WELCOME! A place where iron can sharpen iron, where spiritual milk and strong meat may be shared and received by all, where scripture can be expounded, where truth and love may be seen by the world.
To post: email totw@truthonthewb.org from your email address and ask for the password. It will be changed from time-to-time as need arises. Thank you for posting here. God bless.
Ah, but what is an expert? One that has gone the route of buying his certification? Or one that has read most of the papers on the subject, and has subjected them to the scrutiny of a wider point of view?
Most biologists are, if you forgive me the generalization, biologists.
Most paleontologists are paleontologists.
Again, not wishing to vaunt myself, but I am looking at the whole picture, biology, paleontology, tectonics (right on down to a brief study on crystalline plasticity, chemistry, and many others. Could I pass the tests? Probably not "off the top of my head". Have I the information available? Yes,and I have read most of it too. Does this make me smarter? Not in the least, but my broader experiences gives me a more composite picture than most. At least I believe it does.
You say that: Amateurs usually have no input into the process.
Which then excludes Darwin, an amateur biologist when he formed his concepts; Einstein, who when he developed his mathematical concepts, stated that he was no "mathematician" (I believe the quote is something like: "If you think you have trouble with mathematics, I assure you, mine are greater." or something to that effect). But, I understand your misgivings about the amount of information I may or may not have on hand. I can not, nor am I really willing to, demonstrate this either. I am simple willing to discuss it, for I have no real use for the things I have read except in the demonstration to (at very least) myself that even experts can be "human".
As for your analogy with the car, this is becoming more and more true, too. When I was younger (over 25 years ago), if my car "stopped running" somewhere, 9 times out of 10 I could get it going again. Now, that is no longer true. New and improved. 
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It seems to me that a big deal is being made here of a very simple principle which we use all the time.
PRINCIPLE
If we are not expert on a subject it is reasonable to go with the majority of those who are.
We do this all the time. My usual example is accepting advice from our doctor.
Of course this does not guarantee truth. Of course experts can be wrong. Of course experts change their minds. Nevertheless accepting this principle is the course of action which is most PROBABLE to give success.
And when a Christian gets into their car they never say, "Well now the experts who made this car might be wrong about the theories behind it so I better no drive. I'll walk instead!"
Best Wishes and thanks for your replies
Laurie
PS Your point about change. Change happens usually when the experts get new evidence or when they rexamine old evidence and change their minds. Amateurs usually have no imput into the process. Of course there are exceptions and in the past it was easier for an amateur to be an expert.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I don't wish to continue to interupt the flow here, but I must comment on one thing:
>>>
but to challenge the vast majority of biologist seems rather unwise.
>>>
So, if this really is the case, we should continue to believe the "earth is flat" and that draining the brain with vent holes drilled in them relieves insanity, and all the other "widely held understandings" that have been since disproven.
Without the challengers, we would still be feudal farmers
I do not mean to make this point from a brash point of view, but again, the point that very many of the discoveries and so called discoveries leading up to this point in time have been made by "excited armatures", willing to buck the tide of misinformation.
Now, I realize this proves NOTHING, but it does soften the blow of the point that we should never question "authority". I have a book called "Trust us; We're Experts!" (and will start: "Trust us; We're Professionals!" next) which, although they do not deal with THIS subject we are on, they do give us enough information to want to "question the crowd"; for I have found the "majority" wrong too many times to have much faith in them.
The majority of farmers once planted "by the moon".
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
it is a question of modesty.
If my doctor told me about a treatment for my sciatica and I found out that 99% of other doctors agreed, it would be silly of me to say that I refused to be 'put down' by what he said and to insist on some new age treatment involving sitting with crystals under my pillow.
As I have little medical knowledge it is immodest to pretend otherwise.
My knowledge of science is a little greater but to challenge, as you do, the vast majority of biologist seems rather unwise.
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Laurie, I am not 'qualified', but I do have a brain, as do you. My study that I posted here, I gave it to a qualified anthropologist to look over, and she said it was good, though she would not agree with all my conclusions. She did NOT pull me up on any of the technicalities I presented, and she also admitted there was no real 'proof' for evolution, though she still believed in it. This is more like a faith than science. So I do NOT need to get qulifications, I am happy to talk to any scientist, any day, any where! Bring them on, let's get down to it, I fear no one with PHDs or anything else, I have a God given brain of my own!!!
Hope that makes my position clear? I will not be put down just because I have no letters after my name!(nor should you)
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
'flow where flow does not exist' I do not understand - could you explain further.
Thanks and good wishes
Laurie
PS Are you like Julian and I? Non-scientists and so not really qualified to weigh up the evidence here?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
If it were not for the foibles and inconsistencies inherent in this systemized belief in "flow where flow does not exist", and 1,000 other similar problems like "the viable survive! Not so, says the evolutionist!" And on and on it goes. Scrap the fossils. We should see "flow" right now. The argument that the "in betweens were not very viable" ensures that not enough of them survived to continue the flow. Everything I read on evolution leaves out any mention of evidences of flow, which should be easily seen. Not hidden "on purpose" by the unthinking hand of nature.
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Well no Laurie, that is NOT the case. They still THINK evolution must be the answer, and are LOOKING for evidence to support the hypothosis, that is not the same as HAVING enopugh evidence to make it a reasnable conclusion.
There are so many gaps in the theory (and in the evidence so called) that it makes a mockery of true scientific facts.
More on this later, but will be posted on:
http://uk.msnusers.com/BIBLEBANTER
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It seems that nobody is clear of the EXACT way that modern man evolved. And they may never be because so few fossils survive and, as I stated elsewhere, speciation is thought to be very rapid so there will in any case be relatively few that could have survived. People working within the theory of evolution will find plenty of scope to disagree about how a particular fossil fits in.
What they all agree about however, because the evidence for the general theory is overwhelming, is that evolution is correct.
Best wishes
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
At least those in the know, admit to ignorance in this area. Here is what I mean: The book, "The Origin of Modern Humans" a book devoted to the "evolution" of humans, clearly gives several "conflicting and incongruous" theories concerning this topic. The conclusion is: maybe none of them are correct. The book offers a concise look at the field of paleoanthropology, and the competing theories on human origin. Included are in-depth coverage of the 1856 discovery of Neanderthal man, the debacle of Piltdown hoax, as well as the failures of various scientists, and inludes recent DNA analysis. It is published under Scientific American Library and is written by Roger Lewin. The book pushes evolution, of course, but at the same time illustrates the growing gap between what is known and what is only "filling in the gaps with imagination".
One doctor said: "it is said that for every question answered, we end up creating 3 more; I personally think it is more like 50 more."
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The fact that the Bible is NOT a detailed book of science, does not therfore mean that the scientists have all the answers. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not there is still no good reason to have faith in the theory of evolution. On the age and details of the earth and creation, there is good reason I would say for God not going in to long labourious details about how He made an atom, etc. It has absolutley no benefit to us. What we are told is enough imo. It is ectremely interesting to see how science is working on explaining the details, but not all those details are either proven, or logical (IMO).
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It is certainly possible I agree to see Genesis as 'dramatic' which of course is exactly what 'ordinary' Christians do. They see it as a parable/myth/dramatic analogy etc by which they mean that we must take it as putting in poetic form the truth that God made the world and it is good and it is suitable for us to live in etc
But a 'bible' Christian cannot say that. Yet your reply seems to be going that way? Why not go the whole hog and take the usual view. No need to fight with scientists about evolution/age of the earth etc! How much easier it would then be to put your religion over to the rest of us. It does NOT entail saying that the Bible is not inspired. It is the view that the Bible is a book of religious truths not a science book.
Just a thought.
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Yes, I agree if we take the creation account 'literally' and then accept the different appearances (which currently seems to be a fact)of different species, then there certainly appears to be creative activity PRIOR to the creation of the animal kindom at the time of Adam. It does depend on how you view the creation account imo. There is a good argument that the prose used is dramatic, and as such should not be taken as a blow by blow account of every little deatail of creation. This is used in other parts of scripture, so I have no problem with that scenario.
Then again, there could be error on the dating of species, but I accept that seems unlikely.
Hope this is helpful, I will try to find time to post a study on the dramatic prose explanation at some point.
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.
Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?
If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.
What do Creationists think of these problems?
Best wishes
Laurie
You cant compare this with the analogy here used Laurie.
Julian
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
it is a question of modesty.
If my doctor told me about a treatment for my sciatica and I found out that 99% of other doctors agreed, it would be silly of me to say that I refused to be 'put down' by what he said and to insist on some new age treatment involving sitting with crystals under my pillow.
As I have little medical knowledge it is immodest to pretend otherwise.
My knowledge of science is a little greater but to challenge, as you do, the vast majority of biologist seems rather unwise.
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Laurie, I am not 'qualified', but I do have a brain, as do you. My study that I posted here, I gave it to a qualified anthropologist to look over, and she said it was good, though she would not agree with all my conclusions. She did NOT pull me up on any of the technicalities I presented, and she also admitted there was no real 'proof' for evolution, though she still believed in it. This is more like a faith than science. So I do NOT need to get qulifications, I am happy to talk to any scientist, any day, any where! Bring them on, let's get down to it, I fear no one with PHDs or anything else, I have a God given brain of my own!!!
Hope that makes my position clear? I will not be put down just because I have no letters after my name!(nor should you)
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
'flow where flow does not exist' I do not understand - could you explain further.
Thanks and good wishes
Laurie
PS Are you like Julian and I? Non-scientists and so not really qualified to weigh up the evidence here?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
If it were not for the foibles and inconsistencies inherent in this systemized belief in "flow where flow does not exist", and 1,000 other similar problems like "the viable survive! Not so, says the evolutionist!" And on and on it goes. Scrap the fossils. We should see "flow" right now. The argument that the "in betweens were not very viable" ensures that not enough of them survived to continue the flow. Everything I read on evolution leaves out any mention of evidences of flow, which should be easily seen. Not hidden "on purpose" by the unthinking hand of nature.
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Well no Laurie, that is NOT the case. They still THINK evolution must be the answer, and are LOOKING for evidence to support the hypothosis, that is not the same as HAVING enopugh evidence to make it a reasnable conclusion.
There are so many gaps in the theory (and in the evidence so called) that it makes a mockery of true scientific facts.
More on this later, but will be posted on:
http://uk.msnusers.com/BIBLEBANTER
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It seems that nobody is clear of the EXACT way that modern man evolved. And they may never be because so few fossils survive and, as I stated elsewhere, speciation is thought to be very rapid so there will in any case be relatively few that could have survived. People working within the theory of evolution will find plenty of scope to disagree about how a particular fossil fits in.
What they all agree about however, because the evidence for the general theory is overwhelming, is that evolution is correct.
Best wishes
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
At least those in the know, admit to ignorance in this area. Here is what I mean: The book, "The Origin of Modern Humans" a book devoted to the "evolution" of humans, clearly gives several "conflicting and incongruous" theories concerning this topic. The conclusion is: maybe none of them are correct. The book offers a concise look at the field of paleoanthropology, and the competing theories on human origin. Included are in-depth coverage of the 1856 discovery of Neanderthal man, the debacle of Piltdown hoax, as well as the failures of various scientists, and inludes recent DNA analysis. It is published under Scientific American Library and is written by Roger Lewin. The book pushes evolution, of course, but at the same time illustrates the growing gap between what is known and what is only "filling in the gaps with imagination".
One doctor said: "it is said that for every question answered, we end up creating 3 more; I personally think it is more like 50 more."
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The fact that the Bible is NOT a detailed book of science, does not therfore mean that the scientists have all the answers. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not there is still no good reason to have faith in the theory of evolution. On the age and details of the earth and creation, there is good reason I would say for God not going in to long labourious details about how He made an atom, etc. It has absolutley no benefit to us. What we are told is enough imo. It is ectremely interesting to see how science is working on explaining the details, but not all those details are either proven, or logical (IMO).
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It is certainly possible I agree to see Genesis as 'dramatic' which of course is exactly what 'ordinary' Christians do. They see it as a parable/myth/dramatic analogy etc by which they mean that we must take it as putting in poetic form the truth that God made the world and it is good and it is suitable for us to live in etc
But a 'bible' Christian cannot say that. Yet your reply seems to be going that way? Why not go the whole hog and take the usual view. No need to fight with scientists about evolution/age of the earth etc! How much easier it would then be to put your religion over to the rest of us. It does NOT entail saying that the Bible is not inspired. It is the view that the Bible is a book of religious truths not a science book.
Just a thought.
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Yes, I agree if we take the creation account 'literally' and then accept the different appearances (which currently seems to be a fact)of different species, then there certainly appears to be creative activity PRIOR to the creation of the animal kindom at the time of Adam. It does depend on how you view the creation account imo. There is a good argument that the prose used is dramatic, and as such should not be taken as a blow by blow account of every little deatail of creation. This is used in other parts of scripture, so I have no problem with that scenario.
Then again, there could be error on the dating of species, but I accept that seems unlikely.
Hope this is helpful, I will try to find time to post a study on the dramatic prose explanation at some point.
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.
Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?
If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.
What do Creationists think of these problems?
Best wishes
Laurie
...here is one astute opinion about me click here but I am not seeking the praise of mankind. I do think that, we can not ignore what is, but then, it seems that this is exactly what is being done in the realm of science concerning evolution.
To me, even quantum physics makes more sense.
This is refered to,in response to, PS Are you like Julian and I? Non-scientists and so not really qualified to weigh up the evidence here?
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
'flow where flow does not exist' I do not understand - could you explain further.
Thanks and good wishes
Laurie
PS Are you like Julian and I? Non-scientists and so not really qualified to weigh up the evidence here?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
If it were not for the foibles and inconsistencies inherent in this systemized belief in "flow where flow does not exist", and 1,000 other similar problems like "the viable survive! Not so, says the evolutionist!" And on and on it goes. Scrap the fossils. We should see "flow" right now. The argument that the "in betweens were not very viable" ensures that not enough of them survived to continue the flow. Everything I read on evolution leaves out any mention of evidences of flow, which should be easily seen. Not hidden "on purpose" by the unthinking hand of nature.
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Well no Laurie, that is NOT the case. They still THINK evolution must be the answer, and are LOOKING for evidence to support the hypothosis, that is not the same as HAVING enopugh evidence to make it a reasnable conclusion.
There are so many gaps in the theory (and in the evidence so called) that it makes a mockery of true scientific facts.
More on this later, but will be posted on:
http://uk.msnusers.com/BIBLEBANTER
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It seems that nobody is clear of the EXACT way that modern man evolved. And they may never be because so few fossils survive and, as I stated elsewhere, speciation is thought to be very rapid so there will in any case be relatively few that could have survived. People working within the theory of evolution will find plenty of scope to disagree about how a particular fossil fits in.
What they all agree about however, because the evidence for the general theory is overwhelming, is that evolution is correct.
Best wishes
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
At least those in the know, admit to ignorance in this area. Here is what I mean: The book, "The Origin of Modern Humans" a book devoted to the "evolution" of humans, clearly gives several "conflicting and incongruous" theories concerning this topic. The conclusion is: maybe none of them are correct. The book offers a concise look at the field of paleoanthropology, and the competing theories on human origin. Included are in-depth coverage of the 1856 discovery of Neanderthal man, the debacle of Piltdown hoax, as well as the failures of various scientists, and inludes recent DNA analysis. It is published under Scientific American Library and is written by Roger Lewin. The book pushes evolution, of course, but at the same time illustrates the growing gap between what is known and what is only "filling in the gaps with imagination".
One doctor said: "it is said that for every question answered, we end up creating 3 more; I personally think it is more like 50 more."
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The fact that the Bible is NOT a detailed book of science, does not therfore mean that the scientists have all the answers. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not there is still no good reason to have faith in the theory of evolution. On the age and details of the earth and creation, there is good reason I would say for God not going in to long labourious details about how He made an atom, etc. It has absolutley no benefit to us. What we are told is enough imo. It is ectremely interesting to see how science is working on explaining the details, but not all those details are either proven, or logical (IMO).
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It is certainly possible I agree to see Genesis as 'dramatic' which of course is exactly what 'ordinary' Christians do. They see it as a parable/myth/dramatic analogy etc by which they mean that we must take it as putting in poetic form the truth that God made the world and it is good and it is suitable for us to live in etc
But a 'bible' Christian cannot say that. Yet your reply seems to be going that way? Why not go the whole hog and take the usual view. No need to fight with scientists about evolution/age of the earth etc! How much easier it would then be to put your religion over to the rest of us. It does NOT entail saying that the Bible is not inspired. It is the view that the Bible is a book of religious truths not a science book.
Just a thought.
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Yes, I agree if we take the creation account 'literally' and then accept the different appearances (which currently seems to be a fact)of different species, then there certainly appears to be creative activity PRIOR to the creation of the animal kindom at the time of Adam. It does depend on how you view the creation account imo. There is a good argument that the prose used is dramatic, and as such should not be taken as a blow by blow account of every little deatail of creation. This is used in other parts of scripture, so I have no problem with that scenario.
Then again, there could be error on the dating of species, but I accept that seems unlikely.
Hope this is helpful, I will try to find time to post a study on the dramatic prose explanation at some point.
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.
Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?
If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.
What do Creationists think of these problems?
Best wishes
Laurie
I still do not see why, if you can interpret Genesis dramatically to deal with the problem that, say, land animals came before birds, you cannot take the whole story dramatically to allow evolution. Then you faith does not collide with science here.
Also it is precisely the position taken by the majority of Christians. They might be correct you know.
Good luck
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The fact that the Bible is NOT a detailed book of science, does not therfore mean that the scientists have all the answers. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not there is still no good reason to have faith in the theory of evolution. On the age and details of the earth and creation, there is good reason I would say for God not going in to long labourious details about how He made an atom, etc. It has absolutley no benefit to us. What we are told is enough imo. It is ectremely interesting to see how science is working on explaining the details, but not all those details are either proven, or logical (IMO).
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It is certainly possible I agree to see Genesis as 'dramatic' which of course is exactly what 'ordinary' Christians do. They see it as a parable/myth/dramatic analogy etc by which they mean that we must take it as putting in poetic form the truth that God made the world and it is good and it is suitable for us to live in etc
But a 'bible' Christian cannot say that. Yet your reply seems to be going that way? Why not go the whole hog and take the usual view. No need to fight with scientists about evolution/age of the earth etc! How much easier it would then be to put your religion over to the rest of us. It does NOT entail saying that the Bible is not inspired. It is the view that the Bible is a book of religious truths not a science book.
Just a thought.
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Yes, I agree if we take the creation account 'literally' and then accept the different appearances (which currently seems to be a fact)of different species, then there certainly appears to be creative activity PRIOR to the creation of the animal kindom at the time of Adam. It does depend on how you view the creation account imo. There is a good argument that the prose used is dramatic, and as such should not be taken as a blow by blow account of every little deatail of creation. This is used in other parts of scripture, so I have no problem with that scenario.
Then again, there could be error on the dating of species, but I accept that seems unlikely.
Hope this is helpful, I will try to find time to post a study on the dramatic prose explanation at some point.
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.
Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?
If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.
What do Creationists think of these problems?
Best wishes
Laurie
Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com
Over the next few weeks I will be posting on the Bible Banter forum on this subject, you are always welcome to visit there.
http://uk.msnusers.com/BIBLEBANTER
It isn't really busy yet, but has only just been put on the MSN index, you are very welcome to follow my posatings on this subject, and also to post your thoughts if you so wish (or any articles you think are relevant)
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I still do not see why, if you can interpret Genesis dramatically to deal with the problem that, say, land animals came before birds, you cannot take the whole story dramatically to allow evolution. Then you faith does not collide with science here.
Also it is precisely the position taken by the majority of Christians. They might be correct you know.
Good luck
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The fact that the Bible is NOT a detailed book of science, does not therfore mean that the scientists have all the answers. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not there is still no good reason to have faith in the theory of evolution. On the age and details of the earth and creation, there is good reason I would say for God not going in to long labourious details about how He made an atom, etc. It has absolutley no benefit to us. What we are told is enough imo. It is ectremely interesting to see how science is working on explaining the details, but not all those details are either proven, or logical (IMO).
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It is certainly possible I agree to see Genesis as 'dramatic' which of course is exactly what 'ordinary' Christians do. They see it as a parable/myth/dramatic analogy etc by which they mean that we must take it as putting in poetic form the truth that God made the world and it is good and it is suitable for us to live in etc
But a 'bible' Christian cannot say that. Yet your reply seems to be going that way? Why not go the whole hog and take the usual view. No need to fight with scientists about evolution/age of the earth etc! How much easier it would then be to put your religion over to the rest of us. It does NOT entail saying that the Bible is not inspired. It is the view that the Bible is a book of religious truths not a science book.
Just a thought.
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Yes, I agree if we take the creation account 'literally' and then accept the different appearances (which currently seems to be a fact)of different species, then there certainly appears to be creative activity PRIOR to the creation of the animal kindom at the time of Adam. It does depend on how you view the creation account imo. There is a good argument that the prose used is dramatic, and as such should not be taken as a blow by blow account of every little deatail of creation. This is used in other parts of scripture, so I have no problem with that scenario.
Then again, there could be error on the dating of species, but I accept that seems unlikely.
Hope this is helpful, I will try to find time to post a study on the dramatic prose explanation at some point.
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The first fossils are dated from about 3,500 millions of years ago. Since then there have been thousands upon thousands of life forms on the planet - most of which have become extinct.
Creationists say that God created SPECIES and that there is no evolution which changes one species into another. Does that mean then that between 3,500 million years and the present God has been creating new species every so often? So, for example, in the Jurassic Age millions of years after the first life had been created, God suddenly decided to create a lot of dinosaurs and 'Zap' they appeared out of nowhere and started to interact with other animals?
If the reply is that Genesis indeed says that God created different animals on different days i.e. not all at once, and that 'day' means a period of time, then that runs into the problem that the order in Genesis seems wrong. God creates fish and birds on day 5 [Genesis Chp 1 v 20 ] and then creates land animals on day 6 [v24] which goes against the fossil record which has land animals appearing well before birds.
What do Creationists think of these problems?
Best wishes
Laurie
Email: kingdomsearcher@msn.com