A simple question

[gluadys]

So? What are you doing here in this forum? If a brilliant mind like Dr Custance is not qualified to properly evaluate? Why then do you wish to promote your theory here with all us non-biologists?

Because Christians should not be opposing the truth and claiming that it is required to be Christian. And a brilliant mind who allows his personal beliefs to distort his analysis is still wrong.

That's really disengenuous when you use that argument. Only a biologists is qualified to properly determine what the data means, but we who are not biologists? Must accept what you tell us?

As long as I am telling you what biologists tell you, yes.

Think about what you just said! If you are to remain consistent, you are wasting your time expecting us to be able to properly evaluate TOE. But, you see us as being unreasonable if we disagree.

I see you as unreasonable because you assume you know better than biologists when you haven’t even looked at what they say. You haven’t taken any time to study the science. Yet you oppose it and say it can’t be true.

I'm not a biologist. You? Everyone here? Then go find a forum for biologists, and have them evaluate TOE! Stop wasting your time with us mental inferiors.

GeneZ

No, many of us are not biologists. But good biology texts are as close as the nearest library, and some are even on-line. So one can easily find the basis on which biologists have developed the theory of evolution. All I am asking for is that you become familiar with a theory before making assumptions about it.

And if your only source of information about evolution comes from those who oppose it, you are not familiar with the theory. You have nothing but a strawman version of it.

 

[gluadys]

So? You understood the following?

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

Yes, and it is clear for starters that Dr. Custance does not understand what science means by uniformitarianism. (In fact the term is seldom used in science anymore.) Uniformitarianism does not exclude catastrophes. Both catastrophic and non-catastrophic processes of the past can be studied with reference to the same processes in the present.

It is also clear that Dr. Custance has never studied geology either. If he had, he would know of several global catastrophes that have been studied by geologists. And he would not be making baseless accusations against geologists.

Pretty much everything he says about evolution is nonsense. But I don't expect you are open to listening to the details and I will not take the time for analysis with someone who is not interested.

 

[GenemZ]

Because Christians should not be opposing the truth and claiming that it is required to be Christian. And a brilliant mind who allows his personal beliefs to distort his analysis is still wrong.

Remember those words...

I see you as unreasonable because you assume you know better than biologists when you haven’t even looked at what they say.

You assume all biologists agree. That is your error. The following book quotes biologists who disagree, and are not necessarily even Christian.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556616791/ref=pd_sxp_f/102-8155588-9101701

You haven’t taken any time to study the science. Yet you oppose it and say it can’t be true.

How do you know that? Because if I did, I would have to agree with you? Nonsense!

No, many of us are not biologists. But good biology texts are as close as the nearest library, and some are even on-line. So one can easily find the basis on which biologists have developed the theory of evolution. All I am asking for is that you become familiar with a theory before making assumptions about it.

Have a dictionary close at hand? Look up condescending. You have no idea what I have studied.

And if your only source of information about evolution comes from those who oppose it, you are not familiar with the theory. You have nothing but a strawman version of it.

I really do not read much of those who oppose TOE. For there is the missing link in understanding why things are the way they now are. Both sides are equally blind to what is going on.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

When that happens it will not take a million years of evolution! It will be over night. Just like God has done with past creations. There is yet another creation on this earth that will replace this one. Evolution will not be involved.

25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD."

But, you can believe anything that pleases you. Feel free.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Athanasian Creed]

(snip)

Scientists who are Christians should not be ashamed of proclaiming praise in discovering how amazing the Lord was in the fantastic details. Yet, they are silent.

(snip)

Not all are (or were) silent...

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being"
- Sir Isaac Newton

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator"
- Louis Pasteur

"As a Christian who is also a professional scientist, I exult in the reality that "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth" (Ex. 20:11). May He forever be praised."
- John Baumgardner

I would agree most literal 6-Day Creation believing scientists mouths have been silenced by the those in the evolutionary camp, both atheistic and theistic evolutionists. The atheistic evolutionist calls literal Creationism foolishness and the theistic evolutionist calls it an embarassment to "real" or "true" "science."

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Real science, in all its advances, contributes to the support of religion; and just in proportion as that is promoted will it be found to sustain the Bible, and to confirm the claims of religion to the faith of
mankind.


Ray

 

[GenemZ]

Not all are (or were) silent...

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being"
- Sir Isaac Newton

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator"
- Louis Pasteur

"As a Christian who is also a professional scientist, I exult in the reality that "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth" (Ex. 20:11). May He forever be praised."
- John Baumgardner

I would agree most literal 6-Day Creation believing scientists mouths have been silenced by the those in the evolutionary camp, both atheistic and theistic evolutionists. The atheistic evolutionist calls literal Creationism foolishness and the theistic evolutionist calls it an embarassment to "real" or "true" "science."

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Real science, in all its advances, contributes to the support of religion; and just in proportion as that is promoted will it be found to sustain the Bible, and to confirm the claims of religion to the faith of
mankind.


Ray

I found a page concerning Dr. Baumgardner that is mosr refereshing. Here's and excerpt...

http://www.rae.org/believe.html
Dr. Baumgardner: If ever there was in the history of mankind clear evidence for creation, evidence for a Super- Intelligence behind what we see today, it's the genetic code. Incredibly complex information structures, coded in DNA, form the genetic blueprints for every living organism. Evolutionists have absolutely no clue as to how such structures could arise by natural processes, much less how the code itself could come into existence.

Actually, evolutionists do not have a viable mechanism for macroevolution at any stage, whether we're talking about the origin of a first living cell or the origin of new structures in existing organisms. Natural selection and mutation alone are pitifully inadequate to account for what we see, especially with our current understanding of molecular biology.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[The Lady Kate]

If he understood transmissions? Yes.

Fair enough. But Dr. Custance doesn't understand biology. Whatever brilliance he may have, it's not in the field we're discussing.

Just try accepting what the Bible tells you about the Bible. That would be a good place to start.

And so I have. I I see no conflict between what the Bible tells me about my relationship with God, and Charles Darwin's theory about diversity of life.

Yet, Dr. Custance did not qualify because he did not have such a degree?

He does not automatically qualify, if that's what you want to hear. His opinions on the matter would not carry the same weight as one who actually studied the topic in question.

Those who have studied, even on a rudimentary level, choose to disagree.

But by all means, ask the Heart Surgeon to fix your transmission...then ask Mr. Goodwrench to perform that double-bypass.

So? You understood the following?

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

It looks like a good long read, and quite possibly a miracle cure for insomnia.

If the good Dr. wants to hang an entire belief system on the possible mistranslation of a single phrase in the OT, well, he's welcome to do so. Myself, I prefer to leave such "Angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin" arguments to those who take the Bible hyperliterally.

 

[Sojourner<><]

was to provide an opportunity for everyone to give an introspective response to the question: "Why do you believe what you believe?"

I realize though that this is probably dumb question to ask without expecting it to spark a huge debate so I just want to remind everyone in the hope that we can get a few more good posts on topic.

 

[gluadys]

You assume all biologists agree. That is your error. The following book quotes biologists who disagree, and are not necessarily even Christian.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556616791/ref=pd_sxp_f/102-8155588-9101701

Sheesh, a whole book of quote mines written by another ignoramus with a vested interest in science-bashing supposedly in the name of defending God's word.

Consider just this item from near the beginning of the book which describes the scientists' reaction to the museum display. Or actually to a reporter's review on it. Commenting on a brochure about the display, the reporter picks up the phrase "if the theory of evolution is true...." and says:

"Most of the [museum's staff of distinguished biologists] would rather lose their right hands than begin a sentence with "if the theory of evolution is true..."

This sentence betrays the reporter's ignorance of science.

The museum's scientists quite rightly objected to this portrayal of science. Especially in a scientific journal.

Nowhere do they express doubt about the theory of evolution. In fact they say, "What we do have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in favour of [the theory of evolution] and, as yet, no better alternative."

Hayward's presentation of their letter, however, is designed to make this affirmation of the theory of evolution sound like deep disenchantment with it. Hayward, in effect, is lying.

I've read all of the book available on amazon, and it is all designed to maintain the creationist strawman concept of science and of evolution. I expect the rest of the book is the same.

Furthermore, the table of contents shows he has no interest at all in even explaining the theory of evolution and still less in actually examining the evidence in favour--you know that "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" the scientists spoke of in their letter to the editor.

btw, he does not document that the editor was "forced" to publish the rebuttal to the reporter. Most editors choose to publish such letters to stimulate controversy. Any evidence that this editor was really reluctant to publish this one?

How do you know that? Because if I did, I would have to agree with you? Nonsense!

Whether you agreed with me or not is irrelevant. You would indicate that you knew what you were talking about.

Have a dictionary close at hand? Look up condescending. You have no idea what I have studied.

You are right. I have no idea what you have studied. But you have indicated fairly clearly what you have not studied.

There is yet another creation on this earth that will replace this one.

This is something I have been wondering about. I have seen creationists who deny this, who say the new creation will not be on this earth but on a different planet, perhaps even in a different dimension or universe.

But you say the new creation will be on this earth. I have got that right?

Does this mean that the old creation you speak of, the one that was destroyed, that was on this earth too?

 

[Sojourner<><]

To get the ball rolling again I'll start with my own view.

I feel that science as an institution is a useful tool in the pursuit of understanding, that no tool is better than he who uses it, and in general I don't really trust the ability of people to get things right much at all. Here's why...

The problem of origins has to be the most difficult series of questions in all of science. More complicated than, perhaps, rocket science. It took years and a huge number of failed experiments (some tragic) before we were able to send a rocket into space. But in this scenario we were able to learn by trial and error, as with most technological developments since we can observe how we screwed up each time. In the case of origins, the scenario is much different since we cannot observe what actually happened. If we apply this to rocket science it would be like having to design a perfect rocket on the first try using nothing more than forensic techniques, but then you would never be able to launch it - it can only remain in theory and all you can do is guess if it would be a successful design or not. Somehow my lack of trust in the human mind begins to creep in.

Thank God I believe in Him because if I were an atheist all I would have to lean on would be the sad scenario that I just described. God has been very gracious to me in showing me that He is in complete control and His word is totally trustworthy. (I don't want to sound like I'm bragging here - believe me I'm nothing special - read Jeremiah 33:3 and James 1:5 - and yes it's true). He pulled me out of the false philosophies of this world and He showed me that apart from Him, the world cannot understand the truth. I consider history what He considers history according to the Gospel. So, I trust Him rather than science.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it

 

[gluadys]

So, I trust Him rather than science.

Why create a false dichotomy? Trust both. After all, God made science too. And you probably trust 99% of science---like physics and chemistry and astronomy and archeology and medicine and engineering.

You just have an emotional reaction to one part of it, and most of that reaction is not really based on the science itself, but on a caricature of it.

 

[Sojourner<><]

What about you gluadys? Why do you believe what you believe?

 

[Scholar in training]

What about you gluadys? Why do you believe what you believe?

Because of the evidence in nature, which God uses for his purposes.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Because of the evidence in nature, which God uses for his purposes.

Why do you believe that the evidence in nature points to your particular belief system?

 

[Scholar in training]

Why do you believe that the evidence in nature points to your particular belief system?

Simply because geology and the fossil record disprove an ultra-literal reading of Genesis. They offer proof for an old earth, and certainly biology is tied in with evolution.

 

[GenemZ]

Sheesh, a whole book of quote mines written by another ignoramus with a vested interest in science-bashing supposedly in the name of defending God's word.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1556616791/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-8155588-9101701#reader-page

Let others go there and read it for themselves. Then, they can judge for themselves.

Grace and patience, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Simply because geology and the fossil record disprove an ultra-literal reading of Genesis. They offer proof for an old earth, and certainly biology is tied in with evolution.

You mean? an ultra-literal reading of the King James translation? The Hebrew text is quite different to read in meaning.

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Fair enough. But Dr. Custance doesn't understand biology. Whatever brilliance he may have, it's not in the field we're discussing.

Then I suggest you take your debate to here:

http://www.biology-online.org/default.htm

GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

I see you as unreasonable because you assume you know better than biologists when you haven’t even looked at what they say. You haven’t taken any time to study the science. Yet you oppose it and say it can’t be true.

How do you know this to be true? I can't believe you are writing that!

The biological function of the body is beyond comprehension. Take one minute level of a certain enzyme in your system and cause it to be out of balance and you will not be the same. There are a million interdependent chemical and physical aspects all working together simultaneously in your body. And? It all just evolved to be?

The woman so happens to produce and ovum? And, the male, sperm? By chance? Not by design? And, most mammals and many reptiles have reproduction along the same design perimeters! The the chemical factory in the liver detoxifies poisons in the body, by chance? The ultra complex immune system? All by chance?????

And? Guess what? A dog has a liver. A pig has a liver. A horse has a liver. A woman has a liver that balances out different hormones than a man's! And? It all happened by evolution? I suppose that all species developed livers independently of each other in thousands of different species? Not a chance, it was by chance! TOE's that do not believe in God have the audacity to claim it all just happened by chance? And, these same ones write books that you trust in?

You act as if you have no idea how ultra complex the biological structure and function of the body really is. "Just pick up a book on biology and read it?" One can study biological function of the human body for one's entire life and still have more to learn. You have to be kidding.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Scholar in training]

The biological function of the body is beyond comprehension. Take one minute level of a certain enzyme in your system and cause it to be out of balance and you will not be the same. There are a million interdependent chemical and physical aspects all working together simultaneously in your body. And? It all just evolved to be?

Complex nervous, digestive, etc. systems could have evolved over time.

The woman so happens to produce and ovum? And, the male, sperm? By chance? Not by design? And, most mammals and many reptiles have reproduction along the same design perimeters! The the chemical factory in the liver detoxifies poisons in the body, by chance? The ultra complex immune system? All by chance?????

Who says that evolution wasn't by design? I think you're referring to deistic or atheistic, not theistic, evolution.

You act as if you have no idea how ultra complex the biological structure and function of the body really is. "Just pick up a book on biology and read it?" One can study biological function of the human body for one's entire life and still have more to learn. You have to be kidding.

Well, this is true.

 

[gluadys]

How do you know this to be true? I can't believe you are writing that!

I'll retract it when you show me that you comprehend evolution.

The biological function of the body is beyond comprehension. Take one minute level of a certain enzyme in your system and cause it to be out of balance and you will not be the same. There are a million interdependent chemical and physical aspects all working together simultaneously in your body. And? It all just evolved to be?

That is the best theory that fits the evidence of species development at this time.

The woman so happens to produce and ovum? And, the male, sperm? By chance? Not by design? And, most mammals and many reptiles have reproduction along the same design perimeters! The the chemical factory in the liver detoxifies poisons in the body, by chance? The ultra complex immune system? All by chance?????

See, if you knew something about evolution you would not be raising the question of chance. Chance has very little to do with evolution. To raise the matter of chance is another indication of your ignorance in this field.

And? Guess what? A dog has a liver. A pig has a liver. A horse has a liver. A woman has a liver that balances out different hormones than a man's! And? It all happened by evolution? I suppose that all species developed livers independently of each other in thousands of different species?

If you think this is a description of evolution, you are again barking up the wrong tree. Evolution says the opposite, that species did not develop livers independently, but inherited them from the common ancestor in which the liver first appeared.

You act as if you have no idea how ultra complex the biological structure and function of the body really is. "Just pick up a book on biology and read it?" One can study biological function of the human body for one's entire life and still have more to learn. You have to be kidding.

In Christ, GeneZ

And you act as though you have never done any comparative anatomy and never read a single word about evolution from a science text rather than a creationist source.

If evolution is not true, why do we share ERVS with chimps and gorillas that match with our morphological similarities to produce the same phylogeny?