How did the earth get populated?

[apothanein kerdos]

Your first point is absurd. Science by definition must create a hypothesis and test that hypothesis within the boundaries of the natural world. If you insert anything supernatural as a variable in a hypothesis, then you cannot test it. Therefore, by definition it cannot be science. This is not some great conspiracy, its just science. Moreover, the opinion of atheist philosophers is completely irrelevant. Evolution is not philosophy, its science. It is the theory / law that all of natural science is wholly based in.

The old default, "Nu uh, you're wrong" reply, never fails

When such evolutionsists, such as Gould, saying, "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear." (Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural HIstory 86 no.5) What about when Newsweek reported about the 1980 conference "Macroevolution" in Chicago where paleontologists said the same thing? (Jerry Alder and John Carey, "Is Man a Subtle Accident?" Newsweek, 95-96)

Why is it our children are still taught about fruitflies, changing moths, differential beaks, and similarities in embryos when these have all been proven to be fabrications, incomplete truths, or out-right lies? The answer is that many in the scientific community work from a false worldview, a world that does not need a Creator (and you add to the legitimacy of this point). You say that this is fact, it is the way we interpret the world. I say you are misguided. You are buying into nothing more than philisophical naturalism. "If I can see it, if I can observe it, then, and only then, is it true." The fact is, this is the philosophy behind science. Science is subjected to philosophy and is not absolute truth. While certain tennets of science can bring forth evidence, it does not make the evidence true. The philosophy behind it dictates the end result in the interpretation of the evidence. The fact is, these scientists have accepted the naturalistic philosophy and therefore no matter what evidence is brought forth to defeat Darwinian evolution, they will, as a whole, reject it. Don't believe me?

"Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory...we should still be justified in perferring it over all rival theories." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), 287)

A Kansas professor becomes even more specific:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (S.C. Todd "A View from Kansas on That Evolution Debate," Nature 401

Now why is it that Intelligent Design, the opposite of naturalism, is rejected by the scientific community? Because scientist believe that "the first criterian is that any scientific theory must be naturalistic." (Mano Singham, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, writing in Physics Today, June 2002.l) In fact, in the same article he goes on to quote George Gaylord Simpson as saying, "The progress of knowledge requires that no nonphysical pstulate ever be admitted in connection with the study of physical phenomena...the researcher who is seeking explanations must seek physical explanations only."

I could go on with a plethera of quotes, most from the heads of the scientific community. The fact is that you can call it absurd, but it's the truth. These men oppeate from the naturalistic philosophy, and because of this, will use science in any way to dejustify the need for God. The biggest irony; you, as a self-proclaimed Christian, accept them as more infallible than the Bible.

Are you also trying to tell a student of western philosophy that science cannot be effected by philosphy? My, how you are mistaken. Philosophy dictates everything in this world, how we gather and interpret evidence, how we live...the philosophy which we hold to dictates everything within our lives.

Finally, I do not have an atheist worldview. An atheist approaches everything from the certainty that no higher power exists. Atheists simply believe that our entire universe simply always existed. I believe that God created the Universe and everything in it. The differences in your worldview and mine is that you believe that Genesis is a literal account, I believe that it is only metaphorical and that science is how we explain our natural world. Basically we both believe that God is the source of all creation. However, it seems that you believe that Genesis literally explains the creation of life and how God created us and all life around us, and I believe that science explains God

[forrestkc]

The claim that Neanderthals were humans with rickets has been completely refuted in the scientific community.

1. The signs of rickets differ from Neanderthal fossils in several respects, including the following:

a. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor; their bones are weak. Neanderthal bones are fifty percent thicker than the average human's.

b. Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the ends of the long bones of the body. This evidence is not found in Neanderthals.

c. Rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur. Neanderthal femurs bend backward.

Virchow, who first reported the possibility of rickets in a Neanderthal, did not cite it alone. He said the fossil had rickets in early childhood, head injuries in middle age, and arthritis in old age. It is doubtful that an entire population suffered these same afflictions.

2. Lubenow attributes rickets to a post-Flood ice age, with heavy cloud cover, shelter, and clothing, and a lack of vitamin D. But the greatest differences from modern humans, seen in Homo erectus, are found mostly in tropical areas.

Moreover, even that refuted claim goes nowhere to explain the fossils of other forms of early man.

You guys have got to understand, there is a great deal of misinformation being spread by people and groups who have very little knowledge of actual science in their attempts to somehow offer up evidence of a literal creation as told in Genesis. All of this misinformation has been completely refuted. There is no scientific evidence or peer reviewed research of any other origins theory other than evolution. That is why as a Christian I accept the science behind evolution and the story of creation as metaphorical. If as Christians we try to convince the world that science is wrong on this and Genesis is a literal account, we will discredit ourselves before the entire world. It does nothing for our faith to try to justify it with misinformation.

Edited December 20, 2005 by forrestkc

[apothanein kerdos]

If we, as Christians, accept Darwinian evolution as science, then we are not justified in calling ourselves Christians. I care not about what the world says when I deny their "science" (read: naturalistic philosphy with no evidence)...I care more about my Creator and intellectual integrity.

[nebula]

Forest this is inner court are you claiming to be a christian?

Yes I am, are you inferring that I am not simply because I hold a different view on an issue that you may hold?

The worldview you hold (which has been seen in more than this topic, but in many) is the antithesis of a Christian/Biblical worldview. You fall more inline with secularists philosophies than Christian ones. So yeah, it's hard to believe that you are.

I am thinking he knows his evolutionary theory much better than he knows his Biblical theology.

I found this nice little summation that argues that there is a Biblical case for evolution and that Christ hinted in several passages in the Gospels:

forrestkc,

Please forgive me, but do you really think that the point of these passages is that of evolution?

Is that the message that Christ was trying to teach?

No, but arguably he is describing the logic behind the concept. It makes about as much sense as the quote from 2 Peter given and claiming that it is a warning against believing in evolution.

Like i said . . .

Your argument shows you have no interest in Jesus and the Kingdom of God at all.

[forrestkc]

Your first point is absurd. Science by definition must create a hypothesis and test that hypothesis within the boundaries of the natural world. If you insert anything supernatural as a variable in a hypothesis, then you cannot test it. Therefore, by definition it cannot be science. This is not some great conspiracy, its just science. Moreover, the opinion of atheist philosophers is completely irrelevant. Evolution is not philosophy, its science. It is the theory / law that all of natural science is wholly based in.

The old default, "Nu uh, you're wrong" reply, never fails

When such evolutionsists, such as Gould, saying, "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear." (Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural HIstory 86 no.5) What about when Newsweek reported about the 1980 conference "Macroevolution" in Chicago where paleontologists said the same thing? (Jerry Alder and John Carey, "Is Man a Subtle Accident?" Newsweek, 95-96)

Why is it our children are still taught about fruitflies, changing moths, differential beaks, and similarities in embryos when these have all been proven to be fabrications, incomplete truths, or out-right lies? The answer is that many in the scientific community work from a false worldview, a world that does not need a Creator (and you add to the legitimacy of this point). You say that this is fact, it is the way we interpret the world. I say you are misguided. You are buying into nothing more than philisophical naturalism. "If I can see it, if I can observe it, then, and only then, is it true." The fact is, this is the philosophy behind science. Science is subjected to philosophy and is not absolute truth. While certain tennets of science can bring forth evidence, it does not make the evidence true. The philosophy behind it dictates the end result in the interpretation of the evidence. The fact is, these scientists have accepted the naturalistic philosophy and therefore no matter what evidence is brought forth to defeat Darwinian evolution, they will, as a whole, reject it. Don't believe me?

"Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory...we should still be justified in perferring it over all rival theories." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), 287)

A Kansas professor becomes even more specific:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (S.C. Todd "A View from Kansas on That Evolution Debate," Nature 401

Now why is it that Intelligent Design, the opposite of naturalism, is rejected by the scientific community? Because scientist believe that "the first criterian is that any scientific theory must be naturalistic." (Mano Singham, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, writing in Physics Today, June 2002.l) In fact, in the same article he goes on to quote George Gaylord Simpson as saying, "The progress of knowledge requires that no nonphysical pstulate ever be admitted in connection with the study of physical phenomena...the researcher who is seeking explanations must seek physical explanations only."

I could go on with a plethera of quotes, most from the heads of the scientific community. The fact is that you can call it absurd, but it's the truth. These men oppeate from the naturalistic philosophy, and because of this, will use science in any way to dejustify the need for God. The biggest irony; you, as a self-proclaimed Christian, accept them as more infallible than the Bible.

Are you also trying to tell a student of western philosophy that science cannot be effected by philosphy? My, how you are mistaken. Philosophy dictates everything in this world, how we gather and interpret evidence, how we live...the philosophy which we hold to dictates everything within our lives.

Finally, I do not have an atheist worldview. An atheist approaches everything from the certainty that no higher power exists. Atheists simply believe that our entire universe simply always existed. I believe that God created the Universe and everything in it. The differences in your worldview and mine is that you believe that Genesis is a literal account, I believe that it is only metaphorical and that science is how we explain our natural world. Basically we both believe that God is the source of all creation. However, it seems that you believe that Genesis literally explains the creation of life and how God created us and all life around us, and I believe that science explains God

Edited December 20, 2005 by forrestkc

[Giaour]

How did the earth get populated?

My belief is that Adam and Eve were created "Perfect" no defects at all. Perfect genes because they were without sin and created by God.

When Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of the garden, they were no longer perfect.

This meant that their offspring were born with imperfections in their genes.

Because they were made through man and not God creating them.

So, let's say that Adam's kids got 1 bad gene each, then by inbreeding they passed on 2 bad genes.

Then their kids passed on 4 bad genes.

Over generations and generations, the gene pool got too messed up to inbreed with immediate family and laws were made to stop it.

As long as the procreating was made with distant relatives, the gene pool did not form the birth defects that we see today.

Adam and Eve had many children.

How many children could you have in 700 years?

Say you have 1 a year, 700 children can produce another 490,000 offspring if they too lived that long.

It's not difficult to see how fast a world would get populated that way.

Just my opinion.

[apothanein kerdos]

You are sounding more and more like an athiest. Just so you know, I am (after finishing this post), reporting what you have said above as well as my response. Either you are a highly misguided Christian, or not one at all. After I am done, you will see why.

First off, perhaps you are not privy to nature of Faith. Faith is not something that you can prove. If it were something that you could prove, then by definition it would not be faith. You can reason your way almost to the point of a belief a higher power, or a disbelief of a higher power, but at some point, either way one must go on faith because it is not something that can be proven by man.

You are wrong (this is becomming quite the trend). Faith pistos is, by definition, a conviction that leads to reliance. It has nothing to do with provability or leaning on the unknown. It has everything to do with simply relying on something. If I have a fact in something I can rely on it, I can have faith in it. Thus facts do not nullify faith at all. As Dr. J.P. Moreland states, "To have faith in God means to rely on Him. Either way, faith is relying on what you have reason to believe is true and trustworthy. Faith involves the readiness to act as if something were so." Unfortunately you are buying into the naturalistic explanation of faith. In this we have a two tier dichotomy, where facts are placed in the most important level and beliefs are placed on the secondary level. Beleifs/faith is viewed as being seperate entities. The problem with this is that Christianity contains many facts. Therefore, the Biblical definition of faith is not belief in the unknown, but instead acting and trusting in what we do know.

So yes, I have faith in God. However, I nor any other man on the face of the earth can prove that God exists. It is a choice, and I have made the choice to believe that God exists and I sincerely believe that he does exist and that he leads me in my life.

If you believe there are no facts to God's existence then you have a weak baby faith. Paul dedicated almost all of the first chapter in Romans to explaining why there is proof to the existance of God.

Secondly, you obviously have no understanding of the definition of science or of how science works.

Do you not see how you bit right into the naturalistic philosphy of attacking the opposition when nothing else works? Take this as arrogant, I have probably forgotten more about Darwinian evolution then you have learned. Again, this is what I have dedicated years to learning (philsophy and history, naturalism, being the guiding force in Darwinian evolution, is something I have spent much time on)...so to say I don't know how it works it laughable.

As I stated earlier, science must be naturalistic. Then you aren't a Christian. It's a simple as that. Your view is that naturalism trumps all else.The core belief in naturalism is that there is no God nor a need for God. Seeing as how you lift it above all else, you therefore perpetuate the fact that you believe there is no God. YOu can say you believe there is a God, you can claim to have faith, but you cannot believe in naturalism AND Christianity. The two are mutually exclusive.

That is what differentiates science from such beliefs as alchemy or astrology. For example, I work as a Systems Administrator. A few months ago we had a severe and persistent logical database corruption issue. Even though we eventually were able to resolve the issue, we never were able to determine what exactly caused it. By your logic, because I was unable to attribute what caused that logical corruption issue to any natural causes, then it would have been perfectly legitimate computer science for me attribute it to the supernatural actions of some higher power.

Why wouldn't it be legitimate to attribute the crash to a metaphysical cause? Again, you claim to be a Christian? I'm not buying it. You sound more like Hume than Christ.

Finally, you are misinformed about there not being a transitional fossil record. Perhaps you should pick up any encyclopedia and look under the heading of

[forrestkc]

You are sounding more and more like an athiest. Just so you know, I am (after finishing this post), reporting what you have said above as well as my response. Either you are a highly misguided Christian, or not one at all. After I am done, you will see why.

First off, perhaps you are not privy to nature of Faith. Faith is not something that you can prove. If it were something that you could prove, then by definition it would not be faith. You can reason your way almost to the point of a belief a higher power, or a disbelief of a higher power, but at some point, either way one must go on faith because it is not something that can be proven by man.

You are wrong (this is becomming quite the trend). Faith pistos is, by definition, a conviction that leads to reliance. It has nothing to do with provability or leaning on the unknown. It has everything to do with simply relying on something. If I have a fact in something I can rely on it, I can have faith in it. Thus facts do not nullify faith at all. As Dr. J.P. Moreland states, "To have faith in God means to rely on Him. Either way, faith is relying on what you have reason to believe is true and trustworthy. Faith involves the readiness to act as if something were so." Unfortunately you are buying into the naturalistic explanation of faith. In this we have a two tier dichotomy, where facts are placed in the most important level and beliefs are placed on the secondary level. Beleifs/faith is viewed as being seperate entities. The problem with this is that Christianity contains many facts. Therefore, the Biblical definition of faith is not belief in the unknown, but instead acting and trusting in what we do know.

So yes, I have faith in God. However, I nor any other man on the face of the earth can prove that God exists. It is a choice, and I have made the choice to believe that God exists and I sincerely believe that he does exist and that he leads me in my life.

If you believe there are no facts to God's existence then you have a weak baby faith. Paul dedicated almost all of the first chapter in Romans to explaining why there is proof to the existance of God.

Secondly, you obviously have no understanding of the definition of science or of how science works.

Do you not see how you bit right into the naturalistic philosphy of attacking the opposition when nothing else works? Take this as arrogant, I have probably forgotten more about Darwinian evolution then you have learned. Again, this is what I have dedicated years to learning (philsophy and history, naturalism, being the guiding force in Darwinian evolution, is something I have spent much time on)...so to say I don't know how it works it laughable.

As I stated earlier, science must be naturalistic. Then you aren't a Christian. It's a simple as that. Your view is that naturalism trumps all else.The core belief in naturalism is that there is no God nor a need for God. Seeing as how you lift it above all else, you therefore perpetuate the fact that you believe there is no God. YOu can say you believe there is a God, you can claim to have faith, but you cannot believe in naturalism AND Christianity. The two are mutually exclusive.

That is what differentiates science from such beliefs as alchemy or astrology. For example, I work as a Systems Administrator. A few months ago we had a severe and persistent logical database corruption issue. Even though we eventually were able to resolve the issue, we never were able to determine what exactly caused it. By your logic, because I was unable to attribute what caused that logical corruption issue to any natural causes, then it would have been perfectly legitimate computer science for me attribute it to the supernatural actions of some higher power.

Why wouldn't it be legitimate to attribute the crash to a metaphysical cause? Again, you claim to be a Christian? I'm not buying it. You sound more like Hume than Christ.

Finally, you are misinformed about there not being a transitional fossil record. Perhaps you should pick up any encyclopedia and look under the heading of

[apothanein kerdos]

1. You claim that science should not be naturalistic. Therefore, there is no point trying to debate science with you because from the start, you are inserting philosophy into the debate.

My points were backed up with facts. Science cannot be naturalistic because naturalism inherently fails. I pointed this out and you continue ignore it. Again, go back through the posts and look at my critique of naturalism. It cancels out God..and you're promoting it.

2. The entire basis of your argument is that there are no transitional fossils. That is false. As I pointed out and sourced, we have found large numbers of transitional fossils for a wide variety of species.

I destroyed this argument, showing that punk eek is the only viable option Darwinian evolutionists use and it's a weak one at that. I did respond to this part, look at the end of my post.

3. You obviously don

[forrestkc]

1. You claim that science should not be naturalistic. Therefore, there is no point trying to debate science with you because from the start, you are inserting philosophy into the debate.

My points were backed up with facts. Science cannot be naturalistic because naturalism inherently fails. I pointed this out and you continue ignore it. Again, go back through the posts and look at my critique of naturalism. It cancels out God..and you're promoting it.

2. The entire basis of your argument is that there are no transitional fossils. That is false. As I pointed out and sourced, we have found large numbers of transitional fossils for a wide variety of species.

I destroyed this argument, showing that punk eek is the only viable option Darwinian evolutionists use and it's a weak one at that. I did respond to this part, look at the end of my post.

3. You obviously don

Edited December 20, 2005 by forrestkc