>>Sheesh! Every time you get strong disagreement, we get the "data doesn't
matter" riff. Come on, I disagree with your VIEW of the data (I call it
"eisegesis of the natural world.") And I've offered argument, expert opinion,
and options. From whales to Neanderthals, citations and analysis. Many others
have done the same. To try and sweep all this under the rug with "data
doesn't matter" characterizations is simply not adequate. <<
No Jim you don't EXPLAIN anything. It has nothing to do with disagreement.
Tell me HOW the evidence of fire, art, spears, scalping, costumes, querns etc
fit into a Biblical framework. Don't merely explain it away (e.g. "it
doesn't mean evoluton")--connect the data into a coherent picture. That is
what science is all about. You said that it was the physical world which
proved that evolution could not have occurred. Alright, then deal with the
data on a physical basis. Why do we find evidence of art, fire, spears,
woodworking long, long ago prior to when you would have Adam on earth? Is
this the pre-Adamic civilization? Is this the work of demons? Is this God
fooling us? What is the conceptual framework to fit this data into?
Apparently, all facts to you are isolated, non-interelating facts with no
connection to anything else.
If you are going to explain it away, then point to animals which make stone
tools and use them to carve spears. Then you have a valid objection to my
use of the spear as evidence of human activity. Point to another species
that scalps their own kind with stone tools. If you can do that, then I
would admit that my evidence is worthless.
Once again you failed to rise to the challenge to peice together your view of
why that data is there in the first place. If human kind was not created
until around 60,000 years ago, then the prediction of that viewpoint is that
we WILL NOT find any evidence of human activities prior to 60,000 years ago.
Yet we DO find such evidence. In science, when the predictions of a
viewpoint are contradicted, the viewpoint is considered to have been
falsified. If you can not fit all the evidence into a coherent,
nonevolutionary viewpoint, then I suggest you have nothing except your own
opinion to support your viewpoint.
You wrote:
>>This is an honest difference of opinion. I don't begrudge you yours. But
you do mine, viz: <<
If it is merely a matter of opinion then have it. But don't claim that it is
scientifically supported by the data if it is only an opinion. And don't
claim that it is scientific if you have no coherent picture of how the
various facts of the various sciences fit together. We Christians are
feeding our children stuff like this, they go off to college and find out how
wrong it is and then we wonder why they leave the faith. Just the other day
on Talk Origins was a post by a guy entitled, "I am a former creationist."
He recently left the faith because everything he was taught by christian
apologists was factually erroneous. Every time I hear of this, I literally
want to cry. Another lifelong enemy of the faith has been created, by us!
We have failed to give that person a coherent picture of the way physical
reality matches the Biblical world view. How long must we continue to do
this?
Denis today described me as "intense". You bet. I have something which may
be hermeneutically unclean, but it definitely accounts for the data in a
coherent picture which I truly wish I could have gotten to the fellow
mentioned above before he chose to leave the faith. Unfortunately, I
couldn't. This is the problem which motivates my intensity!!!!
I am currently reading Hugh Ross' Creation and Time. I ran into the
following quote.
"The creation days of Genesis, if long, provide an explanation. For six days
(the fossil record eras) God created new life-forms. After the creation of
Adam and Eve, however, God ceased from His work of creating new life-forms
(the seventh day), and His rest, or 'cessation,' continues to this day." p.
50
This paragraph makes predictions which can be verified or falsified in the
historical and fossil record. NO species are to have arisen since mankind
was created. Like it or not a species is a "life-form". But Ross' statement
isn't true. Wheat, corn and cotton have all been developed within the past
10,000 years. The oldest corn is 7,000 years old. (see P.C. Mangelsdorf, "The
Origin of Corn" Scientific American Aug. 1986, p. 82) Hawaii has several new
types of moths which feed on bananas only. These are unique species. How do
we know that they are recent? Because there were no bananas on Hawaii until
about 1000 years ago! Mice brought to the Faeroe Islands are now separate
species in only 200 years. (S. Stanely, 1979 Macroevolution: Pattern and
Process p. 41). A small part of Lake Victoria was cut off from the main body
of water 4000 years ago. Five species of cichlid fish, unknown from
anywhere else in the world, live in that small lake and have most likely
evolved in the past 4000 years. (see S.M. Stanley, "Evolution of Life" Great
Ideas Today, Ency. Brit., 1983, p. 22). The southern end of Lake Malawi was
dry only two centuries ago. Since the lake filled, "numerous endemic
species" have originated during the past 200 years. (Axel Meyer,
"Phylogenetic Relationships and Evolutionary Processes in East African
Cichlid Fishes," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8:8 1993, p. 284) 14,000
years ago, Lake Victoria itself was desiccated. All the fish species which
live there now, and do not inhabit the rivers, have arisen in the past 14,000
years.(see Meyer, Ibid, p. 283)
Ross, did not define what he meant by no new life forms, but his looseness
with that term is part of the problem. Species are obviously different
"life-forms" so his contention is easily disproved. And if it is that easily
disproved, what does this do for the faith of those who believe this after
they find out some of the things I cited? This is why exactitude with the
facts is so important.
You wrote:
>>Sorry, but I live in L.A., and this isn't amusing. <<
It wasn't meant to be amusing. (And LA isn't the only place in the world with
drive by shootings. We have had them in my neighborhood!) What was said was
just a statement of fact. When you fail over and over again to try to EXPLAIN
the data in a coherent picture, you are doing exactly what was stated. Just
taking pot-shots at whatever anyone else suggests.
While we christians sit around explaining why everything we observe in this
world does not really mean what it appears to mean, we are losing people
from our faith. We are being relegated to the outskirts of society because
people think we only offer an illusion to them. "All scientific observations
are illusory". We shoot at any observation which does not fit our theology
and proclaim ourselves wise. I think I am going to go cry for our children
now.
glenn