Re: In the News: Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

On 13 Apr 2007 09:54:13 -0700,
Ian Chua <ichua@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 11:58 am, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 23:15:32 -0700,



Ian Chua <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2:09 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Ian Chua" <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1176444258.383679.169120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 13, 1:47 am, "Ian Chua" <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 1:35 am, "Ian Chua" <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 13, 1:05 am, "snex" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 12, 11:57 pm, "Ian Chua" <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 11, 12:07 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"On 11 Apr 2007 08:14:10 -0700, in article
<1176304450.085331.40...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, omprem stated..."

On Apr 11, 9:38 am, "Danny the Burgundy" <frontd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:2qlp1357pj6aj2r16ronotb1k3c39l4ger@xxxxxxxxxx

From the article:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely
provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot
be reproduced in a laboratory.

Transubstantiation, on the other hand, has been demonstrated under
laboratory conditions on any number of occasions.

You are missing the point. Evolutionists claim to be guided by
empiricism and scientific method. The Pope merely pointed out that
replicability is the cornerstone of the so-called scientific method
and this standard was not adhered to in proclaiming the validity of
evolution. Next issue.

Just as Galileo was not able to replicate the motion of the earth.

Or just as today, no one is able to replicate a hurricane.

But evolution can be replicated.

I do not see a difference between the Bible's account of creation and
the theory of evolution because the Bible does not specify that those
days and nights of creation were solar days and nights. They could
just have easily been cosmic days and nights of God's choosing.
Hinduism has an interesting cosmogony that views days and nights in
terms on a cosmic scale with 4,320,000,000 solar years equal to 1 day
of Brahman. The Christian God could just as easily been using a
similar system.

Whether those days were solar days, or lunar days, or dog days, if you
take the sequence literally, then you get the rather "interesting" order:

The firmament appeared on day 2.

The earth and the waters were separated, and grass and fruit
trees appeared, on day 3.

The sun, moon, and stars appeared on day 4.

Yes, it might seem an illogical order for the sun and light to
come after the plants and trees. However, I see no problem
for the plants and trees to be in darkness for 12 hrs before they
get their first light. We can imagine In Creation that everything
is accelerated. It would not be unreasonable to assume that
light and light energy existed long before the earth was
created. And either the earth was travelling at great speed
towards the light or a dark cloud covered the whole earth
and this dark cloud was simply removed so that daylight
can penetrate at the right time when the plants and trees
are ready to receive the light.

do you have any evidence for any of this, or are you just making it up
out of thin air in order to maintain belief in ancient fairy tales?

Fish and birds appeared on day 5.

Land animals appeared on day 6.

Internal parasites and living things other than plants and animals
are never mentioned.

Of course, science today is generally agreed that the sun appeared
before there were any plants on earth; that birds appeared after the
first land animals; that fruit trees did also; and that there is no
firmament (separating the waters above from the waters below).

--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)

Interesting question - if we can find a way to accelerate the growth
of plant cells
under darkness first then light and compare with exposure to light
first then
darkness, it might shed some light as to why God let light appear
later.

Sorry - looks like I recall wrongly.
Light actually came on the 1st day of Creation (Genesis 1:3).

So, to continue....if the Sun only came into existence on the 4th day
of
Creation, what is the source of Light on the 1st day of Creation??
You need lots of imagination here.... God Himself was the Source
of the Light. Being in control, He can cause more light energy to
generate from Himself. And then, after He created the Sun on the
4th day, the Sun takes over as the light source.

Perhaps the light came from a supernova, which triggered the gravitational
collapse of a gas cloud which resulted in the sun and other stars several
days later.

That's also very good imagination.
It depends whether you accept or deny the existence of God.

It depends on whether you want to come up with a workable theory, or just
want to keep a Bronze Age myth going.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx

In science, we assume Theory A. And if Theory A is able to explain
most of
our observations, we would adopt Theory A. There had been some
interesting
theories about light. We had a theory about light comprising of
particles
and that worked to explain several behaviour of light. But some
phenomenn
of light cannot be explained by light being a particle but a wave.
Sometimes
we need more than one theory to explain light, so we now have the
paricle-wave
duality theory of light.

In the case of Genesis, the theory would be there is a God who exists.
But then depending on how powerful you believe He is, His existence
can explain everything, regardless of whether you understood why He
did
the things He did.

Can you tell me how a scientific theory that involves an all-powerful
entity is actually supposed to work? How do I formulate a test for
any part of this theory? Can you tell me how to falsify "God did x"?

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages