I went on vacation in Hawaii in 1989. Sea Life Park was one of the places I went for a day of fun and activity. There I saw a Wholfin, a cross between a Killer Whale and a Dolphin. A few years later I was at work and told the people about the Wholfin. They said I was lying and yanking their chain. This was a time before the world wide web was a household necessity, so I could not prove myself. Luckily, a few months later, a coworker was going to Maui. They had a layover in Honolulu and made a call to Sea Life Park to ask if there was indeed a Wholfin. They found out I wasn't lying.
Now I see the Wholfin has had a baby of her own. She mated with another Dolphin and produced a baby which is 3/4 Dolphin and 1/4 Killer Whate. I find that interesting since most animals who are of the same genus and mate produce offsprings which are sterile.
I'm a Creationist. And my comments were based ENTIRELY on genetics and cold science. ... I'd say that's a matter of opinion-I've seen evidence that the basis of evolutionary thought has already been disproven on a biochemical level.
Really? Then how does the overwhelming evidence of the earth/universe being FAR older than 6,000 years fit in with this 'cold science' of Creationism? How about proven measured distances of stars from earth? The total lack of the water that is (supposedly) on the other side of 'expanse' talked about in Genesis?
Speaking of questionable 'experts', ever hear of Dr. Kenneth Hovind? Do a Google on him. Look at all the 'theories' that he came up with, all in support of Creationism. For example, do you know that, in order to explain away the fact about how stars are many hundreds of thousands to billions of light years from earth, he says that light actually slows down as it travels, due of course to the laws of inertia and the like. Interesting, except that light particles has no mass, no weight with which to have the laws of inertia take effect on it. ... And this clown is one of the primary standards used in the Creationist world.
And yet, the main motivation of many Creationists is the maintainance of the validity, the integrity, the 'truth' of their scriptures, and from such, their religious beliefs. Along comes a theory (like the theory of evolution), viable tho' it may be, that challenges that, and they are up in arms about it. So please spare me the line about the basis for Creationism being one of scientific inquiry and proof. The main (if not only) interest they have is making sure that the Bible/scripture remains inviolate.
I oughtta know. ... I used to believe in that mentality regarding the evolution/Creationist argument. Been there, done that. <_<
So the link that I posted is premature, probably even flawed in its conclusion. When I came across that link, I thought back to what we were taught in PFAL about Mendal's Law and "everything according to its own kind" and how that was taught like it was irrefutable science, and I just laughed. Because I see the similarity between VPW's presentation, and many Creationists desperately grabbing onto any 'scientific' source they could (like Hovind) to go "See? See? Told you the account in Genesis was scientifically true!", based on their need to keep their belief in the Bible account safe from being dismantled.
So if I am to look the fool for posting such a questionable link, how many Creationists should be shown as fools for latching on to their questionable 'experts' to try to prop up Creationism? Hell, remember that judge in Dover, PA who threw out their case, and then gave them a tongue lashing for their questionable presentation? ... And he's a conservative Christian.
So if that is my version of 'the finger', so be it.
Oh, and for those who want to pull VPW's Old Earth version of Creationism out of the hat to explain it, you know, how that the universe was created billions of years ago, the 'rebellion in heaven' screwed that all up (where the earth became "without form and void"), and how God put all that back together again in the 6 days, ... you still have a problem.
Whether you go by the Young Earth Creationist theory, or the Old Earth Creationist theory, in *both* of those theories, the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets (according to the scriptures) were made _after_ the "without form and void" part and God started with the "Let there be ..." operations as shown in the first chapter in Genesis.
And the age of the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets are ALL proven to be a LOT older than 6,000 years.
Garth--------This is a bit off topic from your post but I did want to point out that the speed of light is,in fact, relative to the density of the media through which it is traveling. This density is said to display an "index of refraction". The denser the media, the slower light travels. In physics it is studied along with the other aspects of Snell's law. This same law of physics explains why an object below the surface of a body of water is not where it appears to be,hence if you should reach into the water you will likely miss your intended target. I have always wondered how bears are able to override this when catching salmon.What does all this have to do with light traveling through space? I really don't know but light is energy and energy is always in motion.
Good point Waysider. What I forgot to mention is in reference to when no matter is involved to interfere with the speed of light, which is (largely) the case in space, where there is vacuum in the vast majority of space.
The way Dr. Hovind portrays it, however, is that light slows down by itself due to its (supposed) mass, and as I pointed out earlier, light is massless.
...Speaking of questionable 'experts', ever hear of Dr. Kenneth Hovind? Do a Google on him. Look at all the 'theories' that he came up with, all in support of Creationism. For example, do you know that, in order to explain away the fact about how stars are many hundreds of thousands to billions of light years from earth, he says that light actually slows down as it travels, due of course to the laws of inertia and the like. Interesting, except that light particles has no mass, no weight with which to have the laws of inertia take effect on it. ... And this clown is one of the primary standards used in the Creationist world.
And yet, the main motivation of many Creationists is the maintainance of the validity, the integrity, the 'truth' of their scriptures, and from such, their religious beliefs. Along comes a theory (like the theory of evolution), viable tho' it may be, that challenges that, and they are up in arms about it. So please spare me the line about the basis for Creationism being one of scientific inquiry and proof. The main (if not only) interest they have is making sure that the Bible/scripture remains inviolate...
Garth, I don't like it either – when Christian zealots go all out to prove the Bible is true by appealing to science. Imho the way of Christian Faith is the way of coming to the Father by taking His written word to heart. It is a relationship with Him based on a personal connection of faith. I think this was a severe shortcoming in VPW's ministry – he ranted and raved over the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the Bible. Knowing the Bible became an end in and of itself…it became their God. Imho – the Bible is a means to an end [connecting with God] and not an end in itself.
Being a Christian I have no problem with studying the Bible to learn more about the Creator or studying science to learn more about the creation. I personally don't see a contradiction between the two since God is the author of both. But I will say imho – the Bible is NOT a scientific book! I think the purpose of the Bible is a unified message to man from God that speaks of the nature of man, man's purpose, man's problem, man's redemption – in other words all of these topics deal with spiritual matters – or philosophical things if you like that term better – not something you can quantify or measure in a lab. I think sometimes well-meaning Christians throw around scientific terms and plug them into Scripture - taking liberties with Scripture over topics they were never meant to address…The Bible doesn't explain science and science doesn't explain God.
…I do wonder about you mentioning light particles having no mass and not being affected by things like inertia. I thought Einstein's theory of relativity showed mass and energy were equivalent. That being the case – isn't the thing about the gravitational collapse of objects in a Black Hole is that it exerts such a massive gravitational pull that even light cannot escape?
…Now this isn't a science forum – but since you brought this stuff up – it would be fun to digress – Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos are both a good read on matter and energy causing space and time to warp and curve.
Oh, and for those who want to pull VPW's Old Earth version of Creationism out of the hat to explain it, you know, how that the universe was created billions of years ago, the 'rebellion in heaven' screwed that all up (where the earth became "without form and void"), and how God put all that back together again in the 6 days, ... you still have a problem.
Whether you go by the Young Earth Creationist theory, or the Old Earth Creationist theory, in *both* of those theories, the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets (according to the scriptures) were made _after_ the "without form and void" part and God started with the "Let there be ..." operations as shown in the first chapter in Genesis.
And the age of the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets are ALL proven to be a LOT older than 6,000 years.
'Cold science' huh?
I addressed this on another thread – referring to Ross' book that shows an old earth creationist viewpoint that gets into the creation days being a whole lot longer than a 24 hour period – accounting for the true age appearance of the celestial bodies – as Carl Sagan used to say "billions and billions of years."
Garth: Overwhelming evidence??? You have different "rules of evidence" than me. If you want to stand approved before an educated idiot world that denies the existance of God, fine.
I posted this on another thread....but I copied it over here.
But let's just suppose the chromosomes don't come out either or! Each cat egg will have 18 and each dog sperm will have 39. (Chromosomes exist in pairs, and only 1 of each pair is in the gamete - just reminding you in case you forgot HS bio). So what will you think IF the result shows there are 57 chromosomes....18+39?
Personally - I really think this is much a-do about nothing too. But suppose Garth's "cold hard science" counts 'em up and they don't get an expected number! Just wondering.....hmmmmmmm (that's the scientist in me)
My sis in law is a vetinarian student. She sees all kinds of ''weird'' stuff in the lab now.
Loats and Ligers have been bread quite a few times. But, they don't reproduce well.
But on a ''God'' is real note... she said just studying reproduction and all that happens, it is an absolute miracle when life begins. To me, that is proof. I just look out my window and I see God's handiwork. I don't need a scientific explanation. I look at it everyday. However God made it happen, is fine with me.
Any new news yet? I'd like to find out the chromosomes count too.... they looked like dog to me....
Garth: Overwhelming evidence??? You have different "rules of evidence" than me. If you want to stand approved before an educated idiot world that denies the existance of God, fine.
Let's just say that my 'rules of evidence' doesn't include some blind appeal to authority in acceptance of the scriptures/other sources of spirituality when it comes to proving/illustrating things true.
Ie., I am *done* with "It's the Word, the Word, and nothing BUT the Word!" mentality, as well as the "Just take it by Faith brother!" variety. ... And I have found a helluva lot of mental freedom in doing so.
I am *done* with "It's the Word, the Word, and nothing BUT the Word!" mentality, as well as the "Just take it by Faith brother!" variety. ... And I have found a helluva lot of mental freedom in doing so.
I feel the same way.
one of the most freeing things for me was realizing that evolution is also nothing more than a cloud of hypothetical constructs into which followers also attempt to squeeze scientific fact. they're not always successful either, and they have as many denominations as religions have.
on the creationist side, they start with the premise "God created"
on the evolutionist side, they start with the premise "God did not create" of more adamently "there is no God to have created or directed" or in more neutral terms "life evolved because the right elements were in the right place at the right time"
from either of those two starting points, the philosophies branch out endlessly.
now I can say "I don't know" and read and discuss and ENJOY the different philosophies without having to bash any. it's kinda cool. I don't even have to reveal which premise I accept as Truth.
Really? Then how does the overwhelming evidence of the earth/universe being FAR older than 6,000 years fit in with this 'cold science' of Creationism? How about proven measured distances of stars from earth? The total lack of the water that is (supposedly) on the other side of 'expanse' talked about in Genesis?
Strawman 1.
A) Supposedly, I claimed Creationism was "cold science."
I claimed my reply had NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM,
any more than my liking Rock and Roll had nothing to do with my reply.
Your treatment of my post's content was careless, which doesn't impress me with your
ability to view evidence (which may be better than this, of course...)
B) All Creationists believe in a 6000-year-old earth.
There's several positions held by Creationists. ONE of those is that one,
and I myself have argued AGAINST it.
Since you knew even vpw never claimed a 6000 year old earth, you HAD to know there
was at least ONE other position-but you slapped that label on me without hesitation.
Speaking of questionable 'experts', ever hear of Dr. Kenneth Hovind? Do a Google on him. Look at all the 'theories' that he came up with, all in support of Creationism. For example, do you know that, in order to explain away the fact about how stars are many hundreds of thousands to billions of light years from earth, he says that light actually slows down as it travels, due of course to the laws of inertia and the like. Interesting, except that light particles has no mass, no weight with which to have the laws of inertia take effect on it. ... And this clown is one of the primary standards used in the Creationist world.
And yet, the main motivation of many Creationists is the maintainance of the validity, the integrity, the 'truth' of their scriptures, and from such, their religious beliefs.
As a Creationist who's never based his beliefs on whatever crackpot you've
managed to find, I reject your suggestion that most Creationists base their beliefs on
him or his work. I CAN ask around, if it amuses me, and see if anyone's heard of
him or his.
Also note that I've no problem believing any scientific theory, so long as the evidence actually
SUPPORTS IT. Saying "Creationists are wrong because some of them are crackpots with
silly ideas" is not "supporting" evolution any more than it's refuting anyone except certain
crackpots.
Along comes a theory (like the theory of evolution), viable tho' it may be, that challenges that, and they are up in arms about it. So please spare me the line about the basis for Creationism being one of scientific inquiry and proof. The main (if not only) interest they have is making sure that the Bible/scripture remains inviolate.
And I'm supposed to take your word that the thing is actually the logical conclusion supported by
the evidence, of course. Please spare ME the line that you're fairly representing what I actually
TYPED ABOVE. You've already passed judgement long before I ever posted.
I oughtta know. ... I used to believe in that mentality regarding the evolution/Creationist argument. Been there, done that. <_<
Don't blame me if your own scientific background THEN was that shallow,
and don't decide mine is equally shallow, since you know little about it.
So the link that I posted is premature, probably even flawed in its conclusion.
A cat was found with kittens and puppies, and the ONLY conclusion is that she gave birth
to both? That's more than "premature", that's silly.
When I came across that link, I thought back to what we were taught in PFAL about Mendal's Law and "everything according to its own kind" and how that was taught like it was irrefutable science, and I just laughed.
Well, Gregor Mendel was hardly a scientific hack, and if you want to dismiss a man considered
important enough to be a "household name" among scientists, that's your choice.
BTW, no science is "irrefutable"-but there are degrees of validation in REAL science.
If you held otherwise, that's hardly my fault, but that's not "good science",
that's "religion."
Because I see the similarity between VPW's presentation, and many Creationists desperately grabbing onto any 'scientific' source they could (like Hovind) to go "See? See? Told you the account in Genesis was scientifically true!", based on their need to keep their belief in the Bible account safe from being dismantled.
And vpw plus Hovind = ALL CREATIONISTS?
Sloppy reasoning, Garth. You can certainly do better than that.
Crackpots do not set the standard for rational people.
So if I am to look the fool for posting such a questionable link, how many Creationists should be shown as fools for latching on to their questionable 'experts' to try to prop up Creationism?
I don't have any numbers-but it sounds like you've been keeping count...
Hell, remember that judge in Dover, PA who threw out their case, and then gave them a tongue lashing for their questionable presentation? ... And he's a conservative Christian.
No I don't. I don't follow all the news. Maybe you're on some "anti-Creationist" mailing list that keeps
you informed on that one better than me.
So if that is my version of 'the finger', so be it.
So,
you DID post that link with the specific goal of slapping Creationists.
I'll adjust my expectations of further posts accordingly.
Sorry Garth. You know I love ya man. You're the Prophet, The The Man.
Bait.
Switch.
This is vaguely like the guy who wants you to pull his finger so he can fart, big joke, right? The first 100 times but at this point, it's kinda stale. The joke, never mind the gas.
"Come on, pull my finger. Pull my finger! Come aaaaawwwwwnnnnn.....pull my FINGer! Pull it! Pull my finGER! Do it! Do itdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoit!!!
"No thanks".
"Baby! You won't pull my finger! Scaredy cat! S-KARE-DEE CAT! Pull it!!! Pleeeeeezzzzzzzz, pull it pull it pull it pull it pull it - pull my FFFFFINNNNNNGERRRRR! Pull - my ...."
"Sigh, okay. If I do then will you...."
"A HA HA HA HAHAAAAHAHAHA!!!! SEE? You pulled my finger and I farted!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You pulled my fing-er! You pulled my fin-ger!!! HAHAHAHA!!!"
Ok, so I stand corrected/informed as to that you're not a Young Earth Creationist. And evidently you don't believe in the Old Earth Creationism posited by VPW. So what is it that you do believe then? And how is it that evolution does not apply? And my apologies with the labeling/presumption.
See, in my so-called 'presumptions' about Creationists, all I ever heard about them, and usually from them, was the 2 varieties, Old Earth and Young Earth. The difference basically being in that the Old Earth variety was that there was this 'gap' between verse 1 and 2 of the first chapter in Genesis that allowed for all the prehistoric animals/cavemen and the like. The only other 'variety' is the more obscure Intelligent Design in which God is unidentifiable, and their theories are quite vague.
But as to my "So if that is my version of 'the finger', so be it.", you're being sloppy yourself in your reading comprehension there. Look at the 2nd word. "If". And its referring to the (rather poor) interpretation of my post as simply 'flipping the finger'. I acknowledged that my link post wasn't perhaps the best one, but I believe I explained why I posted it. And it isn't according to some simplistic interpretation of 'flipping off the evolutionary crowd'. I have other reasons than that to flip some of them off, as it were, not the least of which is their dogged fear of science telling them that maybe, just maybe, their literal interpretation of their Holy Book is wrong about the physical science in regards to how the earth/universe got started. Now those folks so-o NEED to be flipped off.
And since you're one of the Creationists who has some significantly intelligent approach to science, for every one of you, I can easily point out at least 2-3 other Creationists who has a less intellectually honest or ignorant approach to selfsame science, sometimes ones that would 'curl your hair'. And all because they are afraid to question or take an independent look as to something that runs the risk of saying "The biblical account isn't scientific nor accurate." ... I mean talk about something that is hideously sloppy in thinking skills!!
Want to see an example of said sloppiness right here in this thread? How about the following illustrated by Potato: "... on the evolutionist side, they start with the premise "God did not create" ...". Talk about sloppy thinking/presumptions! (And no, this isn't accusing Potato of sloppy thinking, just the line he showed in his post.) So many people presume that evolution yanks out God as the creator/maker, "God did not create...". Evolution does no such thing. It does not address the point either way, nor attempts to. It just addresses the physical _how_ of the earth's beginning and natural selection. Yet a lot of people try to 'turn into a form of atheism' the theory of evolution, in addition to a lot of other ridiculous assumptions about it.
So, instead of viewing what I'm posting as 'flipping the finger', consider this more of an expression of exasperation of sorts.
-----
Socks, Love ya man, but go pull your own finger, if this is the only thing you can come back with. :P
It's lame - this double-back technique you've used. The topic started out with the news story and your statement that it really turns PFAL and the Mendel's Law/Doggie-Cat part on it's head. You used a news story that's obviously undocumented and sounds like for sure there's a piece of toast somewhere in the story that's going to look like the Virgin Mary. You jumped to your conclusion knowing that it doesn't disprove Mendel's Law or anything close to that part in PFAL. You know that.
Before any effort's expended on what it does/doesn't mean, it needs to 1) be determined if it's even true and 2) if it's true what it means, if anything. The incident in and of itself doesn't mean that the world needs to retool our understanding genetics. It might just mean that dog needs to learn that "no" means "NO". Come on. It happened in Brazil. Can you say "coffee-buzz"?
If you wanted to make this your foundational proof for whatever it is you're proposing, you did so for the sole purpose of being able to say "if this is stupid, so is Creationist 'science - So there!".
IMO, it's just lame and doesn't do you justice. M.O. Now, sorry, I gotta go. There's a dinosaur in the backyard doin' his business and I HATE that.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I could have posted a link that was a LOT better example of disputing PFAL and Creationism (Doc Vic's version or any other).
I stand by everything else I said tho. ... Stubborn mo' fo', ain't I?
Yeah, I guess you're right. I could have posted a link that was a LOT better example of disputing PFAL and Creationism (Doc Vic's version or any other).
I stand by everything else I said tho. ... Stubborn mo' fo', ain't I?
Stubborn ain't so bad - - I'd call it "tenacious" or maybe "persistent". Just follow your own suggestion and you'll get much better responses to your posts.
Socks - when you get done there, would you mind coming over here? There's a Pteridactable over here who's stealing nuts from the squirrels and making a real mess of my cherry trees!
Thanks
IMO, it's just lame and doesn't do you justice. M.O. Now, sorry, I gotta go. There's a dinosaur in the backyard doin' his business and I HATE that.
good job on selectively quoting that section Garth. that was pretty predictable
you've got to admit that a lot of the evolutionary rank and file are pretty reactionary regarding God. creation could only exist with a god or gods, and since supreme being(s) don't figure into their universe, creation is anethema.
Selective? I'll show you selective. Your last post even portrays this.
You continue to attempt to link evolution with atheism or a POV that is 'anethemic' to a creator God, and your attempts are quite 'selective' in doing so. As I said before, evolution doesn't deal with whether there is a creator (ie., God) or not. It _only_ deals with the physical, natural process, based on various findings that (seems to, at the very least) show the process of evolution by means of natural selection. Period. End of story.
you've got to admit that a lot of the evolutionary rank and file are pretty reactionary regarding God.
Tell that to all the Christians (including that Christian judge in Dover PA who ruled in evolution's favor regarding that school board case) who accept evolution as a scientific fact or at least as scientifically sound. Perhaps they view evolution as God's means of bringing about creation. Perhaps what they are 'reactionary' to is how some folks treat the book that supposedly tells about God in such a literally strict manner, particularly about how this earth came about.
Tell that to all the Christians (including that Christian judge in Dover PA who ruled in evolution's favor regarding that school board case) who accept evolution as a scientific fact or at least as scientifically sound. Perhaps they view evolution as God's means of bringing about creation. Perhaps what they are 'reactionary' to is how some folks treat the book that supposedly tells about God in such a literally strict manner, particularly about how this earth came about.
Ya think?
yawn.
this thread could be interesting if you addressed what people actually say instead of turning everything into an opportunity to attack. notice I said "a lot of the evolutionary rank and file are pretty reactionary regarding God." I didn't say that was a personality trait exclusive to them. to them "creation is anethema". I have no idea why I would need to go tell that to all the Christians who accept evolution as scientific fact/scientifically sound. who cares? my point is that people on both sides are reactionary. you are a case in point.
go back and read my post again. you replied to it with this:
How about the following illustrated by Potato: "... on the evolutionist side, they start with the premise "God did not create" ...". Talk about sloppy thinking/presumptions! (And no, this isn't accusing Potato of sloppy thinking, just the line he showed in his post.) So many people presume that evolution yanks out God as the creator/maker, "God did not create...".
then this:
You continue to attempt to link evolution with atheism or a POV that is 'anethemic' to a creator God, and your attempts are quite 'selective' in doing so. As I said before, evolution doesn't deal with whether there is a creator (ie., God) or not. It _only_ deals with the physical, natural process, based on various findings that (seems to, at the very least) show the process of evolution by means of natural selection. Period. End of story.
which proves you picked out one of three premises that I stated evolutionists start with, completely neglecting the third one (which I've encountered much less frequently than the first two I listed) and subsequently constructed and accused me of a position I do not hold.
Garth, I've got a couple things to contribute, just to show my heart's right. Soon as I get krysilis's Ptery-dactol under control. ( ....the droppings....the droppings....!)
Perhaps a restating of part of the section of PFAL under scrutiny (....or...is it?) is in order. Herewith, to wit -
Genesis 1:11
And God said, let the earth bring forth grass, the earth yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Verse 11 divulges many interesting truths. First, note that it says all are to bring forth after their kind. "Kind" is the world genos in the Septuagint, transliterated into English as "genus". This means that when a cow is bred to a bull, a calf will be the results, not a lamb. A dog and a cow cannot breed and get a cow-dog, nor will a cat and a dog produce a catty-dog or a doggy-cat. Why? Because everything comes after it's kind, after it's genus. There can be evolution or change within a genus but not between genera. Variety occurs within a genus. For example, there are big cows and small cows, black red and white cows;variety has occured within the bovine genus, but this genus has not crossed with another genus, or Genesis 1:11 would not be true.
Whew. Okay. I wanted to copy/paste Mendel's 1st and 2nd Laws, but it's too much work. Old guy here, and I'm not a scientist or biologist. I'm a sockist, and I'm socked out.
Catty-dogs aside, I would state this, just so I make a material contribution here and at least act like I'm fighting my weight: I see a simple logic in "everything after it's own kind". Day after day, cats have cats. Cows have cows. Every now and than a human has a cow over something, but they get over it. For the most part though, pretty much all the time, things follow that path.
I also see a simple possibility in that - and this is pretty soft so feel free to beat it to a pulp - namely that anything that could happen, will or might happen, anytime. (Italics add weight, don't you think?)
I have no problem and wouldn't dash my bible to the ground in disgust if a Brazilan cat had puppies. Or something that vaguely resembled a barker. I'd feel kinda bad for the little guys if they were unsuited for real-life survival but if they were raised as cats, what's that really mean? Cats sleep 80% of their lives. It's not a difficult lifestyle, y'know?
Nor would I get too distraught if guys in lab coats tweeze up a new blend of mouse. My only real concern would be - why mice? We've got enough mice. Mice up the ying yang. Maybe Bill Gates and some Korean geneticist will partner up to produce a race of humans with PC chips for brains that will work perfectly and with no sleep, except that every once in awhile they'll start stuttering uncontrollably and you'll have to bang them on the head and poke their ribs in sequential order to get them to stop. It could happen, y'know?
Within the range of possiblities in the universe, if there's the slightest possibility that something could happen, it probably has or will. And that instance could have a big effect on other things, everything. Or nothing maybe.
"after it's own kind" indicates a direction, to me, a path of natural order. Things happen outside the natural order sometimes. Look at us. Are we normal?
Anyway, PFAL itself presents this in the context of 'how the Word interprets itself". VPW wasn't the first or the last person to teach that the bible has an organic structure that directs how it can be understood or that it offers insight into life. That's a gimme for most religions that use it. (I don't know all the ones that do, so that's a guess) He didn't suggest that the earth was just a few thousand years old, either. This stuff falls into the sections that taught God reformed the present day earth into what we have today after an initial effort was all but destroyed.
How all of that actually happened - no idea. Some ideas, but nothing I'd bank my faith in God on. That actually plays in a different sandbox.
But - maybe we're all the messed up offspring of the platypus. That would sort of boggle the mind.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
26
15
8
Popular Days
Nov 19
20
Nov 26
19
Nov 17
19
Nov 20
14
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 6 posts
GarthP2000 26 posts
T-Bone 15 posts
potato 8 posts
Popular Days
Nov 19 2006
20 posts
Nov 26 2006
19 posts
Nov 17 2006
19 posts
Nov 20 2006
14 posts
Nottawayfer
I went on vacation in Hawaii in 1989. Sea Life Park was one of the places I went for a day of fun and activity. There I saw a Wholfin, a cross between a Killer Whale and a Dolphin. A few years later I was at work and told the people about the Wholfin. They said I was lying and yanking their chain. This was a time before the world wide web was a household necessity, so I could not prove myself. Luckily, a few months later, a coworker was going to Maui. They had a layover in Honolulu and made a call to Sea Life Park to ask if there was indeed a Wholfin. They found out I wasn't lying.
Now I see the Wholfin has had a baby of her own. She mated with another Dolphin and produced a baby which is 3/4 Dolphin and 1/4 Killer Whate. I find that interesting since most animals who are of the same genus and mate produce offsprings which are sterile.
Sea Life Park
SignOnSanDiego
Edited by NottawayferLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Wordwolf,
Really? Then how does the overwhelming evidence of the earth/universe being FAR older than 6,000 years fit in with this 'cold science' of Creationism? How about proven measured distances of stars from earth? The total lack of the water that is (supposedly) on the other side of 'expanse' talked about in Genesis?
Speaking of questionable 'experts', ever hear of Dr. Kenneth Hovind? Do a Google on him. Look at all the 'theories' that he came up with, all in support of Creationism. For example, do you know that, in order to explain away the fact about how stars are many hundreds of thousands to billions of light years from earth, he says that light actually slows down as it travels, due of course to the laws of inertia and the like. Interesting, except that light particles has no mass, no weight with which to have the laws of inertia take effect on it. ... And this clown is one of the primary standards used in the Creationist world.
And yet, the main motivation of many Creationists is the maintainance of the validity, the integrity, the 'truth' of their scriptures, and from such, their religious beliefs. Along comes a theory (like the theory of evolution), viable tho' it may be, that challenges that, and they are up in arms about it. So please spare me the line about the basis for Creationism being one of scientific inquiry and proof. The main (if not only) interest they have is making sure that the Bible/scripture remains inviolate.
I oughtta know. ... I used to believe in that mentality regarding the evolution/Creationist argument. Been there, done that. <_<
So the link that I posted is premature, probably even flawed in its conclusion. When I came across that link, I thought back to what we were taught in PFAL about Mendal's Law and "everything according to its own kind" and how that was taught like it was irrefutable science, and I just laughed. Because I see the similarity between VPW's presentation, and many Creationists desperately grabbing onto any 'scientific' source they could (like Hovind) to go "See? See? Told you the account in Genesis was scientifically true!", based on their need to keep their belief in the Bible account safe from being dismantled.
So if I am to look the fool for posting such a questionable link, how many Creationists should be shown as fools for latching on to their questionable 'experts' to try to prop up Creationism? Hell, remember that judge in Dover, PA who threw out their case, and then gave them a tongue lashing for their questionable presentation? ... And he's a conservative Christian.
So if that is my version of 'the finger', so be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oh, and for those who want to pull VPW's Old Earth version of Creationism out of the hat to explain it, you know, how that the universe was created billions of years ago, the 'rebellion in heaven' screwed that all up (where the earth became "without form and void"), and how God put all that back together again in the 6 days, ... you still have a problem.
Whether you go by the Young Earth Creationist theory, or the Old Earth Creationist theory, in *both* of those theories, the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets (according to the scriptures) were made _after_ the "without form and void" part and God started with the "Let there be ..." operations as shown in the first chapter in Genesis.
And the age of the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets are ALL proven to be a LOT older than 6,000 years.
'Cold science' huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Garth--------This is a bit off topic from your post but I did want to point out that the speed of light is,in fact, relative to the density of the media through which it is traveling. This density is said to display an "index of refraction". The denser the media, the slower light travels. In physics it is studied along with the other aspects of Snell's law. This same law of physics explains why an object below the surface of a body of water is not where it appears to be,hence if you should reach into the water you will likely miss your intended target. I have always wondered how bears are able to override this when catching salmon.What does all this have to do with light traveling through space? I really don't know but light is energy and energy is always in motion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Good point Waysider. What I forgot to mention is in reference to when no matter is involved to interfere with the speed of light, which is (largely) the case in space, where there is vacuum in the vast majority of space.
The way Dr. Hovind portrays it, however, is that light slows down by itself due to its (supposed) mass, and as I pointed out earlier, light is massless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
And the next thing that woman will prove is monkeys flew out of her cat's rear-end!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Garth, I don't like it either – when Christian zealots go all out to prove the Bible is true by appealing to science. Imho the way of Christian Faith is the way of coming to the Father by taking His written word to heart. It is a relationship with Him based on a personal connection of faith. I think this was a severe shortcoming in VPW's ministry – he ranted and raved over the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the Bible. Knowing the Bible became an end in and of itself…it became their God. Imho – the Bible is a means to an end [connecting with God] and not an end in itself.
Being a Christian I have no problem with studying the Bible to learn more about the Creator or studying science to learn more about the creation. I personally don't see a contradiction between the two since God is the author of both. But I will say imho – the Bible is NOT a scientific book! I think the purpose of the Bible is a unified message to man from God that speaks of the nature of man, man's purpose, man's problem, man's redemption – in other words all of these topics deal with spiritual matters – or philosophical things if you like that term better – not something you can quantify or measure in a lab. I think sometimes well-meaning Christians throw around scientific terms and plug them into Scripture - taking liberties with Scripture over topics they were never meant to address…The Bible doesn't explain science and science doesn't explain God.
…I do wonder about you mentioning light particles having no mass and not being affected by things like inertia. I thought Einstein's theory of relativity showed mass and energy were equivalent. That being the case – isn't the thing about the gravitational collapse of objects in a Black Hole is that it exerts such a massive gravitational pull that even light cannot escape?
…Now this isn't a science forum – but since you brought this stuff up – it would be fun to digress – Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos are both a good read on matter and energy causing space and time to warp and curve.
I addressed this on another thread – referring to Ross' book that shows an old earth creationist viewpoint that gets into the creation days being a whole lot longer than a 24 hour period – accounting for the true age appearance of the celestial bodies – as Carl Sagan used to say "billions and billions of years."
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=244454
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Garth: Overwhelming evidence??? You have different "rules of evidence" than me. If you want to stand approved before an educated idiot world that denies the existance of God, fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I posted this on another thread....but I copied it over here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
My sis in law is a vetinarian student. She sees all kinds of ''weird'' stuff in the lab now.
Loats and Ligers have been bread quite a few times. But, they don't reproduce well.
But on a ''God'' is real note... she said just studying reproduction and all that happens, it is an absolute miracle when life begins. To me, that is proof. I just look out my window and I see God's handiwork. I don't need a scientific explanation. I look at it everyday. However God made it happen, is fine with me.
Any new news yet? I'd like to find out the chromosomes count too.... they looked like dog to me....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Let's just say that my 'rules of evidence' doesn't include some blind appeal to authority in acceptance of the scriptures/other sources of spirituality when it comes to proving/illustrating things true.
Ie., I am *done* with "It's the Word, the Word, and nothing BUT the Word!" mentality, as well as the "Just take it by Faith brother!" variety. ... And I have found a helluva lot of mental freedom in doing so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I feel the same way.
one of the most freeing things for me was realizing that evolution is also nothing more than a cloud of hypothetical constructs into which followers also attempt to squeeze scientific fact. they're not always successful either, and they have as many denominations as religions have.
on the creationist side, they start with the premise "God created"
on the evolutionist side, they start with the premise "God did not create" of more adamently "there is no God to have created or directed" or in more neutral terms "life evolved because the right elements were in the right place at the right time"
from either of those two starting points, the philosophies branch out endlessly.
now I can say "I don't know" and read and discuss and ENJOY the different philosophies without having to bash any. it's kinda cool. I don't even have to reveal which premise I accept as Truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Strawman 1.
A) Supposedly, I claimed Creationism was "cold science."
I claimed my reply had NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM,
any more than my liking Rock and Roll had nothing to do with my reply.
Your treatment of my post's content was careless, which doesn't impress me with your
ability to view evidence (which may be better than this, of course...)
B) All Creationists believe in a 6000-year-old earth.
There's several positions held by Creationists. ONE of those is that one,
and I myself have argued AGAINST it.
Since you knew even vpw never claimed a 6000 year old earth, you HAD to know there
was at least ONE other position-but you slapped that label on me without hesitation.
As a Creationist who's never based his beliefs on whatever crackpot you've
managed to find, I reject your suggestion that most Creationists base their beliefs on
him or his work. I CAN ask around, if it amuses me, and see if anyone's heard of
him or his.
Also note that I've no problem believing any scientific theory, so long as the evidence actually
SUPPORTS IT. Saying "Creationists are wrong because some of them are crackpots with
silly ideas" is not "supporting" evolution any more than it's refuting anyone except certain
crackpots.
And I'm supposed to take your word that the thing is actually the logical conclusion supported bythe evidence, of course. Please spare ME the line that you're fairly representing what I actually
TYPED ABOVE. You've already passed judgement long before I ever posted.
Don't blame me if your own scientific background THEN was that shallow,
and don't decide mine is equally shallow, since you know little about it.
A cat was found with kittens and puppies, and the ONLY conclusion is that she gave birthto both? That's more than "premature", that's silly.
Well, Gregor Mendel was hardly a scientific hack, and if you want to dismiss a man considered
important enough to be a "household name" among scientists, that's your choice.
BTW, no science is "irrefutable"-but there are degrees of validation in REAL science.
If you held otherwise, that's hardly my fault, but that's not "good science",
that's "religion."
And vpw plus Hovind = ALL CREATIONISTS?Sloppy reasoning, Garth. You can certainly do better than that.
Crackpots do not set the standard for rational people.
I don't have any numbers-but it sounds like you've been keeping count...
No I don't. I don't follow all the news. Maybe you're on some "anti-Creationist" mailing list that keepsyou informed on that one better than me.
So,
you DID post that link with the specific goal of slapping Creationists.
I'll adjust my expectations of further posts accordingly.
Let me know if that ever changes.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Sorry Garth. You know I love ya man. You're the Prophet, The The Man.
Bait.
Switch.
This is vaguely like the guy who wants you to pull his finger so he can fart, big joke, right? The first 100 times but at this point, it's kinda stale. The joke, never mind the gas.
"Come on, pull my finger. Pull my finger! Come aaaaawwwwwnnnnn.....pull my FINGer! Pull it! Pull my finGER! Do it! Do itdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoit!!!
"No thanks".
"Baby! You won't pull my finger! Scaredy cat! S-KARE-DEE CAT! Pull it!!! Pleeeeeezzzzzzzz, pull it pull it pull it pull it pull it - pull my FFFFFINNNNNNGERRRRR! Pull - my ...."
"Sigh, okay. If I do then will you...."
"A HA HA HA HAHAAAAHAHAHA!!!! SEE? You pulled my finger and I farted!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You pulled my fing-er! You pulled my fin-ger!!! HAHAHAHA!!!"
"Sigh"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Wordwolf,
Ok, so I stand corrected/informed as to that you're not a Young Earth Creationist. And evidently you don't believe in the Old Earth Creationism posited by VPW. So what is it that you do believe then? And how is it that evolution does not apply? And my apologies with the labeling/presumption.
See, in my so-called 'presumptions' about Creationists, all I ever heard about them, and usually from them, was the 2 varieties, Old Earth and Young Earth. The difference basically being in that the Old Earth variety was that there was this 'gap' between verse 1 and 2 of the first chapter in Genesis that allowed for all the prehistoric animals/cavemen and the like. The only other 'variety' is the more obscure Intelligent Design in which God is unidentifiable, and their theories are quite vague.
But as to my "So if that is my version of 'the finger', so be it.", you're being sloppy yourself in your reading comprehension there. Look at the 2nd word. "If". And its referring to the (rather poor) interpretation of my post as simply 'flipping the finger'. I acknowledged that my link post wasn't perhaps the best one, but I believe I explained why I posted it. And it isn't according to some simplistic interpretation of 'flipping off the evolutionary crowd'. I have other reasons than that to flip some of them off, as it were, not the least of which is their dogged fear of science telling them that maybe, just maybe, their literal interpretation of their Holy Book is wrong about the physical science in regards to how the earth/universe got started. Now those folks so-o NEED to be flipped off.
And since you're one of the Creationists who has some significantly intelligent approach to science, for every one of you, I can easily point out at least 2-3 other Creationists who has a less intellectually honest or ignorant approach to selfsame science, sometimes ones that would 'curl your hair'. And all because they are afraid to question or take an independent look as to something that runs the risk of saying "The biblical account isn't scientific nor accurate." ... I mean talk about something that is hideously sloppy in thinking skills!!
Want to see an example of said sloppiness right here in this thread? How about the following illustrated by Potato: "... on the evolutionist side, they start with the premise "God did not create" ...". Talk about sloppy thinking/presumptions! (And no, this isn't accusing Potato of sloppy thinking, just the line he showed in his post.) So many people presume that evolution yanks out God as the creator/maker, "God did not create...". Evolution does no such thing. It does not address the point either way, nor attempts to. It just addresses the physical _how_ of the earth's beginning and natural selection. Yet a lot of people try to 'turn into a form of atheism' the theory of evolution, in addition to a lot of other ridiculous assumptions about it.
So, instead of viewing what I'm posting as 'flipping the finger', consider this more of an expression of exasperation of sorts.
-----
Socks, Love ya man, but go pull your own finger, if this is the only thing you can come back with. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
IMO, it's all it warrants Garth.
It's lame - this double-back technique you've used. The topic started out with the news story and your statement that it really turns PFAL and the Mendel's Law/Doggie-Cat part on it's head. You used a news story that's obviously undocumented and sounds like for sure there's a piece of toast somewhere in the story that's going to look like the Virgin Mary. You jumped to your conclusion knowing that it doesn't disprove Mendel's Law or anything close to that part in PFAL. You know that.
Before any effort's expended on what it does/doesn't mean, it needs to 1) be determined if it's even true and 2) if it's true what it means, if anything. The incident in and of itself doesn't mean that the world needs to retool our understanding genetics. It might just mean that dog needs to learn that "no" means "NO". Come on. It happened in Brazil. Can you say "coffee-buzz"?
If you wanted to make this your foundational proof for whatever it is you're proposing, you did so for the sole purpose of being able to say "if this is stupid, so is Creationist 'science - So there!".
IMO, it's just lame and doesn't do you justice. M.O. Now, sorry, I gotta go. There's a dinosaur in the backyard doin' his business and I HATE that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Socks,
Yeah, I guess you're right. I could have posted a link that was a LOT better example of disputing PFAL and Creationism (Doc Vic's version or any other).
I stand by everything else I said tho. ... Stubborn mo' fo', ain't I?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah...and that's a good thing...it'll keep stubborn ol' creationists in line - like me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Stubborn ain't so bad - - I'd call it "tenacious" or maybe "persistent". Just follow your own suggestion and you'll get much better responses to your posts.
Socks - when you get done there, would you mind coming over here? There's a Pteridactable over here who's stealing nuts from the squirrels and making a real mess of my cherry trees!
Thanks
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
good job on selectively quoting that section Garth. that was pretty predictable
you've got to admit that a lot of the evolutionary rank and file are pretty reactionary regarding God. creation could only exist with a god or gods, and since supreme being(s) don't figure into their universe, creation is anethema.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Potato,
Selective? I'll show you selective. Your last post even portrays this.
You continue to attempt to link evolution with atheism or a POV that is 'anethemic' to a creator God, and your attempts are quite 'selective' in doing so. As I said before, evolution doesn't deal with whether there is a creator (ie., God) or not. It _only_ deals with the physical, natural process, based on various findings that (seems to, at the very least) show the process of evolution by means of natural selection. Period. End of story.
Tell that to all the Christians (including that Christian judge in Dover PA who ruled in evolution's favor regarding that school board case) who accept evolution as a scientific fact or at least as scientifically sound.
Perhaps they view evolution as God's means of bringing about creation. Perhaps what they are 'reactionary' to is how some folks treat the book that supposedly tells about God in such a literally strict manner, particularly about how this earth came about.
Ya think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
yawn.
this thread could be interesting if you addressed what people actually say instead of turning everything into an opportunity to attack. notice I said "a lot of the evolutionary rank and file are pretty reactionary regarding God." I didn't say that was a personality trait exclusive to them. to them "creation is anethema". I have no idea why I would need to go tell that to all the Christians who accept evolution as scientific fact/scientifically sound. who cares? my point is that people on both sides are reactionary. you are a case in point.
go back and read my post again. you replied to it with this:
How about the following illustrated by Potato: "... on the evolutionist side, they start with the premise "God did not create" ...". Talk about sloppy thinking/presumptions! (And no, this isn't accusing Potato of sloppy thinking, just the line he showed in his post.) So many people presume that evolution yanks out God as the creator/maker, "God did not create...".
then this:
You continue to attempt to link evolution with atheism or a POV that is 'anethemic' to a creator God, and your attempts are quite 'selective' in doing so. As I said before, evolution doesn't deal with whether there is a creator (ie., God) or not. It _only_ deals with the physical, natural process, based on various findings that (seems to, at the very least) show the process of evolution by means of natural selection. Period. End of story.
which proves you picked out one of three premises that I stated evolutionists start with, completely neglecting the third one (which I've encountered much less frequently than the first two I listed) and subsequently constructed and accused me of a position I do not hold.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Garth,
I hereby dub you King of the Strawman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Garth, I've got a couple things to contribute, just to show my heart's right. Soon as I get krysilis's Ptery-dactol under control. ( ....the droppings....the droppings....!)
Perhaps a restating of part of the section of PFAL under scrutiny (....or...is it?) is in order. Herewith, to wit -
Genesis 1:11
And God said, let the earth bring forth grass, the earth yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Verse 11 divulges many interesting truths. First, note that it says all are to bring forth after their kind. "Kind" is the world genos in the Septuagint, transliterated into English as "genus". This means that when a cow is bred to a bull, a calf will be the results, not a lamb. A dog and a cow cannot breed and get a cow-dog, nor will a cat and a dog produce a catty-dog or a doggy-cat. Why? Because everything comes after it's kind, after it's genus. There can be evolution or change within a genus but not between genera. Variety occurs within a genus. For example, there are big cows and small cows, black red and white cows;variety has occured within the bovine genus, but this genus has not crossed with another genus, or Genesis 1:11 would not be true.
Whew. Okay. I wanted to copy/paste Mendel's 1st and 2nd Laws, but it's too much work. Old guy here, and I'm not a scientist or biologist. I'm a sockist, and I'm socked out.
Catty-dogs aside, I would state this, just so I make a material contribution here and at least act like I'm fighting my weight: I see a simple logic in "everything after it's own kind". Day after day, cats have cats. Cows have cows. Every now and than a human has a cow over something, but they get over it. For the most part though, pretty much all the time, things follow that path.
I also see a simple possibility in that - and this is pretty soft so feel free to beat it to a pulp - namely that anything that could happen, will or might happen, anytime. (Italics add weight, don't you think?)
I have no problem and wouldn't dash my bible to the ground in disgust if a Brazilan cat had puppies. Or something that vaguely resembled a barker. I'd feel kinda bad for the little guys if they were unsuited for real-life survival but if they were raised as cats, what's that really mean? Cats sleep 80% of their lives. It's not a difficult lifestyle, y'know?
Nor would I get too distraught if guys in lab coats tweeze up a new blend of mouse. My only real concern would be - why mice? We've got enough mice. Mice up the ying yang. Maybe Bill Gates and some Korean geneticist will partner up to produce a race of humans with PC chips for brains that will work perfectly and with no sleep, except that every once in awhile they'll start stuttering uncontrollably and you'll have to bang them on the head and poke their ribs in sequential order to get them to stop. It could happen, y'know?
Within the range of possiblities in the universe, if there's the slightest possibility that something could happen, it probably has or will. And that instance could have a big effect on other things, everything. Or nothing maybe.
"after it's own kind" indicates a direction, to me, a path of natural order. Things happen outside the natural order sometimes. Look at us. Are we normal?
Anyway, PFAL itself presents this in the context of 'how the Word interprets itself". VPW wasn't the first or the last person to teach that the bible has an organic structure that directs how it can be understood or that it offers insight into life. That's a gimme for most religions that use it. (I don't know all the ones that do, so that's a guess) He didn't suggest that the earth was just a few thousand years old, either. This stuff falls into the sections that taught God reformed the present day earth into what we have today after an initial effort was all but destroyed.
How all of that actually happened - no idea. Some ideas, but nothing I'd bank my faith in God on. That actually plays in a different sandbox.
But - maybe we're all the messed up offspring of the platypus. That would sort of boggle the mind.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.