Food for thought

Posted by Xavier on December 07, 1998 at 15:39:53:

In Reply to: reponse to response to pondered posted by John on December 02, 1998 at 13:21:26:

Thanks for the lengthy reply. I guess in order to address all your points will require one almost as long. Just to make it easier, I will post this response at both locations where our conversation left off.

My definition of a fundamentalist includes those who accept a literal Bible. Roman Catholics and most mainstream Protestants (e.g., Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc) do not follow a literal translation. Fundamentalists also tend to accept what is commonly referred to as "Young Earth Creationism". If these are not your beliefs then I stand corrected. You state that you know what makes a creationist a creationist, yet you did not explain why there are differing versions of creationism. Not all creationists believe that the universe and earth are only 10,000 years old. In fact, some creationists believe that God created everything over billions of years using evolution.

A couple of alternative links (besides those on the talk origins web site) that will get you started in developing an understanding of evolution is www2.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html (discusses frequently encountered criticisms in evolution vs. creationism), and www1.iastate.edu/~edis/creation.html (discusses why creationism is not science). A good talk origins link is found at www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html, which is self explanatory from the link name.

A biblical flood can be proven incorrect through science. All of the geological finds have disputed the "great flood" mythology. Link to www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noah-ark.html and www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html. (Another site to show that the flood is a fable is at www.continent.com/miller4/ark.htm). I'm sure there are several other sources for information, but these two will get you started. The assumptions you make concerning the flood, i.e., canopy theory, existence of Mt. Everest post-flood, no rain pre-flood, etc., are very convenient at solving the problems science has posed. Unfortunately they have virtually no validity. I know of no scientific evidence that supports any of these fanciful notions. If you know of any research data available supporting these ideas, please direct me to them. You state that Mt. Everest did not exist before the flood (approx. 4000 years ago?) as if it were accepted fact. Until I read your post, I had never heard of anyone putting forth such a implausible theory. Where did it come from? Is there any geological evidence in support of this? I think not. My concern is not what the Bible says…it is what science says. I have no problem with anyone who accepts creation or the great flood based solely on religious faith. My problem is when those individuals attempt to distort science to corroborate what I believe to be Biblical myths. One of your assumptions that it had never rained prior to the flood has me stumped. Does it say this in your Bible? And if so, how did the plant life at that time survive? Did everyone at the time just water down all the vegetation by hand? What physical evidence exists that reflects this phenomena that you describe? The geology of the past shows nothing that suggests this or your idea of rapid continental drift, yet there must be something that convinces you.
As far as your glass half full/half empty analogy, the scientist gathers evidence, conducts experiments and examines the results, makes observations and measurements, etc., in an attempt to understand the physical processes and mechanism at work in the universe. The creationist starts with a conclusion that is believed to be true because it is their specific interpretation of words in their Bible, and then attempts to misuse, misinterpret, and distort the findings of science to somehow "fit" their foregone conclusions. The difference is not that the scientist and creationist are just drawing different conclusions; it is that the creationist is drawing faulty conclusions. The conclusions are not faulty for the reason that they differ from the conclusions of the scientist; they are faulty because the conclusions do not fit the evidence.

If you believe that all dating methods should be discarded because of a few false readings, then you would discard most of science. Granted, there have been erroneous dating measurements that have been taken, but further scientific studies have shown them to be in error and have discovered the reason for their error. Should you discard your Bible because there exists several differing Christian denominations that hold slightly different interpretations of the Bible and its messages? Why didn't your God make a less ambiguous document that was less likely to be misinterpreted? See www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

You state that readings taken over the past 400 years show that light is slowing down. Well, that's a new one to most astronomers. Who were the astronomers who first measured light 400 years ago? What instruments did they possess that could even tell them the speed of light? According to my research, the fact that light is transmitted with a definite velocity was first established by astronomical observations. The constant velocity of light has been very useful in making accurate predictions of astronomical phenomena over the years. Do you have anything scientific to support such nonsensical claims? If you link to www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html, you may be able to get better information on your belief in the slowdown of light.

The Bible may say that humans lived 800-900 years, but there exists no scientific data or evidence in support of such. If you believe it to be true based on faith, then fine. Just keep in mind that that notion is contrary to all scientific studies related to such. You may believe that the shielding of UV rays from this mythical canopy you speak of may have caused living organisms to live longer, but there is no science that supports the idea of a canopy. Where are you getting your data? Unfortunately, from the information you are providing, it appears that you are gathering most of your information from some of your leading creationists, like "Dr" Kent Hovind and "Dr" Carl Baugh. If you link to www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html and www.linkline.com/personal/frice/credoc.htm, you will see that most either have unaccredited diplomas, "make-believe" credentials, or education outside the realm of biology, anthropology, geology, etc. If these are your sources for information, it is small wonder that most of it is faulty. If it is your goal to study the Bible, then go to a Biblical scholar, but if you truly wish to learn of science, please investigate one with legitimate credentials on the subject that they are speaking about.

The panda has teeth structures that allow them to subsist quite nicely as a herbivore. Why do you think we have to watch them eat to discover this? You don't think we can decipher this information based on their physiology? Also, what do 2 inch roots have to do with the teeth of a T-Rex? Why would his teeth break off when consuming prey? Teeth are stronger than bones, and with the T-Rex's jaw strength, tearing up a large animal in order to consume it would be no problem. I don't see modern day carnivores losing teeth while consuming bones. If, the T-Rex did lose its teeth through some freak occurrence (but not the one you speak of), then most likely it would die.
As far as man living with dinosaurs (another creationist fantasy), I don't know how man would have survived. Since man is one of the weakest creatures on the planet, he would be lunch for almost all of the carnivorous dinosaurs that existed. Also, I believe that if their existence coincided, then there would be evidence of it. We should at least have found tools and early weapons made from remnants of dinosaurs. You couldn't find a better knife than an old T-Rex tooth. And if we believe the notion of the T-Rex constantly breaking teeth, then they should have been found by early man all over the ground.

You mention that dinosaurs are still here, they just don't live long enough to get as big as they used to. Oh come on, now. You just pulling my leg, right? Name one dinosaur that still exists (not including alligators and other reptiles that exist and closely resemble their dinosaur relatives). Where are the baby T-Rex's and brontosaurs? Why didn't the mastodon and saber-toothed tiger survive also? And where did you get this idea that reptiles grow forever? I've seen many reptiles in captivity that are well cared for, but never seem to grow any larger than the size they reach at maturity.

You also mention that speciation has never been observed. Please link to and read the information at www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html. You can also read about observed evolution at www.talkorigins.org/speciation.html

I know that the tone of my response may sound belittling but that is not my intent. It is also not my attempt to talk you into discarding your religion. All I wish is for you to understand that the concepts you have concerning creation are based on the Christian Bible and have no relation to actual science. I have several Roman Catholic friends (including my spouse) who tell me that the Bible was never meant to be a science text and are as confused as I am over the ridiculous attempts of some to distort scientific knowledge in order to support their biblical beliefs. Granted, I am far from a biblical scholar and it would be ridiculous for me to attempt to get involved in a religious debate. However, I am somewhat offended when I read statements from those who propose to understand the nature of evolutionary theory and the science behind it in an attempt to show that the "scientific" conclusions of biblical creationists are somehow different but equal in merit with those of legitimate scientists. Creationists should stick with what they know, which is their religion and their faith in it, unless they are willing to approach science with an open mind and cease the efforts to discard or explain away the scientific data that may contradict your Bible.