I believe that "I don't know" is a very acceptable and courageous answer to many of life's questions. It should probably be the best answer to most of them.

WAT

I thought my inquiry regarding the basis for the age of the earth in Creation Science - and how the great flood figures into that - was quite serious and honest. I want to understand that as well as the basis for the claims that the laws of thermo are violated by evolutionary mechanisms. Until I can evaluate these type things I am, in fact, predisposed to believe the things I have had an opportunity to evaluate with my level of understanding. The jury may believe the prosecution's case before hearing the defense.

In the meantime I did "Google" catastrophism to see what that is, since I had never heard of it before, but I haven't had time to read it. I just confirmed that there is info out there.

But you are correct - my God does not intervene in human history. So we are similar - we both are predisposed to denying each other's diety.
Correct again. Evolution is a work in progress - pun intended. Only creationists declare that it has been "proven" - every refinement or new discovery is held up as "proof" that the prior "proof" was invalid. Science considers it the best explanation so far.

Remember, Einstein "disproved" Newton - he showed that Newton's good work falls apart in the extremes. At one time, the sound barrier was thought to be insurmountable for manned flight.

Science is open to new information and if that information is provided by a Creation Scientist - so be it. Bring it on. Hence my desire to understand the 6000 year basis. It has been dismissed out of hand - but I can only suspect why because I've only seen one side of the story. So, you may not personally care what I believe, but I do want to understand what you believe.

WAT

WAT


Oops, I will try to read the thread before throwing anything else out there. You peeked my curiosity about it being acquired via deception.

Not to throw another possible already talked about topic, but I was in a science class last year and we touched on the Galapados islands. It was very fascinating to say the least.

MM


I feel choked up and honored. Thank you. I am still a work in progress. Who knows where I will end up. With two hubbys now who both went wayward on me, I have had a lot to feed the resentment fires. I am softening now though since this H has done a 180 and become more loving than I thought was possible out of him. Safety in his care and love is what is giving me the opportunity to deal with the hurt around the church. Oh goodie gumdrops. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Just another thought or maybe question--Why does it have to challenge any faith, be it christian or anything eles, if science finds and understands more clearly what happened with the beginning of the universe? Or tries to understand, I probably should say.

The bible is afterall an ancient text and the people that wrote down what their collective interpretations were, doesn't mean they were privy to the whole picture. We are still not privy to the whole picture. We are still making educated guesses. So I don't fully understand why any one religion feels threatened with science.

I mean I took a anthropology class on native indians of the northwest and one tribe believed they came out of a giant clam shell and I would be shocked if any member of that tribe was offended that science had a come to a different conclusion. Why is it different for Christians?

No offense to anyone, just a wondering outloud.

Tig

This echoes my view as well and suggests what I think is the major rub with some Christians when it comes to their faith - the Bible inerrancy issue. Those who believe it is literally true have good reason to feel threatened by anything - science or otherwise - that provides a perceived or prima facie contradiction. For those that do not make a literal interpretation, co-existence with potential contradictions can be accepted. This is the way it all appears to me, at least.

I plan to visit the Galapagos in a few years.

WAT

It's going 2 take me a while 2 get caught up here, but:

"Nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, weapons of all types and kinds (and the science that was the "cause" of atrocities resulting from misuse of that science), abortion that kills millions of totally innocent babies, the list of "atrocities," and potential atrocities through the misapplication of what is taught, under the 'guise' of "enlightened" moral relativism and science, could be very long indeed."

Are you suggesting that, if I take my 15/16" Craftsman Combination wrench and cave someone's head in with it that the engineers who designed the wrench are in any way responsible for my misuse of it? My use of a wrench in that manner certainly would not be an "atrocity in the name of wrench engineering". Similarly, use of a nuke 2 kill people is not done "in the name of science". I disagree with your comparison.

End of discussion.

-ol' 2long

FH--But proponents of evolution are quick to pull a "mea culpa" anytime some new information or discovery comes along that "disproves" a previous "proof of evolution." For example, when I was studying biology, the "favorite" phrase of evolutionary proof was: "philogeny recapitulates ontogeny." It's not necessary to go into all that such a phrase, taught as FACT, entails. It's enough to know that means basically that "higher forms of life" "pass through" earlier evolutionary stages as the fetus is developing. "Gill slits" for example, that are "reabsorbed" as the fetus passes through that "earlier step" along the way to what it is today.


I don’t know about the particular example of the gill slits--this may very well have been refuted--but the modern version of Haeckel's Biogenetic Law is that the ontogeny of a particular species in fact (independently) matches particular portions of the evolutionary pathway established from the historical phylogenic tree. This concept was indeed not disproved (if it was, please cite the unrefuted peer-reviewed scientific research papers stating such), but verified. There are numerous modern published research papers on this which I can refer you to. It also appears in modern evolutionary biology textbooks.

I am still interested in seeing a scientific hypothesis of special creation. I have read creationist books and articles, visited creationist websites, attended creationist seminars, and held numerous discussions with creationists over the years, and yet I have never seen it.

For those claiming that creationism is scientific, I’m sure you must have seen this fundamental component of scientific creationism somewhere (along with its necessary list of specific claims and viable empirical test results that could falsify it). Please share your knowledge. And here you wouldn’t even need a scientific reference, but just a claim that meets the bare minimum requirements, as described in the parentheses above, for a potential scientific hypothesis.

(I’m also waiting for a potential discussion of evolution and thermodynamics. It would do me well to brush the dust off of my undergrad thermo text).

FH:

"I previously mentioned the Coelocanth as another example."

And I forgot 2 comment on it at the time. The discovery of live Coelocanths off the coast of Madagascar in the 30s did NOT refute evolution in any way. The coelocanth is one of a number of lobe-finned fishes (not lungfishes, for which there are modern examples as well) that could have transitioned in2 amphibians, though the transitional form may not have been descended from coelocanths (more likely, it would have been a lungfish WITH something like lobe fins). The coelocanth survives 2day because it was successful - for the same reason that viruses and bacteria do (very primitive forms of life).

-ol' 2long

Also, previously, I used the term "nutballs" 2 describe *some* adherents 2 unconventional ideas in the face of evidence 2 the contrary. I think I indicated that some of these people are dangerous.

2day, I learned that a "protestor" from the "Face on Mars" fringe group was set up outside our insti2tion over the weekend through yes2rday, with placards.

One of them said, in larger-than-the-rest lettering "[2long's real name] lies!"

I had 2 think long and hard where that came from, and can only think it 2k this long for them 2 find a popular magazine article I wrote on the subject about 5 years ago.

I thought I was being pretty even-handed (2 the extent that's possible) and objective.

Now THAT is a nutball!

-ol' 2long

WAT


Just had to say I am jealous. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> If we are both still on this board, you simply must promise to share your experience with me.

And just have to say that all the big words make me feel like I am studying once again for my science midterms. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> The glossary and I became great friends. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Tiggy

That face sorta looked like me - no hair.

I once saw the image of JL in the head of a beer. I drank it before he could.

WAT

Well, Tig, I will if I have the gadgets to uplink from the boat. I'm hoping that communications will continue to "evolve" at the pace they have been to make that easy and cheap.

There are tours to the islands, though rather pricey. Perhaps you can swing one of those.

WAT

Catastrophism is simply the notion that big, bad things happen(ed) 2 affect things on Earth.

When geology really 2k off as a science in the 19th cen2ry, the notion of uniformitarianism replaced catastrophism 2 explain the geologic his2ry of the planet. Uniformitarianism simply stated is the idea that "the present is the key 2 the past".

This led many 2 refute such extraordinary claims as the observation by Harlan Bretz, in the early 20th cen2ry, that a gigantic flood (about 500 cubic miles of water) carved streamlined hills in2 the Palouse Formation (earlier loess deposits that are famous as good farm soil) of southeast Washington state, simply because stuff like that hasn't happened in historic times. It wasn't until the advent of aerial photography that it was possible 2 map out the extent of the flood and, more importantly perhaps, the shorelines of the lake from which it came.

Nowadays, I believe that uniformitarianism really means that, sure, the present is the key 2 the past, but more importantly the laws of physics are applicable 2 understanding prehistoric events just as they are modern ones.

Noah's flood can be "true" without it ever having taken place - that is the PURPOSE of mythology. Myths can be thought of as "big fat parables" or something. Again, I'd defer 2 the late Joseph Campbell and his book (and miniseries on PBS in the 1980s) "The Power of Myth."

The flood, as literally inferred from the account in the Bible, would indeed require a setting aside of the physical laws in order 2 produce all that water, then get rid of it, AND not flood ANY "dry land" surfaces that show no evidence of inundation since long before this flood is supposed 2 have occurred.

And like Kevin Costner's "Waterworld", there just isn't enough ice in the polar caps or water in rivers and lakes to flood the earth 2 the depths required. All the Earth's lakes and rivers combined amount 2 less than 2 THOUSANDTHS of one percent of the volume of water in the oceans. The polar ice caps are more substantial, and yet still would only raise sea level globally by 300 feet or so (as they have done more than once during the recent ice ages). That wouldn't even put my house near the beach, un42nately.

-ol' 2long

I have never understood why so many people conflate "creation" with "creation science." Most people who see evolution as a proven fact and creation science as bunk still believe that God created the universe.

In all of the discussions I have had with creation science advocates, I have been fascinated that most of them are not aware of the extent to which their belief is confined to American fundamentalist Christianity. There are small pockets of anti-evolution and/or pro-creationism belief in Australia, Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East, but Europe, most Muslim countries, and all of the Hindu and Buddist parts of world are overwhelmingly comfortable with evolution. Evolution has been formally accepted by the Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Unitarian and other mainline Protestant Churches. Those mainline churches that do not formally endorse it, also do not oppose it.

Obviously, just because an idea is broadly accepted doesn't make it right (and scientists are the first to remind us of that) ... it's just that many advocates of creation science seem to think the issue is Christians versus Heretics, which is not true.

MM - I must say that you are one bleak fellow. This quote of yours is just so depressing...and I agree not one iota.





Now that is bleak MM. LOL I believe that people are basically good. They are after all created in the image of God. Why would He create a bunch of nasty little pigs and then hope like hell they climbed on board the Christianity wagon so they can be good. I don't get it.

And as for your canoe/falls analogy, I would probably be the one in the boat, not the one walking away saying I told you so. LOL

Thank you though, you are still AOK in my book! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

FH -

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me as well. I have a great deal of respect for you too. I think your beliefs are pretty scary, but I will say that the forum and Christ are both very lucky to have you on board.

Thanks again to the both of you! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hey Tiggy,

I read your posts and I created a thread for you to give you a great big hug. You probably didn't see it though - so I'll just have to hug you right here.

{{{{{Tiggy}}}}}

Wishing you the best!

WAT and Tiggy,

I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible...and I am not threatened by science. I have said it over and over again...God does not expect faith to be mindless. My faith is based on very real facts as well as experiences. So, Christians that feel threatened by science need to check in with Jesus, because their faith really is on slippery ground.

I again have yet to see any part of the Bible proven false. We can go into literal interpretations versus parables and the like. The Bible is filled with both, and discerning between what is literal and what is a parable is rather easy. But, the history after the Great Flood that has been shown in the Bible has been proven true. The big push now, historically, has been to prove the Great Flood as false. The jury is still out on that scientifically.

I am not threatened, nor should any Christian. Our faith is based on a very real relationship...and on very real facts. Are there gaps? Sure. That's what makes this life so much fun...finding the answers!! I think 2Long and WAT will agree with me on that point.

In His arms.

PS: Tiggy...I am a work in progress also!! Sometimes I think Jesus has to work harder on me than most others!!

Not bleak Weaver. Realistic. Although I may not have expressed myself well enough here. God did create us in His image. And there was no sin in the beginning. But in our free will, we chose to sin. And the curse of that is that we have passed that curse of sin onto our children.

As the Law shows, none of us is good. Not one. Take just the Ten Commandments. Everyone on this planet has broken at least one of those, and most have broken all of them. Adultery? Well, even us so called faithful BSs have broken that one in God's eyes because Jesus said if we even thought about it, we have committed the act. So, Mortarman is a lustful, adulterous, lying, thieving, idolator. At least that is who I was.

Do I still have sin? Yep. But unlike someone that doesnt have Jesus, I dont have to sin. I have a new nature. I am no longer Mortarman...I am Christ in Mortarman.

You know, it comes back to love. Why would God create man, knowing he would debase himself and turn himself into pigs? Because of love!!

What???? I am sure you are asking...how is that love? Well, think about this for a minute. If He created us and made sure that we didnt have the option to sin, then would we really have a choice to love Him? I mean, I can program this computer to say "I love you" all day long...but do those words MEAN anything?

God created us so He would have someone to love and be loved back. But the only way we can possibly love Him is to have the option to not love Him. And since God by His nature is love, then those who reject Him cannot be love...they have to be sin.

Some will say that a good God would not punish, would not send man to hell for not repenting and accepting Him. Well, if God did not punish sin, He would be unholy and unloving. He would be sinful. Thus the state we found ourselves in when we were born.

Sure Adam and Eve screwed up. And some would say that it isnt fair that we are cursed from birth for what they did. But every one of us has had the chance to not sin, to be holy and blameless in our lives. And not ONE of us has done it. Not one.

Look at a child. I think about a decade ago, Minnesota state did a study on crime and children. I'll have to find the report. but one thing it noted was that man is born wicked. look at a baby. The most self-centered being on the planet. It wants what it wants when it wants it. I have had three children. And believe me its true when they said that when that baby doesnt get what it wants, it will scream and cry until it gets it. When a 1 year old has something taken away from it, the look on its face is one of sheer anger. And if that baby was the size of a 20 year old, its actions would no doubt be murderous.

Without education, without discipline, without cleaning up the "pig," man would be nothing but a murderous animal.

But wait a minute...even in civil society, man still is. There are very few things in life someone can point to that is done by a person, that did have something in it for themselves. Nothing altruistic.

This may sound negative, but all I have done...and all that God's laws do, is show us where we are at and who we are. Shoot, there is a reason we have laws in our country Weaver. And it isnt because we are good!! If we were, the laws would be unnecessary.

We want to believe we are good. And we usually do it by comparing ourselves to others. Well, I never have committed adultery, so I'm not as bad as the WS. And then the WS says...yeah, but I'm not as bad as the guy who abuses his wife and kids. And the guy guilty of abuse says...I'm not as bad as the guy who murdered his family. And the guy who murdered his family says...well I didnt kill as many people as Hitler did. And so on.

You know how God looks at all of those sins I just mentioned? exactly the same. None of those sins are any greater than the next. Why? Because they all have the same penalty...death.Every last one of them.

Man tries to be god, he tries to make hiself good, to clean himself up. He tries to make everything about him. But then we have MB, with a blog on Infidelity because it is impossible for man to clean up himself or herself. Sure, some pigs are less firty than others in the pigpen. But in the end, they are all still pigs.

All of this is supposed to point to how to really get out of being a pig. The Bible says when you are saved, you become a new creation. You are no longer a "pig."

Am I devaluing man? Absolutely not! God loved mankind so much that He died for mankind and took all of man's sins on His shoulders...He took the punishment. remember, in order to e holy, SOMEONE had to pay for those sins. But He loved us enough that He didnt want to leave us in the pigpen that WE put ourselves in. And so He sent Jesus.

This isnt a negative view of man...it is a realistic view. We can believe in our goodness, in our man-centered world all we want...but the realities around us speak differently.

I love my fellow man. I love my fellow man enough that I want everyone of them to be saved and to not have to live like this anymore. Although it is hard for me to say, I even wish my wife's OM would come to know Jesus. because I know that the relationship they had, apart from the redemption of Jesus, will be one of the things that will send him away from God for eternity.

And the absence of God is Hell.

In His arms.

Man. Another one. Again, too busy to give this thing the time it deserves.

In brief - anything, and I mean anything, that can be brought up scientifically as to the origins of the universe, etc., can be trumped by the "divine hand." This argument is almost useless.

Case in point - take the age of the world issue. Creationists have a given age (and the value is immaterial) of the earth that is far less than the evolutionists.

No matter how much science is brought to bear on this issue, the creationist can ALWAYS respond: "If God is omnipotent, he could have created the world OLD." Get the point? An omnipotent being could have "made things" that appeared old based on ANY available science. The origin of the linear function is NOT actually at zero, though the regression points there.

It is a trump card that no amount of scientific proof can overcome.

But to argue the other side, FAITH is a requirement for a religious value system. So if God himself manifested and gave us his thumbprints, retinal scans, DNA, and tied together all the loose ends of grand unification, well where would the FAITH be? At that point, we would have proof.

So where does NCW stand? As a technical man of strong faith? The origins do not concern me much, beyond satisfying my curiosities. There is no real, direct bearing in how I choose to live my life. And how I choose to be around my fellow man. My faith? I have seen and experienced enough for the presence of God to be "real" to me. It is my FAITH. I know who I was before I knew God and I know who I am now that I DO know Him. And HE has made all the difference. Proof enough for me.

Proof enought that I will be a light to those around me. The only thing that really matters. The rest of the stuff is brain candy.

NCW

MM-“I again have yet to see any part of the Bible proven false. But, the history after the Great Flood that has been shown in the Bible has been proven true. The big push now, historically, has been to prove the Great Flood as false. The jury is still out on that scientifically.”

This is precisely what many ‘scientists’, as well as myself, find frustrating in discussions with creationists, and why I have asked three times now on this thread for someone to provide a scientific hypothesis of creation; or for that matter, a scientific hypothesis for virtually any religious claim.

Please try to read and understand this:

As NCW hinted, it is absolutely impossible for science to disprove a non-scientific claim. Repeat, absolutely impossible. In fact, it is technically impossible for science to even directly investigate the validity a non-scientific claim. A scientific claim (i.e. a scientific hypothesis), must have, by definition, along with the claim, a viable empirical test proposed that has the possibility of disproving the claim. That is, what specific empirical finding, that we can actually ‘test’ for, today, would disprove the hypothesis?

To clarify this concept, imagine this scenario. You and I are sitting across from one another, debating this very issue.

I jump up and state: “MM, a pile of one-billion dollars just appeared on the table!”
You see nothing, and say: “Why, D, I don’t see anything there.”
Then I respond with: “Only I can see the money, no one else can.”
MM: “Well, I can’t touch the money, I can’t smell the money, and moreover, one million dollars wouldn’t even fit on the table, and if it did, it would crush it under the weight.”
D: “As soon as you try to touch it or feel it, the money loses physical substance. The money shrinks down in size to fit on the table, and it floats just above it.”
MM: “The vast majority of scientists would disagree with you that it exists.”
D: “Yes, but they never yet disproved it.”

This is clearly an extreme example. But the result is just the same as the claim of special creation: there is no possible way to disprove it.

So sure, in a strange way, I guess we could technically say that ‘the jury is still out on that scientifically’ (although in practice it is another matter entirely). In any case, all of this talk about ‘science has not disproven so-and-so (non-scientific) claim’, is completely meaningless in a scientific context.

For peace and understanding,

D.

D -

But science still has not plugged all the holes in evolution either.

A couple of points:

1 - Religion tells us we are alone in the universe. Yet with so many galaxies and solar systems out there, it is hard concieve that this is truly the case. Surely, conditions for the spawn of life on another world MUST be present based on the sheer number of possibilities. Perhaps not sentient, but life. Entertaining the possibility OF sentient life - so what? The likelihood of actually MEETING them is very remote. The physics of interstellar travel are so daunting they may as well be impossible. Information exchange would be unrealistic, let alone physical visitation. At best, it would be akin to archaeology given the time lags. So effectively, we ARE alone. It is a matter of perspective. Is the religion necessarily wrong? Perhaps it is in the absolute, but in regards to what MATTERS it is not.

2 - As a man of science AND faith, I have personally discovered the following to be true - and by true, it is wholly my opinion that it is. This universe we are in is just a little too well structured to have happened by chance. Things are just a little too tidy. "At random" usually implies "without a pattern."

3 - I have enough personal proof to have the faith in God that I have. Regardless of science. How do I know? He talks to me. Maybe it IS just a bunch of chemicals and nerons firing and I only think it is so. But reflection on MY life and observation of those around me shows me that IN GENERAL (and there are exceptions) those around me without faith as mine are "lacking" in some way. With manifestations of those lacks taking different forms. Those around me notice a POSITIVE difference in me that I attribute to my faith. And I say this empirically without quoting the Bible. "God," lacking a scientific explanation as to what that actually is, makes a HUGE difference in my life.

Good ole' Isaac Newton had a bunch of neat theories about physics. And they have summarily been proven wrong since. But they are close. Close enough that if I had a cannon, I could use his equations to calculate how to make you dead. And as far as YOU would be concerned, what would it matter if I used Newton's or Einstein's (proper) theory? You'd be just as dead.

I guess the point is, on the days when my "faith" is "working" my life is better than on the days it isn't. The relationship may not be causal, even indirectly, scientifically. But it is there. Maybe the science hasn't matured enough yet.

We truly know so little about how our own bodies work, let alone the universe around us, I would be hesitant to dismiss the existince of God, or creation for that matter.

My faith "works." And until it doesn't, that's good enough for me.

NCW

Won't even go into Descartes gamble.