How did it start?

I have a question for AdminNosy...How can this be a purely science thread if the general argument/discussion of this whole forum is between creation vs evolution.By seperating the waters you are avoiding hot and intemperate discussions but you are also killing the basic discussion that makes the thread worthwile...I know I'm a newbie around here and that I shouldn't ask impertinant questions, but if I can't use the bible as a starting point to answer questions then how can there be a discussion?

I guess one would have to sallyforth&trotout something like Agassiz's

quote:

---

SECTION VII. Simultaneous Existence in the Earliest Geological Periods, of All the Great Types of Animals.

​

It was formerly believed by geologists and palaeontologists that the lowest animals first made their appearence upon this globe and that they were followed by higher and higher types until man crowned the series. Every geological museum representing at all the present state of our knowledge, may now furnish evidence that this is not the case. On the contrary, representatives of numerous families beloning to all the four great branches of the animal kingdom are well known to have existed simultaneously in the oldest geological formations. Nevertheless I well remember when I used to hear the great geologists of the time assert, that the Corals were the first inhabitants of our globe, that Mollusks and Articulata followed in order, and that vertebrates did not appear until long after these.

---

Let the evo position be this formerly"" and whatever ever is next let be it a Biblical position but dont say so, just know so, so, like Aggasiz "used" to hear, you just have to figure out what we do HEAR today in the same place, do your worship on Sunday and post again monday etc.. I take it "first made their appearence" and 'origin' are not debateably different. Oh, and in case any one wants to listen more to my particular position in it all, there is another audio available from me
Brad'sEVC
but this time it is the doctor in this "former" spot. Dr. Silversteen would not be able to keep up with this thread for instance. So in the case this IS that/this case 30years in 1800s = less than a minute in 1900s.

Lower animals ? (?/ Did not live in that ..) ?This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 04-09-2005 02:46 AM

Sorry, I just stumbled over this question. Many of those here who accept evolutionary biology (both unbelievers and believers) have no argument with individuals beliefs. What we all have an argument with is the pretense that there is any science behind creationism. It is the attempt to inject religious beliefs (of a minority cult) into the science classrooms that are our major concern.If individuals choose to believe certain things based on faith then that is their choice. If they think that they have any scientific backing for those beliefs they have to support these ideas with the same rigor that all scientific ideas require.Many Christians think it is a form of blasphemy to subject the Bible and their religion to scientific scrutiny. That is one reason why the literalist creationists find themselves at odds with both science and theology.To bring the Bible into a science thread subjects it to that rigorous scrutiny.If someone suggests that geology or biology or the chemistry of the origin of life is covered by the Bible then they have to show with good evidence that what the Bible appears to say is true. There are no impertinant questions. This is one which perhaps deserves a thread of its own. It is an interesting philosophical and forum organizational issue. I think there should be some extensive material on this as part of the introduction to evcforum.

The problem today is that Gould had thought that there were fewer species but more types of organisms in the sound of this time where Agassiz really brought home the point that it was not what was heard, that there was a series (from Corals on up say Kant's chain of being) but rather that all the types were present in early horizons. Now that Gould insists there were more types before this geological horizon rather than just saying there were divisions of morphospace we cant quite categorize he is actually betting against such an upset which I think most likely if life is found off earth. But yes, it is clear that things have not changed in terms of asserting such series but only the clades falling under the "coral" heading the professional caveat aside. There is an interesting discussion by Kant on the status of rock with a hole in it. Is it a tool or simply someplace erroded away?I dont understand what Crashfrog meant by evidence of former life but if it is simply Gould's claim (more types than Agassiz in past time so Agassiz's lower animal argument is rendered neutered)then that would reduce indeed to the sound of a coral discussion. I dont know what the reef atoll issue has to do with this but I dont think it neutral.

So do you think I should revise and repost this question as new topic for discussion?

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

For those who care to entertain a paradox I happen to have pretty strong beliefs about where first life came from. It may be hard for those who have read some of my other posts to believe but I do believe in God I just don’t think that God had first hand conscious interaction with our species. A much higher form of evolution may have interacted with our species thousands of years ago and was interpreted as God but the God of the Universe is unlikely to be conscious of our existence or have had any direct interaction with our species.The paradox is that I believe in a form of creationism in that God may have had a master plan and evolution is the method that God choose to populate inhabitable worlds. The paradox is that I believe in an infinite Universe and that our pocket of spacetime is one of an infinite number of similar pockets of spacetime that have existed for an infinite length of time. There are an infinite number of pockets that are infinitely larger and an infinite number of pockets that are infinitely smaller.First life on this planet evolved through the atomic layer and crossed boundaries from being one of the largest macroscopic conscious life forces inside a single subatomic particle to becoming one of the smallest microscopic conscious life forces in our relative pocket of spacetime. Evolution is an infinite progression that can continue unabated as long as habitable conditions are available for the length of time needed before the evolutionary process no longer requires biochemical processes to sustain existence.So to me it is a paradox to believe that we are the byproduct of an infinite chain of evolution that could have been part of some type of intelligent design so I don’t put much effort into thinking about God’s plan since it really has little bearing on what really matters. Whether there is a God or not and whether God planned any of this or not does not really matter. Our purpose on this planet is to do all in our power to come as close as possible to seeing our evolutionary chain survive the inevitable destruction of our solar system by our own Sun and being well distributed amongst the stars. To do that we have to bond as a species and set aside all our petty differences and begin to recognize how close we may be to self annihilation. Where are we likely to be 200 years from now if we don’t as a species begin to make some global decisions that matter? If we continue on our present path I feel that 200 years from now we will be far past the point of any hope of eternal salvation.

I would have no problem whatsoever with you using the bible as a reference when discussing science IFF you are willing to accept inerrancies in the bible when I point them out.Before you answer, think about it first. Do you really want me, and others, to start pointing out every obvious error in the bible starting with the shape of the Earth and the world wind patterns?

In the months that I 've participated here I've seen many people try to poke holes in what the bible says. Although I believe in the creation of mankind by the direct interaction and intervention of God, I can also say without any qualm that if one wants to look hard enough one can always find some contradictions and inerrency in the biblical texts without altering the principle intent of the message.
How much I bend backwards to accomodate your statements depends on what you have to say.Having said this and after giving careful consideration to your offer I accept it with pleasure. Discussion is always welcome although insults however veiled are not. Let's keep the discussion at a level above the waist.As for an indepth knowledge on evolution, there I must say I don't know as much about it as a biologist or anthropologist might, so if I don't understand something, Ill scream for help. (if that's ok with you)

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

The thing is people don't have to look hard to find these contradictions.

That depends on the contradiction doesn't it?Some apparent contradictions I agree with, some are only apparent since the context of the whole book clarifies many of them.Since you're the one stating the existence of some of these contradictions, which ones do you want to talk about first?

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Per the most recent messages - I suggest you find a The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy topic for it, or propose a new one.Closing this topic.Adminnemooseus

---