You’re not listening… and that’s okay. Bless you, brother (or sister). Peace.
P.S. Your English is very good, but it might help you to note that standard English uses “evolution,” without the definite article, rather than “the evolution.” fyi
2 Likes
peace.
at least take a look at this site:
and read also about the flagellum motor. we all know that a motor need a designer and cant evolve step wise. even if it made from organic material and have a sefl replicating system.
first- who says that the earth is only 5000 years old? i just said that we cant know from the scientific prespective. b) do you suggest that 5000-10000 years isnt enough to get all those species?
Hi Dcscccc,
So just to fully understand here; for you, a single piece of evidence that does not appear to fit a theory is enough for you to ignore all of the evidence that does? More specifically, a single radically out of place fossil that has never been found (and the vast majority should be out of place if the creationists are right; that would be a clear prediction) would allow you to effectively ignore the remarkable fact that fossils appear to sort consistently and around the globe into the patterns that are predictable by and consistent with the relationships worked out through molecular and morphological taxonomy?? Ok. Unintelligible. Inexplicable. Unjustifiable. But ok. But again; the 70 million year out of place fossil hasn’t been found, has it? Yet you are still a creationist. Why is that so?
And what about scientific revolutions? Are you saying that you are not interested in how scientific paradigm shifts are supposed to occur as incompletely represented by Kuhn’s view? You certainly did not significantly engage with his view when it was brought up. Are you suggesting that you have an alternate idea as to how scientists should approach data in general? My understanding of your view is that it is essentially the same as “naïve falsification”, and as such it is not accepted by philosophers of science in general. It appears that in your view, any global theory that explains data across multiple fields of inquiry should be wholly rejected as soon as a single datum turns up that is not within a certain acceptable range, even if it means that all of the other patterns of data are now left completely unexplained. Would this be an accurate description? Do you know of any scientific theories that would still exist if this was the going strategy? Perhaps, if this really is your view, then you can explain the theory of falsification in your own words; what is the underlying logic and in what way is it different from naïve falsification?
I asked a lot of questions here, but please let us at least know if there is anything about the above description of your views that is incorrect and why.
I suspect that any thoughtful scientist will probably tell you that this request is deeply misguided. Evolution is not about explaining a single piece of evidence, it is about explaining the overall patterns of evidence in a way that nothing else does. If you remove a bit of evidence from the pattern, then you are missing the whole point. It’s like asking us which cloud we find to be the most important for explaining global weather patterns; it just doesn’t make sense.
3 Likes
hey bren. so you agree that a human fossil with t-rex will not disprove the evolution. so you disagree with dawkins and other biologists. and 2- its make the evolution non-scientific theory.
according to your claim if one evidence isnt enough then a flight in space-ship and to see that the earth isnt flat isnt enough to disprove the claim that the earth is flat.
about the rest- evolution cant explain anything that id cant explain. actually, the id can explain a lot that evolution cant.
Hi Dcscccc,
I would appreciate it if you could try again since this did not address my questions. What is particularly odd is that far from responding to a single question, all you did was summarize my position: when I did not even give my position!! Not sure how that feat was managed. I want to understand your view of how scientists address new and out of place data (i.e. do you think naïve falsification is the right approach and can you explain how science is even possible if so, especially given that your view disagrees strongly with that of philosophers of science and with the diverse practices of science throughout history?); you have simply not dealt with this.
I will understand if you decide that you are not comfortable answering a question or if you find that too many were asked, but if this is the case, please just say so instead of saying all sorts of other things. For your last statement, it is simply an assertion, and there is really nothing to be done with it besides pointing out that it is completely unsupported and therefore almost entirely pointless as it stands; I’m not really sure why you bothered saying it. Anyway, I would be very interested to see you flesh out your view of scientific practice, since it is so much at odds with most other perspectives, so I would much appreciate your taking the time to actually answer my questions.
In other words, @marusso, you came to a scientific conclusion after studying theology. The title of your article is quite apt. This is very typical of former YECs, and is also illogical.
Ben,
Yes it is illogical. It is also untrue. The fact that it was illogical should have tipped you off that maybe it wasn’t true. I did not come to “a scientific conclusion after studying theology.”
My main reason for rejecting the theory of evolution in the first place was not the science behind it, as much as the Bible. I thought the Bible contradicted the theory of evolution. So any scientific evidence presented in favor of the theory of evolution had to be either thrown out or reinterpreted because there was no possible way evolution and the Bible could both be true (so I thought).
Once this apparent contradiction was resolved (between evolution and the Bible), there was no reason not to accept the science behind evolution, and ultimately the theory of evolution itself. Once my understanding of Genesis became accurate, there was no need to reinterpret the scientific evidence, it could stand for what it was. Science and the Bible do not contradict each other. The theory of evolution and the first chapters of Genesis do not contradict each other. Both are free to walk hand in hand.
Best Wishes,
Mario
3 Likes
Thanks Bren,
Yes you are exactly right. it was exegesis that changed my views, not science. As I wrote to a previous commenter, my main reason for rejecting the theory of evolution in the first place was not the science behind it, as much as the Bible. I thought the Bible contradicted the theory of evolution. So any scientific evidence presented in favor of the theory of evolution had to be either thrown out or reinterpreted because there was no possible way evolution and the Bible could both be true (so I thought).
Once this apparent contradiction was resolved (between evolution and the Bible), there was no reason not to accept the science behind evolution, and ultimately the theory of evolution itself. Once my understanding of Genesis became accurate, there was no need to reinterpret the scientific evidence, it could stand for what it was. Science and the Bible do not contradict each other. The theory of evolution and the first chapters of Genesis do not contradict each other. Both are free to walk hand in hand.
Thanks so much for the kind words. And thanks for reading. You are right, there is always hope!
Best Wishes,
Mario
3 Likes
Tokyoguy,
I wouldn’t say they don’t know how to approach the Bible, I would say YEC don’t know how to approach the Bible well.
Perhaps you didn’t understand the point of my post. I was simply sharing the story of my journey from being a YEC apologist to becoming an evolutionary creationist. There was no attack made against YEC in my post.
But since you bring it up, ultimately, YEC is founded and built on just plain bad exegesis. Plain and simple. Anyone who reads Genesis 1-2 (or the rest of the Bible for that matter) and comes to the conclusion that the world is only 6,000-10,000 years old, and that the Bible contradicts the scientific theory of evolution, comes to those conclusions as the result of the following things:
- A misunderstanding the Bible
- A misunderstanding of the relationship between science and the Bible
- Bad hermeneutics
- Bad exegesis
- Some combination of all the above.
I don’t know any other way to say that. And I don’t see any other conclusion one can come to.
Best Wishes,
Mario
3 Likes
Mario,
My comment was that the things you pointed out are nothing new to creationists and yet you give the impression that if we only knew those things, we too would ditch our views on Genesis.
I accept that you are a brother in the faith and I’m glad for that. I would say from my position that evolutionary apologists are wrong on exactly the same 5 things that you listed.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Best wishes to you too!
tokyoguy
what question you refer to bren?
Of course we are brothers in the faith. I’m glad you think so. This is not a gospel issue. I’m glad it doesn’t divide.
However, I would clarify something you said. “my position that evolutionary apologists are wrong on exactly the same 5 things that you listed.” Just for clarity’s sake, evolutionary creationists don’t actually believe that the Bible teaches or denounces evolution. The Bible doesn’t support or oppose the theory of evolution. We don’t arrive at a conclusion in favor of or against evolution because of the exegesis of a specific passage. The Bible has actually nothing to say in support or opposition of evolution. If you are going to arrive at the conclusion that evolution is true/false, you have to get there from science, not the Bible.
Any of them Dcscccc. Most of my sentences ended in question marks, but I saw no responses to any of them in your post. If some of them are unclear, please let me know.
1 Like
Marusso,
In your response to Tokyo guy you said " YEC is founded and built on just plain bad exegesis "
How after a plain reading reading of Gen 1&2 when it says day one, day two etc can you add billions of years? On day 5&6 it says God created after there own kind 7 times speaking of the fish, birds, animals etc. It doesn’t say He created a simple life form that all life forms evolved from.
What is your good exegesis of Gen 1&2 to support your evolution belief?
How long is a day, @mario_russo, when the Sun hasn’t even been created until Day 4?
How can you possibly think Days 1, 2, 3 and 4 are literal days, when the literal time-keeper of a day, the sun, doesn’t even exist yet?
[EDITED] Important Note: And since the changes in sea levels (estimated since 500 BCE) affects the rotation of the earth - - just like extending or pulling in your arms and legs in while sitting in a spinning office chair - - there has never been a prolonged time period where a day was always 24 hours. A day is ONLY marked by the sun as seen from a rotating Earth.
To my ears, it’s a pretty silly story …
I don’t think anyone ever claims the Bible supports evolution. You won’t find anything that points to evolution or an ancient earth in the pages of Genesis because Genesis was composed long before evolutionary theory was introduced and long before people had any concept of how old the earth was.
What people do argue is that good exegesis of Genesis does not rule out acceptance of evolution, because when Genesis is understood in its cultural context and is analyzed with methods appropriate to its genre, it becomes obvious it was never meant to be interpreted as a historic account of the origins of natural history as we understand natural history in the modern world. The point George brought up about days existing before the sun should clue people in to the fact that the account is not “chronological,” but rather it has a poetic parallel structure, where domains are established in days 1-3 and then correspondingly filled in days 4-6.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.