Has anyone seen this on the news? Arguments among evolution is being debated within the schools now! Personaly, I see no problem withj evolution. C.S. Lewis in his book "Mere Christianty" gives a beautiful comparison of evolution to the journeying Christian. The Bible even makes some interesting statements about an "ancient earth."

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004

Answers

well I think the " Science Vs Christyainity" veiw is based on the misconception that all Chrisaisn are fundamentalists, and all fundamentalists acept creatioism, which is not the case.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 22, 2004.

Those who claim to see a conflict between the Bible and biology only demonstrate that they know extremely little about biology, and nothing at all about the Bible.

Much as I admire C S Lewis, I believe that long before he did so, the Catholic scholar Teilhard de Chardin developed a comparison between the evolution of living things and the evolution of the Christian faith in the individual Christian and in the Church.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 22, 2004.

I heard that they are now coming to understand that we didn't originate from only two humans but from groups. This could be a problem if it is accepted.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 23, 2004.

DJ, if by “they” you mean “the consensus of scientific opinion”, you heard wrong. In fact the trend is in exactly the opposite direction. The theory that different races of Homo sapiens descended from different species of prehistoric Homo has now been discredited. Anthropologists today are increasingly accepting the theory that all of humanity is descended from one couple, or at least from one woman.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 23, 2004.

Well, it's tough to tell what mosts of the biologists think. I'm constantly hearing contradicting stories. I dont know which information I should trust. I remember this discussion a while back about us descending from a group of humans rather than 2 in the Catholic Forum. These guys seemed pretty well informed.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 23, 2004.

Look up Midoconrial eve... they traced the genetic trail to a single woman livign in Aftrica some 2 million years ago, give or take...it was int he enws in fact. Indeed, discovery Channel had a whole special on it. in science news they woudltn sut up about it, it was such a large discovery.

Ah well, I suppose peopel dont pay attention tot he scence news.

The woman was of african decent, by the way.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2004.

I have a book written by a scientist who is also a Christian, yet old- earth. I can not remember his name at this moment but the name of the book is called "The Science of God." It's very interesting! He shows how some jews before Christ's time and after believed it was possible that "human-like" creatures could have possibly existed during Adam's time, yet they did not posses the "soul" which makes us human. He shows how some believed this not because of anthropology evidence we posses today, but because of the Holy scriptures and the original language.

It's pretty interesting. God give you peace!

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.

Biological evolution is not only perfectly compatible with the existence of Adam and Eve, it practically DEMANDS their existence. Evolution of new species occurs through the development of new individuals which are “fitter” for their environment. The changes in existing lifeforms, so that a totally new form appears, occur by genetic MUTATION of DNA in the process of reproduction. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or fatal, but a very few convey an advantage. A particular beneficial mutation is likely to occur in only one or two different individuals. It is mathematically extremely unlikely, that the same mutation would have occurred about the same time in a large number of individuals.

I think it's tragic that so many people read the first 3 chapters of Genesis as merely a literal historical or scientific text(which they are most definitely not, because these chapters are the greatest description of the human condition which have ever been written. If only people would appreciate them for what they are, instead of misusing them to initiate a stupid argument against science.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 23, 2004.

agreed, steve, the attempt to argue against proven science using the bible or arguing against God from proven science represents a failure to understand one or the other.

evolution is no longer a question. I dont know if you all saw the news a couple weeks back, but they actually discovered a new SPECIES of human that developed down a different track and died out on an island where dwarf traits became common among many of the animals as well. the question isnt whether evolution occured, its HOW it occured, and the answer is God.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 24, 2004.

Proven science? Have you any idea how much faith it takes to believe evolution? It takes just as much, if not more, faith to believe evolution instead of creation. Specifically this is the case for the non-scientific community, because those people don't even understand the scientific arguements from either side, so they are putting faith in the people who are smarter than them to tell them the truth. However, I can't say this about new "evidence" for evolution because I have not bothered to look into it, but I can about older "evidence." Much of it was staged, a hoax, completely made up. The most classic example is of the peppered moth. How many of you have seen that picture of the 2 moths on the tree? Of you who have, how many of you thought it was viable evidence for natural selection? Of you who have, how many of you knew it was admittedly staged? That's right, the photographers admitted to placing both of the moths on the tree, and that the moths didn't do it naturally. Anyway, my point is that it takes just as much faith to believe evolution instead of creation, and by the way, evolution does not coincide with the bible one bit.

I challenge you to find any observation that exclusively supports evolution. God bless.

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), November 29, 2004.

There is a reason that it's called the "theory" of evolution..it's still unproven. I personally have no problem with evolution at all, as a part of God's awesome power. When having friendly discussions with my Fundamentalist friends, I always asked them to please explain to me the passage in Genesis where it says that God punished Cain by sending him to live with the people who lived in the land of Nod. I've always been rather fascinated by this. Where did these folks come from? And why did God consider this such a fitting punishment for Cain to be among these people? In college, I wrote an essay on this in our Theology class..perhaps, just perhaps..the "people" in Nod were part of God's evolutionary plan and just a tad short of "human"..incapable of human communication, etc. and so by banishing Cain to live with them, it was punishment indeed. Why not?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 29, 2004.

Evolution is not a "theory" because it has not been "proven". It is a "theory" because it cannot be empirically tested, and can therefore be "proven" only from ancillary evidence. However, the sheer volume and consistency of such evidence is sufficient to prove the fact beyond any reasonable doubt. A parallel situation is the existence of atoms. This concept has not been "proven" by direct observation, only indirectly by observation of presumed effects. Yet the atomic THEORY forms the underlying foundation of science. It is a "theory" which has been "proven" beyond any reasonable doubt, but which is still technically a "theory" until such time as we can actually see atoms.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2004.

> "Have you any idea how much faith it takes to believe evolution?"

A: Yes. It takes the same kind of "faith" that is required to believe in the existence of atoms, or continental drift, or the chemical composition of the atmosphere of Venus. The same kind of faith it takes to swallow unknown chemical substances or to allow someone to slice open your body, just because your doctor tells you it is necessary. This is the kind of natural faith we place in the determinations of recognized experts in their respective fields of study. This is how we obtain knowledge of natural events and processes. To reject the determinations of such experts is to remain ignorant, as they are our only reliable sources of such scientific knowledge.

> "I can't say this about new "evidence" for evolution because I have not bothered to look into it, but I can about older "evidence." Much of it was staged, a hoax, completely made up."

A: No, "much" of it was not. There have been a few attempted hoaxes by individuals trying to make a name, or a buck, for themselves. There have been hundreds of such hoaxes in the area of the fine arts - forged paintings and sculptures offered as genuine. And in the area of history - counterfeit documents offered as genuine. Does this somehow invalidate the study of art? Or of history? Or of evolutionary biology? Obviously, not!

> "The most classic example is of the peppered moth. How many of you have seen that picture of the 2 moths on the tree? Of you who have, how many of you thought it was viable evidence for natural selection? Of you who have, how many of you knew it was admittedly staged? That's right, the photographers admitted to placing both of the moths on the tree, and that the moths didn't do it naturally."

A: What the heck does that have to do with anything? What would you suggest the photographer do? Sit there looking at a tree, hoping that one white moth and one black one would eventually land next to each other?? The specimens were posed for the photograph. Of course they were! So?? The reality illustrated by the photograph - that the predominant color of the moth population changed in response to a change in the environment - is perfectly sound.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2004.

I know that volution is not a "theory" because it has not been "proven." I know that it is a theory because it is an attempt to explain how or why something works. This is what a theory is. This is also why creation is a theory. It is an attempt to explain how or why something works. Additionally, in a rigorous scientific manner you cannot prove anything, you can only disprove things.

It takes as much faith to believe evolution as creation because of one detail: no matter how much evidence anyone finds for evolution, no matter how much evidence anyone finds for creation, neither can be scientifically observed by conducting experiments, which is the only proper way to "obtain knowledge of natural events and processes." You can scientifically experiment in your own home that tylenol or ibuprofen or sav on brand acetaminophen makes your pain go away. You may have no idea why, other than people tell you it does, but you can experimentally see that it does by taking one when you're hurt, and voila, the pain goes away. Or you could send a probe to Venus to determine the composition of its atmosphere, or you can even determine the makeup by what parts of the spectrum reflect off of the gasses. However, one cannot conduct an experiment like this on evolution or creation, and therefore you have to have the same kind of faith to believe in either of them. (and why the ad hominem?) It was admittedly unfair of me to say that "much" was, because I have not examined "much" of the proposed evidence for either side of the arguement. Much of what I have examined as evidence for evolution is either a hoax or has later been proven to be incorrect. "The moths didn't do it naturally" meaning the moths rarely naturally just sat around on the tree trunks, not that they didn't naturally happen to land next to each other, the moths simply didn't sit like that on the tree trunks very often at all. The time they spend resting on the trunks of the trees (which is the only place that their different colorations would affect their camouflaging abilities) is not large enough to drastically alter their respective populations.

Here's a question for you though, if not by Divine creation, how did life begin in the first place? Even under strictly controlled conditions in laboratory settings where we can alter the conditions in just about any way we want, we cannot create even simple life. So, to be cliche, where did we come from?

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), November 30, 2004.

“It takes as much faith to believe evolution as creation because of one detail: no matter how much evidence anyone finds for evolution, no matter how much evidence anyone finds for creation, neither can be scientifically observed by conducting experiments, which is the only proper way to "obtain knowledge of natural events and processes."

Wrong, Chipper. Most scientific theories, especially in biology, geology etc. are confirmed as true by MAKING OBSERVATIONS. Every one of the millions of fossils which have been found, have when tested by observation, been found consistent with the “theory” of evolution. A “theory” in scientific terms simply means “a logical explanation for observed phenomena”. It doesn’t mean the same as what people generally mean by “theory” – “a hunch which might be true, but very likely is false”. In the case of evolution and many other scientific theories, the “theory” is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that for all practical purposes we can take it as a proven incontrovertible fact.

"Here's a question for you though, if not by Divine creation, how did life begin in the first place?" I don't know who you think you're addressing, but everyone here believes God created the world and everything in it. That's a totally different thing from believing in the ludicrous nonsense called "creation science", which is neither a science nor truly appreciative of God's creation. There is absolutely no conflict between believing that God created everything and believing the proven scientific fact that evolution occurs. In the words of Pope Pius IX in the 19th century, "Truth does not contradict truth."

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 01, 2004.

"proven scientific fact" Do you understand the scientific method? By the reasoning that leads to "proven scientific fact" one could say that the ether was a proven scientific fact, but it was disproved. One could say that phlogiston was a proven scientific fact, but it was disproved. Any theory we have or have ever had can never be proven, it can only be disproved. And please don't misconstrue what I say. I said that a theory was "an attempt to explain how or why something works." To say it in a different way, I mean that a theory is "an in depth explanation of how or why something happens or works." Obviously theories will be instantly refuted if they are not based off of interpretations of data that people could believe. I could explain to you for ages that sugar was sweet because magic fairies lived inside it and they cast magic spells on your tongue when you eat sugar. This has observations to refute it (natural chemical reaction with taste buds sending nerve impulse to brain yada yada yada), but it is still a theory. And it can be disproven. Theories must conform to observations. If observations show a theory to be invalid, the theory must be modified or tossed out all together. A general scientific consensus about something does not prove it. Some of Newton's theories (which everyone agreed with at the time) were disproven and had to be modified. Phlogiston and the ether were disproven and thrown out, becuase new observations called for new theories, not just modification. Nothing can be scientifically proven. I in no way meant to imply that scientific theories were hunches. As for my question, I apologize. I got caught up in the moment and said something dumb before thinking about it. If anyone was offended, I am sorry.

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 01, 2004.

Phlogiston and the ether were disproven and thrown out, because new observations called for new theories, not just modification. Biological evolution has not been thrown out because it is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence, and no evidence has yet come to light that suggests any other viable theory to explain the observed facts. As soon a someone proposes an alternate scientific theory that adequately explains how new species have gradually and constantly replaced similar pre-existing species since life first appeared on earth, scientists worldwide will immediately begin to explore that new theory. Until then, we have to go with the theory which best explains the observable facts.

You are technically correct that no scientific theory is ever absolutely proven, which is simply another way of saying we are always open to new evidence. But in reality that is more a philosophical construct than a practical reality. Sure, philosophically we remain "open to new evidence" that water is made of something other than hydrogen and oxygen. But we know that such evidence will never be produced. The current evidence is strong enough so that the chemical structure of water is "proven" in any practical sense, even though the matter remains "open" philosophically.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2004.

you are, technically, incorrect, chipper. the majority of theories have very little to do with conjecture and very much to do with proven fact. for example the theory of gravitational attraction states that two masseous bodies will attract via the gravitational force. by all means, show me how that isnt a proven fact. The theory of relativity states that varying the frame of observation reference changes the resultant observed velocity (and/or other characteristics) of MOST systems. these are PROVEN theories. the idea of ether was never truly a theory to begin with, as it ALWAYS had a gaping hole in it, where supporters of that HYPOTHESIS thought they could fill it in but couldnt.

Conversely, you point out newtons theories. but newton didnt ever postulate theories, he postulated three specific LAWS. Laws are entirely different from theories in that they are much more maleable... they are based on observables, and as our level of observation and scientific knowledge change so do our refinement of the scientific laws. that being said, newton's laws are not wrong, per se, but they are not accurate for the quantum scale. HOWEVER, using the quantum equation, one can derive newtons laws for larger systems thereby proving the validity of newtons laws for non quantum systems. its like saying that bus drivers don't know how to drive because they dont have a pilots liscense. its not a matter of right, or wrong, its a matter of function for the scale of the issue.

FURTHER, the problem with ether was that there was a PROBLEM with the theory all along. little road bumps that indicated that the theory was wrong. essentially, ether failed to account for why light which moved with the ether was not faster than light moving against the ether... under that HYPOTHESIS, ether never could make physical sense. under the theory of relativity, it does. the THEORY of evolution, however, doesnt have glaring counter evidence. it has a few holes of empty spots in fossil records that need to be filled in, but nothing to say that it didnt happen and ALOT to say that it did.

and finally, you keep comparing the theory of evolution with PHYSICS theories. this is an innacurate comparison (logical fallacy of weak analogy). why do i say this? because in PHYSICS, theories are based on detailed observations of systems. as our detail level increases, so can we increase the refinement of our physical laws. As such, physics law changes often, while physics theory remains relatively constant, although more maleable. But evolution is a BIOLOGICAL theory. This particular theory is ALSO fairly unique in that its only data is a fossil record which isnt going to grow ALOT more (diversity wise) and has as yet failed to show any counter evidence AND (as a second observation source) the theory of evolution can regard current society. If current society shows the traits of microevolution, and the fossil record shows the traits of macro evolution, then it is safe to postulate that the continuance of the fossil record from our current world status will remain in a state which favors the theory of evolution. FURTHER, recent discoveries show a completely seperate (DNA and evolutionary trait) species of "human" which formed and died a long time ago. I, for one, don't see anywhere in the bible that anybody runs into another species of mankind... ergo that must have occured in the formative CREATION stages, a CREATION stage marked by divinely controlled evolution.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 01, 2004.

it wouldnt be right if i didnt link to the story noting the discovery of the 8th species included in the genus homo, which indicates evolutionary split from a prior homo genus in the human developement, namely homo erectus. the split and evolution of this species, however, was ultimately unsuccesful. heres one source for the story... google searching (news new species human dwarf island) turns up much more:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/27/dwarf.cavewoman.ap/

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 01, 2004.

My points about the ether and phlogiston were to show how what the general scientific community accepts as fact can be proven wrong at a later point. As for gravity and relativity, those theories are not truly proven. Gravity? Not proven. Relativity? Not proven. Oh, did you mean that observations were proven? Maybe, but that's not the implication I got. Sure. We can observe the force of gravity. Sure, we can observe relativity. But theories are explanations of how or why something works. Can you observe why rocks fall to the earth? No, but you can make observations that agree with your hypothesis of why it happened, and with enough observations make a theory of why this happens. This is how we arrived at the current day theory of gravity. You cannot observe why it happens, however, so it will never be proven and must always be open to change. The same goes for relativity. The same goes for evolution. People can make observations about different species of life and genetic code and mutations. And they can certainly come up with theories for why this happens. Can you observe what is explained in the theory? Are you telling me that there is absolutely in no way any possibility that anyone ever will observe something new about gravitational force that will alter, be it slightly or drastically, our theory on why gravity does what it does? Last time I checked we couldn't travel into the future. Can we observe micro-evolution? Sure. Evolutionists would call it that, others may call it mutation. Can we observe the kind of evolution that has led to the diverse life on this planet? Until observations can be made, it cannot be "proven." The "why" can never be proven, only the "what." I can prove that I can lift my arm. Can I prove why I can lift my arm? OK, a biological theory. I don't know the specific name, I would guess genetic theory, but the theory that tries to explain why genes cause our bodies to build in the way they do, from conception on. I have genes such that when people have these genes they have brown hair. Why is my hair brown? Because I have those genes. Is that a sufficient answer? Why do those genes make my hair brown? Because they code the proteins to build it that way. This is the theory, and I'm sure there is MUCH MUCH more detail to this theory than any of us here is aware of, but it is still based on observations. You can observe that such and such genes correlate to having brown hair. Can you observe evolution into drastically new species? Does observation of micro-evolution (or mutation) prove that evolution into entirely different species happens? This is like observing that Randy Johnson can pitch well means that he can play catcher well. And first base. And second and third. And all the outfield positions. And bat. And run bases. And coach. And do everything else in baseball.

"I, for one, don't see anywhere in the bible that anybody runs into another species of mankind... ergo that must have occured in the formative CREATION stages, a CREATION stage marked by divinely controlled evolution." Non-sequitur. This statement does not follow! This is akin to saying "I see that John Doe likes orange, therefore John Doe must hate pineapples." Or maybe more pertinently "I don't see anywhere in the Bible that anybody funs into another species of mankind, therefore that is proof that they never existed." Does the Bible record when Jesus' cousin's friend's dad's mom's great uncle's sister died? It doesn't record everything. This is why your statement is non-sequitur. I happen to believe that God created all life, not through TE. I don't, however, say that "I don't see anywhere in the Bible that talks about evolution, therefore I don't believe in evolution." I say "I see the Bible talk about creation, and evidence elsewhere, therefore I believe he created all life directly."

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 01, 2004.

The Bible says God completed His work of Creation, then "rested" (which means "stopped directly creating"). We know that new species have appeared continuously over time, replacing previous species. This is an incontrovertible fact. Therefore, if the continual appearance of new species did not occur by gradual change, but by direct Creation, God must have continued creating non-stop from the time life first appeared until the present day. However, that would directly contradict the Biblical account of Creation, which clearly states that God created initially, then stopped creating; therefore it cannot be true. The idea that God created the organisms that initially populated the earth, then rested (stopped creating), and allowed new organisms to develop over time is really the only theory which agrees with the Biblical account.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2004.

I've never heard of this evidence showing that new species have undoubtedly been appearing over time. Can you send me a link or some info?

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 02, 2004.

chipper, you are correct, no one can observe a fundamental why. those questions are ultimately unanswerable at all. HOWEVER, the theory of gravity doesnt seek to answer the fundamental why of gravitational attraction, it mearly answers a question of what... namely that two masseous bodies in phase space will experience gravitational force of attraction. there isnt an observable that can change, it IS. the force of gravity is ALWAYS an attractive force between two masseous objects. just as the force of electricity between two similar charged particles is ALWAYS repellant while the electromagnetic force between to differently charged particles is ALWAYS attractive. the equation which quantifies this relationship is known as a law, and yes, these laws may change with observation. the theory of gravitational attraction, however, is not going to change, the whole universe's existance depends on the truth of that theory. you are incorrect to say that science can never prove any thing. what you mean, and don't seem to understand, is that science can never answer the fundamental why, which is the exact spot where theology steps in.

as far as new species appearing all the time, i already pointed to an article where a branch of humans split off from the homo erectus species in our ancestry. If you need more convincing, simply look up information on darwin's canaries.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 02, 2004.

"I've never heard of this evidence showing that new species have undoubtedly been appearing over time. Can you send me a link or some info?"

A: It's called the fossil record. I'm sure you can find something about it online.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2004.

I beg to differ about theories. They are not simple statements of what happens, those are called laws. This link takes you to a page showing Newton's law of gravitational attraction http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/x/gxr6/chap1/chap14.htm This is a law, and is short and a statement of observable fact. The theory of gravitational attraction (which i have never looked in to, and i dont even know if anyone has a good theory about how it works; they probably have one, but i dont know) would be a thorough attempt to explain WHY the observable fact happened, not a statment that it did.

There are many other possible (and not unlikely) explanations for the fossil record than the appearance of new species over time. Not to mention we haven't found the whole fossil record yet. Also, anyone who makes any observations will put a bias on them, unless they strictly report fact and no commentary whatsoever. This goes for me as well. Two people can look at the same stuff and say "evolution!" or "creation!" just as easily.

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 06, 2004.

I beg to differ about theories

thats good, i'm a physics major, what are your qualifications?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 06, 2004.

Do not want to get into the heat of this debate but here is a link I found looking for info on the Canaries, Paul h.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/origins/essays/a0026459.cfm

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.

"There are many other possible (and not unlikely) explanations for the fossil record than the appearance of new species over time"

A: No. There are not. You can think up any number of fanciful theories about HOW new species may have appeared over time. God kept on creating them ex nihilo even though the Bible says He stopped, or they fell from outer space, or whatever; but the FACTS that new species have continuously appeared, replacing earlier species, ever since life began on earth, and that living things have increased dramatically in complexity over time, are incontestably demonstrated by the fossil record. There is simply no rational way of denying these facts.

.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2004.

the article you linked to, karl, was wrought with errors and bad science. here are some reasons why...

the article begins by calling foul at ad hominem attacks, which it seeks to argue are the only methods used by defenders of evolution. this is not true, i havent used ad hominem attacks in this whole debate. HOWEVER, immediately after their claim of foul play, they start slinging the mud by claiming that when discussing evolution, proponents simply dismiss the counter evidence and choose to remain ignorant. thats good, i like being called ignorant of science, especially by people who's scientific education ceases at the high school level. further, the author seeks to demeen Darwin by claiming that Darwin sought to disprove God. this is not true. darwin was religious, his father was even a protestant minister. Darwin sought to disprove the myth that God created the world in seven LITERAL days by proposing a method of creation which is more accurately suited to the fossil record.

Next, the article claims there are two means of evolution, namely random mutation or natural selection. this is a logical fallacy of simplification. there are MANY methods of evolution aside from the two aforementioned. these include such methods as symbiotic relationship, or genetic drift induced by isolated group breeding. the idea that evolution is false because the two methods named dont account for all is stupid precisely because no proponent claims those are the only two methods.

The article then seeks to point out the "cambrian explosion" as a fallacy of evolution, however this again is a misrepresentation of facts. for example, the article reduces the cambrian explosion to "an instant of geological time." however, a quick look at the data shows that this *instant* was 53 MILLION YEARS LONG. the article seeks also to note that this represents the first appearance of all the phylum of the kingdom animalia. this is incorrect. the first species, and hence phylums of animalia first appeared in the prior vendian period. Unless the seven days were each more than 100 million years long, God sure didnt do it like the bible says literally, which is not to say that evolution was not part of God's plan.

So why the burst of phylum? well, simple really. in the early developemental stages of the earth, the creatures would have been exceedingly simple. evolution of a 100 celled organism to include a backbone would have been easy. by comparison, a 10 million celled organism would have a very difficult time developing something so basic and necessary as a centralized nervous system connected by a backbone. the appearance of the first animals would have led to a rapid exposion of vast diversity, followed by further more detailed stratification of class, order, genus, and species as each organism increased in complexity.

Next, the article notes that there is no evolutionary record of transitional species in the fossil record. this is a heinous and downright lie promulgated by those who have no education or propensity for truth. as noted in the article i pointed out earlier, homo erectus, our own ancestor, was a transitional species which yielded two evolutionary outputs, one unsuccesful and one which is still around today although not in the same form. in fact, every fossil ever found is a transitional species. why the short bursts of evolution followed by long stagnation periods? simple explanation, change in environment causes rapid change in systems, even chaos theory points this out. simple species migration and changing weather patterns can account for large changes in system complexity and diversity.

then the author seeks to claim that by complexity the organisms today are irreducably formed, that is, that without a component of a system such as an eye, the function of the system would fail and the eye would not work. that is to say, that the human eye is so complex that without one of its systems it would not function and hence could not have evolved. this is commonly referred to as arguement by reduction which is to say that we start with the finished product and argue backwards, but it is not a logical form of arguement... it is a justification of means by the end. in truth, yes, the eye is irreduceably complex such that it cannot be deevolutionized, however, evolution is an ADDITIVE method. the essense of an eye is a set of cells which are sensitive to light input. by this definition animals such as slugs have "eyes." as these cells develope more and more complex systems, they become irrevocably complex, such that they cannot revert to their former system. a quick check of the mathematical chaos theory shows that this is to be expected, a system which adapts to higher orders of complexity generally cannot revert back to a simpler form, it tends to die out before doing so. as such, the system of the human eye is a summation of parts which now cannot be reduced.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 06, 2004.

Paul h,

I just wanted to let you know of the article I read when searching for your Darwin/Canaries reference. I really do not want to get sucked into this one. Thanks. The issues, to me, are way too complicated and involve volumes of responses on either side.

By the way you commented on my "I wonder" post, which I tried to open a response with you about. E-mail me if you want regarding your comment there. Just a request, nothing else.

By the way, my background includes two degrees in Organic Chemistry, for ha'ha's among others.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.

I'm just a high-school student who took biology and chemistry and is taking more chemistry, but I'm pretty sure I'm right here. The NAS defines a theory as "explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses." William F. McComas defines theories like this

"Scientific theories: (A) are validated by hypothetico-deductive testing; (B) are supported by and based on many facts, experiments, and observations; (C) are broad, comprehensive and unifying statements (sometimes making use of insights from different disciplines); (D) explain natural phenomena (events, observations, relationships) or laws; (E) ideally predict future observations; (F) are generally considered to have been invented rather than discovered."

and laws like this "Scientific laws: (A) are validated by hypothetico-deductive1 testing; (B) are supported by and based on many facts, experiments, and observations; (C) relate cause and effect relationships broadly (some would say, universally); (D) explain why particular instances occur (ex. objects fall at a particular speed because of the law of gravity); (E) predict future instances or occurrences of the relationship; (F) are generally considered discovered rather than invented."

Using these definitions, and all the other definitions I have learned, I must conclude that laws are essentially purely factual and based on observations and tell what happens, and that theories are explanations of why things happen. You can discover law's, but you must create/deduce/whatever you want to call it theories. Notice, btw, that be said law of gravity, not theory =).

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 07, 2004.

I'm just a high-school student who took biology and chemistry and is taking more chemistry, but I'm pretty sure I'm right here.

no offense, but what you're pretty much saying is that you're basically uneducated as to the difference between theory and law. there is MUCH that you have no clue whatsoever about at the highschool level. for that matter, there is much that you dont know about at the collegiate level either, but that is a different matter and pertains more to life experience than book knowledge.

as to your cut and paste quotes that you so eloquently incorporated into your writing, yes, they are correct, generally speaking. in fact, i'll even add a direct quote from my physics 205 text as to the character of physical law and theory..."the main objective of physics is to find the limited number of fundamental laws that govern natural phenomena and to use them to develop theories that can predict the results of future experiments. The fundamental laws used in developing theories are expressed in the language of mathematics, the tool that provides a bridge between theory and experiment."

even then, looking at your quotes, the fundamental difference which you dont seem to understand though i've explained it to you quite clearly is this:

"Scientific theories: ...(C) are broad, comprehensive and unifying statements (sometimes making use of insights from different disciplines); (D) explain natural phenomena (events, observations, relationships) or laws; ... (F) are generally considered to have been invented rather than discovered."

and laws like this "Scientific laws: (C) relate cause and effect relationships broadly (some would say, universally); (D) explain why particular instances occur (ex. objects fall at a particular speed because of the law of gravity); ... (F) are generally considered discovered rather than invented."

let me clarify this difference for you again, since it isnt always logically clear to someone at the high school level. A law is a mathematical description of an observable and quantifiable occurance. laws may be derived by mathematical manipulation, but they are always explanations of quantifiable events. laws, based on quantifiable data and mathematical relationship, are the building blocks of theory. theory is a derived general statement of the occurance which is based on the principles expressed in the laws of the situation. when a law is proven to be wrong, occasionally the theory which is based on it needs revision, although that is not always the case. i will explain as soon as i address a couple of quotes of yours...

Using these definitions, and all the other definitions I have learned, I must conclude that laws are essentially purely factual and based on observations and tell what happens, and that theories are explanations of why things happen.

when i was in high school we were taught not to think that our conclusion mattered, but to actually learn the material as projected by educated professionals. its a shame that they have recently let that habit go. karl, on the other hand, IS educated, which is why we can skip the mumbo jumbo you are mulling over, and move directly into scientific discussion (or skip it as well, as he has indicated he would prefer).

You can discover law's, but you must create/deduce/whatever you want to call it theories.

you don't discover laws, they are rationally implied by mathematical relations and express theories. if you want to talk about ensured uncertainty, if a theory changes, it is because at least one law has had to be changed, if a law changes, this does not necessarily change the theory.

Notice, btw, that be said law of gravity, not theory =).

here is where the arrogant and uneducated high schooler part comes in... and the expounding which i promised awhile back. if you were keen on learning as opposed to expressing the knowledge you are so sure of, you would know that there are BOTH laws regarding gravity, AND a theory of gravitational attraction. the law of gravitational attraction is expressed as Force equals the gravitational constant multiplied by the mass of object one times the mass of object two and divided by the radius squared... if my memory serves me correctly, it has been years since i studied the basic theory of gravitational attraction. as you can hopefully see at this point, the law of gravitational attraction is a mathematical expression of an observed relationship.

The theory of gravitational attraction expresses several key concepts of this law, that is, the force is ALWAYS positive, and hence, by deduction, the theory: two masseous objects will exert a gravitational force on each other in the direction pointing inward along an axis drawn from the center of mass of both objects.

THIS, is the fundamental difference between law and theory, a law is solely based on observables, and as our level of obseration deepens, certain laws will innevitably change (such as newtons laws), but a good and true theory is UNNAFFECTED by the change in the finite details of the mathematics describing it. take for example the theory and law of gravitational attraction... if we noticed that the gravitational constant were actually some other value than G, then the law would change, or maybe we note that the mass of each object isnt just multiplied, but rather multiplied after being taken to an exponential of 1.00000000001, again the law would change, but this does not change the clear, broad theory that two masseous objects exert an attractive gravitational force on each other.

i hope, that you have finally opened your mind to learning what the difference between the character of physical law and the nature of theory is... if this discussion is not sufficient to do so, by all means please clarify which points you are still confused about and i will be glad to provide more examples.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 07, 2004.

karl, i have only twice emailed someone from this board, one was a moderator, and the other was a situation where i felt much more comfortable. its not you, its me and my education on the dangers of the internet. please, take no offense at this, i have no doubt you are of good character. that being said...

you commented on my "I wonder" post, which I tried to open a response with you about. E-mail me if you want regarding your comment there.

i noted your reply. i made my comment in support of you and your situation because pelligrino's response was unwarranted. however, i thought that your response as to how the church is failing to be an innappropriate step in the other direction and chose instead to ignore it, as i know that you are having a difficult time with it and understandably so. simply put, you dont want to engage in an evolution debate, and i dont want to engage in a debate over the authority of the church in the tribunal process... it is enough that i am sympathetic to the fact that your priest failed you, a member of the flock that he was appointed to watch, i dont need to debate the rest of your claim as to the state of the church.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 07, 2004.

The basic dispute between chipper and the other posters is that chipper is a creationist whereas the others are theistic evolutionists.

I don't think that the other posters fully understand the ramifications of their belief in evolution. While it is true that one can believe in both evolution and God, it is not true that one can believe in both evolution and the Bible. Unless, of course, one is a cafeteria Bible-believer, picking and choosing what parts to believe and what parts not to believe.

Nor is the problem solved by saying that the Bible should not always be taken literally. This is just a polite way of saying that we should not believe what the Bible says. If the Bible's account of the world's creation should not be taken literally, then perhaps the Bible's account of Christ's Resurrection should not be taken literally as well? Where does it end?

As Catholics, Paul M., paul h., and Steve may respond that they interpret the Bible according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Fair enough. But the problem is that the Catholic Church never taught that the Biblical verses supporting creationism (or geocentricism, for that matter) did not have to be taken literally until the weight of scientific evidence contradicting those verses became so strong that it had no choice but to capitulate, thereby indicating that the Church was just as duped by those verses as everyone else.

I applaud creationists such as chipper just as I applaud geocentricists such as Bob Sungenis. They fully understand that if the Bible is the Word of God then evolution and heliocentricism cannot be true.

I also applaud the evolutionists and heliocentricists who reject the Bible. They may or may not believe in God, but they fully understand that science has proven parts of the Bible to be just plain wrong, indicating that the Bible was not authored by anyone possessing knowledge superior to what man possessed at the time it was written.

But a round of boos, hisses, and catcalls for posters Paul M., paul h., and Steve. They are engaging in Orwellian double-think. Truth cannot contradict truth. Evolution and heliocentricism contradict the Bible. Therefore, either evolution and heliocentricism are true and the Bible is false or else evolution and heliocentricism are false and the Bible is true.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 07, 2004.

paul,

you don't discover laws, they are rationally implied by mathematical relations and express theories.

Spoken like a physicist, I'll grant you that, LOL! Those mathematical relationships you talk about, where did they come from? Was someone strolling down the street and found them in the gutter? Of course not, someone studied something for a period of time, and found that certain interactions always occured in the same way, eventually *discovering* a law that governed the behavior of what they were studying. Show me ONE physics LAW that was made without any previous experimentation, something just cooked up by a mathematician, and I'll be more than satisfied.

Chipper,

One other way to look at laws and theories is that the smaller the system, or the easier it is to quantify, the more likely it is that you can discover laws for that system. For example, in physics or chemistry, things can be easily isolated and experimented on, and their precise attributes identified. OTOH for something like archaeology where most of the puzzle pieces are missing, you'll find just theories -- there isn't enough available evidence to quantify laws. The same is true for psychology or sociology, but I think it'll be a cold day in Hell before you get a physicist to say a psych major has a more difficult field. (this is something you'll discover a few years from now, assuming you have the good sense and good fortune to go to college.)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 07, 2004.

Could you please direct me to a verse of scripture that says living things, once created by God, cannot change over time? You confuse the concept of Creation with the biological process of evolution. The Bible tells us, in general terms, about initial Creation. But the Bible says absolutely nothing about the process of evolution in already created species. Therefore it is not possible that the Bible could conflict with scientific knowledge in this area. Absence of information does not equal conflict.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2004.

God created the world in six days (Genesis 1:1 to 2:1 and Exodus 20:11). Every creature was a vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30). There was no death until Adam sinned (Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21). Calculating the generations from Adam to the present day means that the earth is about 10,000 years old. The Bible leaves no room for evolution, which requires both lots of time and lots of death.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 07, 2004.

Paul h, so, if I'm understanding you correctly (and I don't see any difference between what you are saying now and what I have been saying) laws are often mathematical, which are statements of what is. 1+1=2 does not say WHY 1 plus one equals two, but that it does. No mathematical expression says WHY anything happens, right? You can calculate what will happen, and in a sense say that something will fall at this speed because of the law of gravity, but it does not explain why. Theories are based off of laws, and are used to explain why things happen. Laws are used to try to express what is observed, and theories try to explain what is observed. Do you disagree with this?

I wasn't aware that thinking for yourself was mumbo jumbo. Wouldn't that mean that everyone who makes radical discoveries that are completely different from what everyone else thinks, but they have observational support for their ideas, is just talking mumbo jumbo? I'm not saying i have made or will make new discoveries, but, come on, how can thinking for yourself be unimportant? How could you even form opinions to debate with? Philosophy and science and ideas in general wouldn't even exist...

I never said there was no theory behind gravity. In fact, I acknowledged that there probably was one, and I just didnt know anything about it: "The theory of gravitational attraction (which i have never looked in to, and i dont even know if anyone has a good theory about how it works; they probably have one, but i dont know) would be a thorough attempt to explain WHY the observable fact happened, not a statment that it did." I made that "arrogant and uneducated" statement you are talking about because because the law of gravity tells you about the force exerted on the mass, and can be used to determine the speed which it will fall, the theory does not tell you what happens. It is explaining (from deduction) what the law is stating.

I am not a closed minded person, I simply think for myself. If I am presented with information that makes me change my ideas and opinions, I will accept it. Sure, there are some things that I wouldn't change my opinions about, but these are few and far between and (as far as I can think) are all religious. I think it's a shame that many people are taught to blindly accept what people teach you. If a professor or doctor or whatever told you that there is no logical basis for society's morals and that you should go do whatever you desire, like, if you want to get completely plastered every night, go do it, and go hire a prostitute if you want, would you do it? I certainly hope you would think for yourself and see if you REALLY thought these would be good things to do. I'm assuming you don't think these are good things to do, maybe you do, I don't know, but I'm sure there's something you can think of that fits this example.

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 07, 2004.

Dear Bonzo's Cousin:
Do you guess or presume God created everything from the beginning?

Not strictly in the way written by the prophets, but in SOME divine way unknown to us? Is God at all our Creator? If He wasn't, can you tell us how we came to be?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.

Bonzo’s cousin, if you had the first idea where the Bible came from and what it is, instead of thinking that it’s some magic book that fell out of the sky containing all truth about all fields of knowledge, then you wouldn’t make such puerile errors.

St Augustine (yes the same one often derided as a conservative, who lived AT THE SAME TIME as the Church compiled the Bible), pointed out that wherever and whenever scientific findings seem to contradict the literal truth of a passage of the Bible (yes this happened even in his day) that passage MUST be understood metaphorically. This is not some new, liberal idea. We should NOT believe what the Bible says about science, because it is not and was never intended to be a science textbook. The books of the Bible were written and compiled by men who had the same understanding of science as other men of that time, and should be read as such. This is not a matter of the Church “capitulating” or “being duped”. The Church has never claimed to have all knowledge about science or history , but welcomes the advancement of these and all fields of human knowledge, which continually open up greater understanding of God’s creation. It has certainly never pretended that scientific understandings appearing in the Bible are articles of faith.

The Church believed in the Resurrection of Christ from day one, generations before the New Testament was written as an expression of the faith which the Church already had. The Bible passages about the Resurrection are NOT subject to re-interpretation as metaphor. Scientific observation shows that the resurrection of a dead person does not usually happen, but it does not and cannot show that the resurrection of Jesus Christ did not happen. OTOH scientific observation HAS shown conclusively that the bizarre sequence of events postulated by those who take Genesis 1-3 as literal scientific and historical facts, DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ironically you quote Pope Pius IX’s words “Truth cannot contradict truth”in his statement repeating the same thing as Augustine said, that the Bible must not be misused as a science book. Evolution and heliocentricism DO NOT contradict the Bible. They contradict your vile perversion of the Bible into something the Bible was never meant to be.

Btw heliocentrism is also false; the sun revolves around the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, which is itself moving through space.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 07, 2004.

It is you who are engaging in Orwellian doublespeak. The Church accepts and proclaims the truth of the Bible. The religious truth put there for our salvation. It could not do otherwise since the Church itself made the Bible. But you make the Bible “false” by perversely insisting on reading it in a way that makes it say things which are false. Why? Because in your heart you realize that your predecessors cut themselves off from the solid and unchanging Rock on which Christ built His Church; and in your desperation to find something ELSE unchangeable to cling to, you fondly pretend that the Bible is unchangeable even as regards scientific phenomena. Sorry, don't expect us to be duped by your doublespeak, you're only fooling yourself. God grant that one day you come to realize what the Christian faith is really all about (hint - it's not about science).

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 07, 2004.

> "God created the world in six days"

A: You do realize of course that a period of 24 hours is not a "day" anywhere in the universe except on the surface of this little planet? An earth "day" is simply the time it takes for this planet to complete one rotation on its axis. Why would the eternal God use a physical characteristic of one miniscule speck of His Creation as the timetable for the whole act of Creation? In fact, He didn't. Creation can be divided roughly into six subdivisions, but each of those "days" is millions of years in duration. You necessarily live your life in synch with the rotation of this planet. God doesn't.

> "Every creature was a vegetarian"

A: Ridiculous! A Tyrannosaurus was a vegetarian?? A Saber-tooth tiger ate leaves? An 80-foot shark with 6-inch, razor-sharp teeth ate marine algae? Not a chance!

> "There was no death until Adam sinned"

A: There was no spiritual death until Adam sinned, but biological death existed ever since the first living things were created. Every dinosaur that ever lived died millions of years before Adam was created.

> "Calculating the generations from Adam to the present day means that the earth is about 10,000 years old"

A: We know that the earth is several billion years old. And that life has existed on the earth for at least 600 million of those years. You can't just decide what you want the Bible to mean, and then try to force reality to fit your personal interpretations. Many parts of the Bible can be interpreted in multiple ways, and one of the most essential factors in accurate exegesis is to interpret within the context of known truth. If we know certain facts to be true from other sources (historical, scientific, etc.) then it is pointless to make biblical interpretaions which contradict those known truths. Truth cannot contradict truth. Therefore to interpret the Bible in terms which conflict with known truth is to make the Bible untrue. You can "calculate" all your want, but since the interpretation yielded by your calculations contradicts incontrovertible known truth, your interpretation is thereby clearly false.

> "The Bible leaves no room for evolution, which requires both lots of time and lots of death"

A: The Bible is utterly unconcerned with natural biological phenomena like evolution. The Bible is a revelation of God's nature and His relationship with man. It is not a book of science.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2004.

hey, there is scriptural evidence for what he was saying. Now, I'm not sure where to stand on whether the days in creation were literal days or not, but if they weren't, why when God gives Moses the ten commandments does he say "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work... For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Exodus 20:8-10a, 11 Why would God say that he created it in six days then rested, and command man to labor six days and then rest, if he didn't mean literal days? Surely he didn't mean man should labor for six eras of billions of years, and then rest for one era of billions of years, and then labor for six eras of billions of years, etc, etc. To me it seems that God is saying he created for six literal days.

Also, in Genesis 1:29-30 it does say the he gave plants for food for every living thing. "Then God Said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground -- everything that has the breath of life in it -- I give every green plant fot food.' And it was so." Now, when Adam and Eve were in the garden, they ate from the tree of life, which gave them immortality. (Gen 3:22) Would you say "Not a chance!" for man being able to live forever (on earth)? If Adam and Eve had immortality from eating from the tree of life, why couldn't the animals have received the same, or had some other benefit of living then (like a metabolic system that let nowaday carnivores eat vegetables like nowaday herbivores)?

Now, "no death" I can't be sure about. I believe it literally means it, but of scripture I know it is not totally clear as to whether it meant spiritual death or not.

He is right about counting those years. And the dating methods we usse aren't completely accurate. I don't think, however, they would be billions or millions of years off. I'm not sure. But, in Genesis 1:2 it says "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over ths waters." This is before there was Light, and before there were even days, but it does not say how long the earth was in this state. In addition, it doesn't ever say how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, and seeing as they were immortal because of the tree of life, it could have been a very, very long time before the fall of man.

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 07, 2004.

Yes I am well acquainted with the scriptures from which he derived his interpretations. However, this doesn't constitute "scriptural evidence". "Evidence", in order to be valid, must be true. That's exactly my point. What he offers as "evidence", which is simply his own personal guesses about the meanings of various scripture passages, cannot be true because they contradict known truth. Therefore they cannot validly be offered as "evidence" of anything.

Yes, the Bible does say "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food". One possible interpretation of that verse, an extremely simplistic one, is that all animals originally were herbivorous. However, that interpretation cannot be correct since we know with absolute certainty that there were many carnivorous animals on the earth long before human beings appeared. We know this because we have the remains of these animals, and their teeth and other structures are completely incompatible with a vegetarian diet, and are obviously designed by their Creator for the express purpose of capturing prey and tearing flesh. Therefore, in order to appreciate the genuine truth of this biblical verse, we must seek an alternate interpretation.

Likewise, we know that a very long time passed between the creation of this planet and the appearance of life on it. This doesn't mean that the biblical "6 days" of creation are "false". It just means that interpretation of the "days" of Creation as 24-hour periods is false. It means that the passage has to be interpreted in view of the known facts in order to reveal its actual truth. Insisting on biblical interpretations which plainly contradict what is known to be true only results in people regarding Christians as irrational, ignorant dupes.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 08, 2004.

Exactly Paul, and that’s the only reason I’m wasting my time trying to squeeze some reason into these guys. It would be OK if they just sat in their man-made churches talking this rubbish among themselves. But now they’re forcing it into the schools! This will have devastating consequences for evangelization. All the unchurched will think that this anti-intellectual, anti-scientific nonsense is TYPICAL of Christianity, and they’ll dismiss the whole idea of Christianity without a second thought, thinking Christians are morons who believe God is some big guy sitting on a cloud a couple of miles up. Especially if true Christians don't fight to stop this nonsense infiltrating the schools, but leave it to the atheists to defend science.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

just how else do you interpret God saying that for food for all living things he provided plants?

Last time I checked, carnivores were perfectly capable of eating vegetables. My cat will eat veggies and veggie products, including weeks old stale tortilla chips. How meaty. Some carnivores even eat plants (like grass) naturally to settle stomach aches. And certainly, we don't have the tree of life today, or its fruit. And you can't disprove this "evidence" because you cannot observe it or its context. And evolution is not "known to be true" because you cannot observe it or its context.

God is not some big guy sitting in a cloud a few miles up. He's closer! He's everywhere! The living God is inside us. The Holy Spirit guides us and helps us. "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And he, when he comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; and concerning righteousness, because I go the Father and you no longer see me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged." John 16:7-11 To me, a deistic God who allows his world's creatures to come to being by unguided evolution is totally impersonal and totally contradictory with the loving and helping God of the good news. Why would God suddenly care about one of his creatures that evolved, and send his only son to die for them? Why not for dinosaurs? Or birds? Paramecia? Mice? Apes? Why are we something so much more important? Shouldn't we theoretically evolve into something better? Pass on better genes? Will God care more about us then because we are better? Do bacteria go to heaven? Did Jesus die for bacteria? How does this make sense? How are we so important if we just evolved through an unguided, albeit Divinely begun, process? Shouldn't lesser evolved things matter too? Will we become obsolete because of a better lifeform? Does God only care so much about the highest evolved things? This makes no sense to me.

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 08, 2004.

Chipper, God is much bigger than your puny mind can imagine. God is eternal. Millions of years are nothing to Him. He foresaw billions of years “before” it happened, which creatures were going to evolve, when and where. NOTHING happens in the universe unless He allows it to happen. You are confusing the proven scientific fact of biological evolution with the totally unrelated and unChristian theological theory of simple deism (that God set the universe going then totally ignored it).

And why don’t you ask your vet how sick your cat would get if it ate “only veggies” (actually if you’re trying to be literal to Genesis here you’re wrong, it says all animals ate only green foliage (ALL green foliage even the poisonous ones) while humans ate ONLY seeds and fruits (ALL of them even the poisonous ones). I suppose you’d tell your vet his/her knowledge of veterinary science must be wrong because (your crackpot personal interpretation of) “the Bible says so”. Your perversion of Christianity sickens me.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

First of all, why are you completely attacking and insulting me?

I didn't say that carnivores can live on just vegeatables, I said that they had the ability to eat them. And it certainly doesn't hurt them. They eat grass and it helps their stomach. Feeding them vegetables doesn't hurt them. Of course they need meat to live. Only a moron would try to tell you otherwise.

Biological evolution is not proven scientific fact. Go ahead and observe it and record your observations. Then I'll believe you. If you ask most evolutionists, they will tell you evolution is fact. If you ask most creationists, they will tell you creation is fact. These opinions are based on interpreting data in different ways, and both sides call their arguments fact.

Of course everything only happens if God allows it to happen. He could chose to intervene at any moment. I'm saying that evolution seems to be deistic in nature, that God was at the beginning of all things and he just set them in motion. He set the laws of the universe into motion, and let life evolve on its own. He didn't create it, just kinda let it become what it became. He made something that would evolve into his own image, and presumedly it wouldn't stop evolving there, it would evolve past God's image?? I can't understand this belief! Can someone please explain to me how evolution isn't deistic?? Or please, is there some concept I have wrong??

The fall of man drastically changed the world. It changed human nature. It made childbirth painful. It made Adam have to work to provide foor. It changed many other things as well.

And which part of my "perversion of Christianity"? And I most certainly do not appreciate that term at all. Is it the part where God lives in us, helps us, guides us, or loves us that bothers you? Or do you mean my difference of opinion about evolution and creation?

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 08, 2004.

I’m sorry iif the word “perversion” hurts, but it’s accurate. “Pervert” means “to use or interpret wrongly, to distort” from Latin pervertere, “to turn the wrong way”. Chipper your perversion of Christianity lies in turning the essence of the Bible on its head, and your wild story that Christianity is about taking the Bible as a science textbook rather than an expression of faith in God’s creation and salvation of the world. This is far worse than a difference of opinion. And as I said this almost unrecognisable distortion of Christianity is pushed so loudly by such powerful interests that non-Christians mistake it for the typical real Christianity which the vast majority of Christians embrace, and which rejects the nonsense of so-called “creation science”.

“If you ask most evolutionists, they will tell you evolution is fact. If you ask most creationists, they will tell you creation is fact. These opinions are based on interpreting data in different ways, and both sides call their arguments fact.” Wrong. Evolutionists, who are scientists, look at ALL the data and formulate a theory which explains all of it, for this is the scientific method. Creationists, who are pseudo-scientists, first decide on their “conclusion” then pick and choose only certain selected observations which can be twisted to support their theory, discarding all other observations.

“He made something that would evolve into his own image, and presumedly it wouldn't stop evolving there, it would evolve past God's image?? I can't understand this belief! Can someone please explain to me how evolution isn't deistic?? Or please, is there some concept I have wrong??“ Yes, you don’t understand that God made man’s SPIRITUAL NATURE in His own image. Man’s physical nature developed by evolution from earlier animals.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

I know what pervert means, and I am not perverting the Bible. I am not saying the Bible is a science book, I am simply not disbelieving it. If you throw out parts of it, or disbelieve parts of it, who is to say that you shouldn't throw out parts of it that you would consider important? Oh, say, the resurrection of Christ? If you can't accept the whole thing, who defines what you will believe? Are you defining what you will believe based on what you want to believe and what your notions of what you think is right?

And these scientists haven't already decided that they are going to believe evolution? It has been engrained in them throughout their education, especially their higher level education. Obviously they are observing the data with the idea that evolution is fact, and all of their interpretations will fit accordingly with their belief that education is fact. And there are certainly scientists, not just "pseudo-scientists" who believe creation.

So are you telling me that before man evolved, his spiritual nature was in something else? And what exactly was that nature?

-- chipper (chipper@chippingin.com), December 08, 2004.

eugene c. chavez wrote:

Do you guess or presume God created everything from the beginning?

Not strictly in the way written by the prophets, but in SOME divine way unknown to us? Is God at all our Creator? If He wasn't, can you tell us how we came to be?

My response:

What I believe is unimportant. My purpose is to point out how much evolution conflicts with the Bible. It is clear that Paul M., paul h., and Steve don’t fully understand that. You can’t just make a few adjustments -- such as re-interpreting “days” as “ages” -- to solve the problem.

My response to Paul M. and Steve:

Please don’t dismiss Creationists as a bunch of "morons" or "irrational dupes." Is one a moron or a dupe for believing in the plain words of Scripture?

It is true that the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook. But that doesn’t mean that it is any less the Word of God when it gives us an account of the creation of the world. The Catholic Church does not allow you to be a cafeteria Bible-believer. As a Catholic you must believe that the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

It is also true that the Catholic Church allows you to believe in evolution. But that presents an enormous problem. Evolution simply cannot be reconciled with the plain words of Scripture, as Paul demonstrates when he dismisses the idea that all creatures were vegetarians. As Chipper points out, how do you "re-interpret" Genesis 1:29-30? If you can do so then words have no meaning and you are simply perverting the Bible.

My response to Chipper:

The Bible says that Adam lived to be 930 years old and then died (Genesis 5:5). So you cannot use the time between Adam's creation and the Fall to account for an old earth.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 08, 2004.

"My purpose is to point out how much evolution conflicts with the Bible"

A: The Bible says absolutely nothing about how living things change biologically over time, which is what evolution is, so how can "nothing" be in conflict with anything??

> "You can’t just make a few adjustments -- such as re-interpreting “days” as “ages” -- to solve the problem"

A: If you don't, you are left with another major problem - claiming that the Bible makes statements which virtually all educated people immediately recognize as false. These people must then conclude that (A) the Bible is not to be trusted, and/or (B) that Christianity requires us to be ignorant of scientific fact.

> "Please don’t dismiss Creationists as a bunch of "morons" or "irrational dupes." Is one a moron or a dupe for believing in the plain words of Scripture?"

A: First of all, every Protestant denomination has its own version of what "the plain words of Scripture" mean, and the version of one denomination conflicts on every point with the versions of other denominations. That fact alone clearly demonstrates that the Protestant tradition of personal interpretation is incapable of revealing the truth of God's Word. Secondly, I did not say that so- called "Creationists" are morons or dupes, but only that many people will perceive them that way if they go around making dogmatic statements which science has conclusively proven to be false. Who is going to be interested in Christianity if it requires us to walk through life blindly rejecting all the wonders of God's Creation which science reveals to us, just because of someone's simplistic, unauthorized, uninformed interpretations of Scripture?

> "It is true that the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook. But that doesn’t mean that it is any less the Word of God when it gives us an account of the creation of the world. The Catholic Church does not allow you to be a cafeteria Bible-believer. As a Catholic you must believe that the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God".

A: Absolutely! Catholics, unlike other Christian churches, accept EVERY word of Scripture, and believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, which WHEN ACCURATELY AND AUTHORITATIVELY INTERPRETED provides us with that truth God wished to reveal through that means.

> "It is also true that the Catholic Church allows you to believe in evolution. But that presents an enormous problem. Evolution simply cannot be reconciled with the plain words of Scripture"

A: Again I ask - how can scientific findings be "reconciled" or "not reconciled" with the Scriptures when the Scriptures say absolutely NOTHING on the subject? Show me one verse, either pro or con, on the subject of the formation of species over time! The Bible tells us God created everything. It says nothing about how He did so, and it says nothing about various natural processes that were likewise part of His creation. No mention of continental drift or rock metamorphosis. No mention of photosynthesis, evolution, mitosis, or any other biological process. Why would there be? The Bible is not a book of science. Creation is mentioned precisely because it was NOT a natural process, but a supernatural act.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 08, 2004.

Paul M. wrote:

The Bible says absolutely nothing about how living things change biologically over time...

That's because, according to the Bible, they don't. Genesis 1 repeatedly states that every creature was brought forth "after their kind," indicating that you did not have one creature morphing into another.

> "You can’t just make a few adjustments -- such as re-interpreting “days” as “ages”-- to solve the problem"

A: If you don't, you are left with another major problem - claiming that the Bible makes statements which virtually all educated people immediately recognize as false.

DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!! You hit the jackpot, Paul. The fact is that science has disproved the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. There is no way that you can twist Scripture to fit evolution, and those who try are simply refusing to face up to the fact that the Bible is wrong.

If you believe in evolution then you cannot believe in the Bible.

Again I ask - how can scientific findings be "reconciled" or "not reconciled" with the Scriptures when the Scriptures say absolutely NOTHING on the subject? Show me one verse, either pro or con, on the subject of the formation of species over time!

The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. It could just as easily say that God formed man from another creature, but it doesn't. Why is that?

Think, Paul, think! Don't allow your faith to blind you to the obvious truth. The obvious truth is that the Bible is just another piece of man-made literature and the men who wrote it at the time had no concept of evolution. Man and the animals were created by God whole and entire right from the start. That's the way man saw it and that's the way man wrote it.

Genesis tells us that God created the earth first and then He created the sun, the moon, and the stars. No amount of re-interpretation can correct that obvious error.

The Bible is not a book of science.

True. But it is supposed to have God as its author, who is supposed to have created the universe. Yet it is clear that the author of Genesis doesn't know what he is talking about.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 08, 2004.

I must congratulate Chipper for his courage and clear thinking. Faced with choosing between the Bible and evolution, he has chosen the Bible. Although I have chosen evolution, I respect his choice and admire his strong faith in the Bible.

I think that Paul M., paul h., and Steve are unable to make a choice and so they refuse to see any conflict between evolution and the Bible.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 08, 2004.

Dear BC,
I find your reply, ''What I believe is unimportant. My purpose is to point out, etc.,'' revealing enough.

In fact, it doesn't, and won't be important what you believe, since God revealed to us the fact He created the whole universe, seen and unseen. This will never depend on what we choose to believe. He revealed it Himself; the only One who could reveal such occurrences. It can't be fiction, we know; because they exist before our eyes.

We know the holy scriptures have always been our sole record from antiquity. Yet, they serve to indicate God reveals Himself; that much is for sure. He expects faith on His holy Word alone, and why shouldn't He?

The writings of a prophet who lived in deepest history are clearly intended for Everyman, not just for philosophers and PhD's. What good would they have been otherwise, to a goatherd or a potter of ancient times? There was no library to send them to. They looked up at the night sky and saw wonders. They saw seeds germinate and grow, but they couldn't have imagined a course in evolutionary science, or highways in the sky. God wrote to them with compassion for their ignorance. He knew the race would learn many things for itself; including some evil things. It was hardly necessary to give them blueprints or laboratories. He spoke a language that would carry the message up to every generation, all men from there to our age.

Yet, all He said was true, from a divine perspective. Man is a creature in His image; because he gave man an immortal soul. He was fashioned from the earth. A scientist will tell you this is accurate, in some ways. Our physical being is mostly carbon, I think. Thought however seems electical; and electricity can be made chemically. It is grounded-- that's earthly.

Many of the verses of Genesis seem completely metaphorical on the face of it. But it's not hard for modern men to translate them into scientific thought.

So the Bible is compatible to minds of every age. Every truth is discernable, whether to good men or bad, young or old, in or out of wisdom. One size fits all, Bonzo C.

What's more, the Word of God has a strong suit that men's wisdom doesn't have. He promises events and later on men see these prophesies fulfilled. Not like a clairevoyant, either. Truly prophetical and revealing. In the verses of His Old Testament God promised to send us a Redeemer. To Israel, this was in that prototype, their Paschal Lamb. This becomes history; no longer open to dispute.

In Jesus Christ, God's Son fulfills in person the Word of God. He also became historical, and never spoke an untruth.

Does it matter if wise men like yourself cannot believe Jesus raised the dead? It doesn't matter to Christians. We spread the Holy Gospel for you and for simple folks too. It's there to change our lives if we believe. But some will not change because they won't believe. That's too bad; when men are too smart for their own good. It's hardly a sign of wisdom.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 08, 2004.

True. But it is supposed to have God as its author, who is supposed to have created the universe. Yet it is clear that the author of Genesis doesn't know what he is talking about.

Rather than make offensive comments about the bible, why don't you just say you don't understand it?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), December 08, 2004.

Hello all, I am the one who began this post and I have barley commeted on it hehe. I guess it got pretty heated. But really the insults against Chipper should cease. I'm sorry Chipper for those insulting you as in a way that your opion doesn't matter for anything. We are all on our paths to God in a belief in evolution or six-day creation should not seperate us.

I used to deeply believe in creation science and I have numerous books on it. Yet I have come to believe more in evolution (God's awesome unseen creating in action). Much of the Bible is spoken in phemomenological language, we even use this language today saying "the sunrise" or "sunset" when it literely doesn't. Yet there are also many interesting scientific insights in the bible such as Global wind patterns, ocean water currents, the earth hanging upon "nothing" as opposed to other mythology legends. The earth is cirlular, etc. Yet there is also much scripture that seems to support and harmonize with an ancient earth.

I have a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder. It's very interesting! It even talks about how some early Christians and many Jews before Christ and in the middle ages believed other creatures such as "pre-Adams" existed on earth before Adam only lacking the name "Human" by not possesing the soul or spirit. That is why we are special opposed to Dinosaurs, wofs, or trees (and God loves them as well). But we are special because we, only we humans are created in God's image, no other creature is. These people who believed these pre-Adams possibly existed did not know about fossils or evolution, they believed it because of the original biblical language. It's a very interesting book.

I have another book called "Show Me God" by Fred Heren (If I spelled his last name right). That as well is a very intersting book and deals with mainly the wonders of space. Hey, In the begining God created the universe, right? Well science has proven that the universe has had a begining with the discovery of the big bang. Just about every other mythology as I can think of believed the universe was eternal exept for the Jews, and now the Bible has proven science accurate.

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.

eugene c. chavez wrote:

...God revealed to us the fact He created the whole universe, seen and unseen.

My response:

But is Genesis really God's revelation to man? Or is it simply a man-made fable passed down from ancient times.

The writings of a prophet who lived in deepest history are clearly intended for Everyman, not just for philosophers and PhD's.

Then that would be me!

God wrote to them with compassion for their ignorance.

Then I would expect that He would write literally, not metaphorically, knowing that we would take what He says at face value, instead of saying one thing and meaning another.

He spoke a language that would carry the message up to every generation, all men from there to our age.

That message began to falter when Galileo aimed his telescope at the sky.

Yet, all He said was true, from a divine perspective.

Is geocentricism true? Is creationism true?

So the Bible is compatible to minds of every age.

I disagree. The scientific age has spawned a crisis of faith in the Bible.

We spread the Holy Gospel for you and for simple folks too.

I am one of the simple folks. I cannot perform the kind of mental gymnastics needed to accept both Genesis and evolution. I have to choose between them and I choose evolution.

Oliver Fischer wrote:

Rather than make offensive comments about the bible, why don't you just say you don't understand it?

My response:

I would say that if I thought that Genesis was authored by God because then I would have to accept it as true. My comment that "the author of Genesis doesn't know what he is talking about" is based on my conclusion that Genesis is a man-made fable, not a revelation from God. If that offends you, I'm sorry.

Jason wrote:

I have a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder. It's very interesting! It even talks about how some early Christians and many Jews before Christ and in the middle ages believed other creatures such as "pre-Adams" existed on earth before Adam only lacking the name "Human" by not possesing the soul or spirit.

My response:

I'd be very careful about Jewish literature referring to sub-humans because it could be referring to you or me! Judaism is very racist. Even Jesus called a Canaanite woman a dog (Matthew 15:26). Dogs and swine were Jewish terms of contempt for Gentiles. A few months ago I read about an article written by an Orthodox Jew (I think he was a rabbi) that said that the results of medications tested on Gentiles are not valid for Jews because they are a different species!

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 09, 2004.

You make me laugh, Bonzo,

Answering tit for tat is hardly the contextual reply you were asked for but find impossible. You might as well shoot the messengers.

Yes, these writings are primarily God's first revelations of His divine existence, not just some failed attempt at mythology, as you would have it. An inspired writer sees God's revelation necessarily through his human prism; and in the beginning all was mysterious to men. Naturally the prophet had to rely on metaphor. He trusted in the Author for whom he became the amenuensis; giving the report as much sense as he possessed. He was given the truth, and passed it on truthfully as he saw it. You demand accuracy and science. How is science to be inspired into a primitive prophesy? Get real.

If only a literal account is to be trusted, show me the Missing Link; and give us more than a beat-up sliver of bone to prove men came from apes as natural descendents. But you trust that proof. It's as important to you as spirit is to a believer.

Galileo, for your information, died a faithful Catholic because he was open-minded and yet faithful. Nothing in the heavens changed GOD, the Prime Mover, for him.

Your main bone of contention is a book, the Bible. Faith to you means irrefutable testimony, self-help references. You don't know that God informs as He pleases; He figures life is what you should desire, not omniscience. Omniscience is HIS. He doesn't share that with us. He gives LIFE. But you won't admit it, Bonzo Cuz.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 09, 2004.

Bonzo, you admit you arent very bright, but you dont have to put out the old canards that we have dealt wiht before. Youa sk if Geocentirsm is true, for instance. I f I say no, you say the Bible is worng because the Bible is clear that the Earht is the centre of the Universe. Tis isnt meant as presmption, its impleid by your sttaement. The toruble is, that even thogh you can argue for creationism form the scriptutes, you cannot reasonabley argue for Geocentrism.The Bible has no verse that spacificlaly states the earht is the centre of the Universe.

I know, I have read all the skeptical sites that twist things like some obscure pasage in ecclesiasties otu fo context, but no verse flat out says " The earht is the centre of Creation:. None. Not one.

Geocentrism was imported into western thouht by Aristotal, a pagan,and des NOT origionate form the Bible and beleivign the Bible literlaly.

Only soemone who has read one too many sceptical sites woudl ever beleive the Bible days that. Man didnt beleive the earth was the centre of the Universe because of the Bible, they beelived it because Aristotle said so.

Gallilio's proof of Heliocentirsm therefore did not go agaisnt hte Bible, as the Bible makes no eference to a centre of the Universe, let aloen that earth is in said Centre.

Therefore the mesage did not begin to wabble when Gallili aimed his telescope intot he sky, the onlyt hing thta was threatened wa the scientific communities outlook, based on Pagan Philoosphy that was carred over formt he ealrir age, not the Bible.

Go on, try to fnd a real Vere htat says "The earht in the Centre of the Universe". I anssered DC and I can answer tou, sicne you will just use the same recycled arfuments without thought.

And, as noted, Gallilio died, and lived, a faithgul, f short tempered, Catholic. His disoveries didnt shake his faith in the hcurhc. The Hcurhc never even taught that the earth eas theCentre of the Universe. His book i even dedicated tot he Pope for crying oitu loud.

Indeed, Capericus firts proposed otherwise, and was oen wth his veiws, and was a Catholic Pruest., if memory serves, choosing not to pblish his work becuase of tghe negatice reaction form the icntific community, not the Chruch itsself.

As to evolution, this too is acrulaly quiet an old theory. Many ancient Jews who hold the Tprah in the highest regard nonetheless saw in the origional hebrew a form of poetic pneumotic device,a nd speculated tha the earth as far older. The Kabbalist are an excellent example. Likewise, many Msytic ad even literalistic Jews of the centuries before Christ, and even theeaftet, held the openign creaiton accutn to be poetic, and hte earht to be far older, and life to be an ongign develop mental proccess.

Your rediculous, unedicated claim that Scnece has disprovent he Bible is only a sign of your own hberis Im afriad, and not evidence of any attmep to undestand. If you wanted to understand, you woudlnt say Gallilio's discoveries cast doubt on the Bible for its geocentirsm.

Until you show me a verse that relates geocentirsm, you will have no leg t stand on here.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 09, 2004.

What an interesting thread (although it would be so nice to read comments given without an angry tone).

Personally, I have never understood why people have so much difficulty believing that God could "do" anything that He wanted to. Why must people insist upon limiting God in some fashion? Evolution of the physical body of man isn't inconsistant with anything I've ever read in the bible. Who is to say that God did NOT create man in His image AFTER He created other creatures before man? Who is to say that God DID not decide to step into His own evolutionary process, take dust and fashion Adam and breathe into Adam a soul?

So that would leave a bunch of pre-human creatures existing, wouldn't it? (I'm back to my "people" in the land of Nod again)..

As far as Genesis saying clearly that God created the earth FIRST, when scientists say that the Big Bang Theory shows that the planet earth couldn't have been "first"..can God not "do" what man cannot understand? It happens all the time. Who can understand or explain fully HOW the bread and wine can BE the body and blood of Christ? Science would tell us "impossible"..cannot happen..against all known laws of the universe..and yet it IS. I have no difficulty therefore in taking the word of God over the word of science for this.

Genesis says that God created the entire universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th. It is proven science that the earth alone is much older than this if one counts time since the scriptures were written. Other passages in scripture which refer to specific "time" do not conform to human counting of "time", so why should such a greater emphasis be placed upon this particular passage? Strict Creationist believers ignore other biblical references to time which do not conform to human concepts of time, yet cling to this one as one which must be taken literally.

One doesn't need to separate out the hand of God in direct creation of man's body and soul..nor does one need to limit God to be powerless to direct evolution..BOTH are completely compatible with Christian beliefs and biblical teachings.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.

I didnt mean mine to sound angry, Im just tire of the canards...

Liek the " The Bibel is geocentirc and galilio disproved it" arguent... bunk...

As to the earht beign first,tjats not quiet true.

The openign line of genesis reads as follows.

"In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". doesnt say whihc came first...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 09, 2004.

Neither one came "first". The phrase "the heavens and the earth" is just an expression of our geocentric, egocentric view of things. What we call "the heavens" is simply the rest of the universe as viewed from the earth. But the earth is actually PART of "the heavens" as viewed from other vantage points in the universe. It's all part of the same big picture. "The heavens" is not defined relative to the position of this one tiny planet.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 10, 2004.

eugene c. chavez wrote:

You make me laugh, Bonzo,

My response:

That wasn’t my intent, but at least I know that my posts are good for something.

You demand accuracy and science. How is science to be inspired into a primitive prophesy? Get real.

You inspired me to re-write Genesis 1 & 2 to show you how real I am, which I posted in a new thread. I see that you have already read it and that it didn't do any good. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

ZAROVE wrote:

Bonzo, you admit you arent very bright

I did not “admit” anything of the sort. I consider myself to be of average intelligence. How that compares with you I can’t say, but I sure am a better speller!

Geocentrism was imported into western thouht by Aristotal, a pagan,and des NOT origionate form the Bible and beleivign the Bible literlaly.

Nonsense!!! Everybody thought that the sun revolved around the earth. It’s only natural to think that. And the men who wrote the Bible were no different. They didn't need Aristotle to tell them that.

Until you show me a verse that relates geocentirsm, you will have no leg t stand on here.

I won’t show you one verse, smartypants, I’ll show you two:

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (Ecclesiastes 1:5 NIV)

In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat. (Psalm 19:4-6)

So I’d say that gives me two legs to stand on.

Lesley wrote:

As far as Genesis saying clearly that God created the earth FIRST, when scientists say that the Big Bang Theory shows that the planet earth couldn't have been "first"..can God not "do" what man cannot understand? ...I have no difficulty therefore in taking the word of God over the word of science for this.

That’s fine with me. That’s what the Creationists such as Chipper have done. My objection is to those who see no conflict between the Bible and science.

Strict Creationist believers ignore other biblical references to time which do not conform to human concepts of time, yet cling to this one as one which must be taken literally.

Because the context in which “day” is used in Genesis 1 virtually requires a literal reading of a 24-hour day. It is the basis for God’s commandment to man to labor for 6 days and rest on the 7th.

ZAROVE, again:

As to the earht beign first,tjats not quiet true. The openign line of genesis reads as follows.

"In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth".

doesnt say whihc came first...

My response:

Keep reading, ZAROVE, keep reading.

Paul M. wrote:

Neither one came "first".

My response:

I know that you are Catholic, Paul, so you have an excuse. :) But I would highly recommend that you read Genesis first before commenting on it. :)

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 10, 2004.

ZAROVE wrote:

Bonzo, you admit you arent very bright

I did not “admit” anything of the sort. I consider myself to be of average intelligence. How that compares with you I can’t say, but I sure am a better speller!

{iM DYSLEXIC. sO MAKE MORE JOKES OUT OF IGNORANTCE LAD...}-Zarove

Geocentrism was imported into western thouht by Aristotal, a pagan,and des NOT origionate form the Bible and beleivign the Bible literlaly.

Nonsense!!! Everybody thought that the sun revolved around the earth. It’s only natural to think that.

{Again withthe ignorance of Hisotry. Not everyone thoguht hat even in Aristotles day, and man, many Greek, Jeish, and Chinese scolars arued agaisnt this as a matter of fact. }-Zarove

And the men who wrote the Bible were no different.

{At least acording yo uoi, who has no real understandign fo the facts of hisotry...}-Zarove

They didn't need Aristotle to tell them that.

{Then what about }

Until you show me a verse that relates geocentirsm, you will have no leg t stand on here.

I won’t show you one verse, smartypants, I’ll show you two:

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (Ecclesiastes 1:5 NIV)

{This is using Phenomenological language, relaly for soemone who wants to critiise the Bibel you sure use the same tired old claims we heard milliosn of times. Peple today use the term sunrise. des that mean most peoopel are geocentists?

This verse is talking about things always continuing to happen and nothign new relaly happens, its NOT relaying a sicnetific fact about the Universe.

do you honeslty expect me, or anyone wiht a brain that functions on more than 2 of 8 cylanders, to beelive this is proof of geocentistm? Cang you see past your agenda of provign the Bibel a book of myth and syperstition and see that using this verse is graspojg at straws? Have you even read the chapter that this quote coems form to see whats actulaly beign said?}-Zarove

In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat. (Psalm 19:4-6)

{You use a poetic line, that techniclaly is sicnetifically accurate, since nothign is hidden fromt he suns heat an it does traverse its course... relaly you have to do better than htis.

Let me redefine what I mean. hsow me a verse that explicitely sates " The earth is the vcentre of the Universe and the sun revovles around it", not verses that use phenomenological language which is still in common use tofay. ( Let me guess Im weaselign out of this and you knwo your right and Im wring, that it? Before you start blasting this answer, relaly answer this. did you think before you posted these versed to look at the menaign of them? Or did you pull them off soem websie or list and think it proved your poitn and didnt need to knwo what its relaly tlakign about?)

Poetry and phenomenological statements dot prove the Bibel to be geocentric. and no, Im not beign cloised midned and refusign to see the facts, you are.

relaly the ecclesiasties quote is the weakest, but there both pretty dang weak.}-Zarove

So I’d say that gives me two legs to stand on.

{ Yeah that ecclesasties quote cant posisbley be just an expression. solomon coidlnt have been talkign about how life goes on and hings continue and nothign is rellay new in life. He cant be waxing philosophical in his old age describing how the events of life march on, it was rellay Solomon tryign to give a lesson on the nature of how the sun morves aorun the earht. The Book of ecclesasties is a sicnece book...

And the psalms arent poery, theyre science too.

relaly, this is syupid. you have no lg to stand on.

Again, I ask you, did you read the context? do you think everyone who says "Sunrise" today is a geocentrist? Do you honestly see how weak and pathetic this evidence is?}-Zarove

ZAROVE, again:

As to the earht beign first,tjats not quiet true. The openign line of genesis reads as follows.

"In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth".

doesnt say whihc came first...

My response:

Keep reading, ZAROVE, keep reading.

{Ive read it in Hebrew lad, have you? You are referign tot he rest of the creation anrrative, btu that doesnt say the heavens came after the earht at any point.}-Zarove

Paul M. wrote:

Neither one came "first".

My response:

I know that you are Catholic, Paul, so you have an excuse. :) But I would highly recommend that you read Genesis first before commenting on it. :)

{Its this sort of arrogance that causes my usually charitable demenour to end. Catholic bashing is in and of isself nohtign but Bogotry, and Christain bashing in general, like what you arrogantly coem here to do, is unacceptable.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 11, 2004.

http://courses.unt.edu/rdecarvalho/h5040/StudentPapers/Lloyd%2CGER.htm

Sorry forgot to post this link...Irt was meant fr {What abiut}

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 11, 2004.

Just to show you how much a fool you wherre, I want you to read the ocntext of the proof you displayed for th Bibles Geocentirsm...

Below is reprodiced the entirery of the firts chsaoter of ecclesiasties, KJV.

Please read it and tell me if Solomon was saying the earth was the Centree of the Universe and discoursing on Astronomy, or if the meaning of the pasage is about somethign altogather different.

Ecclesiastes 1

1. The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

3. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

4. One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

5. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

6. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 8. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

9. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

12. I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

13. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

14. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

15. That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

16. I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

17. And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

18. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 11, 2004.

ZAROVE wrote:

{iM DYSLEXIC. sO MAKE MORE JOKES OUT OF IGNORANTCE LAD...}

My response:

Since you recognized that I was making a joke why didn't you take it as such? Especially since it came in response to your opening statement that I'm "not very bright" -- which is another way of calling someone stupid -- my attempt to diffuse your insult with a joke was quite gracious of me.

Also, my response to Paul contained two smileys which clearly indicated that I was engaging in some gentle teasing, not Catholic-bashing.

As regards geocentricism, I must stand by my earlier statement that everybody in Biblical times believed it because it's only natural to believe it. We can all see that the sun moves across the sky. It was unthinkable that the earth moves for if it did we would surely fall off.

Again withthe ignorance of Hisotry. Not everyone thoguht hat even in Aristotles day, and man, many Greek, Jeish, and Chinese scolars arued agaisnt this as a matter of fact.

Actually, the link that you provided supports me, not you:

"Lloyd explains that while the Eudoxus model of concentric spheres held sway until the end of the fourth century B. C., with the Earth at the center of the universe. This theory underwent some modifications during classical era but remained essentially undisputed. Heraclides of Pontus suspected in the fourth century B. C. that the Earth rotated. Roughly a century later, the heliocentric universe was introduced by Aristarchus of Samos; and Apollonius of Perga developed his theory of epicycles and eccentric circles. Aristarchus built on Heraclides's belief in a rotating Earth and maintained that the stars stayed at rest. Lloyd notes that some uncertainty existed whether Aristarchus fully believed his theory or merely suggested it to make a completely separate point, such as Archimedes did with the size of the Earth in The Sand-Reckoner. Seleucus of Seleucia, however, fully accepted heliocentrism in the second century B. C. Aristarchus and Seleucus apparently seem the only classical thinkers to accept a sun-centered universe."

In other words, all the Greeks believed in geocentricism in the 4th Century B.C. and only two Greek thinkers believed in heliocentricism in the 2nd Century B.C. The article doesn't mention the Jews or Chinese but I think everyone will agree that the Greeks were more advanced in astronomy than the Jews and what the Chinese believed is irrelevant because the Jews would not have had any contact with them.

Now the question is: when were the verses I quoted written? If the author of Ecclesiastes is Solomon and the author of Psalms is David then we're talking 10th Century B.C. But even if we accept a later date we'd have to go all the way to the 2nd Century B.C. before we can find someone who believes in heliocentricism.

It's a safe bet, therefore, that the authors of Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Psalm 19:4-6 believed in geocentricism and this belief is reflected in those verses. This is precisely what we would expect to find in a purely human work of literature. It reflects the erroneous thinking of its day.

This is using Phenomenological language, relaly for soemone who wants to critiise the Bibel you sure use the same tired old claims we heard milliosn of times. Peple today use the term sunrise. des that mean most peoopel are geocentists?

I wholeheartedly agree with you that "sunrise" and "sunset" are phenomenological language. Ditto for when the Bible says, "The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." (Joshua 10:13)

But there is no way that the bolded parts of the following verses can be dismissed as phenomenological language:

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat. (Psalm 19:4-6)

The sun hurrying back to where it rises or emerging from a tent are not observable phenomona, so how can this be called phenomonological language? Who would write such things except a geocentricist? Do you really believe that God authored these verses? Martin Luther did. John Calvin did. Phillip Melanchthon did. The Catholic Church did.

They all believed that the Bible was the Word of God and that's why they all religiously believed in geocentricism -- because they had God's Word on it.

You don't see geocentricism in these verses because you know that geocentricism is erroneous and you refuse to see any error in the Bible. Why did Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and the Catholic Church see geocentricism in the Bible? Were they all atheists who were out to discredit the Bible as the Word of God?

Just to show you how much a fool you wherre,...

Thank you. That's so nice of you.

...I want you to read the ocntext of the proof you displayed for th Bibles Geocentirsm...

Below is reprodiced the entirery of the firts chsaoter of ecclesiasties, KJV. Please read it and tell me if Solomon was saying the earth was the Centree of the Universe and discoursing on Astronomy, or if the meaning of the pasage is about somethign altogather different.

The meaning? "All we are is dust in the wind," as an old pop song says. No, it's not a lesson in astronomy, but that doesn't justify erroneous astronomy. In fact, it's rather jarring. It diminishes the author's esteem when he refers to nature and gets his facts wrong. The only reason for it is ignorance, not poetic license.

You are referign tot he rest of the creation anrrative, btu that doesnt say the heavens came after the earht at any point.

Genesis clearly states that God finished making the earth on day three and then He made the sun (the greater light), the moon (the lesser light), and the stars on day four:

God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was. Evening came, and morning followed--the third day.

Then God said: "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened: God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw how good it was. Evening came, and morning followed--the fourth day. (Genesis 1:10-19 NAB)

-- Bonzo's Cousin (fakeaccount@fakeaccount.com), December 12, 2004.

''The only reason is ignorance, not poetic license?''

Here's a fellow who can pop up from nowhere and call God ignorant. This guy has no degree from the University of Poetic License. If ignorance were virtue, he could play 2nd fiddle to the Creator; except he's never created anything but foul gases.

But he's good for a laugh. That's his ''only reason'' --whereas the Holy Bible is far the best-seller in the world since history began. Yet, Bonzo C is entitled to give it bad reviews. Ignorance like yours is rare, Cousin. (There are apes smarter than you. I say it affectionately, Cheetah.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 12, 2004.

ZAROVE wrote: {iM DYSLEXIC. sO MAKE MORE JOKES OUT OF IGNORANTCE LAD...}

My response:

Since you recognized that I was making a joke why didn't you take it as such?

{bECAUSE JOKES MADE TO MOCK OTHERS ARENT TO BE TAKEN AS PLEASANT...}- Zarove

Especially since it came in response to your opening statement that I'm "not very bright" -- which is another way of calling someone stupid --

{I follow yourown lead on that...}-Zarove

my attempt to diffuse your insult with a joke was quite gracious of me.

{Self praise is not relaly evidence of you beign gracious.}-Zarove

Also, my response to Paul contained two smileys which clearly indicated that I was engaging in some gentle teasing, not Catholic- bashing.

{Attempto at justificaiton oif yourself to appear innocent after the fact dos not eliminate the direct reading of your former statments and does nothin to mitigate the insult. Apoligising oulld go farther, but you are too prodeful to do this.}-Zarove

As regards geocentricism, I must stand by my earlier statement that everybody in Biblical times believed it because it's only natural to believe it.

{But do you also stand by your foolish statement, which you likely culled form the nternet without investing enough forethoguth intot he matter as to read the context of the statements you foind as evidence and subsequently used? I mean relaly, if you read ecclesiasteis chapter one, you swiftly relaise that Solomon is not in any way atempting to say the Earht is the Centre of cration. That simpley wasnt what was beign sdiscussed. You used this verse and a Psalm to give yourself two legs to stand on, do you STILL insist that ecclesiasties MUST be, in a plain reaodng, raken as evidence of geocentirc thought? Or do you at elats admit tat the poitn was wholly different?

Can you find a real Geocetirc verse, and not phenomenological language?}-Zarove

We can all see that the sun moves across the sky. It was unthinkable that the earth moves for if it did we would surely fall off.

{Yet several peopel did. The article I references showed two, and that was don ina hurry. Several chinese and Jewish thinkers, as well as variosu other cultures, speculated that the earht revoved around the sun, and it wasnt till Plutonianism took over than the mater was settled in the 3-4th centureis AD.}-Zarove

Again withthe ignorance of Hisotry. Not everyone thoguht hat even in Aristotles day, and man, many Greek, Jeish, and Chinese scolars arued agaisnt this as a matter of fact.

Actually, the link that you provided supports me, not you:

{The link mentioend other htinkers who where heliocentic. thus hsowign that not everyone thought that way. liekwise, it was only oen of several ava;lable references on the net. Do I need to cull several epages to prove my point?}-Zarove

"Lloyd explains that while the Eudoxus model of concentric spheres held sway until the end of the fourth century B. C., with the Earth at the center of the universe. This theory underwent some modifications during classical era but remained essentially undisputed. Heraclides of Pontus suspected in the fourth century B. C. that the Earth rotated. Roughly a century later, the heliocentric universe was introduced by Aristarchus of Samos; and Apollonius of Perga developed his theory of epicycles and eccentric circles. Aristarchus built on Heraclides's belief in a rotating Earth and maintained that the stars stayed at rest. Lloyd notes that some uncertainty existed whether Aristarchus fully believed his theory or merely suggested it to make a completely separate point, such as Archimedes did with the size of the Earth in The Sand-Reckoner. Seleucus of Seleucia, however, fully accepted heliocentrism in the second century B. C. Aristarchus and Seleucus apparently seem the only classical thinkers to accept a sun-centered universe."

In other words, all the Greeks believed in geocentricism in the 4th Century B.C. and only two Greek thinkers believed in heliocentricism in the 2nd Century B.C.

{But it did mention other people who did not old to Geocentirsm, and your allogation that the concep of heliocntirsm was unthinkable to all back then is obviosuly false. I didnt post the article to show the overwhelming majorit beelived this at most peruods of time, only to demontrate that other shcools of thoguht existed. Wich you even acknowledged. I did a simpel goole search and posted the firts article which proved my point, and, even though you say it proves tour poingt, you miss mien in that not everyone beelived as you claimed. You even admited it above.}-Zarove

The article doesn't mention the Jews or Chinese

{Thats because it wasnt its scope. I didnt get all my informaiton form this oen article and asusmed you woudl relaise that peopel here had knowledger accumulated over the eyars. ill try to be mroe spcific next time so you can follow along...}-Zarove

but I think everyone will agree that the Greeks were more advanced in astronomy than the Jews

{This is a lie. Im sorry, but the Jews, an for that matter the Mesopotamians, the Babylonians, and hte Asseryans, where far better verses in Astronomy, astorlogy, and celestial stidies, and the practice came formthe midle east to euripe. even though you will likely pretend the Greeks where by far superor tot he measily little Jews, Hisotry reevelas that there systems of thoguht surpassed the Greeks int he sicneces of the skies, and in medicine. egypt also suprassed Greece in Medicine. Any good hisotyr book witrth its salt that deals in this matter will confirm what I just said.}-Zarove

and what the Chinese believed is irrelevant because the Jews would not have had any contact with them.

{My poin is thouh that Heliocentism was beelived at this poitn in time. So your claim that Geocentirsm was e only natural belif and held universlaly is false.}-Zarove

Now the question is: when were the verses I quoted written?

{Approx. }

If the author of Ecclesiastes is Solomon and the author of Psalms is David then we're talking 10th Century B.C. But even if we accept a later date we'd have to go all the way to the 2nd Century B.C. before we can find someone who believes in heliocentricism.

{Only if we take one article and beelive thos two Greeks where the only oens who beelived iN heliocentirsm, and only if we beelive that the Greeks where more advanced ina sornomy than the Jews. Neither is beelived. In fact both are provabey wrong. Liekise, it doesnt matter if the authors of the Bibel where Geocentists or not, the poitn about the verses that I made was NOT that the authots where nessisarily heliocentirc, but that you cannot use those verses to prove geocenirsm since thy arent even talkign about astronomy.

Just read the whole firts chapter of ecclesiasties. Solomon isnt saying " The earht is the Centre of Creation" hes saying life goes on and things happen, stop happening, an dhappen again. Hes tlakign about the repetition and uselessness of life. Only a fool woudl use this ti prove anythign abiut the stars or the mvoement of heavnrly bodies, since its a philoosphical discoruse about lie itsself, NOT about the movement of the heavenly bodies.So its irrlevant if he was a geocentirst or Heliocentirst, thats not the topic beign addressed in ecclesiasties. Are you relaly goign to ignore this fact?}-Zarove

It's a safe bet, therefore, that the authors of Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Psalm 19:4-6 believed in geocentricism and this belief is reflected in those verses.

{ No, its not. Becuase even if they wre Geocentists the verses arent referecing this fact. Again, even thoguh you are beign too obstenent and foolish to relaise this, the verses arent reflectign the fact of there geocentirs, but in ecclesiasties is reflecting only an old mans lament and relfectiosn about the menaign of life, and thr Psalms are reflreting the patters of nature in a poetic way.

Tryign to use these verses to supposer Geocentrism isn the Bible is absurd, since the meanign of the passages precludes either conclusion about heliocentirsm or Geocentirism, epecially in the ecclesiastie quote, since the openign chapter of ecclesiaasties, when read, is delaign with the uselessness and meandinglessness of life, NOT the movement of celestial bodies. are you relaly tis dence? Or is it just your pride that blinds you to this?}-Zarove

This is precisely what we would expect to find in a purely human work of literature. It reflects the erroneous thinking of its day.

{No, it doesnt. as I said above and am repeativn now withthe slim hope that you may eventually get it, the book of ecclesiasties is nto reflectign beelif in Geocentirsm, and is not base don that beelif. its relfecting an old mans contyemplation on the meaninglessnes sof life, and how things happen over an over again to no real effect. Stretching the verse by takignit out of contect and forcign it to mean somethign it wasnt written to mean is abject stupidity, and repeating it after tryign to justify it in this fashion is outrage.

Again, do you even knwo what is beign discussed in ecclesiiastes?Have you read it?}-Zarove

This is using Phenomenological language, relaly for soemone who wants to critiise the Bibel you sure use the same tired old claims we heard milliosn of times. Peple today use the term sunrise. des that mean most peoopel are geocentists?

I wholeheartedly agree with you that "sunrise" and "sunset" are phenomenological language. Ditto for when the Bible says, "The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." (Joshua 10:13)

{If you agree and understand that Phenomenological language is meant to vcovney appearanc and not sicntific fact, then whats tor problem?}- Zarove

But there is no way that the bolded parts of the following verses can be dismissed as phenomenological language:

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

{Did I not just harp on how this text isnt even remotely connected tot he mvoement of the heavenly bodies? Sadly, your makign a grave error base don pride, and repeatign the error in face of faces.

Thi is phenomenological language, and if you bothered to read the irst chapoter of ecclesiasties, you woudl relaise Solomon is reflectign on the meanign of life, not the heavnely bodies. Syaing ther is no way to say this is phenomenological language is absurd, sicne that woudl mean that this pasage wodl hve to be a discoruse on the movement of the planets and starts, its not.

If I say this is Ohenomenological langauge desigend to make a poitn, you ewill say what? Its clear that the cse for phenomenological phrasing is actually STRONGER for the ecclesiasties verse than the one in joshua, which you alreayd acept as Phenomenological language. so I ask, why cant this also be Phenomenoligical language? espoeiclaly sine the POINT of ecclesiasties is the meanitnl;gless of life as sen from the eiw of ann old man? Why do you say its impossible? exavly why is htis imposisble? And again, have toy read the book of ecclesiasties?}-Zarove

In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat. (Psalm 19:4-6)

{Psalm 19 is reprodiced below...

Psalms 19

1. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 4. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5. Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. 7. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. 8. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. 10. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 11. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. 12. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. 13. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. 14. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

Its not beign nessisarily literal lad, its a poem...}-Zarove

The sun hurrying back to where it rises or emerging from a tent are not observable phenomona,

{yes they are. The sun retirnign to where it rose is referign to sunrise. When Solomon write that in ecclesiasties, he meant the sun rises, then sets, then rises again. Sayign otherwise demosrates yout inability to grasp plain meanings form texts in your mad attmept to find fault withhte Bible.

Rerad ecclesiasties if you will. Try to understand the poitn beign made. Then tell em why its not Phenomenological language.

As tot he Psalms, again, its poetic licence, the entire book of Psalms is poetic.Thres no tents int he sky either,a nd the Jews knew this...}-Zarove

so how can this be called phenomonological language?

{Takign a vers ein isolatiion and mutilating its meanign isnt relaly proof of geocentirsm. As I ecplained before htis post and seveal times in this post, the poitn of ecclesiasties wa the menaignlessnes of life, its not a discoruse on the motion of planets.

Likeise, you err when you say that the retirn to where it rose is not observable. Solomon was referign to the sight everyone observed each day. He eas refering to the sunrising, and setting, and, after the night ended, the sun rising again from the east. Its clealry a reference ot this, to sunrise and sunset and the ocntinuation of these thigns ove and over, withhte sun always erisign in the east and always setting in the west.

And the Psalm if read is declarign gods glory in poetic langage, and is not to be taken as anyhtign but poetry...}--Zarove

Who would write such things except a geocentricist?

{Me, for one. And almost everyone else who woudl write a descriotion of what is seen at sunrise an sunset. again, just because you don understand hats acutlaly beign said and are diliberatlry tryogn to force it to mean soemthign it doesntmean, isnt a reason forme to conclude the text form ecclesiasties is geocentiic. Its referign to sunrise an sunset, both of which are cvisible phenomenon, and both of whoch appear to be the sun risign and setitng and the sun returnign to where it rose. It is phenomenological langage, and tryign to assert otherwise is , as usual, stupidity...}-Zarove

Do you really believe that God authored these verses?

{Soomon and David acrtually. And even if God did, again, its Ohenomenological langiage. even thoguh you say its clealry ot, it clealry is, int he case of ecclesiasties. The Psalms habe always been read Abstractly, sine they are poems.}-Zarove

Martin Luther did.

{Yeah Im Churhc of christ, so i don care. Most peopel here are Catlic and consider Luther a heretic, so no one else will care muhc either...}-Zarove

John Calvin did.

{Again, Cahtolic board. No one cares. Again, Church of Christ, I don care...}-Zarove

Phillip Melanchthon did.

{And the point being?}-Zarove

The Catholic Church did.

{No it didnt. Show me on official Cahtolic Document that declares Geocentrism as the meanign of these sapcific verses. }-Zarove

They all believed that the Bible was the Word of God and that's why they all religiously believed in geocentricism --

{This is a lie. as noted above, the Catholic curhc nevedr took an official position on rather or not the sun revovled around the earth. Likewise, the Biel is silent on the issue. ( And those two verses you site where never used for geocentirsm, even among Biblical geocentiests, who where never formally accepted as Doctorinal specialists in the Cahtolic eirarchy.)

You say the ecclesiasties verse is cleary not Phenomenological language, btu cant show why this is the case. You ignor the fact that the psalms are peotic. You fial to show any real evidence for Geocentism in the Bibl an distort existing proofs you showed earlier that where discredited as proof, and insist I am worng wihtout so much as chekcign your own facts.

Now, I have three demands in the mane of intellecutal hoensty.

1: Show me WHY the verse in eclesiasties coidl have been phenomenological language. Note: I will ot accept your lin of reaosnign abit i beig invisible ohenomenon since is only referinvign sunsrise an sunset, and the poitn isnt sunrisign and sunsetting, but of life and its meaninglessness.

2: Find any Catholic theologial form the past 2000 years who espoused Geocentirsm base don these to verses. ( Not any other argument, just one or the other verses you just sited.)

3: Try to find a real verse that is Geicentisc int he Bibel and cant be explaiend as Phenomenologicallanguage. ( snce the other oen that cant be expkaiend as such, form ecclesiasties, clealry is phenomenological in nature.)

Try doign these first.}-Zarove

because they had God's Word on it.

{Not as of yet. You have yet ot zhow any verse thats intrinsiclaly Geocentirc. yes I knwo you have the "Two legs to stand on", and "ecclesiaties onbviosuly cant be Phonomenological", ebven thouhg a plain reading of the text makes one arrive at precicely the concusion that it is phenomenological.

Really do you even bother to understand the proof texts you are using?}-Zarove

You don't see geocentricism in these verses because you know that geocentricism is erroneous and you refuse to see any error in the Bible.

{I don see the geocentism in those verses becasuse its not there. even if I where a geocentist, I woil hve to look elsewhere for my proof. The verse form ecclesiasties sint even tlakign about the sun relaly. The reason I don see geocentism is because the poin beign discussed in the book of ecclesiasties is about the meaninglessnes of life, NOT the movement of heavenly bodies, and because its too easily explaiend as Phenomenological language.

The only reason you say that it cant be exmplained as phenomenological and the only reaon you insist that its a geocentist proof text is becaue you are prodeful and obstenant. even bakc when I wa a Biblcial errenist liberal theologian I didnt use these to prove the Bible as Geocentric.}-Zarove

Why did Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and the Catholic Church see geocentricism in the Bible?

{Having acutlaly read Luthers papers, I can tlel you he idnt use ecclesiastes as proof. The Cahtilic hcruhc took no ofifcial position, following the lead and avice of Augustine. Calvin I on even remotely care aboiut. we are however at a loss here to see any clear verseal reference to geocentism. The only vdrses you have sited can either be explaiend, iteh case of Psalms, as poetic, or, int he cae of ecclesiates, as phenomenological language. You say it clarly cant be Phenomenological language, but offer no real reaosn wy it cant be, and demontrare no real understandign of the book of eclesiasties and what its rlaly talkign abiut.}-Zarove

Were they all atheists who were out to discredit the Bible as the Word of God?

{Conciet and arogance instead of seekign wisdom... typical.}-Zarove

Just to show you how much a fool you wherre,...

Thank you. That's so nice of you.

{My poitn was to insrtict, it faield since you clarly didnt read the text...}-Zarove

...I want you to read the ocntext of the proof you displayed for th Bibles Geocentirsm...

Below is reprodiced the entirery of the firts chsaoter of ecclesiasties, KJV. Please read it and tell me if Solomon was saying the earth was the Centree of the Universe and discoursing on Astronomy, or if the meaning of the pasage is about somethign altogather different.

The meaning? "All we are is dust in the wind," as an old pop song says. No, it's not a lesson in astronomy, but that doesn't justify erroneous astronomy.

{Its nto erroneous astornomy... its talkig abiut the visual ohenomenon of sunrise and sunset, which you mistakenly htough as an invisible proccess referneced by a geocentrist becae you refuse to let go of this proof and move on to another...}-Zarove

In fact, it's rather jarring.

{No, its not,and I saw what he as referign to this morning... sunriue,and htis evenign I will see the sunnset... then it will rise again...its not rellay mistaken...}-Zarove

It diminishes the author's esteem when he refers to nature and gets his facts wrong.

{The problem is he didnt get his facts wrong. You did when you said this was a non-visible proccess. He was only referign to sunrise. See,th sin rises each day int he east, and sets inthe wesg, only to once again appear in the east the next day. Thats what he is referencing...}-Zarove

The only reason for it is ignorance, not poetic license.

{I didnt claim this verse was poetic, I claimed it was Phoenomenological. The Psalms are poetic. and again , the only Ignorance displayed is yor own,, and worse, its impositionalignorance, also claled willfl ignorance, sicne you are refusign correction nd clinging to your assertion even in spire of the obviosu error in them...

Again, he was referign to sunrise, not a geoentirc Univdrse. Rather or not the author of eclcesiasted was a geocentrist, Heliocentrist, or els beelived everythign revovled around a seperate poitn, is irrleevant to the ohenomenon he was speaign of in this spacific verse, which is a sight most common every day, sunrisde, and sunset...}-Zarove

You are referign tot he rest of the creation anrrative, btu that doesnt say the heavens came after the earht at any point.

Genesis clearly states that God finished making the earth on day three and then He made the sun (the greater light), the moon (the lesser light), and the stars on day four:

{Yes, but not the heavens. Likeise, it says " He made the sa=tars also' as a hidsight addition, the stars may have been crerated prior to this and simpely be menitoned. And again, if you read the Hebrew text, its poetic couplet, and not to be taken 100% literlaly... everyhtign is lumped togather for easy memorisation, as the narrative was initially memorised and not written down...}-Zarove

God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was. Evening came, and morning followed--the third day.

Then God said: "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened: God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw how good it was. Evening came, and morning followed--the fourth day. (Genesis 1:10-19 NAB)

{Which is relevant how? Again, if i contend that its a poetic couplign inwhihc related things are lumped togather than isnt even nessisarily lenier that was made for memorisation in an oral culture, how does this conflct?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 12, 2004.

"Those who claim to see a conflict between the Bible and biology only demonstrate that they know extremely little about biology, and nothing at all about the Bible."

Steve, that's a very strong statement to make. First of all, you know that the pope has left that matter of evolution an open matter, therefore not conclusively taking any stance upon it.

As such there are many Catholics in the world today, including scholars who certainly do not believe in macro-evolution. Would you really be so bold as to say that they know nothing about what the bible teaches? Even though I strongly reject many catholic teachings, I wouldn't dare to say such a thing.

Your statement struck me as rather odd, as I thought that your interpretation of scripture depends upon what the pope and the magisterium teaches. And since the matter of old earth vs young earth is not a matter of extreme importance, I wouldn't base someone's knowledge of the scriptures upon their interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), December 17, 2004.

A strong statement perhaps, Oliver, but a true one. To say “the Pope has left that matter of evolution an open matter” is misleading. You may as well say “The pope has left the photon theory of light an open matter” or “The Pope has left the germ theory of disease an open matter.” The pope doesn’t sit around pondering what his “stance” will be on each scientific theory. It’s not a matter of “leaving it open”, he never has to consider it in the first place (not in his role as Pope anyway).

I can’t say I’ve ever met or heard of a modern Catholic scholar who did not believe that macro-evolution has occurred. You don’t “believe in” evolution, the way you “believe in” Christ, Oliver, that’s where you misunderstand its nature as a scientific theory, not a religious belief.

“Would you really be so bold as to say that they know nothing about what the bible teaches?” No, and I didn’t. They probably know a lot about what the Bible teaches (though they probably distort a lot of it.) I meant that they don’t understand the very nature of the Bible, that it is not a science textbook.

“the matter of old earth vs young earth is not a matter of extreme importance” In principle this is true, from a religious point of view. But where it has become important is that the so- called “creation scientists” have been trying, with much success in the USA, to position their nonsense as a typical or even essential Christian belief, in the mind of both Christians and non-Christians. This is already having severe consequences on evangelization. It must be stopped.

“I wouldn't base someone's knowledge of the scriptures upon their interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.” In my experience, if someone treats the first few chapters of Genesis as a magic science textbook which fell out of the sky and must be taken literally without any regard for its historical and social context and literary genre, then they will treat the whole Bible the same way, and have an extremely limited grasp of Christianity.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 17, 2004.