Worth tracking down is the March 1 issue of New Scientist, with an enlightening article on those "missing links" our creationist brethren keep burbling on about."Yet the idea still persists that the fossil record is too patchy to provide good evidence of evolution. One reason for this is the influence of creationism. Foremost among their tactics is to distort or ignore the evidence for evolution; a favourite lie is "there are no transitional fossils". This is manifestly untrue."
The good news (which will never make the pages of The Good News) is that recently palaeontologists have struck back. Among the case studies highlighted in New Scientist:
- Velvet worms (linking arthropods to nematode worms)
- Lancelets (invertebrates on the journey to vertebrates)
- Fishibians (first cousins to those fish that crawled out onto the land in the Devonian)
- Synapsids (not mammals and not reptiles either...)
- Ceratopsians ("Of all the lies about transitional fossils told by creationists, none are as egregious as the claim that there are no intermediate forms among the dinosaurs... One striking example is the horned dinosaurs, or ceratopsians.")
- Rhinos ("All horses, tapirs and rhinos can be traced back to a common ancestor in the late Paleocene of Asia...")
- Giraffes (In the Miocene they all had short necks!)
- Ichthyosaurs (Lizard fish of the Mesozoic)
- Pinnipeds (Sea lions, walruses and seals descended from primitive bears - and there's a beautiful transitional fossil to prove it. Enaliarctos looked like a seal, but had long toes and claws)
- Manatees (there's a 50-million year old fossil manatee with four legs with feet.)
Which explains all those brain-dead articles in the GN.
96 comments:
See, the first three comments PROVE that things evolve and then die out! Case closed :)
Seriously, how about asking why the Biblical account is accurate, coherent or even intended to be taken literally?
Was there a REAL Adam and Eve in a REAL Garden from whom we have all sprung recently? Do reptiles speak? Is it mythology? If it is, what's the message?
Gavin and all, the best resource for the latest findings on evolution- and the latest brawls between reality and Kreationism- is at:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
Paul
The missing links found and pictured! ...
http://www.unclecharleyssausage.com
(Copy link and paste in browser and press "enter")
Bill Lusseneheide, Menifee, CA USA
I, on behalf of all the Kreationists, would like to prove that at least two of the so-called "transitional" animals are not what they appear to be by using the rigid scientific reasoning that is a hallmark of all Kreation Science:
1. The "giraffe" with a short neck is not a giraffe, because giraffes have long necks; just as God created them like he did all animals as we read in Genesis. So much for the ridicuous theory of evolution!
2. The manatee with four feet is not a manatee, because manatees do not have four feet; just as God created them according to the Bible. So much for the stupid theory of evolution!
This would be funny if it weren't for the fact that this is the type of "scientific reasoning" used by Kreationists.
Paul
The question is: How does one determine what a "mssing link" is?
What are the criteria and what would make someone think that the identification of a fossil species as a "missing link" is unassailable?
I watched Jay Gould put up slide after slide of so-called "missing links" from biology texts and state that nobody really knows what these "transitional" species really are. And that if any scientist states that he does know what these animals are, he is bluffing.
-- Neo
Neo - You are better off holding your tongue or keyboard in this thread. Converts to evolutionism are like converts to catholicism; more Catholic than the Pope.
Just as ridiculous as it is to believe in talking serpents and mankind all coming from an inbreeding family starting with Adam and Eve, these evolutionists believe that asexual reproduction can turn into sexual reproduction, that sweat glands turned into mammary glands, that one species can evolve into another, and that life began, purely by chance from nothing in conditions that could not possibly have produced or supported life.
A tale of two fables.
Go ahead Corky and Paul, have your fun.
"I watched Jay Gould put up slide after slide of *so-called* "missing links" from biology texts..."
And there you have it folks. Let's not forget that the central opposition to evolution in the minds of many here come not from a comprehensive review of the data, but from an ancient religious text. Kreationists will not accept transitional fossils or missing links (though they clamor for them)as such because to do so would validate evolution- and they, outside of the data, KNOW that evolution did not occur because of what they read in the BIBLE. Therefore the transtional fossil cannot possibly be a transitional fossil. It's the type of reasoning I described earlier.
It's religious, not scientific.
Once again, I want to see proof FOR creation by divine fiat. It's time to put up or shut up.
Paul
DennisDiehl said...
Was there a REAL Adam and Eve in a REAL Garden from whom we have all sprung recently? Do reptiles speak? Is it mythology? If it is, what's the message?
No, no, yes and the message is just what it appears to be.
Other than being totally bogus and unscientific, the message is for the ordinary man to believe and obey the priests according to the law as given by Moses.
It's in the NT that these things become allegory and a different god is revealed.
It hasn't worked real well, but the idea of the NT is that all judgment is given to Jesus and it is Jesus who Christians are to obey.
Notice how it doesn't bother me to say "Jesus" instead of "Christ" or "Christ Jesus" or "Yeshua" or anything else in order to avoid saying Jesus? Maybe that'll earn me a position in the imaginary restored kingdom of the Jews.
The potential for endless "yeah," "oh yeah" on this topic is ,well, endless. Why not start giving a brief answer to "I believe life...."
I have come to believe that life has evolved over millions of years in generally the way explained by current scientific understanding. I believe humans have evolved from previous hominids, some of which were more successful than others. I believe these hominds overlapped in their succession.
I believe consciousness came to homo sapiens through the ability to speak and thus speak quietly in the mind.
I'd like to think we are the proverbial spirit trapped in a limited five sensed carbon based wetsuit which is free at death. We may be free to reincarnate again for more experiences, but I don't know.
I believe we are all small parts of the same one bigger thing. We are all one. The one is benevolent, non-judgemental and does not need my time, my money, my devotion or to bring a watermelon to the church picnic.
Atonement by death, blood or other fluids is a manmade formula for control and I do not have to fear eternal damnation in any form because I don't understand what I can't understand.
The story of Adam and Eve is pure mythology meant to diminish the role of women (matriarch) and uphold the male priesthood,men and patriarchy. But that's another story.
I'm doing the best I can at the moment.
next....
Charlie said . . .
A tale of two fables.
Go ahead Corky and Paul, have your fun.
I don't think evolution is a fable, whereas I know the other is fable. Evolution may not ever have all the answers and it definitely doesn't answer any moral questions but it is the nearest we've ever came to what is the real truth.
Once again, for old times sake, evolution does not say that one species turns into another species. It's much more complicated than that.
To close one's eyes to the facts is called "ignorance" and I mean no disparagement to anyone by the word, the word is what it is - to ignore. We should not ignore what has been proved over and over and over again.
We can know that evolution is correct (as far as it goes) by the fact that science based on it works. If evolution was just a fable, the science based on it wouldn't work.
I say stop the ignorance before the ignorance stops us.
"A tale of two fables."
One fable supported by tomes of scientific data. The other fable supported by one religious tome.
Paul
Paul said: "Once again, I want to see proof FOR creation by divine fiat. It's time to put up or shut up."
I would like to see this proof too...and I further doubt any will be forthcoming. With that said...
If I am presented with irrefutable proof, not just more theories, of the following, I will subscribe to evolution, and not before:
- Abiogenesis
- Sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction
- Proof that species "A" became species "B" and that can apply to either of the more popular theories on how this happens, either through transitional fossils (which, sorry guys, don't exist, yet anyway) or punctuated equilibrium (The evolution theory conjured up because of the lack of transitional fossils).
May I suggest a subscription to "Nature" to everyone here? It is a very expensive periodical, which due to its cost (Over $150 USD per year), holds a more honest debate over evolutionary theory between evolutionists, more likely because the cost keeps circulation down. (It is also difficult to follow sometimes if you are not a scientist)
Paul said . . .
One fable supported by tomes of scientific data. The other fable supported by one religious tome.
An outdated religious tome at that. One where animals talk, heaven has windows, rainbows are special creation and stars fall.
Now evolution could possibly be the way an unknown alien creator planted life on this planet but then, anything is possible on a round flat land held out of the water by pillars, or hung on nothing (your choice). Of course, now that we know that the earth is really held in place by the gravitational forces of the sun . . . well, go figure, because the sun wasn't created until the fourth day.
Charlie, do you believe in God?
Paul
Charlie, you don't need a subscription to Nature or Science or any other journal to understand and explore evolution. People constantly cull the journals and write articles based on these findings which can be found online and in textbooks...both available for free. You imply that only people who understand the lingo and can afford a $150 journal are privy to the "honest" debates in evolutionary circles. This is not true. Evolutionists are publically critical of varying concepts and new findings. This is called science and peer review. All of this is public knowledge and available to you. Search the internet.
Paul
"A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings...Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution.
The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below:"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
Paul
The debate between evolutionists and creationists is endless. Creationists will invoke the Anthropic Principle and will feel that this pretty much lays the issue to rest. And then the evolutionist, or whatever, will come back with the multi-universe theory, even though there is no evidence for more than one universe. (As Jared Olar said, if you can believe in the multi-universe theory, you can believe in God and Angels.) But for every assertion, there is a rejoinder, on both sides, ad infinitum.
So we could have a tempest in a teapot and it would simply degenerate into:
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
I do not believe that God is discoverable by the Scientific Method because he is a person and not an artifact or principle of the physical universe. One will never find him by constructing a rigorous experiment with controls.
And all the evidence of his activity in the physical universe is explained away by those who want to construct creative alternatives.
I believe that the understanding of the existence of God is mystical and is beyond debate over physical evidences.
As a Christian and Quaker, I believe that the real concern is why has God not revealed himself to some people? Why are there some who never have the light? They are born in darkness, live in darkness and perish in darkness.
-- Neo
"I do not believe that God is discoverable by the Scientific Method...One will never find him by constructing a rigorous experiment with controls."
How utterly convenient. But untrue. According the Bible, God has appeared visible to the naked eye, in flesh, and performing supernatural feats that can't be explained by any other means. So we can "find" God by the scientific method. But alas, He, in His wisdom, hath chosen to hide Himself for the past 2000 years. How utterly convenient.
"And all the evidence of his activity in the physical universe is explained away..."
What evidence?
Paul
My ancestor Amoeba, was perfect in its generations, and was thus granted "Manifest Destiny" to kill and utterly exterminate your "Mongrel" predecessor amoeba, and have the right to posess the ancient primordial soup pool exclusively.
Luv
Bill Lussenheide, Menifee, CA USA
I do not believe that God is discoverable by the Scientific Method because he is a person and not an artifact or principle of the physical universe.................
No, God "is" what is NOT known by man. God is the explanation that man gives to explain those things that cannot be explained from a scientific view.
Two centuries ago if man saw a supernova in the night sky, somehow he would contribute this unexplainable event as a "act" or "furry" of God. Why? Ignorance.
Such explanations, as in the past history of man, these "events" will be misunderstood until science can (and will) be able to prove the case for evolution and the current creation hypothesis of the universe about us.
Until that time..........Happy Trails!
"I do not believe that God is discoverable by the Scientific Method...One will never find him by constructing a rigorous experiment with controls."
Whatever happened to the infallable word of God, where he claimed that, in effect, you could and should find God just by seeing everything that is around us?
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:
How interesting that even believers can see the error of this inerrent, god inspired scripture. There is absolutely no way to prove the existance of God by looking at the world around us.
Thomas Munson
The problem with both evolutionists and creationists is that both look at the same evidence, and come to completely different conclusions, based on their particular prejudices.
I bought the New Scientist that Gavin features a couple of weeks ago. As you would expect, the article doesn’t give the full picture. If it had been written in a creationist magazine, I am sure it would not have given the complete picture either – because people are prejudiced and one-sided in what they write. It pervades everywhere. This blog is no exception – be it atheist or Armstongist, generally we all know the line the person will take on an issue, and that they will completely ignore comments that don’t support their case – that’s life, unfortunately.
The article glossed over two important questions – where were the fossils found, and how much was found? Their section on the development of dolphins is an example. Four ‘transitional forms’ are shown in great detail. Where were they found? The article mentions China, Japan, Nevada, and Germany. Not exactly close by – so the the developing creature went from the far east, to USA, and then Germany? How much was found? How complete a fossil? No mention in the article, but four complete skeletons are illustrated. One thing you can be almost certain about is that nothing like full skeletons would have been found – this is very rare – the details are built up largely on speculation.
The article confidently quotes ‘in the 1870’s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented’. A worrying comment, as this ‘Marsh/Huxley’ presentation has been widely discredited amongst evolutionists themselves. Even Dr Niles Eldredge, an acknowledge evolutionary authority and the Curator of the American Museum of Natural History, where the display is housed, has been widely quoted in referring to the display:-
“I admit that an awful lot of that has got into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable"
Finding the actual facts in these matters is very difficult. Stretching the facts, manipulating them, and speculating on them is not just a preserve for creationists – evolutionists are doing this as a matter of course too.
I should explain my statement further. By the scientific method I mean a repeatable experiment with controls.
In other words, we put a rock on the ground. We put another rock on the ground some distance away. We ask God to prove that he exists by moving the first rock. The second rock is a control that helps us to detect other causes that make a rock move, such as a strong wind or an earth tremor.
You can do this all you want. You will never detect the existence of God unless he wants you to. Moreover this experiment may not necessarily be repeatable. Because you are dealing with a Person and not, say, an interaction between two chemicals.
On the other hand, there is plenty of physical, observable evidence that God exists just like the Bible says. But it is a waste of time to discuss this with someone who does not have the help of he Holy Spirit to understand it. This is called prevenient grace. You cannot come to God or understand he exists unless he wants you to.
-- Neo
Let's cut to the chase. If an evolutionary process was responsible for the tangible things which we see around us today, that does not prove that God doesn't exist!
It may prove that the creation story in Genesis was allegorical. It leaves open the possibility that Adam and Eve were the first "God-conscious" humans, and there are additional possibilities. But, an anti-God security blanket it is not! Sorry, folks.
BB
BB
Genetically, the oldest human beings are in the Kalahari.
I have a degree in statistics, and it takes a LOTTA faith to believe that TIME+RANDOM mutations = ORDERED EVOLUTION.
Whether you call it faith, unfounded optimism or wishful thinking, eliminating a Creator/First Cause rqeuires a great leap of SOMETHING.
What are the statistics behind synchronicity/divine intervention?
The sun and moon are the same appearant size, that too is by random chance?
>>>"Yet the idea still persists that the fossil record is too patchy to provide good evidence of evolution.<<<
Empiricism proves nothing is a well rehearsed maxim. So even if it was possible to collect every fossil there is, and favourably interpret them to support to the theory, the evidence still would not prove the evolution of the species.
>>>One reason for this is the influence of creationism.<<<
Blame other people for failure to prove your case, is my response!
Anyway, what I find disturbing, is the number of eccentric men and women, dressed in odd attire, and wearing panama hats, who are willing to traverse the world with the zeal of religious bigots, in pursuit of evidence to support a hoax.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Scientific theories are never THE TRUTH - they are true to the extent that they provide a basis for predictions that are fulfilled, e.g., the rocket reaches the moon, the engine works, the laser beam works and it destroys the tumour.
However, experiments and evidence can prove a theory to be wrong. Most, if not all, scientific discourse is devoted to finding evidence that a theory is false, or to finding reasons why a theory is not false.
"What are the odds that – from our perspective on Earth – the diameter of our moon and the sun appear exactly the same?
At this particular moment (in times past the moon was closer to the earth) in Earth’s history – although the sun is about 400 times larger than the moon – it is also about 400 times farther away. So the sun and moon are nearly the same size as seen from Earth. What are the odds?
By the way, although it’s fascinating that they are so similar, the sun and moon aren’t always the same size as seen from Earth. In fact, the moon and sun are rarely exactly the same size. The moon’s distance from Earth varies slightly over the course of a single month. So the moon’s apparent size in our sky is always changing.
For part of every month, the moon is in a far part of its orbit from Earth. At such times it isn’t big enough to cover the sun completely. If an eclipse happens then, the outer part of the sun’s surface will appear as a ring around the moon. This type of event is called an annular or ring eclipse. It’s essentially a partial eclipse. The sky doesn’t darken. You can’t look at the eclipse without special filters. Still, it’s very beautiful and fascinating to witness any eclipse – and stand in line with the sun and moon!"
Earth and Sky
I think it's amazing that even though the moon is only 1/4 the size of the earth, it is much further away...
Someone esaid: "The sun and moon are the same appearant size, that too is by random chance?"
What the hell???
Someone else said: "I think it's amazing that even though the moon is only 1/4 the size of the earth, it is much further away..."
Again, What the Hell???
Paul asked: "Charlie, do you believe in God?"
Paul, I do. I *don't* believe in the biblical account of creation.
Regarding the 2nd law of Thermondynamics, the evolutionists make arguments about snowflakes...It does not hold water (pardon the pun) as entrophy still increases.
There is a joke about thermondynamics:
The first law says you can't win. The second law says the best you can do is break even and the thrid law says you can only break even at absolute zero.
I have been all over many different angles of the arguments over the past ten years trying to come out of it with some sort of super solid lead in either direction.
I'm not a scientist, astronomer, geologist, or paleontologist but I have been able to completely rule out a 6000 year old earth and a flood that covered even the himalayas. I have also found some other data that I find rather interesting:
1 - Astronomers know that stars like ours are formed by collapsing hydrogen clouds. Astronomers know what conditions are required for a hydrogen cloud to collapse. If the cloud collapses at a steady rate it should take "x" amount of time to create a sun of our size. So if we know the quantity, rate, and time it takes, than our solar system or universe must be much much older than we now think...right?
2 - Age of the earth, our moon, and the rate at which the moon is moving away from the earth. The math here doesn't add up to 4.5 billion years...Either that or the moon miracled itself next to the earth...considerably after the earth was already formed, was caught by our gravity without tearing apart our planet and then began a trillion year plan of escape...
These are just a couple of the thousands of questions I have regarding what we think we might know about what could have happened.
:)
Anyway, what I find disturbing, is the number of eccentric men and women, dressed in odd attire, and wearing panama hats, who are willing to traverse the world with the zeal of religious bigots, in pursuit of evidence to support a hoax.
Armstrongists on their way to the Feast of Tabernacles.
2 - Age of the earth, our moon, and the rate at which the moon is moving away from the earth. The math here doesn't add up to 4.5 billion years...Either that or the moon miracled itself next to the earth...considerably after the earth was already formed, was caught by our gravity without tearing apart our planet and then began a trillion year plan of escape...
The moon is not moving away at the same rate as it once was and it was not "caught" by the gravity of the earth. The moon came "from" the earth by the earth being hit by a planetoid while the earth was in its early formation.
Science 101
Ignorance prevails!
The moon was created by God to be the same apparent size as the sun so Catholic Missionaries could screw the Native Americans out of their land by threatening to turn the moon to blood and knock out the sun if they didn't ante up.
Anyone knows that!
Anonymous said: "The moon is not moving away at the same rate as it once was and it was not "caught" by the gravity of the earth. The moon came "from" the earth by the earth being hit by a planetoid while the earth was in its early formation."
"Science 101"
"Ignorance prevails!"
Get bent, anonymous! That is yet another theory (Planetoid impact).
The rate is the same because the amount of energy the moon exerts on the earth is, with minor variations, the same. Physics mandates that the moon has to move ever farther away from earth in order to exert the same amount of energy on the earth. Imagine the effect on the tides if the rate had anything more than very minor fluctuations.
It is your ignorance that prevails.
On the lighter side:
"There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live."
Click here
oops -
Try this instead
Tired Skeptic said...
TM>>>Anyway, what I find disturbing, is the number of eccentric men and women, dressed in odd attire, and wearing panama hats, who are willing to traverse the world with the zeal of religious bigots, in pursuit of evidence to support a hoax.<<<
DD>>>Armstrongists on their way to the Feast of Tabernacles.<<<
Are you denying that Charles Darwin perpetrated a hoax on the world? His book the origin of the Species, is a fictional account of what his eccentric, deluded mind conjectured on the Galapagos Islands. The man was a charlatan!
Neotherm:
"(As Jared Olar said, if you can believe in the multi-universe theory, you can believe in God and Angels.)"
Not entirely so. The mathematics of superstring theory posits the possible existence of multiple universes. It also leans towards establishing the finer details of a "causative force", which align quite closely with panentheism.
"Angels" are not provable by string theory, or any form of higher mathematics per se. (Insofar as the "angels" referred to here are the ones listed by name and description in the canonical christian texts.)
Gnostic gospels suggest that humans are the angels ("archons"), seed sparks, struck off from the infinite divine, descended to earth through the process of physical human birth (for which the crucifixion parable is an allegory).
Superstring theory almost supports this, if one believes that the subatomic impulses which travel through the micro-tubules of our neurons, is what gives "us" our self-awareness and thought.
It cannot be argued that we have self-awareness and conscious thought; it is the origin of that self-awareness and conscious thought that encompasses many shades of grey.
Man o man, just look at the pseudo-scientists on here.
Of course, man was "created" in the image of God (nevermind that God is invisible and he don't even know what he looks like himself) it's probably hard for him to comb his hair, reckon? We don't even want to get into how God shaves and what he uses.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how adult people with half a brain can believe any of the nonsense that religion teaches.
Tom said:"Are you denying that Charles Darwin perpetrated a hoax on the world?"
uhhhh...yeah.
Upon his deathbed, Charles Darwin confessed he made the whole thing up. He is then said to have recited the Apostles Creed and slipped the surly bonds of earth as a reinstated member of the Landover Baptist Church.
It's all good again.
Weinland Watch said...
>>>The mathematics of superstring theory posits the possible existence of multiple universes.<<<
Although your are talking about what the theory posits, the concept of multiple universes is supported by biblical teaching. When referring to Christ through whom God created all things, Paul used the phrase, "by whom he made the worlds." This indicate more than one world, but how many we don't know.
>>It also leans towards establishing the finer details of a "causative force", which align quite closely with panentheism.<<
This concept is also supported by scripture, minus the pantheon. The "causative force" is God, or the godhead, to be more precise.
>>>Gnostic gospels suggest that humans are the angels ("archons"), seed sparks, struck off from the infinite divine, descended to earth through the process of physical human birth (for which the crucifixion parable is an allegory).<<<
There is a germ of a very interesting idea here, but the Gnostic gospels are uninspired and their theology is speculative. So they could never understand or explain this concept. Neither does the idea have anything to do with angels.
The idea ties in with the biblical teaching on redemption, and Jesus' saying, "I come to save that which was lost." The concept of redemption is about buying back that which one once had. Therefore, we may conclude that the redeem of God had a prior existence before they were "lost." The mystery is, what type of existence was it? Was it an existence in the foreknowledge of God, or as a separate entity - a being of some kind?
I am not sure in what way the crucifixion might be an allegory, but it is an interesting concept. But I hope you are not defining (as Corky did) an allegory as a fable? For this would mean that Jesus was never actually crucified.
BTW, a very interesting and stimulating post.
Would someone please explain how a compatible male human and female human evolved at the same time in the same time zone.
'...'An outdated religious tome at that. One where animals talk, heaven has windows, rainbows are special creation and stars fall...'
...and there are in the real world storms in tea-cups, and people kick the bucket and the sun rises and night falls and dawn breaks. And I recently heard (on tv) a dog sing
Corky: "Of course, man was "created" in the image of God (nevermind that God is invisible and he don't even know what he looks like himself) it's probably hard for him to comb his hair, reckon? We don't even want to get into how God shaves and what he uses."
It is interesting that you have retained the Armstrongite interpretation of God and his image. God is spirit as you state and Christians generally interpret image to mean something other than the design of the physical body.
-- Neo
Weinland Watch said...
Gnostic gospels suggest that humans are the angels ("archons"), seed sparks, struck off from the infinite divine, descended to earth through the process of physical human birth (for which the crucifixion parable is an allegory).
Further exegesis of these gospels gives us great insight to the origins of the nickname "Sparky"...
Any number of theories could posit the idea that multiple universes might exist. But there is no physical evidence, that yields to the scientific method, that multiple universes exist.
In essence, the multi-universe idea that permits atheists to deal with the Anthropic Principle requires as much faith and willingness to believe in something, that does not yield to the scientific method, as does any religion. That was Jared Olar's point.
This means that atheism is actually a religion, a faith. And within the domain of this belief system, there are liberals and conservatives, fundamentalists and progressives. I used to think that all atheists were pretty much alike but I have discovered via the web that this is not true.
-- Neo
Well, we have the usual activity- a criticism of the theory of evolution and science in general. And that's a good thing. I mean it. That's how science works. New data and observations are brought to the stage, theories or hypothesis are made based on the data, and everyone sits back and tries to tear it to shreds. With time, and new data, the original hypothesis/idea is either destroyed, or strengthened. It's a good system. It requires people who are willing to change their view based on data. Good science requires people to ask of themselves, "What if we are completely wrong??"
Unlike Kreationism. (Or Christianity for that matter.) Number one, there is no data to support the theory that a supernatural being created all living things. None. This renders the theory no more than wild speculation.
Number two, Kreationism is a theory based not on data, or observations, but on an ancient religious text. This religious text itself does not offer evidence, but merely asserts that a supernatural being created all living things. It also asserts that all the living species on the planet fit into a wooden boat, and many years ago the sun was made to stand still. This moves the theory from wild speculation to outright fantasy.
Thirdly, Kreationism is not self-critical. There are no checks and balances, no peer review process. The theory is arrived at from a religious text, and is set and stone, immutable, contrary evidence be dammned. Only "evidence" that works to support the existing theory (of which there is none) is allowed. Any evidence to the contrary is not even considered viable data; the religous text is the final authority, not observation. In Kreationism, there is never to be heard a "what if we are wrong?"
Many years ago a fellow named Galileo postulated that the earth was not the center of the universe and that the sun did not revolve around it. He only had bits and pieces of evidence, and could not very well take his detractors out into outer space and show them that the sun did not revolve around the earth. His oppostion did not give any credence to his theory because it conflicted with their theory- a theory built on, well, you guessed it, the same religious text used by Kreationist to arrive at their theory. Not evidence, but a religious text.
I see no difference between Kreationists and the Catholic Church of Galileo's day. They both opposed the prevailing evidenced-based theory based not on their own observations and data, but on the Holy Bible. Fantasy trumps observation.
Paul
To add; It's a pity that Kreationists can't turn that same critical eye that they use on evolution to their own beliefs and theory- it seems to a Kreationist, rigorous scientific inquiry only pertains to anything that refutes their belief system.
P.S. To Anon asking about male and female human evolution- if you can access this forum then you can easily access material to answer your question. But that's not what you really want, is it?
Paul
Paul said:
"It requires people who are willing to change their view based on data. Good science requires people to ask of themselves, "What if we are completely wrong??"
Excellent observations Paul. It is also what "Good Religion" should be willing to do but of course just can't and won't.
Good science doesn't like being wrong, but expects it and adds what was learned to the general fund of knowledge. They then keep looking.
Churches don't look for truth. They strive for eternal sameness. They act as if the highwater mark of understanding was the Fourth Century. If you really try to grow in knowledge in a church, they marginalize and dismember you.
At any rate, nice observations Paul and well put.
This is great video: Creation Museum sits on top of the Ordivician rock with great early life fossils.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ezQhVjGy6ME
Tom Mahon intoned: "Although your are talking about what the theory posits, the concept of multiple universes is supported by biblical teaching. When referring to Christ through whom God created all things, Paul used the phrase, "by whom he made the worlds." This indicate more than one world, but how many we don't know."
Faulty logic Tom. Since there are multiple worlds (some would say an infinite number) in the universe that we know about, the statement "by whom he made the worlds" does nothing to support multiple universes.
Bob E.
1) God built the universe by what is known as evolution.
2)We humans are a product of alien star trekering tinkering.
3)Some new agers believe we have always been here. No evolution or creation.
4)Some paranormal sites teach that millions of years ago as the ecosystem of Mars was for whatever reason collapsing they sent a ship to the then hostile enviroment of earth to keep the species going. This is where the Noah's ark story comes from.
I'll put my money on a God built evolutionary process.
That the earth is 6000 years old is unbelievable. I heard a fundy preacher teach on the radio that he can prove that God just carved out the Grand Canyon for His artistic pleasure. The proof you ask? He goes on to ask "Then where is all the dirt? There should be a huge fan delta the size of several Rhode Isands. No one knows what happened to all the dirt. Although I believe that the canyon was formed by erosion it's still a good question.
Paul said:-
“Many years ago a fellow named Galileo postulated that the earth was not the center of the universe and that the sun did not revolve around it…….. I see no difference between Kreationists and the Catholic Church of Galileo's day. They both opposed the prevailing evidenced-based theory based not on their own observations and data, but on the Holy Bible. Fantasy trumps observation.”
I think you need to get this into perspective. Over fifty years before Galileo, Copernicus had advocated the idea the sun did not go round the earth, but that the earth went round the sun. This was not thought scientifically correct by Copernicus’s contemporaries.
Galileo for some years did not reveal his feeling that Copernicus was right, because he did not want to be ridiculed by the scientific leaders of the day. It would seem common sense to anyone without basic scientific instruments, such as a telescope, that the sun revolves round the earth. Even today we talk of the sun rising, and the sun setting, although we obviously know that actually it just looks that way because of the rotation of the earth.
When Galileo’s ideas became better know Cardinal Bellarmine, an influential member of the Sacred College wrote:-
“I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated”.
The scriptures he refers to, for instance Joshua and the Sun and the Moon standing still, had been interpreted as the sun revolving round the earth, but once knowledge increased, it became clear that the Biblical account was in fact referring to how things appeared to an observer on the earth. There was no contradiction with the idea of the earth revolving around the sun.
You could say this was a ‘progressive revelation’, in the same way, once it became understood that the earth was actually more than 6000 years old, it also became clear that the Bible in fact teaches of a much older earth.
There are a number of examples, where scientific knowledge has allowed for a better understanding of the scriptures.
I'd like to coin a new cliche here.
We should give all of these false internet prophets a new title: e-lie-jah! Examples: e-lie-jah Pack, or e-lie-jah Weinland. If the target already has a title, that could be incorporated into the name: Dr. e-lie-jah Thiel, or Dr. e-lie-jah Meredith.
Kind of tells it like it really is, n'est ce pas?
BB
Anonymous said...
That the earth is 6000 years old is unbelievable. I heard a fundy preacher teach on the radio that he can prove that God just carved out the Grand Canyon for His artistic pleasure. The proof you ask? He goes on to ask "Then where is all the dirt? There should be a huge fan delta the size of several Rhode Isands. No one knows what happened to all the dirt. Although I believe that the canyon was formed by erosion it's still a good question.
The answer to the question is that the Colorado River has the biggest delta of any river in the world - yes, they have lied . . . check it out by googling "Colorado River Delta" and select the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Crass ignorance and just not bothering to check easily obtained facts by some anonymous preacher, neither proves or disproves either evolution or creation.
Similarly, the complete ignorance of what the Bible actually says on the part of some evolutionists neither proves or disproves either evolution or creation.
Baashabob said...
Tom Mahon intoned: "Although your are talking about what the theory posits, the concept of multiple universes is supported by biblical teaching. When referring to Christ through whom God created all things, Paul used the phrase, "by whom he made the worlds." This indicate more than one world, but how many we don't know."
Bob E asserts>>>Faulty logic Tom. Since there are multiple worlds (some would say an infinite number) in the universe that we know about, the statement "by whom he made the worlds" does nothing to support multiple universes.<<<
That would depend upon whether what science defines as a universe is different what the bible defines as a world. If the two terms are synonymous, your assertion is false. If they are not synonymous, the bible's definition takes precedence over the speculative opinions of men.
As for the view that there may be infinite universes, there is no evidence to support what is bound to prove to be an absurd assertion. Still, infinity only exists for "earthlings." But for God, the infinite is finite.
'...humans are a product of alien star trekering tinkering...'
I'm curious as to how these first came into existence
'...The answer to the question is that the Colorado River has the biggest delta of any river in the world - yes, they have lied...'
Recent storms in the UK - especially the Channel Islands - demonstrates how powerful is nature. Huge granite blocks were gouged from sea walls and deposited on shore. Maybe a mighty flood could have gouged out the Colrodo River?
I believe the Grand Canyon is the result of a slow process over millions of years. The upper part of the canyon has been shown to be much older than the lower so that is where it started. One would also wonder why there is just one GC instead of thousands.
Let's face it, we each need to believe what seems right to ourselves. (Pleas, no Bible quote here) I admit a loss of seeing the Bible as a credible source of anything in the realm of origins.
I believe the authors shared the ignorance of the day and had no special insight into how the solar system worked, the shape of the earth or what held it up.
While Elijah was hiding in the caves of Carmel getting a glimpse of the Deities Derriere, he would not have understood that twenty feet down were some of the best Neanderthal finds in the Levant.
Jesus or Paul referring to a literal Adam and Eve would also inform us today that they were a part of then common belief system and had no special knowledge of the origins of man. For them, it truly happened.
If the Church has no literal Adam and Eve, then we have no Jesus as Second Adam analogies. We also have no Original Sin to pin on all mankind and the implications of that are great in theology.
So it's important for the Creation story that the chief players really to have existed, and thus the debate will never end depending on what we need to believe outside of the topic at hand.
That it is mythology seems true to me beyond a doubt and was never meant to convey the science of origins.
The genius of an Einstein, Newton or Galileo lies in the ability to ask transparent, innocent questions. which turn out ot have catastrophic answers.
Dennis said:-
“The genius of an Einstein, Newton or Galileo lies in the ability to ask transparent, innocent questions, which turn out to have catastrophic answers.”
True – it’s also worth remembering that all three of these great men had a deep belief in God. Newton and Einstein both believed that gravity was powered by God – and this in no way prevented their tremendous insights.
As Albert Einstein said:-
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
The dispute between atheists and Christians is a dispute between two religions. It is like a perpetual tennis match.
A formidable amount of data has been accumulated and published in support of the Anthropic Principle. It is obvious that the Universe has been fine tuned for man's existence.
Atheists have responded to this accumulation of scientific data by lauching into religion. They have created the Doctrine of Multiple Universes, for which there is no data, and this is now a part of their Orthodox Profession of Faith.
The principle difference between Christians and atheists, from the perspective of religious faith, is that Christians readily admit that they are a faith but atheists seem to want to wrap themselves in the mantle of science.
Yet, I have watched atheists authors on the Book Channel and for all the world they are like ranting, fundamentalist evangelists. Inexplicably, proselytizing is very important to them. I have not seen the cold and detached rationalism of science either in what they believe or in their behavior.
If it looks like a religion, walks like a religion and talks like a religion, it is a religion.
I believe that only a tiny number of atheists have ever become Christians and I believe only a tiny number of Christians have ever become atheists.
This is a tit-for-tat debate between two religions that will never resolve into a conclusion.
-- Neo
"While Elijah was hiding in the caves of Carmel getting a glimpse of the Deities Derriere, he would not have understood that twenty feet down were some of the best Neanderthal finds in the Levant."
There is a problem with this viewpoint. Neanderthal and similar forms existed on this earth for 300,000 years and never, ever showed any signs of advancement. They started making little more than pebble tools and they finished making little more than pebble tools.
Further their DNA indicates that Neanderthals are not related to modern humans. (That is, there is no significant connection. If we wanted to count any connection at all as significant, we would consider champanzees to be human.)
To Elijah, these bones would be an affirmation of the non-evolutionary history of man, as it should be to us.
Adam and Eve may be literary devices, which the Bible uses at other places, but I doubt it. The paleontological record supports the idea that modern man, with advanced intelligence, was an act of special creation.
-- Neo
Tom Mahon said . . .
the bible's definition takes precedence over the speculative opinions of men.
That's exactly why Galileo wasn't believed and the ignorance continues to this day.
All through history, science has turned out to be right and religion has turned out to be wrong, from the germ "theory" to the atomic theory.
You'd think religion would get one right one of these days but no, the ignorance continues and the Bible takes precedence over the truth about any and every thing.
"True – it’s also worth remembering that all three of these great men had a deep belief in God."
True, I also suspect that the God they saw in the science they did was not the God of the OT'
I still feel that any Deity that has so much to offer man, so much knowledge, so much love and purpose, should never have left it to fallible man to mis- transmit or craft for political control.
What was wrong with my idea that God could just hold nice luncheons around the world and take questions along with very interesting seminars? I know, "God's ways are not your ways." But Luncheons are much better than Trumpets, Trombones, Viles, flasks and test tubes poured out when we don't get it.
I was always taught a pat on the back is just 18 inches from a kick in the butt!
Even when Moses is said to have talked God in the burning Bush and asked the name of the Deity, He, the Deity said, "tell them I am that I am" hath sent you. This translates into a simple "it's really none of your business who I am." At this time, to know the name of the God was to have power over Him and that was not going to happen between Moses and "It's none of your business."
Just seems like a lot of being less than forthright for all our good.
:)
Q,
I am well aware of Copernicus.
I don't understand your point. Are you implying that the opposition to Galileo and his subsequent trial by the Inquisition were not motivated and based by religious thought, that gathered from the Bible? Are you implying that the Church itself was kosher with the idea?
Paul
Sorry for the completely off-topic comment here, but I just noticed that this year Bob Thiel wasn't able to resist saying something about St. Patrick's Day. Back in March 2006 at Gary Scott's former XCG weblog, I shredded Bob Thiel's claims that St. Patrick was a proto-Armstrongist Sabbath-keeper, showing from St. Patrick's own words that he was a Trinitarian Catholic bishop (Google "Some Armstrongist Blarney" -- but you'll have to go to the cached pages). So the next year in March 2077, Bob Thiel "celebrated" St. Patrick's Day by complaining about St. Patrick being a pagan Trinitarian.
But this year Bob is back to his previous pseudohistoricism -- St. Patrick and St. Columba and the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland were seventh-day Sabbatarians. (Don't be surprised if, as it was with his March 2006 anti-Patrick commentary) the historical sources he quotes -- well, actually he's just quoting another Armstrongist -- turn out to be misquotes and/or out-of-date scholarship.)
Or maybe St. Patrick was a pagan Trinitarian Sabbath-keeper. . . .
March "2007," that is . . .
"True – it’s also worth remembering that all three of these great men had a deep belief in God."
And? Why is this worth remembering? How does a belief in a supernatural being (whose existence can't be proved) further scientific inquiry? I think the proper outlook is to say, ~despite~ their belief in an imaginary being, these men were great scientists. Galileo and Newton lived in times where most people believed in God. In some countries, it was dangerous not to.
As far as Einstein, perhaps you need to get this into perspctive:
""It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press."
Paul
"...atheists seem to want to wrap themselves in the mantle of science."
Usaing the definition of religion, please describe how a lack of belief in a supernatural being is a religion.
Atheists want to cast off the mantle of delusion, of falsehood, of anything that bars a human from being able to witness the bare truth of reality. Atheists want reality, that's all.
Paul
Neotherm,
One more thing. Let's say you have a group of people from all walks of life scattered across the globe. The only thing these people have in common is that they do not believe in leprechauns.
Would you call these people, or their view, a religion?
Paul
"Further their DNA indicates that Neanderthals are not related to modern humans. (That is, there is no significant connection. If we wanted to count any connection at all as significant, we would consider champanzees to be human.)"
What did I say about Kreationists- evidence will not be considered evidence if it contradicts scripture!
Paul
Some people around here might want to try not to inject so much contempt in their criticisms of those with whom they disagree. I mean, "Kreationists"? "Jebus"? Really now.
"Proofs" are only marginal. The hypothetical generation in which Jesus returns will know beyond the shadow of a doubt. Until then, we will not see a definitive proof one way or the other. I personally believe that that is going to impact accountability for most people. If your mind works like that of Thomas, how can you be held accountable one way or the other, absenting definitive proof?
Until then, it all gets down to what resonates in your soul. Let's face it, there are many inconveniences to being a Christian, not the least of which is the fact that it tends to mess up your sex life. Also, some of the gifted non-Christians assume the Christian to be of subnormal intelligence soley based on his belief.
Folks programmed agnostically, or atheistically do not see the zombiism in themselves, but most certainly recognize it in Christians.
Life, IMO, is like CSI. You have to follow the evidentiary trail. A person who has not experienced "the call" will behave in one way, while the person who has is compelled to behave in a completely different manner. And, I believe that God keeps calling, and calling, and calling. Sometimes I feel that the person who is most hostile, the person who is preoccupied the most with proving that God does not, or could not exist is the person whom God is calling the loudest! How else could one explain the resistance?
BB
Hey now! I'm playing both sides here. I just stated what some of the theories "posited" meaning they weren't sure.
I am still not sure, and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe in god, a god, or a multiplicity of gods, so long as you do no harm to yourself or others in the pursuit and/or function of that belief.
Does string theory propose there could be multiple universes? Yes. Has it been proven yet? No. Do I take it (on faith) that it's true because it hasn't been proven? Absolutely not.
Do I believe the Gnostic version of what happened in Jerusalem, a long time ago, far far away? Not particularly. Nor do I believe the canonical christian version of it, either.
The Gnostic gospels reveal an interesting insight into what the christian religion was like before the council of Nicea got its hands on the churches and started picking and choosing its canon, however.
(The Gnostic religion, as it exists today, appears to be either legalism for catholics, or catholicism for legalists. I haven't quite figured out which.)
To Tom Mahon, I regret to inform you that yes, I was referring to the crucifixion parable as an allegory, or a fable, as you correctly inferred. I hope you are not unduly offended by that, but that is my opinion.
Just for future reference, panentheism is not polytheism (the "pantheon" to which you referred), it is in point of fact quite the opposite. Panentheism allows for a non-anthropomorphic god, to wit:
"A panentheistic belief system is one which posits that the one God interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well."
Thank you Wiki.
Now. Do I "hold fast" to panentheism just because I'm talking about it?
Nope. It seems like a theology that can be greatly individuated however, which is what appeals to me about it, but I am far from what could be considered an "adherent" of same.
The way I see it, people use religion either to control others (as the Levitical priesthood controlled us), or to control themselves, because they don't feel confident that they themselves are making positive changes in their own lives (and they have to attribute it to an anthropomorphized external entity).
Corky said...
Tom Mahon said . .>>>the bible's definition takes precedence over the speculative opinions of men.<<<
>>>That's exactly why Galileo wasn't believed and the ignorance continues to this day.<<<
>>>Firstly, Galileo was contending with the Catholic church, not with people who understood the bible. But they were right and he was wrong!
Extract>>>Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's opposition to this view resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, because that theory had no decisive proof and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.<<<
Note the phrase, "potentially factual:" which mean that the facts may be discovered or declared at a later date. Well, to date, no one has demonstrated that the sun is at the centre of our solar system. So heliocentrism is nothing more than a theory.
OTOH, the Holy Bible, which is the authentic voice of the Holy Spirit of Truth, is God's divine revelation to man on all matters relating to the world. It indicates that the earth is at the centre of the universe.
The bible takes precedence over the speculative opinions of men because it is the only book that teaches man how overcome death. Any religion or philosophy that does not teach man how to overcome death, is of no value to man. Man may as well eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow he dies!
"I mean, "Kreationists"? "Jebus"? Really now."
Oh, that's being polite. It's much more civil than "retard," don't you think?
Paul
Hey guys: A favor!
Any alms, meat and grain, blood or just plain human sacrfices you might be willing to offer up for me to your appropriate Deity would be appreciated.
I have a chance to move into a Patient Relations job and twood be nice. I think. Not sure. Stay tuned.
Your best friend
Dennis :)
Paul asked: "How does a belief in a supernatural being (whose existence can't be proved) further scientific inquiry?"
I think Galileo answered that question quite succinctly:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Galileo
Bob E.
Byker Bob said:
I'd like to coin a new cliche here.
We should give all of these false internet prophets a new title: e-lie-jah!
Great idea Bob! Of course the founder of the whole mess would be Http://www. Armstrong.
rodroid
Tom Mahon,
The sun is at the center / anchor point of the solar system. All objects subject to her gravity orbit her. This is not a theological matter is really isn't subject to debate. This is not a theory.
Theoretically, I suppose if the boundaries of the universe are known, it could be possible for the Earth to be a central object, but that remains to be seen and I don't know what the odds would be on that but they are probably 'astronomical', pun intended.
Dennis, Good luck getting that job!
Tom preacheth: "OTOH, the Holy Bible, which is the authentic voice of the Holy Spirit of Truth, is God's divine revelation to man on all matters relating to the world. It indicates that the earth is at the centre of the universe."
Unfortunately, you provided no evidence to back up this statement. Was that just an oversight on your part?
Bob E.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Galileo"
I believe that was in response to the controversy as to whether his view conflicted with scripture- he was simply defending the use of logic and observation, not trying to link them with a belief in God.
Paul
Tom Mahon said . . .
Well, to date, no one has demonstrated that the sun is at the centre of our solar system. So heliocentrism is nothing more than a theory.
OTOH, the Holy Bible, which is the authentic voice of the Holy Spirit of Truth, is God's divine revelation to man on all matters relating to the world. It indicates that the earth is at the centre of the universe.
UNBELIEVABLE!!
Ignorance really does prevail.
"The age of the universe is a point of dispute between the Bible and the opinion of the majority of astronomers today...Why is it that so many scientists choose to ignore the recorded history of the Bible, and instead believe in a vastly inflated age of the universe?
"
This from Answers in Genesis, one of the leading Kreationist thinktanks around. This is the cream of the kreationist crop. Notice their ultimate authority. The Bible.
Paul
Paul said:-
“I am well aware of Copernicus.
I don't understand your point. Are you implying that the opposition to Galileo and his subsequent trial by the Inquisition were not motivated and based by religious thought that gathered from the Bible? Are you implying that the Church itself was kosher with the idea?”
To a degree, yes I am, but only to a degree. The point I am making is that it wasn’t a simple, clear cut issue. It wasn’t that on the one hand Galileo had the truth; on the other hand the Church was suppressing it.
Popular science at the time followed the ideas of Aristotle, which is many ways was simular to the Catholic Church’s official view at that time. And it was also true that there were problems with Copernicus’s ideas – for example he assumed that the planets, including the earth, orbited the sun in perfect circles. This didn’t match observation, and cast doubt on his idea. It was Kepler who came up with the idea that the planets’ actual orbit was an ellipse, not a circle.
With the use of telescopes, even some Jesuit astronomers tended to agree with Galileo. But Galileo, by going along with the Copernicus theory, was going along with a theory which did have known faults in it. It just wasn’t a clear-cut issue.
The reason I quoted Cardinal Bellarmine, was to show that some of the Church authorities were saying in effect that if Galileo was right, then the Church would need to realise that the Church had misunderstood the scriptures, and they should not issue some sort of decree claiming that what Galileo had demonstrated was false.
The article ‘Galileo Affair’ on Wikipedia, I think gives the flavour of the politics and posturing that went on at the time.
Regarding St P: I see from the article that there are several citations from important authors who corroborate that the Celtic Church was Sabbatarian - later swamped by Roman tradition.
A previous comment scorned the pre-Nicene church - which was (fading) Sabbatarian. But surely tradition must not conflict with the authentic revelation from the Twelve and Psul? Otherwise believe anything - or like our other Paul, nothing.
Whoops! - move this comment to the St P column!!!
Q,
Yes, it was not a clear cut issue, nor were Galileo and Copernicus totally correct; but that has nothing to do with my point, which is: that the primary opposition to the theory was due to the Bible and that Kreationists today follow the same reasoning; if a theory contradicts scripture, then the theory cannot be true, regardless of the evidence.
I've been reading "Galileo's Daughter" and it's pretty interesting, though I don't know if it could be considered a top source on the matter.
Paul
Well, Gavin showed he can be such a sucker too
Oh, that's being polite. It's much more civil than "retard," don't you think?
No, it's not any different than "retard." Just as contemptuous.
Post a Comment