Let the religious do what they want. Religion helps many people live good and happy lives. It’s entertaining to view this sort of thing and a waste of time to let it cause any distress. Let these Chaplains do what they do. Those who don’t like it don’t have to listen or believe it. Many are just entertained by it all.

Darwinist professor William Provine insists: “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” Likewise, Niles Eldredge, co-developer with Stephen Jay Gould of punctuated equilibrium stated, “Darwin did more to secularize the Western world than any other single thinker in history.” And of course, everyone’s favorite contemporary atheist, Richard Dawkins, spewing bilious hatred of God like a burst sewage pipe, thanks Darwin for making “it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

I think you misunderstood my point

oh I understood your point perfectly.

That is not a problem for evolution anymore than it is a problem for textual criticism

look, NOTHING is a problem for evolution because it is made to fit any fact! evolution is all in all praise darwin!

If you could find evidence of a critter that can only be a late form of life (a mammal, for example) in the Pre-Cambrian era, then you would have something. Of course, if you only had one such example, it should probably be dismissed as a mere anomaly

see what I mean? thanks for comfirming it.

The reality is just the opposite. Overwhelmingly, our fossil finds continue to reinforce the general assumptions of evolution.

you say this, but I have posted 2 sources that disagree with you. you have posted nothing to show the opposite. I’ve noticed you darwiniacs aren’t big into doing actual research.

laughable.

If you found plant or animal material from a different period of time, then you could turn our understanding of the history of life on its head.

how about this?

In a paper to be published in PLoS ONE on October 31, the researchers describe four types of cnidarian fossils preserving traits that allow them to be related to modern orders and families of jellyfish. The specimens are about 200 million years older than the oldest previously discovered jellyfish fossils.

I think you misunderstood my point. The ages in which various critters lived is constantly being refined as we make further discoveries (much like our critical study of the Biblical text is continuing to be refined – with the further discoveries of ancient manuscripts). That is not a problem for evolution anymore than it is a problem for textual criticism (determining the original text of the Biblical autographs).

If you could find evidence of a critter that can only be a late form of life (a mammal, for example) in the Pre-Cambrian era, then you would have something. Of course, if you only had one such example, it should probably be dismissed as a mere anomaly. If you start finding example after example of this, then the whole theory falls apart.

The reality is just the opposite. Overwhelmingly, our fossil finds continue to reinforce the general assumptions of evolution.

Quantum mechanics has turned our “natural assumptions” upside down. Either way, first cause arguments lead to infinite regress. Just as easily you can say “God was first cause,” I can say “The Big Bang” was first cause.

Ah, but you see, you take for granted there is a reason for these quantum fluctuations – that there are laws of physics that govern it, and that these laws are ultimately intelligible (or why bother studying physics and working towards further discoveries?).

The first cause argument does not lead to an infinite regress. Every effect must have a cause. There is nothing that says that every cause must have a cause.

So why can’t we argue that the universe is the uncaused first cause? Historically, atheists have. The problem is, now we have good evidence that the universe began to exist. Thus, it is not a cause, but an effect. The Big Bang, is not a cause, it is an effect.

If time began to exist, then you need a timeless cause.

If space began to exist, you need a cause that is nonphysical (transcends space).

Using basic logic, you wind up with a timeless, nonphysical, powerful, personal, uncaused first cause – which just so happens to fit with the Biblical teaching of God.

Send_Me said:

The genetic predisposition towards long life could very well have been reduced due to the limited genetic information left.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Starting from a bottle neck of two (Adam & Eve), you have stable, long lifespans. But when starting from a bottle neck of 8, just a few generations later, it causes a gradual decrease in lifespans. Granted, I read through the article pretty fast, but how is that supposed to make sense?

Send_Me said:

There was no death of animals and humans before the fall. This is in no way claiming that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was not in effect prior to the fall, but only that the death, dying and suffering of man and animals didn’t come until the fall.

The Bible doesn’t say there was no death in the animal kingdom before the fall. More on this later.

Send_Me said:

What is the death mentioned in Gen. 2:17?

Physical and spiritual death for Adam, Eve and their descendants (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23, same word as used in Deuteronomy 30:19).

If it is referring to physical death, then it is not literally true (”in the day that you eat from it you will surely die”), which would argue against a literal interpretation.

It is talking about spiritual death, not physical death. As a result of spiritual death, he (and consequently, his descendants) is cast off, cut off from the tree of life. He died spiritually that very day, and later, he would die physically.

This contrasts very well with the other “Adam” – Jesus Christ. We are first made spiritually alive when we are born again. Later, as a consequence of being made spiritually alive, we receive physical life (our dead bodies will be raised on the day of resurrection, never to die again).

The idea of no physical death is based upon an assumption, and in my opinion, it is not a good assumption. Here is why.

In Genesis 3:22-24, it seems to imply that Adam had death built into him from the beginning. That is, he appears to need the “fruit of the tree of life” in order to stave off death. If man has death built into him (prior to the fall), then why shouldn’t we think animals have death built into them as well? If that is the case, on what basis should we read into the text that no animals had died?

Send_Me said:

How can you have days and nights before the Sun, Moon, and stars, which were created “to separate the day from the night”?

Regardless of what put off the light, whether it be the sun or the light that God created, if this light is at one point and the earth is spinning and orbiting this source of light, then it’s only natural that there are periods of light and dark.

But my point is this – it says God created the Sun & Moon in order to separate the day from the night. But you already have the separation between day and night.

Send_Me said:

How did the plants survive for a day without the warmth of the Sun?

God created light on the first day (Genesis 1:3). This light was sufficient (Revelation 22:5).

There was light, but there was no mention of heat. If there was no heat, the plants would have frozen instantly. You can assume the light produced sufficient heat, but that has to be read into the text, it isn’t there.

Even before you have the light in day one, you have water. Not ice, but water – when there was no light, no Sun, no heat source. This doesn’t make sense.

Furthermore, why bother creating the Sun if you already have sufficient light? How can you have days before the Sun when days are based off of our relationship to the Sun? Why refer to that period of time as days?

In my mind, this raises all kinds of red flags concerning the YEC literal interpretation. Some of these things don’t make sense – as if there is something else going on here.

Send_Me said:

On which day did God create the Earth?

Day 1 (Genesis 1:1).

I think it is debatable that Genesis 1:1 refers to day one. Specifically, it refers to “in the beginning.” There are several possibilities:

God created the heavens and earth in the beginning.

God created the heavens and earth in day one.

God created the heavens on day two (1:6-8).

God created the earth on day three (1:9-10).

God created the heavens and earth on day 6 (the day He made man – 1:26-31 & 2:4-7).

God created man in the one? day of creation (2:4-7).

Again, I think this is a sign that there is more here than meets the YEC eye.

Send_Me said:

How do you reconcile a global flood with Psalm 104:9?

I don’t see a problem here. The psalmist references a global flood.

Psalm 104 is a Psalm about the glory of God displayed in the wonders of His creation. If you read the entire Psalm, the context is clearly referring to the waters in Genesis chapter 1, not chapter 7. If the waters later covered the entire earth in Noah’s Flood, that would contradict Psalm 104:9. Hugh Ross (an old earth, progressive creationist) has a book entitled The Genesis Question that contains more information about how the Biblical text points toward a regional flood, not a global one.

When Genesis 6-9 talks about destroying the whole world, it is talking about the known world (from Noah’s perspective). There are clear examples in the Bible where it talks about the whole world, but obviously doesn’t literally mean the whole world (Genesis 41:57, Col. 1:23, etc.). The purpose of the flood was to punish the wickedness of the people of Noah’s time. There would be no need to wipe out parts of the world that weren’t inhabited by these people, and where animals were not influenced by the wickedness of man.

The account of Noah’s Flood does not require a global flood, and I believe there are good Biblical reasons to think it wasn’t global (The Genesis Question).

On September 28th, 2008 at 9:04 pm, Trollman said:
Please have this creation/evolution debate all resolved before I return.

Certainly, we shall do our best.

Please have this creation/evolution debate all resolved before I return.

On September 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm, zeroangel said:
Send_Me:
As I said, it’s about as productive as arguing with a Flat-Earther.

So, if I understand the your position: 1) any position that’s not a naturalist/materialist position must be inherently wrong, 2) any source not taken from an evolutionist/secular source must be inherently wrong. Let me know if at any point if I’m wrong. For your own edification: “secular” is not synonymous with “impartial”. (This is another of those things that falls under Antonio Gramsci’s cultural hegemony ideas.) Also, in case you weren’t aware, the Christian church never adopted or promoted the flat earth idea. This was done by some folks like Lactantius who was considered a heretic by the church. Here are two articles on the topic, one from a Christian source, the other by the late Stephen J. Gould. Also, you might be interested in the first part of the verse Isaiah 40:22: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…” (Not bad for a book that was completed around 700 B.C.)

I recall a Biblical passage about a plank in one’s eye…

I recall a bible passage where Satan quotes scripture…..

I have addressed your points time and time again on this forum in this or other threads when they were regurgitated by right4life

you’re delusional, you need professional help. you’re good for a few laughs anyway.

As I said, it’s about as productive as arguing with a Flat-Earther. I have addressed your points time and time again on this forum in this or other threads when they were regurgitated by right4life or another Flat-Earther. I am tired of repeating myself. I suggest you follow Trollman’s advice and actually learn about what you are trying to dispute before “throwing rocks at it.” I will say the thing to you that I have said to “right4life”: feel free to believe this constitutes an inability to respond on my part.

A Flat-Earther might be able to make seemingly elaborate and convincing arguments that pictures of Earth from space are false, there are government conspiracies, and the continent of Antarctica is a wall of ice at the rim of the world. These arguments would be hard to refute when the Flat-Earther simply does not understand or ignores the evidence. This is exactly the case here. I can’t “argue” with you because you don’t understand what you are arguing about.

You are painfully ignorant on this topic (that is not meant to be ad-hominem, but the truth) and might loosely qualify as a sophist, though your arguments are undoubtedly not your own.

Besides, Trollman is doing just fine without my help.

Trollman:

Quantum mechanics has turned our “natural assumptions” upside down. Either way, first cause arguments lead to infinite regress. Just as easily you can say “God was first cause,” I can say “The Big Bang” was first cause.

I will leave you two to argue about how you can shoehorn an ancient text into modern science. I won’t be reading this thread anymore, it’s long since fulfilled Godwin’s Law.

P.S. Right4life:

I recall a Biblical passage about a plank in one’s eye…

On September 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pm, zeroangel said:
Send_Me: to paraphrase Sagan: “millions and millions of years.”
We now return you to your regularly scheduled pseudo-science.

You’re welcome to critique any of my arguments at any time. So far, you have yet to do so.

Tell me, according to your interpretation, why is there a decrease in lifespans?

The effects of the Flood on the world, hence humanity. After the Flood, lifespans started to drastically decrease. Many theories as to how this happened, including many environmental reasons as well as genetic reasons. Here’s an interesting article on the topic. Consider the bottleneck effect on the human gene pool as well. The entire gene pool was whittled down to eight people. The genetic predisposition towards long life could very well have been reduced due to the limited genetic information left.

Was there death before the fall?

There was no death of animals and humans before the fall. This is in no way claiming that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was not in effect prior to the fall, but only that the death, dying and suffering of man and animals didn’t come until the fall.

What is the death mentioned in Gen. 2:17?

Physical and spiritual death for Adam, Eve and their descendants (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23, same word as used in Deuteronomy 30:19).

How can you have days and nights before the Sun, Moon, and stars, which were created “to separate the day from the night”?

Regardless of what put off the light, whether it be the sun or the light that God created, if this light is at one point and the earth is spinning and orbiting this source of light, then it’s only natural that there are periods of light and dark.

How did the plants survive for a day without the warmth of the Sun?

God created light on the first day (Genesis 1:3). This light was sufficient (Revelation 22:5).

On which day did God create the Earth?

Day 1 (Genesis 1:1).

How do you reconcile a global flood with Psalm 104:9?

I don’t see a problem here. The psalmist references a global flood.
“He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth.” (Psalm 104:5-9) The “boundary” to which the psalmist refers is that of the final resting place for the waters, such as the rivers, streams and oceans (Psalm 104:10,25). Also, when you read Genesis 9:11,15 we see that God makes a covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth through a flood again. There have been many regional floods since then. If Noah’s flood was a regional flood, then that would be a problem.

But even with all of that, there were still many legitimate points that were made.

you mean like the fossil record shows gradual evolution? it does not. all evidence is interpreted in light of theory. the fossil record does not show evolution, nor can it be shown in the lab. its a story, to support an atheistic worldview.

There is a lot of error taught about the philosophical ramifications of evolution on both sides of the aisle

the philosphical ramifications are clear, and the evolutionists admit it, as I have posted. I don’t know what else to tell you. where do you think the eugenics movement came from?

Dr. Behe accepts much of the theory of evolution

yeah thats why they treat him like a heretic and refuse to publish his papers.

If I recall correctly, he believes evolution needs a few “helping hands” at various times along the way

its a bit more than that…you should read the edge of evolution…basically evolution cannot produce any novel forms, or functions, but only tinker at the edges of existing systems.

I don’t doubt that there will be many surprising twists and turns in evolution in the future.

yes, the faith of the evolutionist…no matter the question, evolution is always the answer.

I even wonder if there might some day be discovered that there are some additional natural laws that somehow makes life more probable

the fundamental forces of the universe are already known, magnetism, gravity, strong and weak force. this is a ‘darwin of the gaps’ hope.

Finally, you see humans. That is an unmistakable, gradual change in life on Earth.

you’re an ideologue. even the evolutionists admit the lack of transitional fossils. you see evolution because it is what you wish to see. these animals appeared FULLY FORMED. we could argue about the dating, and interpreting the geologic column, but it would be a waste of time

A great flood isn’t going to arrange the fossils just so.

you do realize that fossils are not the norm. when something dies, it decays to dust, it doesn’t become fossilized. the great number of fossils all over the world should give you a hint, but it does not, obviously.

If you found plant or animal material from a different period of time, then you could turn our understanding of the history of life on its head.

how about this?

In a paper to be published in PLoS ONE on October 31, the researchers describe four types of cnidarian fossils preserving traits that allow them to be related to modern orders and families of jellyfish. The specimens are about 200 million years older than the oldest previously discovered jellyfish fossils.

ok just did, what do you say now?

but let me guess: this shines more light on evolution!! whats a few hundred million years to evolution, right? please…

or this…whats a few hundred million years to evolution, right?

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

March 24, 2005
A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.

as if soft tissue can last 70 million year…

While I agree with you that it’s impossible to observe the meta-physical complete lack of anything at all we described earlier, I must then say, how do we really know something doesn’t come from nothing, or that nothing can even “exist?”

We can’t, and thus, Aquinas’s proofs are not “proofs” at all, since they start with faulty assumptions. This is precisely why I don’t bother with these useless definitions.

It is a metaphysical assumption. But it is one that has been universally accepted (until the present time, and only rejected by some now out of desperation, as it seems to me).

Suppose you hear a loud BANG! sound come from behind you. You ask me “What caused that noise?” “It came from nothing.” Would you accept that? I don’t think reasonable people would.

All logical proofs start with assumptions. As long as the form is valid, then if you agree with the assumptions, you must agree with the conclusion (or be irrational). If we really thought something could come from nothing, it would be destructive of science and reason itself.

It is an assumption that we continually see confirmed by our experiences. When have we ever seen an effect without a cause? At the very least, this assumption is more probable than the alternative.

right4life said:

If you want to make a name for yourself, get your degrees and kill the theory. Academia loves it when the old standard is destroyed by the evidence. They love the new.

you really don’t understand academia, now do you? people have their beliefs, their worldview, their faith, to defend in academia, and if you haven’t noticed, they sue, silence, harass, and intimidate anyone who dares disagree with their faith (evolution). this is a battle of worldviews, not ’science’ if you think ’science’ is some great unbiased observer, you’re just dreaming.

I said that because, if he followed my advice, he would learn the evidence for such things. Look, in the Biology text books, yes, there are quotes that go beyond science. There were statements that attacked God. There were leaps of logic. I promise, I noticed them. I wish I had written them down (the book is way too long and dry to reread it again), so I could point them out.

But even with all of that, there were still many legitimate points that were made. There is a lot of error taught about the philosophical ramifications of evolution on both sides of the aisle. But just because someone makes some errors doesn’t invalidate all of their points.

right4life said:

But notice that even Behe does not deny evolution or common ancestry.

but his version of evolution is micro-evolution, and even YECs believe in that.

Dr. Behe accepts common descent – that humans, monkeys, and kitty cats come from the same biological ancestor. Dr. Behe accepts much of the theory of evolution. I think where Behe differs from most of his peers is in the area that he believes random mutation is not sufficient for explaining some evolutionary developments. If I recall correctly, he believes evolution needs a few “helping hands” at various times along the way.

I don’t doubt that there will be many surprising twists and turns in evolution in the future. I even wonder if there might some day be discovered that there are some additional natural laws that somehow makes life more probable. We still have no idea how life first developed, and the more we learn, the more improbable it seems.

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that, for a long time, life was very simple. And that over time, life gradually changes. Billions of years ago, nothing resembles a kitty cat, or a dog, or an ape. But as you approach the present era, you get critters that resemble rats and other mammals. Then you get various apes and hominids. Finally, you see humans. That is an unmistakable, gradual change in life on Earth.

I’m not married to evolution. It has a number of holes. But it is the best explanation we have so far. Until something better comes along, it is the best we have.

A great flood isn’t going to arrange the fossils just so. If people truly believed this kind of stuff, you could, for example, examine fossilized dinosaur dung – to determine the contents. If you found plant or animal material from a different period of time, then you could turn our understanding of the history of life on its head.