Evolution? How?

farmerman wrote:

timber's zoonomia includes

Quote:

the labradoodle;

SAY WHAT? Was I absent for that lecture?

The Labradoodle ... honest to god, its real - more's the pity.

Setanta wrote:

It does, however, raise the question of why "real life's" imaginary friend was at such pains to dupe so much of the population. It does not speak well for the character of him/her/it.

Your assumption of an 'intent to deceive' is not well founded, when in fact the Creator went to great lengths to make it clear when the heavens and earth had actually been created.

---------------------------------------

The alternative of creating without an appearance of age may be seen as impractical.

Instead of creating trees and plants, would the Creator simply scatter seed on the ground?

Instead of creating a 'full grown' man and woman, would He deposit an infant, or a fertilized egg on the newly created surface of the planet?

Science From The Bible
© Copyright 1997, Jim Loy

Some people (the creationists in particular) get their science from the Bible. Let's see what kind of science is in the Bible.

In Genesis 1, we have the creation of the entire universe in six days about 6000 years ago. 6000 years is an incredibly short length of time for civilization to have been around, let alone the entire universe. The creationists fudge by saying 10,000 years, but the genealogy given in the Bible implies 6000 years, without gaps. Creation in only six days also conflicts with overwhelming scientific evidence. For example, we see distant galaxies as they were billions of years ago, it takes light that long to get to us. The creationists resort to light traveling much faster in the past, or to the creation of this light already on its way to earth.

We notice a couple problems with the events of creation. For example, on day one, we have the creation of light and dark, day and night. The sun and moon are not created until day four. Many Christians assume that the days of creation are actual geologic ages. Even then, the creation of grasses, and whales, and birds (which are all fairly recent in the history of life) are out of order.

In Genesis 3, we are told of Adam's sin. And we have the beginning of sickness, pain, death, misery, thorns, etc. There supposedly was no death before this, so all of the dinosaurs and trilobites were alive in Adam's time.

In Genesis 6 and 7, we have the world-wide flood of Noah. There is plenty of evidence for many regional floods, but not for a world-wide flood. We read of water covering all but the highest mountains. Where did all this water go? Noah's boat was too small to hold all of the species in the world. This Ark apparently did not carry fish, and most saltwater fish cannot survive long in fresh water, and most freshwater fish cannot survive long in salt water. After the flood, the various species dispersed to their current homes, with kangaroos hopping all the way to Australia, without any evidence of their trek.

In Joshua 6, we have Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, so the children of Israel can defeat the Amorites. To be accurate, he should have commanded the earth to stop spinning. To stop the earth's spin, and then start it up again, is a miracle of creation or flood caliber. It should have produced devastating effects, enough to wipe out life on earth.

On a smaller scale, we have bats and locusts (which walk on "all four legs") listed as birds in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. This sloppy classification may be all right for some purposes. But from a scientific point of view, it is silly.

In Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah, we find that God laid the foundations of the earth, and that it does not move (Psalms 104:5). This is one of the reasons that Galileo was convicted of heresy for saying that the earth moves around the sun.

In I Kings and II Chronicles, we find a circular vessel which has a circumference that is three times its diameter, implying that the author thinks that pi is 3. Pi is about 3.14159..., fairly close to 3. But for any practical purpose, 3 is a perfectly worthless value for pi.

The Bible is, of course, a wonderful source of religion and philosophy. But the authors were not knowledgeable scientists with 20th century information.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum #1:

I received the following email (entitled, "Thank You, Mr. Wizard"):

"The Bible is, of course, a wonderful source of religion and philosophy. But the authors were not knowledgeable scientists with 20th century information." You are correct, sir...they weren't knowledgeable scientists. The writer's of the Bible were merely inspired by the Holy Ghost. Maybe you would like to read a little Job before your next attack of the Bible...were you there when the heavens and Earth were created?

My Response:

I didn't know that I was attacking the Bible. I was clearly attacking creationism. The creationists seem to say that you cannot believe in God and the Bible, unless you believe that the universe was created in six 24-hour days, 8000 years ago, as is described in Genesis. I think creationism is driving many thinking people from God.

Can we get our science from the Bible? The book of Joshua says that the sun stood still. That is wrong. The sun did not stand still. The implication is that earth stopped spinning. But the Bible does not say that. Am I being picky? I am not the person who tries to get science from the Bible. The Bible's description of this event is wrong.

Creationists repeatedly ask their critics, "Were you there?" (a quote from Job, it would seem). Creationists seem to think that we cannot deduce facts about the past, because we weren't there. If we see a piece of lava, can't we deduce a volcano? Geology, biology, and astronomy tell us much about the past.

I once wrote that millions of years ago, South America and Africa were touching (another email writer asked me if I was there, in connection with this statement). Of course we cannot match these continents rock for rock. And none of us was there. But there is certainly a lot of evidence of millions of years of sea floor spreading between these two continents (and between Europe and North America). And some species of dinosaurs lived on both South America and Africa. Why do we have to be there to deduce all of this?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The creationists claim that they believe the Bible, word for word, as it was written, and yet they don't. If the Bible says that a locust or a bat is a bird, then they will say something like this: "God is saying that in nontechnical language that the readers back then could understand." Fine, but that is an admission that some interpretation is necessary. Sometimes the Bible does not say what it means precisely, and we have to guess or explain what it does mean. When God says that Adam will die on the day he eats the forbidden fruit, we need to figure out what He meant by that, because Adam is recorded to have lived many hundreds of years after that. The meaning may or may not be obvious, but the Bible does not mean exactly what it says in this case.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum #2:

I have occasionally heard the following argument from creationists. This one is a quote from Life--How Did It Get Here? from the Watchtower people:

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

First of all, the above list is a significant rewording of the Genesis account of the creation. See Genesis chapter 1 for a comparison. In particular, the above list says, "sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse." Genesis says that God made these lights on the fourth day. Secondly, the Genesis account is clearly not in the order that science would predict, as day and night are created on day one, while the sun is created on day four (after plants were created). And thirdly, the above list is in a fairly logical order; a wild guess by any writer would have to be roughly in the above order. For example, one of the steps is "a beginning." Where would you put that step? I would make it step #1, wouldn't you? And I would probably make my list go from simple to complex, probably ending with man.

Since the writer of the Genesis account of the creation got some of the steps wrong, it is hard to say what the probability is that he got some of the steps right; certainly nowhere near one in 3,628,800, probably very close to one in one. The writer of the above list was certainly naive (or lying) to call it a "striking proof."

Quote:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

King James Version of 1769 with Strongs Numbers and Morphology

I think this line is pretty black and white, except nobody seems to have a clear answer on what is heaven? and what is earth? surely it has to be physical, otherwise there would be no water, as noted in the next line.

Quote:

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

King James Version of 1769 with Strongs Numbers and Morphology

I am surprised yous missed this, it is the 2nd line in genesis, that is before the 7 days, so why quote Genesis 1:7 (Where it quite clearly states nothing to do with creating water, otherwise "God" would say "Let there be water") ? I'll ask the question again, where did this water come from ? Once I get a clear answer on this i will move to the next parts,

Xingu

The only problem with the Genesis story is the sloppy way the western mind interprets it...

RexRed wrote:

Xingu

The only problem with the Genesis story is the sloppy way the western mind interprets it...

Yup...if only everyone were as terrified of the barbaric boogeyman of the Bible as you are...we would have no bone of contention here.

If only everyone were so frightened...they would dream up scenarios that work.

If only!

Y'know, I'm starting to wonder if mebbe Rex does his whole act without a net ... couple headbounces would go a long way toward explaing things.

Rex says "god's word" like he knows what he's talking about; an imaginary terrorist that would send him to hell for eternity if he doesn't believe.

Frank Apisa wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Xingu

The only problem with the Genesis story is the sloppy way the western mind interprets it...

Yup...if only everyone were as terrified of the barbaric boogeyman of the Bible as you are...we would have no bone of contention here.

If only everyone were so frightened...they would dream up scenarios that work.

If only!

No Frank, they are frightened of their own twist that they have imposed upon the most holy of faith. I am not frightened because I have not treated the word haphazardly. You have imposed you own twist upon the meaning of the Bible and thus you are the anomaly of your own making.

RexRed wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Xingu

The only problem with the Genesis story is the sloppy way the western mind interprets it...

Yup...if only everyone were as terrified of the barbaric boogeyman of the Bible as you are...we would have no bone of contention here.

If only everyone were so frightened...they would dream up scenarios that work.

If only!

No Frank, they are frightened of their own twist that they have imposed upon the most holy of faith. I am not frightened because I have not treated the word haphazardly. You have imposed you own twist upon the meaning of the Bible and thus you are the anomaly of your own making.

You are terrified of this barbaric god, Rex...so terrified that you cannot see that you are terrified. But listening to you twist and torture logic and the English language in order to ass-kiss the god makes this so obvious to anyone on the outside of your fear...that you might as well take out ads in newspapers proclaiming it.

I love, Rex. I'd love to help you get this anvil off your neck.

GOD IS LOVE... Now that is "truth" not religion.

GOD IS LOVE... Now that is "truth" not religion.

Let's start there first.

Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.


Comment:
Frank, you have not sought "first" the kingdom of God's "righteousness", you have sought instead the kingdom of God's perceptible unrighteousness.

And so these "things" (understandings) have been "subtracted" from you...

GOD IS LOVE... Now that is "truth" not religion.

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. Exodus 32:27