(This is a private message to FH...no one else is authorized to read it)....

FH .... God has already won this argument. Read Romans 1 (if you don't already have it memorized). He says He has made himself known through His visible creation. He didn't put anyone in charge of FORCING anyone to see that if they choose not to.

Okay...the rest of you can read now...I'm done.

More quote mining, FH?

No I haven't read any of Morris' book past the titles. "Scientific Creationism" speaks for it self. Notice how many of the "contributors" to his book don't sound like scientists - and rather sound like stack the deck theologins? - e.g., "Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas." Others are from ICR.

Once again, you're mixing oil and water. Science and faith operate in different frames of reference. Science is limited to the natural world. It cannot deal with the supernatural. Evolution and other scientific topics are not a "faith" or something to "believe" in. I've explained this before and you either don't agree or don't consider it.

Science is "faith" neutral. It hasn't set out to contradict yours or any others' beliefs. "Evolutionists" did not set out to disprove your faith. Don't be so arrogant about that. Creationists appear to like to brand evolution as a faith or belief in order to argue that their faith deserves equal billing in schools. You should be very careful using such a strategy. The result would have to recognize ALL faiths, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster .

While I don't think it's particularly important to participate in technical discussions, I have a BS degree in Civil Engineering. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in Va. - Oct. 1980. I have significant professional engineering experience primarily in the engineering disciplines of mechanical and nuclear. Please, please, please explain again how radioactive decay rates have varied over time to give the appearance of an old earth.

Sure Dr. Morris ought to have been quite capable of handling any aspect of flooding. Indeed, he taught hydrology at my alma mater - before my time. This matters little in the hypothesis of a global flood - especially if one disregards reality and insists on a young earth. Starting with that "presupposition", there hasn't been time, for example, for the Colorado plateau to be uplifted to enable the Colorado River to carve the Grand Canyon. So one would have to conclude that a global flood (God) did it. Otherwise, how did all that water get up there? Again, the conflict of natural vs supernatural. "God did it" is an assertion, not an explanation. It is the end of inquiry by fiat, not the beginning of inquiry, much less of wisdom.

So yes - stick to science and the natural world. Please. It is falsifiable. Faith is not.

WAT

GG,

Ooopps. I listened in.

Did FH FORCE anyone? I am lost here. Last I saw, they started a nice scientific discussion...of which there have been arguments from both sides. I am actually learning something here (and that is saying something!!). FH has just been presenting the facts as he knows them. And asked others to do the same.

So again...how is that forcing anyone to accept anything?

In His arms.

WAT,

Read the book before commenting on it. I have not read it...thus I have no comment at this time. I intend to read it, though.

Dismissing things out of hand in a healthy argument does not bolster what you are trying to get across...it actually takes away from it. I find this too often with many people so afraid of their positions being found to be false. They dotn like it (no one really does). So, if I just put up walls and not look on the other side of the fence...it will just go away.

I am not saying you are doing this overall. I am sating that when you dismiss the discussion and not even know what the book says...then it diminishes your argument.

This coming from a political scientist!!

In His arms.

Are we being "forced" to see something, GG? Who is doing the forcing then, because I see many posts here from many people expressing their views. Is it 2Long? WAT? myshae? FH? Since they are ALL posting their viewpoints, which one is forcing us to see something? I can't tell.

FH - don't you remember we've been down this quote mine issue before?

For the uninformed, quote mining is a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists. While the etymology of this term is obscure, the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.

FH offered -


Here's the fuller story and it is quite surprising that any "creationist" would want to call attention to it. By the way, it is on pages 830-832 of that issue of New Scientist. (Quote mined section in [color:"green"]green [/color].)

"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

"[color:"green"]In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation.[/color] The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."

"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)

Would you like me to deconstruct the rest of those "quotes" FH? I recommend you just delete them to avoid further embarrassment.

WAT

F.G.G. - Private message received.

(This is a private message back to F.G.G...no one else is authorized to read it <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)....

[color:"white"]Not attemting to "force" anyone F.G.G. I'm sure you also know Jude. Myschae asked legitmate, "searching for knowledge and understanding" questions and deserves a more complete attempted answer than just "simply because that's what I believe." She is asking more along the lines of WHY I believe what I believe. What she may or may not ultimately choose to believe is up to her. While 2Tim 3:16 is specifically directed at Christians, I think it is equally applicable to anyone, who may then choose to accept or reject on their own." 2Tim 4:3-5 is the "operative" passage that I have in mind for my "motivation," to discharge ALL the duties of my ministry (apologetics). That's why I am hoping this discussion can be kept civil, respectful, and focused as much as possible on the "sciences." Science, by definition, is the search for knowledge, not the "answer" in and of itself. Ultimately, as you know, if anyone accepts Jesus Christ it is because God draws them, softens their heart to be receptive to His Word. God bless.[/color]

To be precise, WAT, "Science" is faith neutral. "Scientists" are not. Evolutionism is every bit a faith as is creationism.

But you are free to believe whatever you wish to believe.




Quoting what someone has said is NOT "quote mining" as you disparagingly want to use the term. What they said is what they said. Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish to from their statements.




WAT, you degenerate into ad hominum attacks again, while at the same time admitting to your total ignorance of what has been written or the relative merits of the arguments. VERY elitist, at the least, of you. Why not try examining the data and commenting upon the data instead of making personal attacks?

By the way, you still have not given us your "credentials" of authority. How about it? Certainly you are not bashful?

FGG:

Sorry for breaking in and reading your post! ;o), but:


I hope I'm reading this right (but I'm also "afraid" that I am). This is an either/or si2ation? I don't see it that way, and I would bet large sums of other people's money that the vast majority of religious AND scientific people don't see it that way.

There is no argument for these people, precisely because their God has made himself visible through his creation (whether it spontaneously came in2 being, or evolved over billions of years).



FH: While I do have a PhD in geology, I don't think a PhD is required before an individual makes their own choices. What I (and WAT and others) have been stressing here is that religion and science are 2 different processes, and they need not be in conflict.



gone again! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

FH:

This is good, because it's short and 2 the point, and highlights where we're failing 2 find common ground here:


Precisely! We can agree on this. Scientists are people. Science is a 2l (that's "tool"). But:


Here's where it falls apart. Neither evolutionism nor creationism are faiths. Evolution (ism) is an observed scientific phenomenon. Creationism isn't, though it's proponents try 2 make it seem 2 be on equal footing as evolution.

The key ingredient here is the people who work on these subjects, or 'believe in' them. Believing in a scientific phenomenon, theory, or hypothesis is a bad thing for a scientist 2 do, because falsification is as important as verifcation in science, as WAT pointed out above).

-ol' 2long

I kind'a got bogged down reading some of the more technical posts on here and started to just skim ( <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ), so forgive me if this has been mentioned already.

There are actually quite a few Christians who believe that God DID create the heavens and the earth as the Bible says, but ALSO believe that the earth is as old as the carbon dating, etc., says it is.

From what I understand, in Genesis 1 where it says "God created" that word created literally translated means RE-created....as in the world already was in some form.

There are references to "dragons", etc., in the Old Testament that many believe refer to dinosaurs. (Don't ask for specific scriptures, 'cause I don't remember them! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

Many Christians believe that the earth was originally created as a place to send Lucifer and his "angels" to live, and that other beings were created to live on this planet as well....neanderthals and dinosaurs.

It isn't such a stretch to believe that at some point, for whatever reason, God just scrapped all that and made a clean slate for re-creation of the earth and for creation of man.

Lori

WAT, if you wish to continue with this "red herring" approach (or green herring as you have chosen the color scheme), please feel free to do so. This appeal to a nonexistant premise of "quote mining" is just another way to distract people from actually examining the issues.

The references to WHERE the quotations came from were provided for more than just appelation of the quote, it was so that anyone who might want to take their time to FULLY examine ALL articles cited could do so. Suffice it to say that ALL articles BY evolutionist ARE going to support evolution in toto. But some Evolutionist Scientists ARE still honest enough to evaluate each source of data that touches on their belief and render and evaluation of it's "usefulness" or "lack of usefulness" as a "PROOF SOURCE" for the Evolution Model and/or the Creation Model.

There was NOTHING taken out of context in the quote. The subject under discussion was the "fossil record," not the belief in evolution itself. It is OBVIOUS that evolutionists (by the way, he was identified AS an evolutionist to NOT broaden the quotation beyond it's SPECIFIC reference) BELIEVE in evolution, regardless of the reason(s) or what "part" they think supports evolution more so that creation as an explanation of why things are as we see and find them.

They are, and I agree. I would, likewise, agree that a Ph.D. is NOT "required" to be able to make "choices." Although I would likely concede that you see and know this difference, I am not read to make such a concession where WAT is concerned. His is a "burn the books" approach when it disagrees with his belief.




Perhaps there's a slight misunderstanding of what F.G.G. was getting at with his statement. What he was referring to is that ALL people are "without excuse" in rejecting God because God HAS revealed Himself to all through His creation. This speaks to a religious theme that I'm trying to "keep out" of this discussion so as to focus on the examination OF His creation, not of God Himself.

In short, there ARE only two possibilities for how things exist, or existed in the case of dead or extinct organisms, as well as the inanimate things that make up the universe. Those two possibilites are the Creation MODEL and the Evolution MODEL.

The examination of data can lead one to "believe" one Model over the other, but it is ultimately based in "faith," not science, because the "scientific method" cannot be applied to origins. All that we can do is look at what each Model would "predict" should be found in nature, and then evaluate what the actual findings show as to which prediction is most likely to be true. In this, the use of things like "Occam's Razor" can be most helpful, rather than convoluted "exceptions" to "make the data fit" a particular Model.

Okay, I'll concede "mispeaking", 2long To have been more accurate I should have phrased it like this:

Evolutionism is every bit believed in by faith as is creationism is believe by faith.

Evolutionists CHOOSE to believe in evolution despite the lack of definitive proof BECAUSE the only other alternative is creation, and that leads to a Creator.

Those who have tried to "straddle the fence" are generally called "Theistic Evolutionists," but that "begs the question" with respect to the attributes of God, and with respect to the "Christian God" and the Scripture, actually denies the things that make Him God. That, however, is getting into religion, and I'd really like to try to keep that to a minimum for the purposes of THIS examination and look at it from the perspective of examining what IS found by scientific inquiry and how those findings correlate with the two possible Models.




I agree. But it's difficult to actually NOT believe, because most evolutionists begin with a faith that presupposes evolution to be correct. That's not any different from a creationist beginning with a faith that creation is correct. THEN, regardless of the particular faith, the data, the facts need to be examined, tested where possible, and NOT manipulated to "make them fit one Model or the other."

More quote mining revealed.

FH offered -

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.’ (David B. Kitts, “Search for the Holy Transformation,’ Paleobiology (Vol. 5: Summer 1979), p.353)

The rest of the story:

First, the quote usually presented by creationists is longer:


"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)

This is a review article on the book quoted in the title. The author of the review article (Kitts) says in the first paragraph:

"This book by the distinguished French biologist is an English translation of a French edition published in 1973 under the title "L'Evolution du Vivant." In the preface to his book Grassé prepares us for what is to follow when he says, 'Many of the ideas expressed in this book will seem disconcerting to the English or American reader schooled in orthodox Darwinism. With this caveat, let him overcome initial reluctance to read the book. He will, I maintain, discover the unavowed weaknesses of a doctrine that falls far short of universal explanation.' I wish that I could report that Darwinians will find new challenges to their "doctrine" in the pages of this book, but I regret to say that they will not. All of Grassé's arguments have been marshaled against Darwinian theory before, and in the opinion of most Darwinians, have been adequately countered. If there is anything novel in this attack it is the contention that recent developments in molecular genetics have some special bearing on traditional objections to Darwinian theory." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353)

Now that we know where Kitts is coming from in this article, let's dissect the original quote posted by the quote-miner presented above. Any time an ellipsis ("...") is seen in these mined quotes, one must take instant caution because it usually means they've cut out some supportive discussion of evolution. This is the case in this quote as well.

"[color:"green"] Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred.[/color]

The deleted part in the elipsis:

Grassé, on the other hand, holds just the view that has so often been erroneously attributed to Darwinian paleontologists. For him the fossil record reveals not only the course of evolution but its "mechanism" as well. The history of life is an untheory-laden chronicle which any biologist must take as raw data. Evolution, on this view, is a virtually self-evident fact which remains only to be adequately explained. Grassé faults the Darwinians for failure to recognize the pristine character of paleontological evidence. He says (p. 7), 'Paleontologists, who cannot have recourse to experiments when deciding that a given character is genetically valuable, thus expresses [sic] a very hypothetical opinion. Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusion. The error in method is obvious". If a paleontologist claims to have supported the fundamental tenets of Darwinian theory in citing the fossil record, then he has indeed committed a methodological error. But every interpretation of the fossil record must proceed on the acceptance of some theory. Grassé never gives us any reason to think that he recognizes this fact, and we are, therefore, left to ferret out those surreptitious assumptions which, we must suppose, underlie his account of the history of organisms.

Grassé's confidence in the fossil record is excessive but he is not alone in supposing that it has something to tell us about the mechanism of evolution. Paleontologists and evolutionists have frequently turned to fossils for crucial tests of some theory, or even simply of some fact, only to come away with the realization that the answers lie more in the theory that they have presupposed in their interpretation of the fossil record than in the record itself and that, indeed, there isn't even any record at all until we somehow make one out of extant rocks and objects that seem to be the broken remains of plants and animals. The current debate over punctuated equilibria and gradualism as the principle modes of evolution is but the latest illustration of how difficult it is to extract theoretically significant information from fossils. When we are tempted to say that evolution or some aspect of it is an "obvious fact", it is well to turn once again to Darwin himself who devoted a large book to an argument more directed at the elusive conclusion that evolution had occurred than explaining something that might be established independent of that argument.

Darwinian paleontologists cannot take much comfort from the fact that the fossil record does not compel them to reject their theory because it does not compel them to accept it either.

Re-joining the mined quote:

[color:"green"] The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even a historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354) [/color]

Note that the original quote-miner left out a whole bunch of material, completely removing the context above, and then pasting the two sides together as one argument. Also note that they left out the prefix "a" in "ahistorical" in their quote to be "historical" which completely changes the meaning of the quote even in the mined form.

Kitts is showing that the fossil record, taken alone without a theory to test it against, is inadequate to support Darwinism, which is exactly what Gould argues in his punctuated equilibrium theory, and evolutionists know quite well. Kitts goes on for quite a while longer explaining Grassé's conception that natural selection is not enough to explain the fossil record in opposition to Darwinian theory. However, this last bit, which is not taken out of context of the above paragraphs, will show you what Kitt's final point was:

"If a theory leads us to conclude that events of a certain kind are to be expected, then we may suppose that they have occurred even though direct historical evidence for their occurrence is unconvincing. The Darwinians will, quite rightly, never be led by the fossil record to abandon their theory nor even to suppose that it is in need of alteration or emendation. But if a well supported biological theory requires them to conclude that evolution is "guided" by some previously unrecognized factor, then they should be prepared to introduce that factor into their interpretation of the fossil record. Grassé finds in contemporary molecular genetics at least the hope that the additional directing factor may be found." Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 354)

So far, no well-supported biological theory refuting the current progression of the fossil record has been found, yet Darwinists do indeed these days use biological data to help interpret the fossil record, just as Kitts noted.

Genetics since the 1970's has progressed as a science well beyond what even Kitts or Grassé might have envisioned, and has been adding support to the theory of evolution rather than to any other mechanism that might have been hoped for by Grassé before the 1970's. Genetics and genetic evidence in itself is the single most compelling evidence for evolution to date. The added value of "live data" in genetics and evo-devo to paleobiology will never be overestimated, as Gould is seen to envision in my review of a 1980 Gould "quote nugget" elsewhere in this larger quotemining document.

WAT (research by Deanne (Lilith) Taylor)

WAT, I hate to ask this, but I would really love to see the further expansion of the quotes. Because I'm sure you have time for that. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> (And no, the ice maker isn't fixed yet. But the front door lock is repaired! *sigh*)

FH, I believe WAT provided his credentials a few posts above. You may have missed it; here's a re-quote.

WAT said:
My own scientific credentials, which are not relevant since I'm not using them in this discussion, include a BA in physics, an MS in physics, and an MS in industrial engineering. My physics area of specialization was research on the nature of atoms and ions (known as atomic physics, but that's a misnomer to those outside the field). My dissertation was to have been research to add the tenth decimal place to the mass of the proton, which is entirely irrelevant to almost all discussions. (Theoretical physicists wanted to know, but not much of anyone else.)

In industrial engineering, my speciality was operations research. My thesis was on solving highly nonlinear optimization problems. A good example would be to try to use mathematical principles to find the lowest point in downtown Seattle. (Full of skyscrapers and sits on a series of underlying hills and slopes.)

WAT added to his comments before I asked him to. Thanks WAT! (I hadn't refreshed the screen, so didn't see them before I posted.)

J - this should scratch your itch:
The Quote Mine Project

WAT
-----------------
Embrace your inner fish.

Thanks again, WAT. That's a great resource.

What I would love, I think, is for these debates to actually reach the many people who are educating children without a solid knowledge of the subjects they're teaching. That would include many science teachers in the public schools, of course, and almost all the moms out there who are homeschooling their children. It would be a wonderful exercise for all of them to teach their children about the rigors of science, the required disciplines of the field, and the extreme importance of good scholarship.

And most of the home schooling moms (of which I know many) are doing exactly that, Just J. Which is why on average, the home schooled kids beat the pants off the NEA-educated public school kids.

Between the public school system and home schooling moms...I will take the moms everytime!!

In His arms.