Posted on 03/31/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by EveningStar
OK, you got it!
Thanks for the response. It sounds, though, like you're trying to reconcile early Genesis with evolution, by way of the idea of intermediate forms that became Adam. Why couldn't God just speak Adam into existence, just as He did the earth? Does that idea pose a problem, other than that it may be difficult to reconcile with evolution?
For argument's sake, let's accept your view, even though I disagree. What about the historicity of Genesis 3? Do you believe in the historicity of Adam's rebellion against God?
Thanks.
On what basis should I, or anyone else, trust your objectivity when it comes to this subject? Are you wholly devoid of assumptions as you observe the world in which you work?
I'd like to hear your thoughts on uniformitarian geology and the explanation for things like the Matterhorn, mammoth graveyards in the arctic/Siberia, The Lewis overthrust, La Brea tar pits, Sicilian fossil graveyards over 4000 feet above sea level on Mt. Etna, The Malta caves and how they should not be placed in the deluvian model?
Hey, that's more than 2-3 items! ;-)
First, "uniformitarian geology" is rather a misnomer. Uniformitarianism in the more literal sense was proposed by Hutton in 1785 and Lyell in 1830. However, a strictly "uniformitarian" view of geology was widely understood to be incorrect by around 1900, if not even earlier.
Modern "uniformitarian geology" includes a lot of "non-uniform" events like meteor strikes, volcanic events, avalanches, etc., but unfortunately the name has sort of stuck and gives many people (including many creationists) the wrong idea that modern geology somehow insists that everything happens slooowwly and gradually.
Now for your list:
the explanation for things like the Matterhorn,
Er, what *about* the Matterhorn? If you mean the creationinst claim that the fact that some strata in the Matterhorn are in the "wrong order" is somehow an argument against the science of modern geology, it's not. The Alps, including the Matterhorn, are in part the result of a thrust fault, meaning that a large section of the land cracked at an angle, then one piece of it was pushed up and over the adjacent part. Thus instead of the rock strata being in the more traditional order of oldest-to-newest (let's call it A-B-C-D-E-F-etc.), it "repeats some layers (as in "A-B-C-D-A-B-C-D-E-F -- the "ABCD" stack repeats, because those are the ones which existed at the time the thrust-fault slid two "layercakes" of strata, which at the time had been side-by-side, up on top of each other). This is covered nicely in Wikipedia's entry on Geology of the Alps, among many other places.
mammoth graveyards in the arctic/Siberia,
Again, what about them? Various "mammoth graveyards" were formed in different ways, in different places, at different times, and across varying timespans. Sometimes a herd was killed simultaneously and together, as in this one involving a herd caught in a volcano's eruption and buried in ash. This one on the other hand was due to a sinkhole that formed a "trap" that mammoths could get into but not climb back out of, and died. Another "trap" graveyard of a different type is the famous LaBrea Tar Pits, which contains the remains of a great many mammoths and other kinds of animals which became mired in the tar and died, across a large period of time. Still other mammoth graveyards are due to animals caught in a flash flood, as in the Berelekh graveyard in Sibera. Not only do natural floods often become large and swift and catch animals unawares, but cold areas like Sibera run the risk of sudden "breakthrough" floods from melting glaciers, which can collect meltwater in lakes and then eventually dump them suddenly as the ice basin they are in melts further.
The Lewis overthrust,
See above. Overthrusts are standard geology, due to plate tectonics. See also: Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust and Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust
Some creationist sites like to ridicule the notion of big sections of landscape gradually sliding up and over other sections, but a) it can be seen in progress even today, and b) "flood geology" has to invoke pretty much the same kind of process to explain the overlaps, but even *faster* (by a factor of a millionfold), so...
La Brea tar pits,
What about it? Here's a page on how such tar pits form.
Sicilian fossil graveyards over 4000 feet above sea level on Mt. Etna,
Mt. Etna is a big volcano (11,000 feet high, covering 480 square miles). Between major eruptions plants and animals live on the slopes of the volcano (including as high as 4000 feet above sea level and higher -- there are forests on Etna up to 7000 feet) as they would on any mountain, and then get entombed the next time the volcano has a big eruption. Somewhere deep on the slops of Mt. St. Helens too there are graveyards of the animals that used to live on it before its big eruption in 1980.
The Malta caves
Again, what about them? The island of Malta has caves... Lots of places have caves.
and how they should not be placed in the deluvian model?
Some geological features are caused by floods, but there's no evidence of any flood as large as or as widespread as the flood described in Genesis, and a lot of evidence that no such flood has or could have occurred. See this post for a lot of links on that subject.
On what basis should I, or anyone else, trust your objectivity when it comes to this subject? Are you wholly devoid of assumptions as you observe the world in which you work?
Fester! Long time no hear.
Actually, the link I posted does not rely on my objectivity. It presents facts and well-reasoned scientific theory, so it does just fine on its own.
Well, I was brought up in a household that believed in God and evolution. My upbringing, by default, is to reconcile them. Until I see a clear and convincing reason to make a choice of one or the other, I'm not going to. Why couldn't God just speak Adam into existence, just as He did the earth? Does that idea pose a problem, other than that it may be difficult to reconcile with evolution?
I don't think he spoke the Earth into existance either. As 2:7 was evolution written for ancient Hebrews, so Genesis 1 was for cosmology. I'd go into more detail -- and have in the past -- but I'm short of time now.
For argument's sake, let's accept your view, even though I disagree. What about the historicity of Genesis 3? Do you believe in the historicity of Adam's rebellion against God?
Again, I think 3 is generally accurate. However, I think it was a set-up on God's part. Humans cannot truly worship God, unless they have the free will to do so. They cannot have free will unless they have the choice to rebel. They cannot know they have the choice to rebel, until they have rebelled.... Again I don't have the time to detail my thinking at the moment.
>> I did not know that there was a standard to be followed, as to how long, or short ones posts should be...
>> Until JR, says, that no one can post such long posts,
If you wish to gorge yourself with 5 lbs. of yogurt, I'm certainly not going to get in your way. And, if you wish to place your yogurt in front of my six pack of beer, feel free. But, if you say your vanilla yogurt is better than my dumb beer, I'm going to call you obnoxious. Got it?
My subject was not your link, but your objectivity. If you lose sight of the target so easily, who knows whether your otherwise scholarly sounding statements concord with reality?
Never said you weren't a member in good standing, even if it were my place to say that. It is not my place to say that, but it is my observation that, to put it mildly, you were unhappy about this site. And that observation and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's, at least for the short term.
And yes, I tend to be "talking" to those whom I address.
A complete waste of screen space. Go spew it to your choir.
To me, evolution is very reasonable, until you get to trying to explain species. How improbable it would be for two individuals, a male and female, to mutate in the same way, in the same mating distance locale, at the same time, as to provide for generation of a new species? My guess is that this event would be highly improbable - yet we've got millions of species.
Actually, I have some additional evidence not covered in your many links.
There is a cave in southern Alaska called On Your Knees Cave, which had a partial human skeleton dated to 10,300 years.
That individual produce some mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) which matched living individuals stretching all the way down the west coasts of North and South Americas, to the tip of Tierra del Fuego.
This shows a span of some 10,300 years of mtDNA not interrupted by the mtDNA expected of Noah's female companions (as mtDNA is passed down only along the female line).
10,300 years with no interruption means there was no global flood at about 4,300 years ago. (This is just one of many such examples.)
And its only your opinion, which is valid only for yourself...Got it?
At least you know the worth of your observation...as you, yourself state, not much...
>> And its only your opinion, which is valid only for yourself...Got it?
You do understand that Itchmyars blathered over most everybody in the entire thread, don't you?
Do you actually think you are witty?
'Those long posts are tooooo hard to read' placemarker...
You have it right except that the Inquisition was aimed at the Jews or more specifically the Conversos. That is how they funded the war against the Muslims.
Don't get me wrong. I wish Genghis or Ferdinand had finished what they had begun, but Christians have done a lot of terrible things in the name of GOD too, not just the Muslims.
Yes. My parents were devout Christians and totally politically conservative Republicans. We believed in God and we believed in evolution. My parents had friends who were creationists. They disagreed politely with each other, decided not to discuss it again, and remained friends.
I don't think we can stop discussing it here. But I do think we can disagree and remain friends.
Coulter went off the deep end with her idiotic "arguments" against evolution. She may be very clever on many issues, but she should leave the science to people who know what they are talking about.
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.