****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[Marvin]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

So I guess it also doesn't really say that Jesus was the son of God or that he rose from the dead...

 

[jon_mx]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

So I guess it also doesn't really say that Jesus was the son of God or that he rose from the dead...

Where so you get that from? Read Genesis 1, it reads as though heaven and earth were created prior to Day 1. How long before, who knows? I believe what the Bible says, but I believe most things in the Bible has much deeper meaning than a literal interpretation.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Obviously some sciences are different than others. Physics is physics. Cladistics is far different. Paleontology is a "historical science" and can't be tested the same way you can conduct chemistry tests or analyze mineral content of rocks.There are brilliant scientists who don't buy into the entire evolutionary theory, hook, line and sinker. Those are the facts, like them or not.

Cladistics is just a different way of approaching classification and relation of species. It is more subjective than hard sciences, however it can make predictions which can be verified through other methods. Evolution of whales is a topic where evolution/cladistics/paleontology/geology combined to make predictions which later turned out to be true. If you aren't aware of the topic here is brief overview.1) Life started in the seas.2) Life moved on land from the seas.3) Mammals evolved on land and had legs.4) Whales are mammals - and don't have legs.All of these facts are based on classification of fossils based on their structure (cladistics/paleontology) and the age of rock in which they were found (based on numerous different measurement techniques). The prediction of evolution based on those 4 facts was that somewhere out there (between 3 & 4), there had to be a mammal that went back into the water from land that evolved into a whale. There had to be some transitional fossils of a whale with legs. These smoking gun fossils were found in the 1990s. Prior to this, these transitional fossil were claimed to be impossible to the Creationist crowd including one of the "brilliant" non-believers Duane Gish who spends his life trying to debunk evolution. In fact, Gish said:There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and there supposed land mammal ancestors … It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure.”But, do you think that the smoking gun evidence changed his mind? Not at all - he is still believes the same tripe as do all the other Creationists that used the lack of transitional whale fossils as evidence of Evolution being the great hoax.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

That wasn't my point. Sure, the Bible doesn't say when the beginning was. But it DOES specify a chronological order. 1. The Earth was created on day 1.2. The stars and the sun were created on day 4. If you believe that the Bible is the literal truth, there is really no way to spin this.

 

[Marvin]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

So I guess it also doesn't really say that Jesus was the son of God or that he rose from the dead...

Where so you get that from? Read Genesis 1, it reads as though heaven and earth were created prior to Day 1. How long before, who knows? I believe what the Bible says, but I believe most things in the Bible has much deeper meaning than a literal interpretation.

So you don't eat lobster or wear clothes made from different fabrics?ETA: Actually I don't really care. I don't want to derail this thread anymore.I'm just going to sit back and watch Sn0mmis lay the smack down.

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

If anything, kids nowadays do not understand science because they are too freaking lazy to investigate anything, let alone study it, not because some nutjob is brainwashing them into thinking that science isn't real.

But when parents teach Biblical literalism are they encouraging investigation and intellectual curiousity? Or does it encourage intellectually lazy dogma? The point I have made to my children again and again is to "question everything", which, in my opinion, is the most valuable lesson I can teach them.

They are teaching Biblical literalism No way to know beyond that what else they are encouraging.

Are you contending that teaching a child that the Bible is infallible is congruent with questioning orthodoxy?

 

[wikkidpissah]

What's the name for the science of infinite attempts to dissuade the willfully unconvinceable?

 

[CrossEyed]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

Perhaps, but you have to do a little exegetical gymnastics to justify the idea of evolution fitting in with the Genesis narrative.

 

[sn0mm1s]

What's the name for the science of infinite attempts to dissuade the willfully unconvinceable?

The Internet.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

So I guess it also doesn't really say that Jesus was the son of God or that he rose from the dead...

Where so you get that from? Read Genesis 1, it reads as though heaven and earth were created prior to Day 1. How long before, who knows? I believe what the Bible says, but I believe most things in the Bible has much deeper meaning than a literal interpretation.

So you don't eat lobster or wear clothes made from different fabrics?ETA: Actually I don't really care. I don't want to derail this thread anymore.I'm just going to sit back and watch Sn0mmis lay the smack down.

I don't live under Jewish law. The old Testamemt to me served as a foreshadow of the coming of Christ, not as a book of requirements which must be followed. Jesus fulfilled all the requirement s of the Old Testament.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

That wasn't my point. Sure, the Bible doesn't say when the beginning was. But it DOES specify a chronological order. 1. The Earth was created on day 1.2. The stars and the sun were created on day 4. If you believe that the Bible is the literal truth, there is really no way to spin this.

Number 1 is not neccessarily true. Heaven and earth wereCreated prior to 'Day 1'. Could have been 4 billion years prior to Day 1.

 

[fsword]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

That wasn't my point. Sure, the Bible doesn't say when the beginning was. But it DOES specify a chronological order. 1. The Earth was created on day 1.2. The stars and the sun were created on day 4. If you believe that the Bible is the literal truth, there is really no way to spin this.

The heavens and the earth were created on day 1. If the heavens didn't exist, where would the sun be placed after it was created? Tim's right. Question for Tim, or anyone else familiar with Judaism or Kabbalah, what was the light mentioned at the beginning of the creation narrative?

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

That wasn't my point. Sure, the Bible doesn't say when the beginning was. But it DOES specify a chronological order. 1. The Earth was created on day 1.2. The stars and the sun were created on day 4. If you believe that the Bible is the literal truth, there is really no way to spin this.

Number 1 is not neccessarily true. Heaven and earth wereCreated prior to 'Day 1'. Could have been 4 billion years prior to Day 1.

You're still not getting this order thing down. The sun was created AFTER the Earth. That's very clear in Genesis. If you dispute this, then you do not accept the Bible as the literal truth. You can't have it both ways.

 

[fsword]

I don't live under Jewish law. The old Testamemt to me served as a foreshadow of the coming of Christ, not as a book of requirements which must be followed. Jesus fulfilled all the requirement s of the Old Testament.

The Law convicts man of his sin and hard-heartedness. The Gospel is the means of restoration. One without the other is incomplete.

 

[fsword]

What's the name for the science of infinite attempts to dissuade the willfully unconvinceable?

The Internet.

Religion.

 

[sn0mm1s]

I don't live under Jewish law. The old Testamemt to me served as a foreshadow of the coming of Christ, not as a book of requirements which must be followed. Jesus fulfilled all the requirement s of the Old Testament.

You do realize that pretty much all the anti-whatever by the Christian crowd is based on Old Testament law? Are you throwing out all of Exodus and Leviticus or just the parts that don't fit your current world view?

 

[JZilla]

I don't live under Jewish law. The old Testamemt to me served as a foreshadow of the coming of Christ, not as a book of requirements which must be followed. Jesus fulfilled all the requirement s of the Old Testament.

You do realize that pretty much all the anti-whatever by the Christian crowd is based on Old Testament law? Are you throwing out all of Exodus and Leviticus or just the parts that don't fit your current world view?

Welcome to Christianity, aka Having It Both Ways

 

[Bonzai]

It's a sign of how craven MT's view of global warming is that he has to accuse liberals of believing in it not for the obvious reason (science!), but for the caricature of liberal thought reason (they hate big business!).

What percentage of the population understands the science of global warming?I think most people accept global warming on the say-so of people they trust. That raises the question of who trusts whom and why, and I think that question is sufficiently complex to be interesting. I don't think the answer is simply that liberals trust people based on scientific or academic credentials while conservatives trust people based on ideology (although there may be a hint of truth in that).

Both trust people based on ideology. One's ideology is more scientific, the other's more religious/traditional.

 

[shader]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Thats not really true Tim. Read up on the subject a little. I'm not implying that you haven't, but there are a ton of great websites and books out there that discuss the creative days as "creative epochs", meaning long periods of time. And "light" coming before the sun and moon can be reconciled by the Hebrew words used in those verses. For instance the Hebrew word "ohr" is originally used which means light in a general sense. In day 4 that changes to maohr, which means the source of the light. So many bible scholars propose that in day four, the sun and moon were finally able to be seen, not that they were created.

 

[shader]

Obviously some sciences are different than others. Physics is physics. Cladistics is far different. Paleontology is a "historical science" and can't be tested the same way you can conduct chemistry tests or analyze mineral content of rocks.There are brilliant scientists who don't buy into the entire evolutionary theory, hook, line and sinker. Those are the facts, like them or not.

Cladistics is just a different way of approaching classification and relation of species. It is more subjective than hard sciences, however it can make predictions which can be verified through other methods. Evolution of whales is a topic where evolution/cladistics/paleontology/geology combined to make predictions which later turned out to be true. If you aren't aware of the topic here is brief overview.1) Life started in the seas.2) Life moved on land from the seas.3) Mammals evolved on land and had legs.4) Whales are mammals - and don't have legs.All of these facts are based on classification of fossils based on their structure (cladistics/paleontology) and the age of rock in which they were found (based on numerous different measurement techniques). The prediction of evolution based on those 4 facts was that somewhere out there (between 3 & 4), there had to be a mammal that went back into the water from land that evolved into a whale. There had to be some transitional fossils of a whale with legs. These smoking gun fossils were found in the 1990s. Prior to this, these transitional fossil were claimed to be impossible to the Creationist crowd including one of the "brilliant" non-believers Duane Gish who spends his life trying to debunk evolution. In fact, Gish said:There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and there supposed land mammal ancestors … It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure.”But, do you think that the smoking gun evidence changed his mind? Not at all - he is still believes the same tripe as do all the other Creationists that used the lack of transitional whale fossils as evidence of Evolution being the great hoax.

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

 

[fsword]

It's a sign of how craven MT's view of global warming is that he has to accuse liberals of believing in it not for the obvious reason (science!), but for the caricature of liberal thought reason (they hate big business!).

What percentage of the population understands the science of global warming?I think most people accept global warming on the say-so of people they trust. That raises the question of who trusts whom and why, and I think that question is sufficiently complex to be interesting. I don't think the answer is simply that liberals trust people based on scientific or academic credentials while conservatives trust people based on ideology (although there may be a hint of truth in that).

Both trust people based on ideology. One's ideology is more scientific, the other's more religious/traditional.

One of the great problems is the varyong definition of "science" over time. The word today doesn't mean what it meant 200 years ago, or even 60 years ago. Wiki covers this decently, imo. The same shift or word meaning is an undermining bias when discussing evolution or marriage as well; as each has his own definition or variation of meaning.Shifting word meanings are often driven by philosphy and ideology, often resulting in confusion and bias-driven debate, often when each "opposing" party earnestly desires to find truth.

 

[shader]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

Perhaps, but you have to do a little exegetical gymnastics to justify the idea of evolution fitting in with the Genesis narrative.

Agreed. Although a YEC has to believe in some pretty quick evolution after the flood. The word evolution is just nothing but an argument starter. In a sense we all believe in evolution to some degree, as we all realize things change. But do I think God created a molecule and let it evolve into everything? No of course not, as I agree that is firmly against the narrative.

 

[zoonation]

Obviously some sciences are different than others. Physics is physics. Cladistics is far different. Paleontology is a "historical science" and can't be tested the same way you can conduct chemistry tests or analyze mineral content of rocks.There are brilliant scientists who don't buy into the entire evolutionary theory, hook, line and sinker. Those are the facts, like them or not.

Cladistics is just a different way of approaching classification and relation of species. It is more subjective than hard sciences, however it can make predictions which can be verified through other methods. Evolution of whales is a topic where evolution/cladistics/paleontology/geology combined to make predictions which later turned out to be true. If you aren't aware of the topic here is brief overview.1) Life started in the seas.2) Life moved on land from the seas.3) Mammals evolved on land and had legs.4) Whales are mammals - and don't have legs.All of these facts are based on classification of fossils based on their structure (cladistics/paleontology) and the age of rock in which they were found (based on numerous different measurement techniques). The prediction of evolution based on those 4 facts was that somewhere out there (between 3 & 4), there had to be a mammal that went back into the water from land that evolved into a whale. There had to be some transitional fossils of a whale with legs. These smoking gun fossils were found in the 1990s. Prior to this, these transitional fossil were claimed to be impossible to the Creationist crowd including one of the "brilliant" non-believers Duane Gish who spends his life trying to debunk evolution. In fact, Gish said:There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and there supposed land mammal ancestors … It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure.”But, do you think that the smoking gun evidence changed his mind? Not at all - he is still believes the same tripe as do all the other Creationists that used the lack of transitional whale fossils as evidence of Evolution being the great hoax.

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

Imagine that. Funny thing, scientists don't find the evidence lacking but rather compelling to the point of consensus. Then again, the implications aren't a direct threat to their ideological house of cards.

 

[shader]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

That wasn't my point. Sure, the Bible doesn't say when the beginning was. But it DOES specify a chronological order. 1. The Earth was created on day 1.2. The stars and the sun were created on day 4. If you believe that the Bible is the literal truth, there is really no way to spin this.

Number 1 is not neccessarily true. Heaven and earth wereCreated prior to 'Day 1'. Could have been 4 billion years prior to Day 1.

You're still not getting this order thing down. The sun was created AFTER the Earth. That's very clear in Genesis. If you dispute this, then you do not accept the Bible as the literal truth. You can't have it both ways.

As I referenced in my earlier post, the bible doesn't say that the sun was CREATED in day four. I'd have to check what most bibles say, but my bibles says that the "luminaries came to be in the expanse of the heavens". The word "create" wasn't used. Again, many take this to mean that the sun and moon became visible, as the atmosphere finally cleared out.

 

[zoonation]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

Perhaps, but you have to do a little exegetical gymnastics to justify the idea of evolution fitting in with the Genesis narrative.

Agreed. Although a YEC has to believe in some pretty quick evolution after the flood. The word evolution is just nothing but an argument starter. In a sense we all believe in evolution to some degree, as we all realize things change. But do I think God created a molecule and let it evolve into everything? No of course not, as I agree that is firmly against the narrative.

a YEC must reject the entire living world around them.

 

[sn0mm1s]

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

They are quite clear. There are several fossils found of whales with everything from vestigial legs to well formed. It isn't like evolutionists made up these fossils and where they were found in the fossil record. If you find it lacking it means that you went in wanting to find it lacking. Grasping at straws and moving the goal posts are what the creationists do - as you just did yourself.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Thats not really true Tim. Read up on the subject a little. I'm not implying that you haven't, but there are a ton of great websites and books out there that discuss the creative days as "creative epochs", meaning long periods of time. And "light" coming before the sun and moon can be reconciled by the Hebrew words used in those verses. For instance the Hebrew word "ohr" is originally used which means light in a general sense. In day 4 that changes to maohr, which means the source of the light. So many bible scholars propose that in day four, the sun and moon were finally able to be seen, not that they were created.

Whoa, you are blowing my mind. Are you suggesting we shouldnt interpret the bible literally? I find that type of thinking in this day and age pretty unbelievable.

 

[shader]

Obviously some sciences are different than others. Physics is physics. Cladistics is far different. Paleontology is a "historical science" and can't be tested the same way you can conduct chemistry tests or analyze mineral content of rocks.There are brilliant scientists who don't buy into the entire evolutionary theory, hook, line and sinker. Those are the facts, like them or not.

Cladistics is just a different way of approaching classification and relation of species. It is more subjective than hard sciences, however it can make predictions which can be verified through other methods. Evolution of whales is a topic where evolution/cladistics/paleontology/geology combined to make predictions which later turned out to be true. If you aren't aware of the topic here is brief overview.1) Life started in the seas.2) Life moved on land from the seas.3) Mammals evolved on land and had legs.4) Whales are mammals - and don't have legs.All of these facts are based on classification of fossils based on their structure (cladistics/paleontology) and the age of rock in which they were found (based on numerous different measurement techniques). The prediction of evolution based on those 4 facts was that somewhere out there (between 3 & 4), there had to be a mammal that went back into the water from land that evolved into a whale. There had to be some transitional fossils of a whale with legs. These smoking gun fossils were found in the 1990s. Prior to this, these transitional fossil were claimed to be impossible to the Creationist crowd including one of the "brilliant" non-believers Duane Gish who spends his life trying to debunk evolution. In fact, Gish said:There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and there supposed land mammal ancestors … It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure.”But, do you think that the smoking gun evidence changed his mind? Not at all - he is still believes the same tripe as do all the other Creationists that used the lack of transitional whale fossils as evidence of Evolution being the great hoax.

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

Imagine that. Funny thing, scientists don't find the evidence lacking but rather compelling to the point of consensus. Then again, the implications aren't a direct threat to their ideological house of cards.

Which fossil are you referring to that proves this to the point of consensus?

 

[shader]

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

They are quite clear. There are several fossils found of whales with everything from vestigial legs to well formed. It isn't like evolutionists made up these fossils and where they were found in the fossil record. If you find it lacking it means that you went in wanting to find it lacking. Grasping at straws and moving the goal posts are what the creationists do - as you just did yourself.

names of the fossils please?

 

[shader]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

Perhaps, but you have to do a little exegetical gymnastics to justify the idea of evolution fitting in with the Genesis narrative.

Agreed. Although a YEC has to believe in some pretty quick evolution after the flood. The word evolution is just nothing but an argument starter. In a sense we all believe in evolution to some degree, as we all realize things change. But do I think God created a molecule and let it evolve into everything? No of course not, as I agree that is firmly against the narrative.

a YEC must reject the entire living world around them.

They must reject the world that they see? Come on man.

 

[sn0mm1s]

As I referenced in my earlier post, the bible doesn't say that the sun was CREATED in day four. I'd have to check what most bibles say, but my bibles says that the "luminaries came to be in the expanse of the heavens". The word "create" wasn't used. Again, many take this to mean that the sun and moon became visible, as the atmosphere finally cleared out.

How about this then, just list what order everything was created. I am sure I can point out several things wrong. IIRC, terrestial plants with fruit and seeds came before life in the seas and birds - both of which came before animals on the land. The correct order is sea - plants - land animals - birds.

 

[Ranethe]

Obviously some sciences are different than others. Physics is physics. Cladistics is far different. Paleontology is a "historical science" and can't be tested the same way you can conduct chemistry tests or analyze mineral content of rocks.

There are brilliant scientists who don't buy into the entire evolutionary theory, hook, line and sinker. Those are the facts, like them or not.

Cladistics is just a different way of approaching classification and relation of species. It is more subjective than hard sciences, however it can make predictions which can be verified through other methods. Evolution of whales is a topic where evolution/cladistics/paleontology/geology combined to make predictions which later turned out to be true. If you aren't aware of the topic here is brief overview.1) Life started in the seas.

2) Life moved on land from the seas.

3) Mammals evolved on land and had legs.

4) Whales are mammals - and don't have legs.

All of these facts are based on classification of fossils based on their structure (cladistics/paleontology) and the age of rock in which they were found (based on numerous different measurement techniques).

The prediction of evolution based on those 4 facts was that somewhere out there (between 3 & 4), there had to be a mammal that went back into the water from land that evolved into a whale. There had to be some transitional fossils of a whale with legs. These smoking gun fossils were found in the 1990s. Prior to this, these transitional fossil were claimed to be impossible to the Creationist crowd including one of the "brilliant" non-believers Duane Gish who spends his life trying to debunk evolution. In fact, Gish said:

There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and there supposed land mammal ancestors … It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure.”

But, do you think that the smoking gun evidence changed his mind? Not at all - he is still believes the same tripe as do all the other Creationists that used the lack of transitional whale fossils as evidence of Evolution being the great hoax.

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

This part is funny.

 

[shader]

As I referenced in my earlier post, the bible doesn't say that the sun was CREATED in day four. I'd have to check what most bibles say, but my bibles says that the "luminaries came to be in the expanse of the heavens". The word "create" wasn't used. Again, many take this to mean that the sun and moon became visible, as the atmosphere finally cleared out.

How about this then, just list what order everything was created. I am sure I can point out several things wrong. IIRC, terrestial plants with fruit and seeds came before life in the seas and birds - both of which came before animals on the land. The correct order is sea - plants - land animals - birds.

 

[JZilla]

I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

This part is funny.

Well surely you can't expect a rational human being to believe in something there's no evidence for

 

[Marvin]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

So I guess it also doesn't really say that Jesus was the son of God or that he rose from the dead...

Where so you get that from? Read Genesis 1, it reads as though heaven and earth were created prior to Day 1. How long before, who knows? I believe what the Bible says, but I believe most things in the Bible has much deeper meaning than a literal interpretation.

So you don't eat lobster or wear clothes made from different fabrics?ETA: Actually I don't really care. I don't want to derail this thread anymore.I'm just going to sit back and watch Sn0mmis lay the smack down.

I don't live under Jewish law. The old Testamemt to me served as a foreshadow of the coming of Christ, not as a book of requirements which must be followed. Jesus fulfilled all the requirement s of the Old Testament.

What are your thoughts on 1 Timothy 2:12?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

As I referenced in my earlier post, the bible doesn't say that the sun was CREATED in day four. I'd have to check what most bibles say, but my bibles says that the "luminaries came to be in the expanse of the heavens". The word "create" wasn't used. Again, many take this to mean that the sun and moon became visible, as the atmosphere finally cleared out.

How about this then, just list what order everything was created. I am sure I can point out several things wrong. IIRC, terrestial plants with fruit and seeds came before life in the seas and birds - both of which came before animals on the land. The correct order is sea - plants - land animals - birds.

Best argument I've seen yet from a creationist.

 

[The Commish]

If anything, kids nowadays do not understand science because they are too freaking lazy to investigate anything, let alone study it, not because some nutjob is brainwashing them into thinking that science isn't real.

But when parents teach Biblical literalism are they encouraging investigation and intellectual curiousity? Or does it encourage intellectually lazy dogma? The point I have made to my children again and again is to "question everything", which, in my opinion, is the most valuable lesson I can teach them.

They are teaching Biblical literalism No way to know beyond that what else they are encouraging.

Are you contending that teaching a child that the Bible is infallible is congruent with questioning orthodoxy?

No. You asked about a parent teaching biblical literalism and what they were encouraging. I said that based on what you posted, there's no telling what their motives are. Now you're asking about Biblical infallibility and how that fits into orthodoxy. What's next?

 

[shader]

As I referenced in my earlier post, the bible doesn't say that the sun was CREATED in day four. I'd have to check what most bibles say, but my bibles says that the "luminaries came to be in the expanse of the heavens". The word "create" wasn't used. Again, many take this to mean that the sun and moon became visible, as the atmosphere finally cleared out.

How about this then, just list what order everything was created. I am sure I can point out several things wrong. IIRC, terrestial plants with fruit and seeds came before life in the seas and birds - both of which came before animals on the land. The correct order is sea - plants - land animals - birds.

Best argument I've seen yet from a creationist.

If it works for Christo...

 

[CrossEyed]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

Perhaps, but you have to do a little exegetical gymnastics to justify the idea of evolution fitting in with the Genesis narrative.

Agreed. Although a YEC has to believe in some pretty quick evolution after the flood. The word evolution is just nothing but an argument starter. In a sense we all believe in evolution to some degree, as we all realize things change. But do I think God created a molecule and let it evolve into everything? No of course not, as I agree that is firmly against the narrative.

a YEC must reject the entire living world around them.

Not at all.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

As I referenced in my earlier post, the bible doesn't say that the sun was CREATED in day four. I'd have to check what most bibles say, but my bibles says that the "luminaries came to be in the expanse of the heavens". The word "create" wasn't used. Again, many take this to mean that the sun and moon became visible, as the atmosphere finally cleared out.

How about this then, just list what order everything was created. I am sure I can point out several things wrong. IIRC, terrestial plants with fruit and seeds came before life in the seas and birds - both of which came before animals on the land. The correct order is sea - plants - land animals - birds.

Best argument I've seen yet from a creationist.

If it works for Christo...

Hint: Christo uses it when he is right. You should try that next time.

 

[CrossEyed]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

So I guess it also doesn't really say that Jesus was the son of God or that he rose from the dead...

Where so you get that from? Read Genesis 1, it reads as though heaven and earth were created prior to Day 1. How long before, who knows? I believe what the Bible says, but I believe most things in the Bible has much deeper meaning than a literal interpretation.

So you don't eat lobster or wear clothes made from different fabrics?ETA: Actually I don't really care. I don't want to derail this thread anymore.I'm just going to sit back and watch Sn0mmis lay the smack down.

I don't live under Jewish law. The old Testamemt to me served as a foreshadow of the coming of Christ, not as a book of requirements which must be followed. Jesus fulfilled all the requirement s of the Old Testament.

What are your thoughts on 1 Timothy 2:12?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my thoughts are that Paul was instructing Timothy on how to conduct an orderly worship service at the church in Ephesus and helping him deal with some false teaching that had crept into the church. You don't actually think that verse is saying that women should never speak, do you?

 

[sn0mm1s]

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

They are quite clear. There are several fossils found of whales with everything from vestigial legs to well formed. It isn't like evolutionists made up these fossils and where they were found in the fossil record. If you find it lacking it means that you went in wanting to find it lacking. Grasping at straws and moving the goal posts are what the creationists do - as you just did yourself.

names of the fossils please?

Here is something to get you started even though I know it won't make any bit of difference.Whale article

The guy that wrote it developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium (which was a major modification of evolutionary theory at the time). I know there have been some other fossils discovered within the last 5 years or so - but why spend the time tracking them down when I know you are just going to link some Creationist site claiming these really aren't transitional fossils (that whole moving of the goal post bit)?

 

[zoonation]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

Perhaps, but you have to do a little exegetical gymnastics to justify the idea of evolution fitting in with the Genesis narrative.

Agreed. Although a YEC has to believe in some pretty quick evolution after the flood. The word evolution is just nothing but an argument starter. In a sense we all believe in evolution to some degree, as we all realize things change. But do I think God created a molecule and let it evolve into everything? No of course not, as I agree that is firmly against the narrative.

a YEC must reject the entire living world around them.

They must reject the world that they see? Come on man.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[sn0mm1s]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my thoughts are that Paul was instructing Timothy on how to conduct an orderly worship service at the church in Ephesus and helping him deal with some false teaching that had crept into the church. You don't actually think that verse is saying that women should never speak, do you?

It isn't that women should never speak - it is that they should always be under the power of a man because Adam came first and wasn't duped by the snake.

 

[shader]

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

They are quite clear. There are several fossils found of whales with everything from vestigial legs to well formed. It isn't like evolutionists made up these fossils and where they were found in the fossil record. If you find it lacking it means that you went in wanting to find it lacking. Grasping at straws and moving the goal posts are what the creationists do - as you just did yourself.

names of the fossils please?

Here is something to get you started even though I know it won't make any bit of difference.Whale article

The guy that wrote it developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium (which was a major modification of evolutionary theory at the time). I know there have been some other fossils discovered within the last 5 years or so - but why spend the time tracking them down when I know you are just going to link some Creationist site claiming these really aren't transitional fossils (that whole moving of the goal post bit)?

Thanks for the link. I'll read it tonight. His first case, Pakicetus, is not nearly as clear as you claim, but I'll research the rest of the fossils before I go down that rabbit-hole. And don't worry, I don't link to creationist sites. If I can't explain it, I don't bother posting it.

 

[shader]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

Perhaps, but you have to do a little exegetical gymnastics to justify the idea of evolution fitting in with the Genesis narrative.

Agreed. Although a YEC has to believe in some pretty quick evolution after the flood. The word evolution is just nothing but an argument starter. In a sense we all believe in evolution to some degree, as we all realize things change. But do I think God created a molecule and let it evolve into everything? No of course not, as I agree that is firmly against the narrative.

a YEC must reject the entire living world around them.

They must reject the world that they see? Come on man.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Are you making ridiculously outlandish statements?

 

[zoonation]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

Perhaps, but you have to do a little exegetical gymnastics to justify the idea of evolution fitting in with the Genesis narrative.

Agreed. Although a YEC has to believe in some pretty quick evolution after the flood. The word evolution is just nothing but an argument starter. In a sense we all believe in evolution to some degree, as we all realize things change. But do I think God created a molecule and let it evolve into everything? No of course not, as I agree that is firmly against the narrative.

a YEC must reject the entire living world around them.

Not at all.

I think you do. Nothing about this Earth supports a hypothesis that it is anything but billions of years old. Except the collection of stories written thousands of years ago by a scientifically illiterate population, of course. That of course is not really "evidence" though, is it?

 

[zoonation]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

Perhaps, but you have to do a little exegetical gymnastics to justify the idea of evolution fitting in with the Genesis narrative.

Agreed. Although a YEC has to believe in some pretty quick evolution after the flood. The word evolution is just nothing but an argument starter. In a sense we all believe in evolution to some degree, as we all realize things change. But do I think God created a molecule and let it evolve into everything? No of course not, as I agree that is firmly against the narrative.

a YEC must reject the entire living world around them.

They must reject the world that they see? Come on man.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Are you making ridiculously outlandish statements?

so...not deliberately, got it.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

And don't worry, I don't link to the site. If I can't explain it in my own words, I don't bother posting it.

This would put you miles ahead of golddigger where a post in his own words would be his first.

 

[zoonation]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my thoughts are that Paul was instructing Timothy on how to conduct an orderly worship service at the church in Ephesus and helping him deal with some false teaching that had crept into the church. You don't actually think that verse is saying that women should never speak, do you?

It isn't that women should never speak - it is that they should always be under the power of a man because Adam came first and wasn't duped by the snake.

talking snake too. perfect diction.