Reader's comments on this article
Add a new comment on this article
|from origins and history|
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 06:43
(reply to this comment)
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 13:34
<< Sings with air-guitar
"Once I was a tadpole long and thin--Then I was a monkey with my tail tucked in---Then I was a baboon in a tropical tree--and now I am your professor with a PHD!"
Love EVIL- Lution but still have many unanswered questions.
(reply to this comment)
|from check out..|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 04:46
(reply to this comment)
|from Boss Lady|
Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 14:40
the difference between evolution and creation is only one thing:
evolution states it took millions of years.
creations says it took 7 days.
according to the big bang there was dark and then light. sound familiar?
both theories say that our world was created. one says by "god." the other by "it's own self." there needn't be any separation between the two. it is simply a matter of semantics. we know that nature is an aware and intelligent movement whether we name is "god" or "evolution." the process is still the same.
everyday, scientist worldwide are discovering new fossils that punch holes in there former theories. the evidence is breaking the time lines when fossils supposedly millions of years apart are being found next to each other.
also, today science has discovered what is being called the "M" theory, or the theory of everything. this theory goes back to our understanding of time. go to youtube to find interesting and short clips for an understanding of this.
time as we know is relative. so let's say an intelligent source, outside of time, creates this material realm. the relativity of the time that passes depends on the size, distance and mass of whatever is observing and or creating.
we see stars colliding and it takes them millions of years to move through each other. how do we know that for those two stars, it doesn't happen at a speed that is relative to them?
the only difference is time between evolution and creation. and of course also, the mind control and fear of hell that goes along with doubting the christian version of creation.
(reply to this comment)
| From exfamily|
Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 15:51
"everyday, scientist worldwide are discovering new fossils that punch holes in there former theories. the evidence is breaking the time lines when fossils supposedly millions of years apart are being found next to each other."
Care to name your sources for these claims?Do you have an example of fossils of animals/organisms who are thought to have lived (demise of one species and birth of the other) millions of years apart being found next to each other... that is, next not in proximity but in i.e. strata?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know where you got that info from and whether the source is reputable.
The M theory is shaky at best. We shall see what comes of it, but at its current stage it is hardly something to base arguments on.
The difference between creationism and evolution is not only time. Creation says that all (most?) species were created as they currently are, with perhaps a bit of inevitable variation within the species. Creation = poof!, modern-day animal. Evolution = animal evolved over time. Note that the difference is not only time, but the evolution of the animal from a to z. Hence the word "evolution". That is at stark contrast with the creationist belief, which is why they oppose it so.
It's not just time.
Not to mention that creation "science" includes a non-scientific premise, namely the inclusion and necessity of the supernatural (the creator). Since science does not deal with the so-called supernatural, there's another difference for you: Evolution is scientific, creationism is not.(reply to this comment)
| From mamma|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 03:10
"Care to name your sources for these claims? Do you have an example of fossils of animals/organisms who are thought to have lived (demise of one species and birth of the other) millions of years apart being found next to each other... that is, next not in proximity but in i.e. strata?"
"I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know where you got that info from and whether the source is reputable."
Remember that critique of source is far less important than critique of the source material. I quote from the following link.
Please look up the following link. That way I don't have to quote at length. There is a bunch of information there.
"There are three ways that the experts deal with to this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When small numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell through solid rock into lower levels. (3) When only a few are located below their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into the higher strata. More detail on this will be found near the end of this chapter."
A little further down you read about a phenomenon called 'overthrusts'. An overthrust is when large land areas, mountain ranges etc, and thereby also the fossil-bearing rock, is found 'in the wrong place' - that is - according to conventional geology and paleontology, and thereby subsidiaries of evolutionary theory.
You wrote: "The difference between creationism and evolution is not only time. Creation says that all (most?) species were created as they currently are, with perhaps a bit of inevitable variation within the species. Creation = poof!, modern-day animal. Evolution = animal evolved over time. Note that the difference is not only time, but the evolution of the animal from a to z. Hence the word "evolution". That is at stark contrast with the creationist belief, which is why they oppose it so.
It's not just time."
Essentially it is so in evolutionary theory, that given eons of time, ANY miraculous change can and does happen. As there still is no concrete evidence that support these changes, so they are relocated to the magic of time that is beyond scientific enquiry.
I didn't write that just for semantics, I challenge you to think about it.
You wrote: "Not to mention that creation "science" includes a non-scientific premise, namely the inclusion and necessity of the supernatural (the creator). Since science does not deal with the so-called supernatural, there's another difference for you: Evolution is scientific, creationism is not."
We have to do with a supernatural event whether we choose to call it so or not. The observable is identical, whether you are one or the other. Interpretation is very different. You see, what is called supernatural in one way of looking at it, does not really disappear merely by changing spectacles.
(reply to this comment)
| From Dr.GH|
Thursday, September 27, 2007, 10:56
I just came back from a 3-day fishing trip, and I leave this afternoon for a 2 to 3-day project (we are putting radio transmitters into fish so we can track their movements). So I won’t be able to make quick replies.
However, I feel that I should make a reply to the post by “mama” regarding geology. The source material “mama” relied on was an antiscience site.
A few of the more obvious falsehoods start at the very first sentence of the “FOSSILS AND STRATA Part 5” section. We read there, “ONGOING STRATA CONTROVERSIES” which is a long section about disputes over more than a century ago. These are in no way “ongoing.” And, a bit of study shows us that the “controversy” alleged in the antiscience screed was not about geology in the first place, but an ego driven dispute over who could claim to have discovered various geological features.
The next falsehood is in the next section heading regarding “MIXED-UP FOSSILS.” The antiscience author claims that, “Fossils are frequently found in the wrong places.” The offered “proof” for this is another creationist has said so. It is true that older fossils easily erode out of their original location and become exposed. This could look like an old fossil in young material- if that is you are a total incompetent. I have personally worked with fossils that were 1) originally deposited in a shallow sandy ocean basin which 2) became cemented into a sandstone which then 3) was uplifted into a range of hills by our California earthquakes which then 4) eroded into canyons by coastal streams, and in the rock and gravels of the stream bed you can find chunks of the ancient sandstone replete with fossils. Since the stream cuts through miles of different rocks from different ages and there are obviously modern animals living there as well, you can find fossils, fresh bones, and beer cans all mixed together.
These are the sorts of situations the antiscience creationists like to claim invalidates geology and evolution. What they really demonstrate is that foolish people should not try to interpret geology. It takes a bit of training, a bit of intelligence, and a lot of common sense.
In fact, every “problem” presented by “mama” is either not a problem or merely a creationist’s falsehood. For a last example, the antiscience website “mama” relies on for her information makes the claim that, “Never anywhere in the world are all the strata in the theoretical "geologic column" to be found in one complete sandwich. Most of the time only two to eight of the 21 theoretical strata can be found.”
This is false at best, but I suspect it is a purposeful lie. Former young earth creationist Glenn Morton, has worked in the oil exploration industry for most of his life. He started out was a YEC, but the daily exposure to actual rock cores and geological data was overwhelming and he had to admit to himself that his creationist friends and mentors had lied. You might find his personal account helpful
In Glenn’s article, “The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood” he wrote, “First, as I have noted before, the concept quite prevalent among some Christians that the geologic column does not exist is quite wrong. Morris and Parker (Morris and Parker, 1987, p. 163) write:
"Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence."
They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 31 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco
The Essaouira Basin in Morocco (Broughton and Trepanier, 1993)
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota (Haimla et al, 1990, p. 517)
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia (above this basin sources are Roberston Group, 1989)
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta(Trendall 1990)
The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil( (Wiens, 1995, p. 192)
The Cape Karroo Basin (Tankard, 1995, p. 21)
The Argentina Precordillera Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 136)
The Chilean Antofagosta Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 134)
The Pricaspian Basin (Volozh et al, 2003)
(From http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm )
I am about out of time. I'll "see" you next week.(reply to this comment)
| From exfamily|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 14:41
"Remember that critique of source is far less important than critique of the source material."
True; but as I have no access to the source materials, I must be able trust the source.
It's like the difference between what the alien and UFO lunatics say and what SETI or some other unbiased scientific organization says.
If it's creationists making the claims, I know they're biased (and more-often-than-not plain wrong), so I want to see if the claim is espoused by the scientific community in general. For example, if creationists say they found a human fossilized footprint together with a dinosaur footprint, I'd want to know from a reputable, peer-reviewed source (i.e. Nature magazine) whether this was in fact true, as I know that what they publish is highly-scrutinized by various experts in the field and is therefore quite trustworthy.
All that to say, the data is of course what counts, regardless of the source; but as none of us have access to the data, we must rely on the truthfulness of the source that tells us that such is so.
I took a brief look at the link you posted. I am well aware that the site is an anti-evolution site, so I tend not to take anything they say very seriously.
All the same, I looked through a little and found they did reference books, some of which may be reputable. Some of them were from the 1950's, which seems a bit antiquated to me. Science isn't stagnant.
All the same, I can't say I'm sure as to what answer to give you about the claim that fossils are being found "below their proper strata". I haven't much time available, so if you could give me specific examples of these I might be able to read some reputable source and give you a response.
"Essentially it is so in evolutionary theory, that given eons of time, ANY miraculous change can and does happen. As there still is no concrete evidence that support these changes, so they are relocated to the magic of time that is beyond scientific enquiry.
I didn't write that just for semantics, I challenge you to think about it. "
I would agree if it were all one big thought experiment, as we haven't enough recorded natural history to see if these sort of changes occur. Of course, this is where fossils come in.
I invite you to view this brief entertaining and informational video here:
You say "We have to do with a supernatural event whether we choose to call it so or not". What event is this, and why is it supernatural? I agree that if one calls dawn a supernatural event, we all have to deal with it regardless of whether some call it supernatural and other just natural. But what is this supernatural event?
For that matter, what is the supernatural? For all we know it (if it exists) may be natural, just a facet of nature we do not yet know about. I don't agree that the supernatural cannot be known naturally either. But I digress...(reply to this comment)
Monday, September 24, 2007 - 15:54
It is not my opinion, but rather a fact that we were taught a misrepresentation of the Theory of Evolution. That doesn't mean that the TOE is correct, but that the understanding of TOE given us in our only sources on TOE - such as The Big Lie - was blatantly misrepresented in order to make it look foolish, and to put us at odds with anything scientific that might undermine our faith.
My opinion of the theory itself is that it is correct. Not perfect, will undoubtedly require modifications as new data is discovered; but I feel quite sure that the core ideas will remain, regardless of eventual modifications.
Not that my opinion matters, just as my opinion is irrelevant as to the veracity of the general theory of relativity. The evidence either supports it or it doesn't, and the same holds true for TOE, whether I like it or not.
(reply to this comment)
| From Samuel|
Monday, September 24, 2007, 19:40
I agree with ExFam, TF misrepresented the Theory of Evolution to us so it would be easier to convince us that we were absolutely right. There are things that we are never going to know, like how old the Earth really is ( we can guess, though). Many of the arguments TF made against Evolution were outdated or have since been disrpoven (like that NASA found that a day was missing from space and a Christian on board was able to figure out that this was the day the sun stood still at Joshua's request). That is false.
Now, this is just my opinion, and you can see into it whatever you want. What do fossils really prove? What do similarities between species really prove? And how does life evolve from non-life (by the way, that violates a basic tenet of Cell theory)? While Evolution is possible, life evolving from nothing, in my opinion, is not. Hence I believe that Intelligent Design is the solution to Evolution's problems, if it exists at all.
As far as the age of the Earth is concerned, it really doesn't matter. 6 thousand? 6 million? 6 billion? Surely science has better things to focus their energy on, don't you think?
One question for you, Alicia. Did you ever work answering e-mails at any of The Family's websites? (reply to this comment)
| From Baxter|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 06:03
'As far as the age of the Earth is concerned, it really doesn't matter. 6 thousand? 6 million? 6 billion? Surely science has better things to focus their energy on, don't you think?'
There is a reason why Christianity has found the time question so offensive. A reason why it sticks at the heart like a knife that they can't shake and either sidestep or attack as gross sacrilege. The Same reason that Berg always insisted that the stars were never as far away as modern astronomer speculated they were.
If the our world took Billions of years to evolve, and in that duration an almost innumerable quantity of changes in animal and plant life have transpired, of which we are only a recent development, why would it be reasonable to assume that we were the most important species in the universe, for whom God had/has a special plan and purpose? On the other hand, 6-10,000 years rather neatly supports the notion that the natural world is basically nothing more than a support system for human existence, because it barely accomodates the development of anything else beyond so-called intelligent man. This is arguably the central problem with evolutionary theory as regards Christians. It is not so much the removal of a divine hand, so much as a moving of the spotlight away from man as the centre of the universe. Ergo, (at least politically), it does matter enormously how old the Earth is. This is one of my biggest issues with Christians in general. No offense intended, but I find that they don't often confront such questions objectively, rather simply trying to find a gap in the presented argument so as in retain some level of relevence for themselves. The second any hole in Evolutionary theory is alluded to, they're through the gap like termites; They assume that in the immediate absence of evolution, their version of creation by divine hand is infallible. And frankly, I don't really get how anyone can criticise any theory of existence whilst believing in a supreme being whose plan for creating the universe included anything as trivial as taking sunday off upon completion, while initially forgetting somehow to include some form of reproductive function for man, and then having to make one out of the spare parts from the first model. How do you take an obviously allegorical story and present it as scientific alternative?
I accept assertion of the possibility of intelligent design, Samuel, mostly because I don't know how the Earth was created, I'm not that clever and I never will know, so I can deal with that pretty easily. But the notion of intelligent design still doesn't really support Christian assumption of divine creation much more than rudimentarily. And then you're on slippery ground, because what parts of the Bible are just allegory and myth, and what forms the basis of your faith?
(reply to this comment)
| From Samuel|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 06:34
I think you're wrong on that, Baxter. Some Christians find the time question offensive. There are others, even among Evangelicals that believe that the Earth is billions of years old. There is Progressive Creationism, Religious-Only Theory, Pictorial- Day Theory, and Theistic Evolution. I have a feeling Berg dwelled so much on the Six Days Creation 6,000 years ago is because he was raised that way and because if the Universe is only 6,000 years old that does not give enough time for Evolution to take place. So I guess you could say that the 6,000 years theory was his way of "putting the nail in the coffin" if you will, to close the door on Evolution.
In answer to your question, I guess one would have to go based on faith, ebcause it would not be reasonable to assume that we are the last and most important species in the Universe. But I believe The Bible, which says I was created in the image of God and that I was made to have dominion over the animals. To me it doesn't really matter how old the Earth is, as I cannot see how Evolution removes the divine hand.
I don't think Intelligent Design presents the Genesis story in particular as a scientific alternative. All Intelligent Design says is that there must have been A creator. It could have been God, it could have been Krishnu, It could have been Allah, It could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster, It could have been Zeus for all they know! The door is pretty much left wide open.
Actually, Baxter, the fact that you are willing to accept the assertion of the possibility of Intelligent Design shows you to be clever indeed. Unless you know how the Earth was created, you really can't rule anything out.
Finally, if you are interested I can send you links to an Old Earth site that show that it is well possible to beleive in Old Earth creation, and still beleive in the authrority and inerrancy of scripture, but I don't think that's what you want.(reply to this comment)
| From Baxter|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 11:54
Samuel, if you believe yourself to be created in the image of God, and to have been given dominion over the animals, then my friend you are assuming yourself to be in fact the most important species in existence (which you have just admitted to be unreasonable). My point is that you yourself will probably make any number of accomodations just to retain this assumption, even perhaps to the point of accepting (as you do) the possibility that the duration of creation might have been longer than six days. Or is it that you simply insist on following, by act of faith, something you admit to be unreasonable? Is that what you're saying?
Beyond this, Samuel, intelligent design does not require the presence of deity. A higher intelligent force does not demonstrate the existence of a god, no matter what title or name you choose to give him. Certainly, it does nothing to validate your faith. The implication of intelligence would have to stretch very far to include divinity.
I did not present the genesis story as intelligent design theory. And careful modesty does not translate to cleverness. My point is that you choose to base your perspective on the origins of the universe on a symbolist tome full of mythology and allegory, which to me is clearly what you're doing no matter what you mask it as. You know very well the reason you assume the position of intelligent design is that it accomodates your political and religious affiliations.
(reply to this comment)
| From exfamily|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 10:29
"Actually, Baxter, the fact that you are willing to accept the assertion of the possibility of Intelligent Design shows you to be clever indeed. Unless you know how the Earth was created, you really can't rule anything out."
It would be closer to open-mindedness than cleverness.
While it's true that you cannot rule anything out, the evidence is not in favour of ID (especially as there is no evidence for the existence of any designer).
BTW, I would be interested in that link. When I was a Christian, I couldn't see how one could reconcile belief in evolution with faith in the Bible. I still feel the same way.
Here's a post of mine about this from another site:
"Evolution is not compatible with Christianity.
The reason I think so is because evolution is quite obviously incompatible with the Genesis account, so that rules out a literal reading of Genesis. Thing is, if you don't read Genesis literally, why would you read the others literally, i.e. the books about Jesus? They are all based on the same basic assumptions, namely the existence of God. And if you believe the Bible is incorrect about God creating the universe in 6 days, then why would you believe the Bible is correct when it says that Jesus is the son of God? If you read that literally, how do you know that a literal reading of i.e. Mark is correct, if you don't accept the literal correctness of Genesis (as neither of them refer to themselves as metaphor). And if you don't read the Gospels literally either (i.e. Jesus as son of God), then you're really not a Christian."(reply to this comment)