Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

george · 10-23-09 7:10 am

Or, I adjust my conception of my God and view him as guiding this whole "miraculous" process. Why not? A baby takes nine months to develop (even longer if you calculate all the genes involved from the baby's ancestors)- is God not the creator of that process? (Message edited by sirje on October 23, 2009)

elaine · 10-23-09 11:58 am

Can anyone even explain how the fetus' mind works? Or how a newborn baby can imitate adult facial expressions when they are only a few months old? Read "The Philosophical Baby" for some insights into the scientific studies with babies to begin to see the marvelous minds of babies and how their mind gradually develops with distinct time lines. We all now know that there are very "short windows" of learning with an infant, and that if the neurons aren't developing and growing, they will be forever stunted. Fascinating reading for everyone who values human nature. We were ALL once babies, and those were the most important years when our personalities were evolving and forming. Humans are the only mammals that have such a long, extended period before reaching maturity, which is why we should realize that it is evolutionary process over which we do have some, but not all control.

bob_2 · 10-23-09 5:07 pm

Elaine, you are not going back to the logic of Ernst Haeckel <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawings" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawings</a> that tried, even forged the data by messing with them, that suggests that because there are similarities of embryo appearance that evolution and common ancestry is suggested. Infant development has nothing to do with evolution. God created woman to "multiply" and it was a process that began with Cain and Abel not needing 3.5 billion years to develop.

bob_2 · 10-23-09 5:20 pm

I thought this last paragraph of this article, John would especially "like". <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:By now it should be obvious that radiometric dating is not what we have been led to believe. It is nothing like an exact science. Even after taking pains to test only samples that will yield a preconceived result, there is typically a large scatter of results for the dating scientist to choose from.23 Based upon prior expectations, which, in turn, are based upon geology, stratigraphy, index fossils, professional consensus, and what seems reasonable—none of which have anything to do with the isotopes per se—one of the dates is selected as “accurate.” After the winning candidate is chosen, the other dates are ignored or explained away by appealing to one (or more) of a staggering array of excuses. The post-hoc rationalization chosen depends only by the dating scientist’s imagination. The entire process is an exercise in prejudice confirmation. As a method of getting at truth, it is utterly worthless.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff/?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=creation+sabbath" target=_top>http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/radiometric-d ating-can-be-very-tuff/?utm_source=MailingList&utm _medium=email&utm_campaign=creation+sabbath</a>

george · 10-23-09 5:50 pm

Bob, This has nothing to do with the embryo going through stages. My point was that since a baby isn't instantaneously formed but needs nine months to develop, and because of the long gene pool, even longer - like generations; and we attribute the process by which a baby develops to be God ordained, why is it so unthinkable that it would take a loooong time for the universe to develop including life on earth, which also includes humans. God does not work within our time frame - 1000 years like a day etc.

elaine · 10-23-09 6:35 pm

Bob, I've never heard of Haeckel. I referred to the book I read, and also another: The Life of the Unborn Child which tells of how the fetus can recognize its parent's voices, familiar music, and more. Many observant parents know this, but scientific studies have definitely confirmed that the growing brain of the fetus is aware of outside influences. As any mother, she will confirm this. Sorry, guys, you may not be aware of how much reaction the fetus demonstrates.

don · 10-23-09 8:21 pm

Elaine said: Bob, I've never heard of Haeckel. Elaine, is this confirmation that Bob has actually taught you something? <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> On a more serious note, I find I have learned much from my friends (all, including Tom) here at Atomorrow. _____________________________________ Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel 1834 – 1919 Haeckel's Drawings <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2083.jpg" alt=""><blockquote>Haeckel published sets of drawings showing comparisons of various embryos to demonstrate that, in the early stages, the human embryo looks almost identical to that of other animals. However, he later admitted that he faked his drawings, and was convicted of fraud by a university court. It has been known for many decades that the recapitulation theory is nonsense. Sir Gavin de Beer of the Natural History Museum wrote: “Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel's 'theory of recapitulation', facile, tidy and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science.”1 One of the basic ideas underlying the recapitulation myth is that the human embryo begins as a single cell, representing the earliest life-forms, passes through a fish stage, complete with gills, and a monkey stage, with a tail, before emerging as a human at birth. This theory does not stand up to serious examination. The human embryo does not begin its existence resembling a single-celled animal, for a fertilized egg contains all the genetic information to build a complete human being. And at no stage does it possess “gill slits”. What it does have (in the early stages) are creases in the neck area, which later develop into parts of the ears and jaws. The embryo never breathes through these creases, which in fact are not perforated. As for the “tail”, the human embryo never has one! What looks like a tail is simply the coccyx, a bone at the base of the spine, which turns inward before birth, and comes an important anchoring-point for several muscles. The recapitulation theory looks even more absurd if we apply it to other forms of life. According to evolution, the ancestors of snakes possessed legs, yet snakes never have legs in the embryonic stages. Dr. Evan Shute lists numerous examples of creatures whose embryonic development proves that the theory is plain nonsense. These include crustaceans, moths, and butterflies. He also points out that the unborn human has a proportionately large brain.2 Does this mean that we evolved from ancestors with larger brains? <a href="http://www.withoutexcuse.org.uk/documents/TheMythofRecapitulation.pdf" target=_top>http://www.withoutexcuse.org.uk/documents/TheMythofRecapitulation.pdf</a></blockquote> <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2084.jpg" alt=""> .

elaine · 10-23-09 9:56 pm

Bob, My late husband had complete sets of jars with fetuses from the earliest to near birth, so I have seen "real ones" removed at autopsy. That there is a resemblance of all early mammals is well known--I have taken anatomy & physiology.

elaine · 10-23-09 9:57 pm

Don, I have know the resemblance of all mammals from conception. Remember, I wasn't born yesterday :-)

bob_2 · 10-24-09 12:42 am

If you ask any scientist, what Don posted is the correct position of most evolutionists that dare not use that argument for common ancestry, no matter what Elaine thinks she sees in those "pathology" jars, and I know your late husband was a pathologist, but it's not a matter of being born yesterday but of good science and recognizing forged data.

don · 10-24-09 12:51 am

"Remember, I wasn't born yesterday." No disrespect intended. I was merely referring to your "new" knowledge of Haeckel. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

don · 10-24-09 3:45 am

How Do Evolutionists Say It Happened? (Notice all the question marks. To say that it is a "fact" that humans evolved from a common ancester with chimps seems a bit premature.) <a href="http://humans2.beyondgenes.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2087.jpg" alt=""></a> <a href="http://humans2.beyondgenes.com/" target=_top>http://humans2.beyondgenes.com/</a> (My pointing to all the question marks is not intended to be critical of the nature of scientific inquiry; i.e. Science thrives on questions. Rather, I am simply demonstrating the many unknown aspects to the Hypothesis of Common Ancestry Evolution.) (Message edited by Don on October 24, 2009)

don · 10-24-09 4:10 am

First Quote:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Molecular evidence suggests that the human line split from the chimp line only about 6 million years ago. Some recent fossil finds date from between 4.1 and 6 million years ago, placing them very close to that evolutionary divergence. <a href="http://humans2.beyondgenes.com/" target=_top>http://humans2.beyondgenes.com/</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>How does that work? Second Quote:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:OK, this is all well and good, but what does it mean in terms of evidence for evolution? Well, you remember that I started by talking about Ubiquitous Proteins. These are proteins that are so essential to the basic functions of life that they can be found in every living organism. That is to say, their function is absolutely necessary, and what did we just learn about function? It can be produced from many different combinations of amino acids. So ubiquitous proteins are also functionally redundant in terms of amino acid sequence. Now, before we look at the evidence, it behooves us to come up with hypotheses. This is part of the scientific method, and very essential. Without a hypothesis, we can’t draw meaningful conclusions- we’re just making observations. Now, we need to have two hypotheses- an evolutionary hypothesis and a null hypothesis. If the data support the evolutionary hypothesis, then we can conclude that evolution is the best explanation for the data. However, if the data support the null hypothesis, then we can conclude that evolution is not the best explanation for the data. The null hypothesis posits that the evidence will show that amino acid sequences of ubiquitous genes will not be highly similar between any two given organisms. We know that the null hypothesis is possible because of the nature of protein function to be caused by many, many different variant amino acid sequences- that for any given protein, there are many amino acid sequences that are functionally redundant. Thus, since there are so many possible amino acid sequences for any given ubiquitous protein, there is no reason why each organism could not have a completely different amino acid sequence for any given ubiquitous protein. But, let’s say that the null hypothesis isn’t true- what other phenomenon could the evidence show? Well, if the evolutionary hypothesis is true, then different organisms are related to each other by heredity. Since, as I’ve mentioned before, the only mechanism which has been shown to result in similar sequences between organisms is heredity, the evolutionary hypothesis posits that the evidence will show that amino acid sequences of ubiquitous genes will be highly similar between different organisms. So, let me just go over those two hypotheses one more time before we look at the evidence. If evolution is not true, then we would expect to see that the amino acid sequence of a ubiquitous protein would be completely different in different organisms. If evolution is true, however, then we would expect to see that the amino acid sequence of an ubiquitous protein would be more similar between organisms that are closely related. And the more similar the sequence, the closer the hereditary relationship... <a href="http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/03/molecular-evidence-1-protein.html" target="_blank">http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/03/molecula r-evidence-1-protein.html</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>What are the alternatives to the 'Common Ancester' hypothesis?<ul><li>No Common Ancester evolution? That makes less sense than the "Common Ancester" idea. <LI>Special Creation by God. One can conceive of a universe designed by God with a template including amino acids; thus explaining similarities.</li></ul> .

jag · 10-24-09 6:55 am

Don, I really look forward to you becoming a geologist. I'm sure we will be able to learn a lot from you. The more I discuss with you, the more I respect your convictions - even though I can't agree with many. Hopefully once you graduate you will be able to reconcile scientific evidence with religious thinking. As for your last post, there is no evidence of such "special creation". Hopefully you may be able to find it. Until then, it has to be accepted that different life forms appeared at different times. The only alternative would be a huge number of such special creations. Maybe they were creations by evolution then? This idea seems to be promoted by Michael Behe, who is considered a leading ID scientist. However, the more closely you read Behe the more you see that he is just a "theistic evolutionist" who accepts common ancestry and old earth, he just doesn't agree with neo-Darwinian mechanisms for evolution and postulates that every time a major change is needed, some God-like being intervenes. Bob, The article you quoted was hardly wrtitten by an expert in the area of radiometric dating. I will simply dismiss it as utter nonsense. If I am ever vain enough to write an article claiming I'm an expert in, say, medicine, you should disregard it just as well (I have had no medical training). I see serious danger in choosing to trust those who agree with us just because they do. I'd rather trust those who have studied the subject and are experts in their field. Dr Ervin Taylor comes to mind again. Somehow naturalists agree, regardless of their philosophical convictions - atheists and Christians alike. You seem to have chose not to trust them but to trust an ignoramus like Read, who represent what a La Sierra Uni professor called a "lunatic fringe".

john8verse32 · 10-24-09 8:40 am

the writer of that quote..David Read...is a lawyer, who has superficially studied the question of origins, and chooses to support what he already believed...as a fundy SDA I have not read his book, but a review of it says that he explains the existence of dinos by saying they were the result of "amalgamation"....and that's why our loving God decided to kill almost everybody, including innocent children and animals, with a flood for which the evidence is lacking. remember in the Noah tale...after the "flood" the waters went down? well how do we explain this? where obviously the oceans have come UP???? <a href="http://news.aol.com/article/divers-get-first-look-at-underwater-city/732031?icid=main" target=_top>http://news.aol.com/article/divers-get-first-look- at-underwater-city/732031?icid=main</a>|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticl e%2Fdivers-get-first-look-at-underwater-city%2F732 031

bob_2 · 10-24-09 9:04 am

See: Does The Geologic Column Prove Evolution? <a href="http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1130/275/" target=_top>http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1130/275/</a> John, I wonder what that trip down the Grand Canyon would show me with my hypothesis, versus your trip with yours???

bob_2 · 10-24-09 9:11 am

Taylor's series that Don provides in his first post of this thread suggest several options after his presentation of seven previous articles: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:How might individual members of the Adventist faith community respond to the existence of this massive scientific corpus and the dilemma created by the official pronouncements made in the name of the Adventist faith community on the subject of origins? Eight alternatives are here suggested: 1. Accept a “Faith Only” Position: One possible approach would be to ignore totally the empirically-obtained scientific evidence. State that ones understanding of the “literal or plain understanding of Scripture” would eliminate the need to consider anything other that what the Bible “obviously” says. (As noted in an earlier segment, it has been suggested that to traditional Adventists, the primary problem is not the Bible. Rather it is what Ellen White believed and wrote about this topic.) 2. Reject Scientific Consensus: A second possibility is to assert that evolutionary assumptions and perspectives are so pervasive that all timescales in the earth sciences can be ignored. (As this discussion has documented, this approach ignores the actual history of how geological and archaeological chronologies were developed, what motivated those who developed these time scales, and the massive data base that now supports the geological and archaeological time scales.) 3. Examine the Underlying Assumptions of Both Sides: Another possible approach would be to closely and equally scrutinize both the scientific and the theological models involved. Unpack the assumptions that lay behind the inferences of both the scientific consensus and the traditional Adventist theological model. Remember that both scientific and theological models are products of the human mind. 4. Accept Two “Ways of Knowing”: As a fourth alternative, both the scientific and theological “ways of knowing” could be deemed equally valid in their separate and distinct areas of understanding. If they are kept entirely separate, there would be no conflict. A version of this approach has been advanced in detail by the late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould under a characterization which he called the “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” (NOMA concept). 5. Accept the Scientific Consensus: Since the scientific consensus reflects the overwhelming weight of available evidence, a fifth approach would conclude that science is the best way for humans to understand “what really happened” with regard to the age of the earth, life, and the human species. (As described in detail by a number of Adventist scholars, the Genesis narratives do not address the question of how old is creation or how specifically God brought the world and life into being. The writers of the Genesis narratives had major theological issues to address.) 6. Suspend Judgment: Determine that there is not enough definitive scientific or valid theological evidence currently available. Mere humans can not possibly know enough to make a correct judgment, and thus the appropriate approach is to adopt an agnostic position. 7. Adopt Postmodernist Position: A seventh possibility would be to abandon the search for objective “truth” and, in the spirit of a postmodern mindset, adopt as of paramount importance that “we all get along.” 8. Ignore the Conflict: Finally, an eighth alternative might be to essentially trivialize the problem and ask, “What difference does it make?” <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> From Part 8 Your decide, if you have read it all and trust Taylor's bias.

elaine · 10-24-09 10:17 am

All biologists and embryologists have recognized that all mammals have a similar very early beginning. That has nothing to do with their state at birth, it only shows that we humans (as mammals) all begin from either and XX chromosome (females) and XY (males) and that the egg and sperm join to form an eventual embyro. If that is evolution, so be it, but it is FACT. Quoting from an embryologists rather than a very antiquated and forged paper is ludicrous. Why not quote from someone in the early first centuries for information on mammalogy?

don · 10-24-09 11:06 am

Back to Haeckel. (Elaine, we now know a little bit more about Haeckel, thanks to Bob bringing him to our attention. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0> ) It is of interest that Haeckel felt compelled to provide fake drawings. Further, even some recent textbooks use Haeckel's drawings. Why? It is the nature of humans to be dogmatic at all costs, it seems. This is one of the main criticisms creationists and evolutionists level against each other. Both state dogmatically regarding origins. The Biblical record, from a human viewpoint, is an ancient account of how "God" created the cosmic world. It offers certain assertions which science can investigate up to a point. Most high school science textbooks state as a matter of "fact" what I would describe as an active imagination based on a very incomplete collection of data brought together as part of a scientific theory. IMO, science cannot do its work properly by being dogmatic on matters of the ancient past. Equally true: It cannot do its work properly if it locks in its process of inquiry to conform to mere textual assertions. Biblical religion and faith accept the text as sacred then conforms to the text. Debates arise on how to understand the text, but the text provides a certain amount of stability to one's quest. Science works from the opposite approach. Nothing is sacred in science except the scientific method itself. Even with respect to Haeckel, given enough time and enough doubt, scientists attempted to reconstruct Haeckel's sequence for themselves and were unable to do so. Thus science corrected itself. The Geological Column has come under criticism by some individuals. Apparently, the Column is an abstract concept designed to help make sense out of what geologists find in the field. Is it possible that we should not only teach the Column but the Column's unresolved problems? (Message edited by Don on October 24, 2009)

tom_norris · 10-24-09 11:59 am

The debate between Science and the Bible is needless. These two paradigms must be separated to be understood properly, and then they must be kept distinct from each other. J H. Kellogg understood this point, and expressed it in his book called: Harmony of Science and the Bible on the Nature of the Soul and the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000XG845Y?colid=W9XT3YHWAG9E&coliid=I3NSB5KZZ92QZ4&ref_=pe_5920_13354540" target=_top>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000XG845Y?colid= W9XT3YHWAG9E&coliid=I3NSB5KZZ92QZ4&ref_=pe_5920_13 354540</a> Product Description: One of the few warnings against an unreasoning dependence upon the Bible in matters of science came from a member of the small educated minority in the church, a physician named John Harvey Kellogg, recently graduated from the Bellevue Hospital Medical College in New York City and serving as professor of physics in the denomination's newly founded Battle Creek College. Writing in 1878 the small volume entitled Harmony of Science and the Bible, Kellogg (better remembered by Americans as the inventor of peanut butter, corn flakes, and other dry cereals) listed as one of the chief factors responsible for the recurring conflict between religion and science the habit of religionists of "Holding the Bible as unimpeachable authority on all subjects, as the universal test of truth, and attaching all importance to a particular interpretation of its language." Though Kellogg apparently believed in a special creation, he expressed a willingness to recognize the legitimacy of science within its own sphere. "Science deals chiefly with one sort of truths, religion with another class of truths." If only this division were honored, all conflict would cease. The leaders of the church, especially Ellen White, did not look favorably upon the ambitious physician's habit of thinking and operating independently, and eventually Kellogg and the Adventists parted ways. (ibid.) Those that view the Bible, as if it were a scientific guide, have made a great mistake. The Bible is not a scientific work, nor can it be used to understand or define the Creation Story, the flood, or the age of the earth, etc. The point of the Bible is to lead people to the Gospel Story, where they can find Eternal Life. Tom Norris, for AR

don · 10-24-09 1:05 pm

The Bible is not a scientific work, nor can it be used to understand or define the Creation Story, the flood, or the age of the earth, etc. The point of the Bible is to lead people to the Gospel Story, where they can find Eternal Life. Hi Tom, thanks for joining the discussion. Is the Bible reliable history? At least, the history of the fall of Adam and Eve? It seems that the Gospel acknowledges the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. If the story is historically correct, doesn't that make a statement touching on science? If Adam and Eve lived in the Garden and sinned by eating the fruit of the tree then Ardipithecus ramidus is not my great great great aunt. (Message edited by Don on October 24, 2009)

john8verse32 · 10-24-09 2:12 pm

and if there was a Noah's flood, caused by an alleged loving God deliberatly trying to kill innocent children and animals... then I'm a monkeys uncle!!! (in a manner of speaking!!) and if that god is as angry, and bipolar a tyrant as explained in the biography He is alleged to have inspired his favorite tribesmen to write, then maybe that god is not worth worshipping. especially if he also massacred Egyptian kids just to impress the Pharaoh. and worse if He wagered with the devil over Job's life, and stood by and watched Job's innocent kids get killed in the process. and that time he allegedly told a father to murder his son...as a human sacrifice? then later said..."just kidding"... "try killing goats instead..I like the sweet savor of burning flesh" then again, maybe this God does not possess the omni everything power attributed to him... which might explain why even with His power and Judah's forces, they could not defeat the plains people because the latter had iron chariots. even earlier He had wrongly told/inspired Olde Abe to leave Harren, next to a huge river, where agriculture has never been interrupted by drought, and told Abe to head for the hills...the drought prone hills of Judea... where ...He either cared not or could not stop the drought which forced his favorite nomads to leave their promised land and become brick masons and slaves in egypt.... and He either could not or would not help 6 million of His favorite tribe who were massacred by Hitlers Gott-mit-uns (God is with us )campaign.... If Adam and Eve lived in the Garden and sinned by eating the fruit of the tree then Ardipithecus ramidus is not my great great great aunt. which brings up the question...did Adam and the Garden even exist? <a href="http://ldolphin.org/eden" target=_top>http://ldolphin.org/eden</a>

don · 10-24-09 2:23 pm

The Age of the Earth Compared There are several types of radiometric dating. Each depends on the half life of different substances. If several of these methods agree, that seems to be compelling evidence re: their accuracy. (I am just getting acquainted with the evidence used to argue these points. What I present should not be thought of as my conclusive opinion or agreement with the material. Why am I presenting an argument for the "other side?" It is a method of inquiry that I use: Address the most difficult arguments first.) Consider this:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Consistent Radiometric dates by Joe Meert One of the main objections to radiometric dating (on the part of young earth creationists) is that radiometric ages do not agree with each other or that contamination renders ages meaningless. In fact, the claim is partially true. Early mass spectrometers were not as sensitive as machines today and the methods for separating, cleaning and analysis were less sophisticated. Although ye-creationists like Snelling talk about contamination of isotopic systems as if it were a foreign concept to modern geology, most geochronologists routinely check for possible contamination using a variety of methods. In addition, geologists recognized that rocks could be contaminated with excess daughter or parent or loss of parent/daughter that would also affect the age as determined by radiometric methods. Creationists have seized upon these discoveries and held them forth as evidence that radiometric dating is inaccurate. But is this the case? Simply put each radiometric system is based on the assumption that each system has a different half-life (derived from the decay 'constant' which is simply the length of time it takes for 1/2 of the radioactive parent to decay to a stable daughter). In addition to variable half-lives, each mineral will 'close' at different temperatures (closure, is simply defined as the point where no daughter/parent is lost or gained*). There are a number of different methods that geologists use to check for loss/gain and these are incorporated into most analyses (isochron methods, stepwise degassing etc). If radiometric decay rates are not constant and rocks behave as open systems, it would be the exception, rather than the rule, for ages to agree with one another. Here are a few examples in the recent literature of radiometric age determinations on the same rocks (using different isotopic methodsa). <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2092.jpg" alt=""> <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/2093.jpg" alt=""> The ages of the Fen Complex (A,B) are on two separate dikes within the Fen Complex. Not only are their ages similar, but the direction of magnetization in the rocks is also identical and indicates that Oslo, Norway was located at about 30 degrees south at the time. This is an important consideration. In order to refute the ages, ye-creationists must not only explain how three different isotopic systems (with different decay constantsa and chemical behavior) all gave the same age and the same magnetic direction. It is also not trivial that the magnetic direction in these rocks indicates that Norway has moved northward following the emplacement of these rocks. The Madagascar results are equally intriguing since they are from two regions on the island. These basalts (and gabbros) are thought by conventional geologists to have formed as Madagascar moved over the Marion hotspot during the Cretaceous. The basalts overlie continental sandstones containing Mesozoic fossils and are overlain by limestones with Cretaceous-age fauna. The first two ages are from southern Madagascar and the bottom two are from the northern part of Madagascar. According to paleomagnetic data from these rocks (Torsvik et al., 1998), northern Madagascar passed over the hotspot before southern Madagascar in perfect agreement with the geochronologic data. Furthermore, these ages all fall within a time period when the Earth was in a long period of no magnetic reversal (called the Cretaceous Long Normal). Indeed, if the ages are correct, then the paleomagnetic data should all be of a single polarity (and normal). That is exactly what Torsvik et al. (1998) found. Geochemical data (Ashwal, personal communication) indicate that these rocks all originated from the same source. Once again, ye-creationists are faced with the daunting task of explaining why two isotopic systems gave the same age and why the progression of ages is consistent with the paleomagnetic and geochemical data... <a href="http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm" target="_blank">http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> (Message edited by Don on October 24, 2009)

elaine · 10-24-09 3:09 pm

Nothing is sacred in science except the scientific method itself. "Sacred" is not the correct term for science. All science is subject to both peer review and falsifiability or the ability to replicate. There are many more standards of proof necessary before any scientific finding becomes accepted, and even then, newer evidence may change or erase it. "Sacred" can only be applied to those objects or writings that a certain religious group label them. The Koran is sacred to Muslims; the Bible is often declared sacred for Christians. In ancient times, places, trees, rocks, statues, temples and more were declared sacred by various tribes and clans. "Sacred" is only accepted in certain groups. "Science" is only accepted, even then tentatively, by those earnestly striving and studying for new knowledge. When the former "knowledge" is found to be false, it is replaced by later knowledge. Think: the size and complexity of the universe; the light-years unknown in centuries past. Do we accept those findings today? How are we able to refute them? Religion is often content with very old and ancient "truths" and sometimes rather inflexible to newer interpretations; something that most scientists must avoid.

tom_norris · 10-24-09 4:00 pm

Don said: Is the Bible reliable history? At least, the history of the fall of Adam and Eve? Tom said: We have to take the Creation Story by faith, along with the rest of the Gospel Story. Which is why it is fruitless, and impossible to try and prove these things. We must understand that the Creation account is ancient literature, not modern science or history. <a href="http://www.adventistreform.com/TheGenesisDebate.html" target=_top>http://www.adventistreform.com/TheGenesisDebate.ht ml</a> Don said: It seems that the Gospel acknowledges the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. Tom said: Jesus and the apostles embrace the Creation Account, and so too must we, but by faith. Not by science or geological proof. Moreover, neither the Jews nor the Church faced the questions or issues associated with our modern views. They did not have such a debate. Don said: If the story is historically correct, doesn't that make a statement touching on science? Tom said: Although we live in the real world, the Gospel Story represents the spiritual paradigm. Thus the Creation Account is not trying to meet the needs of modern science or history, much less prove itself. It is a mistake to get into these fights over the age of the earth, etc. This is not the point of the Gospel Story, much less prophecy. It is a diversion. Don said: If Adam and Eve lived in the Garden and sinned by eating the fruit of the tree then Ardipithecus ramidus is not my great great great aunt. Tom said: Those that accept the Gospel Story, by faith, are children of God. They don’t need any help, or permission from the scientific community, to embrace the teachings of Jesus and claim Eternal Life. On the other hand, those that think they need to prove the Bible, or improve on the Gospel Story, or declare it a fraud, will miss the point. The Creation account, as well as the details of the flood, are beyond the discovery and understanding of man. And so too is the Gospel. Which is why so many also misunderstand this featured point of the Bible. The Gospel is what matters most, but it can only be understood with a proper hermeneutic. Those that draw lines in the sand about the age of the earth, and want to measure the depths and duration of the flood, have the wrong view of the Bible and religion. This is the point. Tom

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 10-23-09 7:10 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#27 10-23-09 11:58 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#28 10-23-09 5:07 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#29 10-23-09 5:20 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#30 10-23-09 5:50 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#31 10-23-09 6:35 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#32 10-23-09 8:21 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#33 10-23-09 9:56 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#34 10-23-09 9:57 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#35 10-24-09 12:42 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#36 10-24-09 12:51 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#37 10-24-09 3:45 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#38 10-24-09 4:10 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#39 10-24-09 6:55 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#40 10-24-09 8:40 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#41 10-24-09 9:04 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#42 10-24-09 9:11 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#43 10-24-09 10:17 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#44 10-24-09 11:06 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#45 10-24-09 11:59 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#46 10-24-09 1:05 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#47 10-24-09 2:12 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#48 10-24-09 2:23 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#49 10-24-09 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#50 10-24-09 4:00 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

Board footer