IMHO, the Bible’s account of historical events is well verified in many places by archaeological and manuscript discoveries.
Many of these are ‘anecdotal’ in that just the name of a certain person or a certain place described in the Bible have been verified by secular research.
But other examples are highly detailed and specific, such as the Cyrus cylinder vs Book of Ezra.
With so much correlating evidence in favour of parts of the Biblical account, it is highly likely that the remainder of the Bible – the parts not yet proven definitely factual – is also accurate.
Yet Bible skeptics continue to contend that the Bible’s historical account is flawed, fictional, or only vaguely connected to actual historical finds – this in spite of mounting evidence dug up from the ground.
But that got me thinking… Isn’t that the same thing I am personally doing with the fossil record of macro-evolution?
(Macro-evolution being from one species to a new species, rather than modification within a species.)
To be precise: The theorized evolution of whales, from land-based mammals to halfway-aquatic, then finally fully aquatic swimmers. For more on that, see these educative comments:
My objections to the reasoning that ‘fossils = proof of evolution’ is that such evidence is, to me, circumstantial – the fossils are individual and isolated snapshots frozen in time.
Three different fossils may show a whale-ish land mammal with running legs, a water-land mammal with swimming legs, and an almost modern whale with atravistic hind legs. But these fossils could merely show three unrelated animals that happen to look slightly similar.
But now I compare it to the standard I hold Biblical archaeology to: For example, the Cyrus cylinder seems to independently verify the account of the Jews returning to Israel after the exile to Babylon, along with corroborative facts such as the Jewish legacy in Iraq (e.g. Babylonian Talmud).
But these findings could merely show that the writer of Ezra had at least moderate research skills. Cyrus was a famous name, and his decrees would be heard across the known nations. It could have been that a Jewish scribe used Cyrus’ decree as the basis for a (fictional) story of the triumphal return of the Jews.
So by the very same standard with which Biblical skeptics dismiss the archaeological and manuscript evidence that I feel proves Biblical history (you need complete historical accounts!), I am dismissing the fossil evidence that evolutionists feel prove descent with modification (you need more transitionals!).
Therefore, if I am in any way consistent, fair and unbiased in my judgement, I must come to the same conclusions for both disciplines.
So here it is at last: I admit that certain aspects of the theory of evolution, namely the gradual descent with modification of certain species into different species, is highly likely to be true.
With one caveat: That the accusations of fraud and misleading raised by sites like Answers in Genesis are unfounded (compare that to Wikipedia on whale evolution and see this comment for a counter).
Greatest of thanks go to commentor Ed Darrell, who was quite tireless in presenting information and links to convince me of the factual truth of evolution (despite my obtuseness).
I’m not 100% there yet, but I’m middle-ground rather than strongly skeptical. I still have issues with other aspects of Darwinistic evolution, such as how the various Phyla formed and why no transitionals seem to survive to the current day.
So, to summarize: Using the same standard for both, I believe Biblical history and cetain aspects of macro-evolution to be highly likely to be true, as corroborated by physical evidence dug up from the ground.
Welcome in, have a seat and a hot cup of chocolate, certain aspects of macro-evolution!
But global warming still stays outside in the CO2-caused record snowfall.
Tags: Bible, Biblical history, Darwinism, evolution, fossil evidence
January 16, 08 at 3:33 pm
Where do these “certain aspects of macroevolution” fit within the clearly defined 6,000 year time period of history as specified in the Bible, and why is there no record of anything remotely related to one species turning into another species within the Bible, rather the statement that God created nature within 6 days and saw that it “was good?” There’s nothing there about “seeing that it was good but that random mutations should see the species created evolve into other forms to adapt to differences in climate and geographical conditions experienced over billions of years, most of the species dying off as they failed to adapt quickly enough etc..”
Isn’t it a fairly clear-cut case of “one or the other?”
Read some information from the many, many highly qualified young-earth creationist scientists out there, such as the book “In Six Days.” Macroevolution is even shakier a theory than climate change and there is absolutely no reason – scientific or otherwise – to believe a word of it, just as there is absolutely no reason to compromise one’s faith by dictating to God just which parts of His book are accurate and which are metaphor based on the teachings of people who don’t believe in Him to begin with.
January 19, 08 at 8:45 pm
1. “Creationist” is the opposite of “scientist.”
2. “Highly qualified” implies a level of expertise. In the court cases we get in the U.S., we can’t find creationists who are expert in creationism to testify.
3. “Many, many” suggests there are many, and coupled with “scientists,” suggests they work in science. In the U.S., we have about 80,000 advance-degreed biologists working professionally in biology. Of that number, fewer than 500 are creationists. Creationists are 1 out of every 160 advance-degreed biologists. Much less than 1% of the total. It’s difficult to see how that stretches to “many.” Moreover, not one of them has published a scientific research paper questioning evolution, nor advancing a hypothesis of creationism.
One does not need to depart from reality to benefit the faith. As Jesus kept reminding people, there is value in truth. There is no need to make extravagant claims for scripture that are contradicted by reality (science in this case), nor that cannot really be supported by scripture.
January 20, 08 at 7:31 pm
Thank God for people like you Ed, who can reach out to the more intellectually inclined. You actually take the time to educate and enlighten others on matters that don’t really appeal to me like evolution.
I myself don’t care whether the world was created or evolved from something because it has no bearing on my life whatsoever beyond intellectual curiosity. I would rather spend what I have of my time and resources on charity and helping the poor, disaffected and disadvantaged, whom, I believe, could hardly bring themselves to care which theory were right or wrong.
Press on Ed, I do admire the effort you put into your writing, and I hope you lead many intellectuals to Christ through it
February 11, 08 at 8:15 pm
Ed Darrell Says:
January 19, 08 at
. . . many, many highly qualified young-earth creationist scientists . . .
1. “Creationist” is the opposite of “scientist.”
I say — That statement is the opposite of presenting a logical argument. People from groups like Answers in Genesis are highly qualified and experienced scientists, and are constantly engaged in hot debate with secular scientists over scientific evidence that supports or undermines their viewpoint and that of their opponents’, how are you disqualifying them as scientists? You don’t win an argument before you start arguing it mate – not over how the earth was created, nor over who’s right or who’s wrong. Show some honesty.
Right off the top of my head here’s a list of 50 leading scientists each of whom is highly accomplished and well respected in their field and is also a young earth creationist:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/ISD/index.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You said – 2. “Highly qualified” implies a level of expertise. In the court cases we get in the U.S., we can’t find creationists who are expert in creationism to testify.
3. “Many, many” suggests there are many, and coupled with “scientists,” suggests they work in science. In the U.S., we have about 80,000 advance-degreed biologists working professionally in biology. Of that number, fewer than 500 are creationists. Creationists are 1 out of every 160 advance-degreed biologists. Much less than 1% of the total. It’s difficult to see how that stretches to “many.” Moreover, not one of them has published a scientific research paper questioning evolution, nor advancing a hypothesis of creationism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I say — 50 articles right up there in the link, take a look at them. A majority of scientists in the U.S. would tell you emissions from car exhausts are heating up the earth’s atmosphere, do you believe that too? The whole premise is based on a misconception of how the greenhouse effect works, and it’s either taken in or been ignored by a vast majority of the scientific community. The concept of macro evolution was invented before there was the slightest scrap of evidence to support it. Followers of the doctrine have amassed evidence after the fact that supposedly supports the hypothesis of macro evolution – well surprise surprise there, that’s what they were looking for so that’s how they read the data. Read the data with a different hypothesis in mind and you’ll come up with a different result. And what’s the evidence for macro evolution that is so compelling? Don’t bother calling me ignorant in response, I’m well aware of evolutionists’ talking points. I’m not asking you why you believe in evolution, I’m asking you what you find in it that is so compelling that it’s more convincing to you than the book your God gave to you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You said — One does not need to depart from reality to benefit the faith. As Jesus kept reminding people, there is value in truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I say — What a ludicrous statement to make. Jesus clearly and explicitly referred to the Old Testament as God’s inspired scripture and used it as such in his teachings. Christ and his apostles rejected the humanist teachings that existed in their day and said that God has the only truth, what makes you think that your high school science lessons trump God’s inspired word now? Is your faith so weak that you can’t believe the “scientific community” are misinterpreting the scientific evidence they find to arrive at a preordained conclusion with evolution, just like they have done with anthropogenic global warming? How is it “benefiting the faith” to decide that God didn’t really mean what he said in Genesis because some people don’t like being told that he did? Why would you adhere more closely to the teachings of a majority secular, humanist group like the “scientific community” than to the teachings of what Christ tells us is God’s own communication to man kind?
There is plenty of evidence out there for young earth creation, and nowhere near as much evidence for evolution as people claim there is. Why the insistence of supporting humanism in the name of science, when scripture teaches us that humanism is opposed to Godliness?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You said: There is no need to make extravagant claims for scripture that are contradicted by reality (science in this case), nor that cannot really be supported by scripture.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I say — 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How does this passage not support the idea of creation in six days? There is no figurative context anywhere within the chapter, it is purely literal from start to finish, as can be easily established by the usage of the hebrew words eh-’reb and bo-’ker which are used thousands of times through the Bible to refer to evening and morning, the dawning and dying of light that occurs each day, and not once to indicate some mythical figurative time period.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jamie said: Press on Ed, I do admire the effort you put into your writing, and I hope you lead many intellectuals to Christ through it
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s not a good thing to bring intellectuals – or anyone else – to the faith by diluting its very tenets – the concept of divine inspiration of scripture – in order to pander to secular interests. The Bible tells us that we will be mocked and ridiculed for following the Lord; If a belief in the Biblical creation account engenders this reaction from the rest of the world then aren’t we fulfilling what was taught to us in Scripture? Where does the Bible command to compromise the very founding principles of one’s faith in order to appeal to non-believers – and how is a willingness to sell out one’s own holy book a better way to demonstrate one’s faith than by making a principled stand?
In the end, a scientific “fact” must be falsifiable and repeatable in order to become an actual fact. No amount of “consensus,” no amount of evidence, and no amount of argument or counter argument will ever allow us to either repeat the creation of the earth or to falsify the existence of God – so we are free to make up our own minds. This is the freedom that is offered by true believers – a freedom to believe what God says or to deny it. Why would you choose humanist dogma forbidding you to believe that an Almighty God could be a more accurate source of information than the “scientific community” ?
February 11, 08 at 8:22 pm
Ed says: Creationists are 1 out of every 160 advance-degreed biologists. Much less than 1% of the total. It’s difficult to see how that stretches to “many.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Assuming your figures are correct, which I’m doubtful of, 500 is indeed a large number of people, be it whatever percentage of the total. Doesn’t it say in the Bible that many shall be called, and few chosen?
Just for context, the number of signatories on the IPCC’s climate change bill, which is being used to extract trillions of dollars from various economies, is just over 10% of the number of creationist scientists that you claim exist in the states.
Over 20,000 scientists have signed petitions stating that anthropogenic global warming is not a scientifically proven phenomenon and that attempts to curb it are harmful – yet whose side has the momentum in the global warming debate?
Numbers mean something in democracy – they prove *nothing* in science. Anyone with any knowledge of science knows that the amount of people who believe a theory has no bearing on its accuracy, and when you’re dealing with ultimate truth then nor should it.
February 12, 08 at 5:55 am
“Let There Be Light”
“In The Beginning” The Creator said,
“Let There Be Light, and there was Light”
“Let There Be Light” ”
“The Beginning of The Creation of Elohim(‘god’)”
(‘god’ is of greek mythology)
Revealtions 3:14 testifies that The Messiah, was
“The Beginning of The Creationof Elohim(Father
of All)”! And The Messiah testified that His Elohim
and Father(Creator) is The Elohim and Father
(Creator) of His Brethren. (John 20:17)
It is very important to both know and experience
The Messiah as He was, is and always will be,
and also to know the “glory He had with Our Father”
before He was born in “the likeness of sinful flesh”.
(John 17:5, Rom 8:3)
First, let me simply state that i believe the “catholic”
and “christian” systems of religious theo’ry’logy
are Anti-Messiah for they either “imag”ine a ‘messiah’
who is one-head of a three-headed pagan “god”, or
a ‘messiah’ who is “god”, or a ‘messiah’ who is but
an exalted messenger(angel) or prophet.
It is needful to believe that The Messiah was, is and
always will be “The Son of The Living Elohim”, and
that there is but “One True Elohim, HE WHO is Father
of ALL”. (Mat 16:16, Eph 4:6)
Once again, The Messiah testified that His Elohim and
His Father(Creator), is also The Elohim(Creator) and
Father(Creator)” of His Brethren. (John 20:17)
“Let There Be Light”
The Messiah simply testified in John 17:5 “And now,
O Father, glorify Me with YOUR own self with the glory
that I had with YOU before the world began”.
Prior to that testimony The Messiah testified, “Yet a little
while is The Light with you. Walk while you have The Light,
lest darkness comes upon you: for he that walks in
darkness does not know where he goes. While you have
Light, believe in The Light, that you may be the children
of Light.” (John 12:35-36)
And the apostle John testified: “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and The Word
was(not is) Elohim. The same was in the beginning with
Elohim. All things were made by Him; and without Him
was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life;
and the life was The Light of men. And The Light shined
in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
There was a man sent from EL whose name was John.
(note: Elohim can at times be plural, EL is The Only True
Elohim, Father of All) John came for a witness, to bear
witness of The Light, that all men through Him might
believe. He(John the baptist) was not that Light, but was
sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the True Light,
which enlightens every man that comes into the world.
He(The Messiah) was in the world, and the world was
made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto
His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as
received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons
of EL, even to them that believe on His name: Which were
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of “The Only True Elohim”.” (John 1:1-13)
And the apostle John testified in John 3:17-21: “For Our
Father sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He
that believes on Him is not condemned: but he that believes
not is condemned already, because he has not believed in
the name of the only begotten Son of EL(Our Father). And
this is the condemnation, that Light is come into the world,
and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their
deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates The
Light, neither comes to The Light, lest his deeds should be
reproved. But he that does Truth comes to The Light, that
his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in
EL(Our Father).” In John 12:34 the people asked, “Who is
this Son of man? Then in John 12:35-36, “The Messiah said
unto them, yet a little while is The Light with you. Walk while
you have The Light, lest darkness come upon you: for he
that walks in darkness does not know where he goes. While
you have Light, believe in The Light, that you may be the
children of Light. The Messiah spoke these things, and
departed, and hid Himself from them.”
Simply, “In The Beginning” The Only True Elohim spoke The
Word, “Let There Be Light”, “And there was Light”! “And there
was evening(darkness) and there was morning(Light), The First
Day”. (Gen 1:5) Certainly such “Light” was not “natural” light, for
“natural” light, the sun, moon, and stars were not created until
the “fourth day” (Gen 1:14-19)
“In the beginning”, “The First Day”, The Father of All created
“The Light”, without which Creation and Life, as we now know
and experience it, could not have been.
The First Day, “The Light”, The Messiah, “The Beginning of
the Creation of EL(HE WHO is The Only True Elohim and
Father of ALL)”! (Gen 1:3, Rev 3:14, John 17:3, Eph 4:6)
And “The Only True Elohim” created all “things” by, through,
and for “The Light”, The Messiah, “The Son of The Living
Elohim” and “Son of man”. (Col 1:15, Eph 3:9, Mat 16:16,
Mat 12:32)
And “The True Light which enlightens every man coming into
the world”, was born as a child destined to be The Messiah.
(John 1:9, Mat 1:21)
The Messiah, “The Light of the world”. (John 8:12, 9:5)
The Messiah, “The firstborn of every creature(all creation)”. (Col 1:15)
The Messiah,”The firstborn among many brethren”. (Rom 8:29)
The Messiah, “The firstborn from among the dead”. (Col 1:18)
The Messiah, “A servant of The Only True Elohim”. (Isa 42:1-7)
The Messiah, “The Lamb of EL”. (John 1:29,36)
Once again: “In The Beginning” Our Father, “The Only True
Elohim” spoke: “Let there be Light, and there was Light”! The
Messiah, “The Beginning of the Creation of Elohim”, “the
firstborn of every creature(all creation)”. (Gen 1:3, John 17:3,
Rev 3:14, Col 1:15)
All Praise and Glory to Our Father!
The Messiah, Created of “The Only True Elohim, Father of ALL”!
(Rev 3:14)
The Messiah, “made so much better than the angels”! (Heb 1:4)
The Messiah, “The Light of the world”! (John 8:12, 9:5)
Paul experienced “The Light ” on the road to Damascus. “And
it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and came near unto
Damascus about noontime, suddenly a great Light from Heaven
shone round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a
voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?
And I answered, “Who are You, Master”? And He said unto me,
I am Yehowshuwa’ (Yahshua, Joshua) of Nazareth, Whom you
persecute. And they that were with me saw The Light, and were
afraid; but they did not hear the voice of Him that spoke to me.
And I said, “What shall I do, Master”? And He said unto me,
arise and go into Damascus, and there you shall be told all
things which are appointed for you to do. And when I could not
see for the glory of that Light, I was led by the hand into
Damascus.” (Acts 22:6-11)
Paul also testified, “At midday I saw in the way a Light from
Heaven, ABOVE THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE SUN, shining
round about me and those who journeyed with me. And when
we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me,
and saying in the HEBREW tongue, Saul, Saul, why do you
persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.” (The
Messiah could not have told Paul, “I am jesus(of pagan greek)”
for He spoke in the “HEBREW tongue”) (Acts 26:13-14)
And The Messiah, “The Light of the world”, “The Lamb of EL”,
is also The Light of The New Heavenly Yerusalem! (Rev 21:22-23)
Sadly, those who “love this world and it’s things” yet love darkness
more than The Light and they will abide in the darkness they loved
forever ;-( (1John 2:15, John 3:19-20)
Sadder yet, systems of religion that are of this world, such as
“catholicism”, “christianity”, “judaism”, “islam”,.etc., have so
perverted The Testimonies, that today, as in the yesterdays gone
by, “The Way of Truth is evil spoken of” because of their heretical,
theo’ry’logical doctrines ;-( Doctrines that are of men, and especially
those “imag”ined theo’ry’logical doctrines which seek to define The
Only True Elohim, Father(Creator) of All. (2Peter 2:1-2)
All such doctrines are but the product of mankind’s “imag”ination
and mankind’s “imag”ination is destroying and perverting Creation
(earth, air, water, creatures, Truth, Love, Peace, Joy, Hope, .etc.)
Yes, sadly ;-( Creation is being destroyed by self-willed men who
could care less about that which is of Truth(What Is, Was, and
always Will Be), and care even less about those things which they
can not comprehend apart from their “natural” senses and mental
processes ;-(
And Truth testifies, The Creator “will destroy those who destroy
the earth(HIS Creation)”(Rev 11:18).
Sadly, in this wicked world, those who seek profit will naturally
overcome those who do not ;-(
Yet, There Is Hope!
For Miracles do happen and Faith rejoices against theo’ry’logy(logic)
and profit(greed)!
Hope is there would be those who experience The Miracle that is
“receiving a love of The Truth” for they will “see” “The Light”.
(2Thes 2:10, John 8:12, 9:5)
And they will receive peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that
is of this wicked world, for they will clearly “see” that “The WHOLE
world is under the control of the evil one”. (1John 5:19) And they will
clearly “see” things as they are and not as “imag”inative, world loving,
humans would have others believe them to be, for they will “see” The
Light that is The Messiah……. francisco
February 12, 08 at 7:12 am
I ask to see their laboratories, and they confess they have none. I ask them where they are doing their observations in the wild, and they confess they are doing none. I ask them about their publications, just the recent ones, and they confess they have none. I ask them what sort of research they have in the pipeline, and they confess they have none.
Science is not something one gets from reading a book. Science is what scientists do. Creationists don’t do research. They have no publications because they have written nothing up. That’s because they have nothing to write up.
There are lots of creationists who are former scientists. There is a tiny handful of creationists who practice science — but none in biology, none using creationism, none doing research to build a case for creationism.
Creationism was interesting, scientifically, in the early, early 19th century. Creationism was falsified then, by geologists, chemists, physicists and all branches of biology.
Creationism is nothing much more than supreme denial of nature, the nature God made.
February 12, 08 at 7:13 am
Those numbers sound wildly inaccurate to me, but are quite irrelevant here. But I’m curious: Do you have some link to suggest that those numbers are even in the ballpark?
February 12, 08 at 7:20 am
I wonder whether some people know what science is and how it works — people like the propagandists and p.r. crew at Answers in Genesis, for example.
I think I read every one of them when that list was first published — a decade ago? Note that not a single one of those articles is research based. None of the articles is peer reviewed. None of those articles proposes a hypothesis for creationism and none offers data that call into question any part of evolution.
Gum flapping isn’t science. 50 articles, not one of which raises any serious question about evolution theory, not one of which advances any argument for creationism.
There’s a clue in the title of the piece. It’s called 50 scientists who back creation. Not creationism. Saying creation exists is the starting point of science, but it’s not science itself. Why wouldn’t those scientists take the leap and say they back creationism? I suspect because they don’t.
March 3, 08 at 9:01 pm
[quote]I ask to see their laboratories, and they confess they have none. I ask them where they are doing their observations in the wild, and they confess they are doing none. I ask them about their publications, just the recent ones, and they confess they have none. I ask them what sort of research they have in the pipeline, and they confess they have none.
Science is not something one gets from reading a book. Science is what scientists do. Creationists don’t do research. They have no publications because they have written nothing up. That’s because they have nothing to write up.[/quote] Are you claiming to have personally requested to each of the 50 authors of those articles to see their laboratories, and been denied that request because they don’t have facilities? I suggest you take another look at the names on that list, because you quite clearly invented the claims above out of thin air.
[quote]I think I read every one of them when that list was first published — a decade ago? Note that not a single one of those articles is research based. None of the articles is peer reviewed. None of those articles proposes a hypothesis for creationism and none offers data that call into question any part of evolution.
Gum flapping isn’t science. 50 articles, not one of which raises any serious question about evolution theory, not one of which advances any argument for creationism.
There’s a clue in the title of the piece. It’s called 50 scientists who back creation. Not creationism. Saying creation exists is the starting point of science, but it’s not science itself. Why wouldn’t those scientists take the leap and say they back creationism? I suspect because they don’t.[/quote]
That’s the best you’ve got? “Not research based, not peer reviewed” are just the standard boilerplates for evolutionists. You know evolutionism dominates the scientific sphere, by citing lack of peer review you’re just asking why fervent non-believers in creationism haven’t been consulted to back up papers that support an opposing theory. And you know that any peer review of the articles would be dedicated solely to disproving and scoffing at every single point raised. By the same token, I could just as easily ask you why findings on evolutionary theory aren’t submitted to Answers In Genesis for peer review before being published. You know the answer – because the debate process is presentation and rebuttal. You present your argument, then the other side rebuts it. You don’t submit it for rebuttal before presenting it. The whole peer review thing is such a copout and such a mental loophole, it’s a perfect example of the circular logic and avoidance of real argument that’s the mark of a mind that can absorb untold amounts of data and theories but can’t conceive that there could be more than one way of putting them together.
Those articles don’t present hypotheses for creation? Are you for real? Here’s your hypothesis: An all-powerful being who operates entirely outside the restrictions of our physical world, is responsible for creating that world.
None of the articles are research based? So what? They are written by immensely qualified and incredibly intelligent people who, in their decades of experience in many different scientific fields, have found more evidence convincing them of a young earth than of an old one. There is plenty of research related in the articles, along with how that research was relevant to the view that a young earth is not the impossibility it’s claimed to be.
AIG are propagandists? Who are they affecting with their propaganda? Is their propaganda more pernicious and effective than that of their opposition, who claim there is “no debate” regarding the “fact” of evolution, and have outlawed the teaching of their opponents in public schools? You’re presuming to claim that they don’t know what science is, without providing a single factual reply to a single point raised in a single one of the articles – yet it’s AIG who are propagandizing, and not you?
Why not issue some kind of solid, factual rebuttal to some of the points raised in those articles? Such as the contention that formations such as the grand canyon can be explained as effectively or more so by hydraulic action than by millions of years of erosion? Or that in instances where a fixed standard has been available against which to test the findings of carbon dating – for instance the Mt St Helens eruption, which provided a clear, fixed time period over which the results were produced – the carbon dating techniques have provided results that were out by factors of millions? Here we have two very simple pieces of evidence for a young earth: Rock formations being able to be produced in very short time periods, and the dating technique used to supposedly establish that those rock formations are of great age showing wildly inaccurate results when measured against a proveable standard.
Like I said in my earlier post, none of these things provide proof either way. They simply indicate that we’re free to make a choice in our beliefs, based on the evidence available.
I’m not trying to win the debate over the age of the world. I’m not capable of doing it, and I’m not interested in doing it. In fact, i could care less how old the world is. As far as I’m concerned it could be 100 years old or 800 trillion without making a lick of difference to my life.
BUT.
What is important to me, and what I think should be important to other people of faith, is that the scripture that our faith is based on not be discarded in favor of the views of humanistic people. That’s the opposite of having faith, that’s you dictating to God what He did when he made the earth, based on some numbers produced by calculations made on how old rocks are.
[quote]“Creationism is .. supreme denial of .. the nature God made.”[/quote]
No. It is denial of infallibility of theories, calculations, hypotheses and measuring implements that have been used to attempt to conclude how nature works. All of those have been developed by fallible beings – humans.
To claim faith in a Christian God is to claim a belief in the Bible, by definition. To claim belief in evolution is a denial of what is clearly and explicitly written in the very first chapter of that Bible.
You have not made any attempt to answer my query as to why the scientific community is a more reliable source than the text that is the basis of the faith you puport to follow.
Nor have you made any attempt to answer my question as to whether a principled stand on the tenets of that faith – whether or not it brings ridicule – would be a better way to show an example and bring others into the faith, than compromising the tenets of that faith and reducing its value to something less than the conclusions reached by humans, who are ultimately fallible beings.
March 3, 08 at 9:56 pm
Re – my global warming numbers:
Ed said “Those numbers sound wildly inaccurate to me, but are quite irrelevant here. But I’m curious: Do you have some link to suggest that those numbers are even in the ballpark?”
Indeed I do. I debate based on observed reality, not on flimsy theories. Not a concept that the average evolutionist is particularly familiar with, I imagine.
IPCC signatories: 58.
signatories to anti-Kyoto petitions, or petitions claiming anthropogenic global warming to be unsupported by science: more than 20,000.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
etc.
By the way, I’ll remind you that you brought up the issue of numbers in science. I simply countered the notion that numbers mean something in science by demonstrating the numbers on global warming.
March 4, 08 at 10:26 am
Apples and oranges.
58 nations signed IPCC.
Numbers mean something, but you’ve demonstrated no numbers against global warming. 58 nations contributed to the IPCC process and signed on, with the best of their science and scientists. 20,000 people signed a petition saying they don’t believe it, about 1/10th of the people who showed up to see Paul Simon and Art Garfunkle in Central Park the last time they played, and a few more than the total scientists who contributed to the IPCC report. By your standards here, Simon and Garfunkle should be ten times the authority on global warming as your petition. It should be unnecessary to point this out, but a nation is a larger unit than a person.
And that “minority” report from the Senate Committee on Public Works? It’s a crock of baloney. As a piece of political hackery, it’s an embarrassment to political hacks. It’s not scientific. It’s not peer reviewed. It’s not even got the approval of the minority of the committee. If you read through the names of the people referenced, you’ll begin to see the problems: Economists are not climate scientists; many of the references are to work that doesn’t say anything against global warming; none of the people referenced were asked about their names being used in such a fashion, and several asked to have their names removed from the document.
Reuben, I got a bridge in Alaska. You’ll love it. And I can make you a deal . . .
And — holy frijole! — this is the research institute that published the “peer reviewed” paper against global warming, the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?” http://www.oism.org/
I got a lot of tinfoil to sell here. When you double the foil over, it will protect you from Z-rays and Q-rays from the people on the other side of the Moon. I’ll be pleased to sell it to you for $1 a square foot, which is a bargain considering the protection it offers.
March 4, 08 at 10:31 am
“not on flimsy theories”
Not EVEN on flimsy theory, you meant.
March 4, 08 at 11:03 am
So Ed, do you believe that human CO2 emissions contribute to and influence global warming more than other factors? Why do you believe so?
What particular data or study led you to the conclusion that atmospheric CO2 levels are directly linked to the phenomena of global warming as warned of by the IPCC? (Not just the existence of the greenhouse effect, which is already established.)
I recall that you are well informed on topics you choose to comment on, and I would like to hear your personal point of view.
March 4, 08 at 11:15 am
TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose ‘the fraud of global warming.’
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx
March 4, 08 at 12:18 pm
Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming.
A conference in New York on Monday and Tuesday this week will bring 100 scientists together to warn that the there is no man-made global warming crisis.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,334682,00.html
March 5, 08 at 11:51 am
“I got a lot of tinfoil to sell here. When you double the foil over, it will protect you from Z-rays and Q-rays from the people on the other side of the Moon. I’ll be pleased to sell it to you for $1 a square foot, which is a bargain considering the protection it offers.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No really, I’ve got a bunch of carbon credits here with your name on them. They’re certificates showing that by keeping third world farmers from getting modern farming equipment you’ve saved humanity by preventing the earth’s atmosphere from burning off because we ate too many hamburgers.
You can kill two birds with one stone by using the carbon credits to wipe once your done, because toilet paper is also causing teh global warmingz that’s responsible for record low temperatures in China and Baghdad, according to noted climatologist Cheryl Crow.
Despite all your braggadacio about science it appears you’ve bought the global warming hoax hook, line and sinker, buddy. Meet me back here in ten years so we can discuss how much Miami isn’t under water and you can admit you know a lot less science than you think you do.
Or maybe you *do* have the scientific prowess you make out to have, and you got taken in by anthropogenic global warming *despite* your scientific knowledge.
Which to my mind would indicate that the same thing could happen regarding macroevolution – if a knowledge of science doesn’t prevent you falling for a clear hoax like global warming, then who’s to say you wouldn’t be taken in just as easily by a hoax regarding the origins of species.
By the way if it’s not too much trouble it might be polite to answer some of the many, many questions posted above that you’ve yet to acknowledge.