Some Sanity left in the world

[Honolulu_Blue]

This whole debate is predicated upon scientific illiteracy.

“Theory” when used by scientists means something very different than when it is used in casual conversation. People hear that evolution is a theory and they think it means “conjecture” or “guess. This is simply not true.

A scientific theory is an established paradigm that explains the available data and offers predictions that can be tested. (By this definition, “intelligent design” is not even a theory.) Theories can develop and change to incorporate newly uncovered data, (like the theory of dark matter) but they will always be theories - there is no further advancement. It’s not like they are just failed or immature facts.

Do you know what else is a theory? Gravity. That things fall when we drop them is a fact – but the explanation of the force behind it is a theory. Let’s say I believed that invisible gnomes held everything to the ground with invisible strings, and I wanted to challenge the “theory” of gravity that says massive bodies exert gravitational force on each other. Should I be able to peddle this crap on schoolchildren, with recourse to the disingenuous argument that gravity is “just a theory”?

Or take the atomic theory of matter. Could I successfully argue that for a long time people believed that everything was made of the 4 essential elements, and after all no one’s ever seen an atom, so let’s take it out of textbooks?

It’s so infuriating to see so many people arguing from a position of such profound ignorance. People rely on scientific theories every day – they put their lives in their hands. Would you fly on an airplane that had been designed by an engineer with an “alternative” theory of gravity, or who had a “different understanding” than the theory of aerodynamics?? Would you take a medicine that had been formulated by someone who dismissed the germ theory of disease as “just a theory”?

Yet the same people who see how ridiculous the foregoing is think that evolution can be cynically challenged with vague pseudoscientific bullshit, with no consequences. Fer fuck’s sake. Evolution is not just some footnote in a ninth grade textbook – it’s the grand unifying theory of biology. It can explain phenomena and make accurate predictions in diverse fields like biology, sociology, behavior, pathology, etc. And nothing in biology makes sense without it.

If we as a people had a resonable grasp of the most basic principles of science, this would not even be a public debate. Science is a brutal competition of ideas, not a tea party. You don't just get to believe whatever makes you feel good. If you want to believe that you were magically poofed into existence by some omnipotent being, I have no problem with that. But it's not science, it never will be science, and it has no place in a public classroom.

[Bubba Wheels]

Fact is, most people have no idea what the bible really teaches. Most just get their views from others who are also ignorant. Bible teaches that the earth actually existed long before Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were told to go forth and 'replensh the earth.' Replenish from what? Obviously something happened beforehand. Point is that Creationism does not mean the earth and all life was created in 7 24hr days.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Fact is, most people have no idea what the bible really teaches. Most just get their views from others who are also ignorant. Bible teaches that the earth actually existed long before Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were told to go forth and 'replensh the earth.' Replenish from what? Obviously something happened beforehand. Point is that Creationism does not mean the earth and all life was created in 7 24hr days.

The word (in Hewbrew) the KJV uses for "Replenish" is a word that actually means to simply "fill."

[GrantDawg]

BTW, can someone give me (in their own words) a good definition of "evolution?"

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Ummmmm...God told Noah to "replenish" the earth after the flood. Sorry, just a little pet-peeve.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 1:1 translated from original texts of word 'created' show original creation. Begining with Gen 1:2 translated original texts show something being 're-created.'

Earth, and solar system, ect..., could be billions of years old and not conflict a bit with God's Word, the bible. Passages in Old Testement lead many to believe that much life existed on earth and possibly elsewhere long before Adam and Eve came along. Also point to some 'cataclysmic event" that happened before God 'recreated' it. (Dinosaurs and a meteor?)

Its an important point, because the first thing an 'expert' trashing the story of Creation within the bible will usually attack with is that 'ignorant fundamentalists believe the earth and life was created in 7 24hr periods, scientifically proven to be untrue." Not the case at all.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Fact is, most people have no idea what the bible really teaches. Most just get their views from others who are also ignorant. Bible teaches that the earth actually existed long before Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were told to go forth and 'replensh the earth.' Replenish from what? Obviously something happened beforehand. Point is that Creationism does not mean the earth and all life was created in 7 24hr days.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Bubba. I don't think we reach the same conclusions in our beliefs (I'm still finding my answers towards religion and science), but I agree that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'd post my actual ideas, but I honestly don't have a Bible anymore for no obvious reason outside of me being cheap and lazy.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 1:1 translated from original texts of word 'created' show original creation. Begining with Gen 1:2 translated original texts show something being 're-created.'

Earth, and solar system, ect..., could be billions of years old and not conflict a bit with God's Word, the bible. Passages in Old Testement lead many to believe that much life existed on earth and possibly elsewhere long before Adam and Eve came along.

Its an important point, because the first thing an 'expert' trashing the story of Creation within the bible will usually attack with is that 'ignorant fundamentalists believe the earth and life was created in 7 24hr periods, scientifically proven to be untrue." Not the case at all.

The word "replenish" in 1611 simply meant to fill. Notice that every translation following the KJV translate that word "to fill." The Hebrew word clearly represents "to fill" and the KJV was correct in translasting the word "replenish" in 1611, but that usage is now archiac. Just do a little search, and you'll find not a single scholar will render the hebrew word found in Ge. 1:28 as "to refill" but "to fill."


Sorry for the sidetrack, now back to the science.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The word "replenish" in 1611 simply meant to fill. Notice that every translation following the KJV translate that word "to fill." The Hebrew word clearly represents "to fill" and the KJV was correct in translasting the word "replenish" in 1611, but that usage is now archiac. Just do a little search, and you'll find not a single scholar will render the hebrew word found in Ge. 1:28 as "to refill" but "to fill."


Sorry for the sidetrack, now back to the science.

Fine, even conceeding your point it does not change the rest of what I point out. Many bible scholars see a link between the dinosaur-meteor episode with following calamity and what came next in God's Word and plan. Gen 1:2 talking about "The Spirit" moving upon the earth, ect.., is all clearly not original creation.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Fine, even conceeding your point it does not change the rest of what I point out. Many bible scholars see a link between the dinosaur-meteor episode with following calamity and what came next in God's Word and plan. Gen 1:2 talking about "The Spirit" moving upon the earth, ect.., is all clearly not original creation.

I'm not going to argue with you about the "gap" theory, I was just thinking it was funny you said people were "ignorant" of the bible then completely misused a word in the bible.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm not going to argue with you about the "gap" theory, I was just thinking it was funny you said people were "ignorant" of the bible then completely misused a word in the bible.

So you say that 'fill' and 'replenish' HAVE to be mutually exclusive? Not saying that your definition of 'replenish' doesn't mean the first time, but also doesn't have to mean that. So your analysis is flawed.

But I do conceed the point, the original translation of the text carries the weight. (I understand the NIV does this better than the KJV)

[Easy Mac]

I think it depends on the version, the version I'm looking at online said "the spirit of God."

I think the main problem I've seen in regards to evolution is the second story of creation in Genesis. In Genesis 1, God creates the animals and then man and woman. In Genesis 2, God creates man, then creates animals and woman at an attempt for companionship. This is the verse that is often cited to me when people argue against evolution. Perhaps I am reading something wrong, but why are there 2 stories for creation (or is the second story for "female" animals?)

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I think it depends on the version, the version I'm looking at online said "the spirit of God."

I think the main problem I've seen in regards to evolution is the second story of creation in Genesis. In Genesis 1, God creates the animals and then man and woman. In Genesis 2, God creates man, then creates animals and woman at an attempt for companionship. This is the verse that is often cited to me when people argue against evolution. Perhaps I am reading something wrong, but why are there 2 stories for creation (or is the second story for "female" animals?)

Not sure that I could fully answer that, but I will give you a link/site to someone who studies this stuff from original text for a living and puts it out for anyone/everyone who wants to see it. http://www.equip.org

Hank has a radio program and he is known as the 'Bible Answer Man." Lots of good stuff.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

So you say that 'fill' and 'replenish' HAVE to be mutually exclusive? Not saying that your definition of 'replenish' doesn't mean the first time, but also doesn't have to mean that. So your analysis is flawed.

But I do conceed the point, the original translation of the text carries the weight. (I understand the NIV does this better than the KJV)

They do not neccesarily, but the word does not mean "replenish" only, which is what you need to ascribe what you are trying to say. Here's a good arcticle on the subject: http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea.../replenish.asp

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

BTW, can someone give me (in their own words) a good definition of "evolution?"

Okay then, here goes (warning long, and possibly rambling, post ahead)....

Evolutionary theory essentially boils down the oft quoted maxim 'Survival of the fittest', which should not really say fittest so much as adapted. Generally in this world, beings that are well adapted to their surroundings survive longer and reproduce more often and more successfully than beings which are at odds with their enviroment.

For example, there is a plain in which there are only two types of vegetation, a small bush/scrub type plant which rises no more than a footb off the ground and tallish trees which are around 6 or 7 feet tall. On this plain you put a couple of hundered cattle. Now, some of the cattle just by genetic chance are bigger than others and some are smaller than the others, but really there isn't that much of difference in size between all the cattle at first.

Now, there is not much food to go around for these hundereds of cattle, only a few bushes and a couple of trees, so a lot of them are going to die in a fairly short space of time. Logically, the more food something consumes, the better its chances of survival, so the cows who can eat easier are more likely to survive. Some of the cows, by genetic chance remember, have longer tounges or have longer, stretchier necks or longer legs or whatever, so some of them can just about reach the leaves on the trees. Also, some of the cows are quite squat, or have low set shoulders, or can drop their necks, so these cows can just about reach the low down shrubs. These cows are the most likely to surivive, because, as opposed to the vast majority of cows, they can reach either the high food or the low food when most cows cannot reach either. So inside a year, 90% of the cows are dead due to starvation, with 5% being able to just about feed on the low food and 5% on the high food.

So now we have two groups of cows which feed on different foods, but there is so little difference that no-one could pick one out and say if it was a low eater or a high eater without measuring etc. Of course, as all living creatures do, these cattle reproduce. Now, genetic theory (another 'theory', oh dear.... ) dictates that cows with parents who were naturally taller or bigger are also likely to be naturally taller or bigger and conversely, smaller parents is likely to produce a smaller child. At the moment, the cattle are virtually indistinguishable between groups, so 'small 'cattle are likely to breed with 'large' cattle just as much as they are to breed within their groups. After the spring, the new calves have been born. Those calves that were born to larger parents have their 'size genes' passed on, making the large too, possibly even larger than their parents. The opposite is true for calves of smaller cattle. (Sorry if I am hammering on this too much, but it is the key of the whole theory.) When these cows grow up, the taller they are the easier they will be able to eat fdrom high food, the smaller the easier from low food. Of course, with the new population increase in the spring, there is less food to go around, so who gets the food to survive? The best adapted of course. The taller/smaller mothers are still more likely to get food, thus have more milk to feed their young. The most parents most successful at fending for themselves are also the most successfull at rearing their children. Once again, the majority of the population dies to starvation, leaving again the best adapted to survive.

Once the new generation reaches full size, a lot of them can no longer just about reach their food, but can reach it if they strain a bit, but certainly easier than their parents could. Of course, a lot of the new adults are inbetween sizes to reach either food, so will die due to starvation. When this new generation breeds, once again the gene dice are thrown and once again their children's size will depend on their parent's size. The population expands in both taller and shorter directions again, but still the differences are small between the two groups.

After many, many, many generations of this process of the unsuccessful dying whilst the successful survive and breed, you can easily tell the two groups apart. One groups of cattle are all generally 8 or so feet tall with their heads at around 7 feet, the perfect hight to graze the taller trees, and the other group are very short, with long necks that can reach down to the ground to eat the scrubs and bushes. Over many generations, the single group of cattle has 'evolved' into two seperate groups, as distinct form each other as they are from the original group of cattle. Maybe the two groups have become seperate species, meaning the can no longer interbreed succesfully, or maybe they are different breeds of the same species like a Poodle is from a Dalmation. Besides, change has definatley occured, though no concious decision by the cattle themselves, or by some mystic force, but they have simply been subtely shaped by the circumstances of their enviroment.

The theory of evolution is a theory as much as the theory of gravity we use to fly planes (which has been revised radically from its intial postulation by Newton) or the theory of ballistics we use to hit targets with artillery. Evolution is little more than genetics applied in the real world, and genetics has been used by humans for centuries.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

This whole debate is predicated upon scientific illiteracy.
......

That whole post was excellent. Well done - my feelings exactly.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Okay then, here goes (warning long, and possibly rambling, post ahead)....

Evolutionary theory essentially boils down the oft quoted maxim 'Survival of the fittest', which should not really say fittest so much as adapted. Generally in this world, beings that are well adapted to their surroundings survive longer and reproduce more often and more successfully than beings which are at odds with their enviroment.

For example, there is a plain in which there are only two types of vegetation, a small bush/scrub type plant which rises no more than a footb off the ground and tallish trees which are around 6 or 7 feet tall. On this plain you put a couple of hundered cattle. Now, some of the cattle just by genetic chance are bigger than others and some are smaller than the others, but really there isn't that much of difference in size between all the cattle at first.

Now, there is not much food to go around for these hundereds of cattle, only a few bushes and a couple of trees, so a lot of them are going to die in a fairly short space of time. Logically, the more food something consumes, the better its chances of survival, so the cows who can eat easier are more likely to survive. Some of the cows, by genetic chance remember, have longer tounges or have longer, stretchier necks or longer legs or whatever, so some of them can just about reach the leaves on the trees. Also, some of the cows are quite squat, or have low set shoulders, or can drop their necks, so these cows can just about reach the low down shrubs. These cows are the most likely to surivive, because, as opposed to the vast majority of cows, they can reach either the high food or the low food when most cows cannot reach either. So inside a year, 90% of the cows are dead due to starvation, with 5% being able to just about feed on the low food and 5% on the high food.

So now we have two groups of cows which feed on different foods, but there is so little difference that no-one could pick one out and say if it was a low eater or a high eater without measuring etc. Of course, as all living creatures do, these cattle reproduce. Now, genetic theory (another 'theory', oh dear.... ) dictates that cows with parents who were naturally taller or bigger are also likely to be naturally taller or bigger and conversely, smaller parents is likely to produce a smaller child. At the moment, the cattle are virtually indistinguishable between groups, so 'small 'cattle are likely to breed with 'large' cattle just as much as they are to breed within their groups. After the spring, the new calves have been born. Those calves that were born to larger parents have their 'size genes' passed on, making the large too, possibly even larger than their parents. The opposite is true for calves of smaller cattle. (Sorry if I am hammering on this too much, but it is the key of the whole theory.) When these cows grow up, the taller they are the easier they will be able to eat fdrom high food, the smaller the easier from low food. Of course, with the new population increase in the spring, there is less food to go around, so who gets the food to survive? The best adapted of course. The taller/smaller mothers are still more likely to get food, thus have more milk to feed their young. The most parents most successful at fending for themselves are also the most successfull at rearing their children. Once again, the majority of the population dies to starvation, leaving again the best adapted to survive.

Once the new generation reaches full size, a lot of them can no longer just about reach their food, but can reach it if they strain a bit, but certainly easier than their parents could. Of course, a lot of the new adults are inbetween sizes to reach either food, so will die due to starvation. When this new generation breeds, once again the gene dice are thrown and once again their children's size will depend on their parent's size. The population expands in both taller and shorter directions again, but still the differences are small between the two groups.

After many, many, many generations of this process of the unsuccessful dying whilst the successful survive and breed, you can easily tell the two groups apart. One groups of cattle are all generally 8 or so feet tall with their heads at around 7 feet, the perfect hight to graze the taller trees, and the other group are very short, with long necks that can reach down to the ground to eat the scrubs and bushes. Over many generations, the single group of cattle has 'evolved' into two seperate groups, as distinct form each other as they are from the original group of cattle. Maybe the two groups have become seperate species, meaning the can no longer interbreed succesfully, or maybe they are different breeds of the same species like a Poodle is from a Dalmation. Besides, change has definatley occured, though no concious decision by the cattle themselves, or by some mystic force, but they have simply been subtely shaped by the circumstances of their enviroment.

The theory of evolution is a theory as much as the theory of gravity we use to fly planes (which has been revised radically from its intial postulation by Newton) or the theory of ballistics we use to hit targets with artillery. Evolution is little more than genetics applied in the real world, and genetics has been used by humans for centuries.

I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, but I do know that there is a difference between evolution and natural selection. Your post seems to point towards natural selection (how different breeds of dogs came from the wolf) as opposed to evolution (how man evolved from apes who evolved from fish with legs, ect...).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, but I do know that there is a difference between evolution and natural selection. Your post seems to point towards natural selection (how different breeds of dogs came from the wolf) as opposed to evolution (how man evolved from apes who evolved from fish with legs, ect...).

Your getting closer to what I'm asking. Thanks Tanglewood for the time you gave to your post, but it really wasn't what I as looking for. I was wanting a short, concise definition. Actually, I don't know if it can be done. I think your example is just one small part of the larger theory, but I don't know that for sure. "Survival of the fittest" (or as you said survival of the adaptable) is close. I'm trying real hard to remember my highschool science, and I'm hoping some of this will jog the memory of the dfintions we were given.

[Chief Rum]

Bubba,

Evolution == natural selection over millions of years.

CR

[Yossarian]

Chief Rum,

Evolution == small genetic mutations + natural selection over millions of years.

Y

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Chief Rum,

Evolution == small genetic mutations + natural selection over millions of years.

Y

Aren't the genetic mutations the result of environment, though? Mutations that give certain members of a species life advantages over others?

I thought it was the natural selection that led to the genetic mutations, not the two working in concert.

I would think the seemingly random nature of genetic mutations would happen too infrequently to result in long term effects over an entire species unless they were pushed forward by environmental circumstance.

CR

[Yossarian]

Natural selection simply makes sure that the better traits survive, it doesnt make those traits.

Word on the street is that something changes by random on an animal, say for example that the pigment on the feathers of a bird darken in a small percentage of the birds.

If those birds are living in a dark terrain, then this small change increases their chance of survival (camauflague) and natural selection helps to ensure the trait survives.

If the birds live in a light terrain, the change could give them no benifit and they have an equal or less than equal chance of surviving / breeding as the other birds in the species.

Its an overly simplistic example but that's how it works.

One of the sticking points for anti-evolutionists is these changes themselves.. like, how would feathers turn to scales (birds to dinosaurs) via small incremental but benificial steps?

Ie.. sure, scales can be better than feathers for some animals, but how does a half feather / half scale benifit anyone? and why isn't there more evidence of these incremental steps.

The same questions are there about complex systems like lungs instead of gills. The accepted theory is that fish went amphibious and that the trait was so useful that it stuck, but how do you develop a lung via incremental steps? And at each step of the way, ensure the half-lung is useful enough to benifit the creature and ensure its survival by natural selection.

[Chief Rum]

Good points all.

I would argue, though, that natural selection may not create the traits, but they certainly extend them to what they become. It may not make cattle change in size, but once cattle of different sizes emerge, it definitely takes those traits and runs with it.

In that respect, I believe it is far more instrumental to eveolution than the traits themselves.

I agree with you that it seems impossible to consider that something like gills to lungs or feathers to scales could happen, but I really think that is matter of our perspective. I think it's very hard for the human mind to quantify and properly measure just how long millions of years is. We can talk about it, just like we can talk about the vast expanses between the stars, but I don't think we truly comprehend just how long this all is. In that respect, I think it's entirely possible that gills can go to lungs and feathers to scales through countless generations of a species.

So, given that, I don't have a problem conceptualizing that such amazing transformations can happen (and produce legitimate naturally-selected benefits each step along the way).

For that reason, I believe that these genetic mutations are merely the very minor differences that naturally occur in life, that natural selection eventually runs with.

Take the cattle example. No, natural selection did not make the first bigger cattle bigger. It was simply random variation as a result of dissimilar parents, nothing so grand as genetic mutation. If enough of this happens, let's say along a range of whatever trait it is (in this case, size) and the right environemtnal conditions exist that give advantages to one end of the spectrum over others, than nature will move toward the advantageous end of the spectrum over time.

In this way, I believe evolution is almost entirely natural selection carried off over millions of years, with the differences that started it all mere random fluctuations in the range of that trait of that species at that point of time.

CR

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Take the cattle example. No, natural selection did not make the first bigger cattle bigger. It was simply random variation as a result of dissimilar parents, nothing so grand as genetic mutation. If enough of this happens, let's say along a range of whatever trait it is (in this case, size) and the right environemtnal conditions exist that give advantages to one end of the spectrum over others, than nature will move toward the advantageous end of the spectrum over time.

In this way, I believe evolution is almost entirely natural selection carried off over millions of years, with the differences that started it all mere random fluctuations in the range of that trait of that species at that point of time.

CR

This is what I was trying to get across, but was cut off as I was pushed for time. Yes, there are mutations, but these are so incredibley infrequent, and the vast, vast majority of mutations are either useless or actually a hinderance to have, they are not the most significant part of evolution as I think is commonly percieved. Consider that the earth has existed for around 6 billion years, possibly more. That is a timeframe incomprehensible to any of us, the number of generations of humans that could be fit there is around 250 million. The number of generations of an averagely reproducing bacteria in 6 billion years is 1.57688*10^10. You would only need the most insignificant variations, not even from generation to generation but just every coulple of hundered thousand generations, to get a huge evolutionary change.

Something that I reccommend to anyone who either has doubts about the validity of evolutionary theory, or just wants to learn more is to download the program DarwinBots, which you can find at hxxp://digilander.libero.it/darwinbots/

Simply put, it models a 2d world where you control all the enviromental variables and then places an initially random collection of bots in this enviroment, who must compete for food and mates. Then, the bots, through not active process of their own or any direct input from the user, evolve. It can be thoroughly fascinating to turn it on and leave it running fro a couple of hours just before you go out for dinner or something, to come back and find a world teeming with several unique species, all different from each other or anything that had evolved in 'games' you'd played previously. The website itself does a much better job describing it than I ever could, but I recommend everyone check it out. It is a small download and takes up little memory, so you could run it in the background whilst doing other things if you wish and the results can be very cool and educatioanal.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

One of the sticking points for anti-evolutionists is these changes themselves.. like, how would feathers turn to scales (birds to dinosaurs) via small incremental but benificial steps?

I think that the most common 'trait' used by anti-evolutionaries is the eye, the second most complex organ in the human body and something that clearly is very well adapted to what we need, but is surely too complex to have evolved in small incremental steps.

Well, if you are a rat and your main goal is to survive from being eaten by predators, would it be more advantegous to have no optical recognition at all or a small, tiny oragan that can only differentiate between bright light and complete darkness? Clearly the latter, as you could know when you were in cave vs out in the open, or if your hiding place was bright then it would be a good idea to move to somewhere darker. Then, thousands of generations later a new, small but important mutation occurs so that one rat's eye can differentiate between light and dark, just a teeny bit more accurately and precisely than the other rats. Surely he now has a very small advantage over every other rat? This process can take millions of years, or in the case of the eye likely billions, but eventually you have an oragan that is essentially an eye.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Did anyone ever read that SI interview with Carl Everett about 7 years ago where he proclaimed dinosaur bones were planted by the devil himself to trick humans into believing there was life before Adam and Eve?

This is a variation on the argument that has been presented to me numerous times during my life.

I was told once that "God created the Earth to 'appear' as if it was aged." Presumably, the bones and such were buried to give us something to do. He does work in "mysterious ways."

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

This is a variation on the argument that has been presented to me numerous times during my life.

I was told once that "God created the Earth to 'appear' as if it was aged." Presumably, the bones and such were buried to give us something to do. He does work in "mysterious ways."

There is a scripture "Let God be true, but every man a liar." I would concern myself soley with comparing God's Word with 'true' science, and leave out the speculative 'middle-men' regardless of 'faith", or point-of-view.

What I mean is, look to 'consensus' among both Bible-scholars and scientists (with-in their respective groups) and leave out the speculative in both (like the one in this example. That guy has no basis for that observation.