randman

I consider attacking evolution to be a "positive" claim (lol).

Seriously, no, I am not here to defend any particular brand of creationism. I was never taught creationism in school, only evolution. I have studied and been taugh, and have taught the Bible and areas related to it so I am confortable talking about the Bible, and evolution, but I do not know enough about creationism to defend the particulars.

As farc as my faith in God, it doesn't matter to me how He created in the sense that I could buy theistic evolution, YEC, OEC, ID,...

But I don't see common descent in the data. I see the possibility of common descent, or the possibility of the idea of "kinds" and a more limited type of "evolution." In fact, the evidence to my mind suggests the latter.

scigirl

But when you use the Bible as a science text - expect some very deep criticism. When you entered the Bible into the realm of science, than expect scientists to not only be critical of the content (i.e. data), but also the methods used to obtain that content.

Creationists use passages--which probably obtain obscure words and mistranslations--to completely define a scientific theory. Genesis 1:1 and 2 make up a very small part of the Bible, but they are the only basis for creation theory. Even if there are only a few 'minor' translation errors, this has drastic consequences for an alleged "scientific" theory that is based on only a few sketchy translated sentences in the first place. Consider that literal creationism expects Genesis to explain paleontology, biology, geology, astronomy, and more. Because this theory tries to explain so much, than it's data and methods better be darn near perfect - NO translation errors, NO ambigious phrases. And if there is ambiguity, there better be ways to test and re-test the data so the ambiguities disappear.

Imagine if our entire scientific field were based on only two experiments. If you found errors in either the methods or the data of those two experiments, however minor, wouldn't that concern you at all? Especially if there was no way to repeat those two experiments??

Thank goodness that the REAL scientific theories we have about the universe are based on thousands of experiments and observations that can be repeated and re-tested.

This is why creation-science is an oxymoron: A "science" built around obscure texts that were first passed down orally for generations (no doubt changed each time), then translated several times, using languages that were not equipped at the time to deal with modern science, that were not written in the first place to be scientific, that cannot be repeated or verified in any other fashion.

scigirl

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

randman

Sci-girl, this is where you are wrong. Creationists may start out with biblical ideas as a model, just like someone may imagine a new hypothesis from their mind, but the process of researching it is still scientific.
Creationists and IDers are using science and scientific methods to test their theory/hypothesis. What you are stating is that they are wrong to come up with an idea based on the Bible and to research it using science its veracity, and that is just BS. They are conducting scientific research to see if the data fits their models just as evolutionists are doing so for their's, and that is the simple truth.

MrDarwin

I'm still wondering about those birds you say were created from water and the others created from earth, and why the KJV is different from the other translations, and whether the original text is factually wrong, or whether you might be basing your argument on an inaccurate translation.

scigirl

What he means is, proving that evolution is NOT true does not automatically make your particular creation story true. For example, if I was found not guilty of murdering rufus atticus, this does not mean that YOU murdered him by default, since there are more than two possibilities for murderers. (sorry RA!

Exactly. Unfortunately, most YECS do not see it this way. They have very black and white digital thinking: either the entire bible is literally true, or God as they know him does not exist. Which really is unfortunate for everyone involved.

That's fine. But many many scientists do see the data pointing to common descent. Why? because of all the evidence. With the advent of genetic technology, scientists are discovering more and more mechanisms that could theoretically spur on evolution. Imagine that in Darwin's day, he had absolutely no idea what types of mechanisms could cause this 'random mutation' that selection could act on. If he had lived a long long time and learned about DNA like we do: jumping genes, chromosome transversions, gene and genome duplications, promotors and enhancers, he would have just been tickled pink.

I know that evolution seems tough to believe at times: heck I'm a biologist and I do have days where intelligent design makes sense (although the intelligent designer, if it exists, is nothing like the Christian God, but that's a whole 'nother story). But that's not a good enough reason to NOT believe in it, if the circumstantial evidence is there. I have a very very tough time believing that fellow humans did the evil atrocities of the holocaust, or 9/ll. Yet there the evidence is. . . and maybe someday we will understand human behavior enough to stop these types of things. Until then, we should study them and try to figure it out. Like with evolution: new discoveries every day are published in Science or Nature which must even make the staunchest of YEC go, hmmm, maybe it IS true. For example, the theory that two chimp chromosomes fused to make one human chromosome was confirmed when we sequenced our genome and found <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html" target="_blank">the ends of chimp chromosomes </a> in the middle of ours. Evolutionary theory predicted this, and it came true. Creationist explanation is either: 1) well God put them there but we just don't know why, or 2) to become a "believer" in evolution.

Dont believe because we tell you to, or because your science book tells you too. Believe in evolution because of the evidence. But before you examine the evidence, you have to learn more about science, and what scientists do. Yes, there are problems with both. But every problem that science has, religion has that same problem times infinity. You see, science at least has error-correction, ways to reliably repeat experiments or observations, and ways to objectively find the answer. Creation "science" has none of these. Before you dismiss evolution because it just doesn't sound right, think about the methods of science, and the methods of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/criticism.html" target="_blank">writing the Bible</a>, and ask yourself: which is more competent to provide us with accurate and predictable explanations and descriptions about our universe?

scigirl

DrLao

oops...

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: DrLao ]</p>

MrDarwin

We both agree (I think) that groups of species that can freely interbreed--even if they differ morphologically--are descended from a common ancestor. And this common descent is supported by numerous independent lines of evidence: biogeography, morphology, chromosome numbers, genetics, etc.

So far so good?

Here's the problem: we can then take these other kinds of data and find that they still work when we start comparing groups of species--say genera, or families--that are progressively very, slightly, or not at all similar, but cannot interbreed. They still give the same kind of answer: that these organisms are related by common descent, with some more closely related than others. In other words, the variation in these other characters is only slightly more than we find among the closely related things that can interbreed. If we look at the sum total of evidence (i.e., not just ability to interbreed) we find that there is no cutoff or clear distinction between what a creationist would consider "kinds". For example, species a, b, and c are very similar to each other, and can interbreed; species d, e, and f are slightly more different and can interbreed, but not with a, b, and c; and species x, y, and z are even more different, and cannot interbreed with the other two groups.

So where do we draw the line? If these various lines of evidence show that a, b, and c are related, why do they also suggest that d, e, and f are related in turn? Please show me where we evolutionary biologists are making the mistake.

randman

"What he means is, proving that evolution is NOT true does not automatically make your particular creation story true."

That's fine, but I am not trying to prove creationism, just that evolution is not proven.
Evolution must rely on science, right?

But I think you miss something about why a person believes in God, or Jesus? Maybe this would help. I would wager if you were honest with yourself that you would admit that your beliefs in right and wrong have largely nothing to do with science. Now, you may beleive they are the product of social conditioning, and in t he particulars of some things, they are.But I believe we have innate knowledge of right and wrong, which we must work out the details one.

In terms of the Bible and Jesus, my acceptance of t he Bible has to do with personal revelation, and basically, it is not completely possible to replicate that experience, although I can put you on the road to having your own experience, if you are sincere in seeking the truth in these issues, but God reveals Himself in His own way.

Could I be mistaken, etc,..? It really isn't an issue to me how to prove my experience in scientific terms to someone else, but it is necessary to have dealt with my own doubts and beleifs for myself. I can say that I have objective proof of Jesus for myself, and have even touched His feet, but that doesn't mean He will show Himself to you in the same manner, and He probably won't, but He will show Himself to the honest seeker in a way that is real to that individual.

randman

All the translations I have read say the essentialy the same thing in terms of the creation from water on the 5th day, and Genesis 2. Do you know what translation states something else?

Mageth

Creationists may start out with biblical ideas as a model, just like someone may imagine a new hypothesis from their mind, but the process of researching it is still scientific.
Creationists and IDers are using science and scientific methods to test their theory/hypothesis.

Here's a few comments from John D. Morris, prez of ICR, from CreationOnline.org (Italicized text is my highlighting of certain choice passages):

"Actually there was one who observed creation, the Creator Himself! And He wrote His actions and observations down in a book, the accuracy of which has been well demonstrated. This book, the Bible, doesn't give us all the details about every possible data set, but it does give us the framework in which we can evaluate the facts, in regard to the unobserved past. Especially in regards to the unobserved past. The Creator has told us that all things were created in six days, not so long ago. It was "very good" in the beginning, but sin entered into creation, resulting in the curse on all of creation. Soon the world was restructured by the worldwide flood, and all land animals and mankind outside the Ark were destroyed. All of life today has descended from those survivors.

"Science has a mandate to examine each data set in the universe, and interpret it within the true history of Scripture. Such an understanding and interpretation will lead to the proper usage of God's creation for man's good, and lead one to give the Creator the glory due His name.

Hence, "Creation Online" was designed to inform the learner of the true nature of God's creation, and to make clear its proper interpretation."

"Our world, our church, our schools, our society, need the truth of creation more than ever. We see the wrong thinking of evolution having produced devastating results in every realm. Our passion at the Institute for Creation Research is to see science return to its rightful God-glorifying position, and see creation recognized as a strength by the body of Christ; supporting Scripture, answering questions, satisfying doubts and removing road blocks to the Gospel. The Institute for Creation research Graduate School exists to train students in scientific research and teaching skills, preparing effective warriors for the faith. We are delighted that you are considering honing your skills in creation thinking, and trust that God will lead you. We look forward to hearing from you."

The crap ICR does is about as far from true, objective science as you can get. It's pretty much the equivalent of crystal-ball gazing or tea leaf reading. It bases its research on the presupposition that god performed, observed and wrote down in the bible the "true story" creation of the universe in six days not very long ago, and thus any interpretation of evidence that contradicts the bible is "wrong thinking."

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>