What about the genus level?
“”. What I don’t find however is people saying the evolutionary theory is on the brinks of collapse, however … are paleontologists, biologists, geologists etc., just being dishonest"-
good question. what do you think? remember the discussion about “fossil in the wrong place”?
“Do the Flood Geologists have any peer-review scientific papers on why it is one should believe that millions of years of theorized sedimentary rock was actually laid down in a single year?”-
try this one:
go to the title “geological evidience for young earth” and find many papers about this topic.
“”? Are you saying their are more (or less) turtles than their was dinosaurs… and IF so why should it matter whether they appear on the top or the bottom? I’ve never heard population size as an argument, "-
always there is a first time. and yes, this is what i mean by population argument…
"“Notice that the text says that “hawk” and “night hawk” are two separate kinds. Notice that the “little owl” and “great owl” are also two separate kinds.”-
maybe. still- i think that the definition is any pairs that can interbreed is a scientific definition that creation scientists also would to agree…
“I still don’t know why it is I can’t find a list of Baramins — or a more exhaustive list for the Creationists Orchard. It seems kinda shady to me for people to say, “that’s variations within a kind” and yet not actually classify what a “kind” is, nor even attempt to make a comprehensive list of Baramins, so that other people can view them”-
first. biology scientists also dont have a serius definition of species. second- i gave one above-.
“First off, you said earlier that you had no problem with an old earth and now you are saying the Bible demands a young one”-
true. if we have a scientific evidence for it. but we have also evidences for a young earth. so we realy dont know that is the real age of the earth.
.
“”. The problem is that Abraham and David lived around 1000 years apart from each other. It doesn’t take much more than a simple math equation (1000 / 14 = 71) to know that that list is too short."-
still is a big different between milions and thousands.
you made a lot of teological points. again- i only understad the scientific ones so i cant realy answer. but about evolution in the bible- the order of the creation isnt with pair with what evolution say. so again- the bible contradict the evolution in this specific point.
guy
Hey Guy.
I really wish I could respond more properly, but my access to a computer is rather limited at the moment. So my phone will have to do.
First Point: Dishonesty of Scientists
While I don’t believe that all scientists are 100% objective — after all were all human and get influenced by things and scientist aren’t robots. I don’t find the majority of geology swinging in the in the favor of a Young Earth a Global Flood, however. And it seems that only Young Earth Creationists come to those conclusions … But when you have Geologists of all stripes: Buddhists, Jews, Christians (the old earth variety), Atheists etc., coming to a major concensus about geology and the fossil record taking a long time to form, well, it doesn’t look good for YEC belief. Buddhists, for instance, wouldn’t care if the rocks proved a Global Flood or if it proved Evolutionary Theory. That’s my thoughts about that.
Second Point: Fossils Out of Place
I’m still thinking about this, Guy. Unfortunately, I haven’t got a crystal clear answer on this issue — I’ll have to do more digging. On the basis that the farther down you go you reach older rocks and older fossils (which, really, seems pretty logical to me), you can see that we have a complicated history. Whether or not it proves evolution, I simply do not find Hyrdaulic Sorting, Habitat, or Population explanations at all satisfying — so the only other option I’m left with is the classic explanation: millions of years worth of sedimentary rock and fossils.
Third Point: Links
You share a lot of links and I apologize that I don’t always respond to them (I am still looking at the data, but I don’t always time to read everything) In regards to the Creation link … There’s a couple things I’d like to bring up.
The beginning of the page admits that there’s no way you can prove whether or not the universe is old … If that’s true then there’s also no way to prove the universe is young. I’m not sure why the list even says, “Geological Evidences for Young Earth” when the site admits that it doesn’t hold to Uniformitarian Principles, yet it incorporates Uniformitarian Principles to prove it’s thesis … Don’t you find that contradictory?
You say that you’re interested in the “scientific evidence” for an old earth or a young earth. But I honestly don’t think you’d be convinced if I showed you evidence. Earlier you wrote, when I brought up the speed of light problem, you said, “God sped up the light in the past” … And the problems of this are as follows:
-
Saying God sped up the light in the past is not a scientific counter argument. It’s a theological one.
-
How do you square that line of reasoning with what it says in Psalm 19 (it’s from the Hebrew Bible so don’t worry). How do the stars give forth knowledge and speech, when according to your view, they are illusory and places God in the role of some sort of Cosmic Trickster? How did God set his glory in the heavens, if His glory is a testimony to a creation that fools His image-bearers … Can we not trust our own perceptions?
-
If you impose God to fix the problem of the speed of light, then you can impose God on every single type of “Old Earth Problem”. The beautiful crystals in the Naica Mines in Chihuahua, Mexico are around five feet in diameter and can be as tall as 50 feet. According to modern scientific crystal theory, some of those crystals took at least a million years to form … But why not just say that are our inquiry is faulty and God just supernaturally sped up the crystal formation? It’s the same logic.
I feel as though Old Eath and Young Earth arguments can go on endlessly because there’s just so much stuff to look at … To radio active decay, tree rings, ice core layers, moon craters, the speed of light … And the list goes on.
Fourth Point: Population Argument
I don’t think you answered my question, or perhaps I didn’t ask properly. My question was an “either / or” question and you responded with, “yes”, so I think we misunderstood each other here.
I’ll say it once more.
I don’t know what population size of clams and turtles have to do with the fossil record. Why does that explain certain animals for certain layers? You keep saying that you’re not talking about a Global Flood … And yet I can’t understand why bringing up population sizes is somehow supposed to prove a Young Earth? You said there’s a first time for everybody, and that’s true. But it’s not even that I’m not convinced by your argument. I honestly don’t understand your argument. Perhaps you can formulate your hypothesis and get it published in a peer-reviewed paper somewhere. Or perhaps you can direct me to someone that uses this argument, so I can better grasp it.
Fifth Point: Kind Definition
Guy I don’t know if you realize this or not, but you changes your definition of “kind” TWICE. First you said “kind” was at re species level … Then when I showed you John Woodmorappe’s conclusion you agreed with him and said it was at the family level … And now, again, after I show you the verses in Deuteronomy you went right back to species level. Which is it? Are you aware that this definition has major ramifications for the cubic-space needed on Noah’s Ark?
Sixth Point: Creationist Orchard / Baramins
You’re missing my point, Guy. Yes, the scientists have a couple definitions for species … But there’s still Evolutionary Phylogenetic Trees (some of which have thousands of different taxa in them) published online, and in magazines, for people to view them and critize them at their leisure. Why is it that I can’t find a single comprehensive Creationist Orchard? It should be a pretty straightforward question … Why do YECs not want to give a list of Created Kinds? — also you didn’t give me a definition of kind, but rather you changed your definition twice.
Seventh Point: Hebraic Genealogies
The genealogies only take you as far back as Adam, so yes, you’re not going to get millions of years. My point is the Bible doesn’t get give a coherent comprehensive answer to the age of the universe — so why should I be bothered about things that the Bible doesn’t address? Their is no mention I the Bible of any of the planets in our solar system … But that doesn’t mean I come to the conclusion that God didn’t make them or that Scripture is faulty in that sense.
Eighth Point: Contradictions
I don’t tend to read Genesis 1 in a very scientific fashion. Their are many basic things in the text that seem to ignore some basic observations. For instance: we all know that plant life requires water, but there’s no water mentioned in the creation of plant life on Day Three. Second, according to heliocentrism the earth revolves around the sun. If the earth was created before the sun then it begs the question of what on earth (pun intended) the earth was doing for three days in space. Floating aimlessly, revolving around an imaginary point … When the sun was created did the earth get jolted by the gravitational pull toward the sun? You’re worried about contradictions of the order given in Genesis and the order proposed by modern science, but it doesn’t bother you that the text itself has internal scientific contradictions? It’s physically impossible to have three cycles of evening and morning with no sun and moon. Yet that’s what Genesis says. Based on this simple observation (as well as many others) I don’t come to the conclusion that Genesis is intending to teach science. But has a ring of poetry and theological significance. No other creation story says that Man was created in God’s Image, or puts Man and Woman on a level playing field (they are both image-bearers). No other creation story, denounces so much mythology and divination ascribed to the created order. We don’t have a universe built out of cosmic carcasses, or a hierarchy of warring promiscuous gods, or meaningless chaos just floating aimlessly. We have something much more profound. It’s power and timeless resonance is brought to the light especially when compared to the numerous other creation accounts of the day.
On a side note, are you aware that Genesis 1 and 2, give a completely different order for Creation? Maybe chronological order wasn’t important in the strictly historical sense … As the author of Genesis 1 and 2 would seem to imply.
Ninth Point: Biblical Studies
Don’t you think it’s important to read up on the Bible on what it says, and what it means, beforehand — so that you can better harmonize God’s Two Revelations (Scripture and Nature)? Not only that, but there’s a rich history of biblical interpretation that spans thousands of years (both for Jews and Christians alike). How can you read the Bible completely at face value, when we weren’t the Bible’s original audience? Shouldn’t one get some general understanding of cultural context and history of biblical interpretation, before just saying, “This is what the Bible says from my perspective.” …?
-Tim
1 Like
hey again tim.
"While I don’t believe that all scientists are 100% objective — after all were all human and get influenced by things and scientist aren’t robots. I don’t find the majority of geology swinging in the in the favor of a Young Earth a Global Flood, however
first- consensus mean nothing in science because consensus was wrong again and again only evidence count. second ithink that most of them dont even know about the evidence against the consensus.(i know that in evolution is indeed like this) even prof michael behe(one of the leader of the id) realy dont know about evidence againt evolution until he read a book about it. even when he have a phd!.-."
"The beginning of the page admits that there’s no way you can prove whether or not the universe is old … If that’s true then there’s also no way to prove the universe is young. I’m not sure why the list even says, "Geological Evidences for Young Earth
i think its simple: evidence isnt proof. so there is no contradiction here.
“You say that you’re interested in the “scientific evidence” for an old earth or a young earth. But I honestly don’t think you’d be convinced if I showed you evidence. Earlier you wrote, when I brought up the speed of light problem, you said, “God sped up the light in the past” … And the problems of this are as follows”-
i dont think so because several reasons:
1)we have a lot of other evidences for a young earth
2)we have evidences that show the radiometric methods isnt credible because they can be wrong in a factor of about 1 bilion from the real age
3):even according to the atheist view the universe was sped up in the past. doest it make this argument non scientific?
“I don’t know what population size of clams and turtles have to do with the fossil record. Why does that explain certain animals for certain layers?”-
again- those animals have a big population. and because of this reason those animals appear in a specific layer. for example: the biggest population in the world is the bacteria one. so we can predict that they will appear first in the fossil record. most mammals have a small or medium population. so they appear in the top of the geologic column.
" First you said “kind” was at re species level … Then when I showed you John Woodmorappe’s conclusion you agreed with him and said it was at the family level"-
its simple: some different species can interbreed in rare cases where in other cases they not. so the family level is what count because its beyond this problem. the phylogenetic tree of the evolution scientists is change all the time.
"The genealogies only take you as far back as Adam, so yes, you’re not going to get millions of years
from what i know in the bible we have the number of generations with their names. so we can conclude how much time it need to get to the current time. "
as to the rest- again- you made some interesting points that i heard some answers to them somewere in some lactures. but again- i only interst in science. so lets discuss only about the science. the points above are scientific and we can discuss them. lets make this simple and focus in 2-3 point that you whant me to answer.
have a nice day.
Your ‘apologia’ about population size determining which layer
of sedimentary rock we will find fossils makes zero sense.
Large herbivore dinosaurs are JUST as plentiful as large herbivore mammals.
And SMALL herbivore dinosaurs are even MORE plentiful than large herbivore mammals.
But we never never never find a pattern of dinosaurs (of any type or population size)
mixed in with large mammals… or a pattern of LARGE dinosaurs mixed in with
LARGE mammals.
You are grasping at rhetorical straws.
George
First Point: The Bible and Science
Guy, I don’t know how you call yourself a Jew, who belongs to the religion of Judaism, to think that the Bible is somehow irrelevant to our discussion. It is utterly inconsistent of you to imply that the Bible teaches science, but now all the sudden, you’re only interested in “science” and the Bible is now irrelevant. What?? To you they are one in the same … So why does it no longer matter? It further baffles how it is you send me links to religious organizations such as Creation Minisries International, while simultaneously saying, “The Bible is irrelevant to our discussion and science”. You have me completely baffled.
Second Point: Evidence
I have no idea how it is you are using words here… Evidence isn’t proof? What?? Then what is evidence… What meaning does it have? If you have evidence for a young earth than it’s proof that evolution is wrong… But if you have evidence for an old earth, it’s somehow “not proof”…? You’re changing word definitions at will, without warning.
Third Point: Kind Definitions
No it is not simple, Guy… Here again you’re conflating “family level definitions” with “species level definition”. You can’t change word definitions at will. Thousands and thousands of people make phylogenetic trees, Guy. You simply cannot expect them to be identical. Also you’re point out differences while ignoring agreement in the trees. Your point is simply rhetoric and not evidence-based. I’m still waiting for a Creationist Orchard list, Guy. Why can’t I find one? If you’re wanting to compete against the dominate model, then go ahead, battle against it. But battle it with written documents, and actual research, not just rhetoric. If YECs are so confident that the Creationist Orchard is the correct way of looking at things, then they should actually document it and discuss it … Not give vague statements and principles. Where’s the beef?
Third Point: Consensus
It’s disengenous for you to say concensus means nothing. Thousands of years ago, the concensus was for a flat earth, now the dominant view is a round earth. Do you think we are gonna go back to believing in a flat earth? You say concensus changes again and again … Yes. That’s how science works. People arguing and coming up with different hypothesises and coming closer an closer to a more refined, more accurate, view of physical reality. People thought in thousands of years … Then millions… Now billions. What reason do we have to turn back to thousands? What evidence (or maybe that’s a taboo word… What “proof” I should say) would overwhelm the prevailing view?
Fourth Point: Big Bang
I’m not a researcher in Big Bang cosmology. According to Bill Nye the universe’s expansion rate is accelerating. Yet other sources say it was speedy for 10 seconds and then slowed down. What you’re saying is still different though … The speed of light is considered to be a fundamental constant, not the expansion rate of the universe. According to you it’s not a fundamental constant and things happened different in the original creation. I could bring up Psalm 19 again … But then again I had no idea that bringing up the Bible was somehow taboo and irrelevant. My bad.
Fifth Point: Population
Your model is very vague, Guy. Are clams and turtles less populous then 90 foot tall dinosaurs? I wouldn’t think so. And in any case, you’re still under the assumption that the fossil record formed very quickly… Why should we expect to find dinosaur eggs that apparently had to be laid and hatched, during the deluge? Why should we expect to find burrow tracks and fecal pellets all over the record, when the sediment was being laid down at about four feet an hour? Your model does not explain the existence of the highly enriched iridium content in distinct layers, nor does it account for the mysterious absence of so many creatures that are so foreign to us today.
Sixth Point: Genealogies
There’s been many studies about the genealogies, especially Genesis 5 and 11. Again you have to take into account cultural context and why the genealogies were written down in the first place. Today we use them to establish timeframe, but back then they were used to establish ancestry. Why are Genesis 5 and 11 the only genealogies in the Bible (and there’s many genealogies in the Bible) that bother giving dates, even though they are older? My scenario is that ages were mentioned too establish the point of longevity and righteousness … Being blessed with long life is equivalent to being blessed by God. Secondly, were one to put the pieces of Genesis 11 together like a jigsaw people (as so many people often do) you would find that Shem OUTLIVES his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson Abraham. Were you to read the narrative all the way through you’d get the impression that he died a long time ago… Or that elderly Abraham would be taking care of his even more ancient ancestor Shem. But they are nowher to be found. Also in Numbers when it gives the census date of the tribes of Israel it ends with … “And the total number of people were X-Amount” we don’t see that with Genesis 5 or 11… “and the total number of years since Creation (or the Flood) was X-Amount”. The implication is that that wasn’t its function or purpose.
-Tim
1 Like
Tim,
You will like this one. Origins of Europeans.
hey tim
first about the bible- when i bring up a sobject you can always say that we can interpret it in other way (like we see in the age of the earth). so i realy doesnt find here a better way to discuss the creation topic except for the scientific term. so again- lets focus in science.
"Evidence isn’t proof? What?? Then what is evidence… What meaning does it have?
here it from wiki:
" “evidence ,broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions”
so yes- evidence doesnt always mean proof.
"Here again you’re conflating “family level definitions” with “species level definition”.
no.i mean that the species defination is good and is the same like as the family level (a group that can interbreed theoretically). so i realy dont see any contradiction here. do you have another definition?
" Thousands and thousands of people make phylogenetic trees, Guy. You simply cannot expect them to be identical. "-
why not actually? if its science then we need to get only one tree. but in many cases we get different trees that conflict with each other. evolution doesnt predict it, for example: if one tree show that the chimp is the closest to human then all other trees should agree. but they dont…
" I’m still waiting for a Creationist Orchard list, Guy. Why can’t I find one?"-
here is a one:
"If you’re wanting to compete against the dominate model, then go ahead, battle against it. But battle it with written documents, and actual research, not just rhetoric. If YECs are so confident that the Creationist Orchard is the correct way of looking at things, then they should actually document it and discuss it "-
it actually have been done:
again- we have a fail prediction of the evolution.
“. Thousands of years ago, the concensus was for a flat earth, now the dominant view is a round earth. Do you think we are gonna go back to believing in a flat earth?”-
no. because we have a proof that its not true. but we dont have any proof that evolution is true. so its not the same… even more- lets say that some scientists will show you a proof that the evolution is wrong. do you will still go by the consensus in this case?
“What reason do we have to turn back to thousands?”-
a new evidence that is better then the old one
“What you’re saying is still different though … The speed of light is considered to be a fundamental constant, not the expansion rate of the universe.”-
if the universe get expansion in a speed that is more then the speed of light- then even according to the big bang its possible to move faster then the speed of light.
now about the population. first- i think that we can test this claim. but first, i doesnt said that layers formed very quickly. now, lets try to test this claim. we can predict that in most cases- the more species a group have- they have a more chance to appear in the fossil record:
now- bacteria have the biggest population (10^30 estimation). therfore it need to appear first in the fossil record. fishs is the second one. and again- it appear after the becteria. the rest like reptile and amphibians have a similar number of species. and they appear very close in the fossil record. mammals have less then reptiles and amphibians. and they appear in the tops layers. do you think its all a coincidence?..
have a good day
george. you said:
“But we never never never find a pattern of dinosaurs (of any type or population size)
mixed in with large mammal”-
so according to your logic- untill 2010, we never never never find a tetrapod dating about 400 my. but in 2010 we find one:
so according to this until 2010 you concluded that its impossible.
Now you are revealing your lack of familiarity with Earth history.
The Land-Walker is NOT a mammal. In fact, I don’t believe anyone
would even call it a DINOSAUR.
You need some significant remedial biology ASAP.
Looks like you came to the right place!
George Brooks
what are you talking about george? who is talking about mammals? you claimed that if we dont see a group of animals in a specific time in the fossil record- therfore it doesnt exist. so i show you it isnt true.
Please review ANY of my posts on this subject. I have been comparing/contrasting
LARGE MAMMALS with DINOSAURS (all sizes and all population sizes).
I have never once said there are no evidence of ANIMALS below the KT layer …
Animals, as you know, include an awful lot: fish, amphibeans, reptiles, tetrapods, dinosaurs, birds, placental
mammals and marsupieal mammals. So I’m not really sure how you mis-read my frequent use of the
term MAMMALS.
George
your claim was that big mammals doesnt exist before 100 my. so i showed that by this logic we need to conclude that tetrapods doesnt exist before 400.
And you are wrong about that. There is nothing about Tetrapods existing before 400 million
years ago that causes Evolutionary science any trouble. Evolutionary models are constantly
revised to reflect the newest finds in fossils.
But there has never been a revision to when dinosaurs became extinct. It fits the
Evolutionary model… but not the Creationist model.
George
What??? Why would such an appendage require that sharks once walked? An appendage can have all sorts of uses besides walking.
and a tail like structure also can have different function besides a tail. the same logic.
“There is nothing about Tetrapods existing before 400 million
years ago that causes Evolutionary science any trouble”
true. about the same logic- there is no problem to the evolution if we will find a big mammal dating back to the dino.
@DCSCCC:
Needless to say, finding a pattern of bones/fossils of large mammals intermingled amongst
the dinosaur layers would create HUGE havoc to evolutionary theory.
Please note that I said A PATTERN of these finds - - not some isolated oddity.
George Brooks
Hey Guy — I’ll continue to arrange my topics in points because it’s easier to categorize my thoughts as such.
First Point: The Bible
I’ll respect your wish not to bring up the Bible unless I think it’s necessary to bring it up. But keep in mind that you’re no merely attempting to disprove Evolutionary Theory, but you’re ALSO trying to promote and advocate the Special Creationist Model — so it’s not just a matter about discussing evolution, it’s also a matter of discussing alternatives — it seems only natural to bring up the Bible in these cases, because your interpretation of it, IS the alternative model. And seeing how we are both people of faith (you a Jew and me a Christian) — does it not seem relevant to bring up Scriptures on occasion, especially since you believe, that certain passages are to be taken in a scientific matter?
Second Point: Population Explanation
I’m not sure how your model can be tested. For example, most fossils that you find are of extinct creatures — how can you even test what their population was? Also in some locations you can find clams and turtles above dinosaur fossils. According to your model, does that mean that clams and turtles are LESS populated than dinosaurs? Again, how do you test this? Secondly, I’m not sure why it’s logical to assume the sedimentary layers are organized by population: most populous on the bottom and the least populous on top? Why can’t the opposite be true: least populated on the bottom and the most on top?
Third Point: Creationist Orchard
Thank you for sharing the link. Unfortunately the topic itself wasn’t rich with details, and only dedicated a small portion to the Orchard. From what I got out if it there was 6 general categories listed: a generic looking bird, an ape, a triceratops, a frog, a lizard, and what appeared to be a dog (I’m unsure on whether or not wolves fit into this category or not… It seems that most YEC advocates do think that wolves and dogs are related).
(Warning: About to Quote Scripture)
You’ll have to pardon my unorthodox methods here, but I think it’s relevant to the discussion. Baraminology, the study of created kinds, comes from two Hebrew words (as I’m sure you know) ‘Bara’ and ‘min’, hence “created kinds”. It’s an interesting concept, but one of the problems with it is that there is only ONE verse in the entire Bible where these two words are to be found together:
Genesis 1:21 “And God ‘Bara-ed’ Teninem Gedoblin (ambiguity here) and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought for abundantly, after their ‘min’, and every winged fowl, after their ‘min’: and God saw that it was good.”
Even in this particular passage, the word “Bara” and “min” aren’t even used in conjunction with each other, that would make “the study of created kinds”, a more biblically supported endeavor. According to the Creationist Orchard (as far as I know) dogs and wolves belong to the original “created kind”, as well as the same generic canid that got off Noah’s Ark.
It seems to me that it’s taken to mean, that animals only produce after their own kind (though it doesn’t explicitly say so). From a logical point of view this is true… We are all the same species as our parents … This seems to me where speciation and convergent evolution can take place. I don’t see it as contradictory, nor do I find the Bible giving an exhaustive explanation that there’s a “fixity or species”, not does it take time to list what the biological definition of what “Baramin” is. Much of it is extrapolated and assumed … The Bible never says “created kinds”. According to Ken Ham’s Model, in his recent debate with Bill Nye, he has firmly established that Canidae is one of the Baramins. So what kind of animals are listed in Canidae? Domestic dogs (canis familiaris), wolves, (canis lupus), coyotes, (canis larands) and even foxes (vulpes vulpes) which is apart of the Canidae family. All of these animals were apart of the generic dog-kind that got off of Noah’s Ark, 4,500 years ago. Do you find that level of diversification credible in so short a time? Many YEC speakers bring up the notion that there’s an explosion of domestic dog varieties, that would lend support to rapid speciation after the Flood. The problem is, that according to their model, wolves were are also descended from the generic dog-kind. The genetic variation between domestic dogs is incredibly slight, despite outward appearances say between a chihuahua and a Great Dane. But comparing domestic dog gene to the genes of wolves lends a much bigger gap … And yet they are both close cousins off of Noah’s Ark, 4,500 years. Why don’t we see an explosion of wolf varieties? Or of foxes or of coyotes? To add more weight to the puzzling paradox, humans are more closely related to chimpanzees, from DNA evidence, then domestic dogs are related to wolves! Should not humans and apes belong to the same generic kind, as wolves and domestic dogs? Or are we to believe that DNA is an incoherent study that proves nothing … God made DNA to confuse us?
Consider the bat for a moment, Guy. If the Bible was trying to communicate absolute scientific accuracy then we have a problem. In Deuteronomy it lists 21 bird kinds, one of which is a bat. Now nobody today (creationist or evolutionist) would say that a bat is closely related to say, a pigeon. Certainly not the same species, and not even the same family! But according to the Bible (if we are to interpret it as giving an exhaustive biological definition) that’s exactly what it says. Bats are apart of the bird family — or “Baramin” if you like. How do you reconcile this?
Fourth Point: Phylogenetic Trees
It seems we have a different view of what classifies as science. You seem to say that because different scientists working independant of each other produce similar (but not exact) results, must mean that the entire study is flawed and should be thrown away. I hate to break it too you, but no scientific study is 100% accurate. That has to do with a lot of factors … Human error, imperfect instruments, being faced with new information, as well as new theories to explain that information. For instance, when calculating the age of the universe, the majority of astrophysicists come to the conclusion that the universe is AROUND 14 billion years old. Nobody says EXACTLY 14 billions years. This is because of the factors I just mentioned … A lot of mathematics is involved and oftentimes we are dealing with imperfect instruments. You seem to think that in order for it to be science, all scientists everywhere, have to 100% agree with each other on every point. If that was the case, then the Conspiracy Theory of Scientists Trying to Eradicate God and the Bible, would have much more weight in my opinion. But because these scientists don’t 100% agree with each other then it lends creedence that these scientists are actually human beings, doing their own research … Not part of an elusive group that attends secret conference meetings to make sure their story gets told straight. My next statement will probably fall on dead ears, seeing as how you’re a Jew, but I personally think that slight variations in the four Gospels, adds weight to the authors testimony. It demonstrates that what they wrote wasn’t a collobaritve joint-effort where they all wrote it at the same time under the same roof with the same words. But that they show signs of beings written independant of each other. I think the scientific research is a close analogy.
Why aren’t their astrophysicists who come to the conclusion of an approximate age for the universe at say, around 6,000 years old? And if we are to believe that scientists are, on a global scale, trying to chip away at the Bible, then the Big Bang model should not be as promoted or endorsed as it is today. Thousands of years both scientists, and different religions, did not believe the universe had a beginning. Only the three major monotheistic religions of the world DID believe in a universal beginning (all of which stem from the same book). Why would scientists now admit to something that’s on the very first page of the Bible, to be actually scientific?
Here’s a link that explains some of the basics of how a Phylogentic Tree is constructed: Building the tree - Understanding Evolution
That’s all for now Guy.
-Tim
I certainly does NOT create any havoc to evolutionary theory. If there were large mammal fossils intermingled among dinosaur layers, it would just say the there were sufficient number of large mammals to have survived along side of the dinosaurs. But because we DON"T see large mammal among the dinosaurs but only smaller mammals just says that dinosaurs kept the size of mammals limited until after the asteroid strike, Once that happened mammals like all species tended to get larger with time.