>From: Susan Brassfield <Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu>
>> >Do you know the difference between data (evidence) and the interpretation
>of
>> >that data (evidence)? Obviously not. The only way you can claim that
>> >things were not different in the past is that you, or someone you know,
>was
>> >there, or you interpret the data that way according to your
>> >presuppositions.
>>
>> so how does a creationist interpret the datum that human fossils only
>appear
>> in extremely recent geological strata? Where are the pre-Cambrian rabbits?
>
>Stick to the subject. The obvious interpretation is that human remains were
>buried toward the end of the global catastrophe. And the rabbits were not
>buried at the beginning of the catastrophe.
huh? what catastrophe? When was it and what geological evidence do you have
for it? That *is* the topic. Humans and rabbits are only found in very
recent geological strata. They are never found in Cambrian strata. (That
*is* the subject!)
>> abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are two different things. That's
>why
>> they have two different terms for them. The latter is what Pasteur
>> disproved. Neither thing has anything to do with evolution and the history
>> of life.
>
>Let's see: Abiogenesis -- non-biogenetic origin of life. Spontaneous
>generation -- non-biogenetic origin of life. Yeah! I see the difference!
A maggot popping into existence in rotten meat is a big difference from
self-organizing biomolecules. A maggot is a very sophisticated and
complicated creature.
>The most current Catastrophist models propose a
>string of asteroid impacts similar to that which hit Jupiter in 94, which
>cause flooding by impact-tsunami. Side effects of such a storm of asteroids
>is breakup of continental masses with associated global volcanic activity,
>the injection of massive quantities of water into and above the atmosphere
>which then falls back to earth. Thus most of the flooding would not occur
>due to overflowing of rivers, but inundation of continents by hundreds of
>mega-tsunami ranging in height from 0.5 to 3 km high at approach to the land
>mass. While the continents are over run by water, the tidal effects would
>be a factor in deposition also. Can the depositional rocks be interpreted
>within such a model? Yes.
uh, no. Then how do you get fossilized forrests underneath dried up oceans
with prairies on top of them?
>
>>if you assume that deeper means older as geologists in
>the
>> 18th and 19th centuries did, then as you dig deeper then the plants and
>> animals look less and less like they do today. How does creationism deal
>> with that? I've never heard a good answer to that question. Usually it's
>> just ignored (doesn't fit).
>
>. . . The depositions will grade finer
>in the direction of the motion of the wave. Sediments will be deposited
>according to size, weight, roundness and saturation.
How is it the elephants and dinosaurs which are approximately the same
shape and weight were not deposited anywhere near each other? And deposited
the in the same order--elephants higher, dinosaurs lower and *never*
together--all over the world? Also there were lots of small, gracile
dinosaurs about the same size, weight and shape of humans. How come they
are *always* found in the same relationship to each other--humans higher,
dinosaurs lower and never together--all over the world?
>. . . Flooding by tsunami first
>inundates the lowland and then progressively the highlands. Depositions
>should then reflect to a general degree the ecological zonation of the
>pre-flood world.
I haven't heard this argument for a long time. Which means I haven't seen
the refuation for it for a long time.
>> >straight-forward reading [of the Bible] according to common sense is
>>warranted. Where
>it
>> >is obviously literal, read literal. Where obviously metaphoric, read
>> >metaphor.
>>
>> ROFL!! and the reader gets to pick which as suits him or her.
>>
>What a stupid comment.
Indeed.
>Common sense is common to everyone, except for those
>who have no sense.
150 years ago it was perfect common sense that blacks were inferior and
slavery was ok. Slaves are mentioned in the Bible and it was obviously
perfectly alright with biblical people and their god. Now morality has
shifted (obviously for the better) and it's NOT perfectly ok to own slaves.
It is NOT part of common sense. You also can't be put to death for wearing
mixed-fiber clothing. That made perfect common sense *then* but not now.
Now a magic tree and a talking snake . . *there's* common sense!!!
>This is the same rule that applies to reading and
>understanding Shakespeare, Whittier, Longfellow, or any other written
>communication.
Nobody thinks Shakespear's plays were literal history or personal biography.
We all understand idioms, slang, colloquialisms, metaphors,
>etc.. One simple does the same with the Bible. And, to make it even
>better, God has promised to everyone who asks, special tutelage in
>understanding the Bible through the Holy Spirit, the very one who inspired
>the writers to write in the first place.
You can understand the bible because the bible says you can understand the
bible. I see.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 28 2000 - 17:53:07 EST