http://www.msnbc.com/news/547607.asp

NAIROBI, Kenya, March 21 —  Scientists say evolutionary thinking has been turned on its head with the discovery in Kenya of a second genus of pre-humans that walked the earth 3.6 million years ago. The find is likely to spark renewed debate about the ancient roots of our species, they say.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

Answers

So?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Bait, Charlie?

Well here I be.

Evolutionary thought has been turned on its head for a long time.

Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box pretty much blew Darwinian theory all to little itty-bitty pieces. Amazing how that wasn't covered in all the major media.

Behe's not a Christian Creationist, to be sure; but he sure shows how the 19th-century "science" upon which Darwin's theories are based hold ZERO water in light of present established molecular biological science.

***

Synopsis: Darwin was an ignorant fool.

Anyone who believes Darwin follows suit.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

CL,

You know, it's funny that I'd be an ID proponent, but I've never read Behe. I concentrate on the cosmological angle and the fact that this universe seems custom-tailored to the conditions necessary to support CHON life.

Another coincidence: I'm reading Paul Davies' The 5th Miracle: The Search For The Origin And Meaning Of Life right now; I'm almost done with it. It's a pretty good look at the "state of the state" in non-theistic theories right now.

And in my experience, anytime I used to get into discussions like this on Compuserve, I had to spend the first dozen or so posts just convincing people that I wasn't a Young Earther (ie, Earth is less than 50,000 years old, the world was created in 6 days), too. :)

Quite a few biologists have read Behe. Tom Schneider at the NIH has written a rebuttal of the foundation of Behe's argument, using Roman arches as an analogy. He points out that these are "irreducibly complex" (the entire arch must be constructed before it will stand on its own), but I think his analogy has some obvious flaws. Besides, if he's right, he missed an important question: where's the "scaffolding" in nature?

Davies is addressing some of these problems in his book.

One of the biggest things to come out of the discoveries of the past 20-30 years, though, is just how robust and efficient life is. Life appeared on this planet almost as soon as it could (back at the 4 billion year mark). Then there's the Cambrian explosion: 50 phyla appeared within a span of 5-10 million years.

The most amazing to me is the Yucatan meteorite strike that probably wiped out the dinosaurs; it did more than just give Dino a headache, several digs into that strata have shown that virtually all life larger than microbes was wiped out for about a 5-10,000 year period. It then reappeared.

More puzzling is that some quite-similar species appear before and after that die-out. The explanation in the past is that the die-out obviously wasn't world-wide, but the aforementioned digs are causing a stir, because they indicate that it WAS (two that I know of: one in Mexico and one in New Jersey, both showed the same thing; this was written up in Science a couple of years ago).

You mention that the mainstream press didn't cover Behe. What's more amazing to me is how unaware they are of the tendency for cosmologists to be panspermists. From what I've seen, Davies has basically adopted this viewpoint -- ie, that life began OFF of this planet and was seeded here, in elementary form, by cometary and meteorite impacts.

On CPR's link here: it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that primate evolution branched into several dead ends. What's going to tell the tale is DNA research into origins. It's already found a few surprises -- for example, that Neanderthal wasn't our direct ancestor, but was more likely a case of parallel evolution that failed and died out (there was a good article about this in Nature a while back).

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Part II (for the slower of thought but faster of mouth), from Leakey (and if you don't understand what this means, don't bother posting):

http://www.msnbc.com/news/547607.asp

UNTIL NOW, the dominant scientific view was that the ancestors of present-day Homo sapiens came from a species known as Australopithecus afarensis, identified in 1974 with the discovery of the skeleton “Lucy” in Ethiopia.
       But paleontologists led by mother-and-daughter team Meave and Louise Leakey say the hominid they found, dubbed Kenyanthropus platyops, is totally different from Australopithecus.
       “It revolutionizes the way we look at human ancestry,” Louise Leakey told Reuters. “We have found a very flat-faced 3.6 million-year-old hominid which represents something quite different to what we know to have existed at that time.”
       Details of the find were published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.
       
MORE THAN 30 INDIVIDUALS
       The team analyzed fossils of more than 30 individuals in 1998 and 1999. The most crucial was a skull found by research assistant Justus Erus near the Lomekwi River in northern Kenya.
       After two years of exhaustive testing on the skull, Leakey said they had accumulated enough evidence to declare not only the discovery of a new species but a new genus as well.
       Kenyanthropus had a much flatter face than Lucy, as well as particularly small molar teeth, leading scientists to believe it fed on a mixture of fruit, berries, grubs and small mammals and birds.
       “You have to look for dietary reasons they’re separated like this, as perhaps an environmental adaptation to different regions at about the same time,” Yale anthropologist Andrew Hill said.


-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

And to those who only see things in black or white, yes or no, true or false, I offer the viewpoint that the continuing discoveries of anything older than

the Biblical 6,000 years is GOD'S WAY of REVEALING ........HOW......HE.....created the Universe......

NOT....the interpretation of writings handed down by one tribe of nomads later calcified into "Theology" by POLITICIANS posing as "Men of God" from the people in Rome to cretins like Gary North, abuser of the initials Ph.D. and Six Day Creation Espouser.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

the Biblical 6,000 years is GOD'S WAY of REVEALING HOW ....HE.....created the Universe......

I fully agree.

In fact, after I came to my sense and started looking at the cosmological angle, the thing that impressed me the most was how ... MUNDANE ... the usual 6-24-hour day creation thingie is. The way that the cosmos was created is far, far more majestic than most people realize.

From a tiny point of near-infinite gravity, a huge universe burst into existence; well within the first second of its existence, 99% of it was annihilated (releasing the tremendous background radiation which was measured by the COBE satellites).

What was left is what we see. :)

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Let's not be taking things out of context. This

And to those who only see things in black or white, yes or no, true or false, I offer the viewpoint that the continuing discoveries of anything older than........the Biblical 6,000 years is GOD'S WAY of REVEALING ........HOW......HE.....created the Universe......

was the whole statement.
It was not meant to connote that the Biblical 6,000 years was God's way of revealing to man His Method of Creation RATHER that the continuing discoveries of the many Scientific discoveries about OLDER EVENTS whether Archeology, History, Darwin Ebil_ution, re- interpretation and re-evaluation of Scripture upon discovery etc. are the way that God Reveals to man and to borrow by paraphrase from Scripture...."....in His Own Time..." it shall be revealed. To deny what is thus revealed shows a complete ignorance that can best be equated to that of the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church's advocacy of Earth Centricity because THEY WANTED IT TO BE SO. It could be argued that the timing of the demise of the Earth Centered Universe was a message from Him that it was time to sail out to new lands and fulfill the Evangelical demands of the N.T. (while stealing some gold and land for the Crowns that financed the trips). That was one of the objectives of Sr. C. Colon.

Similarly, the discoveries and medical gains from work with DNA and the "Modern Hypothesis" can't be 'blasphemy' and 'the work of the Devil' but rather some evidence that HE wants His Children to "live long and prosper" (except for the opponents of the Irving Cowboys, Dallas Stars and Mavericks and other residents of the City of Gold on the Trinity).

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Synopsis: Darwin was an ignorant fool.

Anyone who believes Darwin follows suit.

Anyone who believes that Darwin is the be-all, end-all of evolution theory is the fool.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

note to Peg:this is where you need to insert one of them Gifs showing Dubya looks like a chimp.

You are our resident Gif Manager aren't you lady? :)

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Charlie:

It's unclear why you mentioned this as closing a "gap." IMO, it simply represents another branch of humanoids that existed at roughly the same time as Afarensis but, apparently, became extinct, either before or after contributing to the gene pool of modern humans.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Behe lectured here a while ago; it's a cute mutation of argument by design, but it's still an old and weak argument. There's a good summary of holes in his work on Salon he re. A better review and discussion here discusses the more cogent problems with Behe's argument, especially in light of their continued refutations by neo-Darwinians. Behe's work, however, doesn't strike me as falsifiable, and consequently doesn't meet the requirements of a scientific theory.

I personally have no objection to Creation arguments as long as they're handled representatively. As soon as we agree to teach kids about Prajapati's divine incest with his daughter Ushas to create the earth, Izanami and Izanagi humping each other's brains out to create Japan or Enki masturbating to generate the waters of the fertile crescent, I'll go print up the textbooks.

Yeah, I'm in a foul mood.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Yes, but when you ARE in a "foul mood", absolute pearls of wisdom come flying out of your keyboard.

Thanks for never disappointing.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

While I would be astounded if Chicken Little's opinion were based on *anything* beyond a desperate desire to accept nonsense for religious reasons, more curious and less committed people might want to look into what Behe wrote, and compare this with what is actually known.

For those people, here are some links to extensive reviews of Behe's efforts.

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.html

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe_links.html

Essentially, Behe's argument says "I simply cannot imagine how certain things might have evolved. Therefore, they *could not* have evolved. Therefore, God created them." But this "reasoning" says nothing about evolution, it merely demonstrates Behe's inability to imagine much. Today, Behe is fighting a rearguard action, conceding (in the face of experimental proof) that one after another of his "irreducible" forms are demonstrably reducible after all.

Here is an observation about Behe's book, from Peter Atkins, University of Oxford. It gives the flavor of the reception Behe has received outside of creationist circles:

"the book is undeniably a covert creationist tract, with the Intelligent Designer nothing other than a God and Intelligent Design merely active creation. That the creationists have resorted to this subversion should surprise none of us, for the ethical poverty of their actions matches the intellectual poverty of their beliefs.

With hard work and even the possibility of progress dismissed, Dr Behe waves his magic wand, discards the scientific method, and launches into his philosopher’s stone of universal explanation: it was all designed. Presenting this silly, lazy, ignorant, and intellectually abominable view -- essentially discarding reason and invoking that first resort of the intellectually challenged (that is, God) -- he present what he thinks is the most wondrous of theories, that the only way of achieving complexity is by design. There we see Dr. Behe dangling from his petard, proclaiming his "science" of intelligent design, while not troubling to seek the regulation of that awesome monitor of scientific enterprise, peer review."

And Chicken Little thinks "Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box pretty much blew Darwinian theory all to little itty-bitty pieces?" He's "amazed how that wasn't covered in all the major media?"

Well, not too amazed, I don't think. When Peter Atkins spoke of "ethical poverty", he wasn't kidding. Only creationists care about Behe, and they do so only for his propaganda value. No one on earth values his molecular biology.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

CPR,

And in my turn, when I used "mundane," I was referring to the lock-tight, fundie-blessed, 24-hour day interpretation of Genesis, do no pass Go, do not compromise, that's how it happened, PERIOD. I was referring to interpretations myself.

I think I'm actually agreeing with you in the main (but I'm assuming that my CPR-Speak to Ingles translator hasn't missed a beat).

Anita,

Thanks for using the term "humanoid" instead of (my choice of) "primate." That would be more correct.

What I was trying to say was, I think this is just another example of parallel evolution, a hominid evolving to fill a niche, then dying out because it couldn't figure out how to order un hamburgesa at Burger King.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Hey, Doc...I just happened to come across this beauty today..LOL!

..all in fun folks ;)

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Oh give him a banana...

Too funny. Guy is a riot. I love his explanation on things. Just yesterday "We are going to treat the Chinese with the utmost respect during these meetings" then what? Like he needs to clarify dumbass shit like that?

"I think the American People deserve tax relief" ya like this is news? Who doesn't want tax relief? Oh no let some bonehead in DC spend my money. Come-on do we just expect this baloney? Are we so dead to it all? apparently.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Firstly and foremostly: Flint, kiss my ass, you obtuse excuse for an intellectual.

Now, then.

You reduce Behe's argument to such a simple level that it's obvious you haven't seriously read his writings. Now have you. You've read the Cliff's Notes.

Obviously you've read the writings of Behe's critics. That's always the easy way out.

Pretty shabby, for such a supposed 'brain'.

***

Stephen -- I must confess to being one of the 'Young Earthers' of which you speak. While I certainly am not the practicing Christian I once was (can you tell?), I still believe in the historicity of that Book. From Genesis 1:1 on up. People have been trying to refute it, dilute it, destroy it for thousands of years, and have yet to succeed.

The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, and God rested on the seventh. That selfsame narrative continues on into a history large parts of which have been conclusively proven by archaeology of late, despite previous refutations by the historical/archaeological community.

There is no point in the Old Testament where it says: "Okay, the preceding was myth, and from this point on you can take it seriously." The Old Testament is to be taken as a whole. From any credible literary viewpoint; not to mention from a viewpoint of faith. Literary experts from Sir Frederic Kenyon on have declared this to be so. (Sir Frederic was a mental giant, whose intellect eclipsed even that of our dear Mr. Flint.)

You either take the entire Bible as historical fact, or you reject the whole thing. There is no other logical way.

And any scintilla of "evolution" has no credibility whatsoever, if you believe the Bible. There is no halfway measure. You believe in the God of the Bible, and the Genesis account; or you believe in evolution. You can't do both, Charlie. Try as you might. "The twain shall never meet."

Those of you who want to believe you're descended from babboons, have at it.

I think a bit better of my family.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

To those who keep bashing literal creation:

You are in for a rude awakening one day. Stop lumping everyone who believes that God actually is powerful enough to create everything in six days, with kooks like North.

Wake up and view the scientific facts....from scratch. FORGET what you have been brainwashed with for decades (evolution belief system) and TRY looking at biblical explainations for the things we see around us....

You might be amazed. Or, like me....you might be converted.

Answers in Genesis

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

CL,

I still believe in the historicity of that Book. From Genesis 1:1 on up. People have been trying to refute it, dilute it, destroy it for thousands of years, and have yet to succeed.

You should know that I agree with this without reservation. I believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word (as one old fellow said, from the dedication to the maps[g]). Our disagreement, then, would be Genesis chapter 1 and what it actually SAYS.

I think you'd agree that there are disagreements between very devout Christians over just precisely what the Bible actually says. For example, I've been in some lengthy arguments with Baptismal Regenerationists over their doctrine that you must be baptised by immersion in water for the remission of your sins, or you aren't really "saved" (ie, a true Christian).

I'll avoid the arcane details here; I'll just say that, a careful study of the Greek of the New Testament reveals that it's not as cut and dried as the Regenerationists think.

(In fact, 1 Peter 3:21 in the Greek actually says the opposite of what they believe; it says that baptism is NOT the "putting away of the unspeakable moral defilement of the flesh, but the pledge of a good [implied: ALREADY FORGIVEN AND CLEANSED] conscience toward God." It is the outward sign of an inward action that has already taken place at the moment of belief.)

Likewise with Genesis chapter 1, and of course (of course!) we always get back to that old argument: how long is a "day" in that account?

I've read endless explanations from Young Earthers about how this must represent a 24-hour period. Yom (the Hebrew word for "day") is used here with an ordinal (one, two, etc.); the account says "evening and a morning;" so on and so on. But there are plenty of scholars -- and I'm not just talking about "liberals," as they imply -- who would respectfully disagree with them.

Go to the Reasons To Believe Web site and read Hugh Ross' careful discussion of this. Then read his testimony and statement of belief. I'll defy you to class him as a "liberal," or even as someone who doesn't take the Bible literally (he does); but he has no problem with the fact that the "days" of Genesis 1 could represent very long periods of time.

a history large parts of which have been conclusively proven by archaeology of late, despite previous refutations by the historical/archaeological community.

Hey, I agree with this, too. There are countless examples. Scholars used to say that the Hittites, a tribe mentioned in the Bible, never existed; we now know that they did (and in the general region in which the Bible claimed that they did). The Queen of Sheba used to be considered a myth; we now know that she came from the region of modern day Yemem. And so on.

In particular, Luke's Gospel and Acts are considered by archeologists to be two of the most accurate ancient documents ever written. Luke took pains to carefully describe titles, locations and historical events that are verifiable by external sources.

There is no point in the Old Testament where it says: "Okay, the preceding was myth, and from this point on you can take it seriously."

That's not what I'm doing, not for a moment. Again: our only serious area of disagreement would be over the length of the "days" in Genesis.

And any scintilla of "evolution" has no credibility whatsoever, if you believe the Bible. There is no halfway measure. You believe in the God of the Bible, and the Genesis account; or you believe in evolution. You can't do both, Charlie. Try as you might. "The twain shall never meet."

Do a Web search on the term, "Progressive Creationist." Perhaps that alternative might interest you.

Those of you who want to believe you're descended from babboons, have at it.

I DON'T believe this. I believe that Adam and Eve were specially created by God, as described in the Bible. We have similarities to the primates, but I believe that we are special creation.

What happened prior to that creation, though, could have taken a very long time.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Stephen,

What Genesis says is what Genesis says.

Plain for all to see; and it's echoed all through the New Testament.

In literal terms.

Any serious reader of the New Testament cannot fail to see how the New Testament writers took the Old Testament documents as literal.

That includes the literal, seven-day Creation Week.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

CL,

And I respect that, believe me. Forgive me, but I'll also take the liberty of saying that I don't think you are quite as "lapsed" in your Christianity as you might think, my friend. You may be a "better" Chrsitian than I am (if there's an objective measure that can actually be used to determine that). :)

I just don't consider those Christians who might have a different interpretation of Genesis 1 to be "liberal" or engaging in "myths." Dr. Ross' book Creator and the Cosmos was one of the most challenging things I've ever read.

Another poster here indicated that the ICR "changed his life." Well, power to 'em! Ross's book didn't "save" me (I was already a devout Christian), but it did profoundly change my outlook.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

CL:

In your haste to hurl insults, apparently you didn't notice that I provided links to Behe's actual book, to Behe's own defenses of it, to his supporters AS WELL AS his critics.

I am not a molecular biologist, and never will be. So in this as with most fields in which I am not an expert, I must rely on the results of the peer review that any honest scientists submits to.

And Behe has not bothered with peer review, but instead gone straight through the creationists' hotline to the weak-minded. When you can show me the agreement of Behe's scientific peers, I will accept that he has something scientifically valid to say. Until that time *BEHE* is the one who isn't bothering to make the effort, not I. I choose to trust scientists and not charlatans.

[People have been trying to refute it, dilute it, destroy it for thousands of years, and have yet to succeed.]

I'll certainly agree that some people continue to pride themselves on the thickness of their shell of denial. But the young-earth claims are as refuted as human intelligence can accomplish. To accept such claims, one must reject all of evolution, all of geology, all of biology, great gobs of physics, all of astronomy, all of cosmology, all of botany and zoology, and so on. Is it any wonder that the thought of peer review strikes terror in their hearts? If any of this idiocy were submitted, real scientists might die of laughter.

Meanwhile, these same young-earth people live long and healthy lives because of advances in agriculture, medicine, and other areas made possible *only because* we have understood and taken advantage of the very realities the young earthers deny. The irony is lovely.

Stephen:

[Why would you consider it "dangerous" for people to conclude that the Bible is Truth?]

Because as we have seen, we run the risk that our children might get taught that nearly everything we've learned for the last 150 years is nonsense, and that the "real truth" is told or implied by tales told 4000 years ago by imaginative but primitive tribesmen. I have no objection to those who choose to cripple their faculties. But I do object when they want to impose such severe limitations on others.

[Again: our only serious area of disagreement would be over the length of the "days" in Genesis.]

How astoundingly parochial! If instead Genesis made the claim that our universe and the life within it happened because God happened to spit while he ambled past, then your "only serious area of disagreement" might be the exact composition of Godspit! Try to imagine how arguing over such details might look to those who don't share your beliefs. Can't you see that we have accomplished so much ONLY because those who have made these accomplishments regarded such questions as irrelevant?

[I believe that Adam and Eve were specially created by God, as described in the Bible. We have similarities to the primates, but I believe that we are special creation.]

But what a wealth of coincidence we have found, and continue to find. If one didn't know better, one would think that evidence and observation were actually trying to tell us the same things about ourselves that they have been telling us about everything else all along!

I admit, I find it impossible to fathom how anyone could choose to ignore all we know, all we've learned, all we see around us, in favor of something both incredibly unlikely and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. This is the very core definition of irrationality. Is your spiritual life truly that impoverished, that you must lay claim to such beliefs? Surely you would find undreamed-of richness if you weren't so dead-set on insisting that YOU are the Great Exception to the rules everything else follows.

At least Chicken Little doesn't try to make himself an exceptional case. He's consistent, choosing instead to believe that ALL we know is wrong and that *everything* derives from pure magic.

I'm not trying to argue religion, because there is no traction, no purchase against which to progress. I admit all I can do is point out the obvious and giggle. And make sure foolish cult teachings don't start getting called "science" in our classrooms.

I do ask that you try to imagine how vanishingly unlikely it would be for anyone to blunder onto any of your religious beliefs unless they had been indoctrinated in them from infancy. The physical laws of the universe I consider much more universal -- something martian science would have in common with ours. For someone brought up to value logic and evidence, religion is like Wonderland to Alice -- how very peculiar.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Flint,

Because as we have seen, we run the risk that our children might get taught that nearly everything we've learned for the last 150 years is nonsense, and that the "real truth" is told or implied by tales told 4000 years ago by imaginative but primitive tribesmen.

There are people who really believe that the USA never actually went to the moon (ala Capricorn One). They arrived at this conclusion pretty much on their own, too, without any help from me. So, to start with, the idea that we can somehow prevent people from reaching incorrect conclusions by limiting what they're exposed to isn't terrible compelling.

All I can do is try to be responsible: I carefully explain my position. If people misunderstand it, I will try to explain more clearly. But if they persist in that misunderstanding, I can't help that.

*Groan* ... I shall even make one more tired comparison with Y2K. There were people in the old TB2000 who considered me the devil incarnate. Why? Not because there was no possibility that I could be right; but because my positive attitude might cause people to relax and stop "Preparing" -- in spite of the fact that I repeatedly said that there was nothing wrong with common-sense "preparations." I even recommended such. But because I didn't toe the Doomlit line, I was an Enemy.

I know what you're afraid of: you fear that Creationism will be taught as science. You are afraid that, if ideas like mine become widespread, a "slippery slope" will be created that could lead to this.

But the answer isn't to engage in a knee-jerk reaction against anything that might possibly smell of Creationism (or even aid the Creationist's viewpoint). That's just political correctness of another kind; an attempt to control what people see and read so as to shape their opinions.

If I am bothered by Christians who try to do this, why do you think I'd endorse it amongst non-believers? Fair is fair.

If instead Genesis made the claim that our universe and the life within it happened because God happened to spit while he ambled past ...

NOW you have surprised me; I didn't think YOU capable of building strawmen from whole cloth. If Genesis said that, of course I wouldn't believe it! You are deliberately ignoring the content of Genesis so as to make your point.

My claim, as a Christian, is that the Bible *is* superior to the writings of other religions BECAUSE it isn't totally at odds with what we've learned in the past 150 years. Arguing against my beliefs because of outrageous claims made by other religions is something worse than silly.

By your logic, I could say, "look at this constitution over here written by some radicals that would outlaw this that and the other! Therefore, we shouldn't trust any Constitutional document!" Really, you have surprised me here. I would COMPARE the documents and make a qualitative assessment of each.

I find it impossible to fathom how anyone could choose to ignore all we know, all we've learned, all we see around us, in favor of something both incredibly unlikely and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

That's not what I'm doing. I am trying to reconcile what I believe with what I know. Must I keep repeating that, too? :)

I am JUST as opposed as you are to teaching Genesis as "science." How many times must I say that the Bible isn't a science textbook and shouldn't be viewed as such? You would actually find me a strong ally at this point.

But more to the point (touching on the rest of your comments), you completely ignore that there are THOUSANDS of Christian scientists who believe that there is a God and that He created us for fellowship with Him. They are not ignorant, nor do they "choose to ignore ... all of the evidence" as you imply.

Did you even read what I said above? People like me, who choose to respect science and the scientific method, must OF NECESSITY come up with some way to reconcile our beliefs with science. My approach is by no means shared by all, but it is shared by many.

Flint, your bias against religion (and the Christian Bible in particular) again reveals itself, and again, you have surprised me. This isn't an either-or binary solution set; either one completely rejects the concept of God as revealed in the Bible or one is "irrational." In fact, that conceit -- and sorry, but that's all it is -- is one of the things that I have specifically addressed in online debates in the past.

I'm not trying to argue religion, because there is no traction, no purchase against which to progress. I admit all I can do is point out the obvious and giggle. And make sure foolish cult teachings don't start getting called "science" in our classrooms.

This is actually a separate issue. I would maintain that there is a great deal of evidence now that life was designed, rather than an accident. Even the NSEA decided a few years ago to remove the words "[it's an] undirected process" from its definition of evolution, because they wanted to be fair.

I do ask that you try to imagine how vanishingly unlikely it would be for anyone to blunder onto any of your religious beliefs unless they had been indoctrinated in them from infancy.

Are you really that uninformed? Again, I am amazed. Flint, there are COUNTLESS people in science who have, without any assistance from lil' ol' me (or people like me), become believers -- so much so that one (Geoffrey Burbidge, IIRC) complained back in 1992, when the COBE results were announced, that his fellows were all rushing off to join "the First Church Of Jesus Christ Of The Big Bang." :)

The Big Bang alone caused many physicists -- including Crenshaw, quoted above -- to completely reconsider their atheism and/or agnosticism. Jack, as a matter of fact, is now a happy pentecostal (Assemblies of God, if I recall correctly[g]). There was a long process by which he reached that point, but his knowledge of SCIENCE actually helped, rather than hindered, his journey.

Again: I understand your concern: you are afraid that Creation Science will be taught as science in the classroom. I am opposed to that.

But just for fun, imagine that some alien master race seeded life on this planet. Could we teach that?

Sure, Christians would crow (loudly!) that the "master race" was actually God (or angels, or whatever). No way around that. But does that mean we must avoid that conclusion just because of that possibility? Is THAT intellectual honesty?

I say not; again, it's nothing but political correctness in a new pair of shoes.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Stephen:

We are not quite communicating. This time I'll assume the problem is mine, and try to present my position somewhat differently. But it might help if you considered me as a martian anthropologist, intrigued by the beliefs I see people proclaim, but willing to adopt any new beliefs only when I consider the evidence persuasive. And if what I see is "these tales, *as I interpret them*, don't seem to do too much damage to what the scientific method has shown us so far", then to me this is not persuasive.

[So, to start with, the idea that we can somehow prevent people from reaching incorrect conclusions by limiting what they're exposed to isn't terrible compelling.]

But that's not what I said. Again, I'm a martian. I find you looking around your world, seeing creatures bearing a close physical resemblance to you, and indeed you discover a nearly-100% genetic overlap with some of them. You discover this same relationship among all the creatures of your world, and derive a testable explanation, *except* you consider yourself special, created whole cloth. In your particular case, what you have observed and concluded about *all other creatures*, using evidence *exactly like* the evidence that applies to you, somehow doesn't apply to you!

Now, what am I to make of such a claim? It's not only inconsistent with your entire explanation of relationships, but it is backed by not so much as a single observation even suggesting you might be in any way unique. How am I supposed to be persuaded that your case is special? More to the point, how can you communicate to me just *why* you've carved out this special, contrary-to-your-own-evidence position?

[I know what you're afraid of: you fear that Creationism will be taught as science. You are afraid that, if ideas like mine become widespread, a "slippery slope" will be created that could lead to this.]

But it already has. I'm sure you're well aware that such efforts are constant. They tried describing religion as religion and failed to get into the curriculum. Next they tried creation "science", but responsible people saw through this. Next they tried claiming that any valid testable scientific theory was "religion" too, so their religion was just as good! Eternal vigilance and all that.

[But the answer isn't to engage in a knee-jerk reaction against anything that might possibly smell of Creationism (or even aid the Creationist's viewpoint). That's just political correctness of another kind; an attempt to control what people see and read so as to shape their opinions.]

Stephen, I am appalled. This is pure bullshit! I spoke of peer review, which you have carefully ignored. I don't feel remiss in demanding that Creationism show some evidence, ANY evidence. And there has been NONE. There have been endless attacks against evolution, each one painstakingly and thoroughly refuted by scientists, yet repeated by Creationists as though these refutations had never occurred. I was not kidding about the massive rejection of nearly all of nearly every field of study that would have to take place to even begin to credit young-earth claims.

Nor am I trying to control what anyone sees and reads, except insofar as I'm trying to get *everyone* to look at ALL sides of the debate, rather than focusing on only what their fellow True Believers tell them to accept. I didn't mind posting links to Behe himself (which I did). The facts that his claims do not arise out of scientific investigation, that he avoids peer review, that he debates as a creationist, that his claims have been disproved in the laboratory, to me these things are compelling. If you value science as you claim, this pattern should bother you.

I ask of Creationists, HOW can your claims be refuted, WHAT would constitute disproof, WHAT would you accept as a clear demonstration that you were wrong? This is NOT a "knee-jerk reaction", these are the fundamental bedrock of scientific investigation. If you think this is "political correctness of another kind", then we cannot talk at all!

[NOW you have surprised me; I didn't think YOU capable of building strawmen from whole cloth. If Genesis said that, of course I wouldn't believe it! You are deliberately ignoring the content of Genesis so as to make your point.]

Nope. This is not a straw man despite your claim. Again, I point out the incredible damage young earthers would have to do to all of science. They *believe* this stuff, Stephen. They reject nearly everything nearly everyone has learned for centuries, rather than compromise even a smidgeon a totally preposterous belief for which NO evidence exists! LOOK! READ! what these ninnies are writing here. They are saying "This is what Genesis says, so it's the literal truth. And the entire world around us is a lie!"

So I repeat, from my perspective (martian), it seems likely you'd be "discovering" that "spit" is really a metaphor for the Big Bang, etc. You admit yourself that it's a challenge to rectify your beliefs with your knowledge. And the Hopi stores have great meaning to the Hopis, enriching their lives without any need to "find" correlations between those stories and scientific knowledge.

[Really, you have surprised me here. I would COMPARE the documents and make a qualitative assessment of each.]

I'm sure you're aware that the British have NO constitution, and all their laws "float" with respect to the will of their people (with buffers, to be sure). To me, we have the real world, as well as we've been able to understand it. And we have religious beliefs that can be interpreted more or less easily to correspond with that reality. You value your religion (what a *wonderful* coincidence that you happened to be born into it!) because you find it more easy to interpret to match what you know. But why not go British, and decide that what you know *doesn't need* any religious beliefs at all? Perhaps you might consider instead that reality is your document, you need nothing further.

[either one completely rejects the concept of God as revealed in the Bible or one is "irrational."]

Your emphasis here is wrong. I've been trying to say that one is irrational IF and ONLY IF one rejects our study of reality *because* "God as revealed in the Bible" claims something different. I can understand that, IF you choose to "believe" in both the bible and the real world as well as we've figured it out so far, you must force the two to be congruent somehow or suffer dissonance. My observation is that some people prefer to reject the reality. I don't consider that rational. I don't consider it irrational to "interpret" the Bible into saying what your knowledge tells you, but again I don't see what this effort gains you. The Bible either ratifies what you know, or it must be interpreted to do so with some effort. Why spend it?

[I would maintain that there is a great deal of evidence now that life was designed, rather than an accident.]

NONE. Indeed, we are approaching an understanding of the spontaneous development of life quite rapidly. I recommend some of those links I posted. We've created DNA in the lab. Tell me, IF we should create life in the lab from raw materials, would this relate to your religious beliefs in any way? I genuinely don't know.

[Even the NSEA decided a few years ago to remove the words "[it's an] undirected process" from its definition of evolution, because they wanted to be fair.]

This is a separate issue. I keep reading the specious argument that evolution is a process of random chance, and the odds against it are so staggering that design is the only alternative remaining. The claim that evolution is "undirected" is a CREATIONIST claim, totally bogus. The very essence of evolutionary theory is that the process is strongly directed by a direct feedback mechanism -- that organisms with locally advantageous traits survive to breed, thus passing on those traits. *Please* read some of those links. The NSEA removed those words because evolutionists claim no such thing, that was a straw man put there by the Creationists.

[But just for fun, imagine that some alien master race seeded life on this planet. Could we teach that?]

IF we could test this, and it passed the tests. And IF it could equally be falsified if it failed the tests. But so long as it remains a speculative and untestable claim, we should not teach it as science. It might make a good starting point in a creative writing class, though.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Flint,

Well, first, I need to correct an error. (That's what I get for going on memory.) The statement that was reworded was not that of the NASE, it was the NABT's Statement On Teaching Evolution.

It used to read, "the diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent ..." The new statement says that evolution is "an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent." The words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" have been removed.

There is a reason for that: there are plenty of people who, like me, accept that the Earth is very old and that life has evolved. But we also believe that God designed and/or supervised that process. The NABT agreed with objections that these words represented beliefs and philosophical views, and not testable scientific assertions.

That's a neat analogy you came up with on the martian thing; you get credit for it. But you know what you miss? I never said that religion and science should be married. They shouldn't. Further, my BELIEFS are religious in nature and have nothing to do with science.

Flint, your problem (as you yourself have admitted) is that you can't see WHY someone would go to the "trouble" of knitting a God into a perfectly servicable theory of origins. I, in my turn, can't understand why YOU would go to so much trouble to counter it. The shoe fits both feets, dood. :)

You can't prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being. It will always devolve to a matter of FAITH. All I will seek to do is demostrate that my faith isn't UNREASONABLE; for example ...

How am I supposed to be persuaded that your case is special? More to the point, how can you communicate to me just *why* you've carved out this special, contrary-to-your-own-evidence position?

It *ISN'T* contrary to the evidence; it is a personal, non-scientific belief based on my understanding of that evidence. There is no way to prove that a Creator didn't guide evolution to such a point that we would be created -- as the NABT acknowledged.

How many times must I say this? Flint, there are plenty of people like me who are NOT YE Creationists; who accept that evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet; and who, just for the record, are often embarassed by people like Duane Gish and Henry Morris. But we also strongly believe that God is the Great Designer.

Until you get this through your head, we will continue to go 'round in circles. I do NOT confuse personal religious beliefs with scientific inquiry. I simply believe that there is "more to this than meets the eye;" that there is a God who oversees it all.

That can't be disproven. It's not scientific. I never claimed otherwise.

But, just for the record, I DON'T automatically assume that your martians would be astounded at this. As a person of faith, I suspect that they'd have a faith of their own. (And I hate to say it, but that assumption on your part is further evidence of your bias against religious beliefs in general; you ASSUME that these technologically-superior martians would OF COURSE not be encumbered by such beliefs.[g])

I ask of Creationists, HOW can your claims be refuted, WHAT would constitute disproof, WHAT would you accept as a clear demonstration that you were wrong?

What did I just say? Personal beliefs are not scientific matters; they cannot be disproven. But I will say this: if you think that I should only believe in things which are suited to scientific inquiry, well, I reject that out of hand. It's too materialistic; too limited.

(And again, I am not alone in that by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, the vast majority of people, even here in the "enlightened" USA, believe in a Creator.)

Besides, you are fooling yourself if you think that approach will save you from the need for belief at some point. Not possible. To give you an example, the Anthropic Principle(s) was (were) formed to help explain the fact that there is STRONG evidence that this universe is specially suited to the emergence of CHON-based life.

But the only way you're going to get around the implication of design is to BELIEVE that this is just one of many universes -- or realms, or dimensions, whatever; lump them all together under the general heading, "many worlds hypotheses."

These alternate realms cannot be observed. We don't even know for sure if they exist. To accept their existence requires BELIEF in something which cannot be scientifically disproven.

And no, even if we were able to create life in the laboratory, it wouldn't change my beliefs, because I would counter that you simply achieved what God did in nature. :)

Yes, once again: that would be a statement of BELIEF and not of scientific fact. I'm not disagreeing with you about that. I not only acknowledge it, I freely admit it!

Again, I point out the incredible damage young earthers would have to do to all of science.

Here we go again; I'm not a Young Earther. Because there are racists amongst Conservatives, shall I stop being conservative? I think not. Likewise, just because there are knotheads who want to close down all scientific inquiry doesn't mean that I share their goal. Let's move on ...

I recommend some of those links I posted. We've created DNA in the lab. Did I miss these links? I've rescanned the thread and don't see them. Where are they?

IF we could test [the idea that life was designed] and it passed the tests.

It most assuredly can be tested, Flint, archeologists do something quite analogous when determining whether a particular fragment is an artifact or a natural object. They consider the likelihood that said fragment could have been assembled in nature.

So with forensic science; did the gun go off by accident or did the suspect purposely fire the weapon?

Here are a couple of teasers; remember, I am not a biologist, so don't try this at home: the Cambrian Explosion and the Yucatan strike that apparently wiped out, not just the dinosaurs, but most multi-cellular life.

A conclusion of design (whether you believe it was God, or space aliens, or creatures from another dimension is up your PERSONAL beliefs) would fit the observations here. So, all that's left is how to derive a testable theory.

Again, I'm not a biologist, but even I can imagine a couple of ways that it might could be done, especially given advancements in technology. Maybe we could take some microorganisms similar to those of that era and place them under various conditions to see if they mutate at a radically different rate. Or, we could examine fossil DNA from that era and get clues from that.

The point is, if it's observable, you can usually find a way to test it.

The only remaining question would be, why bother? Because this has PROFOUND implications. It would direct our research into those avenues most likely to produce results. But this is long enough; I leave it to fertile minds to take it further.

(Or to disagree with me, of course.)

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Flint,

And the quick version is: you and I apparently want to talk about two different things. This seems to happen to me a lot lately. :)

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Stephen:

We're making progress. I have a few comments here (surprise!)...

[The NABT agreed with objections that these words represented beliefs and philosophical views, and not testable scientific assertions.]

And I'll gladly go along with that. Those words added nothing at best, and may have misstated the case. But we can't know because we have no way to test this. So get rid of them. Fine.

[I never said that religion and science should be married. They shouldn't. Further, my BELIEFS are religious in nature and have nothing to do with science.]

?? But you emphasized the importance of rectifying your beliefs with your knowledge. Your entire opening essay was an attempt to find, if not good science, at least not BAD science in Genesis. You emphasized the superiority of your religion because it did less damage than most to what science has discovered in the last 150 years. You wrote "People like me, who choose to respect science and the scientific method, must OF NECESSITY come up with some way to reconcile our beliefs with science." OK, I thought I understood. You have trouble believing contradictions.

But now you are saying your beliefs have "nothing to do" with science! Sure had me fooled! How am I misunderstanding this?

[Flint, your problem (as you yourself have admitted) is that you can't see WHY someone would go to the "trouble" of knitting a God into a perfectly servicable theory of origins. I, in my turn, can't understand why YOU would go to so much trouble to counter it. The shoe fits both feets, dood. :) ]

No, I can't agree with this, and you shouldn't either. Simply because you add unnecessary complications to what we know and are learning, this is not my "problem", nor is this in any way bidirectional. Back to the martian. I ask for cause and justification, something demonstrable, testable, replicable, "real" in this sense. Saying "I know this in my heart" to me demonstrates nothing more than the sheer indelible power of early childhood impressions.

From my perspective, this shoe fits both feets in the same sense that a student's errors are as valid as a professor's corrections, a 2-way exchange. Not so. At some real-world point, we find that we are all worse off if otherwise-harmless mystical beliefs are used to *prevent* discovery and understanding.

[It *ISN'T* contrary to the evidence; it is a personal, non- scientific belief based on my understanding of that evidence.]

??? Again I'm lost. I thought you were saying that everything evolved except humans, who were created AS IS, as an exception. That the genetic overlap with (say) chimps is pure coincidence. If you are merely saying that God directed evolution so as to produce humanity along with everything else, that humans and chimps share a common ancestor and the genetic overlap is not pure coincidence, and God simply took a dozen billion years to get around to us at His whim, by His indirect methods, OK. That belief is consistent with what we know.

[you ASSUME that these technologically-superior martians would OF COURSE not be encumbered by such beliefs.]

Chuckle. I never said anything about technological superiority. Instead of "martian", I could perhaps have used "maori". The sense I was trying to communicate was, "familiar with the real world and the laws of physics, but completely unexposed to and unfamiliar with the specific beliefs of your particular cult." Yes, these martians may have a faith of their own, but surely it would be so wildly different from yours that *each side* would have the perspective to see the arbitrariness of the other's beliefs.

Remember that scientific peer review involves scientists of all faiths (including no faith). Yet they can agree on what they can test. The preconceptions and misorientations that their various religions may (or may not) impose on them individually tend to cancel out as a group, which is one of the great values of peer review. This also explains why the Gishes, Behes and Morrises of the world avoid peer review -- because their "science" isn't just curtailed by their religion, it IS their religion, reality be damned! So there simply IS NO SCIENCE that a scientist of another religion can verify as having passed tests outside of the cult, and not *requiring* the cult's definitions and non-negotiable demands in order to pass scientific muster.

[What did I just say?]

Sneaky! I see what you just said, but I was *responding* to what you *previously* said. And you previously said that asking for things like evidence, logic, process, falsifiability were aspects of *poltical correctness*, to which I reacted violently.

Now, this gets us back to why I make the effort I do. I correspond here with you as a compromise. You aren't quite the target of my real concerns, but the targets of my real concerns "defend" their positions by saying "kiss my ass" and vanishing! If you wish to believe that there is some (in my view unnecessary) God shaping and directing a process fully and naturally explainable without that God, I have no objection. My problem is with those who *act* to reject any explanation that does not *require* God. As I wrote earlier, these same people enjoy the fruits of the efforts of those who succeeded *only because* they factored God out of their investigations.

[To give you an example, the Anthropic Principle(s) was (were) formed to help explain the fact that there is STRONG evidence that this universe is specially suited to the emergence of CHON-based life.]

Stephen, come on! Now, isn't it an AMAZING coincidence that so many major cities worldwide have such fine harbors! I close my eyes and picture an infinity of other universes, each with its own form of life (chemical, or energy, or phase-relationship, or whatever) and all of them saying "there is STRONG evidence that this universe is specially suited to OUR form of life." Well, Doh!

BUT, there is *no implication of design* in any of these. Natural processes simply took advantage of the raw materials available. Once again, you can *project* design onto the results, but it remains unnecessary.

[Did I miss these links? I've rescanned the thread and don't see them. Where are they?]

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe_links.html

That's a good starting point, and from there you'll reach many more. Behe may not WANT informed review, but he sure gets it anyway!

[archeologists...consider the likelihood that said fragment could have been assembled in nature]

But this isn't quite the same thing. At least, I'm unfamiliar with any belief system that says that *some* life was designed, and the rest was not. So the archeologists have a solid baseline for comparison (and still make some misidentifications). But we have no solid base of known non-designed life, and a second solid base of known-designed life, with which to compare any newly found form so as to categorize it as one or the other.

So at best we have an application of Occam's razor here. Either life was designed or it was not. EVEN IF we can demonstrate beyond any doubt that intelligent design was not required (and my interpretation is that we have demonstrated this beyond *reasonable* doubt. Demonstrating beyond *any* doubt is not possible), this STILL doesn't mean design didn't happen. It simply leaves us with two alternatives.

But design ("magic", in my view) remains untestable. It's impossible to prove that God didn't create the universe 10 seconds ago, with all of the countless indications of great age built right in! In this same vein, it's possible that God is controlling every roll of the dice in Vegas, and just happens to do so exactly as probability describes.

So as I see it, your beliefs either contradict what we know, which is intellectually crippling (as shown by the young-earthers). Or your beliefs correspond with what we know, in which case what purpose do they serve? Or they satisfy by filling in the blanks science cannot address. This is called the "separate magisteria" philosophy, that science addresses the natural world, and religious beliefs assuage nameless fears and questions of doubtful semantic content (like "why is there air?") and untestable issues. And I don't have any problem with that.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Flint,

I have a few comments here (surprise!)...

The biggest thing this thread proves is that we're two of the most long-winded jokers in cyberspace. Let's invite Decker to referee and we will create a thread so large that it will implode on itself. Cold fusion will finally become reality ... :)

But you emphasized the importance of rectifying your beliefs ...

Now I'm repeating myself. I can't understand why you have trouble seeing this; I am obviously a terrible explainifier. I am not attempting to find science in Genesis; I am trying to show the Genesis is not incompatible with what we know about nature.

But wait a minute ... as I read on, you DO understand ...

I thought I understood. You have trouble believing contradictions.

Yes! That's it! But then I confused you!

But now you are saying your beliefs have "nothing to do" with science!

TERRIBLE choice of wording on my part. "Nothing to do" in this case means that my personal beliefs are admittedly NOT scientific and are not derived via the scientific method.

Religious beliefs, by definition, are not science. They must be kept separate from science.

Thus, you might have a scientist (like Hugh Ross) who publishes in peer-reviewed literature (his work was on quasars at Cal Tech, IIRC), but uses the popular press for his personal religious beliefs. The latter have no place in Journal of Astrophysics and you won't get any argument from me about that.

But, on the other hand, say I'm a scientist and a group of my friends get together for a little chowder-and-bull session after work. We very well might discuss what we believe PERSONALLY about these things. Do I believe in God? Does Joe? How 'bout Mary? She DOES? Why? "How can you believe Genesis, Stephen, when it says ..."

That sort of thing.

I'm going to finish my little group of articles and thoss them on a Web site, because (as I said) one of my targets is believers who NEED to understand the scientific method and how important it is; that science MUST be left alone to do what it does, even if it engages in research that some of us might personally find pointless (or objectionable).

Since most of this has been a misunderstanding (and I would probably only make it worse), I'm going to skip over the rest of your reply (well-worded, by the way) and focus on this:

Stephen, come on! Now, isn't it an AMAZING coincidence that so many major cities worldwide have such fine harbors! I close my eyes and picture an infinity of other universes ...

Bingo. See? Flint has personal beliefs that have no scientific basis. As I said, these alternate realms cannot be observed. We cannot test for, and disprove, that they exist. They must be taken on faith.

I choose to believe that this is the only universe (well ... the only one that matters[g]) and that there is a God who caused it to be well-designed, with natural laws and processes that would result in Us Being Here.

You can choose to believe that there are other universes (or worlds, or realms, or whatever -- "Many Worlds," remember? It's a classic approach). That's FINE. That's certainly your right, and I will not criticize you for it.

(But be warned: I reserve the right to attempt to change your mind. We call it evangelism.[eg])

But I'm not trying to score philosophical cheap points here -- "even atheists must exercise faith, yardada yadda yadda!" -- I'm sure you've heard the tune.[g] Really, I guess I'm trying to help you understand ME, and to answer your initial question: "why would you bother?"

You are a bright fellow. I'd like to think that I'm a bright fellow. I am very comfortable believing that God created our physical laws and natural processes. You are comfortable believing what is, in essense, a form of Anthropic Principle: that there could be other realms and ours is simply the one that "worked out," so OF COURSE it would "appear" to be designed.

Fine. Fair enough. I'll finish with a few more nitpicks.

But design ("magic", in my view) remains untestable.

You have provoked my mental processes (a terrifying thought). I'm going to ponder that one. I've read some arguments at at the Origins Website that attempt to do that, but when I slip into Objective Mode (we secretly refer to it as "thinking like the Enemy"[g]), I can find holes in every one that I've seen.

You may be right.

It's impossible to prove that God didn't create the universe 10 seconds ago, with all of the countless indications of great age built right in!

Careful. I'll start calling you a Young Universe-er. :)

So as I see it, your beliefs either contradict what we know, which is intellectually crippling (as shown by the young-earthers). Or your beliefs correspond with what we know, in which case what purpose do they serve?

Personal satisfaction, personal peace, personal ... enjoyment, for lack of a better word. God is now a very real presence in my life, after a "conversion" that took me somewhat by surprise. Sometimes I struggle to explain it.

(Suggested reading at this point: C.S. Lewis' Surprised by Joy.)

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Flint,

Old Buddy,

I KNOW I'm way smarter than you are. Of course that hurts your feelings.

How do I know this? I've been tested at above 150 IQ, and I believe in the Bible.

Believing in the Bible is worth another plus 50 points.

Sorry Bud.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Thing is, I've never tried to come across as such a 'brain'.

That's all you've ever done. Time for that balloon to get popped.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

As long as we're popping bubbles --

A certain poster wrote,

"And to those who only see things in black or white, yes or no, true or false, I offer the viewpoint that the continuing discoveries of anything older than the Biblical 6,000 years is GOD'S WAY of REVEALING ........HOW......HE.....created the Universe......

NOT....the interpretation of writings handed down by one tribe of nomads later calcified into "Theology" by POLITICIANS posing as "Men of God" from the people in Rome to cretins like Gary North, abuser of the initials Ph.D. and Six Day Creation Espouser."

*****

I'm overjoyed to know that a real estate salesman from Dallas, Texas suddenly has more Bible knowledge than anyone who has ever lived. If he can communicate to me how he obtained said knowledge, he and I can surely outsell Barney.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Charlie doesn't have more bible knowledge than anyone else. In fact, he has revealed just the opposite.

Interesting that those who claim religious belief closes minds are in fact the ones demonstrating the perfect example of how pre-conceived ideas and indoctrination can/do cloud the thinking. Charlie Reubens has ALREADY decided that the earth is old, therefore everything he takes in on the subject goes thru that filter....same for flint. Very different belief structure from CPR, but same conclusion. Flint already decided that the earth is X-millions of years old (never realising that HE was indoctrinated into that belief structure since was old enough to go to school)...yet Flint rails against the idea of creationism being taught in school....because he doesn't want kids to be brainwashed.....funny, if it weren't so sad.

IF the people on this thread knew exactly how these scientists arrived at their "3.6 million" year conclusion....they would be shocked.

Did you know that geologists date rocks based on which fossils are found in them? Did you know archeologists date fossils based on what strata layer (rocks) they are found in? Ever heard of circular reasoning? THAT alone should be enough to cast doubt on carbon dating and the "millions of years" belief structure. Forget about how a fossil is made (VERY rapid burial in sediment, before decomposition...gosh, which biblical event could have done that???)

Also, have you guys ever sent anything in to be "dated"? It goes like this....find a fossil (or rock, pottery, etc.) send it to the lab and along with that send an "extimate" of how old you believe the item is....heh...guess what happens?

THATS RIGHT! magically, your "guess" (er...I mean "estimate") is amazingly close to the "actual age" determined by "science". THIS should be another clue that would at LEAST cast doubt on the accuracy and/or validity of the current "dating" proccess. Forget about the biopsies taken from still-living clams that were supposedly "1,500 years old"...and numerous other "goofs".

I could go on and on....evolutionary "science" has been discredited so many times it isn't even funny anymore. BTW, we're talking about MACRO-evolution, not micro-evolution, which is change within a species (breed seperated dogs long enough and you can remove certain features or add new ones [otherwise hidden within genetics], but those dogs will NEVER become cats or horses, etc.)

About the most articulate person on this thread seems to be Mr. Poole (besides my fellow literal creation believers! ;-J ) A very good example of how to debate a subject without getting all emotional.

FWIW, I push for creationism to be taught in schools....under the title of belief system, where it belongs. I push for the same thing to be done with evolution belief system....be taught AS A BELIEF, which it is. Don't teach either one as fact, and let people come to their own conclusions. THAT would be satisfactory to most creationists as well, with the exception of the truly hard-core.

Good reading - Creation Compromises Thompson

Mount St. Helens, geologic evidence for catastrophism Austin

In the mean time, I'm going to go read some of the links Mr. Poole suggested. Be back when I have the time.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

It bugs me when tags aren't closed. Italics are much harder to read.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Anita:

You mean someone else is actually reading this stuff? Sheesh.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

(I was reading it, too. Didn't say anything because I figured you had it covered pretty well.)

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Flint,

Why? Those links only reinforce what you already think you know.

No they don't, either, not if he's a Young Earth Creationist. :)

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Flint,

Well, OK, I'll qualify that: the origins.org Website is just a general look at Creationism and includes several articles by Phil Johnson and William Lane Craig, etc., etc. But the Reasons to Believe Website has a page or two specifically written to address YE Creationism.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Well Flint, I read your reply and even mulled it over....overnight. *sigh*. Where to begin?

As I already stated, I could go on and on....but there really is no point. There is no convincing certain people. Fine. You win. Your Faith is greater than mine Flint, I openly admit that. For you to believe that the earth evolved....in the face of an overwhelming mountain of evidence....from ALL sides.....takes a deeper faith than I will ever be able to muster. Period.

It's sad to see some of your replies. You don't actually refute what I said, you just make personal claims....based on your indoctrination. You don't understand Flint. Some of your own arguments undo you.

Great Flood geology hasn't been discredited...just the opposite. If you had bothered to look into the mount St. Helens reference, you would know this. That single cataclysmic event dropped "a bomb" on the scientific community. 25 foot thick strata layers, formed in a single day. They are comprised of thousands of very thin layers....IF one viewed these through empirical eyes, one could come to the conclusion that each layers represents "x" number of years....add them up and you get an apparent age of "x" 1000's or millions of years. PROBLEM: that 25 foot strata was NOT THERE the day before! LOGICAL CONCLUSION: maybe we need to rethink how individual laminae are actually formed.

this pattern continues on and on. 700 ft. deep canyons that eroded away in a single summer & fall....if you walk through them now, you might think to yourself "wow, look how this area has been unchanged for millions of years....the wind and rain slowly eroding the cliffs....the streams slowly carving away at the canyon...."

The only problem is: you would be wrong. That canyon NEVER existed just 6 months before.

Not all the evidence has to do with the volcanic eruption either. The rapid sedimentation of Spirit lake combined with the floating log jams (said logs losing their bark in the process) formed coal in the bottom of the lake....in years NOT decades or centuries.

There is a duplicate of the petrified forest found in Yellowstone that sits at the bottom of the lake as well. different species of tree waterlog at different rates, thereby depositing themselves in an upright position at the bottom of the lake. RAPID sedimentation buries them (sometime very deep), then another species of tree begins to sink....and so on. IF one found those "forests" in later years, one might conclude that they are "different species of ancient forest which existed X millions of years ago" the problem is you would be wrong. those "forests" NEVER EXISTED until the years of '80-'86!!!

There is the debris dams that break and create minature "grand canyons", rapid recovery of the eco system....etc, etc etc. I'm sorry I don't have the time or inclination to educate you, Flint.

BTW, they have in fact found your ONE SINGLE MIX-UP. I believe it is in Russia. the rigid stratifaction is turned UPSIDE DOWN, Flint. But I doubt you will believe it, or even investigate it.

You also completely and totally missed the point on dating. You claimed "IF you are a competent and experienced geologist, this had damn well *better* be true!" *sigh* No Flint. Try this. break a rock in half. send half to one lab with your guess. say 29 million years of age. send the other half to another lab with a guess of 390 million years. (remember, its the SAME rock). You will get back you "estimates" and they will be amazingly close to your guess...Does this send up any red flags for you Flint? I doubt it.

BTW, you claimed I lied, yet you make outrageous claims about ICR. Who is lying about what, Flint?

I do use scientific methods for arriving at conclusions or theories....empirical methods, btw. And I have read talkorigins as well as many other evolution belief materials. I do have Faith Flint, but it is not blind. My God has not left me without physical evidence of His mighty creation. I am not required to blindly follow what cannot be proved.

Here is something you won't want to hear Flint, but I'm going to say it anyway. The Bible tells us that in the last days scoffers will come....being willfully ignorant that God created the earth out of water and by water, and that those same waters deluged and destroyed the world. This same world is presently held for destruction by fire, people....it WILL happen. no one knows when, so don't bother listening to the kooks who say they will tell you for a mere "$29.95". One day, Flint you WILL bow your knee and proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord...EVERYONE will....the difference is that some do so now....and will enter eternal life. those who do so later will do it only to recieve eternal judgement.

God left a witness to every single person ever born, Flint....the witness of creation. We are ALL without excuse, if we deny God.

That's all I have time to say to you Flint....I know how you like to get in the last word, so have at it. (-:

To any other Christians on this thread: don't forget- the account of Jericho was once taught to be a "spiritual allegory"...a tale told to illustrate a point....not that it really happened.....until archeologists FOUND the city of Jericho and everthing was just as the Bible claimed it to be. Every day, science finds out more and more about literal creation...maybe not every detail...YET....but my question is this: won't you feel silly if you follow what Man thinks is true (when you know in your heart what God's Word says) and God himself has to rebuke you for it? I can't believe that a man of faith like Ross can't take the very short walk (steps, really!) to literal 6 day creation. It boggles my mind. After reading his works, though, I think he was probably just like me....influenced early on by evolution belief system, stated as fact...and just hasn't re-examined what he was indoctrinated into. (his statement on his website that says he was into astronomy at age 7 is much like my own. What material do you think we were both reading? EVOLUTION, TAUGHT AS ABSOLUTE. Just like the bible assumes the existance of God and move on from there, evolution belief does the same thing. millions and billions of years are the assumed norm....every test or theory starts with that assumption. Unfortunately, the modern church being somewhat uninformed and pretty much anti-intellectual can't see how the supposed "proof" of evolution can be refuted....so they have taken the road that says we can mesh the 2 belief systems. sad.)

Tell me I have a mind virus or whatever....I KNOW that what the Bible says is true....and contrary to what Flint and his ilk claim, that believe is NOT based on blindly following religion.

I leave you with this comparison of origin belief systems. Which one stands the test of empirical science?

Basic predictions

Evolution Model	Creation Model
Innovation & integration	Conservation & disintegration
universe changing Stars evolving Life on most planets	Universe constant Stars unchanged Life on earth only
Earth extremely old spontaneous generation mutations beneficial N.S. creative process transitional fossils continuum of organisms	Young Earth Life only from Life mutations harmful N.S.conservative process systematic gaps distinct kinds of organisms
Man quantitatively superior civilization slow & gradual intelligence evolving	Man qualitativly superior civilization appearing w/Man intelligence unchanged

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

I have no idea who wrote this, but I know it wasn't Moses.

Genesis 1 in the light of scientific findings

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

In the beginning God created Dates. And the date was Monday, July 4, 4004 B.C.. And God said, let there be light; and there was light. And when there was Light, God saw the Date, that it was Monday, and he got down to work; for verily, he had a Big Job to do.

And God made pottery shards and Silurian mollusks and pre-Cambrian limestone strata; and flints and Jurassic Mastodon tusks and Picanthopus erectus skulls and Cretaceous placentals made he; and those cave paintings at Lasceaux. And that was that, for the first Work Day.

And God saw that he had made many wondrous things, but that he had not wherein to put it all. And God said, Let the heavens be divided from the earth; and let us bury all of these Things which we have made in the earth; but not too deep. And God buried all the Things which he had made, and that was that. And the morning and the evening and the overtime were Tuesday.

And God said, Let there be water; and let the dry land appear; and that was that. And God called the dry land Real Estate; and the water called he the Sea. And in the land and beneath it put he crude oil, grades one through six; and natural gas put he thereunder, and prehistoric carboniferous forests yielding anthracite and other ligneous matter; and all these called he Resources; and he made them Abundant. And likewise all that was in the sea, even unto two hundred miles from the dry land , called he resources; all that was therein, like manganese nodules, for instance. And the morning unto the evening had been a long day; which he called Wednesday.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth abundantly every moving creature I can think of, with or without backbones, with or without wings or feet, or fins or claws, vestigial limbs and all, right now; and let each one be of a separate species. For lo, I can make whatsoever I like, whensoever I like. And the earth brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, with and without backbones, with and without wings and feet and fins and claws, vestigial limbs and all, from bugs to brontosauruses. But God blessed them all, saying, Be fruitful and multiply but Evolve Not.

And God looked upon the species he hath made, and saw that the earth was exceedingly crowded, and he said unto them, Let each species compete for what it needed; for Healthy Competition is My Law. And the species competeth amongst themselves, the cattle and the creeping things; and some madeth it and some didn't; and the dogs ate the dinosaurs and God was pleased. And God took the bones from the dinosaurs, and caused them to appear mighty old; and cast he them about the land and the sea. And he took every tiny creature that had not madeth it, and caused them to become fossils; and cast he them about likewise. And this is the origin of species. And in the Evening of the day which was Thursday, God saw that he had put in another good day's work.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, which is tall and well-formed : and let us also make monkeys, which resembleth us not in any wise, but are short and ill-formed and hairy. And God added, Let man have dominion over the monkeys and the fowl of the air and every speices, endangered or otherwise. So God created Man in His own image; tall and well-formed created He him, and nothing at all like the monkey.

And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth. But ye shalt not smoketh it, lest it giveth you lung cancer. And to every beast of the earth and every fowl of the air I have given also every green herb, and to them it shall be for meat. But they shall be for you.

And God saw everything he had made, and he saw that it was very good; and God said, Thank me it's Friday. And God made the weekend.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

heh. TGIF, eh?

"But ye shalt not smoketh it, lest it giveth you lung cancer."

Ah, so NOW I see why you quit.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2001

Re: talkorigins....

Here is the opening paragraph from their site....

""What is the Talk.Origins Archive?"

The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective. In other words, the authors of most of the articles in this archive accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient, that there was no global flood, and that evolution is responsible for the earth's present biodiversity. "

Heh. No preconceived ideas in process, are there? NAW, not from such intellects as those.....

LOL

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

NetGhost:

You raise a very interesting point here. Up until a couple hundred years ago, Noah's Flood was taken for granted by everyone in the Western world. Talk about a preconceived notion! After all, the bible said so, it must be true. Nobody questioned it.

And indeed, geologists throughout Europe did find evidence of massive flooding, it was hard to miss. For some while, the "evidence" supporting the biblical flood was considered very strong. It was NOT merely a case of seeing what they were determined to find. Flood evidence seemed to be everywhere.

But a good deal of that evidence was puzzling. Some geologists started to question the basic idea of a flood, because the evidence on the ground presented too many contradictions. Debate became heated until someone finally had the great inspiration -- they were observing the results of massive glaciation! Once this light went on, geologists were able to explain *everything* without contradictions, and even to map how deep the glaciers were and how far south they extended.

Now, what's interesting is that by all indications, the notion that it was "Noah's Flood" that caused all this, *slowed down* geological development by generations! Even religious geologists of the time admitted that glaciation was the obvious answer all along, and they'd have figured that out long ago, had their religion not misled them. The impact of the bible on geological theory had been devastating. Religious delusions had been *that* hard to overcome, but scientists finally made it, because the actual evidence eventually proved undeniable.

As you illustrate, progress is slow when minds are closed. You really ought to read some of the scientific history of the time. And meanwhile, flooding remains a common global malady.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

*sigh*

some people will never learn. forget that global flood explains EVERYTHING we see in the world around us, *CLAIM* that so-called glaciation caused the landscape [again forgeting the associated problems with that, which have NEVER been explained]....and you can be just like flint-boy....

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001