[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Isn't it of me though? I agree. I think the entire evolutionist community does not do micro/macro evolution. They call it all evolution.

Really? Where did you get that impression? Sure, the ID crowd seems to harp on the difference, but I learned the difference from my university classes.

Well give me your definition of species so we are speaking the same thing and we will use that and go from there.

From Merriam-Webster:

a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name

If I tried to make it scripture yes I would- but it is only a possibilty, not an absolute. Noah could have taken full adults as well, I am just going with a common sense theory. It makes no difference either way.

Granted, but you'll hopefully admit that someone who sees Genesis 1 as allegorical is doing in essence what you are doing by saying "young animals were taken." In both cases, trying to harmonize Scripture with what reason indicates (the ark would have been very crowded, with many carnivores next to many tasty morsels).

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Meredith Kline somewhat infamously argued that as this was "because it had not rained" it implied that God's method of creation was largely immanent: Get the pieces together and set them in motion in order to "create" (e.g., make plants grow by sun, water, and soil). Other interpretations have varied as widely as to say that "bush of the field" and "small plant of the field" were specific types of plants that had yet to grow; after all, Gen 1 was careful to specify different types of plants.

Once again, what does Hebrew word "brought forth" mean for the specific day that God created plants?

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Really? Where did you get that impression? Sure, the ID crowd seems to harp on the difference, but I learned the difference from my university classes.

From what I understand, in evolutionary theory, the "difference" between micro and macro is not qualitative. That is to say it is the exact same mechanism and the terms refer to different approaches to looking at evolution (same with micro/macro economics, same economy, different focus). Micro is concerned with small, (relatively) short changes, while macro focuses on bigger changes, over very large periods of time - micro is reductionist, while macro is holistic (to over-simplify).

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Once again, what does Hebrew word "brought forth" mean for the specific day that God created plants?

It is, in my opinion, incredibly vague on the question you're asking.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

It is, in my opinion, incredibly vague on the question you're asking.

Do you know what word it is and how that word is used in other parts of Scripture?

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Do you know what word it is and how that word is used in other parts of Scripture?

יצא
hifil

The Genesis passage seems to be the only one that uses this particular word.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by Leboman

יצא
hifil

The Genesis passage seems to be the only one that uses this particular word.

"Hifil"?

More like "yatzah" (Though, I'm unsure without vowel points).

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Really? Where did you get that impression? Sure, the ID crowd seems to harp on the difference, but I learned the difference from my university classes.

Same here. I never heard of the distinction until I was in BIO101 at a university. The prof was staunchly against (any form of) Creationism too.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

From what I understand, in evolutionary theory, the "difference" between micro and macro is not qualitative.

Yes. When I said that the scientific community doesn't make that distinction the distinction I was talking about is the one that many YECs make. That they're (micro/macroevolution) fundamentally different things.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by tht00

"Hifil"?

More like "yatzah" (Though, I'm unsure without vowel points).

My cut and paste did not work correctly. Should be yatsa' there. I highlighted the wrong word.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by DropKick74

good sources... that scientifically argue for creationism

There are none. Creation is not supported by modern science. A good scientific source will support evolution because that's the best scientific theory we have today.

I'm going to repost something I posted in another community because it speaks to the subject at hand and I spent a lot of time on it there. Granted, it's directed to people coming from the other side, but I think it still works.

Originally Posted by myself

I would say it like this: creation is a non-scientific issue. It is not, absolutely NOT anti-scientific. Science is to creation as anthropology is to dependency injection (((this is a computer programming term... it made sense on the other community))). There just isn't any relation.

Allow me to illustrate. If you were God (more specifically, if you had the power to create something from nothing) and you wanted to prepare an awesome dinner for your significant other, what would you do? Would you create a huge cosmic explosion, wait for planets to form, set up the necessary amino acids for life on one of them, wait for life to form, direct the evolution of plants suitable for human consumption, start a garden to grow those plants, grow some produce, harvest it and cook it up? No, you would just snap your fingers and create the dinner. After doing so, any scientist looking at your dinner would conclude that something like the process I described above had occured. There would be absolutely no way for them to know it had been created from nothing as all scientific inquiry would point to a clear natural origin. The ingredients in the dinner would all be identifiable as known plants and animals, so the obvious conclusion would be that they came from those known plants and animals. That the ingredients just popped out of nowhere as you snapped your fingers is not a provable (or disprovable) explanation. It is therefore non-scientific.

It is quite possible that God created the world 2 seconds ago and everything we think we know about history was just pre-embedded in our minds. The situation would be almost exactly analogous to the dinner example I gave above, and science would still conclude the same things about our past. There would be absolutely no way whatsoever to prove or disprove our divine origins.

The situation is exactly the same regardless when God is alleged to have created the universe. Maybe God created the universe 100 years ago, maybe 1000, maybe 10000, maybe there is no God. The point is, these are not questions science can answer and they are not questions any scientist should ever try to answer.

In summary, evolution is as far as we know scientific fact. It certainly could be disproven (otherwise it wouldn't be science), but for now, it is irrefutable fact. It is simultaneously possible that the entire universe was created 2 seconds ago. The universe could have been created with this post already written and me only thinking I had written it myself. If that were the case, evolution would still be an irrefutable fact. It would be wrong, but it would be scientific truth. Science can only answer scientific questions (and can only answer them with scientific answers). It cannot and should not speculate on non-scientific ones.

So as blahedo alluded, evolution will only be accepted as ultimate truth when science is accepted as the ultimate framework. There is no way to "prove" however that science is the ultimate framework. That too is a non-scientific question.

Science can no more prove creation (true or false) than it can prove that the answer to "What is Buddha?" is "Three pounds of flax", and it makes just as little sense to try.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I would say it like this: creation is a non-scientific issue. It is not, absolutely NOT anti-scientific. Science is to creation as anthropology is to dependency injection (((this is a computer programming term... it made sense on the other community))). There just isn't any relation.

Allow me to illustrate. If you were God (more specifically, if you had the power to create something from nothing) and you wanted to prepare an awesome dinner for your significant other, what would you do? Would you create a huge cosmic explosion, wait for planets to form, set up the necessary amino acids for life on one of them, wait for life to form, direct the evolution of plants suitable for human consumption, start a garden to grow those plants, grow some produce, harvest it and cook it up? No, you would just snap your fingers and create the dinner. After doing so, any scientist looking at your dinner would conclude that something like the process I described above had occured. There would be absolutely no way for them to know it had been created from nothing as all scientific inquiry would point to a clear natural origin. The ingredients in the dinner would all be identifiable as known plants and animals, so the obvious conclusion would be that they came from those known plants and animals. That the ingredients just popped out of nowhere as you snapped your fingers is not a provable (or disprovable) explanation. It is therefore non-scientific.

It is quite possible that God created the world 2 seconds ago and everything we think we know about history was just pre-embedded in our minds. The situation would be almost exactly analogous to the dinner example I gave above, and science would still conclude the same things about our past. There would be absolutely no way whatsoever to prove or disprove our divine origins.

The situation is exactly the same regardless when God is alleged to have created the universe. Maybe God created the universe 100 years ago, maybe 1000, maybe 10000, maybe there is no God. The point is, these are not questions science can answer and they are not questions any scientist should ever try to answer.

In summary, evolution is as far as we know scientific fact. It certainly could be disproven (otherwise it wouldn't be science), but for now, it is irrefutable fact. It is simultaneously possible that the entire universe was created 2 seconds ago. The universe could have been created with this post already written and me only thinking I had written it myself. If that were the case, evolution would still be an irrefutable fact. It would be wrong, but it would be scientific truth. Science can only answer scientific questions (and can only answer them with scientific answers). It cannot and should not speculate on non-scientific ones.

So as blahedo alluded, evolution will only be accepted as ultimate truth when science is accepted as the ultimate framework. There is no way to "prove" however that science is the ultimate framework. That too is a non-scientific question.

Science can no more prove creation (true or false) than it can prove that the answer to "What is Buddha?" is "Three pounds of flax", and it makes just as little sense to try.

Basically, you just described the Matrix. We could be in the Matrix right now.

Isn't the real problem not whether Creationism could be true or not, but the theological implications if it were despite our scientific findings leading us to evolution being fact? I'm not sure how I feel about a God who created the Matrix.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Basically, you just described the Matrix. We could be in the Matrix right now.

Isn't the real problem not whether Creationism could be true or not, but the theological implications if it were despite our scientific findings leading us to evolution being fact? I'm not sure how I feel about a God who created the Matrix.

I think his point was that, in running with what you're saying, whether we are in the Matrix or not (or whether God created the universe 6 seconds ago, 6,000 years ago, 6 billion years ago, etc.) is not a scientific question but a non-scientific, non-empirical question (such as a theological and philosophical inquiry).

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by athanatos

I think his point was that, in running with what you're saying, whether we are in the Matrix or not (or whether God created the universe 6 seconds ago, 6,000 years ago, 6 billion years ago, etc.) is not a scientific question but a non-scientific, non-empirical question (such as a theological and philosophical inquiry).

Sorry, I jumped into this conversation kinda late. That makes obvious sense now.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by athanatos

I think his point was that, in running with what you're saying, whether we are in the Matrix or not (or whether God created the universe 6 seconds ago, 6,000 years ago, 6 billion years ago, etc.) is not a scientific question but a non-scientific, non-empirical question (such as a theological and philosophical inquiry).

Basically yes.

This also addresses the issue of God creating the Matrix. How could it be any other way? Science will never concede the supernatural, and creation of something from nothing is inescapably supernatural. If God created something from nothing at any point (even if it was just setting the big bang in motion), then science will always miss it. You can't perform scientifically detectable non-scientific acts. This doesn't say anything about God's character, it says something about the limitations of science.

If you accept supernatural creation in any sense, you are forced to accept that science is limited. But presumably you already accept this, because scientifically speaking, death is the end of a person's existence.

[Dwight Schrute]

side note - Ted, I just requested Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial at the library, it's waiting for me to pick it up. thanks for the recommendation.