Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

don · 10-14-09 8:04 am

Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2007.jpg" alt=""><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2008.jpg" alt=""><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2009.jpg" alt=""><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2010.jpg" alt=""> <a href="http://www.covenantforum.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=584&post=5430#POST5430" target="_blank">Ervin Taylor</a>, Executive Editor for Adventist Today and a seasoned geochronologist, radiometric specialist, and anthropologist presents an eight part series of this title. After his presentation, various individuals address his ideas. Some are well-known within Adventism such as Goldstein, Douglas and Newman. Here is an example of open dialogue on this important issue in Adventism. Dr. Taylor has done his church a service by opening up and sharing his heart-felt and reasoned views. This thread is for the further examining of his presentations and the discussions which follow each.<blockquote><blockquote><a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-i" target="_blank">Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma, Part One</a> <a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-2" target="_blank">Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma, Part Two</a> <a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-3" target="_blank">Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma, Part Three</a> <a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-4" target="_blank">Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma, Part Four</a> <a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-5" target="_blank">Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma, Part Five</a> <a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-6" target="_blank">Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma, Part Six</a> <a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-7" target="_blank">Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma, Part Seven</a> <a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-8" target="_blank">Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma, Part Eight</a> </blockquote></blockquote>

john8verse32 · 10-14-09 11:49 am

wow...that will take weeks to read!!! but when you're done, check out this believer's explaination about how radio dating and "varves" prove the ancient age of the earth...AND life!!! <a href="http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html" target=_top>http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html</a>

bob_2 · 10-14-09 11:44 pm

Don, I am unconvinced of Taylor and his presentation. God doesn't need evolution when He is the Creator. Adaption yes, Macroevolution no!!! Mendel's Accountant shows a lack of ability for macroevolution to be the answer. Taylor has, to keep his job, in my opinion, bought in to Evolution and its flaws. (Message edited by Bob_2 on October 14, 2009)

jag · 10-18-09 1:08 am

Bob - Taylor talks as someone who knows what he is talking about. He is a professional. He has seen and examined the evidence. He knows for a fact that the earth is billions of years old and life on it evolved over millions of years. He is also trying to reconcile this knowledge with religious beliefs, which are often basen on simply blind dogma. If anything, he should be commended for this. You are free to believe that there was a recent creation, no evolution, worldwide flood, the earth is flat etc., just because the Bible teaches so (in your interpretation). But please, don't expect that those more curious than you must believe what you believe.

don · 10-18-09 1:33 am

He knows for a fact that the earth is billions of years old and life on it evolved over millions of years. The scientific definition of a "fact" is interesting. Accepted interpretations and conclusions are considered "facts". Facts are social norms in the scientific community. Most scientists will consider a very old age for the earth to be an established "fact". They consider it a fact that life arose from non-life. Some, perhaps most, consider the "big bang" to be a fact. I think it is hard to refute the fact of an old earth. And, it is hard to refute that things change, or evolve. It is much easier to doubt that all living things evolved from a common ancestor which arose from non-living matter. Deep time evolution depends on this "fact". Without it, "common ancestor evolution" does not make sense. Abiogenesis, autogenesis, or spontaneous generation seem impossible, or at best, improbable. Yet, the General Theory of Evolution depends upon it. If all the suppositions of naturalistic origin are "facts" then the forces of nature deserve our "worship" because they are absolutely amazing. Most scientists may consider abiogenesis a "fact" but I suggest that it is a shaky "fact". It is believed to be true or real: but it is unproven. "Macro-evolution" or what Kerkut called the General Theory of Evolution is not a very well established fact, if at all. (Message edited by Don on October 18, 2009)

don · 10-18-09 10:01 am

The Mystery of Life's Origin C. B. Thaxton, Walter L Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, Philosophical Library, 200 W. 57th Street, New York, New York 10019, 1984, 228 pages, $14.95. Reviewed by P. E. Hare, research scientist, Carnegie Institution of Washington, D. C. ____________________________________ Comments<ol><li>This book review appeared in the November, 1987 edition of Ministry Magazine. This is a significant "recent" contribution to an Adventist periodical by Dr. Hare. <LI>Dr. Hare has demonstrated his willingness to follow "science" whereever it leads. His scientific integrity is beyond question. This "fact" lends credibility to his assessment of this book. <LI>This review could have been, and perhaps was, written by a theistic evolutionist. <LI>Note the definitions: origin science (discontinuous phenomena, not falsifiable) and operation science (recurring events, falsifiable). <LI>Is it a "fact" that life arose from nonlife? <LI>Some have suggested that Ervin Taylor is a theistic evolutionist. I wonder if the essays linked on this thread can help determine that. What alternatives are there for a Christian who believes in "deep time" evolution.</li></ol>____________________________________<blockquote>The scientific study of life has revealed that even the simplest living cell is incredibly complex. Modern scientific theory holds that life on earth arose billions of years ago by spontaneous generation from nonliving matter. Many accept this as scientific fact despite the lack of any evidence. This supposed pathway of the origin of life is known as chemical evolution and is the main focus of this well-written, interesting book. The authors, all respected scientists, review and critique the various proposals that have been made to account for the origin of life on earth. They conclude, quite convincingly, that all the proposals made so far are completely inadequate. The most popular theory of chemical evolution holds that energy sources such as volcanic heat, lightning, and ultraviolet radiation from the sun produced a thick organic-rich primordial soup from which the first living organisms arose. The authors point out that the mathematical probability of this happening by spontaneous generation is so extremely small that even billions of years are not enough to produce such an event by pure chance! The authors are sympathetic with the idea that life was created by an intelligence. They distinguish origin science (discontinuous phenomena, not falsifiable) and operation science (recurring events, falsifiable) and argue that special creation by a creator is a plausible view of origin science. Studying living organisms and the remains (fossils) of once-living organisms is one of the proper research areas of operation science as it seeks to understand how organisms interact and how new generations of living creatures inherit the earth from earlier generations. Studies by Louis Pasteur in the previous century overthrew the popular idea of spontaneous generation by proving that only life begets life. Before Pasteur, it was commonly accepted that many organisms actually arose from nonliving matter. Chemical evolution is not a suitable subject for operation science since it can only deal with living or once-living organisms. The bridge between nonliving matter and the first living organism requires some kind of discontinuity that is beyond the realm of ordinary science. Those interested in the continuing debate over creation and evolution will appreciate this contribution that exposes one of the weakest links in the much-heralded evolutionary chain of molecules to man. <a href="http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1987-11/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=29" target="_blank">http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1987-11/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=29</a></blockquote>____________________________________ Further Reading <a href="http://themysteryoflifesorigin.org/Mystery%20of%20Life%27s%20Origin.pdf" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2043.jpg" alt=""></a> <a href="http://themysteryoflifesorigin.org/Mystery%20of%20Life%27s%20Origin.pdf" target="_blank">The Mystery of Life's Origin online</a> (a large pdf file) (Message edited by Don on October 18, 2009)

jag · 10-19-09 6:08 am

Don, I must point one mistake in your post - very common indeed. Namely, the modern evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are two totally different things. Not all biologists/geologists are atheists - in fact, a significan number are religious and/or spiritual, many belonging to traditional religions. P Edgar Hare is a great example - what else can you do if you have a strong religious faith, but at the same time you see first-hand the scientific evidence? As you may know, even Darwin never claimed to be an atheist. Evolution is a fact - in a scientific sense. Abiogenesis is "just" a hypothesis.

don · 10-19-09 6:35 am

the modern evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are two totally different things. I agree. I don't think you will find my posts saying otherwise. Evolution is a fact - in a scientific sense. Abiogenesis is "just" a hypothesis. I appreciate the distinction you make here. Permanent change in the gene alleles, evolution, has been shown to happen, i.e. a fact. Put this together with the accepted "fact" of very old life on earth and "deep time" evolution can be understood to be a fact. But, "Common ancester" evolution has not been demonstrated to be a fact. It, too, is a hypothesis. Abiogenesis is "just" a hypothesis. It can be tested. Of course, to say that God caused the initial spark of life could not be a hypothesis since it can't be tested. As a scientist tries to create life, he can view himself trying to "think God's thoughts after Him." (Message edited by Don on October 19, 2009)

jag · 10-19-09 10:26 pm

I'd say that the "common ancestor" theory seems to be so well proven (many "transitional" fossils whose number is still growing) that it's hard not to consider it as a scientific fact. There is simply no alternative - hard to consider seriously a hypothesis according to which an unknown "(un)intelligent designer" - or god of the gaps - created more and more complex beings time after time. It would even go against the most literal interpretation of the Bible. Basically the order of fossils reads like an evolutionary, sequential tree (or rather bush!) of life. Find a dinosaur track along a human footprint (an authentic one, not a fake one like those from the Paluxy River); find a gold chain embedded in coal, and you have disproved the common ancestor theory and evolution in general. Until then, the order of evolution looks quite conclusive.

bob_2 · 10-20-09 1:37 am

Microevolution is a fact, macroevolution is fiction.

don · 10-20-09 3:05 am

I'd say that the "common ancestor" theory seems to be so well proven (many "transitional" fossils whose number is still growing) that it's hard not to consider it as a scientific fact... There is simply no alternative. First. Do scientists proclaim "facts" based on the lack of alternatives? If so, then a one time event of abiogenesis would be considered a fact, wouldn't it? I think the fact that scientists feel they can look back into the distant past and "know" what happened or didn't happen is an interesting fact. On a more serious note: This may be too hard to do, but can we list the transition fossils from primates to hominids here. Do these fossils provide adequate proof that we share a common ancestry with chimps? Is it considered a scientific "fact"? If a "fact" is something accepted as proven to be true then a "fact" is a social construct of the scientific community, isn't it? Has there ever been a "fact" which has been discarded? Why was it discarded? .

don · 10-20-09 6:57 am

Can we list the transition fossils from primates to hominids here. This chart comes from a site whose link was provided by Bob on another thread. At the site each of the sections are hyperlinked to information about the particular fossil mentioned. <a href="http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-timeline.html" target=_top>http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-timeline.html</a> <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2058.jpg" alt=""> <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Millions of Years</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> .

don · 10-20-09 7:33 am

What do evolutionists say happened earlier, eg. 7 million to 20 million? How does radiometric dating help? Or do they rely on where the fossil was found in the geological column. Notice, according to the dates given in the geological column, 20 million years ago barely scrathc the surface. This chart is of the Grand Canyon and how it relates to the G-Column. If I were doing radiometric dating, I would take samples from every level of the canyon and "date" them. I presume this has been done by someone. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2061.jpg" alt=""> <a href="http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/im/GrandCan-geolog-column.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/im/GrandCan-geolog-column.jpg</a> (Message edited by Don on October 20, 2009)

john8verse32 · 10-20-09 9:20 am

now you are getting the "picture", Don... that cross section of the Grand Canyon tells quite a story....and disproves two main pillars of SDA belief... the age of the earth.... and the flood of Noah.... a singular, one time flood is disproven by the alternating wet-dry-wet-dry layers... limestone had to have been sedimented out from a shallow sea... while the coconino and tapeats sandstones show wind blown marks, such as dunes, and even animal tracks..meaning these layers were the result of wind blown sand arriving above water level...probably eroded from some distant mountains during an ancient age when the land had been tectonically raised above sea level. the shales are mud stones, alternating from below water formation to above water layers. no 1-time flood could have done this. in addition, the limestone layers show fossils of ancient marine animals which lived and DIED mega years ago. the age of the earth is not determined radiometricly from the limestone, sandstone or shale layers, since these are sedimentary layers which do not usually contain minerals which break down radioactively into measurable daughter products. radiometric dating works best on magmatic rocks, particularly the volcanic intrusions, the basalts, and granites at the bottom of the canyon which test out in the billions of years of age. It is simple logic to understand that the layers above the bottom of the canyon were laid down after the magmatic base rocks,since they are on top, and therefore are younger, with their ages approximated by their contents of key fossils, the age of which is estimated from other locations, when similar layers are found near magmatic intrusions or layers which can be radio dated. the billion plus yo Vishnu schist at the bottom gives an even older age for the earth...since it is composed of layers of mud stones and sand stones which metamorphised under the heat of the earth and pressure of overlying layers, from other eroded materials even older, from other nearby mountains, which themselves had to be even older. Erosion during some distant past period took away layers below the Tapeats Sandstone, which results in the local "unconformity".... but these layers are found elsewhere where they were not eroded away.... in this way, geologists can deduce a complete geologic column from different locations. Interestingly, if you drive north from the GC, the top most layer, the Kaibab Limestone, becomes one of the base layers of Zion and Bryce... which are at higher altitudes... from the kaibab layer going north into Utah, in Zion and Bryce, there are even more limestone layers going up to over 12,000 feet!!! thats layers of limestone which at one time were laid down under a shallow sea... and now over 2 miles high. geologists can deduce a complete geological column from this "Grand Staircase" (Escalante is the name of the National Monument). Any YEC who takes a trip to the SW of the USA will either be astonished at God's created wonders, or begin to understand how natural processes (maybe set in motion by the laws created by something which many choose to call...God...???) worked to create the splendors of the Southwest. When friends ask me if I'm still a believer, I simply tell them... ..."I've seen the Grand Canyon, and it appears to have happened differently than we were once told". even if one ignores the common ancestry, and macro part of the evolutionary theory, one can still see that what we were once told is no longer believable... just from a study of the GrandCanyon, we must revise our interpretations of ancient stories told by scientifically ignorant nomads who thought that the earth was flat, and had a dome overhead..... and we must also question anything else said by a profetesse who claimed that volcanoes and earth quakes are caused by underground coal fires. time marches on, and education and knowledge has increased. dramatically. and the rate of change has accelerated. How can we continue to justify being left behind, living in the ignorance of the ancient past?

jag · 10-20-09 10:16 pm

Bob, You are mistaken about macroevolution, and I think you are just repeating the creationists' favourite mantra. There is ample proof for macroevolution. I am willing to show it to you, however, are you open to such an option at all? If so, what proof would be proof enough for you? I am asking, as many creationist request the kind of evidence that would be impossible to provide to prove even the most obvious things. Don - is gravity a fact or not? Yet there is an alternative, for instance, invisible genies may be pulling everything towards the centre of our planet, but is it sensible to use ridiculous theories when there is a simpler explanation? John - I know a YEC pastor who staunchly insists, on the analogy to Mt St Helens, that huge canyons can be carved by water in a very short time, as long as they are cut through soft sediments - like the worldwide flood debris before it dried and hardened. Obviously, Mt St Helens is thousands of times smaller, and was carved by water flowing down soft, volcanic ash at about a 45% angle. It would be impossible to create the Grand Canyon this way, as its walls - if they were still soft - would simply collapse. Still, if someone has faith this big (and blind) - how can you argue with it?

don · 10-20-09 11:16 pm

is it sensible to use ridiculous theories when there is a simpler explanation? Of course not. Is it necessary to proclaim the "simpler" explanation a "fact" when it is simply a more reasonable hypothesis. At the point of the necessary abiogenesis to start up the evolutionary sequence what is more reasonable: that it just happened or that "God" caused it to happen? The difference: science can try to recreate the conditions necessary for life but it cannot seek to investigate the role of God. For such a role is impossible for "science" to observe or test. You may be aware of Hoyle's theory described by Chandra Wickramasinghe<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:In 1977 Hoyle and I argued that the origin of life on Earth must have involved the importation of viable cells from space, thereby challenging a another Holy Grail of Science "The Primordial Soup Theory" for the origins of life. At first this theory, known as panspermia, was regarded as heretical but new evidence from many directions appears be moving towards a vindication of this point of view. Last month the first evidence of microbes at the edge of the Earth's atmosphere at 41 km was presented in a paper to a meeting of the Society of Optical Engineering. Fred himself was unable to see the final form of this paper although he was a co-author and mentor of this work. Now, 34 years on, some form of panspermia theory of life's origins appears to be gaining ground <a href="http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/fredhoyle.html" target=_top>http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/fredhoyle.html</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> When will panspermia be considered a fact? Will it? Are there viable alternatives to "common ancestor" evolution? Many Christians offer God's work of "special creation" as an alternative. Of course, this is beyond science. But, if it were true, there would be evidence that major "kinds" of life have always been around. That can be investigated, it seems. .

bob_2 · 10-21-09 12:51 am

JAG, Present away, your reluctance prepares me for questionable data, but your evidence should speak for itself once presented, with sources of course. I am open. If your real questions is once you present it, sight unseen, if I agree for you to show me, you expect me to accept it before studying, you are no scientist with that approach. Let's see the evidence, I've asked for it before from others, nothing so far.

jag · 10-21-09 10:33 pm

Don, Let me quote Wikipedia (just for the ease of access, other reference books will have similar definitions: "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. Thus, for example, it is a fact that lighter objects accelerate more quickly toward heavier objects than the reverse, and the theory of gravitation explains why this is so. (See also Evolution as theory and fact.)" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact</a> Please therefore, don't confuse a fact with hypothesis/theory. When it comes to evolution, I am quite open to theories (= various explanations) of the observable fact of evolution. When it comes to abiogenesis, it is just one possibile explanation for the origins of life on Earth, though in my opinion it is not even necessarily the most convincing hypothesis (and neither is the theistic creation or panspermia, as they are riddled with problems so far not easily explained). When we get to the beginning of life, we are asking questions from the very border of knowledge/science. We may never have the answers and should accept it, though it doesn't mean we should stop trying. I guess for either abiogenesis or panspermia to be considered a fact, we would have to have some observable proof of either. Until then, let's treat them as hypotheses. Of course, if there was a special creation the way YEC interpret Genesis, there would have to be evidence that major "kinds" have always existed (at least until extinct, to be precise). Problem: there is no definition of "kinds" anywhere in the Bible (and YEC use and abuse this to their heart's content). But the Bible is not a scientific textbook. There is, however, undeniable evidence, that simpler organisms existed earlier (MUCH earlier) and evolved into more complex ones. It has been investigated for the last 150 years or so, and the evidence is growing every day - that's why it is considered a fact - it can be observed. Find one human or dinosaur fossil down in the Cambrian period, for instance, and you have falsified evolution! Why can't any YEC "scientist" do so? Whenever I discuss the issue with YEC, they always dismiss any evidence inconvenient for them on a smallest pretext. One of them, a PhD holder, told me that I would have to prove Big Bang by re-creating it to prove evolution of life to him. The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution! Therefore I'm not willing to waste my time; if you want to investigate proof for evolution on your own (and share it here), there are plenty of resources on the Net. But if you require any special conditions, then you will need to state them clearly before we start so I know what consitutes proof to you and what doesn't. "Presenting away" for the sake of it is just not my style. By the way, presenting evidence for YEC would be much more difficult! Impossible in fact. I have to admit I was a YEC for a long time. I began to have my doubts when I realised that creationists do not have any consistent theory (every creationst appears to have their own) and neither do they have any scientific proof. They try to disprove evolution by using flawed methods (dating Mt St Helens with potassium-argon), using forged evidence (Paluxy River human and dino footprints together) or quote-mining. It was therefore creationists who made me into an evolutionist, with the final straw being the GRI FAQ compilation: <a href="http://www.grisda.org/site/1/resources/manuscripts/GibsonJ-faq2002.pdf" target=_top>http://www.grisda.org/site/1/resources/manuscripts /GibsonJ-faq2002.pdf</a> If you look it up, you will see that to any major question the YEC answer seems to be "don't know", or at best "not sure". I recommend studying those FAQ to anyone seriously interested in the creation/evolution debate. The fact that the FAQ have not been updated in 7 years speaks for itself too - views on the history of life on Earth have evolved considerably in that time, with numerous discoveries and developments. YEC are clearly unable to respond - they live much deeper in the past than the 7 years.

bob_2 · 10-22-09 9:52 am

Radek said: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=6&post=7380#POST7380" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=6&post=7380#POST7380</a> Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris each "talks as someone who knows what he is talking about. He is a professional. He has seen and examined the evidence." Ready to go atheistic. Is this the way we judge truth by impression??? Can you vouch for Taylors evidence? Give me an example that goes to "Deep Time" from him that is convincing beyond a shadow of a doubt!!

john8verse32 · 10-22-09 7:06 pm

is billions of years long enuf? <a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1996/01/" target=_top>http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/ 1996/01/</a> are you yet convinced that the earth goes around the sun? and not as Joshuas epic myth tells? are you yet convinced that God created the sun far earlier than 6kyo? how about Orion? thru which the profitesse claims thatGod is going to bring down mansions He is hammering out... it is 1600 yrs away...and not a hole in the sky!!! there's so much still for us to learn, Bob.... if we only open our eyes to all the evidence.

don · 10-22-09 9:14 pm

The Fourth Day and the Stars The simple statement, "He made the stars also," provides all we know about the Biblical account of the stars' creation. Our second oldest brother persistently sought to understand the "world" around him. From him, I developed a love of nature and the wonder of it all. I am rather intrigued that my understanding of the stars, especially their vast distances from us here on earth, has never seemed to interfere with my understanding of Genesis 1. It just doesn't "feel" contradictory to believe that the stars can be millions of light years away and yet, on the fourth day, "He made the stars, also." Then, I ask myself the question, "Why does the science of radiometric dating bother me regarding other matters of deep time?" I don't know. The Geological column and radiometric dating places the data for deep time beyond the comfortable reach of a lay-scientist such as myself. So far, these basic concepts rule:<ul><li>The Geological Column was laid down over the life of the earth with lower layers being older than more recent layers. (Those who believe in a geologically disruptive worldwide flood event challenge this "lower layers are older layers" idea.) <LI>Radiometric dating is accurate enough to remove any reasonable doubt of a deep time doctrine for evolutionary life. (There is no way that a lay person can make this determination.) <LI>Simple lower life forms developed into the more complex life forms. (It may be possible to show what seems like macro-evolutionary development for some fossils, but to say that ALL life forms came from lower life forms certainly has not been proven. For me, it is an impossible stretch to believe that. I agree with Jag that the deep time evolutionist has no alternative but to believe in the "common ancestor" idea. )</li></ul> <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2079.jpg" alt=""></a></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> .

bob_2 · 10-22-09 9:46 pm

I believe YLC, not young universe, and not young base rock of the earth without form and void. When you start talking fossils on top of mountains, that is when you get my attention dating them million or billions of years old. I will claim dating mechanism flaws until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, break of pangea as John Baumgardner has outlined at <a href="http://www.globalflood.org" target=_top>www.globalflood.org</a> . Catastrophic Plate Tectonics with transcendant intervention.

john8verse32 · 10-22-09 10:32 pm

a belief in ancient earth and young life is disproven by the Grand Canyon..... if you take a raft trip down the canyon, one of the most interesting stops is Redwall Cavern.... carved into a bend of the river out of the 300+ vertical foot hi layer of limestone....hundreds of million years old....and more than halfway down the canyon to the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist base rocks.... the Redwall formation is loaded with fossil evidence of marine life.... the river guides can show you the prominent ones... we admired a worm half embeded in and half out of a boulder right next to our lunch area.... so there is plenty of evidence for "life" down deep in the bowels of the earth, and radio dating of nearby layers puts the ages into the hundreds of millions years. mof, there are marble intrusions in the deepest bedrock...the Granites.... meaning when the granites were being extruded by tectonic activity billions of years ago, there were algae forming limestone, which got metamorphosized into marble, which got intruded into the granite, which can be radio dated... thats evidence for life....2 billion years ago. <a href="http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area" target=_top>http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Geology_of _the_Grand_Canyon_area</a> and Bob's statement... ...blue{I will claim dating mechanism flaws until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt,} ...is already overdue for being withdrawn, as a vast meshweb of science has proven the ancient age of the earth so definitively that it is becoming absurd for any honest, intelligent, educated seeker of truth to keep maintaining otherwise....other than by resort to blind faith in ancient scientific misunderstanding. the alternating Grand Canyon layers prove there was no ONE universal flood....there were many!!! radio dating proves it is all ancient. and...there is fosil evidence of life down deep in the Canyon....life..hundreds of millions of years old.... go hike or raft the Grand Canyon... from the vastness of its vistas, to the cathedral like formations which bring forth such awe and disbelief, it is a life changing experience. at least order a video!!!! <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grand+canyon+imax+movie&revid=1066390620&ei=3BThSo0944m2B7215AY&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=5&ved=0CC0Q1QIoBA" target=_top>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grand+canyon+ imax+movie&revid=1066390620&ei=3BThSo0944m2B7215AY &sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revisi on&cd=5&ved=0CC0Q1QIoBA</a>

jag · 10-22-09 10:43 pm

Bob, Please don't confuse science with philosophy. Dawkins is a scientist, but a philospher too. When he advocates atheism, he does it not as a scientist. By the way, his arguments against "theistic" god are very convincing a powerful. He was very frustrated when he had a discussion with bishop John Spong and found out that Spong seconded many of his arguments! I have no reason to doubt Taylor's evidence. Not only because he is a professional, but because there is a lot of material available for a layperson too on the net. All the creationist arguments I've found were found wanting. And Taylor is a Christian, from a very conservative church. I'm sure he would defend YEC and YLC if he only could! I'm glad he values his personal integrity more. There is a lot of evidence available, but what kind of argument would convince you beyond a shadow of doubt? Only you know. Do you have any argument for a young Earth that's convincing beyond a shadow of doubt? Then it must only convincing to you, because the scientific consensus is clear. Don - if you want to know for sure, why don't you become a geologist? There have been quite a few SDA geoscientists. They all started as creationists, and if I am not mistaken all ended up deep-time evolutionists (well, at least those who work as scientists). Why would they lie to us of they had any evidence whatsoever of a young earth or young life? Bob, Baumgardner's arguments are weak and ignorant; I recommend you check the following: <a href="http://www.google.com/custom?q=baumgardner&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org" target=_top>http://www.google.com/custom?q=baumgardner&sa=Sear ch&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org</a> <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html" target=_top>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</a> <a href="http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/" target=_top>http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/</a>

don · 10-23-09 6:58 am

If you want to know for sure, why don't you become a geologist? I think I will do that. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> Jag, you have kind of helped me make my point that matters of origins, at least the scientific thinking involved, reach beyond the average layman. Alas, individually, people of a well thoughtout Biblical faith don't have the option. Several areas still seem without much scientific evidence: Evolution from very simple organism to the most complex. There are fossil points which help the scientist test his hypotheses. But, it seems a long way from compelling, for me. I recognize that more intelligent and educated people have accepted the "compelling" nature of nature. That does not help me. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/sad.gif" ALT=":-(" BORDER=0> Another hurdle, of course, is going from nonlife to life. Another one is the self-conscious nature of the mind. Self-awareness. Of course, my self-awareness did not evolve. We can't prove that, but it seems obvious. Are obvious things "facts"? If common ancester evolution really did happen, then I am in awe of a new god, nature herself. Or, I adjust my conception of my God and view him as guiding this whole "miraculous" process. The scientist who is not in almost "worshipful" awe of all this, seems to be a fool, to me. .

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 10-14-09 8:04 am

Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#2 10-14-09 11:49 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#3 10-14-09 11:44 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#4 10-18-09 1:08 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#5 10-18-09 1:33 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#6 10-18-09 10:01 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#7 10-19-09 6:08 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#8 10-19-09 6:35 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#9 10-19-09 10:26 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#10 10-20-09 1:37 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#11 10-20-09 3:05 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#12 10-20-09 6:57 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#13 10-20-09 7:33 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#14 10-20-09 9:20 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#15 10-20-09 10:16 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#16 10-20-09 11:16 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#17 10-21-09 12:51 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#18 10-21-09 10:33 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#19 10-22-09 9:52 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#20 10-22-09 7:06 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#21 10-22-09 9:14 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#22 10-22-09 9:46 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#23 10-22-09 10:32 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#24 10-22-09 10:43 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#25 10-23-09 6:58 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

Board footer