Hal P

http://www.reasons.org/astronomers-age-of-universe http://www.reasons.org/files/astronomers-statement.pdf

Obvious nonsense - such a statement requires just one counter example to be refuted. Here you go. I'm sure nobody here will read it but he's part one (of 17) of a series COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED For something from a Christian perspective here's yesterday's Biologos post on "randomness."

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was co-authored by Dennis Venema, associate professor and department chair for the biology department of Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, and Darrel Falk. http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-synteny/

Another piece of the puzzle falls into place. Fossil Skeletons May Be Human Ancestor

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was co-authored by Dennis Venema, associate professor and department chair for the biology department of Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, and Darrel Falk, professor of biology at Point Loma Nazarene University in Point Loma, California. They discuss three independent methods for calculating ancestral population sizes. http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-poi...-primal-couple/

Michael Horton, professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California, has published a short review of the concept of biblical inerrancy in the current issue of Modern Reformation. The Truthfulness of Scripture Inerrancy Michael S. Horton

Akabu, you appear very deeply confused, not only about basic science but even simple defintions. The terms 'cats', 'birds', 'fish' and so on are not species. Evolution does not suggest that we should see "a dog becoming anything other than" a dog. What we can see, even today, is one species (as that term is properly, scientifically defined) becoming another. I am unaware of any Trilobites after the Permian, could you provide a source? It is a little more complicated than that. Besides the modern Coelacanth is not the same as those found in the fossil record. Not at all, it is perfectly possible to have both. No, because this is not how it is done - despite what Kent Hovind says. "When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences." I suggest you stop using arguments that even Answersingenesis says "should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)."

Yes. It is often said (although the precise accuracy of the statement is not easy to confirm) that 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived have gone extinct, so yes, we are looking at extinct organisms when we examine the fossil record. The pattern however is much more predictable than the seemingly random picture of disappearance and appearance you describe. We see that organisms with certain features become gradually more abundant and then radiate outwards in the record. Examples would be the development of tetrapods, as well as of mammals. Speciation is not going to be that easy to observe precisely in the fossil record although there are certainly examples of it. This is largely due to the fact that speciation is thought to occur largely when geographical isolation occurs. As a result, what you will see in the fossil record is one population of organisms and then two separate populations appear that could be quite distinct by the time they reappear together in the record after their period of separation.

Well Denis Lamoureux's approach is that the Bible teaches an ancient science, not that it is wrong or that "God lied" - in the same way that poetry is not "wrong." He simply says that it was the best science the people at that time had, and may have been influenced by other cultures. He still believes God inspired the Bible, he just disagrees with you about what that means. You insist that he can't be a Christian, despite the fact that he quite clearly is. He is trained to the PhD level in both biology and theology - with his dissertation being on the early chapters of Genesis. So not only is he a Christian, he knows far more about both the science and theology involved than anyone else on here.

I didn't say anything about "Medieval times." I said people who believed it was flat did so for non-scientific reasons. As soon as they began to use scientific reasoning to look into it, such as the examples you give, they realised it wasn't flat. That's it.

Nebula, I agree with you , I don't see how what you added is in disagreement with what I said. Some people did think the earth was flat. They thought that not because the data they had turned out to be wrong, or misunderstood, but simply because they didn't have any. As soon as they applied scientific thinking to the idea they discovered it was wrong. Same goes for geocentrism.

I should point out that neither of these is true. Both of these were believed by people at the time not because they had "overwhelming data" but because they in fact had no data. It wasn't a case of millions of well-trained people all simultaneously misinterpreting the data, it was just that they didn't have any data to work with and so reached erroneous conclusions. They weren't using science to find out how the natural world works, they were relying to a large extent on historical traditions and what they thought sacred texts taught. As soon as the scientific data started to come in to indicate that these views were wrong, they were eventually abandonded (although still not quite - http://www.geocentricity.com/).

Interesting article and video by Bruce Waltke. Waltke is a world-renowned Old Testament scholar, Biblical translator and expositor. He served on the translation committee of both the New American Standard Bible and New International Version -- two of the most popular modern translations of the Bible produced in the twentieth century. Waltke is a professor emeritus of Old Testament studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia and a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. http://biologos.org/blog/why-must-the-chur...cept-evolution/

Shiloh357, if you hadn't noticed I don't spend much time on here, mostly for the reasons you outline. However, it is not true that I don't interact with qualified creationists. I have personally dialogued with two leading creation biologists; Todd Wood, via e-mail, and Joe Francis, on an online blog. It was quite clear from both of them that they have no adequate responses to the basic genomic evidence for common ancestry. Todd Wood's paper is still the most up-to-date creationist research into it. The challenges he laid down to creation biologists in that paper have not been met, not even close. In my recent correspondance with Joe Francis I outlined some particularly compelling pieces of evidence for human-chimpanzee common ancestry and he said; "Common design is one answer but not a complete answer." "Like Todd I believe there is data which supports evolution." "As creationists we believe however that there was an initial discontinuity at creation, therefore that is why I do not believe in chimp-human common ancestry, yet I think the data in support of it is valid." He then referred me to Wood's paper which I informed him I had already read. So your accusations of hypocrisy on my part are unfounded.

So MorningGlory, have you been over to any of those blogs to give those heretics what for? It's pretty easy to defend your views on a forum where essentially everyone agrees with you, and those who don't (Lurker) are shouted down with cries of "apostate." Maybe not so easy when you are in the minority.