W
wanerious
Guest
Exactly. But this has nothing to do with the Big Bang, except that the Big Bang involves natural processes that, like every other phenomenon in the universe, must obey quantum predictions.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
If you add quantum physics together with the Big Bang, you eliminate the idea on a non expanding universe. The implications are huge and run you smack into God.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Glomar Challenger, a research ship, took core samples in the Med and Black Seas. Med bowl was once a desert and the Black Sea a freshwater lake. Popular results published a couple of years ago in a book called, “Noah’s Flood.” Indications were that Med formed and Black Sea rose about 500 feet and became saline about 8 or 10 thousand years ago. It is mostly peoples who once lived on the shores of the Black Sea that have the mid-eastern flood story in their epic literature. There is some thought that Aztecs and South American Indians originated in the eastern hemisphere. I am a Ph.D. scientist retired and have never had a problem with a disjoint between my Faith and my Science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Robert Ballard of Titanic fame had a special on this recently. It aired on PBS. Man who discovered Titanic is now searching for Noah’s Ark
Mysteries of the Deep - PBS
W
wanerious
Guest
While I personally agree, I also have to allow that what we really run into is a set of questions that science cannot, as of yet, address. It may be that in the future we shall understand this origin as a consequence of natural phenomena or principles. At that point, divine action may be revealed to be something even more subtle and beautiful. Such is my hope.
G
Ghosty
Guest
wanerious: Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that the Big Bang Theory proves God in any scientific sense, only that the model that it demonstrates requires an uncaused cause. Yes, the Big Bang Theory deals exclusively with the Bang itself and what happens afterwards, but this bang presupposes a “god” on a philosophical level. There is no sound scientific explaination for the “how” of the Big Bang (specifically the “cosmic egg” and what caused it to burst), and no sound atheistic proposition as of yet. Based on our current knowledge, the Big Bang implies an uncaused cause.
P
Prester_John
Guest
…The evidence against it from geology still stands.
…The Ark, assuming it is from Noah and his family, would still only be evidence of a local flood. …
Deal with both the science and the Bible, and maybe your discovery of an Ark in Turkey means something.
Phil PThat is not precisely the truth, Phil P. Geology, Paleo-archaeology, and its parent science Archaeology are all moving through one of the most substantial paradigm shifts since Darwin’s Origin of the Species. My thanks for the intersesting links, and the arguments found there were well presented and logical; I will not venture any rebuttal until I have studied them further.
I might point out that there exist other websites, that can be accessed from Discovery.ca website and the Google search engine, providing alternate points of view in this matter. Recently I came accross a very interesting one from the field of Geology describing evidence of a comet impact, found in the sediment layers of the Indian Ocean, and off the coast Madagascar…and I believe there was a third site, near the island of Santorini in the Mediterranean, at the same geographical time period as the Deluge story.Also, there is currently a debate, likely started years ago by the acceptance of plate Tectonics theory, about the accuracy of time periods attributed to sediment layers. New discoveries from physics since the advent of the Atomic Age, together with recent discoveries from studies of ancient Ice in Greenland and Antarctica, have made the clear waters muddy, indeed. If indeed deposits of a mineral, known to have been formed only in space, that are most likely to be found in a comet or an Oort Cloud, have been found in such interesting locations(both in time and geographic location) - well, in my opinion, if such an event as a comet impact did occur, it might explain the universal legends of flood, earthquake and other catastrophes found around the globe. Though I do not hold degrees in any of these disciplines myself, it is obvious even to me that the debates raging back and forth on public venues such as the news media and the internet are proof enough that one is wise to search as broadly as possible in the search of facts to back up assertions, which is what I certainly shall endeavor to do, to the best of my abilities and constraints of time.Rest assured, Phil P, I am not a Luddite, nor am I completely unfamiliar with biblical study! Somewhere along the way in my misspent youth, I picked up the ability to read a few ancient languages, and a few friends along the way who are infintely better . I have never trusted the Literal interpretation group, whose arguments into the matter of creation and the Deluge story are profligate, but unsound, and often inconsistant.
And I will say no more on that, at this time, except to offer an apology for my crack about skeptics - I did not mean mean for my remarks to sound hurtful, only humourous, and I regret that anyone took them personally.
I think that it could explain the story of Noah satisfactorily, both as one local story of survival, and as one part of the global cataclysm legend.I am of the belief that some memory of a true event exists in all of the strange and varied stories, both oral and written. And I believe very strongly that science can lead to a conclusive answer to this already ancient question, that has certainly been debated since the days of the early church, and probably in even more ancient times.When I can find the correct websites again, I will post again, but I beg your patience, as computers and the internet are still a new thing for me; I will likely need the help of a professional, such as a small child or teenager,to help me, the same way they program my VCR…
AMDG
…The Ark, assuming it is from Noah and his family, would still only be evidence of a local flood. …
Deal with both the science and the Bible, and maybe your discovery of an Ark in Turkey means something.
Phil PThat is not precisely the truth, Phil P. Geology, Paleo-archaeology, and its parent science Archaeology are all moving through one of the most substantial paradigm shifts since Darwin’s Origin of the Species. My thanks for the intersesting links, and the arguments found there were well presented and logical; I will not venture any rebuttal until I have studied them further.
I might point out that there exist other websites, that can be accessed from Discovery.ca website and the Google search engine, providing alternate points of view in this matter. Recently I came accross a very interesting one from the field of Geology describing evidence of a comet impact, found in the sediment layers of the Indian Ocean, and off the coast Madagascar…and I believe there was a third site, near the island of Santorini in the Mediterranean, at the same geographical time period as the Deluge story.Also, there is currently a debate, likely started years ago by the acceptance of plate Tectonics theory, about the accuracy of time periods attributed to sediment layers. New discoveries from physics since the advent of the Atomic Age, together with recent discoveries from studies of ancient Ice in Greenland and Antarctica, have made the clear waters muddy, indeed. If indeed deposits of a mineral, known to have been formed only in space, that are most likely to be found in a comet or an Oort Cloud, have been found in such interesting locations(both in time and geographic location) - well, in my opinion, if such an event as a comet impact did occur, it might explain the universal legends of flood, earthquake and other catastrophes found around the globe. Though I do not hold degrees in any of these disciplines myself, it is obvious even to me that the debates raging back and forth on public venues such as the news media and the internet are proof enough that one is wise to search as broadly as possible in the search of facts to back up assertions, which is what I certainly shall endeavor to do, to the best of my abilities and constraints of time.Rest assured, Phil P, I am not a Luddite, nor am I completely unfamiliar with biblical study! Somewhere along the way in my misspent youth, I picked up the ability to read a few ancient languages, and a few friends along the way who are infintely better . I have never trusted the Literal interpretation group, whose arguments into the matter of creation and the Deluge story are profligate, but unsound, and often inconsistant.
And I will say no more on that, at this time, except to offer an apology for my crack about skeptics - I did not mean mean for my remarks to sound hurtful, only humourous, and I regret that anyone took them personally.
I think that it could explain the story of Noah satisfactorily, both as one local story of survival, and as one part of the global cataclysm legend.I am of the belief that some memory of a true event exists in all of the strange and varied stories, both oral and written. And I believe very strongly that science can lead to a conclusive answer to this already ancient question, that has certainly been debated since the days of the early church, and probably in even more ancient times.When I can find the correct websites again, I will post again, but I beg your patience, as computers and the internet are still a new thing for me; I will likely need the help of a professional, such as a small child or teenager,to help me, the same way they program my VCR…
AMDG
P
Prester_John
Guest
To reply to your last statement first, I heartily agree. To paraphrase Bacon, science ultimately will only prove what religion has believed all along. Unfortunately, on the religious as well as the scientific “side”, it the* understanding* part that is so particularly vexing!
geological evidence indicates two anomolous events in the geological record, one approx 10000 BCE, and more recent at approx 4500Bce, at or about the the historical period of Noah.
No fossil record of sea-horses and other saline sea-creatures exists in the Black sea region prior to this period, until one reaches the Pliestocene. Also, the bottom is not saltwater, it is staled fresh water, and its sediment prior to to 4500BCE contains remains of fresh water species… one possible theory proposes that sea-water from a Tsunammi wave of epic proportions (pardon the pun) is reason the Black sea is now salt.
I wish I were more proficient with computer skills and the internet, I could add links to this post to back up my tall claims, but as mentioned in a previous post, I am helpless without the guidance of a teenager…
Prester John
W
wanerious
Guest
Yes, I think we are in agreement. Thanks.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
PhilVaz said:<< Q: Did the fish drown? >>
Hee hee.Oh yeah that reminds me. I forgot to mention to believe the kangaroos got from Australia to the Ark near Ararat and back, they would have to swim the ocean back and forth. Bingo, another miracle, swimming kangaroos!
Or were the seven continents all connected at that time just 3000 years ago? Talk about more miracles, all the continents therefore were separated with massive “plate tectonics miracles” in a few thousand years! Sorry it doesn’t work like that.
So if you don’t believe in miracles then you must not be a Christian unless you are a Christian who doesn’t believe in the miracle of the loaves and fishes or the miracle of the resurrection of Christ and so forth,
Are you saying that God is not all-powerful?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
tuop << So if you don’t believe in miracles then you must not be a Christian >>
Already answered above a couple hundred times. See my posts especially to Bill Rutland on the resurrection, and other miracles. The resurrection can be demonstrated historically and “scientifically” if you reason like William Lane Craig does in his debates. So can the existence of God from the Big Bang and the Cosmological Arguments.
I believe in miracles, but miracles that are mentioned or at least supported in the Bible. I do not believe in miracles not mentioned in the Bible, miracles that require us to deny geology of the last 200 years. If you accept a global flood then the miracles not mentioned in the Bible that you must believe are
(1) rapid evolution far faster than even Richard Dawkins would dream (do the math, 2 of each “kind” to 2 million species in a couple thousand years)
(2) all the major geological formations on earth that appear to be laid down in millions of years (Green River Formation, Varves, Chalk, Limestone, Fuels, the Grand Canyon) were laid down “miraculously” in one year of a flood
(3) God made the Penguins, Polar Bears, super-slow Sloths, Kangaroos appear out of nowhere or just “zapped” them on the ark, or God gave the Penguins, Polar Bears, super-slow Sloths, and Kangaroos wings and jet propulsion so they could fly to Noah in an hour or two across the oceans and continents…I might think of a few more if I re-check my Hugh Ross and Glenn Morton books.
I do not believe in those kinds of miracles, since (a) they aren’t mentioned in the Bible, and (b) they are contradicted by science, the observations of nature and normal reason.
Phil P
Already answered above a couple hundred times.
See my posts especially to Bill Rutland on the resurrection, and other miracles. The resurrection can be demonstrated historically and “scientifically” if you reason like William Lane Craig does in his debates. So can the existence of God from the Big Bang and the Cosmological Arguments.I believe in miracles, but miracles that are mentioned or at least supported in the Bible. I do not believe in miracles not mentioned in the Bible, miracles that require us to deny geology of the last 200 years. If you accept a global flood then the miracles not mentioned in the Bible that you must believe are
(1) rapid evolution far faster than even Richard Dawkins would dream (do the math, 2 of each “kind” to 2 million species in a couple thousand years)
(2) all the major geological formations on earth that appear to be laid down in millions of years (Green River Formation, Varves, Chalk, Limestone, Fuels, the Grand Canyon) were laid down “miraculously” in one year of a flood
(3) God made the Penguins, Polar Bears, super-slow Sloths, Kangaroos appear out of nowhere or just “zapped” them on the ark, or God gave the Penguins, Polar Bears, super-slow Sloths, and Kangaroos wings and jet propulsion so they could fly to Noah in an hour or two across the oceans and continents…I might think of a few more if I re-check my Hugh Ross and Glenn Morton books.
I do not believe in those kinds of miracles, since (a) they aren’t mentioned in the Bible, and (b) they are contradicted by science, the observations of nature and normal reason.
Phil P
T
tuopaolo
Guest
If you only believe in miracles that are mentioned in the bible then are you a sola scriptura Protestant?
You make it sound like God is not all-powerful. It is not difficult for God to create 2 million species. He can do it in one single instant. He doesn’t even need thousands of years to do it.
If you place “science” as having a higher authority than the word of God then you don’t really have faith since faith is adherence to the word of God.
You make it sound like God is not all-powerful. It is not difficult for God to create 2 million species. He can do it in one single instant. He doesn’t even need thousands of years to do it.
If you place “science” as having a higher authority than the word of God then you don’t really have faith since faith is adherence to the word of God.
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
I’m reminded of the old joke
“The earth was created at 4:30 pm October 23, 4400 BC
BUT SOMEBODY went through a lot of trouble to burry fossils, build geologic formations, red shift light, and fix the rates of nuclear decay so we better believe in evolution if we know what’s good for us”
Yes God could do anything he wanted to BUT breaking ALL of his physical laws and reducing all species (including us) to such small breeding populations so that we would all be one large inbred mess goes beyond the miraculous.
“The earth was created at 4:30 pm October 23, 4400 BC
BUT SOMEBODY went through a lot of trouble to burry fossils, build geologic formations, red shift light, and fix the rates of nuclear decay so we better believe in evolution if we know what’s good for us”
Yes God could do anything he wanted to BUT breaking ALL of his physical laws and reducing all species (including us) to such small breeding populations so that we would all be one large inbred mess goes beyond the miraculous.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Let me clarify then…
Tuop << If you only believe in miracles that are mentioned in the bible then are you a sola scriptura Protestant? >>
Okay you caught me. I would clarify by saying “I do not believe in any miracles concerning the flood of Noah that are not mentioned or supported in the text of Genesis chapters 6-9.” None of the three points I mentioned above (1) super-rapid evolution, (2) all formations on the earth are miracles, and (3) flying kangaroos, flying polar bears, flying sloths, and flying penguins, etc are supported by Genesis 6-9, and must be read into the text (or else postulate similar non-biblical miracles to make a “global flood” possible).
The word for “world” can easily be interpreted to mean the area around where Noah lived (Mesopotamia, etc). I am satisfied by Hugh Ross dealings with the text in his book The Genesis Question. I should find some Catholic sources on this as well. Someday I’ll check out about 50 Genesis commentaries, Catholic, Protestant, liberal, conservative, etc.
I would accept some private revelations and the Eucharistic miracles, at least the ones I know about. Those are not mentioned in the Bible of course since they are modern occurrences, but are supported by the Bible (the appearances of OT saints, “This is My Body” etc). I said earlier either “mentioned” or “supported” by the Bible. Also note that these private revelations or modern miracles are not required beliefs of Catholics. They are not “public revelation” like Scripture is.
Tuop << You make it sound like God is not all-powerful. It is not difficult for God to create 2 million species. He can do it in one single instant. He doesn’t even need thousands of years to do it. >>
Hello earth to McFly. Bonk, bonk. Sorry its early in the morning. If you know anything about global flood theorists they do not believe any additional “creation” is happening. After the literal “six days” that God created, God rested. No more creating of species. (Micro)evolution takes over from that point. And the global flood is almost always tied in with young-earth creationism, while the local or regional flood idea is connected with old-earth creationism (Hugh Ross) or theistic evolution (myself). An exception I know about is Dr. Norm Geisler who in debate with Dr. Paul Kurtz on the John Ankerberg Show (1986) advocated both old-earth creationism and a global flood. Not sure if that’s his current position. 
So according to standard “global flood” theorists, God did not directly create the 2 million species from the time of the flood to now, (micro)evolution did. So therefore (God-guided) evolution is indeed responsible for the 2 million species, which is quite strange since most creationists heavily criticize theistic evolution as bad theology and “against the Bible.” BTW, I got this point from Hugh Ross who emphasizes this and brings out some statistics.
And from a scientific standpoint, it is simply not enough time to produce 2 million species, unless you invoke thousands of miracles and direct creation of species by God, which is not allowed by global flooders (young-earthers), but is allowed by local flooders (old-earthers).
Tuop << If you place “science” as having a higher authority than the word of God then you don’t really have faith since faith is adherence to the word of God. >>
Now come on, go back and read at least some of my 4.5 billion posts above and in the other threads. Faith is adherence to the word of God properly interpreted and acknowledging the various literary genres of Scripture. And faith and reason (science) do not conflict according to the Catechism (para 159, 283-284) and the Word of God (Romans 1, 1 Peter 3:15).
You need to get your “creationists” straight.
Phil P
Tuop << If you only believe in miracles that are mentioned in the bible then are you a sola scriptura Protestant? >>
Okay you caught me. I would clarify by saying “I do not believe in any miracles concerning the flood of Noah that are not mentioned or supported in the text of Genesis chapters 6-9.” None of the three points I mentioned above (1) super-rapid evolution, (2) all formations on the earth are miracles, and (3) flying kangaroos, flying polar bears, flying sloths, and flying penguins, etc are supported by Genesis 6-9, and must be read into the text (or else postulate similar non-biblical miracles to make a “global flood” possible).
The word for “world” can easily be interpreted to mean the area around where Noah lived (Mesopotamia, etc). I am satisfied by Hugh Ross dealings with the text in his book The Genesis Question. I should find some Catholic sources on this as well. Someday I’ll check out about 50 Genesis commentaries, Catholic, Protestant, liberal, conservative, etc.
I would accept some private revelations and the Eucharistic miracles, at least the ones I know about. Those are not mentioned in the Bible of course since they are modern occurrences, but are supported by the Bible (the appearances of OT saints, “This is My Body” etc). I said earlier either “mentioned” or “supported” by the Bible. Also note that these private revelations or modern miracles are not required beliefs of Catholics. They are not “public revelation” like Scripture is.
Tuop << You make it sound like God is not all-powerful. It is not difficult for God to create 2 million species. He can do it in one single instant. He doesn’t even need thousands of years to do it. >>
Hello earth to McFly. Bonk, bonk. Sorry its early in the morning.
If you know anything about global flood theorists they do not believe any additional “creation” is happening. After the literal “six days” that God created, God rested. No more creating of species. (Micro)evolution takes over from that point. And the global flood is almost always tied in with young-earth creationism, while the local or regional flood idea is connected with old-earth creationism (Hugh Ross) or theistic evolution (myself). An exception I know about is Dr. Norm Geisler who in debate with Dr. Paul Kurtz on the John Ankerberg Show (1986) advocated both old-earth creationism and a global flood. Not sure if that’s his current position. So according to standard “global flood” theorists, God did not directly create the 2 million species from the time of the flood to now, (micro)evolution did. So therefore (God-guided) evolution is indeed responsible for the 2 million species, which is quite strange since most creationists heavily criticize theistic evolution as bad theology and “against the Bible.” BTW, I got this point from Hugh Ross who emphasizes this and brings out some statistics.
And from a scientific standpoint, it is simply not enough time to produce 2 million species, unless you invoke thousands of miracles and direct creation of species by God, which is not allowed by global flooders (young-earthers), but is allowed by local flooders (old-earthers).
Tuop << If you place “science” as having a higher authority than the word of God then you don’t really have faith since faith is adherence to the word of God. >>
Now come on, go back and read at least some of my 4.5 billion posts above and in the other threads. Faith is adherence to the word of God properly interpreted and acknowledging the various literary genres of Scripture. And faith and reason (science) do not conflict according to the Catechism (para 159, 283-284) and the Word of God (Romans 1, 1 Peter 3:15).
You need to get your “creationists” straight.
Phil P
B
Bill_Rutland
Guest
Hi Phil,
Please allow me to respond to your points and along the way make some of my own:
(end part one)
Please allow me to respond to your points and along the way make some of my own:
No I do not hold that faith and reason (science) conflict when that reason is sound. You make the assumption that uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology are sound reason, I do not.
Please see my above response. While I admit that many in the Church hold to your position, nevertheless the Church never demands that the faithful hold a “scientific” world view (understanding “scientific” to mean uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology). There are many faithful Catholics who are also very good men of science, my friend Art Sippo comes to mind. But in every case they must depart from their scientific world view and allow their faith to trump what science says is true.
(end part one)
B
Bill_Rutland
Guest
(part two)
Now as to the geologic column. I have checked out the sites that you recommended and did not find the proof that the columns mentioned are full and complete, that is the strata and “index fossils” are in the correct order. But for now I will not argue the point. It still remains that the fossil evidence shows that new species appear abruptly and fully formed. Steven J. Gould’s book The Panda’s thumb deals with this fact. In it Gould jumps through all kind of intellectual hoops to try to get around the obvious facts that one species did not evolve into another. Still it is good reading and Gould is a wonderful writer whom I very much enjoy.
My problem with the geologic column is not the are of the earth it is the unwarranted (in my view) evolutionary assumptions that are inferred from it.
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
First off mind you that Aristilian physics was “tested” for two thousand years and completely overturned. The fact is that the uniformitarian “assumptions” which hold that modern processes hold the key to past development is simply unworkable and irreconcilable with faith. According to the uniformitarian “assumptions” virgins do not become pregnant, men do not rise from the dead, nor do bread and wine become flesh and blood.
Now as to the geologic column. I have checked out the sites that you recommended and did not find the proof that the columns mentioned are full and complete, that is the strata and “index fossils” are in the correct order. But for now I will not argue the point. It still remains that the fossil evidence shows that new species appear abruptly and fully formed. Steven J. Gould’s book The Panda’s thumb deals with this fact. In it Gould jumps through all kind of intellectual hoops to try to get around the obvious facts that one species did not evolve into another. Still it is good reading and Gould is a wonderful writer whom I very much enjoy.
My problem with the geologic column is not the are of the earth it is the unwarranted (in my view) evolutionary assumptions that are inferred from it.
Not so. They are only “clearly wrong” because they do not conform to your structures of thinking.
Your methodological naturalism is a definition with no distinction. You cannot have the “method” without the philosophical structures into which the method fits. My point is this. You cannot go around calling Creationists unscientific (which indeed we are) and at the same time call yourself scientific when your faith demands that you reject the basic tenant of uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology which is a naturalistic world view that does not allow for God or miracles. At some point your faith must trump your science and that makes you unscientific too. The difference is that I admit that I am unscientific and you do not.
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Bill << But in every case they must depart from their scientific world view >>
This is getting off topic of the flood. But I guess I disagree with your definition of science and “scientific worldview.” My definition of science has nothing to say and nothing to do with the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, or the Eucharist.
On Stephen Jay Gould, you have misrepresented him. Its a “famous” quote used by creationists, and I’ve dealt with it in here before. Digging up that post… found it!
From July 6, 2004
EdwinT << Even the most respected evolutionists admitted a long time ago that there are no transitional fossils, Stephen Jay Gould for example. >>
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils) – In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.” – Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History (May 1977)
Rare does not mean “non-existent” – to wit more Gould:
“But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.” – Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History (May 1994)
“Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.” – Stephen Jay Gould, from his book Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, page 261
Fuller quote here:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled ‘Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax’ states: ‘The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.’” – Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory” (May 1981 reprinted in Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes)
Evolution as Fact and Theory full article
Now come on, Gould (R.I.P.) is no fool, he reads TalkOrigins.
BTW Glenn Morton has personally drilled through all the geologic ages himself. Just kidding. But it is an excellent article on the geologic column, and if you aren’t convinced by that, nothing will convince you I guess unless you join an oil rig somewhere and drill through all the geological periods yourself, pulling up and examining the data.
Phil P
This is getting off topic of the flood. But I guess I disagree with your definition of science and “scientific worldview.” My definition of science has nothing to say and nothing to do with the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, or the Eucharist.
On Stephen Jay Gould, you have misrepresented him. Its a “famous” quote used by creationists, and I’ve dealt with it in here before. Digging up that post… found it!
From July 6, 2004
EdwinT << Even the most respected evolutionists admitted a long time ago that there are no transitional fossils, Stephen Jay Gould for example. >>
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils) – In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.” – Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History (May 1977)
Rare does not mean “non-existent” – to wit more Gould:
“But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.” – Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History (May 1994)
“Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.” – Stephen Jay Gould, from his book Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, page 261
Fuller quote here:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled ‘Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax’ states: ‘The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.’” – Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory” (May 1981 reprinted in Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes)
Evolution as Fact and Theory full article
Now come on, Gould (R.I.P.) is no fool, he reads TalkOrigins.
BTW Glenn Morton has personally drilled through all the geologic ages himself. Just kidding. But it is an excellent article on the geologic column, and if you aren’t convinced by that, nothing will convince you I guess unless you join an oil rig somewhere and drill through all the geological periods yourself, pulling up and examining the data.
Phil P
O
Orogeny
Guest
Bill Rutland:
Peace
Tim
No matter how many times you make this claim, it is still incorrect.
I won’t get into Gould since Phil took care of that. How much time have you spent studying the geologic column yourself? I don’t mean looking at web pages or books, but actually climbing around on outcrops, describing the lithology and structures, idenifying fossil fauna, etc…
Fair enough. I know I don’t have a problem with you wanting to believe in a literal 6 day creation.
Why not? You just did!
Not according to the Church. As you pointed out, the Church does not demand that you accept evolution, physics, chemistry or any other science you feel is in conflict with your faith. It does, however, allow those of us who have looked at the evidence to accept that evidence. There is nothing in geology that is in conflict with my faith.
So much for not looking down one’s nose at another. Your problem seems to be that you can’t separate your faith from science. If that is the case, you are doing the right thing in rejecting science. Speaking only for myself, I don’t have a problem separating my faith from science. I don’t need science to prove anything to me in regards to my faith.
Peace
Tim
B
Bill_Rutland
Guest
Hi Phil and Orogeny,
Thank you for the interesting exchange. Please let me clarify my position as I admit I have been a little vague. I am not a “young-earther” nor am I a strict six day creationist. I lean towards the pre-Adamic creation view, but I am not dogmatic on the point. I just find the language, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” used in Genesis 1:2 to be very curious as the same terms “void” and “without form” (waste) are used to describe the destruction of Judah in Jeremiah 4:23. Maybe this explains some of the fossel evidence and age of the earth. But, like I said this is all speculation and certainly not something I would go to the mat over.
As to the flood of Noah, I cannot get away from God’s specific words, “For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.” (Genesis 6:17). From this I hold that the flood of Noah was a real historical event and was universal rather than local. I know that you feel that the scientific evidence makes a literal understanding of Noah’s flood impossible, but I chose to believe what is written in the Scriptures, as St. Paul has said, “Let God be true but man be a liar.” (Romans 3:4) Scientific understanding changes from generation to generation, but God’s Word does not.
Our Lord seems to believe that Noah’s flood was a real event which destroyed all life:
*As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. (St. Luke 17:26-27) *
St. Peter say Noah’s flood as a real event universal in nature:
who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:20)
and
…if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:5)
In order for me to believe that there was no universal flood I have to preference my explanation by, “I know it sounds like the Bible presents Noah’s flood as a real universal event, but…” Sorry this type of exegesis is a red flag to me. This is very much like my experience as a Protestant minister. While preparing a sermon on St. John six I began to really consider Jesus’ words:
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” (St. John 6:53-55)
In order to make Jesus’ words fit in with my theology I had to say, “I know it sounds like Jesus is saying that we must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, but…” I was in a great dilemma. I could not be honest with my theology and be honest with the text, the text won out and six years later I became a Catholic. I view the Genesis flood account in exactly the same way.
(end part one)
Thank you for the interesting exchange. Please let me clarify my position as I admit I have been a little vague. I am not a “young-earther” nor am I a strict six day creationist. I lean towards the pre-Adamic creation view, but I am not dogmatic on the point. I just find the language, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” used in Genesis 1:2 to be very curious as the same terms “void” and “without form” (waste) are used to describe the destruction of Judah in Jeremiah 4:23. Maybe this explains some of the fossel evidence and age of the earth. But, like I said this is all speculation and certainly not something I would go to the mat over.
As to the flood of Noah, I cannot get away from God’s specific words, “For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.” (Genesis 6:17). From this I hold that the flood of Noah was a real historical event and was universal rather than local. I know that you feel that the scientific evidence makes a literal understanding of Noah’s flood impossible, but I chose to believe what is written in the Scriptures, as St. Paul has said, “Let God be true but man be a liar.” (Romans 3:4) Scientific understanding changes from generation to generation, but God’s Word does not.
Our Lord seems to believe that Noah’s flood was a real event which destroyed all life:
*As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. (St. Luke 17:26-27) *
St. Peter say Noah’s flood as a real event universal in nature:
who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:20)
and
…if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:5)
In order for me to believe that there was no universal flood I have to preference my explanation by, “I know it sounds like the Bible presents Noah’s flood as a real universal event, but…” Sorry this type of exegesis is a red flag to me. This is very much like my experience as a Protestant minister. While preparing a sermon on St. John six I began to really consider Jesus’ words:
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” (St. John 6:53-55)
In order to make Jesus’ words fit in with my theology I had to say, “I know it sounds like Jesus is saying that we must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, but…” I was in a great dilemma. I could not be honest with my theology and be honest with the text, the text won out and six years later I became a Catholic. I view the Genesis flood account in exactly the same way.
(end part one)
B
Bill_Rutland
Guest
I am not going to argue the geologic column with you, I freely admit that although I have always had a great interest in geology and am an amateur fossil hunter, I hold no degree in evolutionary biology or uniformitarian geology. I have no doubt that you have a better understanding of the subject than do I. But, having said this I still cannot allow science to trump my faith, as I said I am unscientific in this respect. I also feel that there are other ways in which the geologic column and fossil evidence can be interpreted than by the evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions.
Ever since brother Darwin made his grand voyage on the Beagle evolution itself have been evolving. What was scientific fact in one generation was replaced by a new set of “facts” in the next. For instance take the theory of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (the theory that a fetus passes through the abbreviated stages of its evolutionary ancestors) which was held as fact for almost one hundred years, but has now been proven completely wrong; but sadly not before it could be used as scientific support for Roe vs. Wade.
Therefore I am content to believe the Bible. If I am wrong so be it. All that I ask is that my evolutionary brethren not look down their noses at me. You would not believe the grief I have suffered at the hands of Catholics who cannot believe that anyone could possibly take a literal view of the Bible seriously. I have been called fundamentalist, naive, blind sighted and even once stupid. So please don’t be so quick to dismiss your creationist brethren, you know, we may just be right
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
Ever since brother Darwin made his grand voyage on the Beagle evolution itself have been evolving. What was scientific fact in one generation was replaced by a new set of “facts” in the next. For instance take the theory of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (the theory that a fetus passes through the abbreviated stages of its evolutionary ancestors) which was held as fact for almost one hundred years, but has now been proven completely wrong; but sadly not before it could be used as scientific support for Roe vs. Wade.
Therefore I am content to believe the Bible. If I am wrong so be it. All that I ask is that my evolutionary brethren not look down their noses at me. You would not believe the grief I have suffered at the hands of Catholics who cannot believe that anyone could possibly take a literal view of the Bible seriously. I have been called fundamentalist, naive, blind sighted and even once stupid. So please don’t be so quick to dismiss your creationist brethren, you know, we may just be right
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
- Status