Melding Evolution and Creationism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]veruvius wrote:
haney wrote:

Whoops, that was supposed to be .1% to prove evolution. My thoughts and fingers went in different directions.
[/quote]
Well in that case you still only have .1% of the evidence. You are just rewording a statement, but it still means the same thing.

Well I would assume if he does not bvelieve in a Christian God then He would be against apologists. Apologist are like most scientist the fit bits and pieces in together in a hope that their argument is better. I don’t think anything those guys wrote is the final authority on anything. I use them only to point out that some of the info that comes from scientist is really just their opinion in the data, and not a final answer on how things happened. Just their interpretation of it.

That is a the problem there is no pattern. They are all still just missing links. There has never been a major evolutionary change. Just micro changes.

Since we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan over 50 years the region rather than continuing to mutate they have regressed. It was highly speculated that that would be the next evolutionary change. It wasn’t! Why? Because nature is conservative, not liberal. Which makes the idea of Evolution a little tough to be proven right. SO since there is no smoking gun, it is still presupposition.

[/quote]
At the bottom of that page, he has two cases where he thinks he has outwitted some young men:

  A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, "Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don't believe in God." I answered him, "Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don't know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don't know if you're making correct statements or even whether you're asking me the right questions."

  The young man looked at me and blurted out, ?What was that book you recommended?? He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations ?such ?reasoning? destroys the very basis for reason.
  1. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ?Actually, I?m an atheist. Because I don?t believe in God, I don?t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can?t even be sure of reality.? I responded, ?Then how do you know you?re really here making this statement?? ?Good point,? he replied. ?What point?? I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ?Maybe I should go home.? I stated, ?Maybe it won?t be there.? ?Good point,? the man said. ?What point?? I replied.

1: Evolution is not randomness. There is no “right” way, but there is a “most fit way”, speaking of evolutionary fitness. Also, there is a difference between how our cognitive processes evolved and how valid our conclusions are. If Ham was right, then how could anything be believed anyway?

2: That is metaphysics, and some of the greatest philosophers have pondered about what is real without getting anywhere. I can’t stand metaphysics, it seems awfully trite to me. And so is his inclusion of that encounter.
[/quote]
I never said all of his arguments are right. I merely pointed out that not all of the data confirms evoltion.

[quote]
The case against carbon dating solely relies on the fact that it is not perfect and that the word of God is. It also claims it only works up to 50,000 years. That is still longer than the literal acount of Genesis, and there are other radio-isotopes that have longer half lives for more distant times.[/quote]

That is fine that it is longer than Genesis. It certainly would put a huge strain on evolution being forced to have happened in 50k years. It also would make most scientist concede that the dating method is a little flawed(or should I say the scientist interpretations of the data is flawed).

162

[quote]ShaunW wrote:
I see the discussion has advanced somewhat since friday, but still the reason I enered this discussion was simply to put forth that whilst the bible exists, it is simply a bunch of stories.
As our technology grows and science advances we are finding more ways to explain the events depicted in these stories.

Haney ? I see no burden of proof. Advances in science and the ongoing growth of our body of knowledge is daily opening up more questions regarding the miraculous occurences as stated in various religious texts. You mentioned the science of archaelogy proving the existance of early Jericho. From memory the bible says Jericho fell from a bunch of people playing trumpets (correct me if I?m wrong). My point is this ? Isreal sits on a geological region full of faultlines ? the great trumpeting noise which made the walls fall could have simply been an earthquake, and not necessarily a large one ? from memory we are talking fired mudbrick as a building material.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/11887/edition_id/229/format/html/displaystory.html
[/quote]
That is great the problem is the archealogical evidence tells us how the walls fell. That is what makes it so surprising. The walls fell forward, there is also only one spot of the wall that did not collapse. that would be where rahab lived. While and earthquake may have happened, it is still an amazing coincadence that it all happened when they needed it.

Anything can be explained the question is “is it a plausable answer”?

You never answered about the quail.
There are alot of things that need to be explained you would have to explain the whole exodus. The plagues. The timing. The people went from not having food to all of a sudden something being on the ground.

163

[quote]veruvius wrote:
On what haney wrote:

I was just re-reading this topic and I realized you said some interesting things here. My whole point of different religions is that they all have different tenets. Not all will say God will in fact communicate with us about some ultimate reality.

As for knowing which religion has the right story, there is also the possibility that they are all wrong.

But I found your idea about the pursuit of God and the pursuit of truth to be a great point. That does seem to be universal. But how can you choose which path to find the truth? To me, there is nothing that gives greater merit to a certain religion. Maybe it is a case of action over inaction, but that is saying there is a right path.

I just try to make the most out of what I know is true: I am alive. As James Dean said, “Dream as if you’ll live forever, live as if today is your last.”[/quote]

Well if you look at a religion off of what it claims to be true with out looking at the facts of why they think that. Then I would assume you would also think that all fat loss pills really work.

It takes research before you can simply say they all say the same thing.

There is only one major religion that I know of that requires you to belive in one entity to get you were you want to go. It is also the only one that is not based off of your own personal good works.

All of the others require you to be a “good person” They never define what is good, but you are suppossed to find it, and make sure you do it.

Scott

164

[quote]haney wrote:
ShaunW wrote:
I see the discussion has advanced somewhat since friday, but still the reason I enered this discussion was simply to put forth that whilst the bible exists, it is simply a bunch of stories.
As our technology grows and science advances we are finding more ways to explain the events depicted in these stories.

Haney ? I see no burden of proof. Advances in science and the ongoing growth of our body of knowledge is daily opening up more questions regarding the miraculous occurences as stated in various religious texts. You mentioned the science of archaelogy proving the existance of early Jericho. From memory the bible says Jericho fell from a bunch of people playing trumpets (correct me if I?m wrong). My point is this ? Isreal sits on a geological region full of faultlines ? the great trumpeting noise which made the walls fall could have simply been an earthquake, and not necessarily a large one ? from memory we are talking fired mudbrick as a building material.
[/quote]

The problem is the archealogical evidence tells us how the walls fell. That is what makes it so surprising. The walls fell forward, there is also only one spot of the wall that did not collapse. that would be where rahab lived. While and earthquake may have happened, it is still an amazing coincadence that it all happened when they needed it.

[quote]
Another example :
Regarding the Burning Bush:

Burning bush is the common name of the plant Dictamnus albus, also known as False dittany, White dittany, or Gas plant. It belongs to the family Rutaceae but gets its name from a story in the Bible. According to Exodus3:2, Moses heard the voice of Godcoming from a Burning bush that was not consumed by fire. This occurred after he had to flee Egypt and was when he was called to go and demand the release of the Israelites. Traditionally it has been held that Dictamnus albus is the source of the story, as its leaves (and indeed the whole plant) produce aromatic oils that can catch fire on hot days, without injury to the plant.

Proff X: I previously used the miracle of Manna from Heaven as another example. The information given in the bible fit a phenomena that is able to be explained, and leads us to question the origin of many religions. In addition mate, a bloke doesn?t have to be on drugs to be openminded to alternate theories of the origin of a story written in a book over 2000 yrs ago.

Anything can be explained the question is “is it a plausable answer”?

You never answered about the quail.
There are alot of things that need to be explained you would have to explain the whole exodus. The plagues. The timing. The people went from not having food to all of a sudden something being on the ground.[/quote]

165

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Just got back to the internet here. Good thread, y’all. I would have to say that it is somewhat goofy to take the bible, Genesis for example, literally. The mythology has to be taken with a grain of salt, because if it was true, there wouldn’t be countless dinosaur fossils dating millions of years, and all of the fossil fuel reserves which we are so fond of using to drive our cars around with. In other words, for the bible to be a true and accurate accounting, we would have to see different things than we see in the world.

The bible is a good story book written by a bunch of guys a long time ago. Therefore, trying to reconcile a story in this book to a scientific theory is like trying to tie in the existence of the tooth fairy with losing your baby teeth. It’s just a story, that’s it. Entertainment. Something to “mentally masturbate” with, if you will. Not trying to diss anybody’s religious beliefs here, just hoping that y’all know the difference between a story carried down by word-of-mouth for generations and the scientific method.[/quote]

I have already shown the problems with carbon dating not being 100% correct. If that is the case then where are you getting your dating information? I would assume because some guy in a lab wanted it to be that way so he interpretated the information that way.

Lets say the earth is millions of years old.

Please explain the rate at which Helliuem escapes into the Atmosphere.

Please explain the rate at which the soil that is washed into the ocean and then later absorbed by the lower crust in the millions of years has not turn our oceans into a big patch of mud?

166

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You haven’t explained why the bible is false because there were dinosaurs. As has already been covered, many acknowledge that the “day” mentioned in Genesis does not relate to a 24 hour day.[/quote]
Like I said: “grain of salt”. It wasn’t a literal day, was it? What else in the bible is poetic license, and what is supposed to be unquestionable truth? Maybe Jesus didn’t literally rise from the dead? Maybe he didn’t “literally” heal the lepers, and turn water into wine. Maybe all the miracles are supposed to be poetic license, too. It would definitely make the bible more believable if this was the case.

I’m not calling anybody stupid, I said “goofy to take the bible literally”. There is quite a difference. Please don’t put words in my mouth and then demonize me like that. You’re the one who goes through these forums and calls people stupid. And some of the guys we talk about are – can’t disagree with you there.

Once again, I never said anybody was stupid. I put fundamentalists (any kind)who interpret the bible, or any book for that matter, as the literal word of God in the same category as crazy people who can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Because that’s what they are. God didn’t write some book. Some guy, or a bunch of guys wrote it.

167

[quote]ShaunW wrote:
Proff X: I previously used the miracle of Manna from Heaven as another example. The information given in the bible fit a phenomena that is able to be explained, and leads us to question the origin of many religions. In addition mate, a bloke doesn?t have to be on drugs to be openminded to alternate theories of the origin of a story written in a book over 2000 yrs ago.
[/quote]

You wrote this earlier:

[quote]Lets take the idea of ?manna from heaven? ? the facts given to us through the bible:
? Heavenly in hue (ie I take that to be blueish)
? Breeds worms and maggots if left unconsumed, or out in the sun
? It can be preserved by immolation in honey
? It has a bread-like consistancy
? The israelites were herders of sheep and goats.
[/quote]

These are all grand leaps of assumptions so let’s look at was actually written.
From the New King James Version
Exodus 16:4

[quote]4Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not. 5And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare what they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.”
[/quote]

Exodus 16:11-13

[quote]11And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 12"I have heard the complaints of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, “At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread. And you shall know that I am the LORD your God.”’
13So it was that quails came up at evening and covered the camp, and in the morning the dew lay all around the camp. 14And when the layer of dew lifted, there, on the surface of the wilderness, was a small round substance, as fine as frost on the ground. 15So when the children of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was.
[/quote]

In this passage, you completely excluded the quails that came in the evening and gave them meat. You also ignored the description of the substance being round and fine. You made an assumption of comparing it to a mushroom yet none of that flows with what is actually written. While you try to downplay each and every occurrence that was perceived as a miracle, you ignore the happenings that seem rather odd in the first place.

Exodus 16:17-21

[quote]17Then the children of Israel did so and gathered, some more, some less. 18So when they measured it by omers, he who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack. Every man had gathered according to each one’s need. 19And Moses said, “Let no one leave any of it till morning.” 20Notwithstanding they did not heed Moses. But some of them left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and stank. And Moses was angry with them. 21So they gathered it every morning, every man according to his need. And when the sun became hot, it melted.
[/quote]

Since you have deduced this to be a mushroom (even going as far as to say that every happening is the result of a hallucination) what mushroom melts in sunlight?

Exodus 16:22-26

You earlier wrote that the substance breeds maggots if left unconsumed…yet you completely ignored the later passages that explained that this did not occur on the sixth day when the food was left up. The previous days were a test…to see who would hoard more than they needed and who would be generous. When they learned their lesson, the substance no longer rotted when kept. Why ignore that part of the scripture?

168

Haney:
How about instead of taking the bible verbatim, lets assume there are some tiny exagerations in these stories.
Lets take these little birds you?ve brought up a few times:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/YahwehsQuails.htm

Although you?ve mentioned you take genesis literally; do you take all the books in the bible literally? If not, why not? What makes one book in the bible more ?legitimate? and over another?? leviticus is one people love to throw around. I?m interested in your answer on that.

I don?t understand your insistance that one needs to find an explaination for every story in this book. With enough research, time and technology, then I think every story in the bible will end up with a plausable explanation. The turin shroud is a top example.
Currenty in SthWest Aust we are having a ?plague of biblical proportions? of locusts. We know why these little buggers are destroying crops, it?s not a miracle or affliction provided by some deity, it?s a result of monoculture, climate and breeding capacity.
We can find ?plauisable answers? to most questions, and the ones we can?t , we research and theorise until we have one.

However, I’m sure, regardless of what a learned academic can deduce from new technology and some calc.s, the faithfull will still exist (for all types of religions) regardless of whether god is found in a burning bush, earthquake, or cheese sandwich on ebay.

169

[quote]haney wrote:
haney wrote:
ShaunW wrote:
I see the discussion has advanced somewhat since friday, but still the reason I enered this discussion was simply to put forth that whilst the bible exists, it is simply a bunch of stories.
As our technology grows and science advances we are finding more ways to explain the events depicted in these stories.

Haney ? I see no burden of proof. Advances in science and the ongoing growth of our body of knowledge is daily opening up more questions regarding the miraculous occurences as stated in various religious texts. You mentioned the science of archaelogy proving the existance of early Jericho. From memory the bible says Jericho fell from a bunch of people playing trumpets (correct me if I?m wrong). My point is this ? Isreal sits on a geological region full of faultlines ? the great trumpeting noise which made the walls fall could have simply been an earthquake, and not necessarily a large one ? from memory we are talking fired mudbrick as a building material.

The problem is the archealogical evidence tells us how the walls fell. That is what makes it so surprising. The walls fell forward, there is also only one spot of the wall that did not collapse. that would be where rahab lived. While and earthquake may have happened, it is still an amazing coincadence that it all happened when they needed it.

Anything can be explained the question is “is it a plausable answer”?

You never answered about the quail.
There are alot of things that need to be explained you would have to explain the whole exodus. The plagues. The timing. The people went from not having food to all of a sudden something being on the ground.

170

[quote]haney wrote:
I have already shown the problems with carbon dating not being 100% correct. If that is the case then where are you getting your dating information? I would assume because some guy in a lab wanted it to be that way so he interpretated the information that way.

Lets say the earth is millions of years old.[/quote]
Yes, lets.

Helium doesn’t escape the atmosphere. Gravity prevents matter from just leaving the surface of our planet. Our atmosphere has undergone countless changes, as has our planetary climate, etc. We know this from the study of fossilized plants and animals, and study of rock strata and ancient riverbeds, etc. It is really neat to read a little about paleontology, because you start to understand just how insignificant and tiny a part the human race has played in the history of our planet.

[quote]Please explain the rate at which the soil that is washed into the ocean and then later absorbed by the lower crust in the millions of years has not turn our oceans into a big patch of mud?
[/quote]
Erosion is also counterbalanced by “drying out” in some areas, underwater earthquakes, countless underwater volcanic eruptions, the list goes on and on. And by the way, it’s BILLIONS of years, not millions.

Let go of the dogma for a second, and use some common sense. In order for the bible to be a literal and correct book, then the dinosaurs and man would have had to co-exist. This is not the case. If it were, then we would expect a passage of the bible to read as such:

“And then the Mennonites came down from on high, yea, and said: Oh great Lord, why dost thou harry us with these giant fucking lizards everywhere? Truly, have we not given thanks for our meals of the occasional brontosaurus? Shower us with your tender mercies, and let not the packs of velociraptors tear us into tiny little bits. Amen.”

Think about it. The presence of countless sizes and quantities of dinosaurs would have dominated every aspect of human culture. We have found fossils in every part of the globe. And yet, we see archeological digs turning up clay pots with bulls or sheep on them, not five-story, meat-eating Tyrannosaurs. There’s cave paintings of birds, and bears, and buffalo – not pterodactyls and triceratops.

Make sense?

171

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
There’s cave paintings of birds, and bears, and buffalo – not pterodactyls and triceratops.

Make sense?
[/quote]

Who has said that man walked with dinosaurs? Who has written that animals were not on this planet long before man? The bible has never written that man was created first so what is your point?

As far as poetry in the bible, Adam and Eve didn’t eat “real” fruit either in the garden of Eden. The bible is filled with poetry and anologies. Is this seriously the first time you have heard this?

172

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Who has said that man walked with dinosaurs?[/quote]
If you take the bible as the literal truth, then I see that you could be right if the dinosaurs were created and then died out in the one day that they existed before God made man. If you postulate that the dinosaurs existed for more than one day, then you are also saying that they were around at the same time as man.

The bible dudes did. Six days is six days, if you take the bible as literal truth.[/quote]

My point is that the bible is NOT literal truth. It is a story book. Nothing more. It is a chronicle, if you will, of word-of-mouth stories that have been passed down through the generations, and were put to tablet (or scroll or whatever) when writing evolved.

No it’s not. In fact, my whole point is that the bible is not true at all in any literal sense. People do not die and then get resurrected after three days. Folks do not part the Red Sea just because they feel like it, nor can they call down plagues of locusts, or conjure the Angel of Death to fly through the night sky and slay the firstborn sons of Egypt.

A miracle is something which you create through your own point-of-view. You can view any event at all as miraculous if you choose to. You know what’s a miracle? Driving through Tallahassee at noon on a Monday without getting cut off in traffic. That’s a freakin’ miracle, and should be noted in the bible along with raining frogs, and food falling from the sky, and all the other crap which I’m not going to mention here. Faith is a matter of choice, and I respect those who believe differently than I do. I just also make fun of them a little, too. That’s what a smart-ass does.

173

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

No it’s not. In fact, my whole point is that the bible is not true at all in any literal sense.
[/quote]

If you truly don’t believe in any part of the bible being true (some of which has been clearly found to be true by historians and Haney did a good job of bringing some of those points up) then why are you in this thread? You ahve no knowledge of what started life on this planet…and you are fine with that. Then why not excuse yourself from a conversation that clearly revolves around how life was started? You aren’t presenting any points of view as to how life truly began on this planet, you are simply stating that you don’t believe. That is an opinion. Simply because you don’t believe doesn’t mean that it can’t be true. You have made your choice. Live with it. Either contribute to what this thread is truly about or excuse yourself and have a great God-free day.

174

Get Lifted:

The multiple big bang scenario is more a question of philosophy. It seems that thermodynamics prevents it from actually happening. The entropy of the universe is such that it would not be able to expand again if it collapsed; therefore, this and the sinusoidal idea are not happening.

[quote]
Perhaps Camus is right or perhaps you are…[/quote]

What ever happened to old Camus anyway?

175

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
haney wrote:

Please explain the rate at which Helliuem escapes into the Atmosphere.
Helium doesn’t escape the atmosphere. Gravity prevents matter from just leaving the surface of our planet. Our atmosphere has undergone countless changes, as has our planetary climate, etc. We know this from the study of fossilized plants and animals, and study of rock strata and ancient riverbeds, etc. It is really neat to read a little about paleontology, because you start to understand just how insignificant and tiny a part the human race has played in the history of our planet.
[/quote]

Well I understand what level of knowledge you have by saying that Hellieum does not escape the atmosphere.

It is a well known “SCIENTIFIC” fact that Helliuem does escape the atmosphere. It is in a constant state of trying to get out.

We loose 24 Billion tons of top soil a year. 1 Billion is reabsorbed by the lower earths plate. At the rate of what we are loosing North America would of been leveled at 10 million years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/ages.asp

Well good point too bad the Bible does have literature where it talks about dinosaurs. Wow just imagine one book that talks about dinosaurs thousands of years before we ever unearth them!

Doesn’t prove the Bible but it sure does make you think!

I think you are the one with the dogma. I am fully willing to accept science when it has more evidence. At this point all I have seen is how someone interprets the data.

Do us a favour if you don’t agree with the Bible that is fine, but at least bring some knowledge about it to the table before you start talking about something what you think it says or doesn’t say.

176

Open letter by 33 top cosmologist who are blasting the idea of the Big bang

http://www.cosmologystatement.org

177

By the way, I stated earlier the exact estimated age of the earth so thanks for the correction, too bad it wasn’t needed. I was only offering a possible way for the earth to be older than 10k, and still fit with in the scientisifc problems for the earth to be that old.

I have stated from the beginning. " It is Possible it could be older, but these things need to be explained."

P.S. It is 4.55 Billion years

178

[quote]haney wrote:
Open letter by 33 top cosmologist who are blasting the idea of the Big bang

http://www.cosmologystatement.org[/quote]

haney,
you are definitely doing some work on this topic and I applaud you for that.
I’m still researching stuff you wrote about 20 posts ago!
Anyway, I’d be cautious about jumping on this cosmology statement bandwagon without further investigation. I looked (briefly) at the list of contributing authors and wouldn’t classify them as “top cosmologists”
(The ones from GMU and superconix caught my eye… correct me if I’m wrong but I didn’t think GMU had a research program in physics or astronomy and, though I don’t recognize his name, superconix is a semi-conductor company not a cosmology company.

Otherwise, Keep up the good work! You’re making us think…
t-d

179

Just wanted to weigh in on this topic…

1st Issue - Literal Interpretation of the Bible:

I don’t think any of us are equipped to discuss the literalty of the Bible. Any of you who have seriously studied a foriegn language or been immersed in a foriegn culture can understand this. If you take something like Russian or Chinese and compare it to English, there are concepts that just don’t translate properly or entirely effectively because the cultural background is too different.

If someone were reading modern day English 2000 years from now, do you think they would get it completely right? Do you think they would totally understand our vernacular; when we were using sarcasm, metaphor, simile, etc.? I do not believe so.

So how can we expect to have a perfect translation of Hebrew from several thousand years ago? I’m not saying the Bible wasn’t written to be taken word for word or that it can’t be understood to have probably 95+% of its intended meaning, but how are we supposed to understand what that last 5% was? It might have made total sense literally in Hebrew. I might tend to put SLIGHTLY more weight in the opinion of a Hebrew scholar, but they weren’t around 2-3K years ago either.

There are all kinds of inconsistancies in English-language Bibles that apologetics explains by going back to the Hebrew and examining the context. Well, when you actually go through one of those excercises, you see that when the verse is taken in the proper context, it often has a slightly different meaning than just the plain English might suggest. Verb tenses might get changed slightly, chronology might be a little skewed, English nouns might not capture identical meanings as those in Hebrew.

So I don’t think the Bible’s literalty can be completely proven or discredited using any inconsistancies found in English translations, which everyone on this site is quoting from.

2nd Issue - Evolution:

We have scientific proof and observation of natural selection at work; microevolution I guess some would call it; bacteria, small bird population, or whatever changing in response to their environment.

The proof for long term macroevolution is of course not as solid, because we haven’t been observing directly observing it. That’s why its a theory.

What I hate is when hard-core, “we-all-came-from-goop” “Evolutionists” extrapolate our short term measurable scientific proof back thousands and even millions of years into areas of theory and say that that proof applies to the theory as well.

I also hate it when hard-core “Creationists” completely disregard verifiable scientific evidence because…I don’t know why. Maybe they’re afraid that acceptance of that evidence means they’re siding with the Evolutionists. It just makes Creationists look less credible.

For me, there is a middle ground. We can’t disregard scientific observations, but we also can’t assume that we can extrapolate that proof back indefinately to areas we don’t understand. We don’t know how the process of “evolution” started. Why wouldn’t God have created everything to adapt? Why does life’s evolution in response to random change need to disprove God? I think it actually points to His work all the more.

You have two engineers designing a car. The first one designs a nice car that lasts a long time, has great features, great engine performance, etc.

The second engineer designs an equally impressive looking car. But this one does some things differently. If a driver has a long highway commute every day to work, the car changes to have better and better gas milage, and engine efficiency increases. Or if the driver lives on a ranch, the car’s tires grow larger and the car’s clearance increases for off-road use. Its engine torques and power output increases as you use it to tow heavier and heavier loads.

Which of those two designs looks more impressive? As an engineer, a design that is truly adaptable is infintely more complicated than one that is not. The fact that life on this planet adapts to its surroundings through natural selection via “accidents” is actually even more of a statement that God designed life. If you could design something that could change and improve itself naturally in response to “accidental” stimulation, that would be an amazing invention.

For me, the further back you take evolution, the more strongly it supports a God orginated creation. In going back to the two car example, the second design is obviously more impressive. But what if there was a third engineer who came along with just a pile of metal and plastic that was designed to form itself into a car? Wouldn’t that be more impressive than either of the previous designs? Wouldn’t that be considered the more advanced design, even though it started from the less advanced state?

Hard-core Evolutionists extrapolate all the way back to the “primordial ooze”, and Creationists insist that evolution is wrong because it says in Genesis God created man, not ooze. But why couldn’t God have just started the chronology up somewhere in the middle? Why wouldn’t he create life in a certain mold, but then give it the ability to adapt and change?

In answering that question, think about this: God created MAN, he did not create BABY. God created Adam as a full-grown man and Eve as a full-grown woman. He told us that he started with full-grown humans, but obviously that didn’t mean that babies don’t exist. He had to start somewhere in a creature’s natural life cycle, so why couldn’t he have started somewhere in LIFE ITSELF’s natural life cycle of Evolution?

This is how I believe it is fully possible to believe in tenets of both Evolution and Creationism.

180

[quote]T-Doff wrote:
haney wrote:
Open letter by 33 top cosmologist who are blasting the idea of the Big bang

http://www.cosmologystatement.org

haney,
you are definitely doing some work on this topic and I applaud you for that.
I’m still researching stuff you wrote about 20 posts ago!
Anyway, I’d be cautious about jumping on this cosmology statement bandwagon without further investigation. I looked (briefly) at the list of contributing authors and wouldn’t classify them as “top cosmologists”
(The ones from GMU and superconix caught my eye… correct me if I’m wrong but I didn’t think GMU had a research program in physics or astronomy and, though I don’t recognize his name, superconix is a semi-conductor company not a cosmology company.

Otherwise, Keep up the good work! You’re making us think…
t-d[/quote]
I thought I edited that to scientist, not cosmologist. I had made that mistake first. Thanks for catching it I will update that post.

It also appears that many people have added their name to the list.

That is what I get for multi-tasking.
:wink: