Dinosaur Extinction

[Chad]

Dinosaur Extinction: Another Theory
Dinosaur Extinction is a hot topic for debate. New theories for the catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs are presented every couple of years. We have viewed the evidence and have decided to present our own theory.

Dinosaur Extinction: The Premise
Dinosaur extinction -- Most scientists believe that dinosaurs went extinct about 50 to 65 million years ago. Most scientists agree that man’s conception of dinosaurs has been limited to the past 180 years or so (the word itself wasn’t even coined until 1841). Therefore, if we discovered evidence of man’s knowledge of (or coexistence with) dinosaurs during the last couple of centuries, “science” (as we know it) would be turned upside down.

Dinosaur Extinction: The Evidence

Human & Dinosaur Fossils. Human bones and tools coexist in the same fossil layers as dinosaur bones in Texas and the Dakotas.
Human & Dinosaur Footprints. Footprints of dinosaurs, humans and other mammals coexist in the same fossil layers in Texas and New Mexico.

Native American Petroglyphs. Cave and cliff drawings in Utah and Colorado crudely depict certain dinosaur species (dated from 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.).

Ica Stones. Ceremonial burial stones discovered in Ica, Peru depict numerous species of dinosaurs, some in activities with man (dated from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.).

Acambaro Figurines. Ceramic and stone figurines discovered in Acambaro, Mexico represent many species of dinosaurs (dated from 800 B.C. to 200 A.D.).

Dragon Accounts. China, Europe and the Middle East share similar accounts of “dragons” and other beasts. Some cultures revered these creatures. For instance, records of Marco Polo in China show that the royal house kept dragons for ceremonies. In other cultures, it was a great honor to kill these beasts. There are numerous records of warriors killing great beasts in order to establish credibility in a village.
Behemoth, Leviathan and the Dragons of the Bible. Job writes of great creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan, nearly 4000 years ago. Although more recent Bible translations use elephant, hippo or crocodile instead, the original Hebrew does not allow for these interpretations. The word “dragon” (Hebrew: tannin) is used numerous times in the Old Testament, and most directly translates as “sea or land monsters.”

Gilgamesh, Fafnir, Beowulf and other Legends. Many famous legends, including the mythology of Egypt, Greece and Rome, include specific descriptions of dragons and other dinosaur-like creatures.

Dragons in Ancient Art. Dinosaur-like creatures are featured on Babylonian landmarks, Roman mosaics, Egyptian burial shrouds, and many other pieces of art throughout the ancient world.

Current Legends & Discoveries. There is a huge and credible legacy of sea, lake and swamp “monsters,” even to this day.

Dinosaur Extinction: The Theory
Dinosaur Extinction is a recent phenomenon. Many of the great sea and land monsters went extinct in a global flood about 4400 years ago. Some of these creatures survived and inhabited earth with man, until they too went extinct as man killed them for sport, safety, and expansion (like black bears in Florida and bison in the Western U.S.). We know this theory is revolutionary to many! However, we must admit – it’s not original. In fact, the theory isn’t really a “scientific” theory at all. It’s based on the established truth of the Biblical record – a record that’s not dependent on mankind’s ever-changing view of science and reason. We absolutely encourage you to carefully examine the evidence for yourself!

 

[LegendaryU2K]

My views:

Dinosaurs never existed, evolution is the devils work, science is not the answer to the world's problems. Darwin was a foolish man, and thats that.:thumbs_up

 

[juggydd]

I wouldn't say sience is evil it does help alot of people with things like medicine.So I say its a good way to advance the human race and God did say "go forth and multiply".As for evolution I do believe in it but I think its a way for God to help all his cretures go forth in life and become stronger as a species.
but those are just my thoughts and I could be wrong.
GOD bless you all and love everyone

 

[rudiger]

As a sphere evolves from one ring of thought to the next stage the matter changes shape due to energy masses added, giving the matter a new awakening.
Like a ***** cell that evolves into a human being in different stages as a fetus,due to added energies creating compounds to become elements. The main elements are NOAH, (Nitrogen, oxygen, ammonia and hydrogen) at different stages of NOAH either the nitrogen being the dominator or the hydrogen being the dominator as energy levels increase as the sphere moves closer to the centre of the cellular system the energy source the sun. Different reactions occur creating the matter to change formation like a fetus and atmosphere from Gases to refinements in other words from Gas spheres saturn to refined spheres like earth or like a new heaven and a new earth,
from cold blood to warm blood, from dark to light. which sphere atmosphere
would most likely sustain life for dinosaurs?
As a cell evolves in a egg to become a fetus within the womb, as cells evolve in spheres in the womb of space.

Dinosaurs Extinction theory
Due to the sphere evolving moving up the chain,as the sphere oxidises and the atmosphere changes due to new energy masses added as hydrogen influences nitrogen creating more ammonia and oxygen to form.
Extinct due to evolved state

 

[Tzeentch]

Two very interesting theories, although rather lacking in supporting evidence.

Rudiger, there is evidence to support the idea that the earth has, over time, undergone dramatic atmospheric changes - but there we're talking in terms of what might be billions of years. Atmospheric evolution would not take a sudden leap from nitrogen/CO2-heavy to the more relatively oxygen-heavy environment now. It is a slow change which has been caused by plants over millions of years. The only way a sudden atmospheric change could occur would be either through an unparalleled sudden, instantaneous explosion of plant life to a statistically impossible level, or some catastrophic external factor to the normal environment (meteorite impact, flood - both have been suggested as possibilities).

Chad, I note that your theory is lifted from www.dinosaur-extinction.com. I assume the coexistence of human footprints and dinosaur fossils in Texas referred to is the infamous Paluxy River site? The overwhelming majority of evidence put forward by archaeologists indicates that the footprints of 'men' are distorted three-toed footprints. In fact, the two main Creationist Research societies no longer cite Paluxy River as evidence. This link (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/paluxy.htm) might be of interest. Written from a slightly biased viewpoint, but the facts are all there.

I can't find anything cited about the discovery of human tools with dinosaur fossils anywhere. There was a research survey conducted in Texas (www.informalscience.org/ download/case_studies/report_29.pdf) which asked people "What would you think if an arrowhead was found in a dinosaur footprint?", but it was not based on an actual occurence.

Moreover, some fossils have risen to the surface in our present time. There is no reason to suppose that this hasn't happened in previous times. An arrowhead could have been from the stone age, from a time when the fossil was visible...when new rock layers formed over it, it would appear that both were contemporaries by their location - but carbon dating would suggest, correctly, otherwise.

Accounts of dragons, and cave drawings, are difficult to pin down. The Greeks had multiple accounts of hydras (creatures with multiple snake-like heads), harpies (women with bat-like wings), a minotaur (half-human, half-bull) and the like. That doesn't mean that they existed - almost certainly, given the nature of mythology, they didn't. 800B.C. was the earliest date that was stated, and mythology was already an established concept by that time. A painting depicting monsters, be they dragons or anything, does not necessarily mean that they existed at the time.

With regard to Marco Polo and dragons, he noted that the walls of the Chinese court were painted liberally with dragons, and that dragons were an integral part of their culture. He never saw a dragon. Equally in Wales, a completely different dragon was used to symbolise the ruling house. If these creatures did exist, given the huge respect accrued to them by different cultures, it is utterly astonishing that none of their bones or bodies have ever been kept.

There *is* a huge legacy of monster mythology in many countries across the world, but not a single scrap of physical evidence that any of these monsters existed outside of the mythological tales.

With regard, then, to the overall conclusions, the evidence for a dramatic flood is culturall strong - a surprisingly large number of ancient cultures referred to it, and its impact was clear on their history (Sumerian culture had two lists of kings - one from 'Before the Flood' one 'After the Flood'). However, the date of the flood as described in every historical account (barring the Good Book) places it roughly in the vicinity of 4,000BC. There is little to no geological evidence supporting a great flood at any time around either time period, although I can't find a convenient link I'm afraid. You'll have to take my word for it.

Biblical scholars seem to think, as does the suggestion, that the flood referred to in the Bible was around 2250BC - a date drawn from the reference of it in time (1,300 years before) before the building of the first temple of Solomon (documented to be about 950BC). The Egyptian civilisation, who had built the pyramids some 300 years earlier and were a thriving culture, have no record at all of the flood. In fact, non-Biblical evidence of the Flood is a very contentious issue in the first place...

Having carefully examined the evidence for this theory of dinosaur extinction, I conclude that it is completely unsatisfactory to put forward a scientific hypothesis (or, indeed, ANY hypothesis) based upon it.

 

[brother in christ]

Ha ha another far fetched theory that actually makes sense.Lets say that dinosaurs were in reallity satan and his demons.Satans first sin was vanity therefor he was striped of his heavenly form for his sin and cast out of heaven to earth.Where they made war against god and his angels.God then destroyed them by means of a meteor in turn caused nuclear winter and snow (water) covered the earth.Then gods plan of creation took place.Satan appeared in the garden to tempt adam and eve in the form of a reptile.and even in revelation it says hes a dragon.Well the truth is this theory is just as good as any.Infact this theory is better because it was not made by science its just made by excepting gods supreme power.We will never now at least till we get to heaven.Cant wait.Well i hope this confuses you all as much as your posts did me LOL. God bless you all in jesus name

 

[Tzeentch]

Well, can't fault you on a theological basis. I'm not sure I agree with assuming the worst when it comes to science, though.

On the separate note of forum rules, having heard muttered comments from elsewhere, I apologise for the 'uncleared' links in my above post, but it was long enough already, without copy-pasting to put things here.

Also, to head off what might be an obvious source of angst, my comments about the Flood were not in any way, shape or form implying that it didn't happen, or that the Bible is wrong, or any equally negative interpretation.

Perhaps I'm a rarity...I know that the natural state between scientists and Christians is usually one of mutual disrespect, but I personally think that, if nothing else, science is doing a valuable service. Not just in a 'helping mankind' fashion, but in raising theological issues. Creationism would be a far less 'hot' topic if there wasn't such a terrific dispute between proponents of evolution, with the majority of scientific evidence on their side, and Creationists armed with Biblical truth.

Coming from a social-scientific background, I do appreciate what weight scientific evidence carries. I also appreciate that evidence very rarely proves or disproves anything much beyond mathematical or chemical formulae. However, my point was only to say that the scientific evidence quoted by dinosaur-extinction.com is neither evidence, nor scientific, and should really not be treated as such.

Apologies if any toes were trodden on in the process.

 

[juggydd]

Why would you think that dinosaurs are satan and his demons? they never did anything evil that we know of. Humans do more evil stuff than any other animals and we arn't the devils work and if God is all merciful then wouldn't he forgive satan and just show him the error of his ways instead of casting him out of heaven.

p.s I don't want to offend anyone so i'm really sorry if I have

God bless you all,and love everyone

 

[brother in christ]

Why would you think that dinosaurs are satan and his demons they never did anything evil that we know of. Humans do more evil stuff than any other animals and we arn't the devils work and if God is all merciful then wouldn't he forgive satan and just show him the error of his ways instead of casting him out of heaven.

God bless you all,and love everyone

I figured people to laugh at this post not take it seriously.It was just a fantasy story not meant to have any truth.But it shows how easy it is to come up with theories. This story was to show that we are never going to answer this dino question.Really even if someone did know how they came about and were destroyed there still would be difference in opinion. Furthermore the basis of that post was intended to say dinos were here before humans. What evil can they do if there is no one to pick on. GOD BLESS YOU ALL IN JESUS NAME.

 

[YourPastorT]

Very interesting topic, one that has been, is now being, and will be debated by Scientist and Theologians the World over. While I do agree that, the value of science cannot be over state, in that it, in its correct form, is a search for truth. However, we need to be aware that our knowledge of the visible is limited. We understand so very little (relatively) of what we see. It can however be stated that truth always corresponds with reality. Truth is never relative and therefore reality is never relative. The only way to end the debate is for truth to be shown. Sadly, to many use subjectivism and call it science. Subjectivism is where the subject or person determines truth or reality internally. Aristotle said, "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false; but neither what is nor what is not is said to be or not to be." He argues that truth relies on the actual existence of the thing which a thought or statement is about. If we use Aristotle's argument, then we most first determine if Dinosaurs existed to determine if any statement about them could be true.
Thomas Aquinas said, "Truth is defined by the conformity of intellect and thing; and hence to know this conformity is to know truth." He states, "For all knowledge is achieved by way of some assimilation of the knower to the thing known, an assimilation which causes the knowledge: thus sight is aware of colour because it suffers modification by the kind of colour. So the first way in which what exist relates to mind understanding it is by harmonizing with it, a harmonizing we call the matching of understanding and thing - and it is in this matching that the formal notion of truth is achieved."
G.E. Moore said, "To say that this belief is true is to say that there is in the Universe a fact which it corresponds; and that to say that it is false is to say that there is not in the Universe any fact to which it corresponds."
Over time greater minds then mine, have changed opinions, study methods, beliefs and even facts. We are on dangerous ground to say anything we know is true, if it is based on our knowledge of the known universe. For something to be true, it must be true. We do not have to ability to say something is true or untrue, for to do would mean we can prove that there either is or is not a corresponding fact somewhere in existence or beyond. So, where does that leave us? Can we know truth, what is the know ability of truth?
We tend to default to "relativism" that is to say; we base truth on "current" science and "current" ideology. This is dangerous, since even in our short time here, what we know has changed. When I was younger, eating eggs was “unhealthy” now eating eggs is “healthy”. Science is good and needed, for it is our method of seeking, yet our intellect is so limited that we most look beyond ourselves to determine truth. Believing that truth can be discovered by reason and logical argument is called “Modernism” and gives us far to much credit. On the other hand, stating that truth does not exist objectively and is a product of culture or experience is “Postmodernism”. Both modernism and postmodernism relay on our ability to reason and to know, which in essence put us in the place of God. God must reveal truth to men; the fact that we can prove or disprove a fact is irrelevant. The reason for this irrelevance is we simply do not have all the facts to even be sure the facts we have are confirmable. We certainly should avoid, teaching theory as fact as in the case of evolution. In the Book, Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe writes, “No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel Prize winner - no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion. But we are here. All these things got here somehow; if not in a Darwinian fashion, then how?” Behe adds, “The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself – not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science…. [Thus,] the result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell – to investigate life at the molecular level – is a loud, clear, piercing cry of “design!” The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein.”
To understand truth, to even have truth we must turn to God. We cannot find truth within our selves. John 14:6 in the KJV says, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” He is the way to knowledge, He is the absolute truth, and He is the only life. We often have a “hang up” when faith is required. However, faith is rooted in truth. Therefore, faith is the beginning of wisdom. Romans 10:17 tells us, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Our faith is the foundation on which our knowledge of God is placed. As our knowledge grows our fear of God will grow, with this fear (respect) we gain wisdom. Psalm 111:10 addresses this; “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.” This is also addressed in Proverbs chapters one and nine; “(1:7) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” “(9:10) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Truth in external to us, and is unchanged by our presence and knowledge. We must therefore look outside of ourselves to find truth. We must look to God.

 

[Tzeentch]

Thank you. That was a very interesting and well-sourced view on the matter.

I think that the Modernism-Postmodernism debate is even more tortuous than you describe, and there is a key element that wasn't stated. Those following a Modernist perspective also believe that things can be understood in isolation - for example, taking DNA and working out which piece of genetic code does what. Postmodernism comes from the other angle, and says that the world, the environment, is far, far too complicated and interwoven to isolate any one variable that causes something. Everything has to be looked at in the whole.

As you might figure, modernism is favoured by scientists where postmodernism appeals to most Christians, who I'm sad to say, use it as an attempt to state that modernism and scientific evalution is, therefore, purposeless.

Postmodernism is an excellent way of describing the limitations of research into unpredictable, ever-changing environments. Social research such as psychology and sociology constantly falls foul of what postmodernists are saying. There is no 'truth' in psychology, nothing is ever 'proven', things are suggested and evidence used to support the theory. Its not unheard of to find two theories diametrically opposed to each other with good supporting evidence for both. The reason for this is the unpredictability - human social interactions are essentially chaotic and ever-changing, and no individual ever seems to act in the same way. The results you acquire depend very much on how you approach the matter. We also lack the sophistication to really 'understand' the processes involved. Social science is incredibly young, too, which doesn't help it.

On the other hand, postmodernism tends to stay away from ground such as chemical or mathematical theories: things which work now, worked yesterday and will work tomorrow. If you'd like to attempt to disprove the approach, you're more than welcome to add 1 and 1 together until you reach a figure other than 2. When you do so, the entire scientific and mathematical community will be shaken to its core.

Darwinianism is not the only theory of evolution. Certainly, on its own, it dramatically fails to explain how complexity would arise from simplicity - but if that's all someone takes from it, they're missing the point. Evolution as a process has been proven time and time again. We can breed plants and animals to acquire certain characteristics - for example, seedless fruit.

In the normal environment, such abnormalities would make the plant ill-suited (ie, it cannot reproduce effectively), but we change the environment. If you kill any plant that produces seeds and use cuttings of those that don't to make them reproduce, then the most fitted to survival (ie, the seedless plants), will survive. That is Darwinian theory in action.

Over time, you can see entire new species develop. Look at the different breeds of dogs whose evolution we have guided - we wanted different things from a guard dog than from a hunting dog, and those characteristics have, over time, become so well-defined that there is an enormous difference between, say, a cocker spaniel and a dobermann.

What Darwinism describes is how we see such diversity...it doesn't describe how the complex pieces came together in the first place. That doesn't make it wrong, or untrue, just incomplete.

Perhaps the bottom line returns to the way in which you closed your post: science is 'dangerous' to Christian belief because often it challenges the Biblical account of things such as the Flood, or creation, or even the shape of the world. Generally, scientific evidence tends to gently pile up on the side of the scientific theories rather more than it does on the Biblical account. Of course, provided that the theories are wrong, there is no problem.

Reliance on the total and undisputed truth of the Bible is at once Christianity's greatest strength and, I fear, its worst flaw. When it comes to challenging the Biblical account, science only has to be right once, and all of the Bible's truth, or truths, are called into question.

Aquinas, whom you quoted, had a note of caution on similar grounds: that we accept the Bible as truth is not disputed, and the wisdom involved again is not disputed, but our understanding of truth, of what even God might have meant by truth, is limited by our own understanding of what we take truth to mean.

Were I to write that you, reading this, are a liar, it would be true. No-one in their life has ever told the truth at every turn, has never concealed information from others to suit themselves. At some point in life you will have lied, or deceived, to some degree - but to call you a liar? It is a truth, that is self-evident, but it is taken to mean, or to imply, that you lie a lot, that you lie about important things, that you cannot be trusted, that you are not a good person. That is the 'truth' that we would draw from such a statement.

And so, I feel, that truth is a subjective term. A statement can be true and yet misleading, a scripture passage can be true and yet open to interpretation. Its the reason why I have a pet dislike of people hurling scripture at me to 'prove' to me that their interpretation is correct, ergo mine must be be wrong, and why I believe very strongly that science and religion have a lot to learn from each other.

 

[YourPastorT]

Good honest, post. I enjoy a well thought out and clearly understandable view. Thank you for telling what you believe. Mortimer J. Adler is quoted, "We do not make statements true or false by affirming or denying them. They have truth or falsity regardless of what we think, what opinions we hold, what judgments we make." I did not say, science is "dangerous to Christian belief"; science is dangerous only in the way that we rest solely in it, as fact. The Bible has in no way been disproved, and I will give you, there is so much that has not been confirmed as of yet.
The dog species you speak of, is not evolution, they are still dogs, not a different species, breeding plants to produce seedless fruit is not evolution, as you state that would never happen in nature, and would not improve the survival of the species. As far as science being "right once" is the exact point, once the world was flat, once the earth was the center of the universe, we grow in knowledge using science, as we should, however, it is "dangerous" to say that today’s fact is absolute based solely of our knowledge and understanding.
Truth misleading? Truth cannot be anything but true. If truth is misleading, it is a lack of knowledge or comprehensive ability that is the issue, not truth. If the truth is misleading, it is our inability to grasp the truth, due to lack of intellect, understanding or comprehension, and thus our response is in error.
I agree we did not deeply cover either, "postmodernism" or "modernism" and there would take many post to do so. However, you take a postmodern view of "truth" Pointing out that you see truth differently. I also, agree 100% that I am a liar, and exceedingly wicked. The Bible confirms that as well, stating that you are in the same condition, a liar, a whoremonger.etc Romans 3:10 tells us, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." That includes us both. Jeremiah 17:9 also confirms this, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" This is our natural condition. However, I believe that we can still learn from each other, using open minds and a willingness to lay down preconditioned thinking or fear. Peter Van Inwagen, Author of Metaphysics states this of the Postmodernist belief that truth is subjective as you stated, "The most interesting thing about objective truth is that there are people who deny it exists. One might wonder how anyone could deny that there is such a thing as objective truth. For some people, I am sure, the explanation is something like this. They are deeply hostile to the thought of anything that in any sense stands in judgement over them. The idea toward which they are most hostile is, of course, the idea of there being a God. But they are almost as hostile to the idea of there being an objective universe that doesn't care what they think and could make their most cherished beliefs false without even consulting them."
John 8:32; "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
Jesus said those words to the Jews which believed in Him, and they replied, in John 8:33; "They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" They where holding on to a religion, a belief, their knowledge. We do the same with science; it is to many their "religion", their "god". Jesus went on to say; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you."
This is the same reason, many wish to convince others that science and God do not mix. They do mix and forever will. God Bless you.

 

[Tzeentch]

Ah, but the fact that humanity has guided the evolution of dogs into several clearly defined pedigree breeds proves that evolution is possible. The fact that we're pulling the strings of the environment changes nothing. Whilst on the one hand you argue that the evolution we guide causes them to be unsuited to the 'natural' environment, which is to a certain extent true, it causes them to be well suited to the human-dominated environment. It gives them an effective purpose, and that purpose grants them a place in the environment. Remove the innate aggression of a guard dog and the dog has no place - hence it is ill-suited to the environment and, most likely, a large number would end up being put down.

I wasn't trying to prove evolution on a global scale...just proving that the smaller scale evolution that may or may not make up the whole, depending on whether you agree with Darwinianism or not, are self-evident. We've proved that it works numerous times, and reason supports it. If something is ill-suited to the environment, it will die. If it is well-suited, it will live. If something or someone changes the environment to better suit one type of species better than another, then one will thrive and the other will be in trouble...however, the one in trouble is more likely to undergo evolution, as only its successful offspring will survive and reproduce, so the successful genes will be less likely to be mixed with unsuccessful genes - hence the species will have adapted. Evolution. You could argue, and I would probably agree, that it is God's way of helping to ensure that His creations thrive in the world in which we live.

However, I digress. I agree that our understanding of so many things is incomplete. Science may not always provide the right answer, or even any answer, but its done pretty well all things considered...and continues to improve.

In fact, perhaps I should say that science has already been 'right' several times. The staunchest defenders that the world was flat, that the sun moved around the earth, were Christians: Christians who used scripture to show how neither could possibly be true. They were wrong. Did the fact that they were wrong destroy Christianity? Not at all. Did it help the understanding of Christians, in interpreting that 'corners of the earth' was a metaphor? Yes. Did it help Christians understand that sometimes scientists just, well, have it right? Not really...

In all honesty, the only real consequences were that the church ended up with some rather impressive egg on its face. It also reminded us, I like to think, that interpreting truth the Bible is just that - an interpretation. When science holds up evidence against scripture, I don't look upon it in horror and shout "Blasphemy!" Sometimes, the evidence is shaky as anything. Sometimes its rather sound...and in the cases where it is sound? Perhaps all it means is that we have interpreted God's word incorrectly? Perhaps it was a metaphor that we took literally, or a phrase that has been used so often to mean one thing that we've lost sight that it could mean another. Maybe it was even a slip of the hand from one of the various Biblical transcribers throughout history.

All are very possible. I think history has shown that we've done all three. The trouble is that many Christians would refuse to believe even in the possibility of it happening now, to us. Just as priests once stood up and said that the world must be flat, for the Bible tells us it is so.

In saying that truth can be misleading, I was, as you surmised, referring to the interpretation of truth...and yes, I do take a postmodernist slant on that, as with many things.

 

[YourPastorT]

To quote one of your previous post, “Apologies if any toes were trodden on in the process.” I sense some hostility in your last, and I do not wish to be a source of any hard feelings. A good clinical debate is healthy and enlightening for all who read it. I enjoy this, and I respect others who willing share their view in a controlled, thought out, and articulate manner, as you have done. Again, my apologies if any toes were trodden on in the process. If you wish to discontinue this thread, I understand. However, please be encouraged in your pursuit of knowledge. I myself have realized the more I learn the more faith is confirmed. Moreover, I have even used “science” to help this process.
What you have posted only confirms the point. I can see that I have been ignoring the similarities in our thought processes. I believe that the communication of those patterns may be an issue here. The definition of evolution as I use it is as follows: “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.” When you state, “Ah, but the fact that humanity has guided the evolution of dogs into several clearly defined pedigree breeds proves that evolution is possible.” That is a statement of adaptation and selective breeding, not evolution. No new species has been achieved. The species Canis familiaris is what you have. A different breed is not a different species. Now if you define evolution in a slightly less distinct language, such as, “a process of change in a certain direction” then please state it as such, this is a definition for evolution, but not the classical biological definition. In the above quote from your post, you state that the goal has been “breeds” of dogs and not a new species, yet named. Therefore, it is not “natural” selection it is selective breeding and does not prove or disprove, as you stated also, anything.
I must agree with you when you say, “staunchest defenders that the world was flat, that the sun moved around the earth, were Christians.” This is true in the same way that the majority of people who attend a “Christian” church claim to be Christian. We would need to define “Christian” to confirm this statement as relevant. I do agree that over the generations, ones calling themselves “Christian” have found themselves on the wrong side of science, but as you stated, this is not a conflict between Science and God, it is a conflict within our understanding of science or God. As you claim to be a rarity on this site, I too sense I am a bit of a non-conformist. As you implied when you state, “Perhaps I'm a rarity...I know that the natural state between scientists and Christians is usually one of mutual disrespect, but I personally think that, if nothing else, science is doing a valuable service.” Please correct my understanding of your statement, do you have mutual respect for both science and Christians or do you not? I willing admit that many have incorrectly interpreted the Word of God, but that is not a flaw in the Word, but a flaw in knowledge and understanding. As an intellectual being, I most respect mutually Science and God, but this is not to say that they are equals. I agree with you, that science does a wonderful job of providing solid answers to many questions, but none of those answers conflict with the Bible, as of this date.
The “slip of the hand” as you put it in transcription of the Bible is a very interesting topic, and one that, since posed by you, I would like to address. The accuracy of the Bible has not been disproved by science and as we have discussed most of it has not been proved as well. However, the accuracy of the translation has been extensively study and documented. We have established the Historical reliability of the Scriptures. We can and should use the same testing criteria by which all historical documents are tested. In his book, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Arthur: Josh McDowell writes, “After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of antiquity.” The Historical accuracy and transcription accuracy of the original text of Scripture have been proven repeatedly to be the most reliable piece of literature of antiquity. Far more reliable then the works of Homer, Herodotus, and Plato. Yet no one ever questions the Iliad as accurate in its current form, yet it is not of the quality of the New Testament. Ravi Zacharias, on this subject states, “In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.” While done of this “proves” the inspired nature of the text it does “prove” the reliability of the text.
The Bible itself attests to the reason why, you may not see the Inspiration of the text. In 1 Corinthians 2:14 the Bible states; “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (KJV) In the verse just prior to this we are told, “ Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” It amazes me how many intellectuals will deny the Reasonableness of God using science as a crutch. We have an intellectual problem, as we have discussed and the Bible confirms that as well. 1 Corinthian 3:19 states; “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” And 1 Corinthian 3:20; “And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.” We are warned against relying on what we have already determined to be faulty reasoning in our prior post, “(Proverb 3:5)Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”
My prayer for you is that these posts will encourage you to read the Bible, with an open mind, allowing the Holy Spirit to instruct you. God Bless you.

 

[Tzeentch]

Sorry for the slow response, I've been a bit busy the last two days.

I wasn't intending to come across as hostile. I did feel you were dodging some of the points I was making on technicalities, but there's nothing wrong with that. I've been enjoying this discussion...

Returning to the issue, the disagreement in our definitions isn't so much the one of evolution, but on how loosely you're prepared to define a species. If the only proof of evolution you're prepared to accept is where the jump from one species to another occurs then you'll certainly be able to disprove it. However, to do so I feel is wilfully ignoring the strongest evidence in evolution's favour.

Lets go back to the simplest Darwinian argument. What is being proposed is that through natural selection, we see a population adapt over time to become better suited to its environment. Characteristics that are beneficial, and lead to a longer or more successful life, are more likely to be passed on since their holder is more likely to survive and thrive. We're assuming, of course, that there is pressure from the environment - survival is not guaranteed, and the rate of reproduction is low enough that ill-suited genes will become less prominent by their holders dying faster and, as a result, reproducing less than the well-suited who live longer and, therefore, reproduce more.

That's natural selection in action - over time the 'strong' survive, the 'weak' die. It might not be visible in a single lifecycle, but over time the population will favour well-suited characteristics. I really, honestly, think that this is self-evident. I'm assuming that you agree. The only assumption upwards from natural selection to evolution is that, over time, those changes can be enough to completely, radically, evolve into a new species.

So, supporting evidence for evolution takes two steps - firstly, showing that natural selection as a hypothesis works and secondly, showing that its effects are significant enough to be extrapolated towards the hypothesis of evolution.

I'll go back to dogs, since its not a bad example. At this stage, I'm not looking to evolve the dog into something which isn't a dog. I'm just showing that natural selection works. And yes, it is ironic that I have been, and will continue, to prove 'natural' selection with an artificial environment. The point is that the environment is what effects the change - and whether the environment is controlled by us or left to its own devices, it will still be the cause of this small-scale evolutionary process.

Assume that we have a set of 50 dogs of any given breed. We're not talking 50 genetically identical dogs, but by and by they'll be pretty similar. Like people - different sizes, weights, etc. Now all we're going to do is take virtually complete control of the environment and cause natural selection:

Lets say that we want to turn these dogs into good guard dogs. A logical start would be to make them big and strong - so we take those 50 dogs and we shoot the 10 smallest, then have the remainder breed with each other. Once we have a new generation of fifty dogs, we firstly shoot all of the old generation to only deal with the new gene pool, and then shoot the 10 smallest dogs from the new generation, breed, etc. etc.

After a few generations, we should expect to see that the dogs are, on the whole, larger. Assuming that there are no mutations, what will happen is that they will continue to get larger and larger and larger until they are all reaching, or virtually reaching, their full genetic potential - and that potential is likely to increase over time, as long as we continue to remove the opposite attributes from the gene pool.

We know that this happens, because its possible to breed populations in this manner. We've done it with dogs and cows - we can do it in the lab with species whose lifecycles are shorter. If you pick an unwanted characteristic and then kill (x) number of the species which display it, you will over time remove that characteristic from the population (or, at least, make it a statistically impossible rarity). If we wanted dogs with black fur, then we would only let dogs with black fur breed. As and when recessive alleles show, we remove them from the gene pool. Over time, you'd get a set of black dogs that would only ever produce black dogs (save in the case of mutations or albinos, which are unavoidable exceptions).

To say that because the environment is not wholly 'natural' doesn't make it 'natural selection' is misleading only in terms of linguistics. The issue is that environmental pressure can put pressure on a species to naturally adapt towards favourable characteristics. Logically, this will happen any time species are in competition for scarce resources, or in competition with each other. Its why you don't see slow, fat rabbits in the wild. They just don't stand a chance...

So, the only issue is whether or not these small scale changes add up to anything larger. Over the scale we've looked at, they clearly don't. You're improving the dog, not rewriting the dog...however, we weren't *trying* to rewrite the dog.

Take it a stage further - we'll put these dogs out into a much larger controlled environment. Lets say that we give them a main habitat to live in, where getting food is relatively straightforward, there are no predators and the only thing that limits them is space. Outside of their main habitat is the places where dogs generally don't, or can't, live - the habitat will slowly become desert-like, or arctic, or swamp-like. Doesn't matter, as long as its naturallly inhospitable to dogs, but not without the possibility of survival.

What you'll see is something of a garden of eden state for the first few generations, when they have abundant space and excess food. Once they move towards overcrowing, we'll see natural selection - the bigger dogs will fight off smaller dogs, who will be forced outwards towards the edges of the ideal habitat. They can still survive, but are far more likely to die of starvation, or exposure, or be killed by stronger dogs, etc.

So, going back to natural selection - what we will see is that the environment will change them. As long as not all of them die, those who survive will have some characteristic that aided their survival. When they reproduce with those around them, that characteristic will be passed on and gradually become more frequent in this fringe-group of dogs.

It would be wrong to assume that natural selection would make them bigger or stronger, and so able to come back into the natural habitat. They already lack those strengths, so it will be others that will come into play - more active senses, hearing potential rivals from further away. A better sense of smell, helping them find scarce food faster. Bigger claws, that help them dig and hide food more effectively, thinner coats that let them move in a desert environment more comfortably (ie, they can forage for longer without needing to rest and are thus more effective and likely to survive)

Now all you have to do is let them carry on going and come back after a million years has passed. What might start out as small advantages, or even mild mutations, if they are effective, will be selectively bred through again, and again, and again, and again. We'll be looking at a dog with far superior smell, bigger claws, thin coats (and probably higher metabolisms), and that has a natural fear of dogs that are bigger than itself and pose a threat.

What we've just seen is the first step towards a predator-prey relationship. The dogs now on the fringe are far bigger and stronger than they were to begin with, due to the natural selection which has given them preference in the original habitat. When comparing them to the new semi-desert dogs, they are FAR bigger and stronger. Undoubtedly, some of them will work out that killing the weaker dogs and eating them works - and they will thrive at it.

Gradually, the dogs which are better at killing (sharper teeth, faster runners, better camoflage) will thrive and pass on their genes. The dogs who escape this emergent set of predators will likewise be naturally better at doing so - better at staying unseen, suited to the desert where the predators can't yet hunt effectively, etc.

Come back in another million years or so and we'll probably be looking at three or four different species of dogs, bearing only a passing resemblance to the original set. There will be a set of dogs well-suited to the original environment, that will resemble the original species the most closely. They might be, in this case, either natural omnivores or have gone more towards being herbivores, but being big and powerful enough (or being in packs, or whatever survival strategy works) to fend off the predator dogs.

On the other side, you have a set of dogs who are now fully able to live in the desert and thrive in the relative safety. Of course, the predators on the new fringe, who are forced to hunt those dogs, will gradually get better at it. Its a constantly expanding cycle - as one group evolves a new strength that damages its rivals, they will gradually evolve some kind of defence to it...and all the time, there will be the group which doesn't change much, because it is still effective and suited to the environment that it is in.

This example is slightly abstract, but given time, you can see how some of the underlying relationships between species might develop. Now if the Darwinians are right, the Earth has had millions and millions of years at this...which would explain the huge variety of species that we see, which occupy the kinds of evolutionary niches that are so well-integrated, so well-defined and so, in many cases, unbelievably complicated that to a casual glance it seems like they must have been spontaneously created in this way, for how else could it all have worked?


In reference to my comment about Christians defending traditional thinking, it was particularly in reference to the Catholic church throughout history, especially with regard to the Renaissance, where the church stuck solidly to the ideas it had believed in for hundreds of years - flat earth, sun goes round the earth, the body is made of four humours, disease is carried by bad smells, etc.

In some cases, the Bible was used to show irrefutable proof of the truth of those hypotheses - Galileo (I think Galileo, although it might possibly have been Copernicus...or indeed, another famous astronomer) was imprisoned not just for suggesting that the sun went round the earth, but using a telescope to prove it. Such action, obviously, meant that the church was wrong - and since the church was only passing on the truth of the Bible (which cannot be wrong), it meant it was blasphemy, and so they locked him up.

Whilst there, he tried to persuade several of the church's highest authorities to look at the evidence that he was showing. Some refused...but those who did looked at his evidence, agreed with him that he was almost certainly right, but then kept him locked up for some time because to release him and admit that the church had been wrong carried very damning consequences. If the church was wrong on something they were so convinced about...what else might they be wrong on?

As you say, it comes down to a lack of understanding of the people involved, and also to a reliance on any single interpretation (especially literal ones) of Biblical scripture.

You asked about my mutual respect for science and religion, but I'm not sure its as easily definable as that. There are some things that science cannot, and never really has, tried to explain. There are some things that religions in general do not explain. To say that I have equal respect for both, or greater respect for one, is misleading. It varies completely depending on the context.

Again, thanks for a very interesting post, particularly at the end. I normally try not to end posts with dry comments, but its worth noting that questions on the accuracy of the Iliad are mainly to do with art and creativity. Obviously, a mistranslation or a smudged word could completely have changed what Homer meant - but all that will happen is that people will read it wrong for centuries to come and never know, as people aren't reading the Iliad as holy truth. One single mistake in the Bible - in a book which people take unquestioningly as accurate, faithful and indisputably correct...

For example, one edition printed of the King James Bible was recalled rather swiftly once it was realised that there had been an omission, and the shipment destined for export to Africa bore the clear message "Thou shalt commit adultery". This, I might add, was a book which had gone through a relatively modern printing press (ie, no transcription errors in print itself), had been proof-read at every stage of the process and had been copied from a perfectly legible original copy - the only major amendments were to do with layout issues because the book was a different size.

Obviously, these things happen, the laws of chance say they will...but this is an incredibly ideal environment compared to how the Bible has been copied out over the centuries. I think it is the most thoroughly checked book with regards to accuracy in the world, isn't it? In all honesty...its probably just as well.

 

[sparky]

sort of related

Having just read the previous posts i have a whole jumble of thoughts to get out so excuse me if i dont express them to well.To start with evolution-what a load of bunkum!You could ask any scientist about the transitional link between ape and man and hand on heart he would have to tell you it isnt really there.For something that supposedly happened over a period of millions of years every time you went out to dig your garden you would be unearthing some monkeylike skeleton.Far from being an ample fossil record there is very little,often finds being exposed as fakes anyway.Today we still have a diverse spectrum of human beings,pygmies,aboriginies,white people,black people,yellow people and tribes in remote jungles where adults all grow to above six foot.It has been the same down through history,evidence of evolution at work or Gods wondrous ggift of variety?Darwin only ever put this forth as a theory and it is an insult to teach it in many schools as fact.Scientists are well aware of the gaping holes in the evolution theory but what is the alternative for them?A creator?An all-powerful being?Whereas the account of creation in the bible is flawless ,for scientists to admit the presence of a divine God and all the questions it raises(accountability,who is he,where did he come from)is really to much for them so they hide behind a flawed but safe theory.Interestingly Isiah 40v22 says"there is one dwelling above the circle of the earth"didnt scientists INSIST the world was flat?hmmmm.Just a few bullet points to finish on.Scientists would agree that a global flood would have much the same affect on the earth as a "ice age".Carbon dating is not an accurate science,it can be out by tens of thousands of years.Finally a "creation theory" i once heard that made a lot of sense to me.What was the purpose of dinasours?Apparently these huge beasts would have eaten collosal amounts and excreted tons every day.Could it be they were part of Gods plan to make ready a fertile,verdant earth for the coming of mankind?Now before you jump on my back about this,im not saying its true,its just a theory?

 

[sparky]

Ps-Ive got the prospect of living forever in an eternal paradise.What does science offer you?Just a thought

 

[YourPastorT]

Tzeentch- there is no need to apologize for the slow response, I can relate to the normalcy of an overloaded daily routine. I am thankful that you did not intend to sound hostile, and I am sorry if you feel that I am “dodging” some of the points you were making, using technicalities. I will attempt to do better at helping you understand the response to each point so that none will be over looked.

I understand your disagreement with the definition of evolution as well as your unwillingness to define what a species is. So lets use a source outside of you and I. Below I have attempted to use definitions that I believe will be acceptable to you.

ev·o·lu·tion ( v -l sh n, v -)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

ad·ap·ta·tion ( d p-t sh n)
n.
1. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.

king·dom (k ng d m)
n.
The highest taxonomic classification into which organisms are grouped, based on fundamental similarities and common ancestry. One widely accepted taxonomic system designates five such classifications: animals, plants, fungi, prokaryotes, and protoctists.

phy·lum (f l m)
n. pl. phy·la (-l )
1. A primary division of a kingdom, as of the animal kingdom, ranking next above a class in size.

class (kl s)n.1. A taxonomic category ranking below a phylum or division and above an order.

or·der (ôr d r)
n.
1. A taxonomic category of organisms ranking above a family and below a class.

fam·i·ly (f m -l , f m l )
n. pl. fam·i·lies
1. A taxonomic category of related organisms ranking below an order and above a genus. A family usually consists of several genera.

ge·nus (j n s)
n. pl. gen·er·a (j n r- )
1. A taxonomic category ranking below a family and above a species and generally consisting of a group of species exhibiting similar characteristics. In taxonomic nomenclature the genus name is used, either alone or followed by a Latin adjective or epithet, to form the name of a species.

spe·cies (sp sh z, -s z)
n. pl. species
1. Biology.
a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.


I hope that these definitions can be used as common ground for this discussion. I seem to be having trouble following your definitions, as they seem to vacillate a bit. I hope this can be seen as an attempt to convince you that I do not wish to “willfully” ignore any point, on the contrary I wish to clarify and understand what the point is.

I so appreciate your return to the simplest Darwinian argument. As you have stated repeatedly, and I quote, “What is being proposed is that through natural selection, we see a population adapt over time to become better suited to its environment.” I agree! You may mark that down as one for your side it you wish, for nowJ. The trouble here however, is that you insist on defining evolution and adaptation as one and the same, as stated above. Evolution is change to a different form, while adaptation is an adjustment. That which you just stated above, in you own words is “adaptation”. I also agree with you when you state, and again I quote, “Characteristics that are beneficial, and lead to a longer or more successful life, are more likely to be passed on since their holder is more likely to survive and thrive.” You go on to state, “That's natural selection in action - over time the 'strong' survive, the 'weak' die. It might not be visible in a single lifecycle, but over time the population will favour well-suited characteristics.” However, I disagree with the following; “The only assumption upwards from natural selection to evolution is that, over time, those changes can be enough to completely, radically, evolve into a new species.”

You are correct in stating that your supporting evidence takes two steps – firstly, that natural selection as a hypothesis works and secondly, showing that it effects are significant enough to be extrapolated towards the hypothesis of evolution. This is were most make the error in logic. The extrapolation towards what they desire to be, while ignoring what is.
Therefore, I too will use the dog, as you seem to be so fond of using. I understand that you are not looking to “evolve the dog into something which isn’t a dog”. Using adaptation, you can evolve the dog. Lets look at natural selection and how it works, since you stated only the one side. The use of a controlled environment or natural one is irrelevant for this discussion.
Let us assume together as you did that we have a set of 50 dogs of any given breed. Allowing also for genetic anomaly and minor differences we have 50 identical dogs.

I will quote you and save time on my typing, “Lets say that we want to turn these dogs into good guard dogs. A logical start would be to make them big and strong - so we take those 50 dogs and we shoot the 10 smallest, then have the remainder breed with each other. Once we have a new generation of fifty dogs, we firstly shoot all of the old generation to only deal with the new gene pool, and then shoot the 10 smallest dogs from the new generation, breed, etc. etc.

After a few generations, we should expect to see that the dogs are, on the whole, larger. Assuming that there are no mutations, what will happen is that they will continue to get larger and larger and larger until they are all reaching, or virtually reaching, their full genetic potential - and that potential is likely to increase over time, as long as we continue to remove the opposite attributes from the gene pool.”

Now here is where the issue is, Lets assume that by “genetic potential” you mean the maximum of one trait over the other. In addition, as you state, this is the trait we desire to cultivate. What we still have is a dog, albeit it is “Marmaduke” sized yet, it is still a dog, and even in the above scenario, we (Man) would limit the size because of handling and control issues. Moreover, all we would have is a dog. It would still be of the same kingdom(Animalia), phylum(Chordata), class(Mammalia), order(Carnivora), Family(Canidae), Genus(Canis), Species(C. familiaris). As you have stated, we have done this. In fact, if you speak to Dog breeders they will tell you that because of our attempts to do just this we are actually hindering these animals. For example, Dalmatians now have consistent health issues, as do most “pure” breeds with many attributing this to breeding in the above manner. I sense in your response that you are “dodging” the issue of mutations by only give it a fleeting thought.

Therefore, we can agree that a “natural” or “Man-made” environment does not matter in the above scenario. How ever, in true natural selection environmental pressure has an impact on each species. As you and I agree on this, I will just state, “right, you just don’t see slow, fat rabbits in the wild.” However, you do see slow tortoises. Moreover, sometimes they live in the same environment, as it the case with the gopher tortoise of Florida and the hare of the eastern United States.

Therefore, to quote you again, “So, the only issue is whether or not these small scale changes add up to anything larger. Over the scale we've looked at, they clearly don't. You're improving the dog, not rewriting the dog...however, we weren't *trying* to rewrite the dog.”

What you speak of when you propose the totally isolated environment for the dogs is a great point, against evolution. You state, “It would be wrong to assume that natural selection would make them bigger or stronger, and so able to come back into the natural habitat. They already lack those strengths, so it will be others that will come into play - more active senses, hearing potential rivals from further away.” This is seen in the Artic Fox and the Snow shoe Rabbit, verses the desert Hare or Fox. The trait that ensured survival is what carries forward as you and I agree. Nevertheless, you still have a Fox and a Rabbit. No matter the time frame. The snow shoe rabbit for example survives because it’s feet are different (bigger) then its desert cousin, enabling it to run on top of the snow, but if the feet where to big then He would slow and be someone’s dinner. Therefore, natural selection and adaptation work divinely to keep the rabbit a rabbit.

Yes, I can fully understand how you can believe this to be true. However, we have never found one transitional species, but we have many breeds, this attest to adaptation and not evolution.

Now we have covered, and will cover this again, I am sure, evolution and adaptation. However, we have not covered what the Bible has to say about the issue. Does the Bible have anything to say about adaptation or evolution? If we use a very broad definition, as you seem to desire to do. Then we could say that a baby growing into an adult is evolution. That baby has adapted to fit better in its environment, feed itself, walk, etc. However, I know that adaptation or this definition of evolution is not the question between you and I. However, the definition of evolution is far broader to most, and to many who will read this, so please bare with me. Typically, evolutionist, consider evolution as a basic principle of continual development, of increasing order and complexity throughout the universe. The complex elements are said to have developed from simpler elements. Evolution in this form is actually a complete world view, an explanation that gives some meaning, without the necessity of a personal God who created all and one which upholds all. The philosophy of evolution is a belief, which is taught in our schools as fact. This is so widely taught that many Christian accept a compromise and adapt “theistic evolution.” A theistic evolutionary position is an inconsistent position, just as atheism is an illogical position. In the first ten chapters of Genesis we are told that God created all, the plants and animals to reproduce “after their kind”, this “kind” is in modern terms, would most likely be broader then the “species” but more likely the “family”. So it is not limited to German Shepherds breeding with only German Shepherds, but also includes Wolfs as well as others of the same “Family”. This is limited as well, do to the offspring within “family” are often sterile as is the case of a “mule” which is the offspring of a female horse (Equus Caballus) and a male donkey (Equus Asinus). Therefore, adaptation is not inconsistent with the Bible, but evolution is the question.

Evolution teaches that creation is continually being accomplished by natural evolutionary processes, however the law of Energy Conservation, states that nothing is now being created or destroyed. Evolution teaches that there is a process of development and increasing order and complexity in the universe. However the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that all systems tend to become disordered and simpler. All things grow old, wear out, run down and die. Evolution, involves a universal change upward, whereas the real processes of nature involves a universal change downward. The idea of special creation of all the “kinds” of plants and animals, with provision for ample variations (adaptation) within the kinds, is much more in accord with the actual facts and laws of science than is the speculative philosophy of evolutionary development. Therefore, evolution is not real science, but is a religious philosophy.

All processes operate within the framework of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, which are beyond question the two best proved facts of science. The first law is the Law of Mass-Energy Conservation and states that nothing in the observable universe in now being created or annihilated. The second law is the Law of Increasing Entropy, which states that the entropy (Inevitable and steady deterioration) of every observable system in the universe tends to grow. Therefore, the basic structure of the universe in not one of continuing “creation” but is one of “conservation.” The basic law of nature therefore is not one of evolutionary development toward higher order, but rather of “devolutionary” change to corruption. The Bible addresses this clearly, in Genesis 6:12; “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” This corruption means decay and is in line with the above laws. We are warned that the Second law of Thermodynamics is an on going process; “Matthew 6:19 warns us; “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.” Moreover, 2 Timothy 3:8 tells us that this crosses over to our intellect and faith as well: “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” I will continue to be as honest as I can be, but as you stated in one of your earlier post, I am human and can lie, but I desire not to. I hope that you will begin to see that the possibility of God is one which you should consider. I encourage you in this consideration.

Now, onto the comments about the early Church. Lets be honest, it was not just the Church who stuck solidly to the ideas that it had believed and promoted for hundreds of years. It’s incorrect views such as, flat earth, the sun travels around the earth, the body, bad smells, etc, all came from bad science, which the Church incorrectly adapted as fact. I freely admit that change is hard for many, and we all wish to be correct. So strong is this desire that we often will stick to our guns even in the face of fact. I struggle with this, and I can tell that you do as well. I will freely admit that, and I pray that you can as well. Understanding that we do not know all, is the first step to real education. In addition, I am very aware of the many misguided acts that people in the past have given themselves over to in the name of a god. However, I do not “lump” all Christians together nor do I “lump” all scientist together. You would not wish to be placed in the same category as many of the men and women “scientist” who experimented on Men and Women, during WWII in Nazi Germany, the point is we learn more each day, and I agree it was wrong for anyone to imprison someone for suggesting that the earth goes around the sun. On the same hand therefore, you cannot possible, discount the possibility that God did do exactly what the Bible reports. To do so makes you no better then they who persecuted Galileo, Copernicus and others. You cannot defend the scientist as free thinkers and then not defend the Christian as the same.

I again agree, which seems to be a raising theme of this post, with you when you note “errors” in printed editions, can, will, and do happen. However, you are also correct in noting that the Bible, in the original text is the most accurately and consistently translated book ever printed. My reference to the Iliad was not for the importance of the writing but for the example of copy integrity. On a personal note, have you ever read the Bible? Just curious. I continue to pray for your intellectual growth as well as your continued spiritual awakening. Thank you again for the fine response. This is a pleasure.

Thank you Sparky for adding a link into this chain of thoughts, I wonder if your input has been the missing link….lol. Thank you and I look forward to more of your insightful and faithful inputs.

 

[4uIAM]

I would say in a nutshell:

Science is an attempt by the same intelligent life forms that try to interpret the Bible, to interpret Gods creation. Both are capable of err thus each interpretation is limited by knowledge at the time of interpretation thus many theories on both fronts have been discarded with further understanding. I would say that given this progressive research into both accounts that our understanding of both has increased dramatically with the most growth being within the last century.

It also astounds me that science has made motions towards realizing the design in many aspects of this creation. Science does not have to be “the search for anything unless its God” as it is made out to be. Many popular websites have been made available to the public because of the invention of the Internet that boasts scientific evidences that support Biblical claims. Science above all must remain unbiased if it is to be affective. And the Bible challenges us to:

1 Thessalonians 5
19Do not quench the Spirit. 20Do not despise prophecies, 21but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22Abstain from every form of evil.

Evolution theory has long been touted as a death knell to religion but in and of itself it cannot withstand its own scrutiny and by its own design the theory nulls itself. Natural selection by blind processes is incapable of creating matter from nothingness. It cannot explain how biological material becomes assembled through blind processes when the process of evolution requires long spans of time to accomplish the most simplistic tasks.

The mousetrap musings of Behe and his book “Darwins Black Box” make a strong argument against nano-scale evolution, and if it is impossible on that scale then assume the domino effect. It cannot explain complex systems like digestion, or even the eye through random blind processes of selective addition/subtraction to features over millions of years. If so we are to assume that creatures spent countless years blind until the eye was capable of seeing, and even then it would not be perfect sight, it would have to evolve to meet needs (i.e. Color vision). But the main point is that in a subject like the eye, all the parts are needed for it to function, so why would a blind and random process create a part without function?

Here is a snippet from http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

[1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.

What these systems do support in a very interesting way is Intelligent Design. We can assume ID since random “dumb” processes fail on the molecular level. We can also take the argument to astrophysics and archaeology and we see that nothing has ever been found that terminated God as a factor in the creation of the globe. The one thing that stands out in recent science that heavily supports a designer is the discovery of DNA/RNA in cells.

Here is a snippet from: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long "chains" of chemical "building blocks" paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long [approx. 1.82 meters], yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick [approx. 0.0000254 microns].

In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books – each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type. The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer.

Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units, all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence.

DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism – a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet!

Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

My faith is not a blind faith but a faith that has built up based on science. The truth does set you free if you are able to see it. But also remember that the cross is folly to those who are perishing. (1 Cor. 1:18)

 

[4uIAM]

Intelligent design seems to be the latest theory on how evolution works but it seems to me that it is really no more than a construct of favourable chance.
In order the steps of creation would be :

Imagine the possibility.
Create the possibility by bringing the lements together in one way or other.
Create multiple ways for the same outcome to occur and continue compounding until it happens by accident using favourable symbiotic cross relationships where possible.

ID is not the latest theory on how evolution works, it actually is a competing theory. Please feel free to read more about it at [edited by Yeshua no LINKS are to be posted without Chad's permission].

Matter does not arrive from nothing, thus we know that the universe had a beginning since matter also degrades over time. This beginning point had a cause and creation is the effect. Now a cause lies outside of the natural since the natural is contained within the effect, so this cause is supernatural which is outside the scope of science alone.