Creation vs. Evolution

[bwerb]

What!?!?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html


Google-** rocks!

 

[bwerb]

I can't believe it...auto censor knocked out the word "foo" spelled F U

 

[MikeFerrara]

If God created the Universe 6,000 years ago to look exactly like it was 12-18 billion years old, then really I'm calling B.S. on God, though...

12 - 18 billion? Sounds like a heck of a spread to me. How certain are you?

 

[MikeFerrara]

well, you have your beliefs (along with Rick). but that's not proof.

for example, if i ask you, do you have proof of your birthday, and you say, "In my heart, i know it was March 1, 1980" i would say, that's a belief, not proof. if you show me an original birth certificate, that's proof. if i want further proof, i can contact the records custodian of the county in which your birth certificate was filed and get a certified copy.

you beleive God exists. you have no proof of it, as the word "proof" is understood in English

you keep missing my point that there can be no proof as to whehter God exists. it is a contradiction in terms.

which is why Creationism has nothing to do with science and should not be taught as such.

but, as i said, it is certainly a belief, and you are entitled to it.

Is a birth certificate proof?

No. A birth certificate is documentation that represents the conclusions drawn by thier "observation" data. Personally I know of several cases where birth certificates and death certificates have been incorrect in regards to, dates, times, names, and name spelling. My own granfather never knew for certain when he was born. The brth certificate said one thing, his mother said another and at least one close family member claimed another. Where did the information on the certificate come from? The family (he wasn't born in a hospitol) reported it to someone else who put that report of data into some system that generated and filed it as a legal document.

A more interesting case is my own mother who, in recent years, went through a whole lot of trouble to correct her birth certificate. It listed her mothers second husband as her paternal father...and had her name spelled wrong. In this case part of the data (the father) was intentionally corrupted...is was just flat out falsified.

The process of recording and processing the data used to generate the certificate is not 100% capable. That was especially true not too many years ago when a significant percentage of people were born at home and the chain of "data handling" was longer in time, number of handlers and maybe distance. What is the capability of that system? It's probably better now than it was 20 or 100 years ago but it still isn't 100%.

So much for your assertion that a birth certificate is proof. It might be legal but it is NOT proof of fact.

If we take the Biblical account literally/traditionally Genesis is a record (generated my Moses) of eye witness testimony provided by God. Andy, is that sort of like a deposition? ok, you might argue that niether Moses or God existed but lets put things in a more contemporary context. While eye witness testimony wouln't fall into the catagory of science we use it as evidence all the time.

When we draw conclusions from data, it's certainly not uncommon for more than one theory to exist that appears to fit the data. A hypothisis or theory (no they aren't the same) is often dependant on other assumptions wich may or may not be correct.

ok, where am I going with this? I'm NOT saying that a study of the Bible consitutes science. I am saying that we have a bunch of raw data, observations, measurements, archiological findings ect. To complicate things, we sometimes have a wide range in accuracy or precision of data. We also have a wide range of theories which can be presented as possibly fitting that data.

Now the questions. Which theories are presented in schools and how are they chosen? Are they really the only ones that are viable? If we're going to call it science we should be using data and scientifically accepted methods of processing that data but is that what they are doing in a high school or grade school science courses that addresses evolution? Are they presenting the data and x-number of theories? Or are they presenting ONE theory and spending very little time examining data or worse only presenting a small subset of the data? How was the data presented in those courses selected? How were the theories selected? It wouldn't be the data that best supports the theories being presented would it? I have to submit that "science" classes at that education level are often not really science (as in doing science) but a simple regirgitation of science that was supposedly done by some one else (not all the someone elses but only a select few or a one).

I doubt that the history books used in schools today read the same as those I used when I went to school in the 60's and 70's. In fact, I remember one of my high school history teachers walking into the classroom and instructing us to put the book aside and openly made the claim that it was total BS. A large portion of his course was spent examining actual documents and other stuff from the actual time period which he clearly demonstrated could easily lead one to very different conclusions than those presented (without support) in the history book in use by the school and even outright refute it.

So...are we teaching science in schools or are we teaching a biased interpretation of a select subset of the data? From what I recall from highschool level courses that mentioned evolution it was a simple regirgitation of ONE SINGLE theory. They presented very little or no support for that theory and no competing theories were presented. That's not science it's propoganda.

 

[photohikedive]

The process of recording and processing the data used to generate the certificate is not 100% capable. That was especially true not too many years ago when a significant percentage of people were born at home and the chain of "data handling" was longer in time, number of handlers and maybe distance. What is the capability of that system? It's probably better now than it was 20 or 100 years ago but it still isn't 100%.

I find this line of thought very interesting. Logically taking this a few steps further, we can be very sure that "documents" translated, and retranslated, hand written over and over again for centuries, into millenia, must be wrong. Your very argument about birth certificates applies even more strongly to the stories and tales of the bible. In addition to the troubles of time, and number of handlers, you have several languages between now and the origial writers.

 

[sandjeep]

Photohikedive,
A copy of Isaiah was found at Qumran. It has been found to match the KJV at 99.9%. For a complete and detailed study, Randall Price's book is first rate.

As far as I can tell, thats over 1000 years with very little copy errors. I think that your argument holds up well dealing with Birth cert. and modern public records, but not when it comes to the Bible.

 

[photohikedive]

I can go buy three different bibles at the bookstore now, and have three different interpretations. Methodists read it as meaning something different than Baptists, who see something different in it than Catholics. Are you telling me, over the centuries, that it hasn't been alterered and edited to fit the whims of people in power now?

 

[photohikedive]

Interesting reading........

http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/accurate.htm

Another from Cave 4, written in paleo- Hebrew script and dated from the early second century B.C., con- tains the repetitious expanded form of Exodus previously known only in Samaritan writings, ("The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: After Forty Years," America, October 31, 1987, p. 302, emphasis added). This "different story" told by the discoveries in Cave Four at Qumran is a story that Bible inerrantists have been conspicuously silent about, probably because it puts to rest all notions of scrupulously meticulous ancient scribes who counted all the letters in the copies they made to be sure that no mistakes had occurred. The Cave Four discoveries tell us that mistakes were not only made but that textual changes were also made with probable deliberation.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I can go buy three different bibles at the bookstore now, and have three different interpretations. Methodists read it as meaning something different than Baptists, who see something different in it than Catholics. Are you telling me, over the centuries, that it hasn't been alterered and edited to fit the whims of people in power now?

There are several translations. They don't differ as much as you might think and they certainly do not reflect the differences in doctrin that exist between denominations.

The biggest difference between translations is just the way things are worded...it is a translation. The biggest difference this makes for us is readability. Those who study the bible Often reference the Greek or Hebrew words used to better understand the actual meaning.

One of the biggest differences in doctrin exists between Catholics and Protestants however, the Bibles they use don't reflect that difference at all. The Catholic Bible includes several books that others don't but I don't think the contents of those books explain the difference in doctrin.

The best way to get a feel for the difference between translations is go read a couple of them.

A good place to read to get a feel for how the text has been treated by people over the centuries is right in the preface of the King James and the New King James Bibles. I'd recommend reading the prefaces in both.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

..."are we teaching science in schools or are we teaching a biased interpretation of a select subset of the data? From what I recall from highschool level courses that mentioned evolution it was a simple regirgitation of ONE SINGLE theory. They presented very little or no support for that theory and no competing theories were presented."

With great respect Mike, while I agree completely with your challenge to the validity of documentary evidence, let me respond regarding the above quote.

Evolution as a theoretical construct simply suggests that living organisms change to better adapt to their environments. A corollary to the theory postulates that this change occurs at varying rates, and that those organisms who prove most adaptive to changes in environmental parameters tend to survive and flourish, whereas those organisms that prove least adaptive (or do not change at all) tend to not survive.

There are many different related theories as to how this adaptation occurs, some of which are grouped by phylum.

But as far as I am aware, adaptive change has been found in nearly all phylum examined, whether the observations have been made of flowering plants, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, insects, or whatever.

Therefore, while many questions and issues are inadequately understood (or 'proven'), a rather large body of evidence across many different scientific fields tends to support the concept that biological organisms change over time to adapt to their environments.

To refute that body of theory, supported by a wide variety of observation, it would be necessary to show that such adaptation is either random; or destructive - e.g. it hastens the demise of the species; or that it does not occur at all.

I'm unaware of any major effort that successfully demonstrates any such refutation.

Therefore, while I certainly cannot speak to what was taught in your High School curriculum, or in any specific High School curriculum, at least at present what is being taught in 'school' (in the broad sense, nationwide) currently would be Science.

[Of course, any inadequately supported and passionate exhortations, really about anything at all, could be presented as "propaganda"...even by such an august and learned assembly as the Kansas City School Board. ]