Iwcchen.

Good question!!!.

Part of the problem lies within the fact that the human mind cannot concieve of infinity, we can say the word and know what it means but we cannot imagine or define it.
We have finite minds.

Our known Universe, whats outside of that?.
If we knew that, whats outside of that?....and so on never ending.

The same applies to the question 'Who created God'?.
And if we knew that 'Who created the creator of God?.........and so on never ending.

Until, or if ever, the human mind can understand infinity the question will never be answered.

Regards....Alan

With scientific examples (and with Kisov sharpening his hatchet!) - literal interpretations of the bible are difficult to defend.



Noah living to the ripe old age of 600 is unlikely.



With the time allotment allowed, Noah's story does not account for the variance in people's skin color and eye shape.



Considering historical context, definitions of "the world" were much different from our understanding of it today; biblical authors could not have been referring to the entire world.

The bible's literal account of history is illogical, but we need not completely discount it.

"Noah" could represent several generations of a naturally ethocentric clan who, believing that they alone inhabited the earth, felt tremendous pressure to ensure that their offspring and the offspring of other beings survived. (Since it is unlikely that a boat or boats could stay afloat for six hundred years) several generations suffered from the terrible floods, which occurred yearly and which continuously destroyed their resources. Perhaps it was a wise leader named Noah who miraculously used logic and decided to prepare for the flood, to preserve resources, and to ensure that the clan survives. His plan succeeds, he is heralded as the savior thereafter, and the story is passed on through naive minds who naturally embellish it with the supernatural.

jjirout

Hmmmm....I think I will leave this section alone...Too many thinkers here...Have you all ever heard " curiosity killed the cat?"

I would like to comment on Kisov's Negroid, Caucazoid and Mongozoid theory...It makes sense but try this one on for size...Africa was the center piece of all the land...Negroids were here first then came the Caucazoids through a series of Albinoism. It's only human nature to cast those that are different away right...They are cast off and make their way to what is now Europe. Mongozoids come along after a series of down syndrome within the negroid population and they are cast off as well and they slowly migrate to what is now Asia. Which is more common Albinoism or down syndrome? Through these series negroids create all races. Caucazoids hide out in the caves of Europe to escape the cold and eventually become what they are today ...Negroids run themselves into oblivion through so much power and descruction amongst themselves and mongozoids spread through North America through South America and prove to be the most powerful group. ....The state of the Negroids today show the first coming last. We had evolved as much as we could. Now with the mixtures of so many cultures in many of African-Americans black america is on a rise. Symbolizing the once strong and powerful African beginnings...

I agree that the "creationist interpretation of reality cannot be verified". But I would also add that neither can the evolutionary theory be verified.

As for discussing the Bible, you will note that this thread originally started without reference to any religious texts, including the Bible. And my original arguments were made without even bringing up the Bible.

Would you say that there are other areas of science that cannot be verified? Perhaps the "theory" of longevity through genetics. Or the theory of sub-atomic particle matter. Relativity. Tropistic and/or behavioral influences of environment. There is far too much evidence for the establishment of animal and plant species changes and variation and very little evidence for magic. Mankind is even able to step up these changes through a process called hybridization.

Of course evolution is a fact. It is religion that ought to be called a theory.

P.S. Creationism cannot be discussed without references to the bible since it finds the entirety of it's basis in the bible. In fact there isn't a religion alive today or yesterday that does not have as it's foundation some form of written word.

Micro-evolution (hybidization) is a fact. However, macro-evolution is definititely NOT a fact.

Show me ANY evidence of macro-evolution. Show me any example of one life form evolving into a new life form.

As for creationism having the Bible as it's basis, I disagree. Please reread all my posts since the beginning of this thread. I did not even mention the Bible until someone else brought it up.

One reason is that Christians believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible to write what they did. So, God would have known whether the flood was world wide or local. And He would have inspired the writers to write this accordingly.

Another reason is the crustal split that otseng wrote about earlier, and how different fossils where exquisitely preserved (e.g. mother animal giving birth to baby animal).

How many Canid (dog/wolf) species are there? How many subspecies within each Canid species? You'll have to use a bigger factor than 1/2.

OK, here's the link the the mDNA "Real Eve" special on Discovery.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/reale...feature_02.html

Meanwhile, creationism is a general theory. It is not only from the Bible. There are a number of religions which believe in creationism. In addition there are those who do not participate in organized religion who have creationist beliefs. So, of course, creationism can be discussed apart from the Bible.

Well, you guys are all correct in that creationism can be discussed separately from the Bible, but this particular forum is no longer so much a discussion about creationism as the accuracy of one Bible story, the flood, which in itself does not prove or disprove creationism. Granted, the flood itself can be discussed separately from the Bible, since so many cultures all over the world have their own worldwide-flood stories, but we are focusing exclusively on the Biblical story.

By the way, Kisov:
Good point. However, I do not believe we have outlined any date for the flood, so we cannot say what existed before and after. I will do some research to try to find out suggested dates for the flood and the presence of different races at different times.

By the way, Iwcchen:
My personal take is that God does not need a creator because He created the universe and every aspect of it, including that phenomenon which we call time. Therefore, time does not apply to God, so there was no time "before" God. This means that there was not an initial "creation" of God, because the concept of creation requires that time apply to the subject. Confusing, isn't it? As Alan Wood said, we cannot understand infinity.

A scienctific theory designed with the intention of suppressing one ethnicity. Oh hell, forget the facts. Let's just give Asian people a disease.



I agree that as science progresses, we are less inclined to believe in magic (this is well said) and I can understand that attempts by religion to write history or explain our world are generally theorical in nature. However, religion is also an attempt to define morality - and this is something sorely lacking in the science department.



The argument here as I understand it is - If God inspired the writers of the Bible, than the writers could not have gotten anything wrong.

But humans did the writing; God merely did the inspiring. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't only Jesus and Moses have direct contact or were the writers divine as well?

And don't humans make mistakes?

jjirout

I have direct contact with God everyday jjirout.....You should too.

Hey JJirout did you check this link out?

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/reale...feature_02.html

I hope you don't wet yourself....

IWC - You choose to use the term "disease" to refer to "mutation" and the examples of a disease that you cited suggested that one ethnicity in our world has lesser value and mental capabilities than - what is likely - your own ethnicity.

Whiiiihooo. This type of approach to science stinks; if you really had regular contact with God, you would be able to recognize it.

s c a r r y stuff here.

And in the name of G o d.



I'm gettin' a little freaked out.

jjirout

As usual, havent read the entire thread, but I just wanted to say that if evolution is real, it isnt necessary that one man andwoman populated the earth. Obviously, things dont evolve one at a time, and if men and women evolved, its not like ONLY one of each gender would spring about and find each other to mate with. There may have been some inter-species mating (I know no one likes that idea), there could a decent amount of offspring from different couples that resulted in the same thing: humans.

I cant answer all the questions, as I dont know much about science, and I dont feel like searching the internet tonight trying to find answers. But huge oil and coal deposits, if you belive the earth is OLD, then it is obvious where these come from. Pressure from the earth on these properties over thousands (perhaps billions) of years will result in coal and oil. (I think, at least Im pretty sure about the coal part. I am not really sure how oil is formed.)

Africa and the Americas fitting together, ever heard of a little thing called "Pangea"? When the Earth supported one continent, and the tetonic (?) plates caused it to shift and break. I also assume that the plates shifting caused the formation of ocean canyons. Or do the tetonic (Agh, is that really the name for them? Ill have to look) plates not exist?

Im sure these posts are getting tiring, I think Im only on the sixth page of this.

I want to know exactly why and HOW it is that genes were more variable "back then", than now? What does that mean, and how can you prove it?

Also, if there was a flood, and Noah was around, where are the remains of his boat? Something that massive must have remains.

First, let me state that it is my PERSONAL faith that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. This cannot be proven.

Now let's get to your questions.



Are you discounting the Holy Spirit? What about what happened to Paul on the road to Demascus? What about the apostles CLAIMING that what they wrote was not of themselves but of God?

No, it is not obvious.

The problem is why do we have such huge deposits. If we see one inch of coal on top of an inch of rock on top of an inch of coal and so on, it might make sense. But we see hundreds of feet deep of coal. In order to have that much coal at one place, thousands of feet of organic matter must have been deposited at once, then compressed and turned into coal. How in the world can thousands of feet deep (and who knows how many feet in area) of organic matter can be deposited at one place at one time? Also, this is not just one place. But we have tons of locations where we have such huge coal deposits.

[quote=clue,Nov 18 2002, 12:09 PM]
[/QUOTE]

Are you discounting the Holy Spirit? What about what happened to Paul on the road to Demascus? What about the apostles CLAIMING that what they wrote was not of themselves but of God?[/quote]
Clue,

If the apostles wrote "not of themselves, but of God" then your suggesting that they could not have gotten anything wrong - that their word is directly representative of God.

Ok.

I believe that the apostles were inspired - with the popularity of the Bible supporting that - but, the apostles had no idea about the size of the earth, no concept of the universe or of science as we know it - their concept of "God" was not the same as ours is today. To me, the apostles were advocating a new belief system, one that challenged the restrictive social classes of the time, the daily cruelties, the superstitions supporting them. Advocating a belief system that contradicted a powerful status quo is indeed noteworthy - and clearly the writers were both brave and inspired by new ideas - and in the sense that they introduced a new concept of ethics to the world, - yes, I believe that they did further "God's" message, but I'm interpretting this in an abstract sense.

In a literal sense, if the apostles, the Bible, and the Church have this rare, divine relationship to God, then are you suggesting that no one but them has furthered God's message?

jjirout

Let's say Dad and Mom both had these genes:

Dad - A B C D
Mom - C D E F

When they make Baby, Baby will inheret half of the genes from Dad and half of the genes from Mom making combinations like these:

A B C D

B C D E

C D E F

Do you see why the genes are more variable/pure going back in time and less variable/pure going forward in time? Each succeeding generation's genes is less variable than the former's potential because you are always reducing the potential.


I'm not sure what happened to Noah's ark. Here are my guesses:
1. still out there somewhere, just hasn't been found yet
2. taken apart because of needed supplies
2. used for firewood when sitting around the camp fire singing Kumbaya.

Did anyone ever mention that this is all crazy? (IT IS)http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/

Ranciduncle - your generalization does not make for a condusive debate.

Without looking into your link, one wouldn't even know the side of the debate on which you fall. Are you going to allow your link do all your speaking for you?

I didn't link to the site listed, but I am hypothesizing that Ranciduncle is anti-Creationism.

Don't worry, Ranciduncle. Just like there are some overzealous Evolutionists, there are some overzealous Creationists. You should know the theory first and decide for yourself whether it is credible or not.

Awww Shucks!! I'm reeeeeeallly sorry! I'm just didn't know where to begin!

Evolution isnt about individuals or even a small family unit. Its about populations. Yes, genes probably go extinct from time to time and small populations are at great risk from both loss of genetic diversity and an increased risk of genetic disease.... Nothing new there.

Evolution is about populations, your analogy is false.

But your example of two people breeding (Adam and Eve) is a fine example of why they never existed. Even putting aside the problem of very small populations and just look at the fact that one person can only carry 2 alleles at a given gene locus. That gives four possible variants for a given locus between Adam and Eve. Weve identified hundreds of variants for some locations in the genome (spread throughout the world population)

Where did they come from? Does god insert new genes into the population every few years? Your Adam and Eve obviously evolved using observed methods of gene duplication error which occasionally result in beneficial mutation (also observed).

Also, there were never just two, it was an intermingling population, large enough to avoid some small gene pool pitfalls.

Your assumption that evolution is all about populations is false. Evolution must of course start somewhere and each complete change can be attributed to a particular generation. It has to be at least that specific. To make things more clear, if evolution were true there would have to a first generation modern humans (Homo sapiens) which were born of a non- Homo sapien mother.

OK! Finally did a wee bit of research, and here's what I found. I cant remember exactly what points need to be refuted, so heres the entire website. Ill read and post more indepth things later (its late!)

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

about magnetic fields:


about Noah:


and here's another website:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...umber=1&catID=2

This mirroring magnetic strips on each side of the crust is actually good evidence of the crustal split I've been talking about. Originally they were together, and then split apart in a short amount of time and thus retain a mirror image. If sides are caused by the crust gradually forming over millions of years, how could a complete mirror copy of each side be formed?

As for magnetic irregularities, the explanation is also very simple. Prior to the crustal split, all the magnetic rock was aligned with the earth's magnetic field. During the crustal split, this magnetized rock along the split was disrupted and shifted in it's magnetic alignment. Since then, the earth's magnetic field has remagnetized them to differing strengths depending on the rock's magentic direction.

Further, if the rocks being magnetized are caused by crust emerging and solidifying, do we see evidence of this anywhere else besides the mid-Atlantic ridge? I have not heard of it yet.




As for no evidence, I disagree.

One evidence is the large animals and plants that we see in the past. Obviously something was different about the environment before and now.

As for the exact nature of the water canopy, I have no idea. But, certain things most likely were present - higher atmospheric density, tropical weather across the entire globe, and something to block cosmic radiation.



I don't get it, it readily admits that no one has observed these transformations, yet the evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling?

And even the fossil records doesn't testify of any of the transitional life forms. If macro-evolution was true, the fossil record would be chock full of transitional life forms trying to make it in this world. Yet, we see none. And the few purported transitional life forms have either been hoaxes or non-transitional animals.

That Scientific American article really kills me. Instead of arguing against REAL Creationists contentions, they build their own caricuture of such contentions and argue against that. Hello, Creationists (the scientists and informed laymen) know what the definition of a theory is. They DON'T use this argument.


Here's a quote from the SA article that really embodies a main issue that Creationists have with Evolutionists:

A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe PURELY in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. (clue added emphasis)

This statement explicitly declares one of the key presuppositions that Evolutionists have. It, in effect, implies that even if all the evidence points to a Creator, it will be REJECTED out of hand. Why? Because a Creator would be a supernatural cause. A Creator can exist independently outside of his creation and thereby, might never be detected through 'observed or testable natural mechanisms.'

Unfortunately, I am ill equipped to debate this, as I have little knowledge of science, and I dont really care. I just dont believe your theroy, and tried to find some things against it. I dont really feel like doing much more research.

The subject of this thread is "The Scientific Basis for Creationism". Someone will have to state the Theory of Creationism. There was one post which had a statement about a supernatural being doing something but I am not sure what.

A theory should be a simple sentence statement.

Having a discussion where the rationale is "We can not explain this so the answer has to be someone did it with magic." just does not seem so scientific.

See post #3 in this discussion for a synopsis of Creationism.

Is this the theory, Otseng ?

Biology is not physics. Evolution is a narrative connecting the dots of generally well verified discoveries. It is not a precise world of discrete categories where you can say "at this exact point this line of evolving apes became human."

Many of our distinctions are in fact cultural. For instance why are chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutangs and gibbons called apes while we are called humans? Why not call us all varieties of apes or humans? Do you know which 2 of all the 5 are the most closely related? Take a guess?

Answer: snamuh dna seeznapmihc. We share roughly 98.5% of our genes in common.

Perhaps there is an argument for giving chimps 98.5% of the legal protections that we get.

It's my definition of it.

Can you please go into detail about these 'well verified discoveries'? Maybe you can explain why these discoveries point to Evolution and the Creationists can try to explicate why these point to a Creator.

I have serious doubts about that percentage. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that to be true. It still doesn't mean that the 1.5% difference is not a SIGNIFICANT difference.

For example, let's take the following sentence:

The Theory of Evolution is scientific fact regarded by many educated people to be the definitive answer to the origins of life and how it has evolved into the varieties of plant and animal life that we see today.

If I were to throw a 'not' in that statement, it would COMPLETELY change the meaning of my sentence.

The Theory of Evolution is not scientific fact regarded by many educated people to be the definitive answer to the origins of life and how it has evolved into the varieties of plant and animal life that we see today.

How big is the difference between the 2 sentences? Not very big. But is the difference significant??

The Theory of Evolution is that living things change gradually over time due survival of the fitest in response to changes in the environment. It is a good basis to understanding biology but it really does not deal with the origin of life. An excellent book on origins is 'The Most Intriguing Story Ever Told". It is available via www.univpress.com. It has facts as we know it from the origins of the universe to life as we know it. If this sort of thing interest you, it is full of information which is not widely known. How many of you know we are made of stardust ?

I can confirm the 98.5 % figure.

It is fascinating that minor changes in DNA can result in profound differences. The 98.5 % figure is a good indication of a common ancestory closer in history than with other creatures.

As a theory, this would have to be based on some known presumptions. There needs to be some basis for the place you refer to as "outside of the universe". Also, a good definition of supernatural is needed. If it is a synonym for "magic" meaning it is totally outside of any know physical laws, then by definition you do not have a scientific theory.

In philosophy, there is the argument that there must be a god because existence as we know it is too complicated to have just happened, it has to be designed. This is not a scientific theory but seems very similar to the argument you have labeled as the Theory of Creationism. There is a difference between a philosophical arguement an a scientific theory.

Personally, I have never been impressed by the "too complicated" argument for the existence of a god as by its own assertion, someone had to have created a god as a god is to complicated to have just happened and then that second god would have had to create the second as he is too complicated and....well, it just seems to be an endless argument with does not really give an answer. I digress from the subject matter.

There can be no discussion on the scientific basis for the Theory of Creation as there is no theory. A scientific theory has to meet guidelines. If you wish to discuss it on a philosophical basis, that is understandable. To do otherwise is scientifically illiterate.

I think this is an interesting point. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophical theory with scientific ramifications which is why "scientific basis for creationism" is such an accurate name for the thread

This does not however mean creationism cannot be debated with respect to science. We simply investigate the scientific ramifications and infer whether of not creationism (the philosophical theory is) true, the debate is a mix of science and more free-form logic.

Picture Gray Seal repeated banging his head against a doorway.

Why is it important for you to justify a religious position in a scientific manner? Religion is a matter of belief and science a matter of observation. That the two coincide is coincidental. Sound likes you're trying to justify your faith based on science. Faith more appropriately should be based on belief.

I would agree that there is no "scientific" theory on the existence of a "supernatural creator". However, the scientific basis of Creationism is more based on evidence that we see in the natural world pointing to the fact that a Creator started it all. It is not just a philosophical theory. It is looking at the evidences we see around us in the natural world and making deductions from it.

Because ultimately, we are in search for the TRUTH. Science has greatly helped us in our search for it. But, IMO, science cannot account for every phenomenon there is.

Whoops, almost let this one go.
The definition of the supernatural means it is not subject to natural laws. This includes the law of cause and effect. Therefore if there is a supernatural god he/she/it would not need to be created.

Although biology is not as exact as physics let's not forget that we do have a definition for species, the distinction is not totally "cultural". A species is roughly defined as a population of reproducing organisms which are "genetically isolated" that is they do not transfer DNA with in other population (through sexual mating, conjunction or other methods)

There are several definitions for species, hard and soft. Reproductively isolated is usually taken to mean they *dont* breed in the wild under normal conditions but *can* in some cases physically. Bears are a good example; many different species of bear yet one species *can* often breed with other bear species. They just choose not to usually or operate in different ranges. In either case creationists today often admit that the creation of new species is allowed (and even neccessary) under creationism. They need to account for biodiversity post noah and just claim that new species arise from loss of information, not gain.

Anyway, evolution isnt opposed to a creator in any way. The theory of evolution doesnt deal with the origin of life, thats abiogenesis, which is only a primitive series of ideas at this point (compared to the TOE). Abiogenesis itself isnt really an obstacle either as you could still claim the need for a creator to fine tune all the initial conditions and start the ball rolling.

Many christian churches have NO problem with evolution (including many protestant churches and the catholics). The pope himself admitted the evidence for evolution is quite strong and that its no problem as long as a divine creation of the soul occured.

Its only a handful of fundamentalist protestant churches that raise a stink over TOE.

Please let's not make the mistaken assumption that creationism is fundamentally Christian. We are not attempting to determine whether evolution and creationism are compatible, we are simply seeking the truth.

As for the comments about the definition of species....

1. Organisms which choose not to breed with each other even though they can are still reproductively isolated (the isolation is simply behavioral), so I believe the definition I posted is still accurate for these cases.

2. In the case of operation in different ranges, there is contention on whether or not that applies. No one suggests that human populations with are geographically separated are somehow different species. Geographic isolation is (in my opinion) too weak a distinction for speciation.