The Watchmaker - story

[jasd]

>>Jasd, I am going to say this as politely as possible . . . but I am not aware that you have credentials in this field.<<

David Koot, don’t you read? (or is it a matter of retention?) I begin to see why others find you somewhat disconcerting...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Shane

>>I don't know if any of these three even come close to her qualifications.<<

Quote:jasd

Can’t speak for anyone else but – absolutely not, not even close. Matter-of-fact, comparatively, I’m just a shuckin’ and jivin’ ignoramus.

So, let me ask..., “And your credentials are...?”

>>Serious discussion would be pointless, and I am not going to expend more time at this level.<<

I didn’t ask input of any sort from you. Please, David Koot, take a deep breath: I recall that

you are the loudest and the one having the most to say about the lack of civility that attends this forum.

>>...I am not going to expend more time at this level.<<

Good idea. If one cannot grasp the implications resultant of a catastrophic tumult as occurring in a world-wide flood of Genesis proportions – but continues to advance a pristine purity in chalk deposits being laid down under such conditions

should not expend any energy at whatever level of discussion. This, such a one, should gracefully

leave the field – quits.

[jasd]

>>I was making an observation about comments in this thread - not ones made in the Origins forum.<<

It remains that it erred in stating that I was attempting to “discredit Dr. Kennedy’s observations.” It remains also,

that I haven’t the foggiest who this person was/is and addressed only the issue of the purity of the chalk deposits of Dover.

>>This comment goes back to Dr. Kennedy's assessment of the phenomenon.<<

Oh, is this a brief for inerrancy? or for “credentials?”

[jasd]

>>Naturalists assume uniformatarianism...<<

Does anyone still argue "uniformitarianism"? I'd thought it a dead letter for some time now.

>>...they will obviously come up with a different conclusion for the chalk's purity.<<

That may be thought so in Academia but not so in the world of the hoi polloi; they espouse common sense.

C'mon, one cannot have it both ways..., either the flood was one of gentle fall or it was world-shattering. If it was a world-shattering event -- one questions the purity of deposits...

Fossilization occurs.

[jasd]

>>I am not aware of others on this thread who can bring to bear the same level of credibility. ... don't see a lot of merit in attempting to carry on a technical discussion when the participants don't have the credential to do so.<<

Credibility is as credibility does, or rather, embraces, yes?

I'm posting this submission to notify you that you neither emended nor edited but did a complete redo -- after your original post was addressed.

Is that kosher? let's say as kosher as e-mailing someone's post to a third party for whatever reason?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

"Young earth creationists assume that their specific literal interpretation of God's Word is definitive and presents the correct interpretation for all the empirical evidence."

I simply use the term creationists to refer to "young earth creationists" because creationists that do not believe in a young earth fall into the theistic evolutionist category. Although they are creationists too, it is just easier to carry on a discussion when they are identified differently. Although young-earth creationists could also be called fundamental creationists.

Now let me address the "specific literal interpretation of God's Word". Creationists do accept God's Word as it is written without trying to "read between the lines".

• When God's Word says God created the world in six days, each marked with an evening and a morning, creationists accept it as just that - six literal days.
• When God's Word says that God destroyed the entire world with a flood, covering every mountain and destroying all land-dwelling life, save that in the ark, creationists accept it as it is written. They do not try to rationalize that it was only a local and limited flood.
• When God's Word says that the wages of sin is death, creationists accept that before sin there was no death.
• When God's Word says sin entered the world through Adam, creations accept that before Adam there was no sin on the earth and thus no death.

The original Bible languages make such passages so clear that among linguists there is no debate about what the authors of the texts were trying to say. This is evident as we read the various versions of the Bible which basically all say the same thing.

Quote:

the obvious corollary of that is that those of us who are not young-earth creationists do not believe that God's Word is true

I didn't know you were not a young-earth creationist but that is besides the point and off topic.

My implication is that theistic evolutionists do not believe God's Word can be accepted as it reads. Rather we must rely on an interpretation of science in order to understand what God's Word is saying. It is not that I believe theistic evolutionists cannot be dedicated Christians. I believe they are misguided (Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20, 21) but I believe the same about Lutherans, Baptists and Mormons but do not believe any of them will be excluded from heaven because of their misunderstandings of Scripture.

However the evolution/creation hybrid beliefs have opened the door to further compromise and many Christians that go down that road continue to compromise in other areas of their walk with the Lord. However, to be fair, many fundamentalists also compromise in their walk with the Lord too. Yet that should not be of any consolation to the theistic evolutionist that is walking on thin ice. If we can't believe Genesis 1-11, that casts doubt on the Ten Commandments and even the teachings of Christ.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

C'mon, one cannot have it both ways..., either the flood was one of gentle fall or it was world-shattering. If it was a world-shattering event -- one questions the purity of deposits...

Actually, I think one can have it both ways. From the time the flood began to the time Noah got of the ark was a year. We don't know what all happened during that time. We suspect an ice age followed that lasted about 700 years.

[Bravus]

Quote:

I simply use the term creationists to refer to "young earth creationists" because creationists that do not believe in a young earth fall into the theistic evolutionist category.

Not so - there are many different positions, including some who believe in a literal six-day creation of all living things in pretty much their current form, but some millions of years ago rather than thousands. An ancient creationist perspective fits more neatly with more of the empirical evidence, but of course also has other problems of Biblical interpretation.

I'm continually trying to avoid the false dichotomy of recent-creation vs evolution in our discussions here.

I think it's also important to recognise that your own 'recent creation of life on an ancient earth in an ancient universe' perspective would be considered heretical by 'recent creation of the entire universe' creationists!

Quote:

Now let me address the "specific literal interpretation of God's Word". Creationists do accept God's Word as it is written without trying to "read between the lines".

Except melvin's favourite bit about snakes eating dirt, apparently. The basic truth is that it requires interpretation to decide that eating dirt is not really eating dirt, and that bruising heels and crushing heads are metaphors. It takes more to decide that snakes had wings. It takes interpretation to decide that there was a pre-existing planet, or that there was not. It is presumption to state that one's own position requires no interpretation and is simply 'reading the text as it is'.

The false dichotomy that allows only recent creationism vs ancient evolutionism is at the basis of the kind, thoughtful but mistaken analysis in the rest of your post. Let me try in a separate post to outline a small and over-simplified taxonomy of origins positions.

[David Koot]

So, let me ask..., “And your credentials are...?”

[Bravus]

Four questions on origins:

1. Is there a God who takes/took an active role in creation?

This distinguishes between theistic and atheistic perspectives. Without miraculous creation, our best alternative explanation is evolution, so the default tends to be atheistic evolutionism for those who answer this question in the negative. (Life coming from other planets to start life on earth doesn't forestall the origins question, just moves it.) Those who answer it in the positive move on to answer the remaining questions.

2. Is the universe and planet Earth young (thousands or tens of thousands of years or old (billions of years)?

This separates young-universe creationists from young-life-on-earth/old-universe creationists. It's a distinction not often made, but it helps people get off the hook of the apparent age of the universe and some of the apparent age of the earth. As noted above, the text of Genesis seems to say that the stars were made during Creation Week, so arriving at the old-universe position seems to me already a step away from a purely literal reading. I look forward to being set straight.

3. Is life on earth young or old?

This question distinguishes between ancient creationists/theistic evolutionists and recent creationists. The creation account in itself does not say *when* its events occurred - the age of the earth is deduced from genealogical information given elsewhere in the Bible. Ancient creationists recognise that the earth appears very old, and assume God created life millions of years ago in pretty much its current form.

4. Do the rules of biological evolution (mutation and environmental selection) explain some or all of the features of living things today?

This question distinguishes between ancient creationists and theistic evolutionists. The question is not 'who created' (both believe God did) but 'how created'.

Intelligent design advocates are most often ancient-universe theistic evolutionists, and the discussion with both them and other theistic evolutionists is often about how large or small God's active role in the process was and where it occurred.

Every taxonomy is limited, but again, I absolutely reject the 'there are young-life-on-earth creationists who take God at his word, and everyone else who doesn't' formulation.

I'm very aware that all these perspectives fall into the Judeo-Christian axis in some way: there are creation myths in almost all human cultures, and won't it be a surprise to all of us if the Aborigines were right?

[David Koot]

you are the loudest and the one having the most to say about the lack of civility that attends this forum.

And my posts here have been civil. To question whether or not one who ventures an opinion has credentials to back up that opinion is appropriate, and can be done in a civil way, as it has been here. The credibility/reliability of an opinion is a relevant issue.

[melvin mccarty]

I am surprised to see Shane who has been rather even handed in this discussion make reference to me by name and accuse me of trying to disredit Dr Kennedy! I have heard her speak and have a set of her campmeeting tapes and I esteem her opinions highly. In her response to the unauthorised and inapropriate e-mail by a certain person who I will not name Dr Kennedy admitted that she had not been given a burden to study those chalk deposits. She merely quotes two other's opinions

I make no pretense of any authority and have never claimed such. I believe I have as much right to express my viewpoints as that certain un-named person. Am I correct in this belief?

If someone can tell us at what stage in a universal flood there would have been an opportunity for depositions of pristine chalk beds I would be really interested. No I am not an evolutionist but I have to reserve judgement on many of the statements made by strict Biblical literalists. Can we not be more tolerant of other people's viewpoints so this would be a "kinder" place as the un-named person repeats so often?

mel

[David Koot]

As noted above, the text of Genesis seems to say that the stars were made during Creation Week

I don't have time at the moment to respond in depth to your post, but I did take a quick look at the Hebrew. On what basis do you say that 'the text in Genesis seems to say that the stars were amde during Creation week'?

Dave

[David Koot]

the unauthorised and inapropriate e-mail by a certain person

[David Koot]

She merely quotes two other's opinions

Quotes? Where? What quotes? Please specify. I do not recall her quoting or citing anyone.

[melvin mccarty]

This is an excellent example of how one can take parts from another person's post and by ignoring the rest of the post make the other out to be ignorant! One who professes Christ should not I believe use these tactics. I'm sorry to be blunt this way but John 317 does it all the time so it must be proper

mel

[David Koot]

This is an excellent example of how one can take parts from another person's post and by ignoring the rest of the post make the other out to be ignorant!

You said that Dr. Kennedy quoted two other individuals. You need to back up what you said. Here is what she said:

"Apparently, the writer of the post disregards the purity of the deposit as empirical evidence supporting rapid, nearly instantaneous deposition of the coccoliths. Sedimentologists agree that such purity is remarkable and possible only in a catastrophic event.

There are long age arguments for the chalk promoted by a small group of individuals in England; however, their arguments relate to diagenetic alterations post deposition.

There are no cites here. Who do you assert she is quoting? On what basis?

As for John317, he is quite a scholar, and he certainly does not engage in the kind of tactics you are suggesting. I doubt you could find a single instance from his posts to support what you have said. Or, if you have, let's see the specifics. Abstract representations mean nothing.

[Bravus]

Genesis 1:16 is the reference to the creation of the stars that I am referring to. I'd be interested in hearing why it doesn't actually say that.

"16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." (NIV - for convenience, pick your preferred version or go to the Hebrew ideally)

[David Koot]

I would be glad to, but I fear it must wait a bit. Getting married off later today, and I am running! I didn't get my wake last night either. Oh, well. Will be back in a couple of days.

Cheers.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

there are many different positions, including some who believe in a literal six-day creation of all living things in pretty much their current form, but some millions of years ago rather than thousands.

I understand there are many different positions. In the culture war of our current society, however, we see only a handful of these views as actually being established. What do I mean by that? There is a battle to get creationism taught in the public school. That is pretty much limited to short-age creationism and intelligent design - which is a form of theistic evolution. Other forms of creationism are taught by various denominational seminaries although those too are limited to about four to six hybrids that I am aware of. So in a philosophical discussion of the different theories, I try to limit myself to the major ones that I at least have a little bit of knowledge about.

Quote:

I think it's also important to recognize that your own 'recent creation of life on an ancient earth in an ancient universe' perspective would be considered heretical by 'recent creation of the entire universe' creationists!

I am inclined to believe in a recent creation but certainly do not have a firm belief on the details of origins. I do bring to bare what Ellen White has written about Lucifer's fall before Adam's sin and unfallen worlds in my mind. (But I do not consider her to be an infallible source of truth) I think something unique about the Adventist prespective is that while we do believe strong in certain things, like the literal creation week, we admit that we do not know everything, like the creation of the stars.

This is taken from GRI's website:

Quote:

2. What was created on the fourth day of creation week?

God said "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night...." Two great lights are described, one to rule the day and one to rule the night. These lights appeared on the fourth day of creation week. The details are not given. They may have been created on that day. If so, the light of the first three days might have been provided by God's presence.

If our solar system existed before the creation week, as some creationists think is probable, then apparently the sun itself was not visible until the fourth day. This might be explained as due to atmospheric cloud cover, permitting diffuse light to reach the surface, but not revealing the source of that light. On the fourth day, perhaps the atmosphere was cleared to permit the sun and moon to be seen for the first time.

Another possible interpretation is that the sun and moon existed prior to that time, but on the fourth day they were "appointed" to specific functions relative to the Earth.

The phrase, "he made the stars also" does not require that God created the stars ex nihilo on the fourth day of creation. Some creationists have held that the entire universe, or at least the visible portion, was created on the fourth day. The text permits this reading, but does not require it. "The stars also" is merely a parenthetical phrase in which God is identified as the creator of the stars without identifying when this was accomplished. The text appears to permit the interpretation that the stars were already in existence, perhaps with planets inhabited by other created intelligences.

Quote:

Except melvin's favourite bit about snakes eating dirt, apparently. The basic truth is that it requires interpretation to decide that eating dirt is not really eating dirt, and that bruising heels and crushing heads are metaphors.

A literal reading of the Bible means we read it as the author intended it to be read. So we ask ourselves if the author of Genesis meant for us to read these passages as symbolic or not. The creation week was not written in language that would lend itself to a symbolic interpretation of the word day.

[Dr. Shane]

OK, Let me comment on what I know, which in some cases is very little.

Atheistic evolutionism:

This is the view taught in most public schools and believed by the majority of the scientific community. Although most of the public has been educated in the public school system, at least in America, less than 20% of the public actually embraces this.

Young-life-on-earth/old-universe creationists:

I am not familiar with this label. Seems this would fit into the Day-Age Theory or the Framework Theory. However it could also be used to describe a position held by many Adventists which I haven't discussed as it isn't a major player in the culture war and I am not even aware of it having a label. Of course this theory has a lot of problems with naturalist thinking. It would still put life on earth at being only thousands of years old.

Ancient creationists:

Another term I am not familiar with. Do these creationists believe that Adam lived millions of years in the garden before sinning? That still doesn't remedy the issue of death since the Biblical genealogies place Adam's sin about 6,000 years ago. Or does this theory teach the genealogies are incomplete?

Quote:

there are creation myths in almost all human cultures, and won't it be a surprise to all of us if the Aborigines were right?

I would rather look for truth elsewhere, like among the Aborigines, than twist the Bible to say something the original writers of it didn't intend for it to say.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

An ancient creationist perspective fits more neatly with more of the empirical evidence, but of course also has other problems of Biblical interpretation.

What does a world-wide flood do to the empirical evidence? All the carbon in coal and other fossil fuels was at one time in the carbon cycle. So if it became buried during the flood, wouldn't that mean there was a lot more carbon in the atmosphere prior to the flood? That would mean a warmer planet and would throw off carbon dating for anything that lived before or died in the flood.

An astronomer dates the universe by taking its present rate of expansion backwards to the point where the entire universe would have been all in one spot. Clearly based on the uniformatarian assumption. The Bible says that the universe is expanding "[God] alone spreadeth out the heavens" "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22). It doesn't give us a starting point for us to measure its age.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Sorry, but I can't let you get away with it as baldly as that

I guess I do have to apologize for not expressing my thoughts as clearly as I should have. This comment from Bravus was in response to this sentence I posted:

Quote:

Naturalists assume uniformatarianism so they will obviously come up with a different conclusion for the chalk's purity. Creationists assume God's Word is true.

In context I was contrasting atheist or agnostic evolutionists with fundamental creationists as those are to two dominant world views that are most often in the news and public discussion. I was not addressing intelligent design or the dozens of theistic evolutionist hybrids.

[jasd]

>>By posting here, you invited response.<<

...and yours was picayune.

>>To question whether or not one who ventures an opinion has credentials to back up that opinion is appropriate, and can be done in a civil way, as it has been here.<<

My-my, strange beliefs and behaviour...

I admitted to having no qualifications to debate an issue with Dr. Kennedy. It was almost immediately in front of your naked eyeballs when you posted. You elected to ignore it. One assumes it was ignored that you might practice scurrility.

>>...and I am not going to expend more time at this level.<<

Yet, you will expend time on quibbling and self-justification! Go figure...

Take a deep breath and move on. I’m finished with responding to your meretricious observations on this thread.

That said, I would be amiss not to congratulate you on your upcoming marriage: that I do, sincerely (honestly) -- congratulations and good luck to the both of you

“Getting married off later today,” David Koot

[Bravus]

Anyway, congrats to Dave on his marriage!

[Inga]

(a) the SAME mechanisms are used all the way from sea slugs to humans in cells, and

( slight variations on the mechanisms in different cells are co-opted to do completely different activities.

In short, the EVIDENCE shows that the cells are put together by a process that makes small changes to one mechanism to do something completely different - exactly what evolution predicts, and NOT what you would expect a "divine watch-maker" to do.

/Bevin

This is false logic. Just because organisms have similar designs does not mean that one organism or mechanism "evolved" into another. It just demonstrates a very good Designer.

The Volkwagen and the Volvo also have many similarities of design -- and, would you believe it, similar beginning letters to their names! Does that mean that one "evolved" into the other? Maybe the shorter form evolved into the longer form? Or did the smaller form evolve into the bigger form?

When Darwin popularized the theory of gradual evolution, he could be excused because he sincerely believed there was such a thing as a "simple cell," along with believing that life was much simpler than we now know from the study of biochemistry and molecular biology.

According to the calculations of the probability of the evolution of even one of the biological machines in the "simplest" cell, it would take much longer than the billions of years this universe is supposed to have existed according to the big bang scenario. And that's just oneof the molecular machines in the simplest cell. (That's after assuming that the living building blocks for the machine were already in existence.)

I recommend a complete read of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, rather than the simplistic summaries often encountered. The complexity of biological systems is mind-boggling.

Maybe that's why Anthony Flew, the famous British atheiust, acknowledged there must be some kind of God -- even though he was unwilling to believe in a God who was actually interested in human affairs.

There is simply no known mechanism for evolution. We now know that mutations allow for a fairly narrow range of adaptive change, even in bacteria. Creationists understand that that genetic variability was built into the original "kinds" of organisms by the Creator Himself. Yes, there's such a thing as "survival of the fittest," but the effect is to narrow the gene pool, not to enlarge it. There is a loss of information, not an addition. (Duplication of genetic material does not provide more "information" any more than an extra spare tire is an innovation on a car.)