, the bones in my hand show some resemblance with the structure in
> let's
> > > say the feathers of a bird.
> >
> > No, the bones in your hand are not related to the structure in a bird's
> > feather. Bones are part of the internal skeleton of a vertibrate, while
> > feathers are a derived characteristic common to the class Aves.
> >
> > >Is that evidence for evolution?
> >
> > No, it's a reflection of your own ignorance. The bones in the forearm
of
> a
> > human and the feathers on a bird are not homologus structures, by any
> > stretch of the imagination.
>
> Okidoki, wrong example, I was not my intention to talk about feathers. It
> was my intention to talk about the bonestructures inside the wing of a
bird.
> See, years ago when I was younger I worked at a chickenslaughter and
> when the ckickens where slaughtered and hanged on hooks in the ceiling
they
> resembled little babies hanging upside down without heads. So, because
> the bonestructure of chickens resemble my bonestructure or because my
> bonestructure resembles the bonestructure of another organism that is
> evidence for evolution? Nope, it is not. It is assumptions.
Again, what do you mean by "assumption" here? What do you feel is being
assumed?
An ID-er could
> well use same sort of structures for different animals.
An "Intelligent Designer" could use whatever it wants, therefore appeal to
an intelligent designer can't be falsified, and is not scientific. The bone
structure of not only birds, but all vertibrates share certian similarities,
which the theory of common descent explains. Why would a designer make a
wing out of a theropod forelimb, and not a purpose built structure?
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > Then we find fossils in those layers and conclude that they
belonged
> > to
> > > > > those
> > > > > eras.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously fossils contained in layers of rock are the same age as
the
> > > > layers. What other means would they get into the rocks?
> > >
> > > Natural catastrophes.
> >
> > What kind of natural catastrophe is capable of putting fossils inside an
> > already existing rock strata?
> >
> > > Tectonic plates on the move.
> >
> > Will move the fossil bearing strata from one location to another, but
not
> > put the fossils in the rocks.
>
> And how can you be sure of that?
What mechanism are you proposing that would cause younger fossils to be
placed in older rocks? Please be specific, just appeal to "tectonic plates"
doesn't tell us anything.
>
> > > Vulcanic eruptions.
> >
> > May cause a layer of strata to form, with fossils inside, but won't
place
> > fossils inside an already existing rock strata. Also, volcanic
eruptions
> > provide lava sills and incursions, that allow the objective dating of
the
> > fossil bearing layers.
>
> Idem, how can you be sure of that?
What mechainism are you proposing? You are making the positive claim here,
that volcanoes will place fossils into already existing strata. Please
enlighten us how this could occur.
>
> > > Earthquakes.
> >
> > Earthquakes are the result of Tectonic plates on the move. Again, they
> will
> > move fossil bearing strata, but not place fossils into the strata.
>
> Idem, how can you be sure of that?
Because it's not possible. If you feel it is possible, please tell us how.
>
> > > Floods.
> >
> > A flood will make it's own fossil bearing strata, but again won't place
> > fossils into an already existing rock layer.
>
> Landslides will destroy layers so that fossils can be put elsewhere.
Landslides leave traces, so any competent geologist can tell if a landslide
placed older fossils in a younger layer. You still haven't told how a
younger fossil could be put in an older layer.
> Vulcanic
> explosions or eruptions can crush pieces of rocks and eject fossils into
> other layers.
They would destroy any fossils, and would not place any into already
existing layers. You are clearly reaching here.
> Floods cause erosion of layers of rocks.
Again, they would not place younger fossils into older layers of rock, and
floods leave traces in the rocks.
> So, lady, Dana
> Tweedy,
"Lady"??? That's MISTER Tweedy to you.
you cannot be sure at all when you find a fossil in a certain layer
> that it died there and has stayed there all the eons.
You can if there are no signs of disturbance. Again, you haven't explained
how any of the above could place younger fossils in an older layer.
>When for example the
> vulcan at Santorini - Greece exploded in 1450 BC rocks where ejected
> and landed into Egypt!
Your point being? Hint, igneous rocks don't have fossils.
>
> > > Remember that a few billion years ago the moon
> > > stood much closer to the Earth than today, so it caused huge floods
and
> > > vulcanic activity.
> >
> > Citation for this claim please. The moon was a bit closer "billions" of
> > years ago, but not enough to cause "huge floods" and volcanic activity.
> > Also, billions of years ago, the only life forms we know of were
primarily
> > blue green algae. Why would floods and volcanoes "billions" of years
ago
> > account for the fossil record as we see it today?
>
> About a year ago I saw an astronomical documentary on Disovery Channel
> and it was titled "What if we had no moon".
I'm sorry but " I saw it on TV a year ago" is not a proper citation. Can
you please produce a proper citation for your claim, to show you aren't
mis-remembering or otherwise making it up entirely?
> Real astronomers were talking
> about the history of the moon and told the audience that the moon was much
> closer to the Earth a few billion years ago, causing cataclism-like floods
> all
> over the world.
Which "real astronomers" were they? Citation please.
> And because of the gravitational effects huge vulcanic
> activity.
> The moon is now slowly moving away from us.
Yes, the moon is slowly moving away. Please give a citation for your claim
that it's gravitation causes "huge vulcanic activity".
>Total eclipses of the Sun will
> become more and more rarely. A few hundred million years from now the
> moon will be so far receeded that its stabilizing effect on th polar ax of
> the
> Earth fails and the Earth will start to tumble ramdomly and eventually one
> side
> of the Earth will be directed to the Sun forgood and the other half in
> bitter
> freezing conditions. Yep, the end!
Citation for this bit of silliness?
DJT
David
> >
> > Yes, there is. It's called DNA.
>
> Oops??? So, because prokaryots have DNA and I have DNA that looks
> a bit like that of prokaryots I evolved from prokaryots?.
Interestingly, this DNA connection is more fantastic than you think.
Each of our cells evolved from multiple lineages of prokayotes.
See the link for endosymbiont theory. http://tinyurl.com/3f6zu
This theory was accepted in the 70's based the work of Lynn Margulis.
The outside 'shell' of our cell is related to an unknown prokaryote
often called a 'protoeukaryote'. This protoeukaryote engulfed a
different prokaryote (related to the alpha-proteobacteria) that became
the mitochondria. This led to eukaryotic cells and multicellular life.
In one lineage this happened again, this time an ancestor of
cyanobacteria was engulfed; this became the modern chloroplast. Thus,
plants have mitochondria and chloroplasts, both descended from ancient
lineages of prokaryotes as well as the original protoeucaryote.
Isn't that cool? Of course I don't expect you to believe a word but
it's your choice to be ignorant.
David
Alan Jeffery
The evidence, so far, indicates you're a fundy. If not, then what are your
beliefs?
>
> It is utter bullshit that when you dare to question science and evolution
> you must
> be a fundy.
>
> It is the same bullshit that when you criticize creationism or ID-ism that
> you are
> a darwinist or evolutionist pur sang.
I am neither, as you are creating strawmen. Those who agree with the ToE
are neither Darwinists, nor evolutionists. That is a label attached to
people who agree with the ToE by fundies, and their ilk.
>
> You see, most wisdom and progression in history happened by people daring
to
> question things.
Questioning things is not sufficient, of itself. Sound inquiry also creates
hypotheses, and so replaces that which is falsified with something new.
Your failure to understand this places you firmly in the fundy camp. Or, if
not, simply a post-modernist nay-sayer.
Alan Jeffery
>
> Kind Regards,
> Barbarossa.
Eros
No, it is simply the more likely of two possible options.
> It is utter bullshit that when you dare to question science and evolution
> you must
> be a fundy.
You are correct.... although the alternative is that you are so
mind-numbingly stupid that you don't understand *any* of the numerous
evidence for evolution presented by science. So, which are you... a
fundy or just mind-numbingly stupid?
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science
can contradict the Bible." -- Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for Creation
Research)
David Sienkiewicz
> "David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:35fa3772.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > > news:5d618200.04011...@posting.google.com..
> > > ..
> > > > evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> > > > of macro-evolution.
> > >
> >
>
> You really think I would reason with you!
No, sheldon, I really don't.
But you could do a lot to show that you know what you're talking about
by answering the question.
> > There are many, many christians - real christians, sheldon, not just
> > loud-mouthed frauds like you -
>
> Ah. I'll wait for the rush of posters to the defense of
> my feelings.
sheldon, if no one cares about your feelings, you only have yourself
to blame.
Playing martyr doesn't suit you.
David Sienkiewicz
> David Sienkiewicz <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Doubtless there are some
> >people who think they have interpreted everything in the Bible
> >correctly, but not all. I am one that does not.
>
> How do you interpret, "if a man strikes you on one cheek, turn
> to him the other, also?"