AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Review of Genesis Enigma and Why us? by Andrew Parker and James Le Fanu
I was not thrilled to be handed two huge tomes of scientific material to plough through and review. However the writing in both these books is surprisingly clear and interesting; and the conclusions of both writers are astonishing.
Rather than modern science delivering the death blow to religion, both authors contend that from an evolutionary science and a medical science background, there is evidence for the existence of God, and a need to embrace mystery and faith.
Andrew Parker discovered the Genesis Enigma while on a tour of the Vatican in Rome. He saw Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel, with its depiction of the steps of creation from Genesis, and he suddenly realised that the most modern discoveries of science actually back up the order of creation described in the first chapter of Genesis:
Let there be light: Formation of the sun (5,000M yrs ago)
Waters separated from the land: Formation of seas and land separated (4,200M)
Vegetation, seed-bearing plants and trees: Beginnings of life including plants (3,900M)
Lights dividing day and night: Beginning of vision (521M)
Fish and birds: Marine life dominated, then birds
Living creatures: More complex animals developed
The fourth step is the one he has been most criticised for, since a normal reading of those verses would seem to indicate the creation of the sun and moon. However, Parker points out that the creation of the sun has been referred to on the first day, why repeat? Whereas a more logical conclusion would be referral to the first moment that vision was detected, with the ability to discern between night and day.
Parker himself discovered the beginning of vision, and its place as the "big bang" moment of evolution, the point at which predators were more able to identify prey, causing prey to evolve more quickly.
His conclusion is that the author must either have had divine inspiration or made an extremely lucky (and rather unlikely) guess. His own opinion is that Genesis is evidence of God's hand in the Bible.
James le Fanu comes from a background as a medical doctor and writer for quality journals such as The Lancet, New Statesman and New Scientist. He examined the thirty major scientific discoveries in the last 60 years which include such marvels as the atom bomb, walking on the moon, test tube babies and the Human Genome project.
His conclusion is that rather than delivering certainty, all these scientific discoveries have opened up the mystery of life. We know so much, but there is so much more to be known. He also raises the possibility that science will never deliver the certainty that was promised by Darwin and Freud.
The specific mysteries he points to include: altruism = something that means we put others before ourselves, possibly lessening our own chances of survival; the existence of free will, the ability to choose and not just respond to automatic instincts; and the fact that both of us might be here at the same time with the same inputs but have completely individual experiences, resulting from our own history and our different perceptions and emotional interpretations.
Other mysteries which may never be explained by a materialist scientific approach: the richness and accessibility of memory = our brain can sort through experiences and remember not just the visuals but the feelings associated with that event; human reason and imagination = higher functions that eclipse our ability to understand, reproduce or even predict; the self = the non-material being that is distinctive, and unique.
Le Fanu contradicts Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism. He asserts it is rational to have faith because science reveals the mystery of life. Rather than faith being an excuse to avoid thinking and evaluating evidence, it can be seen as the art of holding onto things your reason has accepted.
He ends with a call for a renewed sympathy with religion, and an embracing of our Christian heritage; as well as a deepened respect for the unexplained and unfathomable beauty and diversity of the planet around us.
What are we to make of these new books? Their similarities are striking:
"¢ Both mention Alister McGrath in their acknowledgements as helping to challenge and shape their thinking
"¢ Both quote Christian theologian and writer CS Lewis
"¢ Both mention the mind and spirit-expanding influence of the paintings of Michelangelo
"¢ Both commenced from a point of religious scepticism but end up willing to embrace notions of faith and the existence of God.
While we cannot wheel out these books as arguments for the truth of the Gospel message, we can point to the death of materialist certainty as a philosophy; the willingness of new science to embrace mystery and the possibility of God; and the reliability of the biblical record. It is also important to note how great Christian thinkers and artists can have a pervasive influence through their work and their conversations. It is an encouragement for us to try and influence those around us.
KARA MARTIN is a lecturer with School of Christian Studies (www.socs.org.au), and is an avid reader and book group attendee. Kara does book reviews for Hope 1032's Open House (www.theopenhouse.net.au).
I have always had trouble with the theory (yes it's still only a theory)of evolution as it involves death and mutation to arrive at higher forms of live. Simply put its mean death and mutations for millions of years before man appears. After God created the seas, the living creatures etc we read that God saw that it was good. Death and mutations are good? It also means we have death and mutations before Adam because under the theory of evolution man appears at the end of spectrum. So we have death before Adam sins. Wasn't it Adam's sin that caused the curse and death?
I can't see how millions of years back up Genesis.
Like many, you have fallen into the trap of the dual meanings of the word "theory". There is the common meaning (a hypothesis, an idea looking for proof) and the scientific meaning (an explanation of all the available evidence). The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is as close to scientific fact as you can get. So, evolution is NOT "only a theory".
Evolution is not about death - it is about reproduction and the occasional random mutation causing variation over a very long time scale (billions of years).
To me, our current knowledge of the Universe and the Theory of Evolution and it's wealth of supporting evidence means that Genesis is bronze-age mythology - another creation story. Every culture has one...
If you would like to learn more about the evidence for evolution, I recommend Richard Dawkins's latest book The Greatest Show On Earth.
Cheers.
I disagree.Close to does not make something a fact. Every time I read about origins from an evolutionary perpsective it is filled with maybes, we think, could have, possibly _ _ hardly facts. Evolution is about death because it's about a mutation being passed on from one generation to the next over a period of time. Death is unavoidable.
The reason every culure has one is because they come from an original source. I believe that source to be Genesis.I have read Richard Dawkins and I'm still not convinced.
Evolution is as much a fact as the Holocaust (this is the comparison in Dawkins's latest book) - based on the amount of evidence available.
We convict criminals in our courts with less evidence than we have for evolution! I would even suggest that there is more evidence for evolution than there is for the story as told in Genesis!
I agree that death is unavoidable but it has nothing to do with evolution as such. It is the reproductive process that is subject to random mutations. If a mutation is favourable AND the animal or plant survives long enough to reproduce, the mutation is passed on to the next generation. So, I guess you could say that death can be a factor in evolution but only to stop a variation from being passed on.
Are you suggesting that the creation myths of the North American and South American Indians, our Aborigines, African tribesmen, the Chinese, etc all have a common source? They are all too different for that. And I believe the creation myth of ancient Babylon (which includes a flood) are older than the Genesis story. http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
Have you read Dawkins's latest book? It was only released last month. I am still waiting for my copy to arrive. Maybe Tuesday...
Another book worth reading is "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne.
Which part of Dawkins's explanation are you unsure about?
Cheers.
Dawkins book has been out for weeks. I picked it up at the airport in NZ 10 days ago - I also saw it in Dymocks yesterday.
I'll get back to the other points you raised later but firtsly Dawkins. His book is a properganda. It's a communication strategy whereby if you continually say something, eg evolution is a fact, then many people will take it as a given. Politicians do this all the time.
He also uses history to try and convince people that it's a fact by using the holocaust as an example. The holocaust was an observable historical incident - it was seen and recorded by people. Evolution is not. Dawkins admits that we can't see evolution happening as we don't live long enough - so to compare the two is comparing apples and oranges.
He also says evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. I can go to Paris and confirm it's existence. If the debate was that simple, you could go and prove evolution with such tangible evidence, there would be no debate. However again he uses an example that you can't compare.
He also says his book is like a detective who comes across a crime scene. He can't see the crime, evolution, but he can investigate it. Again he admits you can't see it happening.I was taught that science involved observation and experimentation that could be repeated. This does not occur with evolution beyond even a reasonable doubt!
Mutations - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp
I would not expect the stories from other cultures to be exactly the same. Stories were carried as a narrative and intepreted as part of whatever culture was telling their story. It's interesting to see how many of them, not just the Bablyonian, have a flood story.
regards,
It has been very frustrating while I patiently wait for my copy of The Greatest Show On Earth. I ordered it from the ABC (I like to support Auntie!) but they were out of stock. So, you have me at a disadvantage...
I could argue that your definition of propaganda also fits the Genesis story. Another definition of propaganda is 'information intended to deceive'. Neither Genesis nor Evolution/Dawkins fits here either in that both views try to explain our origins in the light of the evidence available at the time. Scientists have quite different agendas from politicians (truth vs votes). That is not a fair comparison.
Concerning the Holocaust, the quote is "The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust." He is referring to the amount and strength of evidence - not the type of evidence. Yes, the Holocaust was observed first hand by a number of people. Evolution is harder to observe - but it has been. Evolution's evidence lies in fossils and genetics, geology and chemistry, etc and there is lots of it.
The reference to Paris is another indication of the strength of the evidence - not the type. Would it take a trip to Paris to convince you that it is really there? Or, is all the map data, travel documentaries, encyclopaedias, Google Earth, etc sufficient? If it is, I suggest that the evidence for evolution is at least as strong though not as obvious.
The strength of any good scientific theory is it's ability to predict. Evolution predicted transitional fossils and, while rare, they do exist. A weak point in Darwin's theory was that he did not understand how the variations were passed on. That has been answered by genetics and molecular biology - all in accordance with the theory's predictions.
Darwin admitted that if something as complex as the 'camera eye' could not be explained, then his theory would be disproved. However, there are creatures alive now that have 'eyes' (some not much better than simple light sensitive patch of cells) that demonstrate possible stages in the development of eyes. Yes, it doesn't 'prove' evolution but the detective would say that the case is very strong - beyond reasonable doubt.
Probably more importantly, it doesn't disprove the theory. I don't know of any verifiable evidence that disproves the theory. Do you?
If you look at all the evidence and listen to the vast majority of scientists, the logical conclusion is that evolution is the best theory we have that explains our origins and fits the evidence.
Cheers.
Re: Mutations - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp
There are so many logical errors in this that I don't know where to start...
How about the assertion that breeding causes a loss of information. Two of the main reasons we breed food plants is disease resistance and yield. Breeding usually involves crossing two species of similar plants and selecting the 'best' results. Surely this is creating a new combination of genes that didn't previously exist = new information = a new useful sentence to use their poor English example.
They also talk about "the vast quantities of information of the first self-reproducing cell" as if the complex cells we are made of suddenly appeared 'ready made'. This is not in accord with scientific theory (Abiogenesis) which states that the first cells were just collections of quite simple molecules.
There are some good videos on YouTube. Try searching for "origin of life abiogenesis". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg is a good example.
Enough for now. I need some sleep. :-)
Cheers.
I couldn't let Philip's "only a theory" comment go unchallenged! ;-)
I think my wife bought Sunday's Herald. Do you remember which page the review was on please?
Thanks.
Cheers.
Thanks for the encouraging words. There is nothing to be gained by allowing a discussion like this to degenerate to 'mud slinging'. Besides, we may each learn something of the other's point of view and therefore be better informed. And I would rather make friends than enemies!!!
I got the impression from your first posting that it was Sunday's Herald but you just said it was Saturday's. Can you confirm it was Saturday's please and I will start checking our recycling heap. Thanks.
Found it - thanks. I'll comment when I have time to read it.
Cheers.
The reason I say propaganda is because Dawkins is derogatory towards creationists. He says they are woefully informed, the absurdity of the creationist argument, their ignorance and says evolution is beyond sane, informed intelligent doubt. He also says reputable scientists believe evolution with the inference that you are not reputable if you disagree with him. Genesis tells the story full stop, you can believe it or not whereas Dawkins is on a campaign.
You can’t separate the strength of the evidence from the type of evidence.I can choose to believe that Paris exists based on map data, travel etc. But there is always the ultimate proof available – I can go to Paris and see for myself. I can’t see evolution happening. If there was a group of people saying Paris does not exist then it could be proven that it does by tangible evidence – take them to Paris. If evolution was that easily proven you would not have to worry about creationists or intelligent design as they would have no case.
You quote, "Again he admits you can't see it happening" - just because you can't see something happening doesn't mean it didn't happen! It certainly doesn’t prove it either and it leaves the door open to say it didn’t happen.
Part two follows _ _ _
I was talking about observing evolution, the actual act of evolution occurring. Both Evolutionist and Creationist can observe fossils.
Evolutionary Theory does not predict anything. A prediction is suggesting something that will happen in the future. Fossils were laid in the past and are present in the here and now.
Quote ‘Breeding usually involves crossing two species of similar plants and selecting the 'best' results.’ This not evolution based on evolutionary theory. It has a deliberate intervention by man.
Quote, “(Abiogenesis) which states that the first cells were just collections of quite simple molecules.†This is also a theory.
I’ll watch the youtube video.
Regards,
Phil
The idea that the earth is millions of years old is designed to intimidate each individual human being into thinking that they are insignificant. Throw in the idea that we evolved from pond slime and subsequent feelings of worthlessness are understandable. (The theory of evolution is not designed to encourage people to embrace the image of God in which they were made.)
However the earth is not millions of years old and people did not evolve from pond slime. The earth is no older than about 8,000 years and quite likely only 6,000 years old. The difference depends on the age at which people in the genealogies recorded in the Bible had their first children.
Adam and Eve were created from nothing as two complete people by God. They both existed in history just as I exist in history now as I type this. Paul's references to Adam in Romans 5 indicate that he believed that Adam was a real, historical person. His references to Eve in 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 indicate that he also believed that Eve was a real, historical person. Was Paul deluded? I think not. (In fact, 1 Timothy 2:13 summarises this entire subject in just seven words. Note that it clearly implies that Adam was created out of nothing.)
Continued...
The idea that the earth is millions of years old is false, inconsistent with reality and is in direct contradiction with the Bible as Philip Coller has pointed out in his post at #1. God doesn’t need to ‘use’ a process such as ‘evolution’ to create the universe or the creatures in it. He’s quite capable of doing it Himself - which is exactly what He did. If the theory of evolution was true, we wouldn’t have bodies that are externally symmetrical along their length. I am talking about the virtually perfect external symmetry of the human body. It’s more than a coincidence that God is heavily into perfection.
I was interested to see that a discovery of fossilised dinosaur eggs was reported the other day in the media. They reckon these eggs are millions of years old. Yeah right. What kind of dinosaur eggs remain in tact for millions of years just waiting to be discovered? They must be made out of titanium. Clearly these dinosaur eggs are not millions of years old but thousands of years old.
I watched the youtube.
Myth 1 Spontaneous generation. Way to be current – come on. That’s like saying we can discount Newton and gravity because he lived the 1600’s. The way to discount the myth is to show proof of spontaneous generation, which we know does not happen. The first law of thermodynamics means spontaneous generation does not occur.
Myth 2 – Single Cell forming by chance. The mathematically equation does nothing to prove or disprove that early cells could not been have complex as modern cells. They are two different issues. I am also aware of evolutions who use mathematical equations like this anyway.
Myth 3 – Ben Stein’s quote. I don’t think this is used by creationists as an argument and I’m not sure why it was included as a myth.
Myth 4 – Miller-Urey experiment. Like saying man didn’t walk on the moon? I refer back to my response about Paris. It’s a similar flawed argument.
There is no creationist argument listed earlier. It is suggested by the author of this youtube presentation as an assumption from a mathematical equation (see myth 2). A creationist would say life was fully formed and did not evolve from a single cell.
The presentation then rests on spontaneous generation – this is a false base and means the rest of the assumptions are pointless because the foundation is just not there. Another comment – it mentions re life that the polymer containing vesicles floats through the ocean. Where did the ocean come from?
Mutation usually leads to less information no more - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-mutations-the-engine
Regards,
Phil
First - the creation week resembling evolution. I've heard that theory before and indeed it doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. The biggest problem - the earth came first, not the sun! That immediately contradicts evolution/big bang. Secondly, fish and birds 'evolved' and than land animals. Unfortunately birds supposedly evolved from land animals - dinosaurs. And lastly, as has been commented on, the idea that the lights that divide the day from the night is very weak indeed. I'm sure the author was well intentioned in trying to fit these ideas together, however they're two incompatible ideas. The hypothesis of evolution was invented to explain our world in a way that EXCLUDES God. To then try and fit it back in to the bible ie God's word, doesn't make much sense.
My second point has to do with the reliability of Dawkins. Les, being on an Anglican forum, I'll presume you have a Christian faith (correctly or not). Dawkins is spearheading the biggest attack on Christianity today, atheism justified by evolution. He will resort to any tactics to make his points, including mis-representation, half truths, story telling and straight out deceit. His arguments tell 'just so' stories of how things 'might' have happened, and then says that it's proof.
www.creationministries.com
Every topic that you mentioned that backs up evolution ie geology, archeology etc, is addressed comprehensively. As a Christian, it's a very interesting place to spend some time.
Straight out of the YEC playbook - describes any one of them perfectly.
Sorry for the delay - I had to work over some of the long weekend...
In #19...
Observing the actual act of evolution is not so easy as by definition evolution takes a long time - millions of years.
"Evolutionary Theory does not predict anything. A prediction is suggesting something that will happen in the future." No, scientific theories predict things about gaps in our knowledge of our world/universe - often in the past, sometimes in the future.
Please read this and I hope you will understand what I mean.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
Evolution and breeding by man are very similar processes. We select for features we desire such as disease resistance or shaggy coat. We can see how much variation we can achieve in a few tens or hundreds of years. Imagine what 'nature' (ie, evolution) can do in a few million years...
"[Abiogenesis] is also a theory". Yes, I agree. No argument there! :-)
And it is an immature theory so it will 'evolve' as we learn more.
Science has many theories...
Cheers.
In #18...
Dawkins's views are fairly 'strong' but are they any less 'strong' than the views of many creationists - especially Young Earth Creationists (YEC)? They are two opposing world views. His reference to "reputable scientists" is meant to exclude a small minority of scientists with creationist views rather than to imply that you (and I) are not reputable.
I don't know how you can say that "Genesis tells the story full stop" in the light of all the evidence and knowledge that science has accumulated since Genesis was written. I prefer to look at the evidence for both 'stories' and then make a decision. I cannot believe Genesis just because someone says "believe it or not" as I haven't seen any verifiable evidence to support that story.
There are many things in this world that cannot be proved by seeing for yourself. For example, the atomic theories that predict how certain materials behave cannot be verified by looking at the atoms. But, we can see the effects and verify the predicted behaviour in the semiconductors (Silicon) that make our mobile phones and TVs work. Or we can understand why a diamond is so strong or graphite so 'slippery' (both are made of Carbon atoms).
You can't always believe something is true just because you say it. Examples are the many good illusions (aka magic) that we love to watch. Or does that poor person really get sawed in half... ;-) My point is that seeing is not always the ultimate proof.
To be continued
It is very late and I need sleep so I will address your points soon. And I have questions for you. Maybe tomorrow night...
I had no idea this discussion would go so far! :-)
Cheers all.
#29 Quote -"Evolution and breeding by man are very similar processes". I disagree. Breeding is about selecting a suitable plant, experimenting about compability, assessing the outcome as a food source to keep it very simple. the bottom line is an intelligent source, in this case a man, guides the process and makes changes as needed. Evoltuion form Dawkins perpsective has no intelligent source. This is a huge difference.
regards,
Phil
*30 My point about Genesis tells the story full stop was that you read Genesis, and unlike Dawkins, it does not have a commentary about being reputable, or sane etc, and not that is was all the evidence etc. Maybe it was the clumsy way that I wrote it. My point was that Dawkins would be more credible if he stuck to what he thought were the "facts" without the derogarty comments.
#32
Breeding and evolution are similar in that they are both driven by 'selection' - breeding is selection by man (process is fast but over a short time), evolution is selection by nature (process is slow but over extremely long time). Man can hasten the process and steer it for his own purposes but it is still the same process. I should have been more explicit...
Evolution does not need an intelligent 'source' or driver - only the ability for an organism to adapt by small increments over time to its environment.
Cheers.
#33
Dawkins has been criticised for being forceful or outspoken but, if he wasn't, would he have succeeded in bringing his 'message' into the open so we can discuss it? Not necessarily the best 'tactic' but not necessarily a bad thing either.
Cheers.
#20
I would suggest that the fact that the earth is Billions (not millions) of years old and that we have evolved from very simple life forms to our current position in evolution is such an amazing and fantastic achievement that I could never feel worthless. The Theory of Evolution is designed to explain the evidence - it has nothing to with "the image of God".
You are correct - the earth is not millions of years old. Scientific evidence shows that it is about 4.7 Billion years old. What is the basis for your claim that the earth is only 8000 years old? According to some Christian friends of mine, few Christians these days take the Genesis creation story literally...
I don't know of any verifiable evidence that Adam and Eve every existed. Every culture has had their creation story - Adam and Eve are part of the Hebrew creation story as written down in Genesis.
Cheers.
#21
Is the 'old earth' wrong because it contradicts the bible? Or do you have some real evidence for such a claim?
Why would we have asymmetrical bodies if evolution was true? If as you claim that god only creates symmetrical creatures, please explain the flatfish such as flounder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatfish
Do you consider the human body to be perfect?
Human body imperfections that come to mind are the eye and appendix...
No, the fossilised dinosaur eggs were not made of titanium. Titaniunm does not occur naturally. They were made of 'stone' that had formed in the cavity of the eggs. I suggest you read about fossils at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
Cheers.
#22
I agree that the '4 myths' section are not the strong point of the video. It was the stuff that came after that is more interesting...
Abiogenesis is an immature theory and was not the original point of the discussion which was Evolution.
The spontaneous generation referred to in the video is that of fully formed organisms. The later part proposes a possible theory for the steps from raw chemicals to first 'life' - not 'spontaneous generation' as such.
I don't know where the oceans came from but water is one of the most abundant substances in the universe...
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Mu-Oi/Ocean.html is one interesting explanation.
"Mutation usually leads to less information no more". "Usually" implies that occasionally it could result in more information! If a random process (mutation) can result in less information, why can't it result in more? If it didn't, it wouldn't be random would it...
Sometimes children are born with an extra finger or toe. Is this 'more information'? Something to think about...
Cheers.
Your question: "What is the basis for your claim that the earth is only 8,000 years old?"
My answer: I actually didn’t say that. I said that, “The earth is no older than about 8,000 years and quite likely only 6,000 years old.â€
In any case, the basis of my claim is my faith in the accuracy of the Bible as well as my faith in the veracity of God’s own audibly spoken word in Exodus 20:11 in which He testifies Himself that He made the world in six days:
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
As far as I am concerned, God is not a liar.
The genealogies in the Bible (ie. Genesis 5, Genesis 11, Matthew 1) show that there is between 4,028 and 6,278 years between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus Christ. The difference depends on the age of the father when each first-born child was born in the genealogy in Matthew 11 from the birth of Solomon to the birth of Jesus Christ (who did not have an earthly father but an earthly guardian in Joseph), which detail is not included in this genealogy. (There is another detail that I haven’t isolated yet, namely the year in which Solomon was born.) If the average age of the father when each first-born child was born was 30, then the world is 6,042 years old (+/- 1% for the Solomon unknown).
Continued...
If the average age of the father when each first-born child was born was 120, then the world is 8,292 years old (+/-1% for the Solomon unknown).
Your comment: "According to some Christian friends of mine, few Christians these days take the Genesis creation story literally..."
My response: That may or may not be true. In any case, truth is not determined by majority rule.
Your comment: "I don't know of any verifiable evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed."
My response: I agree that there is no verifiable evidence currently available that Adam and Eve ever existed. There are references to Adam in the Bible as well as genealogies in the Bible linking Jesus' birth right back to Adam (ie. Genesis 5, Genesis 11, Matthew 1) but that is not verifiable evidence.
However, in the long term, everything can be verified. On the day of judgement, when we all stand before Jesus Christ, you’ll discover that I’ve told you the truth, just as the Bible tells the truth about Adam and Eve being real people who existed in history in the same manner in which we exist today.
Continued...
Your comment: “Why would we have asymmetrical bodies if evolution was true? If as you claim that God only creates symmetrical creatures, please explain the flatfish such as flounder.â€
My response: To answer your second request, I did not claim that God only creates symmetrical creatures as you state above, misquoting me. I claimed that God created the human body, both male and female with virtually perfect external symmetry. So I was clearly talking about the external symmetry of the human body. I was not referring to any other creature on the planet. Obviously there are other creatures which do not have external symmetry. They’re in the minority.
To answer your first question, if the theory of evolution was true, we would have externally asymmetrical bodies because it’s statistically impossible for the random mutations involved in the theory evolution to produce the virtually perfect external symmetry of the human body.
Continued...
Your question: “Do you consider the human body to be perfect? Human body imperfections that come to mind are the eye and appendix...â€
My answer: I claimed that God created the human body, both male and female, with virtually perfect external symmetry. I made no reference to the perfection or otherwise of the physiology of the human body which includes its interior as well as its exterior.
In any case, to answer your question, God made the human body perfect but it was corrupted by the fall of Adam and Eve which introduced the effects of sin into the creation. Therefore, the human body after the fall is not perfect. It can be born with imperfections or get sick et cetera.
Your comment: “No, the fossilised dinosaur eggs were not made of titanium. Titanium does not occur naturally. They were made of 'stone' that had formed in the cavity of the eggs.â€
My answer: I trust that you can see I was making a joke. Irrespective of what the fossilised dinosaur eggs ended up being composed of, the idea that they were buried or rolling around or whatever for millions of years before being discovered in tact recently, as reported in the press, is ridiculous. Any point on the globe goes through geological changes in the course of any thousand year period. There are sedimentary layers deposited, or earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions, or flooding which moves the soil and rocks et cetera around.
Continued...
The idea that these dinosaur eggs sat in their little hidey hole for millions of years throughout all of these possible geological changes at their location without being damaged by those changes before being discovered in tact recently is absurd. Clearly these dinosaur eggs were not millions of years old, but in the order of thousands of years old.
The End
*34 What is 'nature' and how does an organism gain the ability to adapt?
*38 In relation to an extra finger, it is an extra piece of existing information, a finger. It is not new in that it is something that previously did not occur, it is an extra finger but not a new body part. Evolution is based on new information occuring.
So I did google it and the third link went to this website which suggests that the video is a misrepresentation of what happened and provides the requested example (the quality of which I am in no way equipped to comment on).
If this is how we treat them no wonder so many celebrity atheists seem grumpy and dismissive all the time.
* Not judging whether Marc and Grant were actually making unreasonable claims for how the documents should be read, just pointing out that the accusation of "inappropriate expectations" can run both ways.
** "literally" - by which I mean reading the text without due regard for whether it is a ledger, a parable, a meticulous investigation or a poetic flight of fancy (or some other form of writing), nor for the stylistic norms of the writer and audience.
*** And yes, I am claiming that it's entirely possible that Genesis 1 (and maybe a bit more) was written as a form of parable. I also think evolution as a "scientific hypothesis" is gives a lot less than some scientific polemecists (eg Huxley, Dawkins) want to claim for it.
Thanks for your comments in relation to my posts at #20, #21, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, listed for the convenience of any interested reader.
When Genesis arrives at a genealogy by chapter five, which basically starts by stating that Adam lived for 130 years before his first son, Seth, was born and ends by talking about the birth of Noah and his sons, who is referenced in Hebrews 11:7 as an historical figure among the entire list of heroes of faith from Abel to King David, I think it's pretty clear that the book of Genesis is intended to be an historical account from beginning to end, albeit one which deals with some intensely supernatural events, not the least of which is God creating Adam out of the dust of the earth (Genesis 3:19).
All this stuff about the earth being millions of years old or humans evolving from swamp creatures or whatever, it's all a bunch of lies. Christians have been trying to make this stuff fit with the Bible for as long as I can remember but the reality is that it doesn't fit, and it never will, because it isn't true. It's like the western world is under mass-hypnosis because every few weeks the mass-media trots out some article sourced from the 'scientific' community talking about millions of years or billions of years or their latest guess at how it all began. What's the point of being in that kind of trance? It’s not reality.
Although this discussion has so far been a lot more civil than previous ones we've had on the same subject, it's resulting in the same conclusion - two 'sides' with strongly held positions trying to convince the other that they're wrong/deluded/lost/naive etc.
Don't get me wrong...I think it's important to have these discussions, and all sides should be open enough to hear and engage with another's position.
Unfortunately, history shows that, on this site at least, neither side can budge the other, and all too often it's ended in tears.
With this in mind, and given that I've got better things to do on the weekend than keep on eye on this thread "just in case", I'm going to close it at 5pm.
So, you've got 20 minutes to make closing statements :-)
BTW, thanks for the review, Kara - they sound like interesting reads.