two questions about evolution as I consider leaving the church

[jmcrae]

They don’t think it’s random. In fact, Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random.

People were breeding both roses and dogs long before Darwin came along - people knew about micro-evolution, and were putting it to use already, for many many years (probably ever since someone first noticed that certain kinds of wolves are better at herding flocks of animals than others, and that certain herd animals make better eating than others).

What’s surprising is that nature so easily produces order out of chaos.

It could also be argued that it’s not nature that is ordered; it’s our minds that discern and define what is (or seems to us to be) orderly.

When a tree throws off its garment of leaves and throws them on the ground, we say, “Beautiful!” but when our children come home from school and throw their coats and books on the floor, we get mad and yell at them.

Chaos, therefore, is defined as such by the person who has to make it orderly.

 

[buffalo]

As St. Augustine observed, it is logically absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. This is why the Church does not teach that they were literal days.

Rather, must you bypass all logic and scripture that does not appease your diluted perceptions of creation?

As Augustine pointed out, he did accept what God wrote. His understanding is of the literal meaning in Genesis, not a literalist reworking.

Yes. You do that.

No. However, God does not do things that are logically absurd. And “morning” has a clear meaning that makes no sense without a sun.

Barbarian observes:
That’s not what it says. The term “eretz” can mean “this place”, a specific nation, “the land hereabouts”, or “all the land we know about.” So no, it doesn’t mean the whole world was flooded, and the Church does not teach that it was.

In this case, you are at odds with both sides.

It’s possible. There is evidence for it. But I can’t say if it’s entirely allegorical or not.

The Catholic Church does not teach a universal flood.

Perhaps you’ve simply added something to God’s word again. God merely notes that He will not destroy “eretz” with a flood again:

Turns out that reality in nature, and reality in scripture have no inconsistencies. As Pope John Paul II remarked, truth cannot contradict truth.

Getting angry and calling names won’t help you now.

My position is entirely within the teaching of the Church. But yours is not.

Again, you simple don’t accept what “eretz” means.

…and every living thing (Hebrew: all existence) that I made I will blot out from the face of the ground.
GENESIS 7:4

And yet, in literal fact, not every living thing not on the Ark died.

And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth.
GENESIS 7:10

It is not obvious to the Church, which does not teach that it was a worldwide flood.

Perhaps you should learn more about the teaching of your faith. Assuming you are Catholic, there is much with which you seem to be unfamiliar.

The sun is not necessary for morning. Light is.

 

[buffalo]

What made these? How long did it take?



http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/geophoto/fluvial/Pothole2.jpg

 

[The_Barbarian]

The sun is not necessary for morning. Light is.

If we turn on the lights, it is not necessarily morning. Words mean things. If you start using words in ways they are not used by others, you will cease to communicate.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What made these?

The first looks a lot like a pothole from the scablands. Matter of weeks, when Lake Misoula suddenly broke through an ice dam at the end of the last ice age. A gigantic surge of water produced landmarks unlike any elsewhere in the world. It’s what the whole world would look like, if there had really been a universal flood.

Second one looks more like the sort of pothole you’d see below a seasonal waterfall. It is unlike the scablands potholes in that it probably formed a long time, with much less water at any one time.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
They don’t think it’s random. In fact, Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random.

People were breeding both roses and dogs long before Darwin came along - people knew about micro-evolution, and were putting it to use already, for many many years (probably ever since someone first noticed that certain kinds of wolves are better at herding flocks of animals than others, and that certain herd animals make better eating than others).

Correct, Darwin’s insight was that humans were mimicking natural selection without realizing it.

Barbarian observes:
What’s surprising is that nature so easily produces order out of chaos.

It could also be argued that it’s not nature that is ordered; it’s our minds that discern and define what is (or seems to us to be) orderly.

I suppose. It’s a bit too post-moderney for me. I believe there is an objective reality, and no matter how much we wish and believe, it makes no impact whatever on the truth.

When a tree throws off its garment of leaves and throws them on the ground, we say, “Beautiful!” but when our children come home from school and throw their coats and books on the floor, we get mad and yell at them.

Don’t know about you, but having once had a large yard with elms and maples, I would rather have had the kids do it.

Chaos, therefore, is defined as such by the person who has to make it orderly.

Perhaps you don’t know what chaos is. There is order in chaos, and a regularity and predictability. Hint: look up “Feigenbaum Number.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

The whirlpool is 90 degrees not quite what is shown in the Grand Canyon Picture.

It’s not remotely like the entrenched meander in the Grand Canyon. In fact, it’s the opposite. Such a catastrophic flow of water would have broken through the neck of the meander, and put an end to the gradual cutting of the rock at the head of the cliff.

An entrenched meander can only occur in rejuvenation of a river, when an old, meandering river is uplifted. This prevents it from breaking out of the meander, and it then is confined to that final channel and cuts ever deeper into the rock.

You’ve inadvertantly shown us something which is the precise opposite.

 

[jmcrae]

Don’t know about you, but having once had a large yard with elms and maples, I would rather have had the kids do it.

So, it depends upon whose tree it is - if you’re the one who has to rake, you’re not the one saying “Beautiful!”

Perhaps you don’t know what chaos is. There is order in chaos, and a regularity and predictability. Hint: look up “Feigenbaum Number.”

Yeah, I know. There’s really no such thing as “chaos” - there are just messes, and people (persons, including God) who feel obligated to clean them up.

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

No. However, God does not do things that are logically absurd.

You have confined God to your own fallen reason.
Is not the Trinity itself “logically absurd”?
Transubstantiation is not “absurd”?
Will you explain these away as well?

That’s not what it says. The term “eretz” can mean “this place”, a specific nation, “the land hereabouts”, or “all the land we know about.” So no, it doesn’t mean the whole world was flooded, and the Church does not teach that it was.

There are a variety of terms in Scripture that have multiple meanings; however, they are entirely dependent upon the context. ALL for example, does not always mean each and every individual in existence. For example: in Christ all shall live. The text limits the word to those who are born into Christ’s body. “Eretz” can mean the whole earth if that is what the context demands; and unless you simply deny its obvious rendering due to your presuppositional prejudices, it is precisely what it means.

But I can’t say if it’s entirely allegorical or not.

The flood is entirely allegorical?
Is not the fall of man into sin quite possibly reduced to a “good moral story” by this interpretation as well?

As Pope John Paul II remarked, truth cannot contradict truth.

But a mantra, friend; unless it can be substantiated. Which, in your case, it cannot.

Getting angry and calling names won’t help you now.

I did not call you stupid (though you may very well be, but I do not know you enough to make that assertion).

And yet, in literal fact, not every living thing not on the Ark died.

What living things survived the flood that destroyed all of existence (those creatures with the breath of life in their nostrils)?

It is not obvious to the Church, which does not teach that it was a worldwide flood.

“A simple man armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest Pope without it.”

Perhaps you should learn more about the teaching of your faith. Assuming you are Catholic, there is much with which you seem to be unfamiliar.

I am not a Catholic. However, the church takes no issue with those who hold to a literal six day view.

 

[buffalo]

If we turn on the lights, it is not necessarily morning. Words mean things. If you start using words in ways they are not used by others, you will cease to communicate.

Surely you are not defending a literal meaning of Genesis now are you?

 

[buffalo]

The first looks a lot like a pothole from the scablands. Matter of weeks, when Lake Misoula suddenly broke through an ice dam at the end of the last ice age. A gigantic surge of water produced landmarks unlike any elsewhere in the world. It’s what the whole world would look like, if there had really been a universal flood.

Second one looks more like the sort of pothole you’d see below a seasonal waterfall. It is unlike the scablands potholes in that it probably formed a long time, with much less water at any one time.

I salute you! They are both scablands potholes formed in a matter of hours.

I will gladly accept admission from uniformitarians that catastrophies of great magnitude took place, in short periods of time.

 

[buffalo]

It’s not remotely like the entrenched meander in the Grand Canyon. In fact, it’s the opposite. Such a catastrophic flow of water would have broken through the neck of the meander, and put an end to the gradual cutting of the rock at the head of the cliff.

An entrenched meander can only occur in rejuvenation of a river, when an old, meandering river is uplifted. This prevents it from breaking out of the meander, and it then is confined to that final channel and cuts ever deeper into the rock.

You’ve inadvertantly shown us something which is the precise opposite.

Again, thanks. The point is that formations that were previously thought to take long times, have been shown to occur rapidly.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So, it depends upon whose tree it is - if you’re the one who has to rake, you’re not the one saying “Beautiful!”

I think it’s beautiful. I explain to my wife that it’s nature recycling nitrogen, and the trees using the leaves to increase the acidity of the soil to leach nutrients lower to keep shrubs from competing with them, and it’s all so perfect and natural, and…

and she wants me to rake them.

Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you don’t know what chaos is. There is order in chaos, and a regularity and predictability. Hint: look up “Feigenbaum Number.”

Yeah, I know. There’s really no such thing as “chaos”

There is. It just has an unexpectedly beautiful structure of its own.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Again, thanks. The point is that formations that were previously thought to take long times, have been shown to occur rapidly.

Some, like the scablands, were first realized to be flood artifacts, in the 1920s, with many geologists having been convinced by the 1940s.

Other features, like entrenched meanders have been shown to be impossible to produce in less than millions of years. Keep in mind that the scabland potholes formed in days or weeks or even longer. It’s possible that there was more than one flood, but the size of the channel and the extent of Lake Missoula rule out the idea that it could form in a few hours.

Likewise, even with tremendous boulders being swept around in the forming potholes, rock just doesn’t carve out that fast.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. However, God does not do things that are logically absurd.

You have confined God to your own fallen reason.

No. And God gave you the gift of reason to understand Him and His ways. If you are Catholic, you do not worship Him on blind and unreasoning faith, but with both eyes open.

Is not the Trinity itself “logically absurd”?

Don’t see how.

Transubstantiation is not “absurd”?

Don’t see how.

Will you explain these away as well?

You’re the one claiming they are logically absurd.

Barbarian observes:
That’s not what it says. The term “eretz” can mean “this place”, a specific nation, “the land hereabouts”, or “all the land we know about.” So no, it doesn’t mean the whole world was flooded, and the Church does not teach that it was.

There are a variety of terms in Scripture that have multiple meanings; however, they are entirely dependent upon the context. ALL for example, does not always mean each and every individual in existence. For example: in Christ all shall live. The text limits the word to those who are born into Christ’s body. “Eretz” can mean the whole earth if that is what the context demands; and unless you simply deny its obvious rendering due to your presuppositional prejudices, it is precisely what it means.

You’ve merely assumed that it has to conform to your expectations of what it has to mean. But you have no evidence to show for that.

Barbarian observes:
But I can’t say if it’s entirely allegorical or not.

The flood is entirely allegorical?

Can’t say. It doesn’t matter. If it was, how would your faith in God change?

Is not the fall of man into sin quite possibly reduced to a “good moral story” by this interpretation as well?

No. You’ve confused “allegory” with “not true.”

Barbarian observes:
As Pope John Paul II remarked, truth cannot contradict truth.

But a mantra, friend; unless it can be substantiated.

Turns out that nature fits nicely into God’s word. Sometimes it doesn’t fit so nicely into man’s revisions, such as the attempt to force Genesis into a purely literalist history.

Barbarian suggests:
Getting angry and calling names won’t help you now.

I did not call you stupid (though you may very well be, but I do not know you enough to make that assertion).

Perhaps you’d be best advised, before you even hint that some other is “stupid”, to do what I do when someone annoys me. I go get an iced tea, play with the dog a bit, and reflect for a while before I go back and write a reply. It’s saved me a lot of embarrassment.

Barbarian observes:
And yet, in literal fact, not every living thing not on the Ark died.

What living things survived the flood that destroyed all of existence (those creatures with the breath of life in their nostrils)?

Whales, for example.

Barbarian observes:
It is not obvious to the Church, which does not teach that it was a worldwide flood.

“A simple man armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest Pope without it.”

Sounds like a mantra to me.

Perhaps you should learn more about the teaching of your faith. Assuming you are Catholic, there is much with which you seem to be unfamiliar.

I am not a Catholic.

That would explain it.

However, the church takes no issue with those who hold to a literal six day view.

Turns out that the Church does not object if one wants to believe it. Christians are only obligated to not claim it to be an essential part of Christian belief.

 

[jmcrae]

Some, like the scablands, were first realized to be flood artifacts, in the 1920s, with many geologists having been convinced by the 1940s.

Other features, like entrenched meanders have been shown to be impossible to produce in less than millions of years. Keep in mind that the scabland potholes formed in days or weeks or even longer. It’s possible that there was more than one flood, but the size of the channel and the extent of Lake Missoula rule out the idea that it could form in a few hours.

If you look at the time line in Genesis, the rain fell for forty days, but the water covered the earth for a lot longer than that. The water was swirling around for several months; not just a few hours.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If we turn on the lights, it is not necessarily morning. Words mean things. If you start using words in ways they are not used by others, you will cease to communicate.

Surely you are not defending a literal meaning of Genesis now are you?

Of course. The work in which Augustine demonstrated the impossibility of six literal days of creation, was entitled De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (“The Literal Meaning of Genesis”). There is a difference between a literal reading (taking it as it is) and a literalist reading (insisting that it must not be figurative in any way).

 

[buffalo]

Some, like the scablands, were first realized to be flood artifacts, in the 1920s, with many geologists having been convinced by the 1940s.

Other features, like entrenched meanders have been shown to be impossible to produce in less than millions of years. Keep in mind that the scabland potholes formed in days or weeks or even longer. It’s possible that there was more than one flood, but the size of the channel and the extent of Lake Missoula rule out the idea that it could form in a few hours.

Likewise, even with tremendous boulders being swept around in the forming potholes, rock just doesn’t carve out that fast.

Apparently some disagree with you:

Nova Transcripts Megaflood

NARRATOR: So could bubbles really gouge holes out of solid rock to resemble the potholes in the Scablands?
Slowed down 80 times, this experiment shows solid rock being drilled out by the power of bubbles. But what would this have looked like during the flood? As the flow of water from Lake Missoula surged through the Scablands, it would have hit some hard outcrops of rock, creating a vortex of bubbles. Within seconds, these bubbles would drill through cracks in the rock and the turbulent currents would then scour out huge potholes.
With this last mystery solved, it does seem plausible that a single giant body of water could create all the features of the Scablands.
So it is now possible to complete the reconstruction of the incredible events that took place, on a fateful day, 15,000 years ago. The immense pressure of super-cooled water fatally destabilized the ice dam at Glacial Lake Missoula. Then massive chunks of ice within the dam began to fall into the raging torrent until the whole dam just gave way. The collapse of the ice dam released a sea of water. This water then traveled at up to 60 miles per hour, rushing headlong towards the Scablands. It took only a few hours for the waters to reach this once flat landscape.
In places the water was a staggering 800 feet deep.
As this volatile torrent flowed ever more quickly, it gouged out miles of rock. It carved out cliffs and canyons, including the massive feature that is known today as Dry Falls.
Meanwhile, huge underwater tornadoes were blasting out potholes—the bubbles that formed these tornadoes imploding with enormous force and penetrating deep into the bedrock below.
And as chunks of ice from the original glacier were carried huge distances by the floodwaters, the boulders they contained within were randomly flung aside. When the flood waters receded and the icebergs melted they would reappear scattered all over the Scablands.
After a tumultuous journey, this muddy torrent surged out to sea along the floor of the Pacific until it came grinding to a halt over 1,000 miles from its point of origin. It had only taken a few hours to get there.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Some, like the scablands, were first realized to be flood artifacts, in the 1920s, with many geologists having been convinced by the 1940s.

Other features, like entrenched meanders have been shown to be impossible to produce in less than millions of years. Keep in mind that the scabland potholes formed in days or weeks or even longer. It’s possible that there was more than one flood, but the size of the channel and the extent of Lake Missoula rule out the idea that it could form in a few hours.

If you look at the time line in Genesis, the rain fell for forty days, but the water covered the earth for a lot longer than that. The water was swirling around for several months; not just a few hours.

If it actually happened over the whole earth, it would **all **look like the scablands. The delicate structures of the Grand Canyon, like towers and entrenched meanders would have been rubbed away, and only blunt bumps would have remained.

However, that kind of thing only happened with great rarity, and we don’t see any signs of scabland topopgraphy over the vast majority of the Earth.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Other features, like entrenched meanders have been shown to be impossible to produce in less than millions of years. Keep in mind that the scabland potholes formed in days or weeks or even longer. It’s possible that there was more than one flood, but the size of the channel and the extent of Lake Missoula rule out the idea that it could form in a few hours.

Likewise, even with tremendous boulders being swept around in the forming potholes, rock just doesn’t carve out that fast.

Apparently some disagree with you:

(cites Nova)

You didn’t post the part where it says that these features could form in a few hours, instead of days or weeks. I’d be very surprised to see that from any geologist. If there is such a statement, I would like to see it posted. And there are no entrenched meanders formed by the Lake Missoula flood.