Inconsistency of literalists vs science

[UTEOTW]

Here I'll give you one.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/17.html#000251

If anyone wants to see ALL of your horse quotes, they can go here and see you make them and see my responses.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/11.html#000163

--------------------------

You gave us the following quote.

“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.” GG Simpson, Life of the Past, 1953, p. 119.

Makes it sound like there is no horse series, doesn't it.

But then I gave the full quote.

"The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened. There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot. (Fig. 39)

In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.

(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)"

Do you not find it queer that in a statement you claim says that the horse did not evolve (PERIOD) that the author would go through discussing trends in the evolution of the horse?

As as been pointed out to you several times, Simpson was not saying that there was a problem with the horse sequence. He was arguing against an outdated idea call orthogenesis. This simply said that evolution proceeded in a straight line. A evolves directly to B without any side branches or intermediates. He was attempting to show that this idea was wrong by showing how jerky the horse series was. It was "uniform, continuous transformation" that he was arguing against.

What was happening here was that early on, orthogenesis was how scientists thought evolution happened. So as the first horse fossils were found, they were placed into a series consistent with this. But as more fossils were found, the picture changed. This goes for all fossils and for the horse in particular. There was a reconition that the quaint idea of slow and steady was wrong as they found series after series where this did not happen but instead found bushy, jerky trees. Specifically, this was happening with the horse as the fossils made an ever increasing detailed body of work. SO papers were written pointing out htat the slow and steady model was found to be wrong as more data came in. The additional data had cemented the horse series but also had changed it.

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Here I'll give you one.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/17.html#000251

If anyone wants to see ALL of your horse quotes, they can go here and see you make them and see my responses.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/11.html#000163

--------------------------

You gave us the following quote.


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.” GG Simpson, Life of the Past, 1953, p. 119.

Makes it sound like there is no horse series, doesn't it.

But then I gave the full quote.

"The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened. There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot. (Fig. 39)

In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.

(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)"

Do you not find it queer that in a statement you claim says that the horse did not evolve (PERIOD) that the author would go through discussing trends in the evolution of the horse?

As as been pointed out to you several times, Simpson was not saying that there was a problem with the horse sequence. He was arguing against an outdated idea call orthogenesis. This simply said that evolution proceeded in a straight line. A evolves directly to B without any side branches or intermediates. He was attempting to show that this idea was wrong by showing how jerky the horse series was. It was "uniform, continuous transformation" that he was arguing against.

What was happening here was that early on, orthogenesis was how scientists thought evolution happened. So as the first horse fossils were found, they were placed into a series consistent with this. But as more fossils were found, the picture changed. This goes for all fossils and for the horse in particular. There was a reconition that the quaint idea of slow and steady was wrong as they found series after series where this did not happen but instead found bushy, jerky trees. Specifically, this was happening with the horse as the fossils made an ever increasing detailed body of work. SO papers were written pointing out htat the slow and steady model was found to be wrong as more data came in. The additional data had cemented the horse series but also had changed it. </font>[/QUOTE]Consequently; if they were shown by their OWN studies to be wrong once, it is certain they will be shown to be wrong again, and again, and again...ad infinitum, BECAUSE God is never wrong.
I wish you could see this point just for a second.
Flawed model, flawed conclusion.
God is always right.
Now don't go off on some tangent about literal interpretation. Anyone who has read their Bible through should know that not every passage is literal. Nobody will argue that Jesus is a Door, i.e. a chunk of wood with a handle. However!!! There is NO REASON to interpret the Genesis account as anything other than literally.
In His service;
Jim

 

[UTEOTW]

Look.

If you want to say it is wrong, then show it to be so. Just do not assert as such. The old series was not exactly even found to be wrong, but incomplete. They did not have enough specimens at the time to get the complete series. As more data was collected, the state of knowledge increased and the shape of the horse sequence was known more completely.

Or do you think that one is wrong if they do not have all of the data to beging with? I guess we should stop all medical research and I should stop my clean coal work. I mean, neither knows everything yet and both currently have ideas that will be shown to be wrong or incomplete in the future.

Or would you rather make a fact based presentation on what is wrong with the modern horse sequence. For that matter, would you care to either support and defend Bob's quoting above or point out his mistakes and ask that he not make such dishonest quotes in the name of God in the future.

No. A YEer will never condemn another. The end justifies the ends I guess. Even if it means not telling the truth about what others have said.

"Now don't go off on some tangent about literal interpretation. Anyone who has read their Bible through should know that not every passage is literal."

Yes and anyone who reads the Bible without outside knowledge should also believe in a flat, stationary earth with a dome overhead. You do not and I have not yet seen why you take outside knowledge in that case but not this one.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Frank:
Paul:
As for your Sun argument, you must live in your own little corner of the world. Of course, the world does not have corners. However, that is exactly what you believe Isaiah meant when he said by inspiration in Isaiah 11:12,  And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

How can I argue against the fact that I live in my own little corner of the world? But what is the relevance of pointing that out?

You have, however, definitely failed in your attempt at reading my mind. I do not believe Isaiah thought the world was square with corners. In my own interpretation of scripture I regularly allow for non-literal interpretations.

I will attempt to read your mind and reconstruct your unstated argument. (Why didn't you just state your argument instead of these vague musings?)

You appear to be saying that it is easy and natural to interpret the sun moving statements as non literal, but not easy and natural to interpret the days of creation in a non-literal fashion, and this renders accusations of inconsistency against those who deny modern science moot.

Now pay attention to the next sentence, it points to a critical difference between you and me:

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I HAVE MISREPRESENTED YOUR INTENT, as I am forced to phrase your argument for you, since you did not actually put your argument forth into so many words.

OK now the problem with your argument is, historically, when the science was new and therefore questionable in the eyes of some, the uniform result of nearly every bible interpreter was to condemn the science. The Catholic Church tried Galileo and found him guilty of heresy, and placed Copernicus' work on the list of banned books. Martin Luther railed against Copernicus as an upstart whose ideas were contrary to scripture.

I submit the only reason you are comfortable with the non-literal interpretation of the passages about the sun is because you have accepted the science.

I accept that science also. I join you in deciding to interpret as non-literal what science has shown to be not literally true. That's all. Since you do it yourself, there can't be that much wrong with doing it . . . .

 

[Charles Meadows]

AV1611Jim,

You're not ALL wrong, but in terms of ancient near eastern writing there ARE REASONS to see Genesis 1 as not meant to be literal. I'm not saying it must be construed as nonliteral but it could.

Secondly, no one here asserts that scripture is WRONG in any way. None of us old earthers is even trying to convinve you that the earth is old per se (or at least I'm not).

The problem with alot of the YEC stuff here is that it employs anything at all which will make the earth look old scientifically. All you have to do is say, "Look - I believe the bible over your science, sorry." That's it - none of us can argue with that! The problem is that many literalists ALSO try (using any means) to make explanations that make the earth scientifically young. And there are all contrived! We might tomorrow make a discovery that proves all of evolution wrong! But we don't have it yet. Until then science supports an old earth. No one said you or anyone has to believe any of these human theories!

 

[av1611jim]

Charles;
Thank you.

Based on the Bible, the Earth is young.
Old Earth theories REQUIRE

 

[av1611jim]

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!
What just happened?
As I was saying, (er, typing, then my fingers betrayed me

)
Old Earth theories require blood shed, death etc.
The Bible says death entered the world with sin as a direct result of Adam's rebellion.
The Bible says Adam was the first man. Therefore the old earth theory falls apart right here.
Why would you accept "science falsely so called" against the plain words of God?
That is all I ask.
Why "science" rather than God?
In His service;
Jim

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jim,

The point about Adam and sin entering through him is one of the best arguments AGAINST an old earth. Still Adam could have been created and could have sinned 6000 years ago on an OLD EARTH.

As I said I am not a professed evolutionist, nor am I tied to an old earth stance.

Here's my main argument with YECism: One chooses to believe in a young earth generally because he/she belives the bible to be literally true. I think that in defending the YEC stance this should be the focus of argument (the bible SAYS SO). And as I said I have no problem with this. The problem is that what we know scientifically at this time suggests something other than a young earth. I have no illusions about science being infallible - but I feel compelled to be HONEST about what we can see. Bob says evolution is all junk science - part of me wishes he was right. I am a doctor of medicine now. In college I took most of the available graduate bio classes and even helped teach evolutionary biology! When I got saved several years later I bought all of McDowell's and Ankerberg's books and digested them all - looking for the REAL answers to the creation questions. I was very disappointed to find that ALL of the explanations they gave had BIG holes in them. No matter how much I wanted to I could not believe them! I thought to myself, "Is this the best we can do? Does this mean that all Christians REALLY ARE mental midgets?" Thankfully I have found that salvation comes from faith in Christ, and NOT the ability to PROVE all of our human doctrines. I would be neither disappointed nor surprised really if you YEC guys are right - but if we went back in a time machine (heh heh) and saw apes evolving into people my faith in Christ would not be shaken one bit.

My argument remains this: If you believe the bible at face value fine - you don't need to give a reason beyond that. But don't attempt to make science say what it does not (?yet) say. At the very least this is bad witness for young believers with lots of questions.

 

[UTEOTW]

I like Charles.

I agree that I have no problem with those who say that they choose to take the Scriptures in question literally and accept a young earth solely on that. You have faith and more power to you. I'd be just as happy (or even more so) if a young earth could be proved.

My problem is with those who insist that the evidence also supports a young earth. In my experience, there are very few, if any, arguments to support that. Even worse, in my humble opinion, trying to defend a young earth leads to very questionable means of persuation. As you have seen, I find some of the mistakes to be so blatent as to be only explainable by deliberate lying. The quote mines above are good examples of that as is Morris's misrepresentation of the dating of the volcanic rocks and Brown's claims on mammoth dating.

If you want to believe a young earth because that's the way you read it, then we will never change each other's minds so why don't we simply agree to disagree. If you have followed my posts over the the time I have been a member, you will see that I make this offer fairly often in this case. There is so much that we would agree on, let's not take this as an opportunity to sow dissent. But if you think the physical evidence is also in your favor, then let's have a good discussion on those items. Either way.

But I am not surprised that you did not take the opportunity to either defend the Simpson quote on a factual basis or to repudiate that type of argument. I wish you would have. To defend it factually could have lead to a fact based discussion. To repudiate it could have eliminated one point from the debate and allowed us to move to others.

 

[A_Christian]

My problem is with those who insist that the evidence points only to an old earth, which comfortably rests in uniformatarianism and evolutionary theories, at the exclusion of all other investigations; therefore, exclusively controlling and manipulating science education.

This is the biggest problem facing honest investigation, and the integrity of public education today. It is steeped in humanistic philosophical values and opinions while being antagonistic towards spiritual considerations.

 

[UTEOTW]

Then tell us what the problems are. Spell it out. What are you problems, SPECIFICALLY, with geology and biology and asronomy and paleontology? Not just general assertions.

 

[UTEOTW]

TIme to edit ran out...

It seems that each time someone tries to make an objection to these things their objections are found to not have any grounding in fact. Do you have any good examples for us?

 

[Charles Meadows]

A_Christian,

"This is the biggest problem facing honest investigation, and the integrity of public education today. It is steeped in humanistic philosophical values and opinions while being antagonistic towards spiritual considerations."

That's true enough!

But the issue of scientific proof of old versus new earth is not really related. I'm a Christian and one who has a very strong science background. Believe me I wish science DID suggest a young earth - it would be a shot in the arm to everyone's faith. But Christ did seem to say that we'd have to believe without seeing!

A sensitivity to the spiritual side of things is important - but it doesn't really influence science. Looks at the data and see what they say! True there is no really unbiased stance! No one devotes his/her like to something without having an opinion about it! Thus any scienctist has an opinion to start with. I understand your point about most scientists already having a pro-evolution bias. But I don't think this changes things much. Most scientists set out because they want to learn. Few set out with intent to bring down our "religious institutions".

Do we not already have faith in things unseen?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
My problem is with those who insist that the evidence points only to an old earth, which comfortably rests in uniformatarianism and evolutionary theories, at the exclusion of all other investigations; therefore, exclusively controlling and manipulating science education.

This is the biggest problem facing honest investigation, and the integrity of public education today. It is steeped in humanistic philosophical values and opinions while being antagonistic towards spiritual considerations.

Science is steeped in the objective quest for truth. This is a shared value across all philosophical systems, Christian, Muslim, Humanist, whataever. It is not the fault of the truths found by science that they conflict with any particular faith-held beliefs. We all know that many people hold to faith held beliefs in spite of all evidence.

Uniformitarian theories and evolutionary theories are suggested by the evidence and explain the evidence. That is the reason they are retained. Let the evidence go against them, and they will be abandoned.

Got evidence?

 

[av1611jim]

Although I do not and CANNOT support questionable or deceitful practices to prove one theory or another; I am fully on the side of the young earth proponents.
Why? Because in the normal reading of the creation accounts it is evident what God meant when He SAID He created everything in 6 days. That is; days as is commonly understood by all. A day = a 24 hour period consisting of evening and morning.
There is AMPLE evidence in Scripture to prove the earth is young, i.e. 6000 years (give or take a century).
I have yet to see one evolutionist give any Scripture to back up his claims that God used evolution to create everything we see about us.
As has been affirmed, the point about Adam is the best we have. When you can refute this then you have my attention. The Bible gives a chronology of the decendants of Adam up to Noah. Then we have a chrononly of the sons of Noah, one of whom was Shem. From Shem to Abram we have the exact years again leading up to Abram.
Usher calculated the times of these men and comes up with an approximate date for the creation of the Earth. It is conceded that he made a few mistakes but generally speaking we can be assured that the Earth is 6000 +/- years old.
Based on Biblical evidence it is not possible that the earth is MORE that 10,000 years old at the very oldest; given extreme errors on Usher's part. ( I am not willing to concede that he made errors that great but for arguements sake)
Can ANYBODY refute this? Using the Bible in its PLAIN AND COMMON reading?
In answer to the charges against the well meaning "science" of men of God to explain the young earth scientifically, I have none. Let them answer it. Have you asked THEM? Rather than asked US? You say they lied. Take it to them. This public condemnation of them without their being present is NOT in accordance of Matt. 18:15-20.
This is all I've got to say.
I will NOT answer the charges against them, for it is NOT my place to do so.
I stand on God's Book.
In His service;
Jim

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
A_Christian,

"This is the biggest problem facing honest investigation, and the integrity of public education today. It is steeped in humanistic philosophical values and opinions while being antagonistic towards spiritual considerations."

That's true enough!

But the issue of scientific proof of old versus new earth is not really related. I'm a Christian and one who has a very strong science background. Believe me I wish science DID suggest a young earth - it would be a shot in the arm to everyone's faith. But Christ did seem to say that we'd have to believe without seeing!

A sensitivity to the spiritual side of things is important - but it doesn't really influence science. Looks at the data and see what they say! True there is no really unbiased stance! No one devotes his/her like to something without having an opinion about it! Thus any scienctist has an opinion to start with. I understand your point about most scientists already having a pro-evolution bias. But I don't think this changes things much. Most scientists set out because they want to learn. Few set out with intent to bring down our "religious institutions".

Do we not already have faith in things unseen?

Did you ever see Jesus? I did not.
Did you see Jesus crucified? I did not.
Did you see Jesus arise from the dead? I did not.
Did you see the empty tomb? I did not.
Did you see Jesus ascend into heaven? I did not.

Did you even see an angel? I did not.
I guess I must rest in faith---unlike Thomas...

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by A_Christian:
My problem is with those who insist that the evidence points only to an old earth, which comfortably rests in uniformatarianism and evolutionary theories, at the exclusion of all other investigations; therefore, exclusively controlling and manipulating science education.

This is the biggest problem facing honest investigation, and the integrity of public education today. It is steeped in humanistic philosophical values and opinions while being antagonistic towards spiritual considerations.

Science is steeped in the objective quest for truth. This is a shared value across all philosophical systems, Christian, Muslim, Humanist, whataever. It is not the fault of the truths found by science that they conflict with any particular faith-held beliefs. We all know that many people hold to faith held beliefs in spite of all evidence.

Uniformitarian theories and evolutionary theories are suggested by the evidence and explain the evidence. That is the reason they are retained. Let the evidence go against them, and they will be abandoned.

Got evidence? </font>[/QUOTE]My gut feeling is that most scientists have never even read the Bible. There is absolutely no encouragement from evolutionistic research to do so. Theory may claim statictical support. It may be able to apply the data in its favor; however, there are no eyewitness accounts available. The fact still remains that changes are not occurring at a rate that would give any indication that a fully developed man could have evolved from a single celled organism-----given 1 change a year.
The likelyhood that a fully developed ape developed from a single celled organism (given 1 change a year) is astronomically even less likely.
Yet there are experts whose reputations rest in nothing but this unobserved feat of metamorphosis.

 

[Charles Meadows]

A_Christian,

I believe all of those things just as you do. But I believe because of trust not because of proof.

As I have said before I have not and will never attack or impugn the position of belief in a young earth based on belief in a literal reading of the biblical passages. But it's always been a bit of a surprise to me that those who attack science as an example of humans trusting their own wisdom instead of God's then turn around and try to show how science really supports a young earth.

Academic university science professors know more about science than do DMins who do apologetics work. That doesn't mean that they please God more or that they know more about God - but they do happen to know more about natural science (a man-made discipline). Take it or leave it.

So I'll say it again. If one believes in a young earth because the bible says so then good. But he/she shouldn't then pretend to be an expert in natural science. At worst this involves making partly false claims and telling young believers to support their faith with these false claims (False claim here is meant to refer to such statments as "the second law of thermodynamics does not permit evolution" and not to the biblically-based claim that the earth is young).

 

[A_Christian]

True science shows thousands and thousands of various animals and species. Not one can be demonstrated to be in a form of being incomplete.
EVERY animal has been observed to be so complex that to have evolved to the point it exists must be dreamed to have taken hundreds of billions of years.
There simply isn't time enough ----- only GOD and HE needed only 6 of man's days.

 

[UTEOTW]

AN incomplete animal would not survive, that is why you do not find them.

The earth is only about 4.56 billion years old, not "hundreds of billions of years."