In the comments — continued from a thread at Gospel of Reason, a blog no longer growing.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
Related
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pm and is filed under Evolution, Religion, Science, Science and faith. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Creationists do in fact argue that nothing died prior to the fall, a problem considering that when plants are eaten, they die, generally. Several sites have argued that plants are not really “alive.” It’s a silly argument either way.
And, remember, we’ve already discussed the decomposition issue. There is no decomposition without bacteria. If bacteria, then certainly death exists, because otherwise, the bacteria mass would surpass that of the planet in a week.
What I object to is that the defense of one silly or stupid position then requires an increasingly petty God to be increasingly dabbling in minor miracles, an increasing number of minor miracles, to make the “literalness” of the Bible work. God shouldn’t be the God of petty magic.
Are plant cells different from animal cells? Pray tell, how? How would that make their life different enough to merit a different status from animals? And I warn you, once you start to try to make such distinctions, then you’ve opened the door to a lot of other, equally valid distinctions that lead to saying one part of the human race is “really” human, while other parts are “not really” human. So it’s a slippery slope lubricated by camels’ noses.
If plants died but animals didn’t, what was the difference that made animals immortal? Among other difficulties you’ll encounter here is that anything you claim on the cellular level would have left evidence we could find today to confirm or deny. Plants and animals are more closely related to each other than they are to bacteria . . . gee, it starts getting messy, on a cellular and organismal level.
So these become real claims in science, and not mere theological pie-in-the-sky. And as real claims in science, they are testable. If testable, the hypothesis can be disproven. And, in fact, others before you have proposed hypotheses based on these creationist assumptions. Those hypotheses were disproven.
So, I guess, that means the Bible is false, right?
It’s a long, long, very slippery slope you’re starting down. If your claim is that the Bible sets out scientific hypotheses, why shouldn’t someone take you at your word? And when they do, what can you possibly say when the hypothesis is disproven, except “the Bible is wrong?”
Why in God’s name would anyone set up that disaster scenario?
A “pre-fall Earth?” If there was such a thing, why can’t you tell us how to differentiate it — in sediments, in fossils, in something? The very fact that you claim it can’t be revealed should be a clue to you that it doesn’t exist. God isn’t ashamed of creation, God doesn’t hide His work.
LikeLike
You are new to this discussion, aren’t you.
Ham is an idiot. He’s also an anti-patriotic crook. His jail time is well deserved in my opinion. Evading taxes on his millions of income is pure sleaze. That he thought he could get away with it is testament to his idiocy, but his other claims give a bad name even to creationists. T. Rex breathing fire by putting farts out through the nose? Really? Joe, you don’t want to defend such lunacy, or dishonesty.
Name calling: Yeah, creationists now get a pretty rough go at sites where scientists and people of knowledge gather. It’s not a good excuse, but the creationists started it. Worse, they continue it. You’ve never heard Ken Ham live, I take it — cheap insults are his stock in trade. I mean, really — if you have seen these guys live, you can’t really claim to be innocent of their repeated, disgusting insults. It’s capped off with the bold, shameless prevarications of the Discovery Institute’s top guns — such as Jonathan Wells’ repeated lies to citizen groups and boards in Kansas and Ohio (the stunt claiming that Congress had passed an amendment requiring equal time for creationism took real guts, or no brains, before the Ohio State Board of Education. It was a false claim, and DI knew it. That’s a crime in most jurisdictions, but you’d have a difficult time getting a prosecutor to file suit, considering a plea of insanity would be difficult to counter. No, I’m not insulting, I’m telling you what the prosecutors have told me.) Dr. William Dembski’s charicature of Judge John Jones, complete with fart noises, was really classy, too.
Don’t lecture me about manners if you’re defending creationism. Clean up your own house first, I’ll listen. But frankly, Joe, I’m tired of people starting out telling me I’ll burn in hell if I study biology, and then going downhill from there. I’ve been in nasty labor disputes where the rhetoric was more genteel than discussions with creationists.
So, I hear your complaint, but I can’t take you seriously on it. I don’t allow profanity on this site. I try to avoid calling people stupid, though stupid ideas get my ire up regularly, and I don’t hesitate to label them as such. Creationism is no less dangerous than communism in my book — probably more dangerous, because it suckers in so many otherwise well-meaning and well-intentioned Christians. Creationism has demanded we do to evolution study, research and teaching exactly what Stalin did to evolution study, research and teaching, however, and I wouldn’t take it from Joe Stalin and I won’t take it from creationists. Same evil, different stole.
LikeLike
If the only thing you’ve been reading is these guys Ed, I can see where you get your views of creationism. It’s a great strategy to skew your opponent’s view and then name call it by saying it is “crank,” a “fairy tale,” “idiotic,” “pathetically stupid”, etc. I like the “Ken Ham’s idiot web site” comment and calling creationists “demagogues.” If you go over to the creationist’s websites you rarely find insulting verbiage like that. It’s a side issue, but to me, name calling and insulting remarks make a position look more weak and shallow than anything. Resorting to those levels usually shows you don’t have much of a case.
The creationist’s argument wasn’t that leaves don’t decompose and die, his argument is simply that the death of a plant is different than that of a human and can’t be classified in the same category. Whether you agree with it or not is another issue, but clearly he’s not saying that plants don’t die. That’s a skewed viewpoint to make the creationists look stupid.
A problem here for both creationists and evolutionists alike is that no one knows exactly what a pre-fall earth would have looked like. So basically, both articles are hypothetical on what it could have been like. It’s hard to destroy a hypothetical on either side.
Speaking of shallow, have you looked at some of these arguments that this guy is posing?
http://dinocreationistsfairytale.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/the-stegosaurus-carving-that-isnt/
So that this post won’t get filtered, I won’t post one of the responses, but if you look at the responses, on of them has a link that is a good rebuttal of this particular article. Do you think it’s a depiction of a boar?
Some of the arguments are simply grasping at straws to answer questions that can’t be answered. Like the different “dragon” references around the world, he wants to call them all crocodiles and alligators. Like the emperor of China had crocodiles pull his chariot. I would have liked to see them try to train a crocodile to do anything even remotely close to pulling a chariot around. Frankly, no one really knows what all the hundreds of references to “dragons” around the world are. Many have guesses, but no one knows for sure. Many evolutionists I’ve seen, including the one you cited, believe that some of them were derived from people finding dinosaur fossils and then the legends growing around that. I’m not sure how someone could fight dinosaur bones myself. It sounds pretty far fetched. For a creationist, it simply gives backing to the view that dinosaurs and man lived together. For an evolutionist, it’s simply legends and myths. He also argues that creationists believe “all” fossils were formed by the flood, which isn’t true.
Are you sure you want to back this web site?
BTW, I think roughly 75% of what we’ve talked about has been left unanswered. It’s ok though, because even though I’d like to continue, I don’t think either of us has the time for this discussion. I’ve spent a lot of time on talkorigins, read a lot of articles on evolutionist’s claims, and spent a lot of time discussing this issue with you and with others. Yet, I am very impressed with Scripture. It can hold its own. Though there are things that no one understands and that don’t totally make sense, I don’t have to have every single answer to know that God and His Word are worthy of my trust.
You, Ed, are a believer in the resurrection, by faith. You believe that God is the ultimate cause behind the universe, by faith. I am a believer in God being the creator of the world, by faith. It is a reasonable faith. It is a faith with just enough mystery to keep on a faith level. I have the same faith as you, but have simply taken my faith to accept the word’s of Scripture as truth, instead of sacrificing them on the altar of unbelief. Jesus said that a good tree bears good fruit and an evil tree bears evil fruit. The fruit of belief in God as the creator is faith, trust, belief, and love and devotion to a mighty God. The fruit of unbelief in God as the creator is atheism. It is a society that turns from God, that rejects Christ as unnecessary, that despises believers in God, and that elevates the understanding of man above the words of God Himself, and this list goes on. Based on the fruit of evolution alone, which of the two world views would be most appropriate for Christian to take? I will always side with the one that gives God the most glory and honor, because the Bible says He’s worthy of that glory. The Bible says that God is not a liar. Evolution says He is. As a Christian, am I going to believe God or man?
I am surprised, as a historian, why you have not learned this lesson from history. You have on your web site the great quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Many throughout history have been criticized and even persecuted for believing the Bible even when it went against the understanding of science or the church. Martin Luther was challenged for desiring the Bible to be the sole authority for faith and practice. Galileo was challenged for not holding to what the church said. Many were burned at the stake for following the Bible when it says that someone must be a believer before they are baptized. What about those who criticized the Bible for describing the Hittite Empire when nothing was found to that point? What about all the locations and places where people were critical of the Bible and now are silent? After the dust settles, who does history prove to have been right? It is those who followed God and the Bible rather than the ones who at the time went with their understanding. Trust me; I’m not saying I’m worthy to be in the same category as great people like these. What I’m saying is that history teaches us that the Bible holds up, and even if it’s not popular at the time, those who hold to it are eventually proven correct, time and time again. I’m throwing my lot in with God and His Word. Jesus said those who listen to Him and do follow His commands are like the wise man building his house on the rock. Those who don’t listen and follow His commands are like a foolish man building his house on the sand. The last thing I want to do with my life is separate myself from what God has said or what He has commanded. I want my life to be based on God’s truth. Don’t you? That truth is found in the Word of God. Where else can we find the words of life? Why would I abandon it for a faulty understanding that rejects God and His Word?
You say that Scripture never tells us not to go with reason and say Augustine taught us to side with our understanding rather than the Bible when they conflict. Don’t you know Proverbs 3:5? “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.” Our understanding fails us sometimes (I know mine does). God never makes those mistakes. I’m going with God, not man. We’ll let God be the judge on if we’ve made the correct choice.
Thank you for your prayers. I also pray that where I am wrong I will gain understanding because I know, especially in science and history, I’m not always right on everything. I want to learn and to grow though, so thanks for your prayers, it means a lot.
I have no problem giving up whatever conflicts with Scripture. Where ID and creationism depart from the Bible, they are wrong. If you ask me to abandon the Bible? Who was it who said, when asked to recant the Bible’s teachings for man’s dogma? “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen”
LikeLike
In the vein of “you need to get out more,” I suggest you take a loot at this post, Joe, and other materials at the site:
http://dinocreationistsfairytale.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/creationist-crank-about-plants/
LikeLike
And I’m praying that the spirit will move you to see the truth and quit hammering away at God’s creation, science, and knowledge.
What can you do to help? Give up the ghost on creationism and ID. They’re the wrong way. It may be a rose-strewn path to some, but it’s the wrong way.
I apologize for spending so little time here the last couple of weeks, but there really is other life.
I’m surprised that Oomphalos doesn’t turn up more, better stuff.
LikeLike
The only thing I have on Wells is in “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel. There’s an interview in that book with Wells on some of the icons of evolution, like the archaeopteryx, Darwin’s tree of life, the classic line of human evolution, etc. From what I’ve read it seems that Wells is just seeing the classic roots of Darwinianism and calling it on its errors. Whether other scientists have done this too or not, I’m not sure.
I’m pretty sure I remember Haeckel’s drawings in school when I was a kid and I’m pretty young. How long have they been out of the text books? I’m glad that they’ve taken them out.
Why would a “mature” creation make God a liar? I am not talking about the kind of people who say God created the earth with the fossils already in the ground etc. etc. I am simply saying that He wouldn’t have created Adam and Eve as babies on an earth that didn’t have any food for them or any other animal, or make it so we don’t have any light from stars right away. I’m not sure how far some people carry the logic that God made a “mature” creation, but I know I don’t carry it very far. I think a “fully functioning” earth would be what I would hold to. I don’t see how that makes God a liar.
The only thing I found online about the Oomphalos error was written by you on several blogs, dating back over two years. The thing that it tells me is that you’ve been debating this issue again and again, refining your skills and abilities to win an argument. If that is all this is; if we are just having an argument just like what you’ve done over and over again, to me, this is pointless. I’ve done enough research on the subject to know that God’s Word can stand toe to toe with Mr. Ed Darrel anytime, even if I am not eloquent enough to.
I don’t know what else to say to you Ed. You’ve been debating this topic for years and have probably discouraged many, many Christians. You are masterful at argument, and I give you props for that. While you haven’t in the slightest dissuaded my faith in God, I wonder how many Christians have left the faith because of your arguments. I feel you should know that you have been discussing this with a pastor. I think that since you said on the other blog site that I shouldn’t rebuke an elder, that you are also some sort of clergy. You’re a prestigious man, with lots of influence online (not to pump your ego or anything). Let me ask you this, what good are you doing for the cause of Christ by all this? What are you hoping to accomplish? Yeah, we’ll take any reference to God and all religion out of schools, we’ll make it illegal to teach Christianity in any public place, and we’ll make Christians look like irrelevant, unpopular, unintelligent, bigoted, homophobes. Yeah, you’re a real hero to the cause of Christ standing arm in arm with those atheists. What exactly are you doing for Jesus in this and how are you hoping to help Christianity? If you’re not in these discussions for Him, your motivation is wrong, no matter how innocent. By what you are doing, whether you know it or not, you are working on destroying your own belief system. You are trying to destroy God’s Word, trying to give natural selection glory for what the Bible says God did, defending those who detest the Bible and are haters of God, and attacking those who are attempting to faithfully trust in God and His Word and are trying to find harmony with God and the Bible with what we find in science. All the while you put up a badge that says “Christian.” Jesus said it would be by your love for one another that they would know we are His disciples. What on earth are you doing to fulfill that command by attempting to destroy your brothers’ faith?
I’m praying for you Ed. I’ve been praying that you’ll have a ministry with your influence online and that perhaps the Lord would use me to help you have some faith in Him and His Word. However, unless the Holy Spirit does that work in your heart, even if I win a debate, you’ll never give God the glory for what He’s done. If there’s anything I can do to help you, let me know.
LikeLike
There is no statement in Dr. Wells’ book which qualifies as a true complaint against evolution. Haeckel’s problems with sketching have been well known for 50 years at least among scientists — Wells’ false claim is that evolution theory is based on the sketches and the sketches are presented as accurate in textbooks, neither of which is true now, and we’re still waiting for Wells to suggest a text in the last 50 years that offered the sketches as accurate.
A mature creation makes God out to be a liar — yes, we discussed this, but perhaps not that you caught. This is the Oomphalos error, rejected by Christians when first proposed in the first half of the 19th century. It may even be available on line, I’ll try to find a link.
LikeLike
I am not 100% familiar with ID or all its proponents. From what I had seen I thought that it was basically a mix of Deism and Christianity. The reason why evangelical Christians didn’t have a problem with it was because it was a lot closer to our beliefs than atheistic evolution. I am sure there is more to it than that, but I had thought that described where you stood. If anyone asked me what Ed believes I would have said he is a theistic evolutionist/deist (Jesus being the exception). Am I wrong?
I have not fully read “Icons of Evolution” but have read some small portions. I have read enough to know that Wells wasn’t 100% accurate, but there are some points against evolution that he made that are true. Like the fudging of embryo sketches and such.
I’m not sure what you expected from me reading “Up from literalism.” I thought it was more sad than anything else. Why do so many people get hung up on “let there be light” being before the creation of the sun? Is the sun light? No, it produces light. Light is a separate and distinct thing from the sun. God could have simply created the chemistry needed for light on that day and on the fourth could have put the sun as the source of that light for our planet. Which is why He calls them “great lights.” They aren’t great in the universe, but they are great for our planet.
By the way, have we talked about the fact that God created a fully functioning, mature, earth with an appearance of age? With a literal look at Genesis, God made the trees already bearing fruit. He also made man and woman as adults, not as babies. I have seen from Genesis that God created it to already appear to be mature when it was created, with the lights from the stars already reaching the earth, etc. Otherwise, man would still be waiting for those lights from the stars to reach the earth. :-) Why would God create something that was not fully functioning right away?
LikeLike
Joe, you oughtta read this post over at Panda’s Thumb: “Up from literalism.”
LikeLike
ID isn’t Christian. It’s a religious belief held mainly by Christians. I find ID to be more tactics than substance. The grotesque dishonesty of their material, their tactics, and their abuse of science in the name of religion all bother me. I think there is nothing holy in ID at all.
Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution would get an author dismissed for academic dishonesty at places I teach. Since ID stands against science, against at least 11 points of the Scout Law, and is mostly hoax to boot, I can’t figure out why all Christians do not speak out against it.
ID and creationist may be different things to a small handful of people, but on the witness stand, with fairly enforced rules of evidence, there is no distinction between them at all.
LikeLike
By the way, Professor Smith is right, ID and creationism are two different camps. They are united against some aspects of evolution, but they are not one ideology.
I think I asked you this once before, but I had thought you held to ID because you believe God caused the Big Bang. You also seem to believe that God is the cause of original life on earth. You also have stated that perhaps God worked when he made an Adam figure. Why do you have a problem with ID when you seem to hold to it as a Christian?
LikeLike
My 400 billion was not supposed to be taken as accurate info. From what I’ve researched though, hippos live only 30-50 years while whales live 40-70 years. Among their other cousins like seals and dolphins the numbers again get jumbled. There is really no way to know how many generations have gone by since the tree allegedly began forking because all the “cousins” life spans are different and its impossible to know what the average life span of their ancestors would have been. I’ll take your 1,000,000 generations though. I’m sure that’s a good educated guess.
With your calculations on evolution and generations for about 1/2 a percent of change per generation, let’s take a look at the fruit fly for a moment. This is a radical example, but it is possible for us to observe passing generations within our lifetime. From what I researched, one generation of fruit fly lasts about 12 days. Say it takes a while for the new eggs to hatch and the new generation to come up, we’ll be really conservative and say only 20 generations of fruit flies a year. That’s would be a ten percent change in the fruit fly every year. That’s a brand new, totally distinct species every ten years. Given forks and divisions after the changes take place within evolution…we should be seeing some pretty amazing, radical, unbelievable changes in those flies any time soon. Yet there they are. Do they change and adapt within their species, getting some cool looking fruit flies? Yep, that’s exactly the kind of evolution I’m advocating. What do you know though, even after so many generations just within my lifetime, they’re still flies, and they’re not exactly a lot different from when I was a kid. Your generation timetable scenario doesn’t hold up.
An average number for all flies’ life span is about 30 days or so. According to Wikipedia, the diptera (two winged insect/fly) has been around since the middle Triassic which would make them about 200 million years old or so? Something in that ball park. Ok, go with me on this one. A new generation every 30 days or so. 200 million years. That’s about 2.5 billion generations. And we still have two winged flies? Shouldn’t these guys have evolved in that many generations to be flying to other galaxies by now? I’m sure they’ve changed and adapted, but guess what? They’re still flies. Again, your generation thing doesn’t hold up.
You said, “65 million years is a stroll in the park to produce the diversity we see among mammals.”
I would think that if evolution were true, after 65 millions years our planet would look more like a Star Wars movie than it does now and should have many more times the differences between the species than we find.
As far as the DNA goes though, you are trying to make me advocate something I am not advocating and making me argue against something I’m not contesting. I have said repeatedly that the DNA shows they are related. I have no problem seeing that pretty much all living things have similar DNA. You’re making the claim that since they all have similar DNA they must all have a common ancestor and all I am saying is that the similarities in DNA shows that the same master designer used the same building materials in different ways. You see no problem seeing God as the cause for the Big Bang. I see no problem with God being the cause of similar DNA.
Here’s one main reason. Science has not observed nor shown how time, plus natural selection, plus more time, can modify and adapt a species into an entirely different species. What I mean by that is that science has not shown where new information to produce things like organs, eyes, the mind, modifications from scaly skin to feathers, etc. come from. Can humans become shorter, taller, different bone structures depending on family DNA, etc? Absolutely; just like anything else God made! But has the basic outline for the human being changed over the course of recorded history? Not at all. The kind of evolution you are advocating is not scientific but religious in nature.
You/science have not shown how a relatively small, four legged, land dwelling creature, could adapt into the blue whale. What has been done is parade a couple of various dead creature’s fossils that had different functions, that has not been shown to have any connection with each other at all in the fossil record, and say that the whale evolved from them. And then you say that the whale and the hippo are evolved from the same line because they have similar DNA structure, even though the supposed break in the fork happened before either one ever went into the water. I’m sorry Ed; it’s just not as strong as a case to me as you project.
We could go round and round about this same thing for a long time. Is there anything else back in the posts about Christ and the apostles, the book of Genesis, etc. that you want to discuss? If you want to keep on this we can, but it’s been a lot of posts now
LikeLike
You’re missing the entire point. I’m saying that the DNA shows that hippos and whales are related. You’ve tried several arguments to suggest that DNA is faulty evidence, without offering any hint of evidence that DNA ever errs. You’re arguing all sorts of reasons that DNA might not really indicate what it really indicates. Four hundred billion times removed? Probably much less than that. If we consider a generation of whales at every 50 years, two per century, that would be 20 per millennium. Mammals started their drive to diversity about 65 million years ago, or 65,000 millennia. That would provide 1,300,000 generations back to the beginning of the age of mammals. If we make adjustments for shorter generations (which means more), and for the fact that whales and hippos didn’t split until well along, I’d accept a SWAG estimate of a million generations. Somebody probably has a better calculation — but that’s several magnitudes less than 400 billion generations.
How do we explain close DNA ties after so long? Common ancestry and good adaptations.
My point is that the evidence of common ancestry between whales and hippos is very, very strong. We can calculate with a good degree of accuracy about how many generations it takes. And, by the way, if we assumed a less than half-percent change per generation, we find all sorts of time to make such dramatic moves. I’ve seen calculations that take a mouse-sized creature to elephant in as little as 65,000 years at known and measured rates of mutation (no one claims it happened so fast for any species). This is where punctuated equilibria come in — change can be extremely rapid, and long periods of stasis with little real change starts making a lot of sense in the light of the whole panorama of evidence available. If it could be done in 65,000 years, 65 million years is a stroll in the park to produce the diversity we see among mammals.
I’ve not really had a lot of time to reply on this thread, or do much at all online, and I’m fighting a bout of sinusitis. My apologies.
LikeLike
So you’re saying that hippos and whales are cousins 400,000,000,000 times removed? :-) Ok, we’ll call that “cousin.” Wouldn’t you think after so many generations the DNA ties would be more removed from each other? The fact that they are close shows that either they didn’t part that long ago or they were created that way. Otherwise how do you explain close DNA ties after such a long period of time and so many generations removed? They definitely aren’t tied by appearance, that’s for sure.
I remember you mentioning that all life could have had three or four different original sources. What is your view on the origin of life. I know that evolution doesn’t have an explanation for life. Since you are a Christian I am assuming you believe that God directly started life on earth, only in single celled organisms? Is that correct? I just am curious where you’re coming from. The atheists I talked to on the other site had no explanation for “life always coming from life” except that scientists are making progress and hope to make “life” in a lab within a few years.
Well, besides that, I really don’t have much to reply to. You’ve only replied to the one instances (whales/hippos) of the many we were talking about, so I’ll be quiet for a while.
LikeLike
The links between viruses and eubacteria, eukaryotes, and archaea are a bit weak. Beyond that, all life with DNA shares ancestry somewhere.
http://www.tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1
LikeLike
I suppose that depends on what the definition of “cousins” is. If one says cousins are siblings, then no, hippos and whales are not siblings. But if one says cousins are cousins, that is, sharing an ancestor less recently than their current parents, they are cousins.
If you have some scientific definition of “cousin” that differs, I’d like to see it.
Either way, it means they have common ancestors.
LikeLike
Ed, I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to get back. It’s been a pretty hectic week and I haven’t been able to get on here.
Ok, here’s the problem. You are using terms like “cousins”, “familial relations”, “parent’s child”, etc. to show the relationship between hippos and whales. Just looking at the differences between the two, I would think that those are way over exaggerating the evidence and their connection. Are they related? Sure, but not to the extent that you are claiming. Even if evolution was true and they do have a common ancestor, they are hardly cousins. Maybe a blue whale and a sperm whale could be considered cousins, but not a hippo and a whale.
Again though, you seem to be taking the evidence a lot farther than the scientists. I don’t think from the articles that you linked that any scientist would sit under oath and swear that whales and hippos are quite as close in familiar relations as you claim. Even if evolution were true, we’re talking a gap of millions and millions of years. That’s a long time to be separate and the “family” title wouldn’t even apply after that much time. If so, I can’t wait to be a part of Bill Gates inheritance because we’re “family.” And we’re even in the same species! It doesn’t work that way in a court of law. You’re exaggerating the evidence.
My question is this, (I ask because I do not know) are there animals that are DNA tested that have no link to each other? Is there DNA so far removed that they couldn’t possibly be related by ancestry? My guess would be that in every animal you could make the case that they are “cousins” simply by DNA. Perhaps the whale/hippo relation seems closer, but by how much? If they are related, that is no surprise, but if they are not, isn’t that a big problem for evolutionists?
Regarding my argument that “God put Genesis in the Bible,” I am not stretching it beyond what Scripture says at all. Here is what Scripture says in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Here is what it says in 2 Peter 1:21, “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
According to the Bible, prophesy (both foretelling and forth telling), all Scripture came from God. What should that tell me about Genesis?
God definitely didn’t dictate Scripture, but it was given “theopnustos”, or “God breathed.” That is what “inspiration” means in 2 Tim. 3. “God breathed” is like one musician blowing into different instruments. You have many types of sound and variations, but it is the same “artist” behind the whole thing.
A couple of the many reasons why Genesis is in the cannon: 1) because it is in the Jewish Scripture, and 2) because Christ and the apostles quoted from it, giving their “stamp” of approval on it.
There’s one major difference between the Bible, and the Koran and the Book of Mormon. The difference is that the Koran and the Book of Mormon are easily falsifiable. For instance, the Book of Mormon contends that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem. It has Jesus saying “I am the Alpha and Omega” to people who wouldn’t know Greek. It speaks of figs and dates in a place where they didn’t exist. It gives names and places of cities where no cities or ruins exist, and on and on and on. But the Bible gives correct dates and locations. It gives correct info for the time frame. From what I’ve read, scholars don’t even debate what Canaan was like when Abraham was there anymore, because they know the Bible got it right. They debate whether there was an Abraham, but they don’t debate the location, culture, etc. These “falsifiers” are much harder to find in the Bible than any other religious book in the world. And it is amazingly preserved for us today. These so called “inaccuracies” are often very easy to explain and simply show the desperation of the one giving the argument to find a mistake. For instance, who is staying up late at night reading 1 Kings about Solomon’s temple, trying to find a mistake in the Bible? People are getting desperate if they’re reading the measurements of the temple for errors. Ed, I just don’t believe you give the Bible (or God for that matter) the credit that it’s due.
LikeLike
Either the DNA shows familial relations — that is, common ancestors, as you and your cousins share ancestors — or it doesn’t . If, as you claim, God used DNA simply because, and it does not show the family relationships it appears to show, then you are indeed saying God is a joker. You’re saying that there is a perfectly useful method for determining ancestry, but it shows results different from what the ancestry really is, because God muddled it up somehow.
And, I don’t think anyone can make a serious argument that “God put Genesis in the Bible.” That’s stretching beyond what scripture says, and what we know of the creation of the canon. Humans wrote those books. God didn’t dictate them — don’t confuse the Bible with the Koran or Book of Mormon. We know differently.
Nor am I the one saying that the laws of chemistry and physics produce incorrect results.
LikeLike
By the way, you’re the one saying God is a joker just for putting Genesis in the Bible to confuse us. As a Christian, I have to reject your line of thinking and go with God on this one.
LikeLike
And all I am saying is that if God directly created the animals, that’s exactly what you’d expect to find; DNA relation between the animals. He used variations on a theme (by Rachmaninoff; sorry I’m a Classical buff) using similar DNA in various animals. If their DNA was all spuratic and chaotic, I would be more inclined to say there was no intelligence behind this DNA thing. By the way, its not just the whale and the hippo that are DNA related, but also the camel, the horse, etc are all related to the whale and have DNA ties. If I built more than one house I may use similar materials but give it a different shape and elevation. How is this different?
I’m not arguing with you that they are related and that the DNA evidence points that direction. What I’m advocating is that God created it that way precisely to show us that the same God made everything. This is an instance where we should glorify God’s name because of how wonderful His creation is and amazing His power is, not say it is a process of natural selection and chance that has nothing to do with God.
Anyway, this discussion is a lot bigger than that of just the hippo/whale relation. There are many other things that you are yet to reply to. I probably won’t be able to post again until next week.
LikeLike
No, I’m saying that the same processes by which DNA is used to determine that you are your parents’ child, or that your children are yours, are used to determine the familial relationships between hippos and whales. If the process is incapable of determining familial relationships, as you aver, then it is completely useless for courtroom use — not to mention that we can only guess at the heritage in any family.
Of course, we know DNA as the most reliable form of evidence ever used in court. When DNA says hippos and whales are relatives, we can count on it. Either they had a common ancestor, then, or God is a joker.
I’m a Christian and reject the latter conclusion. We Christians are left, therefore, with the former — hippos and whales are related.
LikeLike
hey everyone,
i just joined and wanted to say hi. :)
LikeLike
Are you suggesting that the DNA between a whale and a hippo have the same degree of similarity as my parents’ DNA and mine? If there was that much difference in looks between me and my parents as between a blue whale and a hippo, I’d be asking who my biological parents were. :-) Seriously, the DNA can’t be that close. The articles I looked at that you linked didn’t say how close, they just said that they were relatives.
Again, you sound a lot more dogmatic than the scientists doing the research.
LikeLike
Only if the “common creator” created through sex, and was also a common ancestor.
Do you seriously think that DNA cannot show common ancestry, that the evidence used for paternity suits is just a guess?
LikeLike
You don’t think DNA is in error when it shows common ancestry, but you think the common ancestry is in error.
This gets to the heart of creationism, really. I think what you’re saying is that the Creator designed all life to have DNA that mimics common ancestry. Could there be any reason for such mimicry other than to mislead people who investigate nature? Doesn’t that make the Creator out to be a great deceiver? And isn’t that contrary to Christian belief?
Instead, why not assume that nature tells us the truth. This isn’t mimicry of common ancestry — it’s common ancestry evidenced by the DNA.
DNA shows that the hippos and whales are cousins. That conclusion displeases you — but it’s what nature shows, what God’s nature shows. Who are you to say the nature God gave us is “in error?”
LikeLike
Ok, continuing on…
“We can tell you are related by stories your families tell, but of course, the name of your common ancestor has been forgotten, and no one has a clue where a grave might be.”
This is a cultural argument. In many cultures, knowing your ancestry is vital to your religion as well as your heritage. In Jewish culture (of which I have some indirect family ties) heritage is very important and has been for millennia. In the Scripture records, the family histories claim to go all the way back to the first man. So, we do have one record that at least claims to go back to our common ancestor. With their meticulous attention to detail and preservation of their heritage, do you think they would have made those claims if they were completely mythological? Also, given the “variations on a theme” just within observable humanity, I would say that the boundaries of “evolution” are well documented. Can we adapt and structurally change with new generations? Yes. But can we eventually change our whole structure to suit our needs? Not observable science.
“We have the fossils that show the reptile to mammal transitions, too — more solidly than birds. Where did you think mammals came from?”
Yeah, I’m familiar with this line of thinking. There’s one huge presupposition that doesn’t make sense in this line of evolution however. I think the fact that many of the various “links” in evolution between reptile and mammal have been found on different continents should be at least one point against evolution. Since they had to scour the whole globe to link these things shouldn’t that tell you something? If I used a kangaroo fossil to show that kangaroos were related to caribou they’d put me away, but that’s pretty much what they’re doing with these fossils, linking them from places that are not connected in the slightest. Then there’s the fact that they simply try to link one or two characteristics and forget the rest of the body, which does not follow the same line of evolution. It’s a garbled up mess. No, I believe that mammals are a part of God’s original creation, as well as reptiles, birds, etc.
“The first recorded, closely-watched confirmed case of evolution of a new plant in the wild took one generation (Spartina townsendii).”
You’re not arguing against anything that I don’t already agree with so I see no need to comment further.
I said, “It goes far beyond that simple point. You also have the evolution of the eye, the heart, the lungs, the digestive system, sex and reproduction, etc.”
You said, “No, that’s not much of a problem. Once you get the original reptile with eyes, a heart, lungs, digestive systems, sex and reproduction, you have all the basics.”
Yeah, once all the pieces of the puzzle are all fit together…it’s not much of a problem at all. I find your argument hilarious! Once it’s all there, what’s the problem? For evolution to be true, you have to show where and how (there is no why in evolution so I’ll leave that out) the eyes, heart lungs, digestive system, sex and reproduction, etc. have all formed and began. Its lunacy to say these things simply evolved and happened by “natural selection.” You put God in there somewhere, but many scientists do not, seeing no need for Him. I see you as trying to have the best of both worlds. Pascal’s wager, if you will.
“We define mammals with some of these things: Fur bearers, live births (except the monotremes, which still lay eggs as our reptilian ancestors did), and milk feeders. True for humans, cats, dogs, ungulates, seals, bears, whales, and so on. Variations on a theme.”
You look at that and say, “One ancestor” which I see as impossible given the needed hurdles to overcome. I look at that and say, “One God” which you say is unreasonable, though I totally don’t understand why considering you’re a Christian and believe in God. There’s so much evidence for design just within DNA, I can’t believe you’d be willing to give someone other than God credit for the blueprints of this master project.
“We don’t have Behe’s irreducibly complex machines. Living things are not machines, and Behe couldn’t produce the goods in court when the future of ID hung on it.”
The future of ID is not decided by one court decision. If you think ID is dead then your mistaken. Let me let Behe speak for himself here: “The point of irreducible complexity is not that one can’t make some other system that could work in a different way with fewer parts. The point is that the trap we’re considering right now needs all of its parts to function. The challenge to Darwinian gradualism is to get to my trap by means of numerous, successive, slight modifications. You can’t do it. Besides, you’re using intelligent design as you try.” (The Case for a Creator, Strobel, pg. 199)
As far as I know, Behe’s views on the cilium and flagellum have still not been refuted. Besides, the court case wasn’t about whether ID was real or not, but whether it was religious or not. The court decided that it was and that ID had no place in public schools. So, Behe “couldn’t produce the goods.”
Regarding the blood-clotting, I think again you missed Behe’s point. He said this, using his mouse trap analogy, “According to the concept of gene duplication, you would make a copy of the first spring. Now you’ve got two springs—except the second spring somehow becomes a wooden base. Do you see the conceptual disconnect? You can’t just say the spring somehow morphs into a wooden base without doing more than just saying, ‘gene duplication did it.’ The problem is, Darwinists don’t provide the details of how this can happen in the real world.” (The Case for a Creator, Strobel, pg.212)
Regarding your hippo/whale links, I did follow them and read many of them. Most of the links were “variations on a theme.” They must all have one source. However, I think that my argument still stands up. They are not proven to be direct whale and hippo ancestors and DNA can show a common creator, not a common ancestor.
“1. The reference is a literary allusion to creation, to discuss another topic. At no point does Jesus, nor any of the apostles, discuss whether Genesis 1 is correct, or Genesis 2, or Job, or any of the creation stories.:
Wow. Who is in denial? Of course they didn’t have a discussion of whether one, the other, or any of them were correct. They simply stated them as fact. In our discussion, have I needed to take the time to say the book of Galatians is correct or incorrect? Why? Because I have endorsed the whole thing. By simply saying “since the beginning of creation” or “as in the days of Noah” or “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house;” or “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” These guys put their stamps of approval on these stories and endorsed the whole by using them as illustrations without clarification. If I were to say, just like Sauron almost took over the earth and failed, Satan again will attempt to take over the earth and fail. If I say that and lump something that is real with something that is not, I would be a liar. So is it true of the New Testament authors who used creation and Noah’s ark without clarification. Either they really happened, or Jesus Himself was a liar or mistaken. But to say they merely used them as a literary allusion without them clarifying it as such (like Jesus did with parables) is not accurate. Especially in Hebrews 11 where it puts Noah in the same line as David. No one argues that David ever lived. If one is false, shouldn’t the author of Hebrews have clarified the transition from literary to truth?
“The reference is in passing, when Jesus or another is discussing a different point. For example, the passages in Matthew where Jesus addresses divorce is often suggested as Jesus verifying a literal Genesis. It’s clear Jesus didn’t mean it to be used that way, and that’s not what Jesus said. A passing reference to creation in a discussion of divorce is only that.”
In a court room there is something called “precedence.” Precedence was exactly what Jesus was using in Matthew to illustrate that divorce was wrong. By saying God made male and female and “what God has joined together let no man put asunder” He is setting the precedence using God’s original creation. Without the precedence, Jesus had no case for saying “no divorce.” You are attempting to remove Genesis which was Jesus and the apostles’ precedence for many things. You simply cannot do that and have a complete Gospel or a truthful Savior.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, you said, “I see nothing in those passages that says there was no physical death prior to Adam.”
It says that death is a result of Adam. It is adding to scripture to say there was physical death before Adam because the Bible never says there was physical death before Adam. God called the original creation He made, “good.” The Bible never calls death “good.” For that reason alone I do not hold that God is the author of death. It is the result of sin, and is both physical and spiritual. If physical death is not a result of the fall, then physical life is not the result of the resurrection and death will continue to reign on for eternity. What’s this about a loving God again? According to 1 Cor. 15, physical life will be vastly different after the resurrection. The same was true after Christ’s resurrection, which you see no problem as taking literal. Our bodies will be like Christ’s, but they will be resurrected, physical bodies. If death is eternal, those bodies will again die. Why would you be a Christian then?
“Pay particular attention to the error of biology Paul gives us in verse 36 — seeds are not dead.”
When a seed is planted in the ground it dies; decomposing it ceases to exist in its seed form, but life come from inside that seed. The analogy is the same as metamorphosis. When a caterpillar goes into a cocoon it dies, because a butterfly emerges. Is a butterfly a caterpillar? No. The caterpillar is dead, but the butterfly lives on. So it is the same with a seed. Paul’s analogy is correct.
I totally don’t get how 1 Cor. 15 supports evolution.
LikeLike
Ed,
I’ve been reading your posts on that “Professor Smith” site. I’ve got to say, I really don’t understand your venom toward intelligent design, considering you’re a Christian who thinks that God caused the Big Bang and that in various places in history God came swooping down changing some things in nature. The evolution disagreement I understand, but to be so dogmatic against ID when you hold to it to some degree is weird.
LikeLike
Time goes so fast. I don’t have a whole lot of it to reply, but I will do what I can.
“No, you’re saying the DNA evidence is in error. DNA shows that living hippos are the closest relatives of living whales. You disagree. This isn’t a question of inferring anything. It’s a question of what the DNA shows. It shows hippos are closely related to whales. They’re cousins.”
Again and again you miss what I am saying. I have no reason to believe the DNA evidence is not in error. What I do have a problem with is your inference of the data to believe that all mammals and all animals for that matter have a common ancestor. This is something that isn’t documented by DNA, it is reading into the DNA data. What you are arguing for is design and a common creator. If one God created all species (originally) perfectly, then they would have many common links, including DNA. This is seen where monkey and human DNA is 96% similar. What we should be doing is taking a step back in the discussion and trying to explain where DNA evolution would have started.
“Um, an exact match would indicate the same individual.”
Ugh, sometimes I hate language sometimes because I sometimes don’t convey my intent. My point was meant to be that while they “concluded” that they are closely related genetically, there were still (even in your sources) many questions regarding their relationship that were unanswered and which scientists don’t understand. You make it sound like the scientists have packed up and gone home because there’s no work for them left to be done. Case closed. They don’t share your confidence.
“The second article presents some of the hoary old shibboleths creationists have been pandering about the geological column and where fossils are found — crank geology. There are fantastic lies in it, like the claim that some levels of the column contain mostly carnivores (completely untrue), and the author seems wholly mystified at the phenomenon known as “erosion,” in which rocks are weathered away when exposed to the elements. He treats erosion as some sort of inexplicable mystery.”
You sure like the word “crank”. Anything contrary to what you hold to be true you label “crank.” Very nice. Anyway, it didn’t say that one level of the column contained mostly carnivores. It basically said that if the ratio of herbivores vs. carnivores in those layers were correct then it couldn’t have sustained their diet needs and they would have died. Also, regarding erosion, I really couldn’t figure out what you were talking about, so I’ll leave it alone. I was wondering though what your thoughts were on the petrified forests in Yellow Stone (have you ever been there? It’s amazing!). They couldn’t have possibly fossilized as they are without a catastrophe.
“[Have you ever noted how creationist books never win a Pulitzer? Have you ever noticed that creationist books are rarely published by reputable publishing houses, with fact checkers, for example, and that most publishers who depend on well-written, verifiable books, won’t touch creationist books? But I digress.]”
Hmmm…I wonder why. It may be because if any publisher or “fact checker” decided to publish creationist’s material they would be slandered, hated, and boycotted. Let’s just say that it would be bad for business to go against the “establishment.” Also, I think grant money would go down the tubes too if scientists started publishing “religious” intelligent design books. Publishers like money too much and fear others too much to be unbiased in their publishing. Your point is totally a fallacy.
“There is one case of a bubble being encased in rock, which seems to have preserved some soft tissues of a T. Rex. To the best of my knowledge, no one was able to extract good DNA from it. If you have some other information, I’d like to see a citation.”
Here’s a couple of links. I didn’t want to put too many because this post would be blocked.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pt50ey50xcty01n1/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
This one talks about the T-Rex and then references several other items that have been found with DNA. The point is that either these specimens’ DNA lasted that long or they’re not really as old as we’re led to believe.
Here’s a quote from newscientist.com “No researcher has succeeded in isolating DNA from a dinosaur. But genetic material has been found in a growing number of other prehistoric organisms, including fossilised fish, insects and plants.”
“I haven’t been a practicing scientist in over 20 years. I’m definitely an amateur.”
Not to pump your ego, but you sure know a lot more info than I.
“As the original post pointed out, at least one verse, if literal, would have pi = 3, which isn’t accurate enough for most ancient construction projects. As if to prove the point that Biblical literalists are up in the night, lots of people chimed in with excuses and miracles for how the one passage could be literally true — the value of pi had changed, the Bible was translated wrongly, the shape of the pool was other than as described (which presents yet another problem of interpretation).”
Actually, I was up late at night. I worked at a hotel a couple nights a week, staying up all night. I’m so glad those days are over, but I did have a lot more time on my hands.
I don’t remember all of the answers to the question, but I do know that the point of the passage was absolutely nothing about math. It’s funny how atheists say that the Bible isn’t a math/science/history book and you shouldn’t take it literally then try to cite every instance of math/science/history they can find. I simply understood the passage to be an accurate representation of Solomon’s Temple. If it wasn’t pi, oh well, that’s what was made. The Bible sometimes records things that it doesn’t endorse (like Samson hooking up with prostitutes), it merely records. This may be a case just like that. Another thought that was given was that it was an approximation, not an exact figure. I didn’t care for that one too much because it gives approximate cubits. Anyway, for myself anyway, there are definitely enough reasons to conclude that it was simply a literal statement, not a formula for pi.
“Most of the Bible is not literal.”
I will agree with you in that statement, especially in prophetic books and wisdom literature. I think many Bible literalists are misunderstood to think that the Bible must always, 100% of the time be taken as literal. Not literal, original. The Bible can only mean what it meant. We cannot read our bias into it; we can only let it stand for itself. You can say that it’s all allegory…shoot; you can make the Bible say anything you very well please. I don’t always say you should interpret it literally…you should interpret it accurately, according to how it was originally meant to be interpreted and how the specific passage says to interpret it. With that as a basis, I find nowhere in all Scripture that tells me to interpret Genesis in any other way than as fact, so why would you claim it otherwise? Who are you to say your interpretation is more important than the Bible itself? On what authority do you have to say that Genesis is a myth? What makes Ed more reliable than the Bible itself? My problem with your interpretations is that it makes Ed the authority rather than the Bible. If the Bible isn’t the authority, we’re in lot of trouble when it comes to Romans.
“It was never meant to be a science text, and it is woefully inadequate as a science text.”
Only if you believe in evolution is your assessment correct. Otherwise it is perfectly reliable. If it is not reliable, why are you a Christian again?
“Like atomic theory. If a total stranger makes note of atomic theory, one doesn’t need to check up on it. You have denied radioisotope dating, however, which is a direct denial of atomic theory.”
Half truths are the worst kind of lies. You know full well that I don’t deny radioisotope dating. I totally concurred with scientists that it isn’t reliable on young items…such as the earth. If young things that we know the origins of are dated old, what should it tell scientists about other things that are dated old that we don’t know the origins? Maybe they should have another way to check the age before conclusively saying the age of a particular piece of dirt.
“The only other people I’ve ever known to deny such large parts of reality were in therapy, most of them hospitalized. No offense, I hope, but, yes, you are in deep, deep denial of large pieces of reality.”
Independent of this discussion, I’m sure my wife would agree with your assessment of my mental condition. Just kidding. If it is denial of reality, then it is only because I am compelled by Scripture. If Scripture is wrong, I have no hope, not just in being right, but my life has here to now been a waste living for a false Christ. Yet, I am sure that you will stand with me in denying reality in proclaiming the truth that Jesus Christ is no longer dead but He lives. We do serve a risen Savior and if it that statement is false, then as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”
Having said all that, there is no reason why accepting the Bible as truth is a denial of reality.
“Life is not a product of chance. It’s a product of chemistry, at the very least. Chemistry is not chance. Biological reproduction is not chance. Darwin’s theory relies on natural selection and sexual selection — “selection” is an antonym for “chance,” not a synonym.”
“We Christians believe, on faith, that those natural processes themselves are the result of God’s actions, that somehow God is the ultimate mover. Not chance, but we don’t know what God’s role is, in any detail.
Again, you are merely doing what atheists absolutely cream Christians for doing: relying on a “God of the gaps.” What science can’t explain yet…God did it. That’s a very weak God. God tells us what His role has been, currently is, and will be in the future. The question is if you believe Him or not?
“Creationism assumes all sorts of things that are not written, and adds a bunch of others — like “no physical death of any living thing before the fall.” That’s not in scripture.”
The Bible says death is a result of the fall. It doesn’t say it was just spiritual death, and it doesn’t say it was physical death, it just says death. I think that is a good indication that death, in both physical and spiritual forms is a result of the fall, and I also believe you get in big trouble and have a very cruel God if death and suffering aren’t a result of man’s failure. Does that make it hard to comprehend what a pre-fall world would have looked like? Yes, but I’m looking forward to when those conditions will be restored, as it says in Revelation that “death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire.” If our death is eternal and not temporal, we as Christians are wasting our vapor of lives when we could be out there partying like there’s no tomorrow…because there may not be.
“The phorid wasps who lay eggs in the heads of ants, so the wasp’s larva can eat the brains of the ant; the cat that plays with the living mouse for a long while before killing it; hundreds of other examples of life cycles that require destruction and pain to other living things — the classic creationist argument that God personally created each of those creatures “fitted perfectly” to that niche, is repugnant.”
Why? Even a mosquito can be shown to originally have drunk amber from trees. The panda bear is a good example of something with sharp teeth that doesn’t naturally eat meat. Humans and animals could have lived just fine if they only could eat vegetation.
“What did the phorid wasps prey on prior to the fall? what happened to the poop in Eden? how did tigers get their calcium for bone formation? how did tiger cubs grow, if there was no death of anything? What did Adam and Eve eat, if nothing could be killed for them to eat?”
The answer to all these questions is, “I don’t know.” Nor do I need to for it to be true. Trying to imagine what the pre-fall life would have been like would be like trying to figure out what a sixth, seventh, or eighth sense would be. We don’t understand things we haven’t experienced or can’t relate them to. We’ve never been in a world like described in Genesis, so how could I possibly be made to understand. I simply don’t know. Sorry, I wasn’t there.
“…and with a more humane God, instead of one designing wasps that eat the brains of other living insects.”
Wait, wait, wait, a second! A God that perfectly created a wasp that could sustain itself without meat, then as a result of man’s fall, animals adapt into meat eaters (like we did) is cruel? Evolution puts death and suffering squarely on God’s shoulders. It is the evolutionary God that is totally cruel and unjust to allow suffering, disease, starvation, cancer, etc. to run rampant for millions of years, long before there was any humanoid capable of making a decision about right and wrong. That’s just plain cruel if you ask me. Why would I worship the father of suffering?
Sorry, I’ve got to get this done later.
LikeLike
Note that my preceding post had a lot of links — too many for the spam filters, and I had to retrieve my own post.
Warning: If you post and your words don’t appear, notify me by e-mail, because it’s likely your post went to the spam filter.
LikeLike
lowerleavell said:
No, you’re saying the DNA evidence is in error. DNA shows that living hippos are the closest relatives of living whales. You disagree. This isn’t a question of inferring anything. It’s a question of what the DNA shows. It shows hippos are closely related to whales. They’re cousins.
Here, see this:
http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib160/news/083199sci-animal-hippo.html
Um, an exact match would indicate the same individual. “Similar DNA” is what you and your brother have, what you and your father have, what you and your mother have. The closeness of the match indicates the closeness of the familial relationship. You won’t exactly match your brother, unless you are identical twins. A 100% match would be a virtual impossibility.
The first article deals with trying to get DNA from extinct animals. That’s wholly beside the point here — we’re talking about living hippos and living whales. The article is irrelevant to the point.
The second article presents some of the hoary old shibboleths creationists have been pandering about the geological column and where fossils are found — crank geology. There are fantastic lies in it, like the claim that some levels of the column contain mostly carnivores (completely untrue), and the author seems wholly mystified at the phenomenon known as “erosion,” in which rocks are weathered away when exposed to the elements. He treats erosion as some sort of inexplicable mystery. I recommend you pick up a copy of John McPhee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Annals of the Former World. [Have you ever noted how creationist books never win a Pulitzer? Have you ever noticed that creationist books are rarely published by reputable publishing houses, with fact checkers, for example, and that most publishers who depend on well-written, verifiable books, won’t touch creationist books? But I digress.]
In any case, the author makes no accurate challenge to anything we’re discussing here.
We discussed this earlier. There is one case of a bubble being encased in rock, which seems to have preserved some soft tissues of a T. Rex. To the best of my knowledge, no one was able to extract good DNA from it. If you have some other information, I’d like to see a citation.
But in any case, I’m not talking about old DNA. I’m talking about DNA taken from living animals.
DNA analysis of fossils is highly speculative, and not something any serious scientist puts stock in, except, perhaps, as corroboration of a point already made through completely different analysis. It’s interesting that creationists spend so much time spinning wheels on issues scientists don’t bother with, and then the creationists pretend to have made some radical discovery about error scientists make. That article is just bizarre. I cannot imagine where those people come up with this stuff.
I haven’t been a practicing scientist in over 20 years. I’m definitely an amateur.
That’s not an entirely accurate summary of the discussion, but it’s of little matter. The key issue was whether the Bible can be taken as literal. As the original post pointed out, at least one verse, if literal, would have pi = 3, which isn’t accurate enough for most ancient construction projects. As if to prove the point that Biblical literalists are up in the night, lots of people chimed in with excuses and miracles for how the one passage could be literally true — the value of pi had changed, the Bible was translated wrongly, the shape of the pool was other than as described (which presents yet another problem of interpretation).
I’m not defending atheism, but I’m not defending a foolish reading of scripture, either. Most of the Bible is not literal. There are some interesting historical facts, and when corroborated, some of it is remarkably informative about ancient times. But the Bible is not literal in most of its verses, and it should never be twisted into a science text. It was never meant to be a science text, and it is woefully inadequate as a science text.
Regarding the whale DNA that moved the blowhole, could you provide a link or something that shows how that worked, because I’d greatly like to see how mutation caused the creation of new, profitable information that created the blowhole. The only thing I could find online was the same on every sight. Three illustrations of fossil heads; the first one with the snout at the front, the second one with it in the middle (still nothing of a blow hole) and the third a modern whale with a fully functional apparatus. I couldn’t find anything else.
I’m sure the articles are proprietary. I don’t have special access. I’ll see what I can find for you.
Your world view includes denial of basic science. I wouldn’t be disappointed at all if you were to change your mind and take as fact things that we actually find in nature.
Like atomic theory. If a total stranger makes note of atomic theory, one doesn’t need to check up on it. You have denied radioisotope dating, however, which is a direct denial of atomic theory.
The only other people I’ve ever known to deny such large parts of reality were in therapy, most of them hospitalized. No offense, I hope, but, yes, you are in deep, deep denial of large pieces of reality.
I didn’t take your denials of the veracity of DNA testing as questioning it. Same for your refusal to accept orthodox geology, and biology.
Once again, I think you’ve missed a big part of the discussion. Life is not a product of chance. It’s a product of chemistry, at the very least. Chemistry is not chance. Biological reproduction is not chance. Darwin’s theory relies on natural selection and sexual selection — “selection” is an antonym for “chance,” not a synonym.
Nor do I argue that God has not interfered or intervened in the 12+ billion years since Big Bang. I merely note we have no clear evidence of anything other than natural processes. We Christians believe, on faith, that those natural processes themselves are the result of God’s actions, that somehow God is the ultimate mover. Not chance, but we don’t know what God’s role is, in any detail.
And we Christians also believe it’s unwise to add to scripture, and claim it as scripture. Creationism assumes all sorts of things that are not written, and adds a bunch of others — like “no physical death of any living thing before the fall.” That’s not in scripture. It’s not necessary for salvation. It has nothing to do with Jesus’s sacrifice. And yet, creationists insist on it, relgiously. Go figure.
I noted Darwin’s view, that understanding nature as he did, and as high school kids today do, to claim it all as the product of God’s creation is to make God out as a monster. The phorid wasps who lay eggs in the heads of ants, so the wasp’s larva can eat the brains of the ant; the cat that plays with the living mouse for a long while before killing it; hundreds of other examples of life cycles that require destruction and pain to other living things — the classic creationist argument that God personally created each of those creatures “fitted perfectly” to that niche, is repugnant.
Modern creationists get around it by claiming, against scripture, that all of creation was corrupted by Adam’s sin. I find that both theologically repugnant — adding to scripture again — and scientifically inaccurate. It requires too many bizarre, piddling miracles to make it work (what did the phorid wasps prey on prior to the fall? what happened to the poop in Eden? how did tigers get their calcium for bone formation? how did tiger cubs grow, if there was no death of anything? What did Adam and Eve eat, if nothing could be killed for them to eat?)
Darwin’s view, that evolution itself is part of God’s design, but that the specific physical results are not due to God’s intervention, is a good one, that leaves us with a non-deceptive God, different from that required by creationists explaining away fossils, and with a more humane God, instead of one designing wasps that eat the brains of other living insects.
And wholly apart from John Stewart Bell’s famous paper on Einstein’s line about God playing dice, a universe that functions on physical and chemical laws, as opposed to the slap-dash universe where God scoops poop in Eden, gives T. Rex the wrong teeth before the fall, makes tigers that can’t grow, intervenes to scramble geology and biology to present a false face — isn’t an orderly universe more in keeping with the creator God Christians worship?
You’re missing the point, still, I think. The contemporaries you claimed were millions of years apart. Tens of millions of years. The Karoo Formation holds billions of fossils. It’s thousands of feet thick, and several miles square. A friend once calculated the density of life (now fossilized) in the Karoo, and noted that it alone would put animals so thick there would be no room left for plants, or lakes, or rivers, or mountains, anywhere on Earth. It’s not just that a few creatures died out — it’s that there were too many, at too many millions of points through history, for the fossils to be a recent creation as young Earthers claim. The only logically consistent explanation is the one that is corroborated by paleontology, geology, nuclear physics, chemistry, and DNA — those animals lived millions of years ago in most cases, billions in a few cases.
I think you need to study some paleontology. “Kinds” were contemporaries? Well, most of the major phyla were in existence after the Cambrian — not all, but most. However. for our clan of chordates, we’re talking things like sea squirts. Nothing with legs, nothing with fins, even. No major worms, even. Yes, the phyla were contemporary — but there is a lot of evolution between the first chordates in the ocean and modern mammals.
And DNA indicates common ancestry, both in analysis of familial relations, and in the fact of DNA (there is no reason we know that the four amino acids DNA uses must be used; there are a dozen others that would work. Common ancestry is the only logical explanation for why all living things we know of have DNA with the same four amino acids as code).
We take DNA of the living descendants, not of the fossils.
One of the things you seem to miss is that most of the relationships were established by morphology, some as much as 400 years ago. Cladistics and anatomy reveal a lot — the fact that DNA analysis now confirms those relationships is just corroboration, often, but corroboration of the most powerful kind.
It’s like this: You have cousins who were related to your great, great, great grandfather. We can tell you are related by stories your families tell, but of course, the name of your common ancestor has been forgotten, and no one has a clue where a grave might be. DNA analysis, sampling you and your living cousin, can establish that familial relationship, and it can probably pinpoint within about 20 years when yours and your cousin’s families branched off. We don’t need to sample your dead, unknown and unfindable grandfather. We do it with DNA from you and your cousin.
Bird evolution is more misty. We have the fossils that show the reptile to mammal transitions, too — more solidly than birds. Where did you think mammals came from?
All chordates, with four limbs, warm or cold blooded, are related. It’s just a question of how far back we take the family bush.
The first recorded, closely-watched confirmed case of evolution of a new plant in the wild took one generation (Spartina townsendii). Other cases have taken a hundred generations, or a thousand. Evolution can occur quickly, many argue that most evolution of more complex animals and plants proceeds much more slowly.
No, that’s not much of a problem. Once you get the original reptile with eyes, a heart, lungs, digestive systems, sex and reproduction, you have all the basics. Everything else in mammals is just variation on those themes. All mammals we know of have a dive reflex — we don’t know why. Whales, walruses and seals, have developed it more, but it’s not different from the reflex you and your children have. Almost all mammals have seven neckbones — okay for most of us, but a curse for the giraffe who, in order to get a long neck, must have massive, heavy bones that endanger its very life. Much of these changes can be done in utero, with enzymatic triggers, the evolutionary developmental guys now tell us. So sometimes one mutation can do major work.
The systems you name are essentially the same throughout mammals, not really much different in reptiles, and modified interestingly in birds, but still easily identified as chordates.
We define mammals with some of these things: Fur bearers, live births (except the monotremes, which still lay eggs as our reptilian ancestors did), and milk feeders. True for humans, cats, dogs, ungulates, seals, bears, whales, and so on. Variations on a theme.
He lost that argument in court. There is no known irreducibly complex function in biology. There are evolutionary explanations for the four systems Behe proposed in 1994, and he has proposed no new ones since then. It’s really rather embarrassing, I think — he argues that blood clotting cannot work without key elements. But for each element he cites, we know of mammals that have lost it or never had it, and still clot fine. Dolphins for example. We don’t have Behe’s irreducibly complex machines. Living things are not machines, and Behe couldn’t produce the goods in court when the future of ID hung on it.
See the Tree of Life site:
http://tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977
and these:
http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/story-2806.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus#Evolution
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Cetartiodactyla.html
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_b/reviews/acker03.html
Click to access 537.pdf
http://www.helium.com/tm/261702/understanding-whale-evolution-helpful
This piece from our friend Laelaps may be very helpful:
http://laelaps.wordpress.com/category/whales/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3746/is_200106/ai_n8979105
And remember the earlier article from Ray Sutera. It’s one of the best.
I’ve never found anything in the NT that might be called a verification of either the flood or a literal Genesis. In those cases claimed, check again, and see if one of the following does not apply:
1. The reference is a literary allusion to creation, to discuss another topic. At no point does Jesus , nor any of the apostles, discuss whether Genesis 1 is correct, or Genesis 2, or Job, or any of the creation stories.
2. The reference is in passing, when Jesus or another is discussing a different point. For example, the passages in Matthew where Jesus addresses divorce is often suggested as Jesus verifying a literal Genesis. It’s clear Jesus didn’t mean it to be used that way, and that’s not what Jesus said. A passing reference to creation in a discussion of divorce is only that.
I’m out of time tonight, too. Later.
LikeLike
This is the second time I’m going to try to write this reply. I had just about gotten finished when something on the computer backspaced and I lost it all. Ugh, what a waste of time. Now I only have a couple of minutes to reply, so I’m sorry that this is brief, but it is all the time that I have left today.
You said, “It’s a guess if DNA is in error. It’s a guess if the best evidence we have ever been able to use, doesn’t really work. What you’re saying is that DNA cannot determine familial relationships, which is exactly what it does….I put that paragraph in a separate post because I think it is so important. This is not a guess. Common ancestry is as certain as we can be. If we deny common ancestry here, after the DNA shows it, then we are denying that DNA shows familial lines at all. We are denying that we can ever establish paternity of a child”
Ok, where to start…again. Again, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that the DNA evidence is wrong; I am saying that you are inferring too much into the evidence. Also, you are much more confident in what you are telling me than the actual scientists who have done the research. From what I have researched, they have found “similar” DNA, which indicate relation, but no exact matches 100%.
One other thing that I did do was research how DNA works and how they can know stuff from ancient DNA and here’s a link I thought was very beneficial:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
I’m not expecting you to read all that because they’re very lengthy (I did, and it was a help), but one thing I thought was interesting was that DNA breaks down over time and should not be found in fossils 10,000 to 50,000 max years old or older. Scientists seem undaunted by the fact that they have found DNA in fossils seeming to cling to a miracle that it was preserved for millions of years. So, if you are correct, and they did do this DNA research, what does it tell you if they found DNA samples on these fossils?
“We can pinpoint the mutations in the whale DNA that move the blowhole.”
Who is “we?” Ed, are you really a scientist and have kept me in the dark here? If so, I definitely am discussing this way out of my league. You are correct in assuming that I haven’t had the classes on biology, etc. but my main “expertise” has been in the study of theology and actually, in family counseling. This discussion I started with the atheists because they were claiming that there was no God of the Bible because the Bible is in error and I began to defend the Bible’s claims. You came in agreeing with them, trying to show that Christians also believe the Bible is a myth and that atheists have every right to reject the God of the Bible, though you personally still believe there’s something of a God.
Regarding the whale DNA that moved the blowhole, could you provide a link or something that shows how that worked, because I’d greatly like to see how mutation caused the creation of new, profitable information that created the blowhole. The only thing I could find online was the same on every sight. Three illustrations of fossil heads; the first one with the snout at the front, the second one with it in the middle (still nothing of a blow hole) and the third a modern whale with a fully functional apparatus. I couldn’t find anything else.
By the way, I did want to note that I really don’t believe it is relevant to anything to claim that I am in denial. That is not the case. I am simply analyzing your claims with my world view, then going back to do some research on what you say and coming to a conclusion from the facts. You would be disappointed in me if I simply took what a total stranger said on a blog site and totally changed my world view without at least looking at the facts, right? I hope you’d do the same thing for my claims. I have learned quite a bit from this discussion and I know that some of the things I have been ignorant about have been unhealthy. I think that this conversation has continually been very beneficial, and I thank you for your time Ed. But saying something without even giving a source and then calling me someone who is in “denial” for questioning it is kind of rude, don’t you think?
“At some point, can’t you at least concede that God doesn’t shoot dice with everything in the universe all the time?”
I was going to ask you the same thing. You are the one claiming that life is a product of chance and that God started the Big Bang and then didn’t interfere with the course of the universe (4 billion + years) until about 2,000 years ago when He came to the earth to die for a product of random chance that you don’t even give Him credit for creating. Quite a loving God, isn’t He? You are claiming that He is the creator of death and suffering by merely leaving it up to a crap shoot of the dice. Why are you saying that I am the one that doesn’t believe in a God of order and design?
“As a pragmatic matter, there are too many species of animal known, for them to have been contemporary.”
I did not say that every fossil ever found was a contemporary. I said that all the kinds of animals were together, contemporaries of each other, not each sample. That’s like you accusing me of every human living together at the same time. Obviously not all animals lived at the same time! Come on.
“There are hundreds of elephant species. No one can seriously suggest they all lived contemporaneously.”
I didn’t say that. Again, I’m saying that the different “kinds” of animals were all contemporaries. I do believe that there is some room to indicate that different animals adapted to their environments, but no room to say all species have a common ancestor.
“I think you’re misreading the claims for the Cambrian. Common ancestry is actually rather easy to show — DNA.”
Again, how is there DNA evidence on fossils that are up to 500 million years old? Before this conversation I’ve never heard of anyone doing DNA testing on Cambrian level fossils, and if they find DNA at all it supports a young earth, not millions of years.
“Reptile to mammal…” I thought it was supposed to be reptile to bird.
“I’m not sure what you mean by violent change. It’s still mother to child.”
I meant quick, rapid change, almost painful. Not slow, methodical changes over millions of years.
“Contrary to the Gish Gallop punchline that “Mr. Whale would drown waiting for his blowhole to move,” the transitional species do quite well (so long as we don’t interfere or hunt them to extinction).”
It goes far beyond that simple point. You also have the evolution of the eye, the heart, the lungs, the digestive system, sex and reproduction, etc. You also have Behe’s stated irreducibly complex machines that could not have evolved. It is not just the whale, it is all life forms that transition from something that is not necessary to something that couldn’t live or reproduce without it, like sex.
“Hippo evolution from non-river-dwelling creatures, is fairly well established in fossils.”
From what I found they just cited the same stuff as they do for whales at the beginning and then I couldn’t find any pictures of skeletons, illustrations or anything about the hippo evolution.
By the way, you still haven’t discussed what Jesus/apostles said about the flood/creation.
I’ll have to reply to 1 Corinthians 15 later. I’ve really got to get going.
LikeLike
lowerleavell said:
I put that paragraph in a separate post because I think it is so important. This is not a guess. Common ancestry is as certain as we can be. If we deny common ancestry here, after the DNA shows it, then we are denying that DNA shows familial lines at all. We are denying that we can ever establish paternity of a child.
I don’ think it wise to abandon all appeal to reason and science in such a manner.
We can pinpoint the mutations in the whale DNA that move the blowhole. We have the fossils to corroborate. Chemical and physical evidence — how much does it take before creationists stop denying it? The processes by which such mutations occur are well known, well tested, and demonstrated often.
You’re trying to move the goal posts. Your source originally said there were no transitionals at all. I point to nearly a dozen good ones, including complete skeletons, and for each link we show, you say there are two missing links on either side. If I show you your brother, you’ll claim there may be others in between you and him that we don’t know about.
Take a step back and consider how much of reality you’re denying. It’s too much for me.
Well, the skeletons are dated accurately (I know; you don’t believe atomic theory, either — more denial that tends to the brink of madness). In whales, they were not contemporaries; they came at different times, in sequence. The sequence matches the sequences of mutations noted in the DNA. If God created them that way, God created deceptive DNA and deceptive radioisotopes in the rocks, and He was careful enough to make sure that they were deceptive in exactly the same way so His deception could not be discovered. Chrisitianity’s foundational beliefs are that God is not such a deceiver. Creationism is suddenly at odds with Christianity on that point — I’ll stick with Christianity, thank you.
Not to mention all the other chaos that such jumbling of the evidence implies. At some point, can’t you at least concede that God doesn’t shoot dice with everything in the universe all the time?
As a pragmatic matter, there are too many species of animal known, for them to have been contemporary. The fossils in the Karoo Formation alone would populate the entire Earth’s surface with animals about the size of a cow, dozens per acre. If we add to that the fossils from China, Wyoming, Canada, South America, Pakistan, and so on, we have way too much animal life for the planet to have accommodated — other than sequentially, over tens of millions of years for mammals, and billions of years for all other life. There are hundreds of elephant species. No one can seriously suggest they all lived contemporaneously.
Common ancestry is well established in thousands of species, by DNA. At some point, the weight of the evidence is overwhelming.
The only way to deny it is to deny that DNA works at all. That’s wacky.
No, we can’t link all species to one, nor is that necessary to show evolution. It well may be that there were four or more original species — but we know that evolution has occurred in each of those lines. For mammals, we can show common ancestry for tens of thousands of species through 65 million years. How much evidence would be enough to convince you?
I think you’re misreading the claims for the Cambrian. Common ancestry is actually rather easy to show — DNA. What is difficult is showing all the fossil ancestors, since prior to that “explosion” over 10 to 40 million years in the Cambrian (some slow-moving explosion), there were no hard body parts to fossilize.
Much to the chagrin of creationists, and pushing denial to even greater heights, we have found fossils of the softbodied Precambrian creatures. And — miracle of miracles — they show signs of ancestry to Cambrian fossils. It’s as if God intended us to discover evolution and how it works.
I think you’re overstating the Cambrian. Worms? Yeah — not most modern genera, but there were worms. There were no fish. There were no lizards, no four-legged animals of any type. Nothing much out of water. No flowering plants. Few trees as we know them. No grasses. The transitions after the Cambrian are much clearer than you suggest. Reptile to mammal, then mammalian branching — reptile to dog, that is — there is a host of transitionals that are quite astounding, well documented in rock (the very stones crying out, as it were). A dog is not a reptile. I don’t know how much more dramatic a change you’d need to put stock in evolution.
Can we tell which reptile fossil was the one that is the father of all canines? No — but eight generations back, we can’t tell who your direct ancestors were, either. That doesn’t imply in any way that you sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus; a rational person would simply say that we do not know the name of your ancestor. Do you doubt you had such an ancestor?
Before reptile-to-dog, we can document with good — not perfect — assurance the transition from fins to feet, from water to land. Fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal, to large, land-dwelling even-toed ungulate, back to the sea with modern whales. Those transitions are quite clear. A whale is not a Devonian fish. It’s not a land-dwelling mammal. It’s not a land-dwelling reptile. It’s not a swamp-dwelling thing with finny feet. Yet we can trace those developments, and you dismiss them as “still a chordate.”
How much evidence is necessary to convince the stiff-necked creationist?
Transitions come as transitions come. Some are rapid, some are not. No scientist I know denies either allopatric or sympatric evolution. There are debates about relative speeds of evolution all the time, but there are no debates about the fact that evolution occurs, among serious scientists.
I’m not sure what you mean by violent change. It’s still mother to child. Generally that’s pretty tame.
What I’m saying is that the steps of transition which creationists claim cannot be seen, are on display in living transitionals. Your claim earlier was that the interim steps between land-dweller and whale are impossible, because no species could live a life between those two extremes. I showed you a half-dozen species that live very comfortably in those “in-between” spaces. The creationist challenge, “show me a half-cow, half-whale,” is easily done with living species. Contrary to the Gish Gallop punchline that “Mr. Whale would drown waiting for his blowhole to move,” the transitional species do quite well (so long as we don’t interfere or hunt them to extinction) — regardless whether their nostrils have moved to the top of their head. Walruses exist and are quite successful; so do seals exist, and sea lions, otters and polar bears. Each of those species occupies a different rung on the odd ladder from land-dweller to sea-dweller, among mammals. Each of those rungs is a step you had denied possible. What I’m trying to show you is that it’s not only not impossible, but that animals in those transitional categories survive well, are regarded as cute, and stick around for millions of years as successful species.
Again, I think creationism is mostly denial. If we deny the existence of walruses, seals, sea lions, otters, dugongs, other sirenes, polar bears, etc., then you’re right — it appears the transitions are impossible. But we then run afoul of the Romans 1:20 warning: If we deny what God puts in plain sight, we have no excuse.
Hippo evolution from non-river-dwelling creatures, is fairly well established in fossils.
LikeLike
I want to separate this out:
It’s a guess if DNA is in error. It’s a guess if the best evidence we have ever been able to use, doesn’t really work. What you’re saying is that DNA cannot determine familial relationships, which is exactly what it does.
The DNA tests I’m talking about are the same ones we use to determine paternity, and the same ones we use to determine whether the man awaiting execution was wrongly convicted. Not only is it not a guess, but if this test is so inaccurate as you claim, almost all of medicine from 1980 on is wrong.
I think, Joe, your denial is getting the better of you. This is not a guess. There is no question a rational person can make here.
LikeLike
You said, “The whale/hippo relationship is exactly the same DNA analysis, and what it shows is that hippos are cousins — close cousins — of modern whales. Even-toed ungulates. This is no guess, this is as certain as the sun shines tomorrow.”
I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not saying that they aren’t related or that they may not have genetic ties at all. I’m not saying that there not cousins. What I am saying is that it is unproven that they come from a common ancestor. That is where the guess is. I have no problem them being in the same class, but what you haven’t proven is where the new information comes from, from the transition from a land animal to a whale. For your hypothesis to be correct, you have to scientifically prove how it is possible for a creature to produce brand new information “poof” out of thin air or out of shere will or necessity in order to produce a whale. This is where the missing link comes in. You have many “stages” that are claimed to be ancestors of one another, like in this whale discussion. Yet, can science tell us when the blow hole first appeared, how it appeared, and why? You are trying to show how an animal “lost” information but haven’t shared where the new information would come from.
If I took a skeleton human, an ape, and a chimpanzee, I could put us side by side and try to convince people that the skeletons are on a chain of evolution (though I totally understand that’s not how it works). However, these are all contemporaries of each other, even though genetically similar and our skeleton structures are also similar. I think the same thing happened with these fossils that you claim are whale ancestors. They are virtual contemporaries of one another that have been lined up side by side to try to prove a chain, when they were distinct, different animals, though similar enough (cousins) to put them in a chain together.
Evolution is more than just showing where the whales came from, Ed. You would have to prove how all life forms everwhere have the same ancestry. You can link the canines, you can link the horses, etc. but can you link all species everywhere together? It would be much harder than say trying to link the three distinct language groups in the world into one, which is linguistically impossible. That is one thing that I had thought the Cambrian Explosion helped prove: you can’t trace the lineage back to a common ancestry. The various classes and species simply just show up fully formed in the geological strata and those transitional forms to show a common ancestor between the different classes of species just aren’t there, and even talkorigins can’t find them. You can find something of transitions like variations on a dog, but its still a canine. You know what they even found in the Pre-Cambrian levels? Worms are still worms.
“The other transitionals I suggested, as living transitionals, I put up front to avoid the creationist claim that it’s “just a guess.” As you demonstrate, no amount of evidence can overcome the knee-jerk response of creationists.”
I have heard this argument before by atheists, but not by a theistic evolutionist. I must have been mistaken because I had thought that evolutionists were now believing that transitions come rapidly and violently instead of gradually. I had thought that the gradual system was much better for evolutionists because it could simply say, “well, we just haven’t had enough time to see species really transition majorly from one form to another.” I’m not really sure what your point was then on living transitionals because I haven’t really seen any new, helping, beneficial information posed by evolutionists. I’ve heard of a new species of fly and the moths changing colors, etc. But this is the first I’ve heard of a hippo being in transition. As far as I could tell, hippos have always been able to swim. You don’t think that humans are transitioning back because of all the swimming pools out there, do you?
I’ll have to finish later, I’ve got to get going.
LikeLike
I see nothing in those passages that says there was no physical death prior to Adam. Pay particular attention to the error of biology Paul gives us in verse 36 — seeds are not dead. This reminds us, once again, that this is not intended to be a science lesson in any way.
And pay special attention to the last score of verses. They not only do not support a claim that there was no life before Adam, and no death before Adam, they fully support evolution theory.
Verses 46 and 47: “But the spiritual was not first; rather the natural and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man from heaven.”
Was there a different point you were trying to make there?
LikeLike
Then it was simple oversight on your part that you missed that they claimed there are no transitionals where there are dozens, and their inaccurate claims based on severely outdated information, you must have just misread.
No, there is no guessing. Hippopotami are DNA linked. DNA is the most accurate date we have — it is so accurate that we let people off of death row, people who were convicted in a fair trial, exhausted their appeals, and were on the way to execution — we put them on the street, confident that the DNA is accurate. It is more accurate than photographs, much more accurate than eye-witness testimony. The whale/hippo relationship is exactly the same DNA analysis, and what it shows is that hippos are cousins — close cousins — of modern whales. Even-toed ungulates. This is no guess, this is as certain as the sun shines tomorrow.
And that’s another thing I find obnoxious about creationists. When the evidence is solid, sure-fire, so solid that no rational person would deny it, when a court would be wise to take it on judicial note, creationists deny it. “A guess.” It’s a guess like you guess at your own gender. Creationists would deny their own gender to try to keep the Bible literal and to dismiss science. Why, I cannot figure.
The other transitionals I suggested, as living transitionals, I put up front to avoid the creationist claim that it’s “just a guess.” As you demonstrate, no amount of evidence can overcome the knee-jerk response of creationists.
< Frankly, they simply want these to be transitional forms soooooooo bad because they are looking at the evidence to back up their presuppositions instead of examining the evidence honestly.
::ahem:: You’re projecting.
LikeLike
Oh, I just wanted to note 1 Corinthians 15:20-58 as a viable reference for death (both physical and spiritual) by Adam and that life is sourced in Christ (both physical and spiritual).
LikeLike
I totally know that my views are not “mainstream Christianity.” For 1,000 years if you weren’t a Catholic you weren’t in “mainstream Christianity.” Does that mean that being Catholic was correct beccause it was the mainstream? I’m guessing there’s less than a couple million Bible literalists left in the US and Europe. It didn’t used to be that way. Moody, Spurgeon, the Wesleys, Whitefield, Muehler, Luther, etc. would all roll over in their graves if they knew how ready people were to abandon their faith in the word of God like they do today. People were burned at the stake because they made copies of the Bible and defending it’s veracity and you want to throw it out as a work of fiction? I think that’s just sad.
I actually was impressed with Heard because I posted what I told you on his blog and he took the time to write me back. I believe that he is correct that it is not talking about Egypt in every context that the word “rahab” is used.
The Bible doesn’t get the facts right on geography, etc. because there was something called a flood which kind of changed things around a little bit. You misunderstand me that I believe the Tigris and Euphrates ever flowed a different direction, I think the evidence shows that since they’ve been there they’ve flowed pretty much the same way. I’m saying that they are two different Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the ones we have now being named after the ones before the flood.
History and geology do back up that there was a global flood though, you just are trying to explain all the legends and strata away. There is not much of a record of what life was like before the flood because it was wiped out. The ecology of the whole earth was probably changed as a result of whatever it was that started the flood, the actual flood, and the effects of the flood.
Will you please explain to me (maybe because I’m slow, I’m not sure) how the other accounts of creation contradict the Genesis account and are not a different telling of the same event, like you have in the Gospels? You do realize that you quoted Darth Vader too, right? :-) Does that mean I get to be Luke? Cool! :-)
LikeLike
I had already read up on talkorigins about whales and such and I understand their arguments of what they believe are transitional forms. I thought it interesting that you bring up the hippo as proof for the whale transitioning. Ed, the fossils they have recovered are of fully functioning, earth dwelling mammals that may have spent time in the water, but they don’t know, they are simply guessing. Frankly, they simply want these to be transitional forms soooooooo bad because they are looking at the evidence to back up their presuppositions instead of examining the evidence honestly. There is abolutely no link between these fossils and modern whales at all. Yet it is trumped as fact, conclusive. I’m sorry, but its speculation and hoping.
Forgive me for posting AIG again, but they directly bring up whales in their articles.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp#addendum
By the way, the letter if you noticed on AIG says it was posted in 2006. I’m sorry, but your wishing for too much in those whale fossils.
LikeLike
I have another theological question for you: was the virgin birth literal, or was it allegorical? Why would Jesus need to be born of a virgin? If you believe it was simply a young woman, then it wasn’t much of a prophesy in Isaiah where he would have been saying, “Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son…” Wow, what a sign! A young woman will bear a son! Don’t see that every day. :-) The need for a literal Adam, a literal virgin birth, and a literal Savior are all the same-a literal salvation. You want an allegorical Adam, an allegorical virgin birth? Then you have an allegorical Christ and an allegorical salvation.
I’ve heard the same arguments that you are using to say that there really is no Hell, that it is figurative and that it is allegorical. What do you think? Heaven and Hell, real or figurative?
How does Genesis “trump” all other Biblical creation stories? They are all in harmony with each other, each bringing out different aspects of the same event.
You said, “Assuming Adam to be allegorical, there could be no human who is not a descendant of the First Man. This is a problem only if one insists that a literal Genesis 1 trumps all other creation stories. and I think it shows the danger of insisting on a literal reading. This is a foolish notion, that any human could not be under the covenant with God, especially after the NT.”
I totally agree that it is foolish to think that any human could not be under the covenant with God, because Christ died for mankind. You are saying something really weird and saying that there are people out there that have foreign blood in them that is not part of the human race. Is this really what they teach in liberal theology classes, that not all humans are Adam’s descendants? What percentage of man would you say is descended from Adam? 95%? What? I really do wonder at what point in the “evolutionary chain” you believe that God started caring what happened to these fledgling mammals. At what point did God make us unique enough to want to die for us? When we looked like fish creatures? When we started walking upright? When? What made us special so that He would come to earth for us? Why didn’t He come as a dog and die for the canine species? Such thoughts are near blasphemous because mankind is unique in the eyes of God, because we are in His image. If Adam is allegorical, then where did “man” officially begin? Again, cause and effect.
I was not trying to blame Darwin for the deaths in Tasmania, because the same thought process of people thinking that others are “lesser humans” or not even fully man definitely pre-date Darwinism. I sure wish you would have put quotations around the word “Christian” because whoever killed those innocent people were none of the sort. But for you to blame their massacre on a literal interpretation of Genesis and creationism is nearly unforgivable and blatently untrue. The people who were sent to Tasmania were Europe’s scum of the earth. They were convicts, sailers (no offence to Navy people out there), and pond scum. The only people who stood in their way and defended the Aboriginies were the Christian missionaries who cried to Europe to help them stop the bloodshed. For you to pin it on Genesis and creationism makes me wonder if you ever picked up a history book. Do you realize that today there are people denying that the Black War ever occured and are trying to pin it on those Christian missionaries saying they just wanted money and support for their cause and made the thing up to make it look bad so they would get sympathy. Ridiculous!
Darwin had a God given concience at least to understand that it was an atrocity. However, his concern for the Tasmanians flew in the face of survival of the fittest. If we are only animals after all, why were the Europeans wrong on a moral basis? They needed land and food, they simply took if from a weaker tribe. Where’s the sin in evolution? The sin is there only if you don’t believe we are the products of random chance but that every man, woman, and child is a creation of God Almighty and has equal value. That’s why I’ve never understood how the founding fathers were many of them Christians saying that “All men are created equal” yet there were man slave owners. Thank God that those days of slavery are in the past and that we have come to grips with what the Bible has said all along. We are equals. God loves us all, and He died for us all.
“I’m trying to avoid the bizarre claim that sin is genetic. The Adam and Eve story talks about the fact that all humans sin, and consequently need grace from God and salvation by Jesus. If you wish to extend that claim to say that sin is genetic, you’ll find no support in science. If you wish to say sin is genetic and consequently anyone not a direct descendant of Adam can’t sin, everyone will know you’re crazy. If this isn’t allegory, and all sin comes from Adam, we have an insurmountable problem explaining without foolishness how all humans have sin.”
What does the Bible say? Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned–”
Sin and death are a result of Adam’s sin. That’s what the Bible says. Read it. All sinned in Adam because he was our representative for mankind, being the first man. I’m not saying that sin is passed down genetically and that there’s a sin gene out there somewhere that can be eradicated. Sin is a condition of the soul, not merely the body. It affects the body, and we use our bodies to sin, but sin lives in our hearts, not our bodies. It reigns in our mortal bodies, but it is not a condition of genetics. For us, because we are in Adam, we are born sinners. Being born again of God, being a Christian, we are now in Christ and are passed from death unto life. We are now the literal, adopted children of God, as the Bible says. To me, it’s really exciting to be a Christian because now I am free from the penalty of sin and free to serve Christ. Isn’t it wonderful to be a Christian?
LikeLike
Heard’s view is mainstream Christianity, it’s what you’d get at any major seminary in Christendom. You may think him wrong, but I think you need to acknowledge that you’ve got a minority view among Christians.
Heard’s views square with the best scholarship we have, the best analysis of what was written, when, by whom.
No, he’s not saying Genesis is “wrong.” He’s saying the story is not science, and we can tell because it gets the rivers wrong. He doesn’t say, as if it were unnecessary to say, that the way water flows is contrary to the description of the four rivers. Again, if one wanted to disprove the Bible, claiming that such descriptions are literal is the way to go — it doesn’t square with history, geography, geology, biology or physics. There is no corroboration of the account as literal, and every thing else denies it.
And the claim that the rivers referred to had their courses changed is pure hoo-haw. You’re arguing that the book predates the flood? Where did the book come from? Why wasn’t it destroyed in the flood? Where is there any evidence for any rivers that meet the descriptions given? Where is there any evidence that either the Tigris or Euphrates ever flowed in a different direction?
The power of denial is strong in this one, Obi-wan!
LikeLike
lowerleavell said:
It greatly shows that we need to tighten the licensing standards in Ohio. It’s frightening that such a person is teaching children, perhaps with live internet connections. He appears almost completely unqualified to weigh evidence, or even to look up information on the internet.
One example from the letter:
I’m not “told” that a land mammal evolved — I understand well that whales are mammals, and I’ve seen the fossils in well-documented photographs, and I’ve discussed the fossils with a couple of different paleontologists who have been on excavation teams in Pakistan and California finding some of the better examples of transitional species.
We don’t need artist’s concepts to see what transitionals would look like. Polar bears spend up to 60% of their lives in the water, and we can see a few adaptations there. Otters spend about 80% of their lives in the water, and we can see that their feet are adapted well to swimming, much less well to walking on land. Seals and sea lions might be a next stage. They dive well. Their nostrils are moved up a bit, and they can close their nostrils for deep diving. Their hind legs are not well separated, since the near-flukes they have are so vastly superior for swimming with speed and directional control, in order to catch faster prey and dive more deeply; then we have the elephant seals and walruses, who are even further along the continuum.
In short, we have in living species several of the steps between fully land-dwelling creature on the edge of the water, and an ocean-going mammal. We don’t have to imagine, God’s given us the living models.
Quite to the contrary of that teacher’s claims, there are many good examples of whale and whale ancestor fossils. They show evolution similar to the stages I just described. Some of the skeletons are complete (why do you think this fellow feels compelled to not stick with the facts? What does it harm him to tell the truth?)
See Ray Sutera’s clear explanations here (published in 2001, by the way, and based on some research that was then a decade old):
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
And see this follow-up on living transitionals:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/483_a_tale_of_two_entities_whales_12_30_1899.asp
When Ray wrote that article for NCSE, we didn’t have the data on the ankle bones, and the story shows both the strength of the evidence, the power of corroboration, and how strong the whole evidence chain is. While several complete skeletons of later whales were known, with their atrophied, vestigial hind limbs, there were no specimens that had a complete foot earlier than fully aquatic whales. In the mid-90s the molecular guys decided to do DNA testing to see what animal today is the closest living relative of whales. It turned out to be the hippo, an artiodactyl, or even-toed ungulate. This was a surprise (as the story indicates), because the whale ancestors were carnivores from the start. We don’t usually think of any ungulate as a carnivore. The paleontologists were dubious. They argued that no fossils supported that claim squarely, but the molecular guys stuck to their guns. The next summer after the publication of the DNA study, a group digging in Pakistan found the near-whale, with a complete foot. Even-toed ungulates have an odd ankle bone, and it goes back as far in fossils as we know. No other group of mammals has that odd bone. The whale foot had that same, odd ankle bone that is the banner of even-toed ungulates. The molecular guys had predicted it, the paleontologists had confirmed it.
As you read through Ray’s paper, understand that we have even more transitional species, and even more, more nearly complete specimens of most of the species listed. The evidence gets stronger and stronger, much deeper the more we research.
When did that Ohio teacher write his letter? Prior to 2001? Then AiG should be ashamed for presenting way out-of-date stuff. After 2001? Then the teacher is incompetent at research, in addition to ignorant of his field. Either that, or dishonest.
You’re right; the letter is great. It demonstrates the modern moral paucity of creationism. Creationism takes otherwise good Christians, and either blinds them to the facts, or blinds them to the moral problems of telling fibs. It’s more like a disease.
LikeLike
This is a case where the higher morality of evolution starkly spells out the moral reasons we should hope evolution to be the accurate story:
Physically, certainly; spiritually, too.
Not spiritually, no. Assuming Adam to be allegorical, there could be no human who is not a descendant of the First Man. This is a problem only if one insists that a literal Genesis 1 trumps all other creation stories. and I think it shows the danger of insisting on a literal reading. This is a foolish notion, that any human could not be under the covenant with God, especially after the NT. The question is of no consequence in a Christian world that recognizes evolution; it’s only of consequence in the bizarro world that results from a literal reading.
This is the money error, the place you really run off the rails. It was Christians who argued that the Australian and Tasmanian aboriginals were lesser humans, based on their literal reading of Genesis. The war against the Tasmanians started in 1805. Darwin wasn’t born until 1809. When Darwin visited the area in 1831, there were fewer than 150 Tasmanians left out of an original population of some tens of thousands. As Darwin pointed out, these aboriginals were both our brothers as humans, and evolutionarily superior beings adapted to live in the Australian and Tasmanian outback. As Darwin lamented, foolish Europeans with guns would create conflict with such superior populations all over the globe, and the guns would dictate the victors.
Evolution, in other words, argued against this massacre. The massacre occurred well before Darwin even got there, and was a completed a full generation before Darwin and Wallace published. Anyone who studies the rhetoric of the times, especially the sermons, understands that Christians regarded it as a Biblically-given right to commit this genocide. Creationists of the time argued that these people were of a separate creation (since everyone knew Lamarck’s evolution hypothesis was total hooey . . .)
This was a Christian genocide, done under the aegis of creationism and the supposed aegis of the Bible that backs creationism. It shows the moral paucity of creationism.
I’m trying to avoid the bizarre claim that sin is genetic. The Adam and Eve story talks about the fact that all humans sin, and consequently need grace from God and salvation by Jesus. If you wish to extend that claim to say that sin is genetic, you’ll find no support in science. If you wish to say sin is genetic and consequently anyone not a direct descendant of Adam can’t sin, everyone will know you’re crazy. If this isn’t allegory, and all sin comes from Adam, we have an insurmountable problem explaining without foolishness how all humans have sin.
But that’s not a problem of evolution and Christianity. It’s an exclusive problem of creationism. Christians don’t need to worry about it, since it’s a non-issue.
LikeLike
I thought this article was great. It was a letter sent into AIG.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0612school-year.asp
LikeLike
Your view of a common creator being cruel doesn’t factor in the fall at all. Also, wouldn’t also show that a loving God left things up to chance and didn’t bother to influence anything that He cased for 4 billion years until 2,000 years ago? Wow, that’s a loving God! 4 billion years of death, destruction, and mayhem. Even if your Adam lived 200,000 years ago, you still have a couple million years of “humanoid” ancestry before him and death and destruction for millions of years until Christ. Not cool.
Here’s a response to your transitional forms. I have done a lot of research on talkorigins about transitional forms, so I’m not just saying I don’t want to talk about it because I can’t, I’m saying it’s a road I’ve been down several times and I didn’t want to spend the time to go down it again, especially since we’ll just end up agreeing to disagree. :-) But, if you wish to discuss it, we can. Here’s some citations:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/transition.shtml
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter8.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp
Regarding moving the goal posts: Yes, creationists were wrong and yes, they have admitted it. Do scientists claim to get everything right 100% of the time? No, yet they give creationists a hard time when they make mistakes. Here’s what I at least beleive happened. God created the many forms of animals that we see in the fossil records. Some of them adapted somewhat within their kind in the 1000-3000 years after the fall until the flood. The flood buried the many different varieties within the species of animals because Noah was only required to bring two of each kind (two dogs, two cats, not every variety of cat). For that reason, that’s why there’s only three different kinds of elephants today is because they have a common ancestor on the flood. Each varient of animal only produces after its kind. For evolution to be correct, each kind has one common ancestor. The Cambrian explosion totally disproves that.
LikeLike
You said, “I’m not arguing for a literal Adam, I’m asking why you think there could not be one person designated by an omniopent God out of a population.”
The reason is this: where did all the other populations go? Did they all go extinct? Did they mate with Adam’s descendants and get “bred” into the human chain? Do we have people existing today who are not descendants of Adam? That was the problem in the 18th and 19th centuries, and why people had no problem shooting the natives in Australia, because they were lesser evolved than the white person (I shudder at the thought). The black man was seen as a “lesser race” of humanoid than the “more evolved” white man. This is one implication of such views, and why creationism is socially beneficial, because all races are equal because we all belong to the human race. You seem to be implying that we aren’t all descendants of Adam because otherwise they would have been “inbreeding.” The theological problem with that is that Scripture claims that death (even if you simply say it is spiritual death) came from Adam. Did his sin make those who were of different populations sinners as well? Did God kill them, or did they just die out? What? You created this other race of humanoids, what are you going to do with what happens to them?
You are correct in assessing that if there were no Adam, then there would not have been a “first sin” because there would have been no one to make that sin. If Adam hadn’t sinned, we would not today be sinners (though I believe everone would probably have made the same choice as Adam). The fact that there is sin and that we do need a Savior shouts that the sin has a source. It is the same argument as cause and effect. What’s the source? That’s why people all around are asking why there is suffering in the world. You sound like an atheist by ignoring the need for sources and simply focusing on the effect. Yes, we do have sin, and yes, we do definitely need Christ! If there were no literal Adam, why do we sin? Did God make us that way? Did we, before we could really make an informed decision, choose to be sinners by throwing temper tantrums and fits in the nursery? The theological implications of no Adam are staggering. The fact that we do have sin begs for there to be a literal Adam. You seem to be saying that we need to just ignore where it came from because it doesn’t matter, we do have sin and we need a Savior, so just deal with it. I agree with you that we do have it, that we do need Christ, but it does matter because God is not the author of sin. It also means that humans are not a product of random chance but that God specially designed the first man and made Him unique in His creation “in His image.” Without Adam, what are you left with?
There’s plenty of evidence for other people living back then? From Genesis? I thought you didn’t take it as literal but mythological. Why are you using it as a reference when it suites your needs? Also, the reason incest is wrong is because 1) its gross in our culture to think about our sisters that way, and 2) genetically it is very unhealthy. With each new generation, the genetics get a little bit worse. However, if the genetics of both parties are complete and pure (being removed by only one generation from a pure human body) then the genetics wouldn’t be a problem for many generations. Even in Abraham’s day he married his half-sister, Sarah, but no one seems to have a problm accepting that as truth. Why is this issue such a stumbling block? The problem with your view is that you have Cain, Abel, and Seth getting married to people who aren’t a part of Adam’s race. Were their decendants sinners? Were they fully human? Where did they come from? Again, what happened to them? Did Christ die for them? It’s just plain weird if you ask me, and a lot more bizarre than saying Cain married his sister.
If I come across as not stressing the theological aspect of Genesis I appologize, because they are strong. Along those lines, the first promise of the Savior was given in Genesis 3:15. If you throw out Genesis, you throw out that verse too and poluting the Gospel. Who did God promise a Savior to, if not Adam and Eve? Why would He have needed to promise a Savior if Adam and Eve were not going to be the parents of all mankind? Theologically, your view is (respectfully) a mess.
Genesis being literal does not mean it can be disproven. You simply have no faith in your Bible, my friend. How can you have faith in Jesus and deny the first promise that is given of His coming? How can you have faith in His salvation and deny that because Adam sinned, all sinned and thus need a Savior? How can you have faith in God’s omnipotence if He couldn’t even create the world, but be an obscure, deism like force that simply started evolution and then disappeared? How can you have faith in a loving God that is the source of death, destruction, and catastrophe, before mankind even had a choice in choosing God or not? Your answer to atheists who ask “why is their suffering in the world if God is a God of love” is what? God caused the suffering if it is not a result of the fall. People would be justified in rejecting a God that causes death, destruction, and pain for no reason or purpose. How can you have faith in a God who does not lie but cannot accurately tell us how things began, if He is the source? How can you have faith in a God who is all knowing but doesn’t know how it really happened? The theological implications of not having a literal Genesis account are staggering, and not to be minimized. You seem to make God into a very weak creator.
My point is not to make you doubt our God, but to give you confidence in His Word and have a little bit of faith. I’m not asking you to accept Ken Ham’s explanation down the line, I’m asking you to accept what God says as being true. If it is not true in Genesis, why is it true in Romans? You say we accept Christ’s resurrection on faith, but then say we need to stand on science. Science says that no one can rise from the dead. Which will you choose? Why is your choice different for Genesis? That is why I am saying that your perseption is wrong, not the data, but your interpretation and presuppositions regarding the data.
LikeLike
This is where I think creationist denial really causes trouble.
lowerleavell said:
“Common creator” is less likely than common ancestor. A common creator, if noble and good, wouldn’t merely give all species the same type of [pick your organ here], especially if that organ was detrimental to the survival of the animal, or if it caused the animal pain and trouble. Darwin rejected the creationist view that a common creator was cruel.
Common ancestry, on the other hand, provides a good answer for why humans have wisdom teeth and prostate glands that swell and cut off the urinary tract in males, without ascribing animus to the creator. The usual creationist reaction is simply to deny the bad designs. Biologists don’t have that luxury, being committed to telling the truth.
You’re trying to shift the goalposts. One the points is that evolution fuzzes the differences between species; the lines are not bright. This stands in stark contrast to the theological view that obtained from roughly 200 A.D. through the 19th century, that there were bright lines between species. You cannot fairly attribute to evolution one of the chief claims of creationism which evolution disproves (see Paley’s book, for example). This is a point of creationist dishonesty, to me. You’re acting as if this were the creationist view all along, and it simply is not so.
Paley claimed that there were a few types of animals and plants that were common to Europe, and he stated with the full approval of the churches that life on continents would be similar the world over. A mouse, for example, would be found on every continent, and mice would be similar on every continent. A flower on one continent should have a very similar relative on another. In the same vein, Paley said island life would differ from continents, but that island life should be similar to island life the world over.
Darwin found something quite different. Mice are mice, but there are a lot of different species, with sometimes radically different lifestyles. In some places, one species will be insectivorous; in another, a closely related species will be vegetarian; and in another, another closely related species will be carnivorous. The question is, why do we need 150 species of rodent? Then there are other issues with rodents: Why so many species of squirrel? Why the capybara, at 60 pounds, and so aquatic that the Pope ruled it was enough of a fish to eat on Fridays? Why no rodents at all in other places — in the Indian Ocean some places lack mice, so insects fill the usual rodent niches. What’s up with that?
And of course, there are no mice at all on Australia. Marsupials fill most of the niches (except, again, where insects fill some). This was completely contrary to creationist predictions.
Darwin also found that lines blur between species, contrary to the creationist claim that species tended to regress toward a mean pattern. Blue jays in America start fading in color as we move west and up in elevation. On the west side of the rockies, there is the Stellar jay, which has a black head and blue body. It’s closely related to the blue jay, and to the gray jay and green jay — but they’re not the same. They fill the same niche in their environments. Why not one jay? Creationism predicted one, nature gives us at least four. Then there is the problem that jays are not found the world over. Creationism predicted something different. This blending of species lines can best be seen in ring species groups, such as the lesser black-backed gull and the herring gull. In the North Sea, both species exist, and do not interbreed. They are fully speciated. Starting from the North Sea and moving east, just south of the Arctic Circle, the herring gull disappears (I think I have that one right). As we move east, the lesser black-backed gull’s leg color starts to change. Its feather coloring changes slightly, its beak size and shape alter. By the time we get to eastern Canada, the lesser black-backed gull looks an awful lot like the herring gull. And that transition slides neatly to the North Sea. At any spot on the other than the North Sea, the lesser black-backs can breed with lesser black-back populations on either side; but speciation is complete at the North sea, and the herring gull does not interbreed with the lesser black-backs. This was absolutely, totally contrary to creationist predictions. Creationists today generally deny it occurs (see the ICR and CRS stuff). Especially they deny it with regard to the San Fernando or California or Pacific salamander groups, which offer several examples of such living transitionals.
The differences are not greater because there is constant evolution. On the other hand, the differences between hippopotami and sperm whales is quite large, because of the length of time since their common ancestor provided a split in lineages. The great differences you expect to see are there, but now are so great you deny they exist.
We’re talking transitional forms between species. Such as the dozens of transitionals between the tiny eohippus and the modern horse, over time, or the modern transitions between skinks and snakes, including snakes with legs and skinks without legs.
Yes, that’s the foundation of most medical research today, and creationists deny it. That’s a denial of reality that is a real problem.
Actually, there are a lot of common ancestors known from fossils, especially between eventoed ungulates like hippos and whales. The split between canines and felines is pretty well evidenced in fossils. Have you ever checked a good university library to see if there is such documentation? There is a lot.
How many missing links would it take to convince you? We have 18 between modern humans and our last shared ancestor with chimps and gorillas.
We have hundreds of links in the elephant line. There are only three species of elephant known to be alive today, but we have fossils of hundreds of elephant ancestors, showing divergence from other mammals about 60 million years ago.
Archeopteryx, the six species known, was a perfect transitional fossil, exactly what creationists predicted could never be found. I understand why you don’t want to talk about it, since it neatly refutes creationism on almost every point. I gather you’ve not bothered to check to see about other links in the ancestry of birds, since there are a lot of them.
We can trace mammals from reptiles. We can trace whales from a land-dwelling, meat-eating, even-toed ungulate, corroborated by DNA. There are tens of thousands of such transitionals known. How many must be piled up before creationists admit any transitionals exist at all?
LikeLike
Yes, I did read what Dr. Heard said about about the problems with Genesis. I was kind of surprised that you referenced him because many of his arguments are very basic and it is easy to see where he’s wrong. For instance, he is trying to say that Genesis is wrong because it gives the names of the rivers flowing out of Eden and says that we know Euphrates and Tigris, but the flood wouldn’t have changed their courses that much. He is making the assumption that those rivers in Genesis are the same Euphrates and Tigris that we see today. A more probably likelihood is that those rivers were completely destroyed and the Euphrates and Tigris are different rivers entirely. They were simply named after the pre-flood rivers.
He also says that references to rahab and the dragon in Psalms, Isaiah, and Job indicate a different creation account that would conflict with Genesis. My response would be that rahab is many times a reference to Egypt in the Old Testament, and at other times can indicate anything that is in rebellion against God, i.e. Satan. So, the answer is that those passages either are referencing Egypt and the Exodus (which seems to fit the context) or is a small reference to Satan’s rebellion (which also would not counter Genesis at all). I don’t understand where or how they contradict the Genesis account at all.
LikeLike
Here’s what Dr. Myers said in that link you posted: “I was also trying to get across another piece of evidence that the biologists were trying (and before Darwin, failing) to interpret, one that is quite ironic now. One of the big questions before natural historians was to explain all the gradations of form in the natural world — why are there so many species of mouse, for instance, that vary in little ways, and why are there ‘mouse-like’ forms that are larger, like rats? Why is the world swimming in transitional forms, and why aren’t animals more distinct from one another, in other words?”
He says that creationists don’t have a sufficient answer to this question and that evolutionists do. I almost laughed. The fact that animals aren’t more distinct from one another shows two things, 1) it shows that they have a common creator, and 2) it shows that they haven’t been evolving for millions and millions of years because in that time the differences would have been much greater than we see today. The other question was the different types of mice and various other things. No creationist I have ever met denied transitional forms within species. Our bodies adapt and modify, it’s a God-given trait for us as well as any other species. What creationists object to is that mice, dogs, elephants, lions, humans, etc. all have a common ancestor. No creationist will deny that elephants all have a common ancestor, or dogs, or lions, etc., but you will never find in the geological strata a common ancestor between the species. If evolution were true, there should be at least thousands of such forms to show the common ancestor between the species. You can trace the elephant ancestry, the horse ancestry, etc., but there is no trace to a link between any of them. For evolution to be true, where is the missing link? If there still are none, then why is evolution still taught anywhere? And please, lets not go down the standby Arx road, because while it may have been a genuine animal, it was no missing link.
Thanks for posting that link, it was informative.
LikeLike
Joe, if you haven’t yet wandered over to Higgaion, go take a look at this post. Dr. Heard teaches the Bible at Pepperdine U; he has better references than I to Job and problems in Genesis — but he’s much more polite than I am. Take a look at what he says, especially in response a challenge about how anyone can ascribe any credence to the Bible if it’s not literal: http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=758.
LikeLike
You’d do well to take a look at P. Z. Myers’ post on this topic today, and follow the links:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/maybe_its_because_rocks_and_cr.php
Genesis 1 is the Babylonian-originated priest’s story of creation. Adam doesn’t appear until Genesis 2. I think that creationism intentionally blurs the edges, and difficulties, in the stories, to try to make a larger narrative than actually exists — and to cover up for feelings of inadequacy that the story cannot be proven, as the existence of dinosaurs and 20 species of hominid between our last common ancestor with the other surviving great apes and humans.
I’m not arguing for a literal Adam. I’m asking why you think that there could not be one person designated by an omnipotent God out of a population. I find the story entirely allegorical. It gives a pleasantly simple, fairy tale explanation for why there is sin, and it offers similarly simple explanations for questions of no value to salvation, like why humans have so much pain in childbirth while other animals do not appear to experience pain at the same levels.
Correct me if I have this wrong, but I hear you saying that unless there is a literal Adam, there is no need for human salvation, and consequently no need for Jesus’s life at all. I’m just flabbergasted at the simple but gross error of such a thought. Anyone can see there is plenty of sin among humans, that there is ample need for salvation. As with the origins of life in relation to evolution theory, there is really no particular reason to worry about how sin comes into our lives — it’s there, and we need salvation.
You’re focusing on science in the Genesis story, that was never there, and not paying much attention to the theology, it seems to me. Genesis says God is the creator; Genesis says God created out of love; Genesis says all humans sin, and this displeases God. Genesis’s later chapters tell us God forgives, and still wants a covenantal relationship with humans.
None of that is dependent on how Adam was formed, or even if there was a literal Adam. I think this is exactly what Augustine referred to when he said we shouldn’t stress the historical accuracy of scripture where that accuracy is denied by other evidence, and where the accuracy isn’t a serious part of the story.
There is plenty of evidence, in scripture, of other humans living at the time. The children of Adam and Eve marry, become leaders and found cities. The Darbyite contortions of Christianity become very foolish looking in this case: Incest was really okay back then? It’s an instinctive taboo. Adam’s children mated with evil spirits? How oddly occult that is! A literal reading of Genesis becomes, by itself, reductio ad absurdum.
Claiming that Genesis is literal sets it up nicely to be disproven. You may be right: Under your reading, the Bible is wrong.
Why would anyone insist on such a reading? It’s not demanded by scripture, it’s not demanded by tradition. It requires that we ignore reality.
I’ll get back to the apostles’ thoughts on flood and creation at some point (didn’t I answer part of it) — but, yea, it’s busy times.
LikeLike
My response is kind of contingent on your thoughts to what I wrote about Jesus and the apostle’s thoughts on the flood and creation, so I basically don’t have a lot to say until then.
I do find it kind of bizarre though that you’re basing your whole viewpoint of Adam being the first man from what God says even though you have stated repeatedly that Genesis is a myth from Babylon. If that is the case, why are you trying to explain who Adam literally was? If evolution is true, there is no need for an Adam at all because “first man” would have been a moot point. There is no indication in the Bible whatsoever that anything “manlike” or “pre-Adamic” existed at all. You are totally bringing your presuppositions into the Bible to make it fit your view point. If the Bible doesn’t support a “pre-Adamic” race then either there was none or the Bible is wrong.
LikeLike
I’m not sure about penguins and seals, but I suspect there is skewing due to their diet, which is heavy in foods from the ocean. However, generally C14 comes in through respiration; since these creatures breathe air at the surface, it may be possible to date their skeletons. I just don’t know.
C14 can stick around for millions of years. As a pragmatic matter, the amounts are just too low after 50,000 years, after a few half-life periods. However, traces can remain, technically, forever. It’s unlikely, but hypothetically it could happen.
C14 also can get into things exposed to sunlight, just from the atmosphere. That’s a source of contamination that samplers usually worry about. Bone needs to be sampled from inside the bone, away from atmospheric penetration. If you’ve got a rock matrix as the dinosaur bone, generally, yeah, there could not be a valid C14 sample — since all the organic material has been replaced with rock. The original organic material that was built by the creature in life simply is not there.
I think it’s John Horner’s team in Montana that found the dinosaur tissue. It was completely encased in rock. We use bubbles in ice, and we use gas pockets in rock, for other valid measures. While it’s highly unlikely that a bubble of soft tissue would be preserved, with enough million specimens and enough million years, it’s probably inevitable. Think of hermetically sealed foods; they last virtually forever. In this case, we have the hermetically sealed bubble that contained soft tissue.
LikeLike
It’s pretty clear that Adam’s physical body arose from a long string of ancestors, yes. Were they in tune with God? Ecclesiastes 3 tells we can’t know that, and shouldn’t worry about it — it doesn’t have anything to do with our salvation.
Why would we look to Lucy? Is she mentioned in the Bible? Adam and Eve are the designated first humans to walk with God — even though those books are quite clear there were other humanoids around at the time. On what basis would we look to Lucy instead of Adam?
LikeLike
What do you think of this cartoon?
http://www.jeffcohenstudio.com/bagoftoast/comic.cgi?comic=71
LikeLike
Actually, from the research that I’ve done, Carbon 14 dating may not be that accurate past 5,000 years old. After that they can’t accurately accomidate for the changed rate of carbon.
You said that the dates of carbon dating can be off in ocean life. Does that include penguins and seals that do not spend all their time in the water?
I also was wondering your take on them finding C 14 in (not simply “on” mind you) dino fossils. Most of the scientists waved their hands and dismissed them as “contaminated” in every case. If carbon is found within dino fossils, shouldn’t that topple the deck of cards posed by evolutionists? From what I understand, evolutionist scientists never use carbon dating on dinosaur fossils because they are believed to be millions of years old so it wouldn’t make sense to date them with carbon dating.
One other thing was the “flesh” found on the T-Rex skeleton. I read a lot of bashing of creationists and their views but I couldn’t really find any other explanation.
LikeLike
Yes, those tests were done to norm the curves, to see if they worked. There is a lot of work done on using radioactive decay to detect age.
Since the decay rate is absolutely consistent, the trick is to come up with a valid sample. The carbon 14 deal was a bit of a godsend as I noted because other isotopes have much longer half-lives — C14 is about 5,730 plus/minus 30 years — and so it can be used to date things that are very young. But one of the early tests was on ocean life, and the results were totally squirrelly. Turns out that C14 concentrates in water differently than in the air, and so even very old shells, for example, can date as very young. C14 dating simply doesn’t work on sea life. If you look at most creationist sites complaining about C14 dating errors, almost every one of them cites a dating of a shellfish that is way out of whack, as if scientists didn’t know about it and correct for the problem.
There is no assumption of age in isotope dating. The only question is, what is the half-life of the original substance, and what is the ratio of that substance to its daughters?
Here’s a quick summary:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm
Here’s the most common reference site I usually give:
http://www.radiocarbon.org/ (journal articles dating back to 1959 on how to do the dating)
Here’s a lab that does the work regularly:
http://www.gns.cri.nz/nic/rafterradiocarbon/measure.htm
References on how it works, including the classics (only one is on-line):
http://www.gns.cri.nz/nic/rafterradiocarbon/refs.htm
That’s just for carbon. There are other journals, other labs, and other explanations for the other radioisotopes used for dating. One of the Uranium isotopes, U238 has a half-life of 4.7 billion years, which looks almost perfect for dating our oldest rocks.
By the way, you can’t date a live creature accurately, because the carbon-14 is being replaced constantly in the bones or other calcium deposits.
The half-lives of the isotopes can be measured very accurately with a Geiger counter, but generally once the structure and other characteristics are known, the half-lives are calculated rather than measured
Carbon 14 dating is highly accurate only to about 50,000 years (which is 8 times as long as young Earth creationists say the Earth has been around), though it’s been used with great accuracy to 75,000 years. Longer than that, we use other isotopes. Argon dating is usually used for lava, and fortunately for hominid studies, there were almost regular eruptions of volcanoes around the areas where our oldest ancestors lived — the Laetoli footprints, for example, were actually made in freshly fallen ash from the volcano Sandiman (made by australopithecus afarensis, Lucy’s species). Layers of lava from the volcano put the upper and lower limits on ages of fossils found in the sediments in between the layers.
If atomic theory works, radioisotope dating is accurate. If atomic theory doesn’t work, there is no universe.
LikeLike
I just have one question, and honestly, it’s because I don’t know. Has there been any similar reseach by non-creationist scientists/independant research to do the tests correctly to see if samples of modern, new, volcanic rock come back as millions of years old? Has there even been any mainstream scientific work to see how these things test on young items? If the answer is that it never works on young items then you cannot assume that it works on the earth without first presupposing that the earth is millions or billions of years old. If the answer was that it works just fine on young items and dates them as young as they are, then maybe I would see some credence to their veracity. However, from what I understand, using carbon dating they have dated live snails and came back with them being dead for 27,000 years. Live penguins were dated to have died 8,000 years ago. Do you know independantly of any such research? From what I’ve read, carbon 14 dating reveals a young earth because of the fact that dinosaur fossils still have a carbon reading. Is that true?
LikeLike
I’m running late on appointments, so this will be brief, and very selective (there’s a lot more to respond to):
You’ve got the criteria for accuracy very close to correct, but then you fail to apply them to your examples. Radioactive dating is always factual. It is always hard data. The samples can be messed up, and generally are by creationists.
First, if the creation of a rock would include one radioisotope plus some of its daughters, if that ratio can be known, the rock can be dated. There is no need to have only “parent” atoms or molecules. There is a need to know the ratio — for example, carbon dating relies on the radioactive decay of carbon 14. Most of the carbon we use, consume and are made of, is carbon 12. The ratio of those two isotopes is very consistent for living, out-of-water creatures. Calculations of the ratios are used to date the things. So there is no need for “only” parent atoms. Few rocks on Earth are so pure.
Second, when you say “closed system,” you mean the sample must come from a closed rock matrix. Generally the rock is pulverized for the tests. It is essential, therefore, to know that the rock used is all from one source, and not from two or more sources. Consequently, if we sample lava that has gotten into a crevice of older granite, we cannot say the lava establishes the date of the granite. Nor does the granite establish the date of the lava. Such situations can generally offer two accurate dates, one for the older rock, and one for the younger rock — but the samples must be discrete. “Closed system” appears to be a mystery to Dr. Austin, for example — his famous sampling of granite which provided a very young date could not be replicated by others — it turns out that there were lava insertions into cracks in the granite, and Austin did not keep the samples discrete, nor did he inform the lab of what he had. His paper on polonium haloes was retracted from publication as a result.
Third, radioactive decay is always constant, with the possible exception of the interior of a nuclear reactor, including stars. Earth conditions generally cannot change the rate of decay. Radioactive decay is the most constant rhythm in the universe. Radioisotopes really are God’s clocks. The question becomes, can we read the hands on the dial accurately? Usually, if we’re careful and honest, we can.
Without looking it up to be sure I’ve got the right case, let me tell you some of the difficulties with Snelling’s sample. First, only carbon dating could come close to dating something less than 100 years old, and even carbon dating has been accurate only a few times. Nothing younger than 100 years old is suitable for radioisotope dating. But second, his sample consisted of rocks much older than the eruption — you don’t say what sort of sampling he used. Carbon dating would be inappropriate, since the lava was not alive. Generally, for lava, we use argon dating, which will give us the date of the lava flow. Creationists have often screwed this up by sending samples of crushed lava to labs that date uranium, or some other radioisotope which is inappropriate for lava. Snelling apparently did not read the methodology of the dating papers, and so he did not present a valid sample to the proper lab. Given that, and margins of error on certain isotopes like uranium, a date from .27 to 3.5 million years is reasonable. That’s about the youngest a uranium sample could be (I may be off on the isotope, but you get the idea). That’s an accurate reading, rendered inaccurate only by Snelling’s incompetence or deception — or, you can find such stories in the literature when scientists test the limits of such samples.
I think it’s dishonest to say the sampling is inaccurate in that case, when the sampling is perfectly accurate, but the conditions have been manipulated by people to get a rhetorical result.
Mt. St. Helens lava samples would be subject to the same problems — but as I recall, Austin got a sample from the lava dome in the crater. He ground up the rocks and asked for an argon sample reading. Rocks from the dome include older lava flows from the edge, younger lava from the interior and much older rocks thrust up with the lava. Argon dating would be inappropriate for dome samples, because the dome is not a consistent piece of lava from one flow. One could use individual chunks and see if a valid sample could be made — but Austin didn’t do that. It is likely that his sample (my recollection is he said “three rocks”) included three rocks from radically different ages.
That’s fraud. Austin’s study was never published because it couldn’t possibly survive peer review.
There have been valid dates achieved from Vesuvius — one pegged the lava at 75 A.D. — but generally, rock dating must be much older than 1,000 years. Carbon dating can be younger. You need to watch to be sure the method used is appropriate — there are at least six different isotopes used for dating, from different kinds of rock — and that the samples are pristine. Austin’s work doesn’t do that, Snelling’s might have, but he’s at the limits of what could be done with lava.
I have faith the rocks God made. I have faith in the radioisotopes God made. I lack faith in the creationists who jockey the data for their own gain.
LikeLike
Forgive me if this comment posts twice (it may or may not). I tried to post it and nothing happened. I tried to post it again and it said it was a duplicate comment.
I said, “Come on Ed, you know I don’t agree with that dating.”
You said, “That’s the real nexus of the problem. You don’t grant credence to science when findings conflict with your preferred view of the Bible. Not to put to fine a point on it to poke you with, but you’ve got your mind made up, *&$# the facts, full speed ahead.”
There is not one Godly reason to doubt that dating. The radioactive decay by which we corroborate the dates from the stars and sediments, is set by God (we Christians believe)…”
Riadioactive dating is not always factual Ed. There are three things that have to be constant for it to work with any degree of acuracy. 1) When rocks harden there should be only parent radioactive adams, 2) after hardening the rocks must remain in a “closed system”, and 3) the rate of radioactive decay must always remain constant. If any of those three are messed up then the dating is not accurate.
I’ll give both sides of this argument to be fair, hopefully. Dr. Andrew Snelling had an analysis taken from New Zealand of a volcano that had last erupted in 1955. He sent them in for analysis and got the results back that it was .27 mil to 3.5 mil years old. There has also been analysis done on Mt. St. Helens by Dr. Steven Austin that dates it between .34 mil. to 2.8 mil years old. These are just two examples. To be fair, the other side says that this is crank science because radioactive dating never claims to work on anything less than 2 million years old and Dr. Snelling should be ashamed for posing it to dating. However, they do claim to have dated
something (and I forget what, sorry) that is only 1,970 years old sucessfully.
Anyway, they give creationists a hard time for dating modern things and being surprised with the “millions of years” result because it doesn’t work that way. It only works on things that are at least 2 mil. years old. The problem is this: they begin with the presupposition that most strata really are millions of years old and so they can accurately date them accordingly. However, if history only goes back 6-20,000 years or so, how on earth do we know that the dating is accurate and that these things are really millions of years to begin with or that they are dating young items that appear to be millions of years old because of the method of dating? Remember it only works on items mil. of years old, not recently new items. So, if Scripture is correct, and we really do have a young earth, then the dating goes out the door because it wouldn’t work with a young earth. It simply depends on either starting with millions of years/denying God and His Word, or accepting God’s Word, accepting His timetable, and rejecting millions of years as unneeded. If dating of something that is only 50 years old or less comes back as .27 mil years old to 3.5 mil years old then how about the things that are coming back as 1 billion years old? If there is the same margin of error (which there’s probably not), those rocks are only several thousand years old, not billions. As I said before, we have the exact same data, it simply depends on which glasses you choose to see it through. For my part, I intend to be faithful to God and His Word because He says His word is truth, and it checks out as truth. You have more faith in falible men and their presuppositions than God Himself. Why would anyone base their life on faulty scientists who have rejected (not all of them mind you) God’s Word from the start and have started with faulty presuppositions?
“The stars were put in the heavens by God, we Christians believe. The sediments were deposited by erosional processes and gravity, set by God.
But, by God, creationists won’t pay attention to what we can learn from those God-given sources.”
They are very much paying attention and they are giving God the glory. They, however, look at the evidence and come to different conclusions. They better not be ignoring any evidence.
LikeLike
I said, “Come on Ed, you know I don’t agree with that dating.”
You said, “That’s the real nexus of the problem. You don’t grant credence to science when findings conflict with your preferred view of the Bible. Not to put to fine a point on it to poke you with, but you’ve got your mind made up, *&$# the facts, full speed ahead.”
There is not one Godly reason to doubt that dating. The radioactive decay by which we corroborate the dates from the stars and sediments, is set by God (we Christians believe)…”
Riadioactive dating is not always factual Ed. There are three things that have to be constant for it to work with any degree of acuracy. 1) When rocks harden there should be only parent radioactive adams, 2) after hardening the rocks must remain in a “closed system”, and 3) the rate of radioactive decay must always remain constant. If any of those three are messed up then the dating is not accurate.
I’ll give both sides of this argument to be fair, hopefully. Dr. Andrew Snelling had an analysis taken from New Zealand of a volcano that had last erupted in 1955. He sent them in for analysis and got the results back that it was .27 mil to 3.5 mil years old. There has also been analysis done on Mt. St. Helens by Dr. Steven Austin that dates it between .34 mil. to 2.8 mil years old. These are just two examples. To be fair, the other side says that this is crank science because radioactive dating never claims to work on anything less than 2 million years old and Dr. Snelling should be ashamed for posing it to dating. However, they do claim to have dated
something (and I forget what, sorry) that is only 1,970 years old sucessfully.
Anyway, they give creationists a hard time for dating modern things and being surprised with the “millions of years” result because it doesn’t work that way. It only works on things that are at least 2 mil. years old. The problem is this: they begin with the presupposition that most strata really are millions of years old and so they can accurately date them accordingly. However, if history only goes back 6-20,000 years or so, how on earth do we know that the dating is accurate and that these things are really millions of years to begin with or that they are dating young items that appear to be millions of years old because of the method of dating? Remember it only works on items mil. of years old, not recently new items. So, if Scripture is correct, and we really do have a young earth, then the dating goes out the door because it wouldn’t work with a young earth. It simply depends on either starting with millions of years/denying God and His Word, or accepting God’s Word, accepting His timetable, and rejecting millions of years as unneeded. If dating of something that is only 50 years old or less comes back as .27 mil years old to 3.5 mil years old then how about the things that are coming back as 1 billion years old? If there is the same margin of error (which there’s probably not), those rocks are only several thousand years old, not billions. As I said before, we have the exact same data, it simply depends on which glasses you choose to see it through. For my part, I intend to be faithful to God and His Word because He says His word is truth, and it checks out as truth. You have more faith in falible men and their presuppositions than God Himself. Why would anyone base their life on faulty scientists who have rejected (not all of them mind you) God’s Word from the start and have started with faulty presuppositions?
“The stars were put in the heavens by God, we Christians believe. The sediments were deposited by erosional processes and gravity, set by God.
But, by God, creationists won’t pay attention to what we can learn from those God-given sources.”
They are very much paying attention and they are giving God the glory. They, however, look at the evidence and come to different conclusions. They better not be ignoring any evidence.
LikeLike
You do realize that your view is less than 100 years old, right? Your view is based in theory only and does not reflect in any way what Jewish scholars have taught for century upon century.
I am surprised that you say Gen. 2 may be pre-exilic because it is Gen. 1 that has the word “El” which has more of a Canaanite origin than Babylonian. I’ve found scholars believe it to be either way. Either Gen. 2 was post exilic and Gen. 1 was pre, or the other way around. Really, they have no clue. Babylon also has the story of a Serpent helping Adam become immortal, rather than being evil, which is not found in chapter 1. Basically, if you throw out Moses, no one really has any idea who wrote Genesis. The JEDP theory has been mostly rejected by now, and the other theories don’t really have a lot of agreement with each other.
Do you really not believe that the Jewish people had no accounts of their ancestry that pre-dated the exile? Or do you simply see Genesis 1, and Genesis 6-9 as being from Babylon, but the rest of it is ok to be from Israel? I really don’t get the veracity of your theory at all. Nor do I see how they are from Babylon seeing that they disagree so much and would not have had time to be embelished with a Jewish twist so much by about 500BC.
Even Jesus attested to Moses’ authorship in John 5:45-47. He doesn’t specifically say which book, but He does attest that Moses wrote something! The Jewish people He was talking to would have assumed the Penteteuch. So, either Jesus is mistaken or you’re mistaken. Hmmm… let me choose here.
Were there books written during and after the exile? Yes. Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther, etc. Did anyone reputable before the 20th century believe that Genesis was one of them? None that I could find.
By the way, after doing a little bit of study, I want to let you know that Ussher was not the first person to come up with a young earth model, nor was. A Jewish rabbi named Jose ben Halafta was teaching it in the 2nd century AD. Here are the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yose_b._Halafta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_Olam_Rabba
I’m sorry, YEC did not start with Ussher or Darby. It is the old earth model that is relatively new. It finds its historical beginnings in the 18th century with James Hutton and is not “traditional Christianity” as you claim.
LikeLike
These aren’t going to be in order.
Exilic. I don’t think there’s a good case to be made otherwise. The story is the Babylonian creation story precisely, with an Israelite twist: Instead of recounting how all the many gods of Babylon came to be, the story says that the God of Israel was the creator of even those things Babylonians claim as gods. It was written, in verse form, as a device to help the Israelites keep their faith in a foreign land, to put their captors beneath the captives, part of a series of things the priests did to preserve the faith and keep hope of return to Jerusalem. Genesis 2 may have been pre-exilic; Genesis 1, no.
LikeLike
“Creationism isn’t about that at all. It’s about protecting the details of an idolatrous story, so that their prejudices can be preserved, and so that, like the Pharisees, they can be unbothered by the call to love other humans in their claims to be “chosen” and “good.”….In creationist theology, it’s a nuts and bolts how to story, intended to strike some kind of awe or fear in the hearts of people so they will be frightened of God and not sin.
Wow, is that really how you view Bible literalists? I will not argue with you that the call to love other humans has greatly gone unnoticed, and that is so totally wrong. I make no excuses for that in my own life and before God and whoever reads this, please forgive my part in being a Pharisee in this discussion. My desire has never been to lose the message for the letters. It breaks my heart when I come across that way and I am sorry.
My reasons (not that motivation makes any difference) for being here, having this discussion, is because I really feel bad for people who can’t stand on truth. Scripture is worth standing on. It’s worth loving, worth respecting, worth living by. It’s worth holding up and saying without a doubt, this is truth. But if you’ve thrown out one whole book, you’ve basically thrown out the baby and kept the bathwater.
“The God of Jesus doesn’t require exact steps of a dance in order to get to salvation. There is enough sin in the world to merit need of salvation.”
The only one who could save us would be the one who embodies truth. If He is not truthful 100% of the time, then we have a faith no different than any other.
“There is a practical reason to concern ourselves — if we can just find the gene by which sin is passed, and eradicate that, we’d have no need for Jesus, right? Then we run smash into the dangers of misinterpreting the Bible as a science text. If we regard the Bible as science, at some point we get to extremely stupid questions like that one.”
I agree. :-) However, regardless of how it happens, each child is a sinner. I have a 17 moth old little boy who already knows how to throw temper tantrums and get angry when he doesn’t get his way. If it isn’t an issue yet, I can know with 100% certainty, it sure will be. :-)
LikeLike
Ok, maybe I had more time than I thought. :-) Sorry for the length.
LikeLike
“Scripture tells us that we do not know the form of God — it may be great error to comprehend God in the form of a human.”
I totally agree! Jesus said that God is a spirit, so obviously it is not a physical form that is being presented when it says we are made in “God’s image.”
“By the way — have we discussed God’s changing His mind? His warning to Adam and Eve was that they would die on the day they ate the fruit. They didn’t die that day. A literal interpretation produces just one more inexplicable mystery, and the Darbyists invoke a string of more deceits from God to say it’s still literal, but not as we see it.”
Did God change His mind? No, you are correct that they spiritually died. Because of His mercy He didn’t strike them dead on the spot, but the death process began. Entropy began. And they did die, didn’t they? Facing the issue is a lot more honsest than saying it is simply “allegorical” and doesn’t mean anything because it is a myth.
You seem to want it both ways. You’re saying, “sure there was an Adam” but then you turn right around and call Genesis a mythg. Doesn’t seem consistent to me. You’re trying to have both.
“A literal interpretation of Genesis requires too much sleight of hand, too much dishonesty on the part of God. Such a god wouldn’t be worthy of worship.”
What? You call that “slight of hand”? How so?
“Oh, and I’m not claiming a literal Adam — I’m merely pointing out that there is absolutely no need for a literal Genesis 1 and 2 to get a literal Adam. I’m not limiting God’s power to created Adam when and in what form God chooses.”
So you’re not limiting God to what He says? So, He could have lied in Genesbut God is still trustworthy? What kind of a God do you think we serve? He didn’t lie in Genesis. It wasn’t simply a fabrication of Babylonian mythology. How could you trust a God that did that and then never once warned us that it wasn’t His Word, but it was a lie.
“In no case does Jesus or any of his disciples say, “By the way, the creation story in Genesis is the literal one, ignore the one in Baruch, ignore Ecclesiasticus,” or in any other way hint that it should be considered science”
No, they didn’t have to. They each cited the creation and the flood stories and never once said that they were myth, error, or mistaken. It would be like me talking about this blog. If I referenced this blog to make a point about some aspect of human behavior, if this blog didn’t really exist, would I use it as a point of reference? No, because it wouldn’t be real. Yes, those passages that you mentioned weren’t talking about creation or the flood, but they referenced those things as really happening to make their case for the point they were trying to make. Why didn’t they talk about Gilgamesh, or Horus, or Zeus, or Ra? Because they obviously didn’t hold those stories to be true and didn’t want to put their stamp of approval on them.
Ex. 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
“In any case, here the six-day creation is invoked to emphasize the importance of sabbath. God is not saying, “Oh, and by the way, Genesis is a science text.” Instead, this is a literary allusion (again) on the way to a recital of the power of God, on the way to remind that even God keeps the sabbath. This is a frequent device in argument: “If even the King follows this rule, you, who are not the king, will follow this rule.” ”
By what you said, the King didn’t follow the rule. If the six days of creation were only allegorical, or mythological, then there would have been no precedence for God to call for a six day work week. It says that “therefore”, because of how God created it, because He set the presedence on how it should be Himself, Israel should follow th Sabbath. If there were no creation ther ewould be no rule to follow and the whole point would be ruined.
You are correct that the word is “yom.” It is the same in Genesis. It is also used with “Day of Atonement”, “Day of the Lord” etc. One thing you have to remember with Hebrew is that context is very, very important to determining the usage of the word. There is nothing in the context that suggests that “yom” is used in any way other than a literal day in this passage. Espesially since in verse nine He uses the word “yom” to say they should work six “days (yom).” The Jewish people took that to mean six literal days there (and they still reflect it in observing the Sabbath) so why would they expect the other six “days (yom)” to not be literal days? Other contexts of “yom” indicate in those senses it mean “period of time.” In no case however is it ever understood to be a gradual, eventual, evolving day. If evolution were intended it never would have been more than one day. It would have been “the day of creation” or something like that. It wouldn’t have had six days. The Big Bang is one event, and so if the Bible were teaching it, it would have just been one “day.”
I never said that the “point” of any of those passages was to teach creation and a literal flood. I have no desire to take away from the point of the passage. However, it takes away from the point if they are referencing non-existent events. If I said that Thor is a creative god and that we shoul d strive to be great like Thor. Yeah, my point may be to strive for greatness, but my whole point is negated in the fact that there is no Thor! How can we know that the points Jesus made, that the points Paul and Peter made were accurate if they cited illustrations that were myths but not one had the decency to say, “this story is fiction.” You come at it from the angle, “they never said it was literal.” From what I understand of conversation, you assume something is literal unless the speaker informs you he is not. You didn’t take my illustration on Thor literal because I told you it was an illustration. These guys, including Christ, never gave any allusion to the story of Noah and the flood or the earth as being anything but 100% accurate and so it is simply rude to take it otherwise.
In Hebrews 11, the point of the chapter is faith, but you claim that Noah’s flood is not real or the point of the passage (I agree that it is not the point, but faith is the point). If that is the case that Noah is not real, then Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Samuel, and even King David himself could also have been made up stories to illustrate faith. No one disputes that King David ever lived but he is given right alongside Noah in the same chapter to illustrate faith without the author ever once saying “hey, we’re switching from fictitious characters to real ones now.”
So, there’s two ways of looking at it. Either they were cited as real events and they really did happen, as they said they happened, or Jesus, and the disciples were all simply “unaware” of how it really happened. I find it hard to believe in a Christ who is unaware of how the earth was made when it says in Colossians that it was Jesus Himself who was the instrument of creation. Col. 1:16, 17, “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” Now those are some verses that speak of creation as being literal and it WAS the point of the pasage to show God’s amazing creative power through Jesus Christ. It in not set out as allegory but as a literal fact. But maybe Paul got it wrong when he wrote Colossians…
I still will again say, if Genesis is not real, how can we trust the rest of Scripture? It is real!
“All I’m saying is that we know, unless God is a great deceiver, that there never has been a time when the entire surface of the Earth was underwater.”
I would simply reply that some places left more evidence behind than others (and there are plenty of places that show evidence). If the flood happened, there wouldn’t have been enough plants, animals, etc. to fill up the entire planet. If you look at Spirit Lake at Mt. St. Helens the log mats kind of float together and move together. I believe the same thing happened with the flood. The floating mats that would have resulted from the flood grouped together and left some areas with almost lasting effects while others were teaming with fossils, oil, etc. However, there are truly billions of dead things laid down in sediments all over the earth that would suggest catastrophe. I’m not saying there weren’t local floods either. I’m not saying there werent’ volcanos or other things that caused catastrophe. All I’m saying is that I believe you abandoned your Bible too soon because the evidence didn’t match up how you would have expected it to happen. However, it does stack up how it did happen and there is enough evidence to show that there was a flood to have faith that the Bible told an accurate portrayal of what happened.
Regarding there not being enough water, if the mountains weren’t as high as they are now and if the valleys in the oceans weren’t as deep as they are now, there would be no issue whatsoever. I’m surprised you tried to make that a point.
“Was there a guy named Noah? Why not? Was he faithful to God? Great.”
Did the Israelis (who seem to live off their geneologies) of the time keep records that could be dated all the way back to Noah? Why not? If there weren’t that many gaps in the geneologies, then it would have been easy to trace things back to the flood since the chronology has Shem still living in the times of Abraham. They would have had a first hand account of what happened. Did the story get embelished as it spread the world? Oh yeah! But the ones who meticulously payed attention to detain and getting things accurate (as seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls) would have been able to preserve the story very accurately and not simply “borrowed” from Babylon. There are too many differences between the Babylonian story and the Biblical story to know that’s not true.
“Which is it? When I note Isaiah 34:14 notes Adam’s first wife, Lilith, was real, you dismiss it. Now you cite Isaiah as an authority?”
I did nto dismiss Lilith. If you want to go back and see my answer I did not dismiss it or dismiss Isaiah as an authority because of it.
“It’s a literary allusion. Yes, it says that God destroyed the Earth once — but this verse is part of Isaiah’s message of hope after the destruction of the nation as Isaiah (or Isaiahs, most likely) had foretold (all the prophets’ books follow this model).”
Exactly. You get the message that he was trying to make. However, as I stated before, if the illustration never happened, he either should have told us, or should have used a different illustration. It wouldn’t have been very effective to warn Israel about coming judgment and then use an illustration about judgment that hadn’t really happened. Israel would have been like, “ok, so we’re not going to be judged because there really wasn’t a judgement earlier?” They believed it was real. So either they were wrong, or we, 2,000-2,500 years later should take it as real as well.
Don’t dishonor them by saying they weren’t saying what they were really saying.
Hosea was another good example that you brought up. He used Hosea as an example of what He literally intended to do. However, it wouldn’t have been very effective if there hadn’t been a real Hosea or Gomer.
“Later in that same chapter God says that He will restore the city of Jerusalem, with foundations of sapphire, with fortresses built of rubies, with gates built of jewels and walls of gems. Is that literal, also? At what point does God’s voice change from literal to poetic or allegorical there?”
Yes, I believe that will literally one day happen. I make no appologies for it either. The Bible also says that the new Jerusalem will have gates of pearls. Yes, I believe there is a new, magnificent Jerusalem and that God has not forsaken His chosen people.
The problem with allegory apart from where Scripture demands it, is that we become the authority rather than the Word of God. We can make the Bible say just whatever we please because we’re the interpreters. Why do you think we have so many denominations today? Its because people simply won’t let God speak for Himself and simply obey His Word. They want to be the authority. That’s what got the Catholic church into so much trouble is because the church is now as big of an authority as the Bible. Not smart.
God’s voice changes from literal to allegorical when he tells us that he’s being allegorical (Revelation uses many allegories). For instance, in Revelation it describes Jesus as having a two edged sword coming out of His mouth. Is that literal? No, Revelation tells us that it uses allegory, so it must be an illustration for Christ’s power in speaking or the power of God’s Word. Unless it tells you to, or demands it from the context, we should take the Bible literally.
“And, by the way, at this point, Genesis 1 had not yet been written.”
What?! Do you hold that Genesis was post exilic? Come on, do you really think they got the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from Babylon too? The accounts of Genesis were handed down along with the rest of the books of the law. This is verified when the priest found the books of the law in the temple back in Josiah’s day, before the exile. These sacred books were pre-exile.
I still wonder why God didn’t tell Noah to move if it was a local flood. He gave them over 100 years, so it wasn’t a question of moving being difficult. If it was, I’m sure it would have been a lot easier than building a giant barge.
“This verse testifies to Peter’s belief in the value of faith. That’s a more important lesson, and I don’t think we should torture scripture to make it say something else completely unrelated.”
I totally agree that was Peter’s point. Here is what the verses in 2 Peter say, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked…The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:”
If any of those things didn’t really happen, what’s the threat to us? Why do we share with people that they need a Savior if there has never been a judgment and never will be a judgment? The Gospel loses its power if God is just a bunch of empty threats. “God knows how to deliver the godly, but if your not, you really don’t have to worry about it because its a myth and allegorical at best.” Is that how we handle Scripture?
“This shows Jesus knew the story; it does not testify to the veracity of the story in any way, and especially it does not say that science is in error, that the Earth lies about whether it was flooded.”
Then this shows that Jesus was either lied to about the story or was a liar Himself for not sharing that the story was in error. Either that or both Jesus and Genesis are both accurate and there really was a flood! If you’re a Christian, don’t you think the words of Jesus Christ Himself would be good enough to say something happened? Who is the authority on the subject here? Us or Jesus?
“Scripture doesn’t say it is so accurate.”
Then if it is not accurate on those fronts, how do we know it is accurate on our salvation or any other front? If I lie to my wife about having an affair or something, and she finds out, do you think she would be content with my answer that I just lied about this one thing and that everything else is accurate? No, I doubt we’d be on very good speaking terms at that point. If God claims to have written Scripture, and Genesis is a part of Scripture, then if He got it wrong there, it doesn’t make me too comfortable with the rest of it. My conclusion is either that He got it all right or that if Genesis is a lie, even if other areas contain some truths, it is not worth basing my life on, because it wouldn’t be wholly true.
“In each verse you cite, what the Bible says is a message about faith and keeping promises. If we stretch the Bible beyond what it says, we make it inaccurate. Why would anyone stretch it so? What the Bible says is true.”
You sound like a Bible literalist when you say that. You are the one saying that Genesis is a myth and a result of the Jew’s time in Babylon. You are taking every passage that references creation or the flood and saying it has nothing to do with the story and should be ignored because it doesn’t explicitely say “this is literal.”
“Since the Bible doesn’t say that geology is in error, study of geology is not a Bible-defying act. It is contrary to the Bible to claim that it is.”
I am not saying that the Bible says studying geology is error or any science for that matter. I’m saying your interpretation of the facts are in error and the Bible is right on par with what happened and it is evidenced in geology, astronomy, biology, etc. It is not a science book, but it is scientifically accurate. It is not a history book, but when it references history, it is accurate. Your interpretations are in error, not the Bible.
LikeLike
That’s the real nexus of the problem. You don’t grant credence to science when findings conflict with your preferred view of the Bible. Not to put to fine a point on it to poke you with, but you’ve got your mind made up, damn the facts, full speed ahead.
There is not one Godly reason to doubt that dating. The radioactive decay by which we corroborate the dates from the stars and sediments, is set by God (we Christians believe). The stars were put in the heavens by God, we Christians believe. The sediments were deposited by erosional processes and gravity, set by God.
But, by God, creationists won’t pay attention to what we can learn from those God-given sources.
LikeLike
“The God who runs that universe is a force to be reckoned with, unlike the creationist God who waves a wand to magically move all the poop out of Eden — daily? hourly?”
Did I say He did that? Did anyone say that? Ed, please be fair. The answer is simply that we just don’t have enough information in Scripture or anywhere to determine exactly what a pre-fall world would have looked like. Even if (as you claim) it was only spiritual death that was a result of the fall, the Bible does say that there were other effects as well. For instance, labor would be very painful, the serpent was cursed and its form was physically changed, and the whole ground was cursed so that we have thorns and thistles (weeds). I believe these were given as examples as what changes happened, but I don’t think the Bible gave an exhaustive list because it wasn’t the point.
What I am saying is that I can very easily believe from Scripture that pre-fall, everything, including animals, plants, and even virus’, worked together in perfect harmony. Instead of being harmful, e coli as you mentioned, could have been a benefit. God states in Isaiah that one day the lion will lay down with the lamb and the Bible also says that one day the curse will be lifted and that death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire and there will be no more death. Things will be restored to the way they were before the fall. If there was death of the “nephesh” before the fall, there would be no restoring it to pre-fall conditions.
“There is corroboration for the state of the Earth running back about 4.5 billion years.”
Come on Ed, you know I don’t agree with that dating.
“And the corroboration we have — from the Hand of God, mind you — denies Genesis’ creation story as science, denies creationism’s claims, and supports the understanding of traditional science and Christianity that natural processes are responsible for what we can see, as far back as we can see. ”
Um, no it doesn’t. You’re simply looking through it with different glasses, starting with a different pre-supposition.
Just one instance where evidence does not support the age you mentioned, nor the Big Bang, is the fact that we have spiral galaxies. From what I understand, the inner core of those galaxies spin faster than the outer edges of the galaxy. The older the galaxy is, the more twisted it gets and more tigher it gets. If the universe were as old as you contend, these galaxies would have been long gone already because they would be a jarbled mess.
I’ve tried to find those pictures that you keep refering to, but the only thing I see is pictures of already formed galaxies and nebula. Where are these pictures of the Big Bang? Are you sure the pictures you claim that are 200,000 years after the Big Bang are really pictures of objects that old? If so, there’s no way on earth (pun intended) those whole galaxies could have formed in only 200,000 years.
“Better to leave that creation to natural conditions untended by a benevolent God, than to imagine the twisted mind that invented that creature. Or the cat that toys with the dying mouse. Creationism makes God the inventor of horror, to what purpose?”
Wow, I really find it hard to understand why you made that claim. I find an “untended” world from a “loving God” an oxymoron. A God that simply “caused” the world and then let go and simply allowed the suffering, horrors, and evils to rule the earth would not be a loving God, but an apethetic, uncaring, unloving God.
LikeLike
Nor is there any place in scripture that explicitly claims there was no death before the fall. Staking a position on one side of the issue, either side, is an extra-scriptural exercise. Romans 5:20 is ambiguous about whose death, or what kind of death it’s talking about. But creationists are stuck with several dilemmas. For example, if animals have no souls, what would be the purpose of their immortality, or their lack of death? Why invoke a cascading, increasingly complex set of necessary miracles to make Eden work, if animals don’t have souls — and this is wholly apart from the practical issues of consumption, waste and waste removal. What is the difference between the simplest plant an animal life? Who can say (echoing Ecclesiastes 3) that one has a soul or consciousness, and the other doesn’t? There is no bright line we can draw between animal and plant life; there is no bright line we can draw between humans and other animals on other issues, either.
The bottom line is that nowhere in scripture is there a claim that creation is corrupt because of Adam — and one step farther, nowhere is there any scriptural justification to claim that science does not have the facts exactly right, say with the red-shift dating of the age of stars, or radioisotope dating of substances.
You don’t find death before the Fall; but neither is there immortality for all things before the fall, and there is no denial of evolution before or after the fall. How much should we read into scripture that really isn’t there?
So it seems to me that creationism requires a set of ignorances of nature and how nature works. It simply does not survive scrutiny otherwise.
Then, does it matter whether Joseph Smith adds to scripture? If you don’t care about Darby, who created the modern creationist doctrine, why should we care about Joseph Smith and later Mormon prophets?
No, the Bible doesn’t say “there was no death before the Fall, no death of anything.” The Bible doesn’t say “carnivores were vegetarian before the Fall.” The Bible doesn’t say “plants are inferior life forms.” The Bible doesn’t say “evolution, though demonstrated by nature, is not accurate.” The Bible doesn’t say “creationism is the way to go.” Especially the Bible doesn’t say “count up the years in the begats to figure out how old are the everlasting hills.”
Please understand that you’re not going with the Bible, but with a peculiar interpretation of scripture that is not shared by most Christians, and that is not easy to extract from a plain reading of scripture in any case.
Why can’t we trust what God wrote in the rocks to tell us what the “pre-fall” was like? Oh, yeah — we can’t tell when the fall occurred by nature, since nature is the same throughout history (except for changes wrought by living things, especially with regard to the evolution of living things). But nowhere does scripture suggest which parts of creation are true and which are false — or that any part is false at all.
I’m not rich in time today, either. But let me jump to the end of your last post: No, I’m not Catholic.
LikeLike
Here’s a bunch of quotes from early church fathers, if you have a lot of time on your harnds. Augustine was really interesting in his views. It seems he wasn’t really clear on what he believed regarding creation. He didn’t believe they were literal, but then he said that the earth (at that time) was less than 6,000 years old (a Darbyite I’m sure).
Many church fathers believed in a literal creation, many did not. Creationists and theistic evolutionists both want to try and claim that the early church had it all figured out. They more wrestled with Christ, and did He have two wills, was He divine, etc? As we’ve said, it is not a test of Cristianity, but in my estimation, a test of how much faith you have in God’s Word.
http://www.creationism.org/articles/EarlyChurchLit6Days.htm
This article shows honestly that many had contrary views.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401frs.asp
LikeLike
By the way, if you’re Catholic (which I am guessing you are) and you give credence to church decrees, be reminded of this one that was said at the council of Carthage:
THAT whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body — that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED ATCARTHAGE p. 496
LikeLike
Ed, I don’t have a whole lot of time today, but I will do what I can to reply to what you’ve written.
You said, “Are you arguing that Adam was immortal from the start? That doesn’t really square with scripture, I think. This is another place where the Darbyites have added to the story what cannot be found in scripture.”
Since, according to Scripture Adam was a sinless, perfect, direct creation of God, in His image, I see no reason to assume that he wasn’t immortal. I don’t find anywhere in Scripture that states there was death before the fall. If it’s a “Darbyite” view, it is by accident because I have no clue what Darby taught on the subject, nor do I care. What I care about is what the Bible says and it never says that there was death before the fall, but resulted from Adam’s sin. Whether you think it is simply spiritual, you are simply using pragmatism to determine that man’s physical death is not a result of the fall. Scripture vs. pragmatism… I’m going with the Bible, sorry Ed.
However, I’m not suggesting that you have to check your brain in at the door either. You bring up valid concerns with the view, based on micro biology and the ecosystem. Since neither of us know what a pre-fall was like, I am simply going to accept on faith that God had it worked out. Was there poop? Probably, but it was perfectly functioning poop. :-)
““Adam” was the first man because there had to be a first one. Mortal death doesn’t change that.”
So, did Adam arise from a long string of evolutionary ancestry? Were these previous ancestors all untested and spiritually in tune with God? Did they go to heaven? How can we call Adam the “first man” if man is still evolving and evolved before Adam? If evolution is true, Lucy should be the ancestor we’re looking to, not Adam.
“I also don’t think scripture is clear about ensoulment — this is a key issue for the Catholic church, by the way, with a lot of writing and arguing back and forth, with scriptural basis on several different sides. One issue is whether souls are unique to humans.”
I’ve heard arguments go back and forth both ways. Really, the issue in Scripture is not if men have souls, but if animals do as well. Mankind exists past their deaths in scripture, that much is very clear. I personally see mankind having a unique relationship with God that animals do not share. Jesus didn’t have to die for my dog, in other words. :-)
“I’ve heard a few argue for the soul of the bush that burned before Moses.”
Wow, I’ve never heard that one. How did they defend that? Did they say that plants have souls too?
“There is not a solid enough distinction between plant and animal life to claim one form was alive and one form not.”
I did not intend to say that plant life was not alive. I simply believe that life comes in different classes, that’s all. You don’t cry when you eat a piece of brocolli do you? Why? Because even from the beginning of the world, plant life was intended to be food for us. If you notice in Genesis too, it mentions that animals also ate plants and not meat. So, for that reason, I would say that the ecosystem was set up for plants to be the exlusive source of nutrition.
“How much cleaner simply to note that at some point humans emerged. Call the first human Adam.”
So why was he unique? Where did the fall come into play? If it isn’t important, why on earth did Jesus Christ have to die for our sins if there was no point of time in which we failed? You seem to be saying that sin, death, and suffering are all pre-fall. If that is the case, then God is the the author of suffering because it was not the result of man’s failutre. By what you’re saying, the atheists are right that God is a cruel, and immoral god because He “caused” suffering, pain, and death. Wow! This is Scriptural? I think not. If the fall were simply spiritual, what was the condition of those previous to Adam?
“If humans didn’t emerge from a long line of evolution, what’s the point of all the hominid fossils. Were they God’s draft humans? God couldn’t get it right the first 20 or so times?”
I will not argue that man’s appearance has changed over the years, but I will argue in all of the fossils that are truly genuine (many have been proven to be false) they are either fully human decendents of Adam with different family genetics (if you compared a Cacasian skeleton with a pygmie skeleton you’d think they were different points of evolution), or others were never a part of the human ancestory at all, but extinct primates.
“The existence of firm evidence in nature of life from long ago requires either that God be a deceiver, as creationists often claim,”
This is a truth only in your own mind. I’ve never heard a creationist say that God is deceptive, ever.
“…or that we accept the evidence God’s creation offers as a straight up story of how life came to be so diverse. I don’t have any problem trusting God versus the creationists on this one.”
Both sides are saying that we need to accept the evidence Ed. The whole point I keep trying to make is that we have the same exact evidence and both are able and willing to use it. Evolutionists simply refuse to give credence to the idea that science, creationism, and the Bible are not at odds with each other but can live in harmony and unity. The difference is that when a “problem” arises that hasn’t yet been researched, theistic evolutionists ditch the Bible as being in error wherever and whenever it is challenged. Creationists simply believe the Bible to be true and that the more we study science honestly, the more science backs up the claims of Scripture. That doesn’t mean there are things we don’t understand (like the pre-fall ecosystem) but it does mean that we’re just going to trust God that since He was there, He knew how it happened. If He didn’t take care of things back then, how can we know He will take care of us when we die?
Both interpretations have reasons for holding to them. No one would ever have accepted evolution if it wasn’t at least plausible.
LikeLike
lowerleavell said:
Thinking about this, I recall another reason that craetionism bothers me, theologically. The point of the Jesus story is that there is hope. Sinners can be forgiven, sins can be washed away, because Jesus accepted the burden of those sins before what the colonial American preacher Jonathan Edwards would have called “an angry God.” The point of Jesus’ teachings is to get people to avoid doing evil, to avoid sin, and more importantly, to love other human beings as God would, and act that way toward them.
Creationism isn’t about that at all. It’s about protecting the details of an idolatrous story, so that their prejudices can be preserved, and so that, like the Pharisees, they can be unbothered by the call to love other humans in their claims to be “chosen” and “good.” In Christian theology, the Genesis story is that God is the creator, and God creates out of love; when humans sin, God gets angry, but ultimately provides a means of forgiveness of sins so that sinners and God can be reconciled, for eternity, when humans learn how to love unconditionally and forever. In creationist theology, it’s a nuts and bolts how to story, intended to strike some kind of awe or fear in the hearts of people so they will be frightened of God and not sin.
The God of Jesus doesn’t require exact steps of a dance in order to get to salvation. There is enough sin in the world to merit need of salvation.
Another conflict arises here, too. Ancient debates considered whether each newborn child carried with it the sins of Adam. That seems terribly unfair, and even ancient understanding of heredity suggested biological difficulty with such a reading. We have Exodus 20:5, and Ezekiel 18:20. Most faithful people tend to side with the Ezekiel reading, except in odd circumstances.
There is a practical reason to concern ourselves — if we can just find the gene by which sin is passed, and eradicate that, we’d have no need for Jesus, right? Then we run smash into the dangers of misinterpreting the Bible as a science text. If we regard the Bible as science, at some point we get to extremely stupid questions like that one.
LikeLike
I think that in each case, they refer to the fact of creation, or they make a literary allusion to a creation story. In no case does Jesus or any of his disciples say, “By the way, the creation story in Genesis is the literal one, ignore the one in Baruch, ignore Ecclesiasticus,” or in any other way hint that it should be considered science. The how of creation, the time that creation took, or any claim against evolution in the future, is not the topic they address.
I don’t have a Hebrew version handy; my recollection is that the Hebrew word “yom” is used here, as it is in Genesis 1. “Yom” can be translated to “day,” but it is more accurate to translate it as “period of time” in an undeterminate way. In other places the word is used in a way that it cannot mean one day.
In any case, here the six-day creation is invoked to emphasize the importance of sabbath. God is not saying, “Oh, and by the way, Genesis is a science text.” Instead, this is a literary allusion (again) on the way to a recital of the power of God, on the way to remind that even God keeps the sabbath. This is a frequent device in argument: “If even the King follows this rule, you, who are not the king, will follow this rule.”
My chief criticism here is that I think this is a great case of scripture abuse, to cite this as evidence of a literal Genesis story. The point could not be farther away, the scripture is not addressing issue of literal scripture, nor is it addressing the issue of science. God is talking about keeping the sabbath. That doesn’t corroborate that Genesis is science.
The lack of a worldwide, Everest-topping flood in no way suggests someone named Noah did not exist. You’re missing the point.
Nor is the lack of a worldwide, Everest-topping flood to mean that no local floods every occurred. All I’m saying is that we know, unless God is a great deceiver, that there never has been a time when the entire surface of the Earth was underwater. There is not enough water on the planet, there could not be enough water on the planet (“where did it come from; where did it go?” cannot be answered by “fountains of the deep”); there is no geological evidence to support it. All fossil evidence denies such a flood. All fossil evidence — every fossil we know of was laid down other than in a massive, worldwide flood.
Was there a guy named Noah? Why not? Was he faithful to God? Great. Did he live on the floor of what is now the Black Sea, perhaps, and did he make a great barge to carry away all of his domestic animals and a few others? Perhaps (some question about how he could get any wood, but let’s ignore that for the moment).
Listing Noah in a genealogy cannot overcome the geology, ice cores, and other evidence from God’s hand, all of which denies a flood that massive, as described.
Which is it? When I note Isaiah 34:14 notes Adam’s first wife, Lilith, was real, you dismiss it. Now you cite Isaiah as an authority?
It’s a literary allusion. Yes, it says that God destroyed the Earth once — but this verse is part of Isaiah’s message of hope after the destruction of the nation as Isaiah (or Isaiahs, most likely) had foretold (all the prophets’ books follow this model). The message is that once this destruction is done, and Israelites have repented, God will again protect them and restore the covenantal protections he promised (see also the story of Hosea and Gomer). Later in that same chapter God says that He will restore the city of Jerusalem, with foundations of sapphire, with fortresses built of rubies, with gates built of jewels and walls of gems. Is that literal, also? At what point does God’s voice change from literal to poetic or allegorical there?
Were God addressing the issue of whether Genesis is supposed to be literal, whether it’s a science text, I’d give it credence to that point. But it’s not. This section is part of Isaiah’s message that God will keep the promises God makes.
And, by the way, at this point, Genesis 1 had not yet been written.
Again, I’m not saying Noah did not exist. Nor am a I denying a huge, local flood. I merely note that good Christians have understood for 200 years now that a flood exactly as described in Genesis 8 did not occur. The filling of the Black Sea fits the time, approximately, and it’s easy to see how it could be interpreted as a worldwide flood, for people who could not travel 100 miles easily. If we assume the Bosporus opened up during a time of rainstorms, the Black Sea’s flooding fits the description very well. I see no reason farmers along the stream then at the bottom of what is now the sea might have not gone off in different directions, never to see each other again. It’s easy to think that someone might have been able to save their farm animals with a boat — the lake enlarged by about a mile a day on either shore, so if someone could move the animals at least a mile a day, they could outrun the flood. But of course, at the end, there was a sea-sized body of salt water that never retreated.
And if there were people near the Bosporus, when the dam broke, they probably died in an enormous deluge — several times the size of Niagara Falls, by most accounts (see the National Geographic site on the issue: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/)
Again, I think you’re abusing scripture to make such a claim. That verse talks about the value of faith, not the scientific accuracy of any scripture (for that matter, there is no place in scripture where a claim is made that science is wrong, let alone on these issues). The issue addressed is not whether a flood ever occurred, but whether the people addressed have faith.
No, that’s not at all what it says. It says Christ suffered, Christians will suffer, and such suffering is a form of baptism. Again the message is a spiritual one unrelated to any claim of literalness for any scripture, or science accuracy. The question is, what happens when people are faithful. Unless you’re arguing that Noah could not have been rewarded if there was no flood — something else which is not in scripture — then the issue is whether Noah was faithful and what did he get for it. This verse testifies to Peter’s belief in the value of faith. That’s a more important lesson, and I don’t think we should torture scripture to make it say something else completely unrelated.
Always, when Jesus referred to Noah, it was on a separate issue. Someone asked Jesus when God would come bringing salvation, when the end of everything would occur, and Jesus said people cannot know (so, Jesus said, be good always, and always keep the laws). Jesus said the end surprises many, as in the story of Noah, how people were surprised by the rain and flood. This shows Jesus knew the story; it does not testify to the veracity of the story in any way, and especially it does not say that science is in error, that the Earth lies about whether it was flooded.
How could anyone read those stories and misunderstand them so? They are stories about faith, about the value of faith, about how God keeps promises. In no case is it a story about a flood and the geology that would result from it.
Why should we insist that the Bible be a science text? How can one read scripture and believe that the stories must be accurate in each jot and tittle in order for any of it to be of use? Scripture doesn’t say it is so accurate. Nothing in scripture encourages us to make such a judgment. It’s a modern, non-traditional invention, usually used now as an answer to “do you have proof?” No, we don’t have proof. We have faith.
In each and every example of the verses you cite here, the Bible is not talking about interpreting any story literally. The Bible is not saying it is a science text, and accurate on details of science. In each verse you cite, what the Bible says is a message about faith and keeping promises. If we stretch the Bible beyond what it says, we make it inaccurate. Why would anyone stretch it so? What the Bible says is true. The Bible doesn’t say Genesis is the only account of creation (there are several others in scripture); the Bible doesn’t say Genesis is scientifically accurate. The Bible doesn’t say the Earth lies about its origins.
Since the Bible doesn’t say that geology is in error, study of geology is not a Bible-defying act. It is contrary to the Bible to claim that it is.
LikeLike
I was wondering if you’d also add a comment on the references I pointed out, like Jesus teaching that creation and the flood were literal. After that I will comment on as much as I can. Right now I need to get going for the day and am not going to have time to comment. Sorry.
LikeLike
Oh, and I’m not claiming a literal Adam — I’m merely pointing out that there is absolutely no need for a literal Genesis 1 and 2 to get a literal Adam. I’m not limiting God’s power to created Adam when and in what form God chooses.
LikeLike
You are making the mistake of claiming conditions were different when we know they weren’t. There is corroboration for the state of the Earth running back about 4.5 billion years. There is much, much, much more corroboration for the state of the Earth a few thousand years ago as most literalists wish to date the Earth. And the corroboration we have — from the Hand of God, mind you — denies Genesis’ creation story as science, denies creationism’s claims, and supports the understanding of traditional science and Christianity that natural processes are responsible for what we can see, as far back as we can see.
Corroboration. All the real eyewitness testimony, such as the photos of the universe about 200,000 years after the Big Bang (more than 12 billion years ago), deny the Genesis story as science. Christians believe God is responsible for the corroborating data: Either God is deceiving us with all of creation, or Genesis is not a science text.
There’s a need for Adam to start the human race, complete with souls, with the capacity to sin, with a need for salvation. That’s not an inherent barrier, I don’t find it any barrier at all. It requires a more careful, caring and patient God than the god of the creationists, but why can’t God pick the first humans to rise, designate them the literal Adam and Eve, and carry on from there? There is no barrier. If you’re positing a God who does silly miracles to hide poop, why not posit a grander God, who does serious miracles to strike humans as conscious, self-aware, and capable of knowing right from wrong and choosing how to act? God doesn’t need to correspond to Ockham’s theorem, but why shouldn’t he? Conservation of miracles seems to me a much better way to run a universe. Let God worry about the big stuff.
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking scientists are atheists. Darwin had difficulty thinking of a God who would personally design the wasps that prey on the caterpillars, laying eggs in the caterpillar, the eggs to hatch and eat the innards and brain of the living caterpillar to the caterpillar’s great agony. Better to leave that creation to natural conditions untended by a benevolent God, than to imagine the twisted mind that invented that creature. Or the cat that toys with the dying mouse. Creationism makes God the inventor of horror, to what purpose?
There is no barrier of any sort to God’s creation of a universe that gives way to intelligent life. Scripture tells us that we do not know the form of God — it may be great error to comprehend God in the form of a human. We cannot know. But the careful, 4-billion-years-patient God who waits for the rise of an intelligent species, that’s a God worthy of worship.
If one assumes simply, as Genesis states, that Adam had an immortal soul in an animal body, and what Adam got from eating the fruit was the possibility of spiritual death, the scriptures make much more sense.
By the way — have we discussed God’s changing His mind? His warning to Adam and Eve was that they would die on the day they ate the fruit. They didn’t die that day. A literal interpretation produces just one more inexplicable mystery, and the Darbyists invoke a string of more deceits from God to say it’s still literal, but not as we see it.
A literal interpretation of Genesis requires too much sleight of hand, too much dishonesty on the part of God. Such a god wouldn’t be worthy of worship.
LikeLike
A God of bowels and poop removal?
If anyone ate prior to the Fall, there was excrement. As I noted earlier, if there were no bacteria, Eden would have quickly become a stinking cess-garden. I think it requires just too many miracles to make an Eden where plants grow without benefit of microbes in the soil, and where excrement disappears magically. God as a magical toilet-maker seems almost blasphemous. I cannot believe God would do such a bizarre, stupid design.
And that’s another key point. Creationists too often assume life to be much simpler and much less wondrous than it is. I think this is a cheapening of creation. Dick Feynman once wrote an essay about his silly artist friend who thought scientists somehow crippled in looking at a flower, because the scientist understands the genus and species name, the methods of nutrient and waste transport, and all the details that remove the mystery from the flower. But the reality is that one generally stands more in awe of the flower when one knows the facts. Go see: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/04/richard_feynman.html
Which reminds me of something I forgot: If there were no bacteria, Adam and Eve would not have been able to get nutrients from the plant matter they ate, since humans (and most mammals) are unable to digest plant fibers, but instead count on the bacteria in our gut to do the work.
Did you know that each human has her or his own species of e. coli to do the digestion? In addition to all those species of the bacteria in the wild, there are at least another six billion, one for each person on Earth. It’s probably true for most other mammals, too. Creationists regard such things as better done with a magic wand. A smart creationist would look at what life really is, and then claim God is wonderful — though the design is nowhere apparent in a real look. God must be the mystery force, more powerful and more detailed. As Haldane said, the universe is not only queerer than we do imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine. The God who runs that universe is a force to be reckoned with, unlike the creationist God who waves a wand to magically move all the poop out of Eden — daily? hourly?
The garden itself is a miracle, even if wholly natural. We do not need to create fairies in the grasses to make it more beautiful, nor more mysterious.
LikeLike
Are you arguing that Adam was immortal from the start? That doesn’t really square with scripture, I think. This is another place where the Darbyites have added to the story what cannot be found in scripture. I don’t believe there is any Christian authority for a claim that Adam was immortal from the start. Spiritually, perhaps, yes — but there really is too little in Genesis to suggest that all things were immortal to start with.
“Adam” was the first man because there had to be a first one. Mortal death doesn’t change that.
I also don’t think scripture is clear about ensoulment — this is a key issue for the Catholic church, by the way, with a lot of writing and arguing back and forth, with scriptural basis on several different sides. One issue is whether souls are unique to humans. The usual Christian tradition is that souls are not unique to humans. This is determined because it would be against the nature of God to use animals and discard them, as in the case of the fish that swallowed Jonah, or Balaam’s talking ass; I’ve heard a few argue for the soul of the bush that burned before Moses. Since “not discard” means that there must be an afterlife for these things, they must have souls that can translate to the afterlife. Ecclesiastes 3 warns us against assuming animals don’t have souls (and notes our own animal features in passing).
Regardless, God may instill a “human” soul in a human at whatever point God wishes. Pragmatically, our legal system grants human rights to babies when they are born; some cultures don’t do that until a year or so after birth, to make certain the child will live.
As you noted, Adam and Eve at food. Food is formerly living stuff. There is not a solid enough distinction between plant and animal life to claim one form was alive and one form not. Pragmatically, if the animals ate in Eden, then the place would quickly become a stinking place overrun with urine and feces if there were no bacteria. Anytime we assume life without the features of life we see today, we need to invoke a preposterous string of miracles that makes out a god as a bumbling, interfering designer. How much cleaner simply to note that at some point humans emerged. Call the first human Adam.
If humans didn’t emerge from a long line of evolution, what’s the point of all the hominid fossils. Were they God’s draft humans? God couldn’t get it right the first 20 or so times? The existence of firm evidence in nature of life from long ago requires either that God be a deceiver, as creationists often claim, or that we accept the evidence God’s creation offers as a straight up story of how life came to be so diverse. I don’t have any problem trusting God versus the creationists on this one.
LikeLike
Regarding creation,
In the New Testament, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the apostle John all spoke of creation as being literal, never hinting that it was allegorical.
In the Old Testament, Exodus 20:11 speaks of creation being literal six days.
Regarding the flood,
1 Chronicles 1:4 puts Noah in a literal geneology.
Isaiah 54:9 indicates Noah and the flood was real.
Ezekiel 14:14 indicates Noah was real.
Hebrews 11:7 really shows that the NT writers thought the flood and Noah were literal.
1 Peter 3:20 and 2nd Peter 2:5 indicates Peter believed Noah and the flood were literal.
Jesus spoke several times concerning the flood and never hinted it was not literal.
My point is that if both the flood and creation weren’t literal, someone should have told Jesus and the disciples as well as other Israeli writers of the Bible. If they believed it literal, why should we believe it is not intended to be literal?
If they lied, were deceived, or were ignorant of how it “really happened” then why should we put our faith and trust in them regarding our salvation and the next life or anything else for that matter?
My point is that it that the Bible says its true. Therefore it is either true and you’re interpretting the facts wrong or its false and we should reject the Bible. I believe the Bible to be accurate and on that basis alone you are wrong regarding Genesis and the flood.
LikeLike
“We don’t know that Jesus’ resurrection literally happened. We take it on faith.”
Yes, but it is a reasonable faith. You are claiming that Genesis is not literal because it is not backed up by science but you are believing that Jesus rose from the dead? That is not exactly observable science, is it? Yes, it is a matter of faith, but it goes against what we see in science which you are claiming we shouldn’t do in relation to the first chapters of the Bible. It doesn’t seem consistent.
“So Thomas’ reward was sure knowledge — the rest of us must take it on faith.”
The disciples’ testimony and willingness to go to their deaths for their “cause” makes having faith a little bit easier and the resurrection hard to refute.
“We do not know that Jesus was resurrected; that’s why we call it faith.”
Again, it is a reasonable faith. Mormons have faith, but is their faith based on evidence and fact? No. Islam has faith, but does that make their faith true? No. Why do we know that our faith is true? Because our faith is based on truth, that’s why. It is nothing to be ashamed of to say that Jesus’ resurrection is not just faith, but truth. If we can’t make that claim, why are we not Islamic, or Hindu? Culture?
“For that matter, there’s no more evidence that Jesus even existed.”
Ok. Are you saying besides the Gospels?
“I believe it is spiritual error to make claims for scriptures that are not accurate. We delude ourselves, ultimately.”
I totally agree. That is why I believe it is best to let the Bible speak for itself and we base our theology and beliefs off of what it says and not read our bias into the text, like saying it is a myth and that it didn’t really happen.
“We don’t know that Jesus was resurrected. We don’t know that Jesus even lived. That’s what faith is about. That’s why it’s called mystery.”
So the atheists on GOR were right that we’re no better than worshipping the Spaghetti Monster? Christianity is not merely a role of the dice, and a “just in case its true” sort of faith. It is a confident, standing on God’s Word faith, knowing that Christ has resurrected and that one day He will return for us, as He promised. Yes, it is on faith, but again, it is a reasonable faith.
LikeLike
sorry its taken me so long to reply. Its been a crazy weekend.
Ok, where were we?
You said, “Romans 5:12 isn’t literal in the physical sense — the death it refers to is spiritual death, a lack of immortality.”
I would agree that it is talking about spiritual death. I would say that it is both. When Adam sinned his spirit died and his body began to die. Are you saying that if Adam had never sinned that he would have still died? If so, then why? Why then is he the first man? Do you believe in the chain of evolution that along the lines God breathed a “soul” into one of the creatures? If not, when did this “spiritual death” become relevant in the chain of evolution? What life form was the first to die and “go to heaven” if you will? Did God plant man on earth after millions of years? Your hypothesis makes no sense to me.
“The Bible doesn’t say Adam and Eve went hungry before the fall. Did they eat? How else would they be enticed by the fruit the serpent offered? If they ate, things died.”
The Bible is clear that even food for animals was produce and vegetation. While I have no clue what life was like before the fall (and either do you, so we can only guess how God did it) I believe that the law of entropy started with the fall. Before then, the balance was complete and energy never gave out. While yes, things were eaten and digested, it was not an intelligent life form that was dying. When I refer to death, I am speaking of beings of intelligence (man and animal). The other were clearly created as a renewable source of food.
“From a pragmatic viewpoint, if there were bacteria, they died, too.”
That is also assuming that there were bacteria, which would have included disease.
“and since God is not a deceiver, we should follow Augustine’s advice: Don’t claim scripture is right when it conflicts with reality.”
You are making the mistake of assuming that what we see is the way it always was. A pre-fall earth may have been vastly different.
“Why could there not be a literal Adam? What is the barrier?”
Because there is no need for a literal Adam or a start to the human race if that is not the reason we die. There is no need for a fall because it is all figurative and allegorical. As we’ve talked about “cause and effect” in relationship to God, doesn’t “death” need a cause? Is God the creator of death, disease, and suffering? No wonder atheists would hate that God. It’s kind of weird that you are claiming that creation is a myth and the flood is a myth but Adam really lived.
LikeLike
Ed,
Thanks for the references to my blog!
LikeLike
Here are a couple of links relevant to the discussion:
Reclaiming the Bible:
http://pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com/2007/08/reclaiming-bible.html
Taking the Bible seriously:
http://pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com/2007/08/taking-bible-seriously.html
LikeLike
Here’s where we lose P.Z.: I said, “Yes, I believe Jesus came in the flesh, suffered, died and was resurrected. Such miracles are somewhat disconnected from the natural world, which is why we call them miracles. That’s the fundamental belief of Christians. It’s not dependent on whether evolution is accurate or not.”
lowerleavell answered:
We don’t know that Jesus’ resurrection literally happened. We take it on faith. Thomas, who should be the patron saint of scientists, questioned, and according to scripture, because he questioned he was invited to investigate, and when he investigated he discovered physical evidence. So Thomas’ reward was sure knowledge — the rest of us must take it on faith.
If we had proof, by the way, we would all be agnostics, by definition — people who believe when all the evidence points that way. I think a lot of the “literal Bible” nonsense is based in jealousy that some faithful have for the sort of knowledge scientists get in their investigations: Often physical evidence, but hard, concrete knowledge, not requiring faith because it’s replicable.
You are right though, that you can definitely be a Christian and not believe in a literal 6 day creation. I simply believe though that you have abandoned the Bible mid-stream without giving it a fair shake.
We do not know that Jesus was resurrected; that’s why we call it faith.
For that matter, there’s no more evidence that Jesus even existed.
I believe it is spiritual error to make claims for scriptures that are not accurate. We delude ourselves, ultimately.
We don’t know that Jesus was resurrected. We don’t know that Jesus even lived. That’s what faith is about. That’s why it’s called mystery.
LikeLike
Why could there not be a literal Adam? What is the barrier?
LikeLike
Romans 5:12 isn’t literal in the physical sense — the death it refers to is spiritual death, a lack of immortality.
The Bible doesn’t say Adam and Eve went hungry before the fall. Did they eat? How else would they be enticed by the fruit the serpent offered? If they ate, things died.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, if there were bacteria, they died, too. If not, the planet would have been overrun with bacteria — and Eve would have been prevented from swimming through them to get to the Tree of Knowledge, and the fall never would have occurred.
So, if a fall, then death before the fall. If no death, no fall.
The simple mechanics of life tell us that, since such statements do not square with reality in any way, and since God is not a deceiver, we should follow Augustine’s advice: Don’t claim scripture is right when it conflicts with reality.
LikeLike
Let me know if I fouled up your comments. I can edit to identify you as the author, but I haven’t figured out how to change the avatar to yours, on the posts I brought over from the other site.
LikeLike
Big Bang is the cause of time — that’s when time started.”
That’s a proof Hawking and Penrose worked out, as I recall — Time began at the Big Bang. It’s a hypothesis like the hypothesis that gravity tugs on things. There’s quite a bit of proof, including the fact that we exist, and that time goes on, now.
Can we move this over to my blog? I can copy the last several of your responses; we can find a quiet corner and shoot away . . . (go see it if you wish: http://www.timpanogos.wordpress.com)
Ed Darrell – August 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
LikeLike
From lowerleavell:
I couldn’t get your links to work. Could you try them again?
“I note the owner of this blog has ceased new posts. We should carry the discussion somewhere else, most likely”
I agree. What do you suggest?
“There is no scriptural or theological reason to think there was no death before the Fall of Adam, since the it was a spiritual and not physical event.”
Have you ever read Romans 5? Here’s verse 12:
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”
But if you don’t take Genesis literally, wouldn’t there be no Adam, and thus no spiritual sin? It was folklore, and mythology, so, why would we need Christ if there was no Adam, and no fall? Obviously, we live in a corrupt world where evil abounds. Christ was very much needed. The very fact that we have evil, it also demands a beginning. If Genesis is not literal, what is the beginning of sin, death, and why do we need Jesus?
“Yes, I believe Jesus came in the flesh, suffered, died and was resurrected. Such miracles are somewhat disconnected from the natural world, which is why we call them miracles. That’s the fundamental belief of Christians. It’s not dependent on whether evolution is accurate or not.”
I totally agree with your statement and am very much thrilled to see you make it! My question is this though: how do we know that it literally happened? The Gospels could be allegorical as well. Perhaps Jesus was simply a good man who lived a good life, got married, had some kids, died a horrible death, and his followers immortalized him. How can you stand on Scripture in the Gospels and not in Genesis? Why is one folklore and the other not? Atheists believe that Jesus is folklore, why are they wrong?
You are right though, that you can definitely be a Christian and not believe in a literal 6 day creation. I simply believe though that you have abandoned the Bible mid-stream without giving it a fair shake.
lowerleavell – August 29th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
LikeLike
From lowerleavell:
What you said, “That’s not what he said at all. The physical trigger for the singularity, the disruption in the state of existence of the tighly compacted ball of energy, is unknown.”
What he actually said, “we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific…”
He’s saying that the origin of the universe is not simply unknown, it’s ok if it is nothing. Again, that’s a statement of faith, not science.
“Big Bang is the cause of time — that’s when time started.”
We don’t know that for sure. That’s simply a hypothesis so that the question “what happened before the Big-Bang?” is invalid. It’s way to convenient to say “time began with the Big-Bang” because there’s no proof.
“The expansion is continuing — that’s where we get the red-shift phenomena. The key question is whether we get a big crunch and and oscillating universe (which you proposed earlier), or whether the energy was too great and mass too small to reverse the process to get a big crunch.”
Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
It’s interesting that just recently science is catching up with the Bible. The idea of an expanding universe used to be taboo and “unscientific.” Now, basically the scientists are agreeing with the Bible. Are you sure you’re ready to abandon the Bible as being accurate? (Notice too the word “like.” Just to clarify, the Bible is not teaching that the universe is a big curtain or a tent, but is using language that people would understand to explain it.)
“I’m not sure what your question is that you think is such a killer. The expansion continues.”
My question was, why don’t we see new universes simply popping into existense from other black holes?
Here is a list of a few things that the Big Bang does not explain:
1) The origin of life-biogenesis
2) How did the stars form? (the current models don’t and scientists admit that they really don’t understand)
3) How physics evolved and developed- why laws are constant
4) How did the sun, moon (which is critical for life on the earth) and the earth evolve just so, so that it was possible for life?
5) How is our solar system perfectly positioned in the universe to sustain life?
6) (from AIG) The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?
7) What about galaxies (Francis Filament) that are found fully mature that would not have had time to develop from the Big Bang timescale?
8) Why do galaxies form at all if the Big Bang occurred? They shouldn’t exist at all.
9) Given the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum”, why does the sun spin relatively slowly if it evolved? When developing as well, it should have pushed out other gasses in the solar system.
There are many more questions of course, but if The Big Bang cannot answer these questions, and evolution cannot answer these questions, then perhaps instead of keeping the theory, it should be rejected for something else. Creation comes to mind.
lowerleavell – August 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
LikeLike
Repost, to get around spam filter:
I note the owner of this blog has ceased new posts. We should carry the discussion somewhere else, most likely.
Lowerleavell said:
The quotes that you provided only back up the point even more. You quoted him to say, “we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific…” He sees no problem with the universe having no cause for time, matter, energy, etc.
That’s not what he said at all. The physical trigger for the singularity, the disruption in the state of existence of the tighly compacted ball of energy, is unknown. Hawking spends some time figuring whether the Big Bang itself would erase all evidence of what came before, and the general consensus is that it would — but it’s difficult to figure if that works for everything all the time.
But that’s not the same thing as saying “no cause.” Scientists will say we don’t know the cause, but not that there was none.
Big Bang is the cause of time — that’s when time started.
The quote that you provided sounded more like a statement of faith than of science. Time simply popped into existence, matter simply popped into existence, etc.
No. The expansion of the universe created conditions by which time could start. Matter required that the energy state cool to the point, first that sub, subatomic particles could form, second that subatomic particles could form, and finally, so that the simplest atoms could form (hydrogen). Remember Einstein’s famous equation E=mc(c). Energy and matter are the same thing, different state. All matter and energy that exist now existed prior to Big Bang, but in energy form.
Why, as even a theistic evolutionist are you defending these guys? I’d thought you’d be coming from “The God Theory” perspective more than an atheists perspective.
I start from the Christian belief that God is the creator; what the universe shows, therefore, is what God did.
I don’t know, maybe they’re pretty much the same and one just tacks on God.
Here’s my question, if the Big-Bang really occurred, then why don’t we have the same thing happening today?
The expansion is continuing — that’s where we get the red-shift phenomena. The key question is whether we get a big crunch and and oscillating universe (which you proposed earlier), or whether the energy was too great and mass too small to reverse the process to get a big crunch.
The complicating factor — here’s where the real world imposes on philosophical encounters — is the 75% of the universe’s matter which is invisible to us so far. That mass is detectable through gravity measurements, but no other way. Even with that mass, however, there is a force that is increasing the acceleration of objects very distant, beyond what we can explain with mass and gravity.
For every thing we know, there are wonderful and perplexing new mysteries.
If you say because things aren’t set up right for that to occur, then that would mean that something existed before the Big-Bang to “cause” it to happen. If nothing caused it, there is no reason why it shouldn’t happen over and over again. I’m really curious to see what your answer will be.
I’m not sure what your question is that you think is such a killer. The expansion continues.
We don’t know what existed before Big Bang. My usual response is that the cause of the Big Bang was the Big Foreplay. But we just don’t know. I think I recommended a couple of sites a few posts ago, but if not, here they are:
httpCOLONSLASHSLASHliftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
httpCOLONSLASHSLASHmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
George Alpher, one of the original Big Bang theorists (with George Gamow), died just last week. Newspapers missed a great opportunity to explain stuff then.
By the way, the two other main questions I mentioned that you haven’t answered were these: 1) What do you do with death before the fall, if there even was one? 2) Did Jesus come in the flesh, die in the flesh, and rise again in the flesh? Is He the Son of God (God come in the flesh) or simply a good man? Question #2 I believe is the most important.
There is no scriptural or theological reason to think there was no death before the Fall of Adam, since the it was a spiritual and not physical event. Pragmatically, had there been no death, the bacteria would have overwhelmed Eden in a few days. Nor could there have been anything for anyone to eat. Where did you ever get such a wacky idea, that there was no death before the fall?
Yes, I believe Jesus came in the flesh, suffered, died and was resurrected. Such miracles are somewhat disconnected from the natural world, which is why we call them miracles. That’s the fundamental belief of Christians. It’s not dependent on whether evolution is accurate or not.
Ed Darrell – August 29th, 2007 at 12:19 am
LikeLike
From lowerleavell:
#
Regarding the Grand Canyon, the best thing I think I could do would be to shush and let you read this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-grand-canyon.asp
Yes, its answersingenesis and yes, you have to read it to get my position. :-)
Some quick points:
You said, “At some places, there is only a 300 million year difference between the rocks at the bottom and the rocks at the rim — that makes sense.”
You do realize that the rocks at the bottom were the ones 300 million years younger?
“Flood geology cannot predict oil or gas, and in that way proves itself untrue.”
What? Please explain.
“Gaps in strata indicate where erosion stripped away the strata after it was deposited.”
Erosion would not be smooth, right on top of another layer, like you find in the columns. There is no satisfactory evidence that erosion stripped away the strate because the strata is still horizontal and doesn’t show the necessary signs of erosion.
“You failed to note the magma layers in the Grand Canyon.”
Those are the dates I gave. The layers of magma at the top are dated to be 300 mil. years older to 1 billion years older than the ones at the bottom.
“Modern geologists started from the assumption of a great flood, and as the evidence against it mounted up, they changed their understanding and statements of theory.”
Who were these geologists you’re speaking for? Can you give some examples?
“no cities buried in one great flood”
What about the city off the coast of India? Wouldn’t that be one example? It even had indoor plumbing. Of course I’m guessing you’ll say local catastrophe even though its on the bottom of the sea.
“You even deny the story of the fight with the dragon God had, as described in Job.”
Did I do that? I thought I was a Bible literalist. Are you sure you’re not just putting words in my mouth? I never denied that.
Regarding Baumgardner:
It is interesting that while you gave a great example, you failed to show why hydrogen and oxygen are attracted to each other. His point wasn’t so much just the odds, but the fact that something or someone had to make it so those things would be attracted to each other and that random chance is unfounded from the top on down. What keeps an atom together? What keeps DNA together? What keeps cells working together?
By the way, from your reply it looks like you only read about a paragraph of what he wrote and then wrote three or four paragraphs in return. Did you read the rest of it? What did you think?
Here’s the crux of the matter. You see the world through evolution’s eyes and no matter what evidence is presented you’ll interpret the evidence based on evolution. I see things through a creationist’s perspective and so when I see things like the Grand Canyon I see evidence that the Bible is correct. The problem that we’re dealing with is not the evidence because we both have the same evidence. The problem is that we have both chosen different glasses to view the world with. You have chosen to abandon God’s Word for science and I have chosen to keep God’s Word and science together because science merely backs up the Bible’s claims anyway and I don’t have to check my brain at the door to be a Christian. So, we can keep debating issues if you want, but really I think we need to go back to the root and discuss our bias, cause and effect, and the Big Bang, where you jumped in.
Again, read the whole article on the Grand Canyon to really get a creationist’s perspective.
lowerleavell – August 29th, 2007 at 12:10 am
#
“Davies is not saying nothing existed. Notice his phrasing: “What happened before the big bang?” ”
So you’re saying that Davies’ position is that before the Big Bang there was nothing but that at the Big Bang there was something? Where did that come from? Cause and effect shows that it came from somewhere.
“A plausible explanation is God. It’s no more or less plausible, in the absence of evidence, than any other explanation. Another mystery.”
This sounds like you’re a Christian because of Pascal’s wager. Well, we don’t know, but just in case there’s a God…
lowerleavell – August 29th, 2007 at 12:14 am
LikeLike
Davies is not saying nothing existed. Notice his phrasing: “What happened before the big bang?”
A plausible explanation is God. It’s no more or less plausible, in the absence of evidence, than any other explanation. Another mystery. Science doesn’t deny God in that place, but neither can we say the God hypothesis is more plausible — science doesn’t provide evidence of God, either.
Ed Darrell – August 28th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
LikeLike
From lowerleavell
#Ed said, “There’s no book by that name, let alone one done by Davies. What’s the real source, what was Davies really saying?”
It was on “ABC Radio 24 Hours” , not a book. Google it and it comes up. I can’t find the actual article to read though. Your right, that one I did find on AIG. I was just doing some reading and came upon that and wondered what you would think of it.
The quotes that you provided only back up the point even more. You quoted him to say, “we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific…” He sees no problem with the universe having no cause for time, matter, energy, etc. The quote that you provided sounded more like a statement of faith than of science. Time simply popped into existence, matter simply popped into existence, etc. Why, as even a theistic evolutionist are you defending these guys? I’d thought you’d be coming from “The God Theory” perspective more than an atheists perspective. I don’t know, maybe they’re pretty much the same and one just tacks on God.
Here’s my question, if the Big-Bang really occurred, then why don’t we have the same thing happening today? If you say because things aren’t set up right for that to occur, then that would mean that something existed before the Big-Bang to “cause” it to happen. If nothing caused it, there is no reason why it shouldn’t happen over and over again. I’m really curious to see what your answer will be.
By the way, the two other main questions I mentioned that you haven’t answered were these: 1) What do you do with death before the fall, if there even was one? 2) Did Jesus come in the flesh, die in the flesh, and rise again in the flesh? Is He the Son of God (God come in the flesh) or simply a good man? Question #2 I believe is the most important.
lowerleavell – August 28th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
#“Well, I didn’t promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang?
The answer is: Nothing.” –Paul Davies as quoted by Ed.
So, again, the answer again is “in the beginning matter,” “in the beginning ‘nothing’, ” or “in the beginning God.” Cause and effect shows that the most plausible explanation is “in the beginning God.”
lowerleavell – August 28th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
#Ed,
I need to reply to some of the things that you mentioned but for time I can’t reply to all of them at this moment. My apologies.
You said, “I was unaware any fossilization process had stopped. That’s an amazing claim.”
I was not saying that fossilization had stopped. I was saying that you don’t see many new fossil beds and coal deposits etc. like you had seen in the past. The reason I believe is because the bulk (not all) of them happened with the flood.
“Say what? Now you’re claiming that the flood spurred the development of shells and other hard parts of life?”
Ugh, no! I’m saying that the Cambrian shows the first things that would have been buried in the flood (since they were probably at the bottom anyway). Yes, I’m aware of the “Pre-Cambrian” as well. You know what they find? A worm is still a worm.
“You still missed my point. It’s not “marine life on the tops of mountains.” It’s marine life IN the tops of mountains.”
By the way, they are not simply IN the tops of mountains. Where is your source for that data? Even finding them near Everest wouldn’t require a lot of digging.
This link shows the fossils scattered on the ground:
http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology_visual.html
You and I are in agreement that there once were no mountains there, and that’s why I wasn’t just saying the Hymalayans. I’m talking about the Americas, Europe and Asia. Either ALL of those places were once oceans, or perhaps there once was a flood too. To me, the marine life on mountains is a small argument to take with the whole.
“Think for a moment: Volcanic incidents. Where is the evidence of a flood in those cases? None there.”
Unless those volcanos came after the flood. You have to remember that the flood only covered the whole earth for a relatively short period of time. As the new valleys formed and the new mountains rose it wouldn’t have taken very long for the water to begin to recede. Some places I’m sure it would have left more evidence then others.
“Why is it that we can have fossils from desert areas that show absolutely no signs of every having been flooded? Why is there absolutely no evidence of any flood ever at Jericho, in the last 15,000 years that we can document humans living there?”
Again, some places would have left more traces than others, and no we don’t have documentation of humans living in Jericho for 15,000 years. We don’t even have writing that is more than 5,000-7,000 years old. Please produce your documentation for evidence on Jericho being continually lived in for that amount of time.
“Where we have slow erosion that could not survive a flood (say, Delicate Arch in Arches National Park), how do you answer?”
The water ran of some places faster than others, and also wouldn’t the Arches be a result of the flood anyway and wouldn’t have to worry about “surviving” a flood?
“It appears to me that you’re now claiming any sign of water anywhere on Earth is “evidence of a past massive flood.” That’s just wrong.”
I didn’t say that. I simply said it happened and that the strata that we see backs it up and does not need millions and millions of years to form. You seem to be claiming that while there is evidence for water flooding all over the earth, you claim that there is no sign that there was no massive flood. I do admit I like what Ken Ham says. He says if the flood were true, we’d expect to find, ‘Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.’ You know what we find? ‘Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.’ Hmmmm…..
“The Nebraska Ashfall was not washed away in a flood. Yes, I stick by my statement: The volcanic remains at the Nebraska site were not flooded. The fossils are not water-made fossils, but instead are ash made fossils.”
That’s fine. I didn’t say that they weren’t. I simply said that Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, etc. were involved in a flood before that time.
“While we’re at it, how do you explain Death Valley’s lake, and the lake that covers Jericho? Or, rather, the lack of those lakes, which could not dry out in much more time than you allow?”
From what I understand, Death Valley was formed from the Ice Age (after the flood) and DID have a lake. Jericho, we’ve talked about already.
lowerleavell – August 28th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
LikeLike
#Which quantum cosmology is Davies talking about? What’s the context?
Ed Darrell – August 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 am
#You’re not cribbing that off of the Answers in Genesis, nor any other quote mine site, are you?
Ed Darrell – August 23rd, 2007 at 1:08 am
#There’s no book by that name, let alone one done by Davies. What’s the real source, what was Davies really saying?
Ed Darrell – August 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 am
#What Paul Davies, the real one, really said:
Paul Davies, here: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html
Ed Darrell – August 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 am
LikeLike
From lowerleavell:
‘This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.’ (Paul Davies, “Science, God and the Laws of the Universe” pg. 37)
Hmm…seems I wasn’t too off with the thought that everything came from “nothing.”
lowerleavell – August 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
LikeLike
Originally posted at Gospel of Reason, August 21:
Either Baumgardner is way out of his depth in chemistry, or he’s purposely constructing a deceptive scenario to fool people who are.
Chemistry isn’t random, and never has been. His assumptions for random reactions required to get a specific chemical reaction, or a molecule, or a string of molecules, depend on the affinities of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, to pick three examples, not working at all.
Let me offer an example. If we had to depend on random reactions to get a molecule of water, there likely would never be more than a thimblefull of water in the universe. What are the odds that one hydrogen atom could break out of its molecular bond with another hydrogen atom, and tease an oxygen atom out of its molecular bond with another oxygen atom, and band together (that combination being quite unstable), and then teas yet another hydrogen atom to break its bonds and join them? The odds are, by such calculations, that a molecule of water could never, never, never form. The odds are slightly greater than the number of atoms in the universe that water could ever form.
Of course, we know that’s not how it works. If we have a quantity of oxygen and a quantity of hydrogen together, it is virtually impossible to keep them from combusting, and the product of that combustion is water molecules. The reaction is greatly speeded by a spark or flame — but in any case, it is impossible to put hydrogen and oxygen together and NOT get water.
Water is one of the molecules required for life. Baumgardner’s assumptions that random reactions won’t do it might be correct; he fails to account for the properties of the two component substances, however, and the laws of chemistry, which require that water be formed.
Almost all of his calculations are similar.
Now you tell me: Is he that bad a chemist? Or is he trying to deceive someone? Doesn’t he know that water MUST occur in the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen? He treats it as a freak occurrence.
I find such deception to be unchristian.
Ed Darrell – August 21st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
LikeLike
I’ll move some of the old posts over — but after dinner at least. And bells, and choir.
LikeLike
Ok, I’m here. Whenever you’re ready. :-)
LikeLike