Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

don't ask me, maybe you're reading it wrong. on the contrary, and i think this opinion will be shared by a lot of people. the more i understand how god works, and how he did what he did, and how small and insignificant we are in the universe, the more i marvel at and appreciate creation. that's actually the cornerstone of my worship practices, appreciation of creation.so uh, your opinion is just frankly wrong on the matter.

quantify information and complexity.maybe you should look up basic genetics, see how variances produce more "information" book, chapter, verse?there's also good evidence in the bible that the earth is flat. how literally do you take it? it says satan showed jesus all of the earth from atop a mountain, and says a few times that earth has four corners. so does evolution. god made humans, who sin and are imperfect. kind of ruins your argument, doesn't it? besides, that's all belief, and not even accepted by all christian churches. were you around for the "paul hates women" discussion? i don't think it's god word that women are saved by childbirth, and so should shuttup and stay home and do housework. who said anything about random chance? natural selection is a SELECTIVE thing, that actually guides evolution. it's not random. blind, maybe, but not random.go pick up dawkins' book, the blind watchmaker, and a read a bit. then we'll talk. because he address most of your standard creationist "monkey-typing" examples. it'd have very little bearing on my faith. just because something is accurate in some sense does not mean it's divine.

here's a question. supposing god got things started, and created single-celled life.how does that say anything about evolution, exactly?

Of course, it doesn't. It's also entirely possible that god got things started with the big bang, and life was a necessary result of that event. I see no contradiction between theism and natural science. Then again, the Bible is not a prerequisite to a belief in god.

i agree whole-heartedly.

quote:

---

Meiotic sorting works with information already present.

---

So does "random mutation".Your point is?

A meaningless question since no one is claiming such an event occurred.Why not try the calculation I suggested?My point is that randomness is not the huge bugabear creationists seem to think it is. It's quite normal actually.

It may seem so to someone who hasn't studied it deeply or who has taken all their information from purveyors of "creation science". I know that for as long as I learned about evolution only from anti-evolutionists, I also thought it was a wild, fantastic --- and godless --- theory. It was learning about it from a scientific perspective that took out both the "wild stretch" and the "anti-god" qualities of evolution. I think this is far less common that you suspect. For myself personally, evolution opened my eyes to the wonders of creation. I am of the opinion that the alleged pathway from evolution to athiesm is seldom travelled in real life, and that this danger is highly exaggerated by the leaders of the creationist movement.I would also note that, in my experience, those who are most likely to abandon faith in God as a result of accepting evolution are those who have been indoctrinated in the tenets of creationism.Have you ever read the testimony of Glen Morton? Google the name, you will find it quickly. But the TOE does not say the Bible erred about creation. In the first place it never denies that God is the Creator. As for HOW God created, that is a matter of scriptural interpretation. Some interpretations of the process of creation are incompatible with science, but the authority of the bible is not tied to any one particular interpretation. That's your opinion. Other Christians hold other opinions. If you learned more about evolution, you might change your opinion. For that matter, if you learned more about the bible and various interpretations of the bible, you might change your opinion. If the Bible is wrong, it ought to be thrown out, but in regard to the scriptures you cited, science does not show that the bible is wrong.Tell me, if someone could convince you that the bible supports the concept that God used evolution to create the diversity of living things, would you still be hostile to the theory of evolution?

I decided I did not really believe in evolution well before I ever read the Creationists arguments against it and long before I ever heard another Christian denounce it. Reading the arguments laid out in Walt Brown's book only confirmed what I intuitively believed. And this is your opinion, which you are entitled to. The thing is that if science shows that all life began only six thousand years ago, that VERY forcefully implies the existence of a creator. I mean if it was accepted as undisputed fact that life began six thousand years ago and there was a global flood, I bet there would be a lot fewer atheists around. However, if the formation of life can be reduced to random chance over unfathomable amounts of time gone by, then the relationship to the creator is weakend if not un-necessary. Thanks for the name. I found his site and read a bunch of the articles just now. It is very interesting. There are some things there that have raised some questions in my mind. However, I think much of his argumentation against a global flood is based on a very simplistic view of the processes involved in such a flood. He ignores the processes of liquifaction and the hydroplate theory. The global flood was a unique event involving irreproducable large scale changes. We cannot possibly compare such an event with small scale flooding action we see today. I used to think that the Bible could go either way in supporting the TOE or creation. But after studying more I have been forced to the conclusion that the Bible does not support the TOE and some passages certainly make a lot more sense with out it. Only if they could also explain the gaping holes in the theory as well.

no it doesn't. not at all. that's a falacy of dualism. there are other possibilities, given that science shows that the earth is only 6000 years old. for instance, life might just evolve quicker. or maybe it evolved elsewhere, and crash-landed here in an inter-galactic ark. the second is equally as plausible as the creation story.however, science repeatedly shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. it fits all of the geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and dating methods. how does that prove god in any way? and why not more people who believe babylonian religions, which claimed the same thing? did you miss the part about working as a geophysicist? you think as a geophysicist, working on seismic data, he'd notice something like a giant pocket of water below the earth's crust. this simply ins't found in an evidence. one of the wonderful things about seismic data is that it tells us the composition of the earth. we know what the layers are, how thick they are, etc.one of the great parts about earthquakes is that s-waves do not travel through water, and p-waves don't do it very well. the fact there is a path from an earthquake's focus, clear through the crust, mantle, and back out the crust almost on the other side of the world, where s-waves can be felt, simply disporves that there is any kind of liquid layer beneath the crust.it does however prove that part of the core is liquid, since we don't get s-waves on the opposite side of the planet from an earthquake. but i don't think your flood was molten iron.here's morton's essay on the hydroplate theory, which clearly does show he knows about it: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm no self respecting person studying seismic readings and calling themselves a geophysicist would be ignorant of the process of liquefaction. but apparently the creationists are. here's what one of my basic geology textbooks says:

quote:

---

When unconsolidated materials are saturated with water, earth quakes can generate a phenomenon known as liquefaction. Under these conditions, what had been a stable soil turns into a fluid that is no longer capable of supporting buildings or other structures.

---

basically, it makes sinkholes. the only rock i'd say that we have in abundance that is particularly subject to liquefaction is limestone. the high water table here in sunny florida causes us a lot of sinkholes, something called karst topography. (note this was in his "transformation" essay as something creationists couldn't explain to him)it does not say anything about sorting by density. it just jumbles things up, basically. makes a wreck of things.that, and the fossil record is not sorted by density. the smaller things are on the bottom, so that means they must have weighed incredible amounts! try me.

quote:

---

basically, it makes sinkholes. the only rock i'd say that we have in abundance that is particularly subject to liquefaction is limestone. the high water table here in sunny florida causes us a lot of sinkholes, something called karst topography.

---

Karst topography is caused by solution of the limestone, not by liquification.Not at all an expert on the matter, by I suspect that the solution happened when the water tables were lower.I think liquification happens to water saturated unconsolidated/unlithified sediments when shocked. I would think that "quicksand" is the prime example.Moose

oh yes, i know, i was just saying that it was closest process i could find that worked on rock. technically, liquefaction is only cause by earthquakes, and only happens to loose sediment. granitic crust, as stated by the hydroplate theory, is just not an option. this rock would not liquify unless you reconverted it to magma.the saturation of limestone in karst top. is caused by high water tables, and then having the water drained away to form air pockets.sorry, should have been more clear.

forgot to add this bit: so it would stand to reason that hydroplate theory says that water is no longer there? i'll take back my earthquake point, i suppose, if you tell me where the water went to.also... why would it be different than any other flood? by suspending rules you're basically setting up something which cannot be falsified. it was a flood, but it didn't look, work, act, or leave evidence of a flood. that's just not valid.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-13-2004 01:47 AM

And that's all well and good, but I strongly suggest you give both sides of an arguement a fighting chance by reading arguements separately before you decide which side is right. Woulda, shoulda, couldda. If, if, if. Sorry, but I hate those arguements. That's not how it is, so it's not relevant to this particular debate. Sorry again for being so blunt, but please consider this. So you disregard it now just because it disagrees with something else? Arach and I have both explained that you can believe in God and the laws that the Bible teaches and still aknowledge that evidence strongly suggests that the earth and universe are much older than 6000 and evolution happened. Someone else already addressed this. By all means, shoot.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

well, not if you're all-or-nothing fundamentalist. in my opinion, dualism has no place in proper judeo-christian theology.it is the belief that everything in the bible MUST be literally true that causes all of these problems. the logic used to support this assertion is weak at best, especially considering history records many, many instances of humans writing, changing, and messing with holy texts. it's just simple willful ignorance of the facts of the matter. once people start learning about that, it all falls into place.see dawg, for people like us the bible has MORE meaning when you relaly pick at it and think about it. it's good know where stories came from and why, and what they're trying to say. it's fun to compare canonical texts with apocryphal ones. and more so, i think it gets us closer to understanding god.