Quotes: "COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The state school board Tuesday approved a lesson plan for teaching evolution that includes what critics contend is a religious theory 'cloaked as science.'"
"After six hours of testimony, the board voted 13-5 in favor of 'Critical Analysis of Evolution,' an optional set of lessons for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test.
Critics say the lessons contain elements of a theory called intelligent design, which states a higher power must have been involved in the creation of life."
The battle to keep pseudo-science out of our high schools continues!
ast3r3x, if you do one thing in life let it be questioning.
Be wary of anyone with definitive answers. True science has the ability to be proven wrong built in, unlike most religions, pseudosciences, the occult, ideologies and governments.
The evolutionists have brought the ID people upon themselves. The orthodoxy of evolution apparently includes keeping disproved theories 25-50 years posthumously in "Science" textbooks.
Not only do Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., who are sending their kids to public schools have to stomach evolution, but they also have to swallow theories that went out with the Kennedy Administration.
It has opened them up to quite a bit of criticism, as it should.
The orthodoxy of evolution apparently includes keeping disproved theories 25-50 years posthumously in "Science" textbooks.
Could you explain yourself a little more? As far as I know the theory of Evolution is in good health. Sure aspects of the theory, in terms of mechanisms of differentiation, are continueously being updated and debated. That doesn't mean that the central premise of natural selection is proven incorrect. For instance, ifmemory serves me, Darwin talked about a slow, gradual continuous cahnge, but now we know that genetic mechanisms exist that allow for rapid bursts of diversity. These rapid changes can cause evolution to speed up when an organism is under stress.
Either way, textbooks are always slow to change and then schools can't afford new ones anyway. They only talk about what is really established. Add to this the constant pressure to avoid the topic of evolution, like it was sex education (I guess it is come think of it), and I'm not surprised what gets stated is diluted bland oatmeal.
BTW, in science the hierarchy is law, theory, hypothesis followed by guess, wishfull thinking and drunk scribblings on a napkin in a bar. Evolution is a theory for good reason. Its not a law because we are still discovering things. I wouldn't use the word orthodoxy. You make it sound like everybody read Darwin's book and said "well that's done, let's move on." Nothing could be further from the truth.
but now we know that genetic mechanisms exist that allow for rapid bursts of diversity. These rapid changes can cause evolution to speed up when an organism is under stress.
It has opened them up to quite a bit of criticism, as it should.
No one's saying that Evolutionary Biology shouldn't be open to criticism. Criticism is how we got to where we are in Evolutionary Biology in the first place.
My only question is whether or not you think that Intelligent Design/Creationism should be subject to similar scrutiny. If you think that it is intellectually wrong to have unquestioning faith in evolutionary theory, then surely you must think that it is intellectually wrong to have unquestioning faith in ID/Creationism.
Oh fun, fun. As a preface to this discussion I would like to say that there are a huge number of Christians that are wrong about science and creation.
Let me paste in an excerpt about how some of us with Faith view the "Flood".
Quote:
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Genesis Flood is its geographical extent. Part of the basis for the controversy is that Genesis addresses the geophysics, geology, and geography of the flood only secondarily. Its main message is that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of the wickedness of man. The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.
A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific. As I mentioned in part seven of this series, the Bible is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence, we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's choice of the Hebrew words for creatures" destroyed by the flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further details.
In Genesis 7:4-12 we are told that the flood arose from the earth's troposphere and from underground aquifers (not from some unknown place in outer space). These water resources are considerable, to be sure, but fall short of what verse 19 seems to require. According to Genesis 7:19, the waters "rose greatly ... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." The English translation seems to imply that even Mt. Everest was submerged under the flood waters. The Hebrew word for "high," however, simply means elevated" and for "mountain," means anything from "a small hillock" to "a towering peak." The Hebrew verb for "covered" allows three alternatives: (1) inundated, (2) rained upon, or (3) washed over as by a rush of water. In any of these cases, 15 cubits of standing water, 15 cubits of sudden rainfall, or a 15-cubit rush of water, there would be no human or animal survivors.
Genesis 8 gives us the most significant evidence for a universal (with respect to man and his animals and lands), but not global, flood. The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.
The argument I have heard most frequently against this conclusion is that before the flood, there were no high mountains or deep oceans. The present day relief of the earth's surface is said to have been generated in a period of just a few months. I see several major problems with such a suggestion:
1. it contradicts a vast body of geological data;
2. it contradicts a vast body of geophysical data, at the same time requiring such cataclysmic effects as to render highly unlikely Noah's survival in an ark;
3. it overlooks the geophysical difficulties of a planet with a smooth surface; and
4. it contradicts our observations of the tectonics. The mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have extremely long time constants, so long that the effects of such a catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global.
As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.
Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth." The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth. This view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia.
What does the geological data tell us about massive floods in the earth's history? The evidence shows that the only place in the world where massive flooding has occurred since the advent of modem man is the region of Mesopotamia.
The Genesis account of the great flood is not an embarrassment for the Christian. We are not saddled with a contradiction between the established facts of science and the words of the Bible. Rather, we have one more set of objective evidences that the Bible is indeed inerrant, not oust in matters of faith and practice, but in all disciplines including geology and history.
Does all this evidence for a regional flood mean that the Genesis flood was not universal? Not at all. Let me reiterate: the Genesis flood certainly was universal in that it destroyed all mankind and the animals associated with his livelihood except those on board Noah's ark. Only in the twentieth century has "universal" been synonymous with "global." Global citizens, global corporations, and global wars are unique to this century.
The evolutionists have brought the ID people upon themselves. The orthodoxy of evolution apparently includes keeping disproved theories 25-50 years posthumously in "Science" textbooks.
Not only do Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., who are sending their kids to public schools have to stomach evolution, but they also have to swallow theories that went out with the Kennedy Administration.
It has opened them up to quite a bit of criticism, as it should.
Righty ho. So instead of teaching something that went out with the Kennedy administration let's teach them something that went out with the invention of the steamship and the machine loom!
OK!
(By the way, evolutionary theory is alive and well and the subject of hundreds PhDs a year! And I'm still waiting for you to post the URL of your favourite peer-reviewed Creation Science journal!
Quotes: "COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The state school board Tuesday approved a lesson plan for teaching evolution that includes what critics contend is a religious theory 'cloaked as science.'"
"After six hours of testimony, the board voted 13-5 in favor of 'Critical Analysis of Evolution,' an optional set of lessons for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test.
Critics say the lessons contain elements of a theory called intelligent design, which states a higher power must have been involved in the creation of life."
The battle to keep pseudo-science out of our high schools continues!
I don't understand. If they're going to teach alternatives to all the evidence, they should teach creation myths from Mali, India, South America, West Africa, Madagascar and Southern Africa too. They're all just as likely as the account given in Genesis. There's no more evidence that Genesis is correct than any of them. None are more or less possible to prove.
f they're going to teach alternatives to all the evidence,
All the evidence? I don't think so. Origin of life scientists (ISSOL) recognize a lot of problems with naturalistic start to life. I'm at work, but when I get home tonight I will post quotes from the scientists reguarding evidence that doesn't not fit the naturalist model for the origin of life. It shows that "all the evidence" doesn't point to currently taught origin models.
All the evidence? I don't think so. Origin of life scientists (ISSOL) recognize a lot of problems with naturalistic start to life. I'm at work, but when I get home tonight I will post quotes from the scientists reguarding evidence that doesn't not fit the naturalist model for the origin of life. It shows that "all the evidence" doesn't point to currently taught origin models.
Excellent. You do that. And could you see if you've got anything relating to the Great Flood in particular? We should endeavour to keep on topic!
Righty ho. So instead of teaching something that went out with the Kennedy administration let's teach them something that went out with the invention of the steamship and the machine loom!
OK!
(By the way, evolutionary theory is alive and well and the subject of hundreds PhDs a year! And I'm still waiting for you to post the URL of your favourite peer-reviewed Creation Science journal!
Out of interest, dmz, how does Creation Science explain today's photographs of water erosion on Mars? Did the Great Flood happen there too?
Since you asked. Its not totally up to date, its from 2000 and it address the issue.
Quote:
On June 22, NASA astronomers held a press conference to announce their discovery of ?recently? cut gullies, indicators of flowing water, on the Martian surface.1, 2 The discovery stirred excitement for several reasons?some practical, some ideological, and some (perhaps) political.
First, some background: More than a year ago, the Mars Global Surveyor, which began orbiting Mars in 1997, confirmed the validity of old Mariner 9 photos (from 1972). Those photos showed flood channels cut previous to 3.5 billion years ago, that is, before Mars lost most of its primordial atmosphere to outer space. Since that time, Mars has been too cold and too dry to hold liquid water on its surface for more than a second or two.
These newly observed channels, however, seem to have formed more recently than a few million years ago.3 Asteroids and meteorites have not yet pocked them with craters, nor have the famous Martian dust storms filled them in or worn them down. What?s going on?
The scenario proposed by the discovery team is this: A small amount of the water that either existed on Mars four billion years ago or that arrived more recently (from infalling comets) managed to seep underground into an aquifer. A recent crustal episode, such as a volcanic or other geothermal event, forced the underground water to the surface. The first water to hit the surface instantly froze, forming a dam to hold back the rest of the water. Eventually, the built-up pressure behind the dam caused it to break, unleashing a torrent. A torrent unleashed high up on a steep slope, where these channels were observed, could make their mark in a few seconds before evaporating or freezing.
In practical terms, the discovery suggests that undisturbed aquifers may still exist on Mars. Such aquifers, though hard to reach, might help sustain future astronauts exploring the Martian surface. On the other hand, water contained in the planet?s frozen polar caps (predominantly frozen carbon dioxide with a tiny amount of frozen water) would likely be easier to locate and cheaper to mine.
The ideological reason for the excitement is the popular (though illogical) notion that ?liquid water means life.? While no one disputes the necessity of water for life, science has shown that liquid water is merely one of many requirements for life, not the only requirement. Researchers have identified more than a hundred different requirements, independent of water, for life to exist on any given planet in any given planetary system.4 Most of these requirements reflect substantially greater fine-tuning than does liquid water.
Even if all the other requirements were met on a planet, the presence of liquid water is not enough to support life. Living creatures need an abundance of water in all three states (gas, liquid, and solid) available for a long time. Land life additionally demands an abundant and stable water cycle. That Mars never had one, the Mars Global Surveyor affirms. As Genesis 1:6-8 declares?and scientific evidence demonstrates?the existence of an abundant, stable water cycle constitutes a miracle.5 (Incidentally, comets, which are mostly frozen water, carry at least some water to virtually all solar system bodies. Even the moon has some of this comet-delivered water.6)
Will NASA ever find evidence of life on Mars? I expect so, if NASA searches with sufficient diligence.7 Just as meteors travel from Mars to Earth so also do they travel from Earth to Mars. Over the past four billion years at least several billion tons of Earth material, much of it life-carrying material, has landed on Mars. Spread over the Martian surface, this deposition adds up to a very low density of life material, and given the harshness of the Martian environment, almost all this material will have been broken down into molecules untraceable to life. Nevertheless, NASA has a shot at discovering life?s remains on Mars. Such a discovery would testify to certain species? marvelous, God-given capacity to survive the frigid, near zero vacuum, radiation-riddled trip.
I did, I did! I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm sort of after genuine, physical evidence for the Great Flood that's genuinely incompatible with the consensus we've arrived at after the past two centuries of research in geology, archeology, botany, whatever. That's what I'm after, but I'd be very happy to discuss the points made by the disagreeing scientists you mention, certainly, in the self-selective absence of dmz.
No offense. But why do you try to build scientific evidence into a pre-existing framework when 1) no evidence exists for the pre-existing framework (this is inherently unscientific), 2) more assumptions are needed to make this system work than the simpler modeless systems (Akham's Razor), and 3) even within the context of models that already have supporting evidence, things make more sense?
If you have faith, that is one thing, but by inherently using human translations of human written documents you are trusting a great deal in the exacting ability to translate the text perfectly. Modern Hebrew is less than two hundred years old, the old testament's current translation is subsequently less than accurate. Translations of translations of translations cannot be perfect, and you are resting your faith in trusting the specifics of this langauge...
Okay, I'm also more than happy to discuss the points made that I quoted. The main point that relates to this discussion is the scope of the flood. What I quoted shows that the flood didn't have to be, and didn't cover the entire earth. As a result it wouldn't have impacted geology, archeology, botany, whatever, in the ways talked about in this thread.
What so many fundamentalists lose sight of is *context*.
To the peoples for whom/by the Bible was written, 'the earth' was 'as far as we know it'... which in the case of an oral history passed down from a nomadic peoples, was going to be fairly small, really.
Was there a cataclysmic flood that wiped out their entire universe? I bet there was. Did it cover the entire *planet*? Of course not, that's ridiculous.
And yet some people cling to that *so tightly* that they have to throw out all reason to try and come up with a justification that, pardon the pun, doesn't hold water... it's sad.
Comments
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/03....ap/index.html
Quotes: "COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The state school board Tuesday approved a lesson plan for teaching evolution that includes what critics contend is a religious theory 'cloaked as science.'"
"After six hours of testimony, the board voted 13-5 in favor of 'Critical Analysis of Evolution,' an optional set of lessons for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test.
Critics say the lessons contain elements of a theory called intelligent design, which states a higher power must have been involved in the creation of life."
The battle to keep pseudo-science out of our high schools continues!
Ice caps lock up water. Sea levels decrease during an Ice Age.
You have either
- Colder temperatures => larger ice caps => lower sea levels or
- Warmer temperatures => smaller ice caps => higher sea levels.
Are you suggesting that the end of the last ice-age caused a global flood ?Be wary of anyone with definitive answers. True science has the ability to be proven wrong built in, unlike most religions, pseudosciences, the occult, ideologies and governments.
Not only do Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., who are sending their kids to public schools have to stomach evolution, but they also have to swallow theories that went out with the Kennedy Administration.
It has opened them up to quite a bit of criticism, as it should.
Originally posted by dmz
The orthodoxy of evolution apparently includes keeping disproved theories 25-50 years posthumously in "Science" textbooks.
Could you explain yourself a little more? As far as I know the theory of Evolution is in good health. Sure aspects of the theory, in terms of mechanisms of differentiation, are continueously being updated and debated. That doesn't mean that the central premise of natural selection is proven incorrect. For instance, ifmemory serves me, Darwin talked about a slow, gradual continuous cahnge, but now we know that genetic mechanisms exist that allow for rapid bursts of diversity. These rapid changes can cause evolution to speed up when an organism is under stress.
Either way, textbooks are always slow to change and then schools can't afford new ones anyway. They only talk about what is really established. Add to this the constant pressure to avoid the topic of evolution, like it was sex education (I guess it is come think of it), and I'm not surprised what gets stated is diluted bland oatmeal.
BTW, in science the hierarchy is law, theory, hypothesis followed by guess, wishfull thinking and drunk scribblings on a napkin in a bar. Evolution is a theory for good reason. Its not a law because we are still discovering things. I wouldn't use the word orthodoxy. You make it sound like everybody read Darwin's book and said "well that's done, let's move on." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
but now we know that genetic mechanisms exist that allow for rapid bursts of diversity. These rapid changes can cause evolution to speed up when an organism is under stress.
Sort of like this.
Check out this too:
Using Computers, Scientists Successfully Predict Evolution.
Originally posted by dmz
It has opened them up to quite a bit of criticism, as it should.
No one's saying that Evolutionary Biology shouldn't be open to criticism. Criticism is how we got to where we are in Evolutionary Biology in the first place.
My only question is whether or not you think that Intelligent Design/Creationism should be subject to similar scrutiny. If you think that it is intellectually wrong to have unquestioning faith in evolutionary theory, then surely you must think that it is intellectually wrong to have unquestioning faith in ID/Creationism.
Let me paste in an excerpt about how some of us with Faith view the "Flood".
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Genesis Flood is its geographical extent. Part of the basis for the controversy is that Genesis addresses the geophysics, geology, and geography of the flood only secondarily. Its main message is that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of the wickedness of man. The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.
A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific. As I mentioned in part seven of this series, the Bible is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence, we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's choice of the Hebrew words for creatures" destroyed by the flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further details.
In Genesis 7:4-12 we are told that the flood arose from the earth's troposphere and from underground aquifers (not from some unknown place in outer space). These water resources are considerable, to be sure, but fall short of what verse 19 seems to require. According to Genesis 7:19, the waters "rose greatly ... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." The English translation seems to imply that even Mt. Everest was submerged under the flood waters. The Hebrew word for "high," however, simply means elevated" and for "mountain," means anything from "a small hillock" to "a towering peak." The Hebrew verb for "covered" allows three alternatives: (1) inundated, (2) rained upon, or (3) washed over as by a rush of water. In any of these cases, 15 cubits of standing water, 15 cubits of sudden rainfall, or a 15-cubit rush of water, there would be no human or animal survivors.
Genesis 8 gives us the most significant evidence for a universal (with respect to man and his animals and lands), but not global, flood. The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.
The argument I have heard most frequently against this conclusion is that before the flood, there were no high mountains or deep oceans. The present day relief of the earth's surface is said to have been generated in a period of just a few months. I see several major problems with such a suggestion:
1. it contradicts a vast body of geological data;
2. it contradicts a vast body of geophysical data, at the same time requiring such cataclysmic effects as to render highly unlikely Noah's survival in an ark;
3. it overlooks the geophysical difficulties of a planet with a smooth surface; and
4. it contradicts our observations of the tectonics. The mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have extremely long time constants, so long that the effects of such a catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global.
As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.
Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth." The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth. This view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia.
What does the geological data tell us about massive floods in the earth's history? The evidence shows that the only place in the world where massive flooding has occurred since the advent of modem man is the region of Mesopotamia.
The Genesis account of the great flood is not an embarrassment for the Christian. We are not saddled with a contradiction between the established facts of science and the words of the Bible. Rather, we have one more set of objective evidences that the Bible is indeed inerrant, not oust in matters of faith and practice, but in all disciplines including geology and history.
Does all this evidence for a regional flood mean that the Genesis flood was not universal? Not at all. Let me reiterate: the Genesis flood certainly was universal in that it destroyed all mankind and the animals associated with his livelihood except those on board Noah's ark. Only in the twentieth century has "universal" been synonymous with "global." Global citizens, global corporations, and global wars are unique to this century.
Originally posted by dmz
The evolutionists have brought the ID people upon themselves. The orthodoxy of evolution apparently includes keeping disproved theories 25-50 years posthumously in "Science" textbooks.
Not only do Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., who are sending their kids to public schools have to stomach evolution, but they also have to swallow theories that went out with the Kennedy Administration.
It has opened them up to quite a bit of criticism, as it should.
Righty ho. So instead of teaching something that went out with the Kennedy administration let's teach them something that went out with the invention of the steamship and the machine loom!
OK!
(By the way, evolutionary theory is alive and well and the subject of hundreds PhDs a year! And I'm still waiting for you to post the URL of your favourite peer-reviewed Creation Science journal!
Or indeed to answer any of my last five posts!
Hooray!
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Not to let this topic go extinct. Today at CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/03....ap/index.html
Quotes: "COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The state school board Tuesday approved a lesson plan for teaching evolution that includes what critics contend is a religious theory 'cloaked as science.'"
"After six hours of testimony, the board voted 13-5 in favor of 'Critical Analysis of Evolution,' an optional set of lessons for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test.
Critics say the lessons contain elements of a theory called intelligent design, which states a higher power must have been involved in the creation of life."
The battle to keep pseudo-science out of our high schools continues!
I don't understand. If they're going to teach alternatives to all the evidence, they should teach creation myths from Mali, India, South America, West Africa, Madagascar and Southern Africa too. They're all just as likely as the account given in Genesis. There's no more evidence that Genesis is correct than any of them. None are more or less possible to prove.
f they're going to teach alternatives to all the evidence,
All the evidence? I don't think so. Origin of life scientists (ISSOL) recognize a lot of problems with naturalistic start to life. I'm at work, but when I get home tonight I will post quotes from the scientists reguarding evidence that doesn't not fit the naturalist model for the origin of life. It shows that "all the evidence" doesn't point to currently taught origin models.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
All the evidence? I don't think so. Origin of life scientists (ISSOL) recognize a lot of problems with naturalistic start to life. I'm at work, but when I get home tonight I will post quotes from the scientists reguarding evidence that doesn't not fit the naturalist model for the origin of life. It shows that "all the evidence" doesn't point to currently taught origin models.
Excellent. You do that. And could you see if you've got anything relating to the Great Flood in particular? We should endeavour to keep on topic!
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Righty ho. So instead of teaching something that went out with the Kennedy administration let's teach them something that went out with the invention of the steamship and the machine loom!
OK!
(By the way, evolutionary theory is alive and well and the subject of hundreds PhDs a year! And I'm still waiting for you to post the URL of your favourite peer-reviewed Creation Science journal!
Or indeed to answer any of my last five posts!
Hooray!
So dmz can see your lovely words Hassan...
Excellent. You do that. And could you see if you've got anything relating to the Great Flood in particular? We should endeavour to keep on topic!
Um, did you not see my post 4 above yours?
Out of interest, dmz, how does Creation Science explain today's photographs of water erosion on Mars? Did the Great Flood happen there too?
Since you asked. Its not totally up to date, its from 2000 and it address the issue.
On June 22, NASA astronomers held a press conference to announce their discovery of ?recently? cut gullies, indicators of flowing water, on the Martian surface.1, 2 The discovery stirred excitement for several reasons?some practical, some ideological, and some (perhaps) political.
First, some background: More than a year ago, the Mars Global Surveyor, which began orbiting Mars in 1997, confirmed the validity of old Mariner 9 photos (from 1972). Those photos showed flood channels cut previous to 3.5 billion years ago, that is, before Mars lost most of its primordial atmosphere to outer space. Since that time, Mars has been too cold and too dry to hold liquid water on its surface for more than a second or two.
These newly observed channels, however, seem to have formed more recently than a few million years ago.3 Asteroids and meteorites have not yet pocked them with craters, nor have the famous Martian dust storms filled them in or worn them down. What?s going on?
The scenario proposed by the discovery team is this: A small amount of the water that either existed on Mars four billion years ago or that arrived more recently (from infalling comets) managed to seep underground into an aquifer. A recent crustal episode, such as a volcanic or other geothermal event, forced the underground water to the surface. The first water to hit the surface instantly froze, forming a dam to hold back the rest of the water. Eventually, the built-up pressure behind the dam caused it to break, unleashing a torrent. A torrent unleashed high up on a steep slope, where these channels were observed, could make their mark in a few seconds before evaporating or freezing.
In practical terms, the discovery suggests that undisturbed aquifers may still exist on Mars. Such aquifers, though hard to reach, might help sustain future astronauts exploring the Martian surface. On the other hand, water contained in the planet?s frozen polar caps (predominantly frozen carbon dioxide with a tiny amount of frozen water) would likely be easier to locate and cheaper to mine.
The ideological reason for the excitement is the popular (though illogical) notion that ?liquid water means life.? While no one disputes the necessity of water for life, science has shown that liquid water is merely one of many requirements for life, not the only requirement. Researchers have identified more than a hundred different requirements, independent of water, for life to exist on any given planet in any given planetary system.4 Most of these requirements reflect substantially greater fine-tuning than does liquid water.
Even if all the other requirements were met on a planet, the presence of liquid water is not enough to support life. Living creatures need an abundance of water in all three states (gas, liquid, and solid) available for a long time. Land life additionally demands an abundant and stable water cycle. That Mars never had one, the Mars Global Surveyor affirms. As Genesis 1:6-8 declares?and scientific evidence demonstrates?the existence of an abundant, stable water cycle constitutes a miracle.5 (Incidentally, comets, which are mostly frozen water, carry at least some water to virtually all solar system bodies. Even the moon has some of this comet-delivered water.6)
Will NASA ever find evidence of life on Mars? I expect so, if NASA searches with sufficient diligence.7 Just as meteors travel from Mars to Earth so also do they travel from Earth to Mars. Over the past four billion years at least several billion tons of Earth material, much of it life-carrying material, has landed on Mars. Spread over the Martian surface, this deposition adds up to a very low density of life material, and given the harshness of the Martian environment, almost all this material will have been broken down into molecules untraceable to life. Nevertheless, NASA has a shot at discovering life?s remains on Mars. Such a discovery would testify to certain species? marvelous, God-given capacity to survive the frigid, near zero vacuum, radiation-riddled trip.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Um, did you not see my post 4 above yours?
I did, I did! I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm sort of after genuine, physical evidence for the Great Flood that's genuinely incompatible with the consensus we've arrived at after the past two centuries of research in geology, archeology, botany, whatever. That's what I'm after, but I'd be very happy to discuss the points made by the disagreeing scientists you mention, certainly, in the self-selective absence of dmz.
If you have faith, that is one thing, but by inherently using human translations of human written documents you are trusting a great deal in the exacting ability to translate the text perfectly. Modern Hebrew is less than two hundred years old, the old testament's current translation is subsequently less than accurate. Translations of translations of translations cannot be perfect, and you are resting your faith in trusting the specifics of this langauge...
Okay, I'm also more than happy to discuss the points made that I quoted. The main point that relates to this discussion is the scope of the flood. What I quoted shows that the flood didn't have to be, and didn't cover the entire earth. As a result it wouldn't have impacted geology, archeology, botany, whatever, in the ways talked about in this thread.
What so many fundamentalists lose sight of is *context*.
To the peoples for whom/by the Bible was written, 'the earth' was 'as far as we know it'... which in the case of an oral history passed down from a nomadic peoples, was going to be fairly small, really.
Was there a cataclysmic flood that wiped out their entire universe? I bet there was. Did it cover the entire *planet*? Of course not, that's ridiculous.
And yet some people cling to that *so tightly* that they have to throw out all reason to try and come up with a justification that, pardon the pun, doesn't hold water... it's sad.