Crosswords0 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kiera. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I suppose I fit that criteria... but one has to differentiate between Old Earth and Young Earth creationists. My education is in Geology and I'm quite comfortable with a universe that's somewhere near 14 billion years (bya) old and an Earth that may be 4.3 bya that does not conflict with an original creation as described in the Old Covenant.
I have friends that maintain the universe and Earth are under 100,000 years in age and are able to reconcile that in the face of evidence to the contrary. As to the fossil record... there are problems with the fossil record even for non-theists. But, in direct answer to your question, the fossils exist because, in times past, creatures died and were preserved in silt, sand and other materials that would become rock, given enough time. The fossil record is replete, however, with inexplicable enigmas...
Youn earth creationists will maintain that fossils were created, mainly during the deluge known as Noah's flood. They don't deny the fossils exist, only deny eons of age... and, surprisingly, there are enough inexplicable enigmas to give logical support to their position. It's important to understand though, that we all have good friends who are wll educated that are non-theists who are equally at a loss to explain certain aspects of the column...
I have friends that maintain the universe and Earth are under 100,000 years in age and are able to reconcile that in the face of evidence to the contrary. As to the fossil record... there are problems with the fossil record even for non-theists. But, in direct answer to your question, the fossils exist because, in times past, creatures died and were preserved in silt, sand and other materials that would become rock, given enough time. The fossil record is replete, however, with inexplicable enigmas...
Youn earth creationists will maintain that fossils were created, mainly during the deluge known as Noah's flood. They don't deny the fossils exist, only deny eons of age... and, surprisingly, there are enough inexplicable enigmas to give logical support to their position. It's important to understand though, that we all have good friends who are wll educated that are non-theists who are equally at a loss to explain certain aspects of the column...
I'm friends with someone that's a creationist.
She truly believes the universe is about 10,000 years old.
I asked her this question once, and her answer was that "It's just a conspiracy theory, like the moon landings."
I hold no hope.
(And don't even get me started on these moon landing conspiracy fools.)
She truly believes the universe is about 10,000 years old.
I asked her this question once, and her answer was that "It's just a conspiracy theory, like the moon landings."
I hold no hope.
(And don't even get me started on these moon landing conspiracy fools.)
Bill Bryson in his excellent A Short History of Nearly Everything gives a splendid summary of the fossil situation, with emphasis on just how vanishingly rare fossils are, because an animal (usually one with a skeleton or a shell) has to die in very specific circumstances to produce one, and then we have to find it.
He reckons that the whole of the population of the USA - 270 million people with 206 bones each - will leave about fifty fossilised bones spread over (and under) 9.3 million square kilometres. (Why he uses kilometres in a land that sensibly uses miles is not clear.)
Clanad, please point me towards these "inexplicable enigmas" you mention. I have never come across them - except, of course, in creationist literature, but that doesn't count.
He reckons that the whole of the population of the USA - 270 million people with 206 bones each - will leave about fifty fossilised bones spread over (and under) 9.3 million square kilometres. (Why he uses kilometres in a land that sensibly uses miles is not clear.)
Clanad, please point me towards these "inexplicable enigmas" you mention. I have never come across them - except, of course, in creationist literature, but that doesn't count.
An interesting side issue concerns the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It make a valid point about religion and belief.
It make a valid point about religion and belief.
How old you believe the earth is will depend on which scientific "evidence" you buy into. There are no hard and set FACTS about anything - merely probabilities, possibilities, theories and ideas. When you have sat and collated ALL the probabilities, possibilities, theories and ideas, (all of them not just the popular ones that are easy to quote and digest) and when you have formed your OWN logical opinion on all the data before you - looking at the laws of physics, genetics, biology, chaos, relativity etc, then you can come to YOUR viewpoint. Fossils cannot speak and even if they could - how could you be a hundred percent sure that you were interpreting them correctly? How could you be sure they were telling the truth?
Choosing to believe something because it is a popular opinion and not because you have amassed the information yourself and so can give a PERSONAL OBJECTIVE is not the way of science,it is the way of FAITH (and blind faith at that). Following someone else's opinion because they say so is not science it is RELIGION.
At least creationists know that their beliefs are based on FAITH and that their RELIGION is based on God's opinion. They are not so deluded that they think they have all the answers and there are no more questions left.
Choosing to believe something because it is a popular opinion and not because you have amassed the information yourself and so can give a PERSONAL OBJECTIVE is not the way of science,it is the way of FAITH (and blind faith at that). Following someone else's opinion because they say so is not science it is RELIGION.
At least creationists know that their beliefs are based on FAITH and that their RELIGION is based on God's opinion. They are not so deluded that they think they have all the answers and there are no more questions left.
mallymoo it sounds to me that you are a creationist of sorts, or at least believe in intelligent design, and are trying to reconcile these assumptions and predispositions with some of the facts commonly accepted by modern scientific consensus. You seem to be doing this by belittling the power of scientific reasoning and the ability of anyone but those with further advanced study in science to reasonably subscribe to expounded scientific theory.
Hmmm... I've obviously missed the small print somewhere in the original question. Silly me, I thought it was a simple, sincere query on an opinion. I must have carelessly overlooked the invitation for cynical criticism and derision... I'll pay attention next time...
But, for the venerable chakka, here's but one discussion of the widley known, little discussed Signor-Lipps Effect : http://jerwood.nhm.ac.uk/archives/paleonet/199 5/msg00038.html (Does this meet your criterion for acceptability). Mr. MacLeod's opinion is but one of many and has reasonably serious consquences for dating various strata... many more are avialble, none form the reviled Creationist Literature. I always admire an open mind.
Secondly, the late Stephen Jay Gould penned "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" ., includes this:
"... The common knowledge of a profession often goes unrecorded in technical literature for two reasons: one need not preach commonplaces to the initiated; and one should not attempt to inform the uninitiated in publications they do not read. The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists ... p 749-750."
Contd.
But, for the venerable chakka, here's but one discussion of the widley known, little discussed Signor-Lipps Effect : http://jerwood.nhm.ac.uk/archives/paleonet/199 5/msg00038.html (Does this meet your criterion for acceptability). Mr. MacLeod's opinion is but one of many and has reasonably serious consquences for dating various strata... many more are avialble, none form the reviled Creationist Literature. I always admire an open mind.
Secondly, the late Stephen Jay Gould penned "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" ., includes this:
"... The common knowledge of a profession often goes unrecorded in technical literature for two reasons: one need not preach commonplaces to the initiated; and one should not attempt to inform the uninitiated in publications they do not read. The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists ... p 749-750."
Contd.
Contd.
Further, Gould states: "But another reason, beyond tacitly shared knowledge, soon arose to drive stasis more actively into textual silence. Darwinian evolution became the great intellectual novelty of the later 19th century, and paleontology held the archives of life's history. Darwin proclaimed insensibly gradual transition as the canonical expectation for evolution's expression in the fossil record. He knew, of course, that the detailed histories of species rarely show such a pattern, so he explained the literal appearance of stasis and abrupt replacement as an artifact of a woefully imperfect fossil record. Thus, paleontologist could be good Darwinians and still acknowledge the primary fact of their profession - but only at the price of sheepishness or embarrassment. No one can take great comfort when the primary observation of their discipline becomes an artifact of limited evidence rather than an expression of nature's ways. Thus, once gradualism emerged as the expected pattern for documenting evolution - with an evident implication that the fossil record's dominant signal of stasis and abrupt replacement can only be a sign of evidentiary poverty - paleontologist became cowed or puzzled, and even less likely to showcase their primary datum. (p 750) ".
Doesn't seem to be the apex of scientific honesty... somewhat akin to Nebraska Man, the 'feathered dinosaur' , England's own "Piltdown Man." to name a few...
Your turn...
Further, Gould states: "But another reason, beyond tacitly shared knowledge, soon arose to drive stasis more actively into textual silence. Darwinian evolution became the great intellectual novelty of the later 19th century, and paleontology held the archives of life's history. Darwin proclaimed insensibly gradual transition as the canonical expectation for evolution's expression in the fossil record. He knew, of course, that the detailed histories of species rarely show such a pattern, so he explained the literal appearance of stasis and abrupt replacement as an artifact of a woefully imperfect fossil record. Thus, paleontologist could be good Darwinians and still acknowledge the primary fact of their profession - but only at the price of sheepishness or embarrassment. No one can take great comfort when the primary observation of their discipline becomes an artifact of limited evidence rather than an expression of nature's ways. Thus, once gradualism emerged as the expected pattern for documenting evolution - with an evident implication that the fossil record's dominant signal of stasis and abrupt replacement can only be a sign of evidentiary poverty - paleontologist became cowed or puzzled, and even less likely to showcase their primary datum. (p 750) ".
Doesn't seem to be the apex of scientific honesty... somewhat akin to Nebraska Man, the 'feathered dinosaur' , England's own "Piltdown Man." to name a few...
Your turn...
Hi Meredith, I was brought up to believe in a Creator God and that the world was made in six days. That was what I was "encouraged" to believe, and until I could form my own opinion that is what I did. When I got older I realised that the Bible had a lot more to say about creation than Genesis Chapter One "In the beginning..." and I also realised that there was a big wide world of Science out there that heavily disputed the Genesis Chapter One version. And that the evidence to cause me to doubt the Genesis Chapter One version that I had been brought up with and indoctrinated with, was overwhelming.
That is when I decided to look into what I believed for myself. I discovered that Genesis Chapter One was followed by Genesis Chapter Two and that there were also a lot of Greek, Hebrew words that I did not know which might shed further light on this subject!!
I stopped reading the Bible and went looking at as much evidence to say to my parents "You got it wrong!"
My parents floundered under the evidence I presented and gave the incredible weak answer of "You have to believe by Faith!"
But that wasn't good enough for me and my point is that it shouldn't be good enough for you or anyone else. Your parents may have been indoctrinated to believe in evolution and the Big Bang theory and they may have passed that on to you - just as my parents indoctrinated me to believe in Creation.
I simply say before making a statement of faith understand what it is you are saying and why you are saying it. It doesn't take a PHD or a doctorate to do that - you just, like me, have to have a brain and a wish to make an informed judgement for yourself.
PS. I am eternally grateful to the scientific minds who have done this because I am not clever enough, nor do I have the time or resources to do that myself. But I can study their findings myself and choose which evidences sound the most
That is when I decided to look into what I believed for myself. I discovered that Genesis Chapter One was followed by Genesis Chapter Two and that there were also a lot of Greek, Hebrew words that I did not know which might shed further light on this subject!!
I stopped reading the Bible and went looking at as much evidence to say to my parents "You got it wrong!"
My parents floundered under the evidence I presented and gave the incredible weak answer of "You have to believe by Faith!"
But that wasn't good enough for me and my point is that it shouldn't be good enough for you or anyone else. Your parents may have been indoctrinated to believe in evolution and the Big Bang theory and they may have passed that on to you - just as my parents indoctrinated me to believe in Creation.
I simply say before making a statement of faith understand what it is you are saying and why you are saying it. It doesn't take a PHD or a doctorate to do that - you just, like me, have to have a brain and a wish to make an informed judgement for yourself.
PS. I am eternally grateful to the scientific minds who have done this because I am not clever enough, nor do I have the time or resources to do that myself. But I can study their findings myself and choose which evidences sound the most
thanks mallymoo, interesting read.
Clanad. What's this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ d/da/Homo_habilis.jpg
Do a couple of hoaxes mean that all fossils are hoaxes? Is that what you're saying?
Clanad. What's this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ d/da/Homo_habilis.jpg
Do a couple of hoaxes mean that all fossils are hoaxes? Is that what you're saying?
Not at all, meredith101... but there's been enough hoaxes to cause one pause. One has to realize that being a scientist does not absolve one of being a fake when in fact he/she has perpetrated such a hoax. The hoaxes do indicate a certain desperation for vindication, in my opinion. If they were accomplished by a creationist, I would have the same opinion, but there would be a great out-cry, no? Sadly, most non-theists don't see it the same way and are quite willing to overlook or even deny there are questions, major ones in my opinion, surrounding Darwin's position(s). One has to look no further than the factuality of the flawed and now dicarded origin of life (OOL) Miller-Urey experiments and the lack of critical response by the same scientific community. In re: Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (see Evolution from Space and Our Place in the Cosmos) calculated that the likelihood of even one simple enzyme arising in the right conditions was only one chance in 10^20 and noted that there are around 2,000 such enzymes in a common bacterium. Sir Fred and Chandra also posited that for all the right enzymes to form at the right place at one time to produce a single bacterium to be 1 in 10^40,000. Yet, the fact of evolution is still unquestioned in many scientific quarters and one has to ask why?... which is all I'm doing...
Here's why I don't think it's worth questioning.
1) Life is here.
2) It got here from somewhere
3) There are two possible explanations for this:
----Life evolved from non-life. Hard to see how, since rocks aren't in the habit of turning into frogs. Even though hard to see how, mechanisms not seen as being impossible, in the way that chocolate bar turning into television seen impossible.
-----Some force, or superhuman person PLACED living beings on earth, fully formed, in a spontaneous act some time in the past. This is not impossible. However there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and there is no direct reason to assume that it should be lent any credibility. The fact that a bunch of people wrote some books that were dug by lots of other people outlining how this might have been done, in no way lends support to this hypothesis. In fact, the hypothesis seems pretty unlikely, since there is no evidence at all of ANY kind of superhuman intervention in history EVER. You'd think a being capable of plopping a few folk on a precreated wonderstage would be in the habit of carrying out the odd intervention now and then.
But rather than waste my time, I think you should be fair to me, and admit that nothing I will say will ever change your mind. Which makes my reasoning wasteful. And your position shaky.
1) Life is here.
2) It got here from somewhere
3) There are two possible explanations for this:
----Life evolved from non-life. Hard to see how, since rocks aren't in the habit of turning into frogs. Even though hard to see how, mechanisms not seen as being impossible, in the way that chocolate bar turning into television seen impossible.
-----Some force, or superhuman person PLACED living beings on earth, fully formed, in a spontaneous act some time in the past. This is not impossible. However there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and there is no direct reason to assume that it should be lent any credibility. The fact that a bunch of people wrote some books that were dug by lots of other people outlining how this might have been done, in no way lends support to this hypothesis. In fact, the hypothesis seems pretty unlikely, since there is no evidence at all of ANY kind of superhuman intervention in history EVER. You'd think a being capable of plopping a few folk on a precreated wonderstage would be in the habit of carrying out the odd intervention now and then.
But rather than waste my time, I think you should be fair to me, and admit that nothing I will say will ever change your mind. Which makes my reasoning wasteful. And your position shaky.
....
afterall, that humans were just *placed here*, in an instant, with the rest of creation, is the only alternative to evolution, and is obviously the position you hold. So without trying to obscure the issue, be honest for once and admit this is what you hold. This totally reasonable belief, that one day thousands of years ago, our first forebears just popped up on earth. Where was it? Just north of the M25? If the brainwashed could just wake themselves up for a minute you'd see just how ABSURD your position is. You WON'T see it because you don't WANT to see it, stop trying to deceive by pretending that you are approaching it with intellectual honesty and rigour, because you're not. Your veiled sarcasm and dodging of issues betrays you.
afterall, that humans were just *placed here*, in an instant, with the rest of creation, is the only alternative to evolution, and is obviously the position you hold. So without trying to obscure the issue, be honest for once and admit this is what you hold. This totally reasonable belief, that one day thousands of years ago, our first forebears just popped up on earth. Where was it? Just north of the M25? If the brainwashed could just wake themselves up for a minute you'd see just how ABSURD your position is. You WON'T see it because you don't WANT to see it, stop trying to deceive by pretending that you are approaching it with intellectual honesty and rigour, because you're not. Your veiled sarcasm and dodging of issues betrays you.
Latest Posts
1.000 Migrants Since Christmas Day
News2 mins ago
Technology6 mins ago
Will Stonehenge Become Reform's...
News7 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
