Posted by John on January 08, 1999 at 01:33:13:
In Reply to: Food for thought posted by Xavier on December 07, 1998 at 15:41:07:
: I tried to put your comments in Italics but I couldn't make it happen. Maybe I'll get it figured out some day.
You state that you know what makes a creationist a creationist, yet you did not explain why there are differing
versions of creationism.
The only differences in creation versions are when it happened and how long it took. If these are the only differences you are talking about then I'm sure evolution has quite a few more. Incidentally, I don't believe that if someone believes God created everything then let evolution take over that they are hellbound. That may have happened. There is no proof of how everything got here from nothing, or how life began, one way or the other.
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.
What is it that you need to consider any of this valid? The canopy theory is, of course, derived from scripture. What I find intriguing about it is what was this firmament that is described in Genesis? Do you think that it was put in there so that 6000, or so, years later someone would develop a silly theory that would further alienate science and religion? Whatever it was, it's not there now. I don't see the problem with the convenience of having problems solved. Canopy theory is something that will never be reproduced in the laboratory. Because it is so ancient and it was nothing more than water, once it was gone, it was gone. I don't know what evidence it could have left to satisfy you other than the fact that so much water covers the earth and so much is held in the clouds, perhaps at one time there wasn't as much.
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.
However I made my statement about Mt. Everest, I did not intend for it to sound as if were accepted fact. I don't think that we would disagree on the fact that at one time the Himalayas didn't reach near the proportions that they do now, our disagreement is when that time was. What you or any other atheists consider implausible is of no concern to me. I put nothing past God.
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?
As far as no pre-flood rain goes, Genesis 2:5-6 says that this was the condition of the earth at that time. Once again I have to wonder why such a statement would be made up and put in the bible. If this were left out completely it would have absolutely no impact on the message of the Old Testament.
What physical evidence exists that reflects this phenomena that you
describe?
None. What could possibly exist that would prove this? Can science prove whether or not it rained on May 16, 422 A.D. in what is now Cheyenne, Wyoming? What about if it was even cloudy that day? What evidence can be discovered to prove any of this?
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.
Agreed.
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.
I agree with the first part of your statement but vehemently disagree with the suggestion that I would misuse, misinterpret, and distort the findings of science to somehow "fit" my conclusion.
It's the mis- that I have a problem with. I am not a scientist or even a "creation scientist" I simply believe that science may not have discovered all the evidence that is required to satisfy any scientist about the truth of creation. It will likely never be found because to do so would eliminate the need for faith in the existence of God. Faith is the key to believing in Jesus, and Jesus is the key to salvation.
If you believe that all dating methods should be discarded because of a few false readings, then you would discard most of science.
I never said that all dating methods should be discarded, I said that there is cause for question in the accuracy of the dating method used. From my understanding of how radiocarbon dating works, it has to be the most inaccurate method still in use today.
Should you discard your Bible because there exists several differing Christian denominations that hold slightly different interpretations of the Bible and its
messages?
No, because to do so would be like discarding the geological sample that gave the erroneous measurement and just continue using the dating methods as if nothing were awry. Instead, what needs to happen is Christians need to dig more into the bible to see why we are so different in what we believe and work those differences out using the bible as the final authority.
Why didn't your God make a less ambiguous document that was less likely to be misinterpreted?
I don't know the answer to this. What I do know is that he created it so that understanding could only come by the Holy Spirit, so misinterpretation is a result of trying to understand the bible without the proper guidance. How do I know I have the correct interpretation of the bible? That's something you will never understand, so let's not even go there.
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.
I got this from a creationist web site. I'll go back and see if maybe I misread something because in all honesty it sounded a little hokey to me too.
The Bible may say that humans lived 800-900 years, but there exists no scientific data or evidence in support of such.
Once again, what evidence could possibly exist to prove this? Remember, immediately after the flood, life spans dropped off drastically from 950 (Noah) to 500 (Shem, Noah's son). What reason would the writer of Genesis have for incorporating this sudden decrease in life spans into his text. If one accepts the bible as true then one has to wonder what happened at the time of the flood to cause this to happen. This is consistent with what could happen when the protective canopy was removed, exposing humans to UV rays.
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.
Right, but there is scientific data that supports the fact that UV rays are harmful. I just don't think anyone realizes just how harmful they really are. You say people live to be 100 all the time. UV doesn't seem to be affecting them much. I say without UV (and without the modern day pollutants) those people may have lived to be 200, 300, or even 900.
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?
Because they don't have typical herbivore teeth. They have fangs like a regular bear (carnivore).
...what do 2 inch roots have to do with the teeth of a T-Rex? Why would his teeth break
off when consuming prey?
Your front teeth are about 3/8 of an inch long and the root that holds it in your skull is at least that long. The roots that hold our molars in place are twice as long as the part that protrudes from our gums. Can you imagine how hard it would be to bite a chunk out of an apple with your front teeth without pulling them out of your head, if the root were only 1/8 of an inch long?
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.
Man may be one of the weakest creatures, but he is by far the most intelligent. As I said in my previous post, man was smart enough to stay away from them. If their existences did coincide, and if the earth is young, then man was not a hairy, hunched over brute that communicated with grunts and didn't know when to run away.
Also, I believe that if their existence coincided, then there would be evidence
of it.
It they did in fact co-exist, they only co-existed for 2000 years until the flood. Afterwards they still lived long enough to get big and inspire legends of dragons. What happened to them after that I don't know. Perhaps the Dragonslayers killed them off.
You mention that dinosaurs are still here, they just don't live long enough to get as big as they used to. Name one dinosaur that still exists (not including alligators and other reptiles that exist and closely resemble their dinosaur relatives).
Well, if I can't include those then I guess you've stumped me.
Where are the baby T-Rex's and
brontosaurs? Why didn't the mastodon and saber-toothed tiger survive also?
I don't know why they didn't survive. A possibility that I thought of was that these particular ones were very dependent of their parents and were unable to survive after the flood.
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.
The fact that reptiles continue to grow until they die pretty much nullifies your statement. That's like saying "I've seen many reptiles... but they never seem to get any larger after they die."
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 think whoever coined the term "creation science" had no idea what an oxymoron was. What I've learned throughout our discussions is that science is not about absolutes. It will gladly take a neutral position until something (evidence) pushes it one way or another. Christianity, on the other hand, is a world of absolutes. It's either right or wrong, good or bad, you can or you can't, and you will or you won't. I'm a supervisor where I work and I've learned that it's better to make a decision, even if it's wrong, than to make no decision at all, because no decision is just as bad as a wrong one. That's a lot different when put in the context of eternity and where you'll spend it, but the idea is the same.
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.
I never intend to give the impression that I think the bible is a science text, I think some things that science cannot explain are in the bible. If you have heard about the halos present in granite that show the decay of U-238 down to Pb would you please give me your thoughts on it. This is one thing that, last I heard, was not explicable by science. That's been a few years ago though, I'm sure scientists have made something up by now ;)
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.
I guess it just depends on whose point of view you're taking. Who makes these "legitimate scientists" legitimate? Other legitimate scientists, right?
As far as being offended, sorry, can't do anything about that.
Let me touch on something here. I've been going along with the term "religion" this whole time because I know that for me to explain what I'm about to try to explain will take some time and I'm not really sure if I can do it or not but here goes anyway.
Religion is man made. I am not a religious person. I am non-denominational because I don't call myself Catholic or Baptist or any other denomination. Christianity, to me, is no more a religion than eating lunch every day at the same time. It's a way of life. It's a life that is built around a relationship with Jesus Christ. To the person that doesn't know Him it sounds inconceivable that this is possible but I know it is. To try to explain it to someone who is unwilling or unable to believe is like trying to explain color to someone who was born blind. It's something you have to experience to understand. Jesus was the start of Christianity and since Jesus was God incarnate, Christianity was not man made, it was God made. Traditions such as praying to Mary, abstaining from meat on Fridays (I think this one is no longer in effect), rosary prayers, etc. are not in the bible. Sorry about using Catholic stuff but they are steeped in tradition. Non-denominational people got away from tradition and stuck strictly with what the bible said. Religion refers more to tradition than anything else. I hope you got my point.
Well it's late and I think I addressed every point that I thought needed addressing, plus the little freebie at the end;) I look forward to hearing back from you. I think this computer at my house will put an end to my extended dry spells.