The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.

From where I sit, this thread seems more like yet another example of why the creation/evolution controversy will never be resolved, but it is not a discussion of the topic. If the current discussion is the one everyone really wants to have then I see no reason to interfere, but it would be nice if the actual topic received more attention.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Robinrohan,I think you must be looking at the wrong messages when you conclude this: The personal comment that's been mentioned came in your Message 74 where you said: In my reply I said that I felt that Christ's sacrifice for our sins needed explanation for how it tied into the thread's topic, otherwise it would be best taken to a more appropriate thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The OP seems to imply that since evolution and theories requiring an ancient universe are based on the assumptions of "naturalism" and "uniformism", and that these assumptions cannot be verified, then the creationism/evolution argument is a purely philosophical problem.Unfortunately for the OP, the assumptions of "naturalism" and "uniformism" can be verified. In particular, these assumptions allow us to construct a detailed and consistent history of the universe and of life on earth.If supernatural events played an important part of the history of the early earth, and if the laws of nature changed significantly after the Fall, it is not clear how the new laws of nature and the lack of supernatural events would lead to the construction of the consistent history that we have.It is not as if people just make these assumptions and then "shoe horn" the data to fit it. The theory of evolution, and the theories of the origin of the earth and of the history of the early universe, are straight forward, reasonable interpretations of the observations that are made. Remember that Noah's flood and the idea of a young earth were discounted by people who were expecting to confirm these ideas.It is certainly logically possible that the laws of nature were different in the past, and that the laws of nature, and physical evdidence, just so happens to be such that they indicate a universe with an ancient history and a common ancestor for all known life on earth; however, given the multitude of data and the work in so many different fields of science using very different methodologies, it seems to me that there are really only two reasonable alternatives:that the data really can be accepted at face value, and so the universe really is ancient and all known life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor over the last three and half billion years,or that the demiurge deliberately set up the post-Fall world with the appearance of ancient history.I will leave it to Gone full circle to choose his preferred idea.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

I agree that we need to hear from Gone full circle to consider the idea of some massive change in the laws of nature, and that is still the main part of his message and the most unclear.But as usual I want to register my objection to this kind of statement with my usual answer:There is nothing "reasonable" about the idea that the gradations in the fossil record must prove descent from one living form to another up the column. That's a humongous logical leap, the wildest possible speculation.And, the idea of Noah's flood that was discounted was a silly primitive notion that would now be a straw man in an argument with a creationist.

Faith Of course it would, since after all, a creationist need only invoke miraculous intervention by god in order to settle any quibble with the violation of physics.

I've answered these points about the Fall many times over. Do I need to repeat them? I don't find anything in my Bible beliefs "wanting."I'll only add here, though I've said this before too, that Galileo was not in conflict with the Bible, but with Aristotle, whose pagan views had been taken into the RC church, so true Christianity did NOT "adapt" to Galileo. Christianity does not adapt to the world, it is expressly forbidden to do so, and if it does so, it is no longer Christianity, no matter how much the adapters like to appropriate that term to the new heresy and deny it to the fundies.

I've never invoked miraculous intervention in any of these arguments.

Hello, Faith.

quote:

---

There is nothing "reasonable" about the idea that the gradations in the fossil record must prove descent from one living form to another up the column.

---

Then you didn't understand my reply. I wasn't talking about the fossil record, nor did I even mention it. I was speaking of the evidence from paleontology AND molecular biology and taxonomy and microbiology and anatomy and geology and etc. etc. all of which together paint a consistent picture. And without any forcing, too.Remember, Darwin himself presented the theory of evolution BEFORE the fossil record was known in any real detail.-

quote:

---

And, the idea of Noah's flood that was discounted was a silly primitive notion that would now be a straw man in an argument with a creationist.

---

I don't know what you mean here. According to the YEC model, the earth only existed for a couple of thousand years before the flood, existed only for a few thousand years afterwards, water covered the entire earth, and only covered it for less than a year.Even with what little knowledge I have in geology, I can come up with some things I would expect to see in the geological record that, as far as I know, have not been observed, and I know of a lot of observations that have been made that cannot really be reconciled with the idea of a global flood occurring in historical times.--However, these may be all off-topic here. I am more interested in discovering why Gone full circle thinks that it is natural to expect that the post-Fall world would be such that a consistent history of the world can be so easily constructed from the available data.Either that, or hear why he feels that somehow the available data have been forced unnaturally into an incorrect model.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

FaithNoah's flood is a violation of physics. However,that is a seperate topic we can discuss elsewhere if you so desire.

quote:

---

I am more interested in discovering why Gone full circle thinks that it is natural to expect that the post-Fall world would be such that a consistent history of the world can be so easily constructed from the available data.

---

My questioning has goen along similar lines. The answer is that he has no clue. He simply insists that we should give up all such attempts n the grounds that the "Fall" might somehow possibly account for the data.Which gives us the real reason why the debate won't end. There are people on the creationist side who will accept any excuse, no matter how feeble, than admit that they might be wrong.

Copernican astronomy has radical philosophical implications. Newtonian relativity has radical philosophical implications. Einstein's special and general relativity has radical philosophical implications. Somehow you are not seeing those, perhaps because you grew up in a culture where they had been largely absorbed.Sure, evolution has philosophical implications, but they are not more radical than those from other scientific revolutions. The difference is that we haven't finished absorbing them. A major philosophical implication of all of the theories mention, is relativism. Your problem with meaning is because you have not absorbed that implication.Life is very meaningful. But meaning is relative. We give meaning to our lives.Your constant problem with meaning, is because you have not accepted the relativism and are looking for an absolute meaning.

Come one, Faith. I don't see where evil really comes into it. Could God not have just chosen to forgive? Was it "evil" to forgive Adam and Eve their transgressions? The choice was there. If the Fall occurred then God didn't take it.Whatever happened, a validification of the Fall doesn't portray God in a good light, whichever way you look at it.By the way (and this is off-topic i think), Your saying that God cannot do evil, simply restricts God more and more. but we need not get into that here.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

That's hilarious! Problem? It's the whole point!

Oy.

I can't help it - My "stupidity happening" meter is buzzing loudly.Closing in 10 minutes. I suggest topic remains closed for 24 hours.Adminnemooseus

---