Evolution is a Belief System

[Bravus]

It's clear that there is no construction of the fossil record that you will be willing to accept as evidence that macro-evolution exists, David. Given that that is the case, I can't justify spending an hour that I don't have to provide examples for you to shoot down. The list at talk.origins of '29+ evidences for macro-evolution' is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If you want to take some shots at those, by all means go ahead, but it's pretty clear that this discussion is, at least from my perspective, fruitless to carry any further.

Construe that as victory if you like.

[melvin mccarty]

Simce this learned discussion has ground to a halt maybe David could answer my simple question about how the rattlesnake came by it's fangs and venom! The natural world as we see it today speaks of massive re-creation from a world that was perfect a few thousand years ago.

mel

[David Koot]

I have indeed looked at the talkorigins website, and reviewed their examples. I have one simple question for you, professor, which would call for a very simple answer. Can you state, with certainty, that the alleged instances of macroevolution described on that website, are facts? What say you? Yes, or no?

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

You find two things, estimate their ages, and discover that one Early (E) precedes Late (L) by a big amount.

---

Assumptions. You do not in fact know their ages. Your estimates would be based on theory.

Quote:

---

You hypothesis that there is a series of steps from E to L, most of which you have not found.

---

A hypothesis based on the assumption that there are in fact evolutionary steps. Deductive reasoning starting from an assumption.

Quote:

---

You search and find a Middle thing that contains some but not all of the differences between earliest and latest

---

You are assuming that it is a "Middle thing." Also, you are assuming that it is a descendant of the earlier "thing." You do not know that for a fact, and you cannot possibly know that for a fact. It sounds looking for evidence to support your assumptions. That is relying on deductive reasoning.

Quote:

---

You test your prediction that M dates later than E and before L. Your prediction is true.

---

Reminds me, once again, of the Japanese war games in preparation for the Battle of Midway. The referees called it as a resounding Japanese victory. You have presented a hypothetical here. You have not presented specific finds nor provided any footnotes for review, nor have you stated your procedure. However, even if true, that does not mean that M descended from E or that E descended from L. That is something which you do not know.

But, as for radiometric dating purporting to go back millions of years, it has been impeached. If you like, I think I can locate some info on that, which I would be glad to post. Also, the basis for such dating requires a number of assumptions, as to which the facts are not known.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

David. Prove to me that 1 + 1 = 2. Prove that you exist. You can't. If you can't prove either your existence, or that 1 + 1 = 2, then you have a USELESS definition of 'proof'. If EVERY arguement depends on assumptions, then you have a USELESS definition of 'assumption'.

---

The fact of one's existence may be readily observed and verified, to a reasonable extent. Principles of addition may be easily observed and verified. Both these items are here and observable at present.

As for the past . . . items, fossils, remains, may be observed. Thus, their existence may easily be verified. However, the belief that fossil B evolved from fossil A is speculative. It is a theory. It requires assumptions.

Permit me to state exactly what I intend to do on this thread. Step one has already been accomplished. That is, that macroevolution at present, has not in fact been observed to occur. Step two is to show that the theory of macroevolution, which pertains to the distant past, requires the making of assumnptions. Step three will be to show that those assumptions are insupportable.

Quote:

---

Evolutionary Scientists:

Have found lots of interesting things under rocks.

---

No problem with that.

Quote:

---

Care about building a model that accurately predicts what they find under rocks.

---

Not too accurate, actually, which is why many scientists are ditching long-age evolution in favor of other theories. Some of them have even turned to ID.

Quote:

---

Have built a very reliable predictor of what they will find - so good it is used every day for everything from finding oil to understanding avian flu.

---

Separate from macroevolution.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The fact of one's existence may be readily observed and verified, to a reasonable extent.

---

Quote:

---

Principles of addition may be easily observed and verified.

---

I didn't ask you to observe and verify these statements, I asked you to prove them.

What do you mean "a reasonable extent"?

What do you mean "observed" - can you show me an ADD operation?

What do you mean "verified"? and why should an observation require "verification"?

Quote:

---

However, the belief that fossil B evolved from fossil A is speculative. It is a theory. It requires assumptions.

---

Maybe it is time for you to provide your definition of "assumption". I suspect it is so broad that it requires "1 + 1 = 2" to have assumptions in its proof, in which case it is a worthless thing to claim that "macro-evolution requires assumptions" because "EVERYTHING requires assumptions" and therefore their presence means nothing.

Quote:

---

why many scientists are ditching long-age evolution in favor of other theories

---

ROFLOL

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Step one has already been accomplished. That is, that macroevolution at present, has not in fact been observed to occur.

---

Wrong - we pointed you at the fossil record, which provides a complex and rich set of examples of life forms for which NO successsful model other than the evolution one has been proposed.

We pointed out to you that observations to not require being made in real time.

We pointed out to you that they do not need to be continuous.

We also pointed out to you that you don't wish to hear this.

We pointed out to you at the very beginning that you were a troll that did not actually want to have a conversation.

Quote:

---

Step two is to show that the theory of macroevolution, which pertains to the distant past, requires the making of assumnptions.

---

You have simply shown that your definition of assumption is that EVERYTHING has assumptions. Whip-dee-doo.

Quote:

---

Step three will be to show that those assumptions are insupportable.

---

ROFLOL - why bother. If you can show evolution can't happen, don't waste your time on us, publish in a referreed journal and go collect your Nobel Prize in biology.

The bottom line is Observations of the real world match the evolutionary model much more precisely than they match the short-age creation model, and that adherents of the short-age creation model require God to be the greatest liar.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Can you state, with certainty, that the alleged instances of macroevolution described on that website, are facts? What say you? Yes, or no?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Absolutely not. I can't even state, with certainty, that our current theories of gravitation will predict everything we might experience under different circumstances. Science is not about certainty, and if you're looking for certainty science is not the place to look. As Bevin has noted (and Sir Karl Popper said originally), science is about 'conjectures and refutations': create a theory and then test it to destruction. That process goes on in evolutionary theory, but so far the major themes have held up under that testing - there are minor areas that have broken down or are still controversial.

I think I agree with Bevin about the nature of your project, and that the issues we're having actually lie, not in the scientific evidence, but in the language. I'm more comfortable than he is with the use of 'assumptions'... but I also don't regard the fact that something involves assumptions as fatal. It's really only an assumption that the sun will rise in the morning, but it's one that is well supported by the personal evidence (the thousands of times we've seen the sun come up ourselves), the historical evidence (accounts since the beginning of recorded history of the sun coming up) and theory (the model of the relative positions of sun and earth and of the earth's rotation).

So yes, there are assumptions involved in evolutionary theory, if the word is used that way (and not, as 'theory' is sometimes also used, as a weasel word with different meanings in science and in everyday life, used to obscure meaning). But such assumptions, like the one about the rising sun, are supported by multiple sources of (testable, correlated) evidence, including fossils, radiometric dating, geological strata, DNA and the 'tree of life' (common descent).

So that brings us to the word 'insupportable'. The assumptions (or hypotheses, to use the term Bevin prefers) involved in evolutionary theory are supported by multiple sources of evidence. If you wish to address each of those in turn, in detail, and demonstrate that each of them has been refuted by credible evidence, then perhaps you can make your case. That's an enormous undertaking. But if (as it seems) you wish to define 'insupportable' as 'anything I can't see occurring with my own eyes in the lab today'... then as I said, it's impossible to carry the argument forward, because the nature of the events is such that *that specific kind* of evidentiary support is forever out of reach.

So the argument is semantic: it's in how 'assumptions' and 'evidence' and 'support' are defined. I have conceded that, under the very narrow definition above, your statement could be accepted... but that the definition is (a) so narrow as to not be useful and ( uses the words in ways that are not generally accepted in science, or even in general life.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Wrong - we pointed you at the fossil record, which provides a complex and rich set of examples of life forms for which NO successsful model other than the evolution one has been proposed.

---

The long-age evolutionary model claiming support from the fossil record, is in disarray. Why? Because of discoveries which contradict the theory. For example, fossils which were supposed to have existed eons ago, but which radiometric dating labels as quite recent. Another example: fossil layers which, according to the theory, were millions of years ago, but in some places are found at a much more recent level. Still another example: fossils which, according to the theory, were supposed to be millions of years old, found in the same layer as very recent fossils. Yet another example: radiometric dating of an object as being millions of years old, when, in fact, the object is known to be very recent. The theory is in shambles, which is why many scientists are abandoning it in favor of alternative theories.

Quote:

---

We pointed out to you that observations to not require being made in real time. We pointed out to you that they do not need to be continuous.

---

You asserted that but did not establish it. Observations of items purporting to be in the distant past, are based on a theory of what the observer thinks they should be. You have failed to refute that. You have failed to show any way to verify the sequence which you suggested. In fact, the example you presented, relied on presuppositions and looking for evidence to support the theory. So, someone finds fossil 'A' and estimates its age. He then finds fossil 'C' and estimates its age. He next looks for a fossil which he expects to be halfway between, and lo! he finds it. He then attempts to verify, and behold! it fits!

However, your example failed to account for the discovery of another specimen of fossil 'A' (same species) which, upon testing for age, turns out to be MORE RECENT than fossil 'C'. Nor did your example account for the possibility that, in fact, ALL THREE, A, B and C, would exist concurrently--as, in fact, has happened, finding all in the same layer, and finding large disparities in radiometric dating.

Quote:

---

You have simply shown that your definition of assumption is that EVERYTHING has assumptions.

---

Actually, that was not the definition which I quoted. However, as to the past, yes, assumptions are required. And, when evidence from the past is discovered which appears to contradict a theory, then that must be taken into consideration also.

Quote:

---

If you can show evolution can't happen . . .

---

Once again, as I stated earlier on this thread, that has not been my purpose.

Quote:

---

The bottom line is Observations of the real world match the evolutionary model much more precisely than they match the short-age creation model, and that adherents of the short-age creation model require God to be the greatest liar.

---

On this thread, I am neither attempting to prove recent Creation, nor disprove long-age evolution. However, observations of the real world point to the work of a Creator, far more than they do to long-age evolution.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

That process goes on in evolutionary theory, but so far the major themes have held up under that testing - there are minor areas that have broken down or are still controversial.

---

That certainly doesn't jive with what some evolutionary scientists themselves have said. Perhaps, 20 years or so ago, that was the conventional wisdom. However, as of recently, Long-age, Darwinian evolution is in shambles. As one of them said, Darwin was wrong. Thus, they are turning to other theories and models.

Quote:

---

It's really only an assumption that the sun will rise in the morning, but it's one that is well supported by the personal evidence (the thousands of times we've seen the sun come up ourselves), the historical evidence (accounts since the beginning of recorded history of the sun coming up) and theory (the model of the relative positions of sun and earth and of the earth's rotation).

---

All of that may be readily observed at present. While that may well require assumptions to be made, when you go back to the distant past, you must jump to a whole different level of assumptions, as to which observation of an event as it occurs, is impossible. Therefore, it is in contradistinction to the example you used.

Quote:

---

But such assumptions, like the one about the rising sun, are supported by multiple sources of (testable, correlated) evidence, including fossils,

---

The theory has been trashed by conflicting discoveries.

Quote:

---

radiometric dating,

---

Once again, it has been largely discredited.

Quote:

---

geological strata,

---

that one has REALY been discredited.

Quote:

---

DNA and the 'tree of life' (common descent).

---

Which is also consistent with a Creator building different creatures upon the same platform. That is AT LEAST as much of a possibility as long-age evolution.

Quote:

---

The assumptions (or hypotheses, to use the term Bevin prefers) involved in evolutionary theory are supported by multiple sources of evidence.

---

The ones you listed above, have been discredited and in fact could support ID/Creationism.

Quote:

---

But if you wish to define 'insupportable' as 'anything I can't see occurring with my own eyes in the lab today'... then as I said, it's impossible to carry the argument forward, because the nature of the events is such that *that specific kind* of evidentiary support is forever out of reach.

---

Goes beyond that. Evidence from the past which has been discovered, contradicts the theory--fossil record, layers, radiometric dating, etc.

[Bravus]

OK, bring the evidence, please. Now it's you who is making unsupported assertions. Same standard of evidence you requested: here, with cites. Not fiddly at the edge questions within radiometric dating, for example, but a wholesale refutation, since the claim you're making is that the procedure is entirely discredited. Credible, peer reviewed science, of course.

[Robert]

Who cares?

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Now go on with this foolishness....

Rob

[David Koot]

Correction, Bravus. As to radiometric dating, I said it has "largely been discredited," not 'entirely discredited.' Specifically, I am referring to the attempt to use radiometric dating on objects asserted to be millions, or hundreds of millions of years old. One scientist (a geologist) has stated that radiometric dating is not accurate beyond thousands of years in the past. I have read other reports of inconsistencies, even as to objects known to date from the recent past.

I will begin to assemble info. Now, as to peer-reviewed, I direct you to your own observations about peer review, on your private 'origins' forum. It is not a level playing field. Meanwhile, I shall be posting some observations about Darwinian evolution from a number of sources, including scientists in the public discussion in which I participated recently, as well as publications.

David Koot

[Bravus]

Thanks so much for that useful and relationship-building contribution. We feel edified.

[David Koot]

Now, professor, I should like to begin by posting a few excerpts from the discussion on the public forum, which I referenced earlier on this thread. Several scientists participatted in this discussion, including 'Theoq89,' who has his Ph.D. in biology and physics, 'Rubble,' who appears to be a biologist and is the source of the information on geobiological dispersion, which I excerpted on another thread, and some others. My screen name here is 'dko190'. Since these excerpts are from a public forum, I don't think there would be a problem quoting them here:

"Duckphup: "the mechanisms by which non-life became life are still elusive."

dko190: Precisely. That is the understatement of the century. After decade after decade of determined and relentless research, THAT is what they come up with. My point precisely. Funny thing is, the die-hard evolutionists still teach--in textbooks, to impressionable children, no less--that at some point in time, slime somehow ended up on dry land and WE are the result. Balderdash. It takes far more faith to believe in something as improbable as that, than to believe in Intelligent Design.

To tens of millions of people, perhaps more, the term 'evolution' encompasses origin of life as well as changes in the gene pool by natural selection, mutation and genetic drift. To the public, it would be fair to say that the theory of evolution encompasses Charles Darwin's theory that humans developed from a lower order of living organisms, which, in turn, developed from lower orders, and so forth. Has 'science' retreated from that?

Rubble: And those same "tens of millions of people, perhaps more," are simply wrong.

Theoq89: If that's what the public thinks, then the public is WRONG, plain and simple. This ain't . . . high school. Scientific issues are not defined by public opinion polls or popularity contests. You don't get to vote on how scientific theories are defined and limited. Science is what it is, and it doesn't matter whether you like what it says or not. If the public is as ignorant as you have stated above, then they need to be educated in order to correct their thinking--after all the purpose of education is to overcome and correct ignorance, not to validate and extend it.

dko190: Has 'science' given up on the idea of a human being evolving from slime?

Rubble: It's quite possible that 'science' has given up trying to convince people, such as yourself, that evolutionary theory has never claimed as much.

. . . .

dko190: A discussion about the origin of life? I am not interested in opinions. All you need to present is websites which DOCUMENT successful experiments demonstrating that non-living substances/molecules organized themselves into living organisms. If you are unable to do so, then simply acknowledge same--which, come to think of, you seem to have done, indirectly. And, of course, I already am aware, from my own research, that there are no such successful experiements--although MANY have been tried. Yet, perhaps there is more recent information, or other information, of which I am not aware. However, you will need to provide documentation.

Theoq89: Of course, such websites don't exist, because no such expt has been done. At present this area of investigation is little more than in the theoretical stage.

None have even been tried--in fact, I know of none specifically asking the question you're asking--life from non-life--that's too broad a question, too ambitious a research goal given our still limited understanding of the potential mechanisms that may be involved--we're still at the stage of trying to understand the chemistry that might be involved. The most that has been seriously tried is spontaneous formation of biopolymers from small molecular weight building blocks--and that has worked. No one has even succeeded in forming polymers that are self-replicating, so to expect a life from non-life expt at this stage in our understanding is not realistic.

. . . . no reputable scientist would even attempt such an expt, because it's skipping several key steps that must be achieved BEFORE one can start trying to actually do life from non-life--the first is achieving abiotic formation of self-replicating biopolymers, i.e. nucleic acid, and I KNOW nobody has succeeeded in such an undertaking yet.

Sbolert: Biological Evolution is provable (link provided to the following article):

“The Short Proof of Evolution

by

Ian Johnston

Malaspina University-College

Nanaimo, BC

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in March 2005]

. . . Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. . . .”

Theoq89: From examining his homepage, it is clear that the author of the quote you cited is not a biologist, indeed, he does not even appear to be a scientist, but rather, a philosopher or literary critic. Whatever he is, he is obviously NOT conversant with current scientific consensus on the definition of evolution.

dko190: Ha! Evidence indeed of abject failure, after decades of determined research and the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. Finally, evolutionists have given up on what were, for decades, key features of their theory . . .”

theoq89: . . . The fact that some features of any theory are "abandoned" over time is an indication of the health and progressive refinement of a field, not its failure. Scientific understanding always changes as methods and thinking improve. Much of what we thought we knew 100 years ago is now on the dustbin of history. Much of what we think we know now may have the same fate 100 years hence . . .”

Any thoughts on the foregoing?

[Bravus]

(by the way, David, I hope you realised my rather snippy post above was directed at Robert, not you)

Well, none of the stuff in the conversation above addresses radioactive dating, so I guess that's a topic for later. Just a note: The person you quoted is quite right that radiocarbon dating is not accurate for more than a few thousand years back, because the half-life of carbon-14 is on the order of 5000 years. The dating methods used for things on the order of millions of years are for isotopes other than carbon, though, so be careful about matching the evidence to the claims.

On the discussion above, I'm afraid I see you setting up a strawman and crowing when it's knocked down (again). The scientists you're talking with carefully and clearly point out that life/non-life is not a 'magic wand moment' when one turns into the other, but a series of tiny steps from the synthesis of certain complex chemicals, to self-replicating versions of same (still not alive), toward something we might start to recognise as life. They, quite properly, don't go beyond current evidence in making claims about what is, indeed, a very difficult to explain first few steps on the evolutionary ladder, but express confidence that we're moving toward creating that evidence over time.

In this exchange in particular:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Theoq89: From examining his homepage, it is clear that the author of the quote you cited is not a biologist, indeed, he does not even appear to be a scientist, but rather, a philosopher or literary critic. Whatever he is, he is obviously NOT conversant with current scientific consensus on the definition of evolution.

dko190: Ha! Evidence indeed of abject failure, after decades of determined research and the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. Finally, evolutionists have given up on what were, for decades, key features of their theory . . .”

theoq89: . . . The fact that some features of any theory are "abandoned" over time is an indication of the health and progressive refinement of a field, not its failure. Scientific understanding always changes as methods and thinking improve. Much of what we thought we knew 100 years ago is now on the dustbin of history. Much of what we think we know now may have the same fate 100 years hence . . .”

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

theo demolishes the claims of a non-scientist and you claim that that is evidence for the failure of science?

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

(by the way, David, I hope you realised my rather snippy post above was directed at Robert, not you)

---

Yes, I did, thank-you.

Quote:

---

Well, none of the stuff in the conversation above addresses radioactive dating, so I guess that's a topic for later.

---

In due time, indeed.

Quote:

---

Just a note: The person you quoted is quite right that radio

carbon

dating is not accurate for more than a few thousand years back, because the half-life of carbon-14 is on the order of 5000 years. The dating methods used for things on the order of millions of years are for isotopes other than carbon, though, so be careful about matching the evidence to the claims.

---

One scientist who mentioned that, is Dwight Hornbacher, a geologist who works with an oil exploration company in Texas, last I knew. I will do some further digging, though.

Quote:

---

On the discussion above, I'm afraid I see you setting up a strawman and crowing when it's knocked down (again). The scientists you're talking with carefully and clearly point out that life/non-life is not a 'magic wand moment' when one turns into the other, but a series of tiny steps from the synthesis of certain complex chemicals, to self-replicating versions of same (still not alive), toward something we might start to recognise as life. They, quite properly, don't go beyond current evidence in making claims about what is, indeed, a very difficult to explain first few steps on the evolutionary ladder, but express confidence that we're moving toward creating that evidence over time.

---

Ahhh, the limitations of space! In order to conserve space, I only included excerpts from the discussion. Here is the background to that exchange. For decades, evolutionists had indeed taught--indeed, affirmed, that life came from non-life (you recall the now-discredited notion of spontaneous generation) and that somehow, 'organic soup' bred life. (I have read different versions--one calling for lightning to strike the 'soup') As recently as two years ago, NASA scientists were speculating about some time in the distant past when such an 'organic soup' may have been present on Mars.

NOW--NOW, a retreat!! Evidence of abject failure! Now, scientists are saying they don't know how life began. But, will they turn to ID, even to consider it? No, no. Will keep on trying to support a bankrupt theory. In the discussion, I asked them, 'Why?' Why not give ID a try? Why not at least consider it? Here are the responses I got. Theoq89 commented on the difficulty of getting grants for research at present. Can you imagine, he said, trying to get grant money for a research project for ID? Secondly, as he put it, if ID is true, then there is nothing left to do--nothing left to discover. 'We might as well go home and watch TV.'

Hmmm. So, then, not only does religion drive science. So, also, do economics and position drive science! Fascinating!

Quote:

---

theo demolishes the claims of a non-scientist and you claim that that is evidence for the failure of science?

---

I think I should have added an ellipsis. Would have to check to confirm. These were excerpts from the discussion. The evidence for the failure of science, is the retreat from key features of the theory--that life came from non-life, that a fish evolved into a cow, that humans originated as slime. Those very things were taught for decades, and still are, in many quarters. The article is evidence of the pervasive understanding, even at the collegiate level. For scientists to now say that they are not features of the theory of evolution, is a bit disingenuous, in my book. They WERE, but no longer are. A clue may be found in theoq89's words:

"The fact that some features of any theory are "abandoned" over time . . ." Not just 'some features,' KEY features. Now THAT is evidence of the failure of the theory, and, perhaps, the stubborn determination of 'science' to ignore God.

David Koot

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

These were excerpts from the discussion. The evidence for the failure of science, is the retreat from key features of the theory--that life came from non-life, that a fish evolved into a cow, that humans originated as slime.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

But they're not retreating from those propositions, not at all. What they're saying is that the non-life/life transition is much more complex than was at first thought, and proceeded by a number of smaller steps rather than one enormous leap. Ask scientists whether they would still support all three of the propositions you list, and they will say that they do. But they're scientists, so they'll use careful language, filled with qualifiers... because scientists are careful not to make claims without strong support.

[bevin]

While the steps from simple-chemical to complex self-reproducing-systems has left little evidence in the ground, the steps from fish-with-bones to modern life forms has left a LOT of evidence in the ground.

Creationists can't get their heads around this.

To believe in a literal reading of the Bible, you have to believe God has created a huge lie.

/Bevin

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Thanks so much for that useful and relationship-building contribution. We feel edified.

---

The Bible is not in the business of pumping up our egocentric minds.

This discussion is meaningless and foolish. It has no value....

Robert

[Robert]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

To believe in a literal reading of the Bible, you have to believe God has created a huge lie.

---

Bevin....

I've got bad news for you: From head to foot our humanity is unsound; our minds limited to the extreme...yet our sin-ridden egos knows no limits.

I highly suggest that you put your faith in God's word, not your frail, fallible, finite humanity.

Rob

[bevin]

Quote:

---

I highly suggest that you put your faith in God's word, not your frail, fallible, finite humanity

---

Robert, I've got bad news for you.

That Book that you are referencing as "God's Word" was written by those frail people, transmitted by those frail people, translated by those frail people, all using techniques invented by those frail people.

Your idea of God is a super-intelligent being whose idea of a joke is to create a lie and populate it with intelligent creatures and then kill them for believing His lie.

Such a God is not worth a hill of beans.

/Bevin

[Planey]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Your idea of God is a super-intelligent being whose idea of a joke is to create a lie and populate it with intelligent creatures and then kill them for believing His lie.

---

I amy be wrong, but it seems that your idea of a God is one who creates by gradualism, so that to improve some aspect of a created being many, many generations have to die so as to allow the improvements to occur. A God who depends on death as the key component of His creative process. A God "red in tooth and nail"

Not in any sense an improvement over the "God" you denigrate Robert for believing in. (Actually I think you are wrong in that particular summation, anyway.)

Graeme

[bevin]

Good question.

How does evolution differ from creation in its dependence on a life-and-death cycle?

Did the animals as created in the creationist model eat each other? If we look at the food chain today in the sea, on the land, in the air, we see very complex and well adapted carnivore - all the way from the krill eating whales to the monkey-eating harpie eagles.

It is impossible for these complex and well-adapted carnivores to have evolved in 6000 years, and the idea that either the Devil or the pre-flood humans breed them is also absurd because of the fossil evidence and because of the DNA shows the paths of divergence.

So both creationism and evolution require nature "red in claw and tooth".

It would appear God made a very complex universe, and that most of what we see is the outworking of the natural laws of that universe.

I see that as very different to creating a huge lie.

/Bevin

[Nicodema]

Bevin, do you believe that death was an intrinsic part of the life-cycle from the beginning, then, designed by God Himself as part of HIS original plan, and thus perhaps the story of Adam & Eve represents the inauguration of sentience, more specifically, the dawning of awareness of a mortality which was already there anyway, as opposed to "entering" at the time they ate the fruit?

Just wondering.

Meanwhile the missing links just keep a-comin' ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4900946.stm