Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Fossil Find: Fungus Controlled Ant Just Like Today

The fossil record cannot usually tell us about the soft body parts or the behavior of its specimens. For these, we look to the extant species. But now a clever finding reveals an odd behavior in carpenter ants from the distant past.

Nature is full of designs and behaviors not easily preserved in the fossils. Consider the bat, certain types of which map out objects around it as small as a mosquito by sensing the echoes of its own squeaks—a system known as echolocation. The bat emits a high-pitch squeak, well beyond the range of human hearing, up to 2,000 times per second. Next it determines both range and direction to the tiny mosquito by sensing the echo while filtering out echoes from the squeaks of nearby bats. Or consider fish that use underwater electric fields either passively or actively to sense objects around them, including other fish.

It is difficult to determine such details from the fossil record, but they reveal how unlikely is the theory of evolution. Anyone familiar with today’s sonar or radar systems knows the immense complexity involved with such systems: the problems of sensing the echo in the presence of the transmitted signal which can be billions of times stronger, of filtering out spurious signals such as echoes of older transmissions, of combining the echo information with knowledge of your own motion, and so forth. Yet the bat’s detection abilities are superior to those of the best electronic sonar equipment.

It is also difficult to determine complex behaviors from the fossil record. Consider certain Hydra species, a small underwater creature, that develop nematocysts—stinging cells which eject a tiny poisoned hair. A planarian worm known as the Microstomum, consumes Hydra but passes the nematocysts through its digestive system and positions them on its surface. The Hydra meal serves to arm the Microstomum, and when fully equipped the Microstomum omits the Hydra from its diet, resuming again after discharging its ill-gotten arsenal.

For evolution to have formed this system, certain Microstomum must have happened to have selectively digested the Hydra, leaving the nematocysts untouched. Then they also happened to have vectored the nematocysts to the surface and positioned it there. Then certain Microstomum happened to have a feedback loop installed to regulate its diet.

Or consider a sheep parasite known as the brainworm:

The brain worm that reproduces in sheep uses ants to get back into a sheep. The worms get into ants by infecting snails that eat sheep feces. The snails expel tiny worm larvae in a mucus that ants enjoy, and some dozens of worms take up residence in an ant. But this would do them no good if the ant behaved normally; too few ants would be eaten by sheep. Consequently, while most of the worms make themselves at home in an ant’s abdomen, one finds its way to the ants brain and causes the ant to climb up a grass stem and wait to be eaten by a sheep. Ironically, the worm that programs the ant is cheated of happiness in the sheep’s intestine; it becomes encysted and dies.

The whole procedure seems unnecessary. Why do the worm eggs defecated by the sheep not simply hatch and climb up the grass stem to await being eaten by a sheep instead of making the hazardous trip through snail and ant? How could they become adapted to being carried by the ant unless the ant were already programmed to make itself available to be eaten by a sheep?

The list, of course, goes on and on. There is the decoy-fish with its detachable dorsal fin that mimics a smaller fish complete with a dark spot resembling an eye and notch resembling a mouth. The decoy-fish becomes motionless except for the decoy which moves from side to side, causing the “mouth” to open and close. And there is the owl with ears tuned to different frequencies, to better track its prey, and the rattlesnake with heat-sensitive (infrared) sensors to image its prey at night.

Now, a new fossil finding shows just how persistent nature's odd behaviors can be. A carpenter ant (Camponotus leonardi) can be infected by the fungus Ophiocordyceps. Sensitive to the forest temperature and humidity, the fungus must be up off the ground but lower than the forest canopy. It arrives at the desired height by taking over the ant it infects:

The fungus cannot grow high up in the canopy or on the forest floor, but infected ants often die on leaves midway between the two, where the humidity and temperature suit the fungus. Once an ant has died, the fungus sprouts from its head and produces a pod of spores, which are fired at night on to the forest floor, where they can infect other ants.

Scientists led by Hughes noticed that ants infected with the fungus, Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, bit into leaves with so much force they left a lasting mark. The holes created by their mandibles either side of the leaf vein are bordered by scar tissue, producing an unmistakable dumb-bell shape.

It is another fascinating parasitic action that, it would seem, could never be found in the fossil record. But a team of intrepid researchers found a way:

Writing in the journal, Biology Letters, the team describes how they trawled a database of images that document leaf damage by insects, fungi and other organisms. They found one image of a 48m-year-old leaf from the Messel pit that showed the distinctive "death grip" markings of an infected ant. At the time, the Messel area was thick with subtropical forests.

"We now present it as the first example of behavioural manipulation and probably the only one which can be found. In most cases, this kind of control is spectacular but ephemeral and doesn't leave any permanent trace," Hughes said.

And how did evolution design such a Rube Goldberg device? Who knows:

"The question now is, what are the triggers that push a parasite not just to kill its host, but to take over its brain and muscles and then kill it."

He added: "Of all the parasitic organisms, only a few have evolved this trick of manipulating their host's behaviour.

Evolution is truly amazing. It creates in ways we cannot even figure out.

Religion drives science and it matters.

89 comments:

  1. "Evolution is truly amazing. It creates in ways we cannot even figure out."

    WE are figuring it out.

    YOU choose not to.

    I'm baffled by the continuous drumbeat that claims because science is work in progress, it has failed.

    And how is this a defense for ID/creationism?

    Curious logic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Out of curiosity:

    The title of the linked paper is:

    'Zombie ants' controlled by parasitic fungus for 48m years.

    This is based on fossil evidence. Do you accept the fossil record and its dating? Or is the ant/fungal relationship just a few thousand years old?

    By the way, are the horrible brain eating sheep --among other nasty--parasites with complex lifestyles designed?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm baffled with all the Darwinists who continually bash Cornelius Hunter on his blog. Have you nothing better to do?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Insightful post, Cornelius. I never realized before how much God adores parasites, especially the brain-eating ones. Now, I know one of those evil-utionists is going to to ask a question like: "So if God spent so much thought and care handcrafting these deliciously malicious parasites, why didn't he spend a moment to say, make the juvenile human immune system just a little better at fighting off leukemia or malaria?" - But don't listen to them Cornelius, they're just being religious

    You mention that the carpenter ants showed an odd behavior in the 'distant past,' could you clarify what you mean by 'distant past'? Was this particular parasite crafted before or after Eve took a bite of the fruit and wrecked everything?

    Thanks in advance for the response, and keep up duh good work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Drew said...

    I'm baffled with all the Darwinists who continually bash Cornelius Hunter on his blog. Have you nothing better to do?


    Correcting the horrendously bad anti-science dreck that the IDCers like Cornelius keep pushing, while being a valuable service for the lurkers, is quite intellectually satisfying in its own right.

    Science education to counter religiously driven nutters: it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Drew said: "I'm baffled with all the Darwinists who continually bash Cornelius Hunter on his blog. Have you nothing better to do?"

    Drew, if gallop polls showed that roughly half of the population believed in a flat earth, geocentrism, or homeopathy, and that they were fighting fiercely to have those things injected into the public education curriculum, It would be a worthwhile effort on anyone's part to do their best to combat that ignorance in any place it reared its head.

    Combating ignorance is always a noble goal. Even if it seems futile, like it sometimes does here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thornton:

    ROTFLMAO ... as always
    - you should be a comedian rather than persistently making such a fool of yourself here

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gary said...

    (poot bluster belch)


    Hey Gary, where are those probability calculations from statistical mechanics you claimed disprove the Theory of Evolution?

    Every time I ask you to provide them you bail from the discussion. Why do you IDC cowards keep making boasts you can't back up?

    Not that I mind. Every time one of the IDC clowns like you or Tedford or Eocene makes a mouthy claim and does a big time FAIL when asked to produce, science wins!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Guys, do you realise that you are making Dr. Hunter’s point for him, when you make metaphysics the point of your critique? “By the way, are the horrible brain eating sheep --among other nasty--parasites with complex lifestyles designed?” “Was this particular parasite crafted before or after Eve took a bite of the fruit and wrecked everything?”
    And then followed (or preceded) by what is presumably meant to be a refutation of this observation: “But don't listen to them Cornelius, they're just being religious.” Of course, they are. Can you show that/why they are not being religious?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 27th comrade quoting Derick Childress & RobertC:

    "Guys, do you realise that you are making Dr. Hunter’s point for him, when you make metaphysics the point of your critique?"

    "By the way, are the horrible brain eating sheep --among other nasty--parasites with complex lifestyles designed?” -----
    “Was this particular parasite crafted before or after Eve took a bite of the fruit and wrecked everything?”
    =====================

    Interestingly and unknown to them, they are more importantly making the biblical point for why the bible itself was written in the first place. First, it was not written as an official historical recorded account of the scientific step by step details of creation text book for acknowledgement and approval by any future modern day self-appointed "Panel of Peers" biligerent Stoics.

    Second, it was actually written to give future generations an understanding and explanation of why our natural and social worlds are presently failing.

    Nature is out of balance and it's a direct result of human error. An issue was raised in Eden (parroted by many today) that God has no right to set the standards of what is right and what is wrong, so God's Universal sovereignty was at question. Hence we have a sort of court trial or self-rule experiment going on presently which is almost finished. Thus far it's been a miserable failing much to the misery of both Nature and Humans.

    Here's an example of imbalance in nature, WEEDS = Thorns & Thistles mentioned in Genesis. Atheists are fond of bringing this up that God created Thorns and Thistles after the fall to make life miserable. This is untrue. The bible shows that we are still currectly under "God's (7th Day) of Rest" from which he does not pursue any creative works. Thorns and thistles (weeds) already existed and are an important part of any and all ecosystems in need of repair. Weeds are for the most part ruderals in which all it's energies are spent on offensive rather than defensive meachanisms for survival. Look at any weedy situation and you'll notice insect and fungal or mold attacks on them, since most of their energy is spent on reproduction for the manufacture of more seed to spread quickly. Weeds rapidly cover disturbed soil until later more desirable species/kinds of plants take over. If the eco-system is healthy emough, the mycorrhizal environment which colonize higher plants under the soil will actually keep weeds in check which produces a balance again. Weeds should be considered a pioneer species/kind in the enginered eco-system repair mechanism. Other progressive species/kinds of plants follow and the system is back on track in productivity for both animal and mankind.

    You could say the mention to Adam by God of Thorns and Thistles was prophetic of the inedpt way man's independence (selfishness and greed) would later prove the present imabalance of the natural world. Human's have misused and abused of the natural resources that have not only brought imbalance to the plant world, but also invasive species of insects and animals effecting non-native environments. You can't blame nature, it just does what it is programmed to do. Mankind's imperfect materialist custodialship of Earth over terrible farming practices (ignorant or diliberate) , over grazing with more animals than the land can handle have fascilitated the progress of weeds (Thorns and Thistles).

    This is why what Paul mentioned the impotance for practicing of the "Fruitages of the Spirit" being a key as opposed to "Practices of the Flesh". Human activity (moral or immoral) has a direct effect (possitive or bad) on how the natural world operates like a well finely tuned machine or fails like a overheated seized engine. So all these supposed parasites, pestilences, etc as being proof of there being no God ring hollow for no other reason than individuals not doing there homework before opening their proverbial big mouths.

    .........continued..........

    ReplyDelete
  11. 27th Comrade said: Guys, do you realise that you are making Dr. Hunter’s point for him, when you make metaphysics the point of your critique ... Can you show that/why they are not being religious?

    "It couldn't have evolved ... because it is complex."

    -and-

    "It couldn't have evolved ... because I don't understand how it could have."

    are insinuations of this and many posts that are not scientific. You can't fight this kind of religion with science. If you could fight religion with science, it would have been dead a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  12. RobertC noted: “By the way, are the horrible brain eating sheep --among other nasty--parasites with complex lifestyles designed?”

    Well, yes.

    But this is a theological argument rather than a scientific one: it is about what God supposedly would or would not do rather than about the scientific evidence. Since you bring up the religious then you tacitly ignore the Fall, as do most such neophyte critics. God did NOT design things this way, but they became this way after sin entered the world. That this worm can live in no other way but in the ant’s brain is a decoy: this is, on several counts, technically incorrect. The meningeal worm, for example, lives chiefly in deer without harm but if found in either goats or sheep impairing neurological processes ensue. This parasite is not designed to live in the brain of sheep and nowhere else. Degeneration following the Fall can explain many features of today’s parasites that did not have the same life cycle pre-Fall. Your theological argument fails and your scientific one is quite precarious.

    AussieID

    ReplyDelete
  13. ...........continued..........

    Other examples Atheists (or Theistic Evos) will often give for evolution is the supposed magical random mutational appearance of such diseases as say, Spanish Flu, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, etc. This is often championed and celebrated in many of the popular journals of the wonderful evolutionary mechanisms at work and metaphysical bolded statements that if there really were a God, then he wouldn't have allowed these to exist. *sigh*

    Here again morally bankrupted individuals make excuses for imperfect human conduct as not being the culprit. So let's just take the example of Spanish Influenza and understand it's the same cause and effect reasons for other later epidemics since and presently.

    Human imperfection and error coupled by unhealthy conditions were what resulted after the fighting of the so-called "Great War" (WWI) which was supposed to be the war to end all wars. Both Religious people and Atheists bare the same bloodguilt for that war. As with most wars, famines and pestilences become rampant. Note the order of appearance of 'Revelations four horsemen'. As with most wars greed and selfishness were the motivating factors and newer teachnological advances such as transportation (air, water & road travel) actually fascilitated it's rapid global spread. The unsanitary conditions from the war, dead bodies, newer technics in crowded industrial farming all provided ripe conditions for unbalanced microbiological mishaps.

    Last year's Swine Flu emergence was championed by the faithful (Evos) as a wonderful celebration of their dogma, yet it was the same unhealthy imbalanced conditions (selfishness & greed) which helped fascilitate what turned out to be not as bad as first thought. But still human error is by mandate not to be considered ever at fault.

    Early last year also saw the championing of "Homosexuality in Nature" in several articles celebrating how natural and normal such a lifestyle is because nature has it. This is in fact a lie and yet a further disruption of natural ecosystems as warned by the scientists behind the research found at http://www.ourstolenfuture.org who began warning the scientific community in the early 1980s of the dangers of scientific chemical inventions for profit such as "bisphenol A" which in trace amounts disrupts the endocrine system of all bird, animal, fish and human fetuses. Instead of heading and taking serious the warnings, we have whole aquatic (bird & fish) systems going extinct because the reproductive systems of these creatures are destroyed or dare I say mutated where two gay male sea gulls nest together. Or male a fish testes which are badly deformed produce eggs instead of sperm. Again, who's fault is this ??? Not the original brilliant programming of the Natural world.

    When Cornelius uses his favourite signature catch phraze, "Religion Drives Science and It Matters", perhaps it has more import than even he realizes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AussieID:

    But this is a theological argument rather than a scientific one: it is about what God supposedly would or would not do rather than about the scientific evidence.

    You got that right.

    Since you bring up the religious then you tacitly ignore the Fall, as do most such neophyte critics. God did NOT design things this way, but they became this way after sin entered the world.

    Yes, God was an innocent bystander, entirely helpless in all his ominipotence…after having deliberately cursed the earth. The idea that all natural evil was an inevitable consequence of one man’s sin of disobedience is ridiculous and indefensible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AussieID: Since you bring up the religious then you tacitly ignore the Fall, as do most such neophyte critics.

    Such metaphysical arguments, insomuch as they are held by 21st century thinkers, are directed at a creator god or gods broadly. Biblical origin myths have no priority over "turtles all the way down."

    ReplyDelete
  16. David pointed the finger(I won't say which one)

    "Yes, God was an innocent bystander, entirely helpless in all his ominipotence…after having deliberately cursed the earth. The idea that all natural evil was an inevitable consequence of one man’s sin of disobedience is ridiculous and indefensible."
    ======================

    The reality is David your bigoted opinion (tho not original and which presently runs our world) is irrelavent of the historical truth of the matter. But as long as there is time left you are welcome to take false comfort in it if it makes you feel better.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Eocene:

    "Early last year also saw the championing of "Homosexuality in Nature" in several articles celebrating how natural and normal such a lifestyle is because nature has it. This is in fact a lie and yet a further disruption of natural ecosystems"

    Homosexuality disrupts natural ecosystems. Yup. The Rapture is upon us.

    ReplyDelete
  18. John stated emphatically:

    "Such metaphysical arguments, insomuch as they are held by 21st century thinkers, are directed at a creator god or gods broadly."
    ===================

    I agree with this. Great finger pointing. Religious posters here are irrelavent when it comes to who is being accused of inadequate rule. Satan did originally point the same finger and stated the same catch phraze at Almighty God when debating Job's integrity in Heaven. Of course Satan later did point the finger at what he considered the phony integrity keeping of not only Job, but that of all mankind in general who claimed to worship God for nothing more than personal selfish reasons.

    Good observation John, you've been reading.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Second, it was actually written to give future generations an understanding and explanation of why our natural and social worlds are presently failing.

    If you read Genesis 2-3, it's pretty clearly an attempt to provide prescientific answers to the vexing questions of the day.

    Why do we die? Why is agriculture so difficult? Why is childbirth so painful? Why are there dangerous animals in the world?

    That, and of course, justification of the patriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Troy snarked:

    "Homosexuality disrupts natural ecosystems. Yup. The Rapture is upon us."
    ==================

    HTTP://WWW.OURSTOLENFUTURE.ORG

    You haven't actually read the material yet have you Troy ??? Should take you a good six months to digest. To my knowledge, none of these scientists are creationists. Have a good read.

    *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  21. John:

    "If you read Genesis 2-3, it's pretty clearly an attempt to provide prescientific answers to the vexing questions of the day."
    =========================

    It's a simple yet scientific chronological order or epoch of events in order of appearance of various non-life and life componants of our Earth which agrees with scientific chronological order no matter how you choose to slant the mechanics angle. But I'm sure definition shell games are in order here. The bible says mankind has eternity to figure out God's ways, including how the natural world functions.

    ________________________________

    John:

    "Why do we die? Why is agriculture so difficult? Why is childbirth so painful? Why are there dangerous animals in the world?"
    ======================

    Because the accusation first raised demanded that intelligent life (Spirit & Human) be given a chance without any bigoted judgemental interferrance from God be allowed to prove itself. So you've got it.

    But none of the terrible things that have happened and resulted as a consequence of this independence pursuit cannot be undone after this whole mess is finished.

    If you look at your own predjudicial attitude, you already scream bloody murder for the so-called restrictive rules as it is, even though by personal experience we all understand that we need to live in a world operated by rules or we have Anarchy (Somalia), and just so long as it's not a Creator's rules.

    Also, only mankind's genetic makeup was effected. Not micro-organisms, plants, fish, birds and animals. They are ONLY effected by our actions and disobedience for which you resent being informed of. When the Earth and all in it were first created, everything genetically was perfect, all systems were functioning as planned. Human's were not designed to die, but they made that choice by pulling the power cord out of the proverbial wall away from the source of life, the creator. It's just that it's taken the proverbial electric fan awhile to slow down after being cut off to a complete and final stop. Those continuing genetic repair mechanisms for the most part have been turned off since the majority of humankind and those of the spirit world believe they have no need of a creator even for existance. Thus far humans have been unable to solve all the problems you listed and more since they initially insisted that only they had control over life and there not being a need for any guidance from God.

    Deuteronomy 32:4-5
    "The Rock, perfect is his activity,
    For all his ways are justice.
    A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice;
    Righteous and upright is he.

    5 They have acted ruinously on their own part;
    They are not his children, the defect is their own.
    A generation crooked and twisted!"

    There was nothing flawed about the creation in the beginning as verse 4 states, but verse 5 puts the blame squarely on whose shoulder the fault and genetic defect lie. Mankind.

    As far as animals ???
    Romans 8:22

    "22 For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

    New Living Translation (NLT)

    Unfortunately for the natural world, they are subjected to the stupidity and imperfect flaws that plague humankind that have resulted in disasterous consequences for life on Earth. Of couse you have the freewilled right not to accept this.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wow, we really have drifted from the OP, haven't we? But that's probably not such an important thing since it was yet another post consisting entirely of "It's complicated so God must have done it."

    That aside, I love how quickly the God-botherers turn to the Bible for 'evidence' to back up their assertions - and we're the religious ones??!?!

    Though I do have to ask, doesn't it ever occur to you guys that the whole debacle that (apparently) happened in Eden was ALL GOD'S FAULT? He is omnipotent and omniscient. He knew everything from the start and made everything. He must have known how it would turn out. Blaming Adam and Eve for disobedience does not excuse God making Adam and Eve the way they were, and in full knowledge of what they would do given a free choice.

    Not only is this Biblical creation myth obviously not science (and should not be even consulted by any intellignet person seeking answers to the origin of life), but it does not even MAKE SENSE interally. Even taking the story on its own terms, everything is ultimately ALL GOD'S FAULT.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eocene said: John said:

    "Why do we die? Why is agriculture so difficult? Why is childbirth so painful? Why are there dangerous animals in the world?"


    Eocene, those aren't my questions. We have scientific answers for those now that I accept. Those are questions posed by the culture that produced the Old Testament.

    ReplyDelete

  24. Eocene, those aren't my questions. We have scientific answers for those now that I accept. Those are questions posed by the culture that produced the Old Testament.


    Nice to be able to compare Eocene's answers with the way science tells us the world actually works so we can marvel at the gulf between them, though.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just for the record, my question:

    "By the way, are the horrible brain eating sheep --among other nasty--parasites with complex lifestyles designed?”

    To which everyone jumps up and down screaming things like:

    "Guys, do you realise (sic) that you are making Dr. Hunter’s point for him, when you make metaphysics the point of your critique?"

    WAS MERELY A QUESTION! It is not a counter-design argument. Evolution succeeds and ID fails without such queries.

    By the way, metaphysics isn't some holy hand grenade that scientists who adhere to methodological naturalism get blown up by. Hunter has convinced you its a four-letter word, and we lose if you say it. Funny.

    There is literally nothing to reply to the original post, other than my statement: "I'm baffled by the continuous drumbeat that claims because science is work in progress, it has failed" and then to ask what motivates you to think this way. No one seems to try to tackle the former, so let us satisfy my curiosity.

    I'm just probing what runs through your minds when you make these statements, and how your religion drives your interpretation of science.

    I got a number of replies-most focus on a very specific interpretation of the 'fall.' It seems you think God did NOT design things this way, but they became this way after sin entered the world, as the result of the fall.

    Interesting. Particularly interesting no one took the party line that ID isn't about the designer. Seems you have a pretty set idea who the designer is, and how to explain the pain and suffering of design.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So, another poll: In your minds-

    1) Do pre and post fall organisms have distinct lifestyles (is pre-fall malaria some nice little sap-eating critter)? Could you provide some example?

    2) There are clearly gains of function in parasites versus free living relatives. Take the mechanisms that intracellular parasites use to evade destruction-highly complex, regulated affairs. Hundreds of virulence factors secreted. What are these mechanisms supposed to have 'degenerated' from during the fall? Can 'degeneration' bring about novel function?

    3) Do you believe the changes are natural, or designed by an agent (God, or Satan I suppose)? Is parasitism front-loaded? Is each new gain of function (e.g. drug resistance, new host) an unfolding of design?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ritchie had a lightbulb experience.

    "ALL GOD'S FAULT."
    ====================

    That's exactly what Satan insisted.

    Congradulations Ritchie, you paid attention.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ritchie mused

    "Nice to be able to compare Eocene's answers with the way science tells us the world actually works so we can marvel at the gulf between them, though."
    ======================

    Hello , Ritchie

    That is the problem, the science isn't working, read the research again. Don't be making fun of your own kind (species ?)

    http://www.ourstolenfuture.org

    ReplyDelete
  30. John sidetracked:

    "We have scientific answers for those now that I accept. Those are questions posed by the culture that produced the Old Testament. "
    ====================

    John science doesn't have the answers, that's why your side's Church are crying "The Sky Is Falling" with regards Earth's environment.

    You just don't care for the moral implications that require responsibility. This response is still nothing more than a "What Is Truth?" deflection when nothing of substance exists.

    ReplyDelete
  31. RobertC

    "So, another poll: In your minds-"
    ===================

    Your poll is a waste and nothing but a set up for sarcasm. None of those questions deal with Hunter's usual Blog O.P.s in which he most of the time doesn't necessarily attack evolution so much as the half cocked way Scientists, who are supposed to abide by the Most Holy of Holy "Scientific method" your side shoves down everyone else's throat for establishing proofs which lead to a conclusion of an actual fact.

    When confronted with example after example of this double standard deflection garbage of ignoring that you don't hold yourself to the same standard of scientific method, that you think and demand the other side should be oblidged, you become outraged.

    Well, then so be it. But answering your poll accomplishes nothing since you've already been given the answers for which you were apparently infuriated..

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eocene -


    That's exactly what Satan insisted.


    Then Satan had a good point, didn't he? Just because Satan said it (if he did) doesn't make it wrong. It WAS all God's fault.


    That is the problem, the science isn't working


    This is a rather naive and blanket interpretation. The book is talking about recent technological advancements being detrimental to our health. That is not the same as saying 'science doesn't work'.

    Of course science works - if it didn't it wouldn't have an effect at all, and thus wouldn't be detrimental to us, would it? Also notice how the authors arrived at their conclusions - by comparing facts and studying evidence. That's science.

    The book is not asserting what you apparently think it is (that science doesn't work/is inherantly bad). At most it is saying some scientific advancements are detrimental. That is far from the same.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ritchie admitted and sided with, well

    "Then Satan had a good point, didn't he? Just because Satan said it (if he did) doesn't make it wrong. It WAS all God's fault."
    ===================

    No response, thanks.

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

    Ritchie made more excuses:

    "The book is not asserting what you apparently think it is (that science doesn't work/is inherantly bad). At most it is saying some scientific advancements are detrimental. That is far from the same. "
    =======================

    Hello, resident genius, that's not what I've been posting about. Get a clue, who runs science and makes it tick SCIENTISTS and they are subject to all the imperfections common to every man, woman and child. They have no superiority over anyone else when it comes to morality. In fact it's morality that is the hard core issue here, hence Cornelius hunter's blog.

    More successes with industrial Farming ???

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs

    (Maybe the Cornelius' catch sig should read "Greed, and Selfishness Drives Science and It Matters" ???)


    Ritchie further attempted to justify.

    "Of course science works - if it didn't it wouldn't have an effect at all, and thus wouldn't be detrimental to us, would it? Also notice how the authors arrived at their conclusions - by comparing facts and studying evidence. That's science."
    =========================

    Then why do the majority of those who run and drive science (Big Business) make fun of these scientist you seem to admire here ???? Why does the majority try and demonize and villify these people and their research ????

    Because science is nothing more than motivated by power, wealth and Ego. Take time out and watch the documentary called "Home" if you've got an hour and a half. I guarantee you the people documenting this are not creationist. Proof is at the end they try and show that eco ideas will save the planet and quite simply is a lie. Humans need to change their behavior and for the majority including yourself that is an unacceptable option.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eocene-

    What does industrial agriculture have to do with evolutionary biology?

    I think evolution contributes the following:

    1) The limited diversity of industrial agriculture puts us at risk for loss of key crops and animals with no backup.

    2) Certain animals are more or less adapted (evolved) for industrial agriculture. Grain fed cattle, for example, have altered stomach pH, which fosters growth of pathogenic E. coli relative to grass-fed ones.

    3) Antibiotic resistance in industrial farms is evolution in action.

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/656400?seq=2

    The technology-bad rant doesn't do much for me in the evolution argument. Even if evolutionary biology has yielded some imperfect technologies (which you need to convince me of), this doesn;t disprove evolution. Nuclear weapons are bad, but they don't disprove atomic theory.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Eocene -


    No response, thanks.


    Ummm, why not, exactly. You think you have undermined my position by claiming 'that's what Satan said'? If Satan said it it must be wrong?

    In the first case, where exactly does Satan say it? I don't recall him doing so, so I think your claim is actually factually incorrect. But in the second, such logic is flawed anway. The debacle in the Garden of Eden WAS logically all God's fault, and that fact does not change whatever others may say about it.


    Hello, resident genius, that's not what I've been posting about. Get a clue, who runs science and makes it tick SCIENTISTS and they are subject to all the imperfections common to every man, woman and child.


    Really starting to lose the plot on what you're saying. What on Earth are you talking about? Do even YOU know?

    Let's just take a moment to consider the advancements science has given us - computers, cars, planes, computers, the internet, mobile phones, surgery, organ transplants, and much more. We have sequenced the human genome, walked on the moon and cloned animals. We have glimpsed all manner of things in outer space. You cannot simply dismiss these achievements. These are tangible, and they have been bestowed upon us by SCIENCE! Science, basically, works!


    They have no superiority over anyone else when it comes to morality.


    What scientist claims to? Morality is a totally different issue to science. Scientists do not claim moral superiority over others - that's largely left for the religious people to do.


    More successes with industrial Farming ???


    What exactly is the point of your link? It links to an article stated eggs being recalled after an outbreak of salmonella was discovered.

    Now, how do we know about such outbreaks? The application of science! How do we know what salmonella is, what it does and how it spreads? The application of science! Take science out of this equation and you have people getting sick, not understanding why, probably blaming it on evil spirits or claiming it as 'God's just punishment for the Fall', and praying for it to go away.


    Then why do the majority of those who run and drive science (Big Business) make fun of these scientist you seem to admire here ?


    Who are you talking about, specifically? Who is making fun of the 'scientists I seem to admire'?


    Proof is at the end they try and show that eco ideas will save the planet and quite simply is a lie. Humans need to change their behavior and for the majority including yourself that is an unacceptable option.


    You're talking about conservation now, right? Firstly, I am just as able and willing to change my behaviour as the next person, thanks. And secondly, I don't know your thoughts on conservation (though I can guess), but I'd be willing to bet they were formed from statistics, numbers, thermostatic readings, projections - basically the APPLICATION OF SCIENCE which you then claim doesn't work...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ritchie

    "Ummm, why not, exactly. You think you have undermined my position by claiming 'that's what Satan said'? If Satan said it it must be wrong?"
    ===================

    No not at all slick, I simply accepted your position, no further statement on my part was waranted. Once again thanks for one of the most clear cut statements you've made thus far.

    *thumbs up*
    --------------------
    Ritchie (this is way too funny)

    "Let's just take a moment to consider the advancements science has given us - computers, cars, planes, computers, the internet, mobile phones, surgery, organ transplants, and much more. We have sequenced the human genome, walked on the moon and cloned animals. We have glimpsed all manner of things in outer space. You cannot simply dismiss these achievements. These are tangible, and they have been bestowed upon us by SCIENCE! Science, basically, works!"
    =====================

    Get a clue Ritchie, these examples are parroted over and over. Yes of course many of these things are useful and I'm using one of them right now. But science could do better. Those things are also diliberately designed (sorry 4 the curse word) to have a limited use value. We all know why. It's what makes the consume, consume, consume wheel spin and turn round which in turn forces our world's production, production production Finanacial system work. Unfortunately that very system is gobbling up resources faster than they can be replaced. But who cares anyway.

    These same companies also don't invent a solution for the hazardous crap their products produce. Here in the E.U. (The Capitol of ECO Arrogance) they don't allow all the electronic junk to be dump into any E.U. members backyard landfill, hence they have no problem with their crap being sent off to Nigeria and Cameroon whom they pay to dump the stuff on several hectors of land and pollute their country. The United States runs it pretty much the same way, but they send their mess for to China for contaminating their land, for which that Atheist version of government couldn't care less what happens pollution-wise. Surely you don't need proof of that ???

    Once some invention is produced, sold and leaves the factory, the scientist who made it and the fat cats with suits & cigar who owns the factory doesn't care (this is where conscience & morality play a role) what the consumer does with it after that, it's someone else's problem now.

    I have every confidence you have an excuse already made up for this. *wink*
    --------------------
    Ritchie (believe it or not)

    "What scientist claims to? Morality is a totally different issue to science. Scientists do not claim moral superiority over others - that's largely left for the religious people to do."
    ===================

    Again, no reponse required as your retort speaks volumes. Thanks Ritchie.
    ------------------

    Ritchie

    "Who are you talking about, specifically? Who is making fun of the 'scientists I seem to admire'?"
    ==================

    Let's see now, Big-Pharma, Monsanto, Dupont, need I really go on ???
    ------------------

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The 27th Comrade said: "Guys, do you realise that you are making Dr. Hunter’s point for him, when you make metaphysics the point of your critique?"

    27th, Eocene, and others: I'll try to state this as simply as I can so you can follow along:

    Pointing out internal inconsistencies in someone's theology has no bearing on the truth status of a scientific theory.

    Take this hypothetical exchange:

    BillyBob: This global warming stuff is such a crock.

    George: I don't know, some of the data is pretty convincing...

    BillyBob: Doesn't matter anyway. Jesus is coming back soon.

    George: That attitude doesn't make sense.

    BillyBob: Sure it does. If the earth is going to be destroyed by fire any minute now, what does it matter?

    George: Well, assuming that your futurist eschatology is correct, it is still the case that all of the verses regarding the timing of events like the 'rapture' and the apocalypse use words like 'soon,' 'near,' and 'at hand'. John opens the book of Revelation by warning his readers (specifically, the seven churches in Asia minor) that the events he is about to describe "must shortly come to pass", and that the time is "at hand." He ends the book with the statement: "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly."

    BillyBob: What's your point?

    George: My point is that if the words "soon", "quickly", "at hand", and "near" can mean "2,000 years", they could just as easily mean 4,000 years, or 20,000, or 100,000. So your unfounded belief that the 'end' will occur in your lifetime is no reason to not be a good steward of the earth.

    BillyBob: Metaphysics! Metaphysics! I knew that global warming hooey was just based on ideology!

    George: What? My argument had nothing to do with the science behind global warming. I don't even know if it's true, I was just commenting that some of the data is convincing. I was only pointing out an internal inconsistency in your belief that you keep bringing up.

    BillyBob: (with fingers in ears) Metaphysics, metaphysics, metaphysics! Your refutation of my position is based on your theology! Religion drives climate science, and it matters!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ritchie

    "You're talking about conservation now, right? Firstly, I am just as able and willing to change my behaviour as the next person, thanks."
    ==================

    Great
    ------------------

    Ritchie

    "And secondly, I don't know your thoughts on conservation (though I can guess), but I'd be willing to bet they were formed from statistics, numbers, thermostatic readings, projections - basically the APPLICATION OF SCIENCE which you then claim doesn't work..."
    ==================

    There isn't a human being on Earth that needs to be force fed stats, numbers and readings to know that something is radically wrong with Earth's natural systems. It's called common sense. You need to understand that not everything needs to be fuzzied, muddled in order to prove a point like evolution does. Sometimes it's just common sense that things just aren't right and trust me they are going to get worse.

    On that last statement, you are again speaking from a materialist rose coloured glasses viewpoint that science is going to straighten it all out. That's not the issue. The issue once again is cause and effect = Selfishness and Greed = remove the cause and the effect disappears, but unfortunately that is considered judgemental and mean spirited. We don't necessarily need more ECO-inventions to save the day. Does that mean I'm once again against science inventing Eco-Solutions ??? NO!!! I work in this area and creating systems of my own, but they are not the final answer and I am certainly smart enough not to put my blind faith in them no matter how enthused I am with such technology.

    Example, Dr Graig Venter's materialist answer to the world's CO2 problems are to create "Franken-Organisms" to eat up the CO2. That's insane and nothing more than a fix-it-pill approach rather than tackling the real problem of behaviorial issues to stop doing the destructive technology that's screwing things up in the first place. It's also stupid on a Monsanto level of idiocy and criminal behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Derick, your hypothetical example is instructive, but consider the quotation in Dr Hunter’s original post (from Robert Wesson’s Beyond Natural Selection):

    The whole procedure seems unnecessary. Why do the worm eggs defecated by the sheep not simply hatch and climb up the grass stem to await being eaten by a sheep instead of making the hazardous trip through snail and ant? How could they become adapted to being carried by the ant unless the ant were already programmed to make itself available to be eaten by a sheep?

    A clear example of metaphysico-religious reasoning, by Dr Hunter’s own criteria: “Natural selection wouldn’t do it that way.”

    Metaphysico-religion drives anti-natural-selectionism, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  41. RobertC

    "What does industrial agriculture have to do with evolutionary biology?"
    ====================

    Hey you tell me. We've had day after day of insistance that Evolutionary biology has provided us with wonderful applications for industrial anything. Must be true because the so-called undirectedness and chaos of how we are told evolution works most certainly mirrored in the nonsense that industry is uses which is ruining our planet. Chemcials, Pesticides, Frank-seeds, etc are all doing their part to permanently damage our natural world.

    I've used biological applications of beneficial bacteria and Mycorrhizal Fungi for years and with massive amounts of success. Why ??? Because for 24 years I've lived and studied these inthe wild where none of the chaotic problems exist. I merely replicated what i observed was already engineered into the system and it works.

    One year after I left the company I last worked for in the states, I received a phone call asking me to come back and suoervise. Why ??? Because the guy that replaced me when I moved here to Europe went back to the same old conventional system invented by profit oriented science and their entire system failed.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Eocene -


    No not at all slick, I simply accepted your position, no further statement on my part was waranted. Once again thanks for one of the most clear cut statements you've made thus far.

    *thumbs up*


    Seriously, you're doing all the smug posing of someone who thinks they are making a great point. But you aren't making any point at all. Stop being smug and just explain how, by any stretch of logic, the whole farce in Eden WASN'T entirely God's fault.


    Yes of course many of these things are useful and I'm using one of them right now. But science could do better.


    Woah, woah , woah! Backtracking so fast, I can barely see you for dust! So science DOES work, and you're just whining because you think it could do better?

    *thumbs up*


    Those things are also diliberately designed (sorry 4 the curse word) to have a limited use value... The United States runs it pretty much the same way, but they send their mess for to China for contaminating their land, for which that Atheist version of government couldn't care less what happens pollution-wise. Surely you don't need proof of that ???


    No I don't need proof of that because I believe you are right here. We do overproduce, we do deliberately make things NOT to last, and we don't dispose of waste properly. All of which will probably bite us in the behind.

    But to blame all of this on SCIENCE is to point to the carpenter's tools and blame them for the carpenter's shoddy work.

    What you are raging against is capitalist industry. Not science. You need to get this distinction clear in your head.


    Again, no reponse required as your retort speaks volumes. Thanks Ritchie.


    Again, your smug, vaccuous reply carries all the weight of 'I win, so Ha!' This is not even a point. You are simply unable to answer me. And THAT speak volumes.


    Let's see now, Big-Pharma, Monsanto, Dupont, need I really go on ???


    Yes. When have these people(!?!) made fun of the scientists I admire? Be really specific here.


    There isn't a human being on Earth that needs to be force fed stats, numbers and readings to know that something is radically wrong with Earth's natural systems. It's called common sense.


    You cannot just 'sense' something is wrong. Something needs to be telling you that. You need a yardstick against which to measure it. A fisherman who notices the decline of a species of fish is using numbers. People have been alarmed about climate change (or not) because they consult charts, diagrams, facts and figures. Is there a rate of change in certain factors? What IS the rate of change in certain factors? Do these rates of change correlate with any other rates of change? This is all science.


    you are again speaking from a materialist rose coloured glasses viewpoint that science is going to straighten it all out.


    Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said that. I said science is a tool. It is down to whoever wields a tool to decide how it is used. Maybe we will straighten this mess out. Maybe we won't. Maybe we'll make it worse for ourselves. But whatever the case, science is the most powerful and accurate tool we possess.


    The issue once again is cause and effect = Selfishness and Greed = remove the cause and the effect disappears,


    How on Earth do you propose getting rid of selfishness and greed? It's not like stamping out a virus, y'know...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Derick childress

    "27th, Eocene, and others: I'll try to state this as simply as I can so you can follow along:

    Pointing out internal inconsistencies in someone's theology has no bearing on the truth status of a scientific theory."
    =====================

    Derick if your happy with your religion, then I'm happy for you.
    ---------------------

    David

    "A clear example of metaphysico-religious reasoning, by Dr Hunter’s own criteria: “Natural selection wouldn’t do it that way.”

    Metaphysico-religion drives anti-natural-selectionism, and it matters.
    ==================

    The problem again here is a definiton shell game of exactly what Natural Selection is. Natural selection is said to do magically things with copying mutational errors or lucky mistakes.

    The real problem here is the use of personification falicies. Blind undirected forces are incapable of intelligently selecting for anything no matter how much you spin it. Gravity doesn't select anything. Heat and cold don't select anything. Water and air don't select anything and yet these are the very forces of nature we are told that guide and direct. What hunter doing is giving examples of what are clearly complicated mechanisms which don't jive with a universe with no purpose. Instead of actual facts and proof, we are fed mythical tales by individuals selfpromoting themselves as experts and we have to believe the story for no other reason than they say it is so.

    This is really not a tuffy here.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Eocene said: (about the Fall) Also, only mankind's genetic makeup was effected. Not micro-organisms, plants, fish, birds and animals."

    I've got some questions for you Eocene, and it should go without saying that my questions aren't 'proof of evolution', but It seems I need to clarify anyway. They're just theological questions, from one Christian to another, and I'm interested in your thoughts.

    So what about Great white sharks? Were they designed from the get-go to be the efficient killing machines they are today? Did God originally bestow on them their superb sense of smell that can sense blood from miles away, their complex electrical sensory apparatuses for detecting the muscle movements of struggling prey, and their razor sharp teeth for tearing through flesh? (if yes, then why was there anything bleeding, struggling, or edible before the Fall?) If not, then were did all those complex features come from? Did God go in after the Fall and add them? Aren't we in the "7th day of rest" where God has abstained from creating anything further?

    If only mankind's genetic makeup was affected by the Fall, how do host specific parasites fit in? Contrary to popular belief in this thread, there really are certain parasites that can only live inside of specific animals. Also, why do non-human primates have a broken GLO gene, causing them to not be able to synthesize vitamin C? (and unrelatedly, [pardon the pun] why is that same pseudogene found in humans?)

    If only mankind's genetic makeup was affected, why do animals get sick from communicable diseases? Does that mean their immune system has deteriorated? (But wait a second, why would you need an immune system in the first place if you were created in a world with no disease, suffering, or death?)

    If only mankind's genetic makeup was affected, why does anything else die? We know that many causes of death are due to the genome. (telomere degradation, for example.)

    If only mankind's genetic makeup was affected, why do animals suffer from genetic defects, like deformities and cancer?

    I could go on, but if you could answer those questions for me perhaps we could have a good conversation from there.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Eocene-

    You might want to go back and read my post, and not just the first line.

    But you know, why think when you can rant.

    ReplyDelete
  46. What hunter doing is giving examples of what are clearly complicated mechanisms which don't jive with a universe with no purpose.

    Eocene, what is the purpose of tapeworms?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Too funny:

    Gravity doesn't select anything.

    Eocene, jump off a cliff without a parachute and gravity will select you for death.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Eocene said: (about Genesis) "It's a simple yet scientific chronological order or epoch of events in order of appearance of various non-life and life componants of our Earth which agrees with scientific chronological order no matter how you choose to slant the mechanics angle."

    Sorry buddy, you need to brush up on your Bible trivia some more. In no way does the chronological order of creation of Genesis line up with scientific consensus. In Genesis, the order of appearance is:

    1. The earth
    2. Plant life, including fruit trees and seed bearing plants,
    3. The sun, moon, and stars
    4. All creatures that live in the sea, and birds.
    5. All land animals
    6. Humans.

    Now let's set aside for a moment the issue of dating the fossil record. Whether the earth is 6,000 years old, or 4.5 billion, the order of fossils in the record is an observable fact. The actual order of appearance is more like:

    1. The stars
    2. The sun
    3. The earth, then probably the moon.
    4. some creatures that live in the sea, but not all.
    5. some land animals, some seed bearing plants, but not all.*
    6. some more sea creatures
    7. some more land animals
    repeat 6 and 7 a few times
    8. Fruit trees*
    9. birds
    repeat 6 and 7 a few more times
    10. Humans.
    And that's just going by the first creation account. The second one has humans created before plants and rain. (though I'll grant that this could be a garden-specific account)

    That is the reason why most young-earth creationists view old-earth creationists with almost the same level of distain as they view evolutionists - To reconcile the two accounts while holding the view that Genesis is anything like an historical account, you have no choice but to either distort scripture or distort science, and the OECs choose to distort scripture. (apparently, distorting science is the preferable alternative)

    And remember, this is whether or not evolution is true.

    *I'm not quite sure about these. perhaps someone could verify this for me, I'm not a paleobotanist. Doesn't change the point though.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Derick,

    You forgot Genesis 1:1 --- God created the Heavens... and the earth.

    Heavens (stars, etc) then the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Derek Childless


    I'm not quite sure about these. perhaps someone could verify this for me, I'm not a paleobotanist. Doesn't change the point though.


    Fruit trees, along with flowering plants, appeared in, spread throuout, and were predominant by the end of, the Cretaceous period (145 - 65 million years ago).

    Neal -


    You forgot Genesis 1:1 --- God created the Heavens... and the earth.


    If 'Heavens' means stars, why does it say God made the stars on the fourth day?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Eocene said...

    The problem again here is a definiton shell game of exactly what Natural Selection is. Natural selection is said to do magically things with copying mutational errors or lucky mistakes.

    The real problem here is the use of personification falicies. Blind undirected forces are incapable of intelligently selecting for anything no matter how much you spin it.


    Your scientific ignorance is showing again Eocene. No one in science says natural selection is an intelligent force that chooses things. Natural selection is merely the name we give to the observed result of differential reproductive success - two animals with different attributes competing for the same resources, one has an advantage and survives more often than the other.

    It's an amazingly powerful yet simple concept. Still, it seems Eocene is too dense to grasp it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Neal Tedford said...

    Derick, You forgot Genesis 1:1 --- God created the Heavens... and the earth.

    Heavens (stars, etc) then the earth

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

    Ritchie said...

    If 'Heavens' means stars, why does it say God made the stars on the fourth day?


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

    It's been my experience that Fundies who push a YEC literal Genesis view the most are the ones who know the actual Bible text the least.

    Tedford looks like another prime example.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Neal said: "Derick, You forgot Genesis 1:1 --- God created the Heavens... and the earth. Heavens (stars, etc) then the earth."

    That is incorrect, Neal. The text is abundantly clear that the stars were created with the sun and moon on day 4. 'Heavens' in verse 1 cannot possibly include the stars, as light is not created until verse 3, or separated from darkness until verse 4. I'm not aware of a single commentary that has the stars being created in verse one. And by the way, the sun, moon, and stars were put in the firmament, also translated sky or heavens, from the Hebrew word raqiya. Notice though that in verse 7, God divides the waters that are below the firmament/sky/heavens from the waters that are above it. It doesn't matter how you translate 'raqiya"; whatever it is, it is clear that there is water both below and above it.
    But in verses 15-17, God puts the sun, moon, and stars in the raqiya. So wherever the sun, moon, and stars are, there is water both below and above them. Now everything else aside, this is simply not the case, and to hold to the idea that Genesis is a scientific or historical account of creation, you have to distort the text beyond all recognition with some olympic-gold-winning mental gymnastics. To read scripture in this way makes a mockery of it.

    The events in Genesis make sense however, when you take into account the Ancient Near-East understanding of the people it was written for. The earth was flat, built on a foundation, and there was a solid dome above it, holding back the waters above. (that's where the water from Noah's flood came from - the 'heavens' were opened up and the water poured down; it's also why the sky is blue) And the great lights were all in this dome. Once you understand how the original audience viewed the structure of the world, you can start to understand the real questions Genesis is answering.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Sorry Neal, I got off on a tangent. I also meant to ask if you wanted to address the other 9 things on the list that are out of order.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Thanks Ritchie, I had a hunch it was sometime in the Mesozoic.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Eocene said: "The problem again here is a definiton shell game of exactly what Natural Selection is. Natural selection is said to do magically things with copying mutational errors or lucky mistakes.

    The real problem here is the use of personification falicies. Blind undirected forces are incapable of intelligently selecting for anything no matter how much you spin it."
    ----------------------------------

    There is so much ignorance packed into those two paragraphs that I don't know where to begin. For the millionth time, If you're putting absurd words into your opponent's mouth that they don't only not say, but often go out of their way to refute, you are making a straw man argument.

    Natural selection is never said to do 'magically' things. I don't mean to sound derisive, but it seems like you either have the most deluded view of what science is, or that you don't know what the word 'magic' means. [And I'm not talking about the spelling and grammatical errors; from reading your other posts, I presume that English is probably not your native language, so I won't hold those against you.} But 'magic' is pretty much an antonym of 'scientific'. The entire point of science is to provide explanations that don't rely on magic!

    You say "Blind undirected forces are incapable of intelligently selecting for anything," almost like you think you're refuting something; But that is exactly what evolution posits: blind, undirected forces don't intelligently select anything. That's why it's freaking called NATURAL selection.

    If you can't put forth the effort to actually understand what your opponents are saying, instead of refuting straw man arguments until you're blue in the face, then you'll quickly drop below the threshold of being worth listening to, let alone conversing with.

    I've said this before: I'm not asking anyone to just accept evolutionary theory on a whim. But to even begin to have a meaningful discussion about it, you must, at the very least, attempt to *understand* what it's adherents *actually* believe

    ReplyDelete
  60. I've said this before: I'm not asking anyone to just accept evolutionary theory on a whim. But to even begin to have a meaningful discussion about it, you must, at the very least, attempt to *understand* what it's adherents *actually* believe.

    Why take the trouble to understand anything, when ignorance is so much easier?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Derick,

    I have come across many commentaries that offer the viewpoint of the heavens (which includes the stars) being created in Genesis 1:1... just like the text says.

    The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” ....hashamayim we ha ‘erets... means “the entire universe” and “entire creation (Vine and Grudem).”

    In a nutshell, it is important to understand the viewpoint of the text as moving to the surface of the earth in Genesis 1:2. "Let there be light" was specifically referring to light shining upon the surface of the earth, and not the light of the universe in general.

    Firmament means "sky" (or expanse) and is simply the earth's lower atmosphere below the clouds.

    Isn't this a really good use of the words firmament and heavens? The early earth's atmosphere was like a thick watery blanket right down to the surface. The firmament refers to the differentiation that took place as the lower atmosphere became less dense. Water above the firmament referred to the thick cloud cover that was still there but only higher in the atmosphere.

    It's the text that's inspired, not the interpretation of ancient scribes or Isaac Asimov's commentary. Just because an ancient scribe thought the earth had a solid dome doesn't mean this is what the text said.

    This whole solid dome business is not in the text at all, but in fact, contradicts what text actually says. It is important to see that the word heavens has multiple meanings, just as it does today. It can refer to the lower atmosphere, where the birds fly, it can refer to the higher atmosphere where the clouds are, and it can refer to the cosmos where the stars are. Since the earth is in the cosmos this is altogether accurate. More to follow...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Neal, thanks for the response and I both appreciate and respect the fact that you've done some research and put some thought into it. That's the kind of thing that makes for stimulating, constructive dialogue.

    I'll start off by saying that the YECs are right in this one regard: the plain reading of the text is that Creation is being described as taking place over 6 literal, 24-hour days. There are a multitude of contextual clues. In Hebrew, 'yom' can mean anything to a 24-hour day, to daylight, to an indefinite span of time, but whenever it is paired with a number, or a reference to morning or evening, it is always understood to be a 24-hour day, and in the creation account it is paired with both. It's kind of like the English phrase: "Back in my father's day, walking across the desert during the day took 3 days." In that one sentence, the word 'day' has three distinct meanings: time period, daylight, 24-hour day, but the context removes any ambiguity. In that same way, It seems to be the consensus of most Hebrew scholars that the intended meaning of the creation days in the creation account were 24-hour days, not periods of time. Other clues abound, like the fact that plants could survive without a sun for 24 hours, but not millions of years. We'll get to that in a second.

    But to look at the bigger picture, discussing the subtleties of the different meanings of 'day' and 'firmament' and 'create' are missing the point entirely. It would be like getting into a heated debate about whether or not the Prodigal Son was 'literally' the biological offspring of his father in the story, or whether or not the word 'son' could conceivably mean 'adopted son' or 'stepson' or 'grandson' or whatever. In the context of the story, 'son' just means means 'son'. In that same way, in Genesis, 'the fourth day' (probably) just means 'the fourth day,' within in the context of the narrative. In other words, inside the story, the days are literal, 24-hour days, but the narrative itself isn't a literal, historical account.

    But let's look at the text for what it says:

    =============================================
    I have come across many commentaries that offer the viewpoint of the heavens (which includes the stars) being created in Genesis 1:1... just like the text says. The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” ....hashamayim we ha ‘erets... means “the entire universe” and “entire creation (Vine and Grudem).”
    =============================================

    There is no question that 1:1 is referring to the creation of the heavens, or the singular 'heaven' as found in the KJV. The question is: what is included in this reference to the heavens? Yes, there is ample reason to translate 'hashamayim we ha ‘erets' as 'the entire universe', but if it is referring to the entire universe, then it is describing the creation of everything: plants, animals, stars, humans - you can't single out the sun, moon, and stars as being the only things included here. There are two ways to look to look at 1:1. One is that it describing the creation of the empty framework for the rest of creation to take place in and on, and that it was 'void'. The other is that it is simply is a summary of what is about to take place. In other words, in the beginning, God created everything. Here's the details of how he did it: Step 1..."

    Neither one of those allows for the creation of just the stars in 1:1; either it refers to just the earth and 'heaven', and the stars were created later like the text says, or it refers to everything.

    My question to you is: is the part in parenthesis, "(which include the stars)" your parenthesis, or is it from the actual commentary, and which commentaries are you referencing?

    continued below...

    ReplyDelete
  63. ======================================
    Neal: "In a nutshell, it is important to understand the viewpoint of the text as moving to the surface of the earth in Genesis 1:2. "Let there be light" was specifically referring to light shining upon the surface of the earth, and not the light of the universe in general."
    ======================================

    Ah, good ole' Hugh Ross. The problem with this 'interpretation' is that the supposed 'shift in viewpoint' isn't found in the text at all It's an ad hoc conjecture to try to reconcile the day-age interpretation with the fact that the sun is clearly said to have been 'created' not 'revealed' on the 4th day, which is quite the problem for the day age view in that plants can't survive for 'ages' without the sun. The best argument I've heard for the stars being created before the 4th day is the observation that the Hebrew word "wayya`as" should be interpreted "And God 'had made' two great lights," [past tense] instead of "And God 'made' two great lights," [present tense] This may very well be the case, but it certainly doesn't get their creation out of day 4, let alone specifically all the way back to day 1. In any other genre of literature, there wouldn't be anywhere near this level of debate to discover the 'true' meaning of the text when the plain reading is so clear. The only reason to put the text through the ringer like this is to reconcile it to our modern understanding. That is not necessary.

    ======================================
    Firmament means "sky" (or expanse) and is simply the earth's lower atmosphere below the clouds.
    ======================================

    Firmament can mean many things, and there's nothing simple about it. The problem arises when we assume that it will even make sense against our modern understanding of the cosmos, instead of the ANE understanding. If we do want to force the modern understanding onto it, we are left with nothing but contradictions: We find that in one sense, it has to mean the lower atmosphere below the clouds, because in verse 7 we see that there is water above it. But we also see that it cannot mean the lower atmosphere, because in verses 15-17 we see that the sun, moon, and stars are placed in it. See the problem?

    ======================================
    Isn't this a really good use of the words firmament and heavens? The early earth's atmosphere was like a thick watery blanket right down to the surface. The firmament refers to the differentiation that took place as the lower atmosphere became less dense. Water above the firmament referred to the thick cloud cover that was still there but only higher in the atmosphere.
    ======================================

    Again, raqiya simply cannot refer to the earth's atmosphere; the sun, moon, and stars are not in earth's atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  64. ======================================
    It's the text that's inspired, not the interpretation of ancient scribes or Isaac Asimov's commentary. Just because an ancient scribe thought the earth had a solid dome doesn't mean this is what the text said.
    ======================================

    I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean here, could you clarify? The writer of Genesis would have thought the earth had a solid dome, so that probably is what the text says.

    ======================================
    This whole solid dome business is not in the text at all, but in fact, contradicts what text actually says. It is important to see that the word heavens has multiple meanings, just as it does today. It can refer to the lower atmosphere, where the birds fly, it can refer to the higher atmosphere where the clouds are, and it can refer to the cosmos where the stars are. Since the earth is in the cosmos this is altogether accurate. More to follow...
    ======================================

    I've gone on for way too long already, but it's translated as firmament for a reason. It was clearly solid. It held back the waters above, and it held the sun, moon, and stars in place.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The original Hebrew for firmament word is "Rokia."
    This actually means something that is stretched. It puts me in mind of the General Theory of Relativity, which says that gravity is the result of the warping or stretching of space in four dimensions.

    ReplyDelete
  66. RobertC
    "You might want to go back and read my post, and not just the first line."
    ====================

    It isn't necessary Robert, since I read it the first time and there was nothing of value with reference to why I brought up Industrial AG in the first place. The discussion had nothing to do with proof of Evo-World, other than the supposed evolutionary applications list I had handed to me which is always promoted as resulting in the wonders of the modern Ag-Tech methods which will save the world with Evo-Science apparently being given the credit. Apparently the chaos and randomness with no purpose or intent do in fact explain the environmental mess our natural world presently finds itself in. This is because there is no rhyme nor reason for the random failed ideas that have apparently morphed using what they think drives "Evo-world" (sounds like an Amusement Theme Park in Galapagos).

    There is nothing responsible about the methods Science (and I direct attention here at it here in the religious blind faith significance sense for it's Evo-Advocates [evo-biology], not the Toolbox itself which is rarely used) has given to industrial Agri-Business. The younger generation of my family back in Iowa think I'm crazy when I speak about the decades ago when the large river which runs through Independence, Iowa that use to be crystal clear and you could drink out of it either below or above stream. Today the Wapsi is nothing more than an algae choked sewage drain where chemcial leaching from fertilizers and pesticides Farmers practice using have created an off balanced "Miracle Grow" environment for these aquatic micro-organisms. No one can blame the algae, since they just do what they do. But intellectual human reasoning just wreaks of fault all over the place on this one.

    The "Green Revolution" was one of the worst ideas to have morphed out of Marxian Biology. Sure there maybe a measure of benefit, but the Selfish and gred motivational factors behind the scenes doomed it from the start. The so-called Evolutionary Applications for which many want to give credit to Evolution Theory's contribution to Agriculture have been more damaging than beneficial. Ultimately they have very little respect for the engineering masterpiece that already existed, because had they done so in the beginning, they would have discovered that beneficial micro-organisms do a better healthier job than anything Ortho, Dupont or Monsanto could ever hope to accomplish (But then it's all about the money).

    Now if it makes you any feel better and if I can give you something to take comfort in, I also believe right-wing Religious fundamentalist's Politics display as much equal disrespect for the Earth's environment as the Marxist side (I fully expect you and others not to acknowledge my position on this). In the end, both are in bad need of removal if there be anything left to save.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Derick childress:

    "Natural selection is never said to do 'magically' things. I don't mean to sound derisive, but it seems like you either have the most deluded view of what science is, or that you don't know what the word 'magic' means. [And I'm not talking about the spelling and grammatical errors; from reading your other posts, I presume that English is probably not your native language, so I won't hold those against you.} But 'magic' is pretty much an antonym of 'scientific'. The entire point of science is to provide explanations that don't rely on magic!

    You say "Blind undirected forces are incapable of intelligently selecting for anything," almost like you think you're refuting something; But that is exactly what evolution posits: blind, undirected forces don't intelligently select anything. That's why it's freaking called NATURAL selection."
    =====================

    Do you actually read Cornelius' engineering examples here Derick ??? He's addressing all the stupid off the wall kook stories that are fabricated to explain brilliantly put together machinery and informational driven mechanisms in Nature, and just so "Natural Selection"[Unspecified Natural Magic] stories are given the credit with no simple easy to understand basic fundamentals of proof to back up their stupid fictional statements. There is no experiment to observe this mystical device in action doing it's dirty work to help invent anything even slightly or remotely complex in life. All we have is conjecture, speculation, assumption and biased faith in an already officially mandated religious belief which makes invalid the sacred cornerstone of "Scientific Method" which is supposed to define science.

    Blind forces do NOT have the ability to select anything. The act of selecting is done ONLY by a living conscious lifeform. A bacteria, to the extent it has a measure of selfawareness and consciousness and the encoded intinctual information inscribed into it's DNA does make choices for asimilating various substances for nutritional sustanance. If need be it rearanges it's genetic makeup to compensate for environmental challenges to digest and recycle the ever constant changing world around it. The trillions of micro-organisms found in any eco-system are the brilliant machinery in a behind operation of a greater environmental life theme will all live in and experience on the surface. Without them we are toast.

    You still have yet to explain or give any proof of why or how an intelligent God would do any of this since you claim to believe in a creator. There's a scripture in

    1 Corinthians 14:33 (New International Version)
    "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace."

    (Amplified Bible)
    "For He [Who is the source of their prophesying] is not a God of confusion and disorder but of peace and order."

    There is nothing disorderly about the way in which God accomplishes things. There is ZERO orderliness with the cupcake definition of the way we are told evolution by natural selection works.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thorton misunderstood:

    "Your scientific ignorance is showing again Eocene. No one in science says natural selection is an intelligent force that chooses things. Natural selection is merely the name we give to the observed result of differential reproductive success - two animals with different attributes competing for the same resources, one has an advantage and survives more often than the other."
    ======================

    This isn't what the storytelling is about. I'm not talking about already existing engineered checks and balances within any eco-system we observe. Everybody gets that and it's not the Natural Selection [Unspecified Natural Magic] that the Lab Techs claim and say they observed on a micro level with a little nudge and rigging. The stories that are concocted to explain the magical appearance of brilliantly engineered mechanisms (nanomachines of a functional City inside any cell) have never been properly proven (by definition "Scientific Method"). This is nothing more than your god with a capital "C" or "L" which again is mandated by your offical dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Derick Childress ASSUMED what I believe:

    "Sorry buddy, you need to brush up on your Bible trivia some more. In no way does the chronological order of creation of Genesis line up with scientific consensus. In Genesis, the order of appearance is:

    1. The earth
    2. Plant life, including fruit trees and seed bearing plants,
    3. The sun, moon, and stars
    4. All creatures that live in the sea, and birds.
    5. All land animals
    6. Humans.

    Now let's set aside for a moment the issue of dating the fossil record. Whether the earth is 6,000 years old, or 4.5 billion, the order of fossils in the record is an observable fact. The actual order of appearance is more like:
    ========================

    Apparently you've never bothered what I have stated here several times. I AM NOT A (YEC).

    Genesis 1:1 (New Living Translation)
    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

    That simple statement alone allows for the billions of years to have passed before the actual creative work in progress actually starts to take shape.

    Genesis 1:2 (New Living Translation)
    "The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

    That statement above shows that the Earth had already previously existed , but was yet a blank canvas for perhaps many, many countless milleniums of times. Truthfully, there are no exact numbers given and they are NOT necessary. While the bible does NOT spell out the actual step by step mechanics of how God did it, science never the less does reveal how he DIDN'T do it. I DO NOT believe in a rediculous 144 hours creation story.

    As I've explained before, this account was worded and explained in a way that simple common average educated people could see things from an first hand observer lookout point as various events went by before them and nothing more. That third option you give of the sun, moon and stars being created on the third day (figurative) is nonsense. Did you even know that there are two entirely separate and different Hebrew words used and translated into the one (singular) English word called light ??? The first mentioned in the verse 3 instance is illuminating light in general which already existed outside the realm of the dense water vapor gloom which even science says existed in a primitive earth long before life. So light gradually penetrated this thick gloom and eventually touched the surface of the liquid waters whatever that was.

    Then the second Hebrew word should more properly be called as it is in many modern translations "Luminaries" = defined as A source of light; a lamp; a heavenly body from which the earth receives light. It's the singular point of origin from where the light has it's source. This simply means that after much time went by, the formation of atmospheric conditions thinned enough to where an observer, had he/she been on Earth at the time would have been able to discern the Sun, Moon and Stars becoming gradually visable from where they had all along been located in their position in outerspace.

    Genesis 1:14 (Young's Literal Translation)
    "14And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,"

    Your other arguement with Neal about a firmament is another difference in old outdated terminology used as a result of mistranslation of yet again Hebrew and Greek words and their original meanings. This is what the ignoramous times of the Dark Ages did and the result has been disasterous for Churches.

    At least you and I don't have to go down this road anymore. Thanks for reading.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Eocene said...

    Thorton:

    "Your scientific ignorance is showing again Eocene. No one in science says natural selection is an intelligent force that chooses things. Natural selection is merely the name we give to the observed result of differential reproductive success - two animals with different attributes competing for the same resources, one has an advantage and survives more often than the other."
    ======================

    This isn't what the storytelling is about. I'm not talking about already existing engineered checks and balances within any eco-system we observe. Everybody gets that and it's not the Natural Selection [Unspecified Natural Magic] that the Lab Techs claim and say they observed on a micro level with a little nudge and rigging. The stories that are concocted to explain the magical appearance of brilliantly engineered mechanisms (nanomachines of a functional City inside any cell) have never been properly proven (by definition "Scientific Method"). This is nothing more than your god with a capital "C" or "L" which again is mandated by your offical dogma.


    OK, so you still don't have the faintest sniff of a clue what scientists mean by the term "natural selection". Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Derick said,

    "In Hebrew, 'yom' can mean anything to a 24-hour day, to daylight, to an indefinite span of time, but whenever it is paired with a number, or a reference to morning or evening..."

    =====

    You bring up several interesting points. Thanks for your response. I've always found it curious as to why Genesis 1 does not say morning and evening, but rather evening and morning. Some have taken this to mean a hebrew day, but that is not accurate... the only thing between evening and morning is night, which is a time of rest. God's creation works are followed by a time of rest, which is followed by more work and then rest, etc throughout the days of creation. On the seventh day He rests (Sabbath) the whole day and a good case can be made that we are still in that timeframe. God's "work week" is in the framework of man's work week.

    Regarding Genesis 1:2, it is important to see that the frame of reference is the surface of the earth from this point on... "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"... where? the "face of the waters". Day and night is a reference from the earth's surface as well. Getting the right frame of reference is critical in understanding the correct meaning of the text.

    "Firmament" is in English, not hebrew. Natschuster posted on the meaning of the hebrew, rokia. The NIV translates it as "expanse". Since "heavens" has multiple meanings, we should not force the expanse to only be the lower atmosphere. It can also refer to the expanse of the cosmos. Since earth is part of the cosmos this is actually an accurate way to view things. Our atmosphere where the birds fly is really part of the "cosmos" or heavens, but differentiated by the density of our atmosphere. Even today, we use the word heavens and sky to mean different things depending on the context and no one has a problem with using it in different ways.

    Furthermore, the earth's atmosphere is a shield to protect us from lots of nasty things from the outside. Someone who is not familar with our atmosphere could misinterpret what I say and equate my use of the word "shield" with old solid iron defense gear, but you know what I mean by my use of the word shield here.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Thorton Shell Gamed

    "OK, so you still don't have the faintest sniff of a clue what scientists mean by the term "natural selection". Got it."
    ====================

    This is what definition shell games are all about, Keep it gray, fuzzy, blurred and muddled. Yeah, I got it.

    ReplyDelete
  73. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  74. It's amazing the mental gymnastics and rhetorical contortions some Creationists will go through to try and map their 2000 year old text onto observed physical reality.

    It's also amazing how they get to decide which parts are literal and which are metaphorical based solely on their own personal whims

    ReplyDelete
  75. Eocene said...

    Thorton Shell Gamed

    "OK, so you still don't have the faintest sniff of a clue what scientists mean by the term "natural selection". Got it."
    ====================

    This is what definition shell games are all about, Keep it gray, fuzzy, blurred and muddled. Yeah, I got it.


    The only thing muddled is your ignorance based ideas. "Natural selection" has a very clear, concise meaning to the scientific community. That you're too lazy to learn it is your problem, not science's.

    ReplyDelete
  76. natschuster said... "The original Hebrew for firmament word is "Rokia." This actually means something that is stretched."


    Nat, the Hebrew word translated in the KJV as 'firmament' is: רָקִ×™×¢ַ As with all transliterations, you'll find alternate spellings, as the Hebrew word is being spelled phonetically. Try it yourself, pronounce rokia and raqiya. Phonetically, they're nearly identical. (you'll also find it 'rakía', and many other variations. They're all transliterations of the same word.

    But, you're mistaking 'raqiya' for 'raqa', (רָקַ×¢) from which raqiya is derived. It is raqa that means "something that is stretched," not raqiya.

    from wikipedia: The word (raqiya) is derived from the Hebrew raqa, meaning "to spread out" by stamping, stretching, beating, or making broad,, e.g. the process of making a metal bowl by hammering metal flat, or "to make a spreading (of clouds)".[1] Thus, in the Bible, Elihu asks Job "Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?"

    Raqiya means a solid surface or dome.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Derick,

    And then God speaks in the book of Job and says that Elihu is speaking words without knowledge!

    God rebukes Elihu's words as not being from Him. That's the difference between the inspired text of Genesis 1 and some of these old timers (and new timers) misinterpreting the scripture.

    In this case, God spoke in plains words to rebuke Elihu.

    The original Hebrew word, raqia comes from the Hebrew raqa, which means to beat, stamp, beat out and spread out. It occurs 11 times in the Old Testament. Raqa has the meaning to stamp one's feet(twice), stamp something with the feet (once), spreading metal (four times), spreading out the earth (three times), and spreading the sky or the clouds (once). So, the verb raqa does not always refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not.

    The Hebrew noun raqia is used 17 times in the Bible. Eleven of those times occur in 7 verses from Genesis 1. Five instances of raqia occur in Ezekiel's visions. One refers to the expanse of the angels wings and four refer to something like a gleaming crystal, but not identified as being a solid object. Two others occur in the Psalms... once referring to the expanse as in Genesis and the second referring to the mighty expanse of God's power. Raqia does not always refer to a solid object.

    In Genesis 1:8 God Himself defines what the raqia is, saying "God called the expanse heaven."

    ReplyDelete
  78. Eocene said: (about Genesis) "It's a simple yet scientific chronological order or epoch of events in order of appearance of various non-life and life componants of our Earth which agrees with scientific chronological order no matter how you choose to slant the mechanics angle." (emphasis mine)

    I replied: "In no way does the chronological order of creation of Genesis line up with scientific consensus. /.../ Now let's set aside for a moment the issue of dating the fossil record. Whether the earth is 6,000 years old, or 4.5 billion, the order of fossils in the record is an observable fact. The actual order of appearance is more like:..."

    To which Eocene Replied: "Derick Childress ASSUMED what I believe..." and "Apparently you've never bothered what I have stated here several times. I AM NOT A (YEC)."
    ========================

    Eocene, thanks for the reply, I appreciate the fact that you've put forth the effort to present a point by point response. But in addition to Biblical literacy, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension as well. I never said or implied that you were a YEC, and in fact, I was certain that you weren't; that's why I very clearly said 'whether the earth is 6,000 years old, or 4.5 billion, the order of fossils in the record is an observable fact. (A YEC would never claim that Genesis 1 'lines up' with the scientific consensus; they would dismiss scientific consensus entirely.) My entire post was about the order of the events, not the timing.

    ========================
    Genesis 1:1 (New Living Translation)
    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That simple statement alone allows for the billions of years to have passed before the actual creative work in progress actually starts to take shape.
    ========================

    It's quite a stretch to say based on that short snippet of text it 'allows' for billions of years to have passed, but since we're not talking about timing, but order, I'll concede this for the sake of argument. It still doesn't affect the order of the events that follow.

    ========================
    While the bible does NOT spell out the actual step by step mechanics of how God did it, science never the less does reveal how he DIDN'T do it. I DO NOT believe in a rediculous 144 hours creation story.
    ========================

    I find it odd that you appeal to science when it suits you, and reject it when it doesn't. Science does reveal that everything didn't appear in 144 hours. It also reveals, by the exact same methods, that each 'kind' of animal wasn't created separately, that they have a common ancestor. By what criteria do you pick and choose like that? Is it completely arbitrary, depending on your current mood, or is there a method to the madness? You do the same thing when it comes to scripture. You call a 144 hour creation story 'ridiculous'. By what principle do you decide which parts of the story are literal and which are not? "The fact that God created the universe is literal. The 6-day timespan is not literal. The order of the creation events is literal. Except when it says the luminaries were created on day 4, that's not literal. That man was created from the dust is literal. That a snake with no vocal chords could audibly speak Hebrew words is not literal. That they ate of the fruit is literal. That God didn't know where the were or what they had done is not literal." (I'm providing that as an example of what many Christians believe; I'm not saying those are precisely your views, just that you and Neal seem to be picking and choosing in a similar way)

    ReplyDelete
  79. ...continued from above:


    ========================
    Eocene said: "As I've explained before, this account was worded and explained in a way that simple common average educated people could see things from an first hand observer lookout point as various events went by before them and nothing more."
    ========================

    That's my point. A hypothetical observer on the earth would not have seen things occur in the same order as described as in the creation account. Let's ignore the ad hoc contrivances necessary to place the creation of the sun before the 4th day (or 4th 'epoch') and assume that it did just 'appear' on at that time. That still doesn't solve the problem that the sun 'appeared' after seed bearing plants and fruit trees. Or that all the sea creatures (like whales) came before all the land animals (like dinosaurs). Again, disregarding timeframes or even evolution, nothing is in the right order. That's why the day/age interpretation does not work at all.

    ========================
    That third option you give of the sun, moon and stars being created on the third day (figurative) is nonsense.
    ========================

    I'm not sure what you're referring to here. What third option? I don't recall proposing anything of the sort; I was making the opposite point, that interpreting the text to say anything other that the sun was created on the 4th day is reading into the text things that are not there, to try and square it up with our modern understanding.

    =========================
    Then the second Hebrew word should more properly be called as it is in many modern translations "Luminaries" = defined as A source of light; a lamp; a heavenly body from which the earth receives light. It's the singular point of origin from where the light has it's source. This simply means that after much time went by, the formation of atmospheric conditions thinned enough to where an observer, had he/she been on Earth at the time would have been able to discern the Sun, Moon and Stars becoming gradually visable from where they had all along been located in their position in outerspace.
    =========================

    Again, even if this were a tenable interpretation, it still doesn't solve the problem of seeded plants and fruit trees before the sun 'appeared'

    =========================
    Your other arguement with Neal about a firmament is another difference in old outdated terminology used as a result of mistranslation of yet again Hebrew and Greek words and their original meanings. This is what the ignoramous times of the Dark Ages did and the result has been disasterous for Churches.
    =========================

    If you'll re-read my previous post, you notice that I said it doesn't matter how we translate raqiya. Whatever it is, there is water both below and above it, AND that the sun, moon, and stars are in it.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Derick,

    You said, "Again, even if this were a tenable interpretation, it still doesn't solve the problem of seeded plants and fruit trees before the sun 'appeared'.

    Yes it does because if the sky is Opaque light shines but the celestial objects are not themselves clearly visible. Even a day with very heavy cloud cover still allows light to get to the biosphere.

    You said, "Whatever it is, there is water both below and above it, AND that the sun, moon, and stars are in it. "

    You are seeing it as a singular meaning (IT), but it has multiple uses.


    The water below the expanse was the water in the ocean that covered the planet. The water above the expanse is the water in heavy cloud cover.

    Genesis is describing the differentiation of the early atmosphere using ancient hebrew terms. Understanding that heavens, sky, and expanse have multiple meanings (as it does today) does not force us to conclude that it meant that the stars are below the clouds (water)!

    ReplyDelete
  81. I said, "Again, even if this were a tenable interpretation, it still doesn't solve the problem of seeded plants and fruit trees before the sun 'appeared'."

    Neal said: "Yes it does because if the sky is Opaque light shines but the celestial objects are not themselves clearly visible. Even a day with very heavy cloud cover still allows light to get to the biosphere."

    Neal, no it does not, because we know, for a fact, that there were not fruit trees before there were land and sea animals. Our knowledge of this is decoupled from evolutionary theory and is not the slightest bit controversial among anyone who is scientifically literate. But the text says that land and sea animals came after the sun 'became visible' on the 4th day. So even if the correct order of the creation account is: 1. Sun created 2. Fruit trees created 3. Sun clearly visible. 4. All sea creatures. 5. all walking land creatures, It's still completely out of order from what we know to be the case. (And, if enough light is reaching the surface of the earth for photosynthesis to take place, in what sense is the sun 'not visible'?) If interpreting a section of scripture as an historical account yields such monstrous absurdities, it is a clear indicator that it must not be interpreted as an historical account.

    It doesn't matter if you can stretch the text to put the sun in the right order; almost nothing else is.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Derick said, "And, if enough light is reaching the surface of the earth for photosynthesis to take place, in what sense is the sun 'not visible'?"

    After Genesis 1:1 the frame of reference is from the surface of the earth as the text plainly says. Relative frame of reference is critical to understanding the biblical text. Visibility was based on this reference point and prevailing conditions. Even today we don't say that the full moon is visible if the sky's are overcast.


    more to follow...

    ReplyDelete
  83. Genesis use a number of different terms to describe creation. There is "boro" which means to create and implies "creation ex nihilo." There is "oso" which is closest to "make" or "do" in English. It implies the making something from something preexisting. "Yotzar" implies "to form." "Yeitze" means "to bring out." The commentaries write that the use of different terms does effect the meaning. Rashi writes that the description of creation of the luminaries on the forth day uses the word "oso" which means that they were originally created on the first day. On the forth day, there creation was completed as their purpose was set in place.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Neal said: "After Genesis 1:1 the frame of reference is from the surface of the earth as the text plainly says. Relative frame of reference is critical to understanding the biblical text."

    Nat said: "Rashi writes that the description of creation of the luminaries on the forth day uses the word "oso" which means that they were originally created on the first day."

    For the sake of argument, let's suppose you could make the text say the sun was created first. That doesn't change the fact that essentially nothing else is in the right chronological order. From the perspective of this hypothetical observer standing on the surface of the earth throughout history, fruit trees did not appear before all sea creatures or land animals, all sea creatures did not appear before land animals, and birds did not appear before all other land animals.

    Whichever way you want to reconcile Genesis with what we know about the history of our planet and solar system, the 'day-age' and 'gap' interpretations simply do not work. Viewing it as an historical, chronological account does not work.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Derick said, "That doesn't change the fact that essentially nothing else is in the right chronological order."

    Interesting point, but I think that if we look at what is actually being said in the biblical text and keep things simple and in context, the chronology works well.

    I mentioned that the first major point in understanding Genesis 1 is to see that the point of reference after Genesis 1:1 is from the surface of the earth.

    I believe, that the second major point in understanding Genesis 1 is to see that text is not a complete list of all life, but only highlights some that readers of all generations would be familar with.

    So we do not have an account in Genesis 1 of the history of all of biology, but rather the creation of what we would call modern plant and animal life that mankind would be familar with. More specifically the animal and marine life are mostly those that have mind, will and emotion (hebrew "nephesh") as opposed to less complex marine and animal life.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Neal said: "Interesting point, but I think that if we look at what is actually being said in the biblical text and keep things simple and in context, the chronology works well."
    ==========================

    Neal, the chronology is the one thing that doesn't work at all.

    ==========================
    I mentioned that the first major point in understanding Genesis 1 is to see that the point of reference after Genesis 1:1 is from the surface of the earth.
    ==========================

    ...And I then explained how that doesn't help things at all, that an observer watching from the surface would see things in a completely different order from what is described in the creation account.

    =========================
    I believe, that the second major point in understanding Genesis 1 is to see that text is not a complete list of all life, but only highlights some that readers of all generations would be familar with.

    So we do not have an account in Genesis 1 of the history of all of biology, but rather the creation of what we would call modern plant and animal life that mankind would be familar with. More specifically the animal and marine life are mostly those that have mind, will and emotion (hebrew "nephesh") as opposed to less complex marine and animal life.
    ==========================

    Not only does this contradict the 'surface observer' view, (is the creation from the perspective of someone watching the process, or someone looking backwards who doesn't know about non-modern animals?) It still doesn't solve any of the problems. If the text had said "Some plants were created, then some sea creatures, then some land creatures," Then we might have something to work with. But the text is very clear that seed-bearing and fruit-bearing plants were created before all sea creatures, and that all sea creatures were created before land animals. The text does not say anything about 'just the animals with nephesh'; it is absolutely, plainly clear in the order of fruit trees, all sea creatures, and land creatures. That order, simply does not line up with the actual order; Genesis is not a scientifically accurate, chronological account of the order of appearance of the things it names.

    ReplyDelete
  87. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  88. RobertC: WE are figuring it out.

    YOU choose not to.

    I'm baffled by the continuous drumbeat that claims because science is work in progress, it has failed.

    And how is this a defense for ID/creationism?


    Let's just say that a lot of us have a good laugh at you guys and your predictability. Your statement that "WE are figuring it out." can be taken to mean, in normal language: "We intend to shoehorn this story into the Darwinian story, because, well, just because He will be the only storyteller of this story, now and forevermore. No matter what."

    ReplyDelete
  89. MSEE said: "Let's just say that a lot of us have a good laugh at you guys and your predictability. Your statement that "WE are figuring it out." can be taken to mean, in normal language: "We intend to shoehorn this story into the Darwinian story, because, well, just because He will be the only storyteller of this story, now and forevermore. No matter what."

    MSEE, the predictability goes both ways, but I would say that you are more often pitied than laughed at. I can assure you, the theory of evolution would be dropped in a second if an alternative theory were proposed that explained the evidence better.

    Notice the emphasis on the word 'explained'. "Because God did it," Is not an explanation. It is not an explanation as to what happened to your car keys, it is not an explanation as to why baking soda and vinegar react the way they do, it is not an explanation as to why the Grand Canyon looks the way it does and it is not an explanation as to how life arose and diversified. It technically could be true in all those cases. God may have miraculously hid your keys, tinkered with the baking soda molecules, carved the Grand Canyon by hand, and made life pop into existence out of nowhere. How would you test the veracity of those last statements, one way or the other?

    Is it o.k. to assume that your car keys weren't dematerialized while you look for them? Is it o.k. to assume that baking soda and vinegar are reacting in a predictable, consistent way, so as to be able to learn practical things about chemistry? Is it o.k. to assume that wind, water, heat, and gravity, but not angels or pixies, shaped the Grand Canyon, while you investigate the effects of erosion? If so, why is making the exact same use of methodological naturalism wrong specifically when addressing this one issue of how life propagates and diversifies?

    ReplyDelete