Skip to comments.Does evolution contradict creationism?
Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
Google is our friend. This is not an essay, but it includes a good list of people who contributed to geology prior to Darwin. Googling these names should get you a lot of information.
Forgot the link:
From 255: Here are a few things to consider:
I'm not claiming to "know" anything. 255 was meant as a framework for answering the question, not a final pronouncement. So, don't simply respond with "You don't know what you're talking about." Such a statement, no matter how truthful, is non-germaine. I would much rather read: "Here's how things really went," or, "Here's why that doesn't work."
B: Fair enough. All of the available geological evidence suggest that the volume of the world's oceans has not changed dramatically over the last 500 million years. From what we can glean, oceans, or at least bodies of water were present very early in earth's history.
B: I don't have any scientific objections to a "flood", just to a world wide flood. That is simply a physical impossibility.
"the floodgates of heaven."
If you wish to say Noah's flood was a miracle, just say so, and the argument is over. If you wish to argue that the evidence seen by scientists was planted by Satan, just say so and the argument is over. It is really futile to try to reconcile geology with miracles. People have been trying for 500 years and the results continue to diverge.
B: I agree with you.
For possibly the first time, I have to agree with cc here.
Once you hypothecate a creator of the universe, he would be pretty close to omnipotent.
Of course, you'd have to go to an hypothecary.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
B: Now thats funny.
You Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar, with a degree of open-mindedness that the rest of us can but gawk at in amazement. (For the avoidance of doubt I am not being patronising or sarcastic but admiring; because the acceptance of another's point of view in a forum like this is like a transit of Venus, such a rare event that it merits special attention)
... but that still doesn't mean that believing in God or a god, would merit eternal damnation.
I kind of agree, but partly because the word "Merit" is so loaded with connotations of "deserved". I'd prefer to replace the word "merit" in your sentence with "result in". I contend that if there is even the slightest chance that believing in the creator (worshipping It) could result in the PUNISHMENT then Pascal's wager is bust. It doesn't matter how small the chance is, once multiplied by -infinity it still comes to -infinity.
"I have not indicated that the hypothetical creator is necessarily omnipotent; omnipotence is merely one possibility."
Now, think about this. If the creator created the Universe, even if he weren't "omnipotent," he would appear to be so. As a matter of fact, within his own Creation he would have to be so close to omnipotence, for his not being omnipotent to matter.
I kind of buy what you are saying here too. But I'd say that there is a long distance between what we (poor feeble creatures that we are) would perceive as effective omnipotence in our universe and the perfect ideal of true omnipotence. For example does the "limited" omnipotence (haha, that'd have my old english teacher foaming at the mouth) required to be the Creator automatically imply the level of omniprescence and omniscience that would make Him detect and rebuke the Devil/Cleaner? I don't think so, you may believe otherwise.
The people at that site are trying to pull the wool over your eyes by suggesting that 40 trillion gallons of water is a lot (they significantly don't compare this number with the requirement or even make any attempt to assess the requirement themselves); it is tiny and completely irrelevant in the context of the volume of water needed for the Noachian deluge. A single cubic mile of water is approximately a trillion gallons, all the water in the earth's atmosphere would come to 40 cubic miles (compared with the requirement for 1 billion cubic miles, give or take something depending on how much you are relying on God shoving the landscape about (something which is not mentioned or implied in the biblical account)). And unless you'd want Noah and his family and the livestock to die of rather dry throats or walk around with breathing masks most of that water (such as it is) had better remain in the atmosphere in any model that you propose.
Do you suggest any links to succinct summaries of said results? I'd like to read them. Google does not distinguish between legitimate research and tinfoil-hat ravings...
Part of your problem is that from the scientific/engineering point of view all attempts to justify the Noachian deluge naturalistically are tinfoil hat ravings, because there is no mechanism that even gets close without a host of miracles, both large-scale, and small. Anyone purporting to have scientific or engineering training who tells you otherwise is simply lying to you. I'm sorry to have to say.
It ought to be possible to first ask, "If the Flood occurred worldwide, what evidence ought we to find in nature?" and then go look for it. Even a miracle ought to leave a fingerprint. In the net, though, I am finding very few attempts to answer the question scientifically. I understand the biblical approach and agree with it but, that doesn't help convince a sceptic. If anyone is doing this research, they aren't publishing online and they don't have a lot of grant money. I run into the same problem when researching OT texts. Sometimes hardcopy is the only way. I'm off to the library.
It ought to be possible to first ask, "If the Flood occurred worldwide, what evidence ought we to find in nature?" and then go look for it. Even a miracle ought to leave a fingerprint. In the net, though, I am finding very few attempts to answer the question scientifically.
Der, For starters, the earliest geologists like Steno set out to look for evidence for Noah's flood. They didn't find it. For the first 200 years of geological science, the primary concern was finding evidence for the wolrd wide deluge. They found all sorts of evidence for floods big and small, but not for a Noachian world wide deluge. Geologists gave up by the 1820's.
THere has been no research by geologists looking for evidence of a world wide deluge, because the idea was falsified almost 200 years ago. We tend not to beat dead horses to death.
I suggest you read the FAQs at talkorigins.org, particularly the flood fact.
I understand the biblical approach and agree with it but, that doesn't help convince a sceptic.
Sceptics require geological evidence. There isn't any. Sorry. 400 years of scrutinizing the geologic column doesn't yield any evidence of a Noachian deluge. If you want to believe the Flood was a miracle, be my guest. But there's a second miracle associated with it. That it failed to leave a trace in the geologic record.
If anyone is doing this research, they aren't publishing online and they don't have a lot of grant money. I run into the same problem when researching OT texts. Sometimes hardcopy is the only way. I'm off to the library.
Der, nobody gets grant money (no scientists that is) to look for evidence of a Noachain deluge, and they shouldn't, any more than scientists shouldn't get money to study "phlogiston". People should not be paid to research ideas already demonstrated to be false.
It's legitimate to say, "I believe someone was here, I'll go look for footprints." What geologists 200 years ago were doing is to declare anything they found to be a footprint. Then, funded scientists came along and said, "Bad Science = Bad Hypothesis," which is equally wrong. One theory depends on an emotional response, so people won't see they haven't done the research. The other depends on a common-sense fallacy (everybody knows... )combined with an expert-opinion fallacy (smart people say so). Most people doing creation research nowadays are doing so for un-scientific reasons - to convince religious groups to not listen to the non-religious research. As a Christian, I find this disturbing. It leads to people parroting the preacher and convincing themselves they are saved (because they know the right words to say), when they are not.
"It leads to people parroting the preacher and convincing themselves they are saved (because they know the right words to say), when they are not."
AIG is looking for a director of sales for its museum. You must parrot creationist nonsense to apply. A notice for any of you that are willing to parrot for money.
It is worth bearing in mind that there are numerous organisations and individual scientists who would love to find geological evidence of the Noachian deluge. Assorted Christian organisations are not exactly strapped for cash and would have plenty of funds to help anyone with a credible story that stood up scientifically but needed further work. A Nobel Prize would beckon for the scientist in charge. No-one has come forward though. Does that tell us anything?
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Does it pay well, can I apply?
It's legitimate to say, "I believe someone was here, I'll go look for footprints." What geologists 200 years ago were doing is to declare anything they found to be a footprint. Then, funded scientists came along and said, "Bad Science = Bad Hypothesis," which is equally wrong.
Der, this a bunch of nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Flood geology was rejected long before there were "funded" scientists.
At this point, while you say you don't want a flame, war, you keep asking for one. This whole post in the main, was pretty out there. I suggest you refrain from further comment on the issue until you have researched it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.