This is pretty much a stupid question.
creation vs evolution
- Thread starter jason69
- Start date
This is pretty much a stupid question.
jsanford108
New member
You misrepresented or misinterpret my quotes of Darwin, Wald, and Crick. They were never opposed to evolution. As evidence by their quotes. The first quotes I provided demonstrate this. Then, I quote them a second (sometimes a third time) to show contradictions in logic and scientific principles.
Gould as well was a strong proponent of evolution. I never said the contrary. I did highlight that he agreed with evidence that I provided (being that the lines between nodes and points of evolutionary trees are all inference, void of fossil records and evidence). That does not make him a creationist. It simply showed that an evolutionist can accept that there is some dishonesty/misinformation being spread in regards to iconic images of evolution.
You are placing a dishonest tactic where none exists.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Interplanner
Well-known member
Jonah,
the circular reasoning issue is a bit more complicated. I can show you hundreds of instances in which the evolutionary geologic or fossil timing is circular. You'll find them at creationwiki. I'll use one which I consider a national embarrassment. BUILDING NORTH AMERICA was a PBS or NOVA piece and was discussing the age of certain dinosaurs found in the Patagonia area, one of those massive piles of remains. Nearby were acres of cracked shells, on the surface, the soft tissue partly eaten. Considering that it was high altitude and dry, the 'official' explanation is still a joke. Nothing organic looks that way after 60M years. You cannot have organic material, partly eaten (showing marks of being partly eaten), sitting out in the weather, sun, snow pack, wind for 60 frickin million years and have it look that recognizable, that intact. But NPR or NOVA said it and so we are just supposed to believe it? Or 10 'scientists' listed in the credits?
On the Bible, there is one step involved that I don't think you have seen. The text is referring to objective reality. When it says the geosphere was formed and then it was filled, the progression is 1, logical (the structure must be there before, not after, the biological life), but 2, demonstrable. It is there and the thing is true in and out of the fact of being a sacred text.
The thing about the Bible is you will find that the % of this is extremely high. It does not say things are true 'because it says so' as you might find in other mythologies. Rather, it says they are true to what is 'there.' I understand it will still be strange to hear of a talking snake, but we find out that he is not your average snake anyway. He is an evil figure in the drama of the world, confined to that form of appearing.
My next point may seem a leap, but bear with me to see its reflexive or retroactive force. Come to the 1st century Judea, to Jesus healing a person in a private home, full of people, but also with some detractors present who doubt that he can 'forgive sins.' Of course, we all know any charlatan or comic can stand up and say they can forgive sins. But Jesus 'crosses' this line by saying 'So that you may know I can forgive sins (as the Son of God)--I say to the paralyzed man--'Get up and walk.' And he did. Obviously the total story of Christ would look entirely different if this had been a party gag. It happened in normal space and time, to prove that the other thing he said was to be believed in normal space and time.
That section of Jesus' story has 4 quick scenes (Mk 2:1-3:6) and ends with the opposition planning his demise. You might say this 'crossover proof' of his claim immediately triggered the opposition to him, which lead to his death, which is one of the best attested small-scale facts of antiquity (as opposed to large items like the eruption of Vesuvius).
This same person made the retroactive remarks I have mentioned earlier. He quotes early Genesis as normal meaning and narrative. It is not quoted as mythology because the framing is about questions like what to do on the sabbath or why marriage exists, and the whole sense in which early Genesis is quoted is normal meaning. Keep that in mind when going back to read.
One of the more interesting things about early Genesis may actually be found in the literary disciplines. 2 British antiquities curators have shown that early Genesis logically predated the many copies and 2nd generation myths that are all over the world that are similar. That is to say in a literary sense. I have worked in some of this myself but will never get to the level of these people, so it is remarkable to have them consider the flow of logic that would reverse this conclusion (ie, thinking that Genesis is an evolved collection). It cannot be. The descriptions given, the settings and the dating of the material (when available and proven) all go to the other conclusion.
Coming back to creation specifically (there being several fundamental global declarations found in early Genesis), I mentioned last week that the rate x time issue of creation is solved by God speaking things into existence. It may be of interest to you to know that the Suquamish (Washington State) tribal cosmology is the exact same. The Creating God just speaks things into existence. There is an interesting diversion from the Biblical record on this. It is that He gave this power to humans, and the word for this power is translated as 'form-changing.' He let them this do it for a while, and they would become plants or animals as they saw fit. They did some good things with it. But he later stops it because they simply used it to deceive each other. Nothing has this power anymore, says the narrative. All things reproduce after their kind.
As we would expect, there are several ways this degenerated from what Genesis said, but one of the things that stays intact is objective reality or identity. The Creating God is still good, and holds the authority to enforce goodness against deception. Sometimes the truth of early Genesis is not just in the area of sciences but questions of human nature or philosophy.
On youtube, see P. James-Griffiths "Tracing Genesis through Ancient Culture" for how early Genesis is reinforced in the fact of comparative cosmology, and for the 2 British antiquities comments.
jsanford108
New member
To illustrate the illogical manner that many atheists approach science and theory. It shows how Wald instantly contradicts his statement of "following the truth wherever it leads." The truth and evidence points to spontaneous generation being false and disproven; yet Wald accepts it because in his own words, the "alternative is intelligent design," which he refuses to accept or acknowledge.
Wald was an atheist. He never supported intelligent design or creationism. Why would anyone imply the opposite? Once again, I think you are trying to see dishonesty where it is not evident.
You need to read more Wald.
SonOfCaleb
Active member
Your definition of reality is based firmly on what YOU CHOOSE to believe is reality. The reality is neither Science nor you have any clue on what existed prior to the known Universe nor when 'time' relative to existence of the Universe began. All you have is assumptions and guesses. So lets not pretend these assertions were arrived at by any known empiricism. Science by its very nature is supposed to be A) empirical and B) Objective. Your opinions on the matter are distinctly NOT the lata which in my opinion is deeply ironic. In fact they're close to the realms of Science fiction. You CHOOSE to believe those dates merely because its fits your disposition. Science and religion have more in common than you're willing to admit.....
Last edited:
SonOfCaleb
Active member
Closest i can think of is entropy i guess according to thermodynamics... But the Universe is NOT a disordely place ...Man has sent men to the moon and various space apparatus into space based on a PRECISE set of laws. No law no man in space its really that simple. And yet chance was the apparent result of the Universe, life etc...A system of laws that created themself according to evolutionists and exponents of the Big Bang theory.....
In other words, you have no rebuttal.
Really, the universe is an orderly place? Novas, supernovas, colliding galaxies, black holes, quantum physics. Mostly there is a lot of chaos. Earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.
Yes there are certain laws of physics and without them we would likely not be here, but that does not mean it was all created by your deity in particular or any deity at all. It happened, we are here. Maybe it is just dumb luck.
As far as oatmeal's post, the chance of us being here is 100%.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Well, Einstein called it the privileged planet when he saw what happened during a solar eclipse and then Gonzales and _____ saw the same thing in 94 in India, and that's why they became Christians and made the film THE PRIVILEGED PLANET. It was designed to be OBSERVED as designed.
Speaking of films, how are you doing on GENESIS AS HISTORY which is now on DVD after doing well in theater?
Speaking of films, how are you doing on GENESIS AS HISTORY which is now on DVD after doing well in theater?
Never saw that movie, don't intend to.
Where is the Einstein statement? Citation to the source please.
No, I dont think creation wiki is a source worth anyone's time. Pick up a basic text in biology, geology or astronomy if you are looking to rebut creationwiki.
SonOfCaleb
Active member
None of that indicates disorder. They're not random abberations. They happen for a reason. You should familiarise yourself with your subject matter as it doesnt seem to me you know very little about the topic.
So does everything happen for a reason?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Don't intend to? Oh, I thought I was dealing with an curious and open mind. I'd need to know more about you before talking further. You sounded open and curious so far.
As far as I know the Einstein quote is in THE PRIVILEGED PLANET because Gonzales and Richards then realized they were looking at the same feature that Al saw when he observed a solar eclipse. All I can give you from here is the PP link.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...UTF-8&sigb=1577um8pv&hspart=lvs&hsimp=yhs-awc
That's the 1 hr 32 min version, the longest listed.
It counters the 'mediocrity principle' which of course is logically in conflict with Genesis.
One citation of Einstein is in the 34th but not this particular expression.
Last edited: