well it rained for forty days and forty nights… im not sure how long it would take for the flood waters to go down… but i have no idea where mangetout got a year from
That live evolves through slow changes to individuals that are manifested in changes from one species to another is a fact that has been adequately demonstrated. The Theory of Evolution refers to the explanation of the mechanism that allows that to happen. There are individual questions about specific features in specific species that have not yet been answered, but the actual event of evolution is a fact and the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution is the best current explanation of that process.
this is a quote of tomndebb: —when CS runs into an unknown or a puzzle, the answer becomes “God did it.”
end quote… when evolution runs into an unknown or a puzzle they say that it is “yet to be proven”
While Mangetout exaggerated a bit, his exaggeration was closer than your erroneous correction.
The flood began on the seveteenth day of the second month of Noah’s life. The forty days was only the time it took to get the flood up to its final level. The ark did not settle until the seveteenth day of the tenth month and by the first day of the tenth month, only the tops of the mountains had appeared. Forty days after that Noah sent out a raven. Then he sent out a dove, and, finally, a week later he again sent out a dove that brought back a sprig of plant growth. So we have eight months plus forty days plus an unknown period plus a week, plus another unknown period–a lot closer to a year than your 40 days.
Probably from the following:
Granted, it was just under a year (2/17 in Noah’s 600th year - 1/1 in Noah’s 601st), but close enough.
And which is more intellectually honest: “We don’t know”, or, “A supernatural being whose nature we do not understand, by means we do not comprehend, did it!”
No, he is not. He is pointing out that if one accepts the Biblical version of creation (and, by association, the Noachian Flood), there are implications which do not mesh with reality. If a creationist wishes to argue for irreducible complexity in a symbiotic relationship (for example), then he must accept that such a relationship would necessarily break down in the Biblical flood scenario. The only explanation that can then come from the creationist camp is, “Uh…it was a miracle!”
Which accomplishes absolutely nothing in terms of understanding. On the one hand, if one wishes to ascribe all “unknowns” to Divine Intervention, then just about everything becomes a miracle - because there’s a lot we don’t know. On the other hand, by describing all such events as miracles, the creationist is essentially stating that we do not and cannot know the means by which [scenario] has come to pass. “So stop asking questions and read your Bible.” Hardly a means to enlightenment, I should think.
well i think it is better to have an alternative… if a puzzle is filled with god did it, then it would go along with the belief in creation and have some possibility of truth from any perspective… if a puzzle is filled with i dont know, then theres no way it could be true at all…
mabye that wasnt the best way to put it… but if you guys dont get what im going for i could try again
Okay, sorry. My mistake. Good job Mangetout.
Nevertheless. Belief in the God’s creation of the Earth doesn’t equate to belief in The Flood.
Saying that Creationists must believe in the flood is a bit like saying Evolutionists must believe in string theory. Some Creationists believe that The Flood was just the Black Sea flood made into a tall tale. The Bible was after all written by man, not God.
Uh oh. I meant to say…
Wait, are you confusing belief in Creation with belief in The Flood.
Boy I screwed this one up, huh?
Why don’t you address the issue of applying the Scientific Method to the Creation Theory? If you can’t apply it, it ain’t Science. Believe in it all you want, and call it anything you want, but just don’t call it “science”.
Anyone wanna guess which one of mangetout’s endgames will play out here?
I’m picking number six, which is the most common. #1 is a strong possibility too.
I don’t recall anyone saying one must believe in the Flood if one believes in Creation (though almost all who argue for creation do believe such).
And if a creationist can examine the Noachian Flood and determine that it may not have transpired as is lain out in the Bible, why adhere so doggedly to the creation story? What makes the story of Divine Creation True, while that of the Flood is but an exaggeration? If the Bible was written by men, then surely those men, with their comparatively limited knowledge, could have been mistaken about any number of things, including how they themselves came to be.
And if the Bible has some things that are *literally * true, but other things that are just true in a symbolic kind of way, is there a key that tells someone what’s really really true, and what’s just really symbolically true?
stuffusbus
I think you have a bit of a skewed opinion as to how science works. The answer of “We don’t know” is not a weakness of science. It is a strength. Science lets us identify the limits of our knowledge, then push them outwards through experimentation. There is no purpose for putting “God in the gaps” because science dictates that we will just be moving God out of the gaps when we fill those gaps. Since our observations are never perfect, there will always be gaps. Since we will continue science, those gaps will always be moving.
The central fact of common descent has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolution, as a whole theory, does not run into “unknown” snags or puzzles. There are some unanswered questions about some minor details but the gaps in current knowledge are not enough to threaten the theory as a whole. There are still unanswered questions about the atom too but no one would say that those questions throw the existence of the atom into doubt and the evidence supporting common descent is as strong as the evidence for the existence of the atom.
Creationism is simply a bald assertion with absolutely no support or foundation. The literal story of Genesis not only lacks any scientific support, it can and has been indisputably refuted by the scientific evidence.
In some ways, they are functionally equivalent. The latter statement basically translates into: “something of unknown nature did it in a manner that is not known for unknown reasons” which is pretty much a longwinded way of saying “I don’t know what did it or how, or why it happened”
Nope. One says “it was done by some entity”, and the other says “it might have been done by some enitity, but it might have happened all by itself”. One is active, the other admits the possibility of no action.
stuffusbus, I’ve got a few questions for you.
Must one believe in Creationism to be a Christian? If so, why?
Why don’t you use capital letters? They make it much easier for other people to read what you write and, around here, not using them, can be seen as an indication of disrespect.
CJ