|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2005 01:29:01 PM · #426 |
I'm just trying to understand this from the Christian pow. Myself being born Jewish, we are taught, "life above all else." Am I wrong in assuming that for Christians the afterlife in heaven with god is most important and that life here on earth is just transitional? Should a Christian woman/man who was seriously ill seek medical attention for themselves if it's only going to delay them being with their god?
Originally posted by papa:
People were created to value life. It is a gift to be cherished. We are also created with compassion for others. Christians have a role model in Christ Jesus that healed the sick and, raised the dead, cast out demons. He did not withhold help, so why should we if we are able? |
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 01:54:56 PM · #427 |
Heaven is the prize, yes. Life is the journey. Whether or not I would call it transitional is another thing. I believe we have a purpose here on earth.
The bible says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. I think we should explore that creation and get a better appreciation for just how wonderful that creation is. Isn't it remarkable how big the universe is? Isn't it amazing how we are constantly finding out new things? There is so much to learn and so little time to learn it. We have been given a gift that we can never fully unwrap and appreciate. It's just too vast. When I look at how everything works and how detailed and intricate things are, I cannot make myself believe it's a huge accident. It just makes more sense to me that all this has a creator. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 02:21:04 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If you truly believed in the Christian afterlife then that child being carried out to see by the undertow would be going to heaven and to be closer to god. |
Only God would know the child's fate with certainty.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Then why save the child? A child without the maturity to make choices would certainly be going to heaven then. |
There is no such certainty. Only God is able to make that determination - after all, Heaven is His domain.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
For that matter, any adult Christian living a good Christian life would also be going to heaven, |
Two notes are required here: 1) living a good Christian life has nothing to do with whether one goes to heaven or not ( Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. ), and 2) it depends on an absolutely literal interpretation of the meaning of "Christian" as one who believes IN Jesus AS the Christ ( faith ), not just one who practices Christianity ( religion ) - ( Romans 10:9-13 says If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." )
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
but if she/he were sick or injured seriously, then why try to save that adult with medical care? |
Because a) life is precious, b) oftentimes, it is only when a person comes to the realization that they are seriously ill, even terminally ill, that they are willing to recognize their need for reconciliation to God through Christ, and c) it is not always just about the sick person, sometimes it is about YOU, learning the lessons of patience, caring, perserverance, compassion, etc.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Certainly that adult would be in heaven with god. |
Not necessarily, as I have just pointed out, UNLESS that person were a Christian in the literal ( faith ) sense.
Message edited by author 2005-04-15 14:50:57. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 02:52:25 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by papa:
Heaven is the prize, yes. Life is the journey. Whether or not I would call it transitional is another thing. I believe we have a purpose here on earth.
The bible says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. I think we should explore that creation and get a better appreciation for just how wonderful that creation is. Isn't it remarkable how big the universe is? Isn't it amazing how we are constantly finding out new things? There is so much to learn and so little time to learn it. We have been given a gift that we can never fully unwrap and appreciate. It's just too vast. When I look at how everything works and how detailed and intricate things are, I cannot make myself believe it's a huge accident. It just makes more sense to me that all this has a creator. |
BINGO |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 04:41:04 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The Creationist position has never denied micro-evolutionary processes, such as those which result in new strains of bacteria. The debate is about MACRO-evolution. |
The "Macro" version is the same process, but after many millions longer a time, the changes become more apparent.
I can't think of any logical reasoning which would let one believe in one kind of evolution but not the other. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 04:57:42 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
The Creationist position has never denied micro-evolutionary processes, such as those which result in new strains of bacteria. The debate is about MACRO-evolution. |
The "Macro" version is the same process, but after many millions longer a time, the changes become more apparent.
I can't think of any logical reasoning which would let one believe in one kind of evolution but not the other. |
It's quite LOGICAL, AND has been observed first-hand. Why, even I can see clear evidence of micro-evolution. For example, visit any fort, colony, castle, or ship that is more than a century old and you will find that the beds used by the people of the time would be far too short for comtemporary men and women. Obviously people are taller on average today than they were just a few hundred years ago - that's micro-evolution. Perdue's chickens are another example of micro-evolution, but not as a result of "natural" processes. Frank actually used a computer and calipers to conduct a selective breeding program to "engineer" ( micro-evolve ) chickens with larger breasts. Again, an observable, verifiable process. Most "selective breeding" programs, in fact, rely on the process of micro-evolution.
There is NO such evidence for Macro-evolution - because there is nothing directly observable as a continuum.
Message edited by author 2005-04-15 17:07:54. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 05:13:47 PM · #432 |
Why would it not be just as possible for everything to be created by a Creator with a designed process of "micro-evolution"? Why is it also not possible for things to be created that already display signs of age? The bible says God created MAN, not boy or baby. He created something already "aged". Why not the rest of the world? Maybe, in this "micro-evolutionary" process, it takes billions of years to create some of the things we see today. But why does that automatically mean that God didn't create everything already aged and set this process in motion?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 05:25:44 PM · #433 |
On MACRO-Evolution:
"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary- Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883)
More:
Dr. David M. Raup, Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, in the museum's Bulletin, Jan. 1979, p25 says:
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."
More:
Dr. Patterson in the Keynote Address at the Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981, said:
"Last year I had a sudden realization, for twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so mislead so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff of the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in High school.' " |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 05:30:07 PM · #434 |
| So, where exactly is heaven? |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 05:31:39 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
So, where exactly is heaven? |
You and I probably needn't worry about that -- our paths likely lead to that other place ... |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 05:34:01 PM · #436 |
| I'm pretty sure heaven is exactly where God put it. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 05:36:06 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by papa:
I'm pretty sure heaven is exactly where God put it. |
First, that's no answer. Second, you ought to be absolutely sure that's where it is -- where else could it be but where God put it? |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 05:40:00 PM · #438 |
Well, first it's the only real answer that could possibly stand up as true.
Second, not knowing the mechanics and physical properties of heaven, I cannot say with absolute certainty that it still resides where He first placed it.
-Just playing around a bit. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 06:04:00 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
So, where exactly is heaven? |
You and I probably needn't worry about that -- our paths likely lead to that other place ... |
Ya well, I wouldnât want to hang out with a god as ruthless and narcissistic as this one seems to be. I canât just be a "good guy", I have to worship him.
Iâve never been big on authority figures. Especially ones whoâs legitimacy canât be legitimized. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 06:11:29 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
So, where exactly is heaven? |
You and I probably needn't worry about that -- our paths likely lead to that other place ... |
Ya well, I wouldnât want to hang out with a god as ruthless and narcissistic as this one seems to be. I canât just be a "good guy", I have to worship him.
Iâve never been big on authority figures. Especially ones whoâs legitimacy canât be legitimized. |
Are you able to offer supportive evidence for your use of the adjectives "ruthless" and "narcissistic" as they relate to God? Or are those just opinions arrived at without any basis in fact? |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 06:25:05 PM · #441 |
| Still though, I would like to hear where the believers think heaven is. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 08:57:10 PM · #442 |
Not sure what the value is of trying to pin a christian down to a question nobody has the answer to. Nobody knows silly, cept God and those that have already gone.
I would be interested as well to find out why you believe God is ruthless and narcissistic. Might explain why you come off sounding aggressive towards anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. Not saying you are, just seems that way. I understand the internet is very hard to convey true emotions and attitudes.
And no, being a good guy is not enough. There is only ONE way to heaven. The wages of sin is death. Fortunately for you (and everyone), Jesus paid that price for you. All you have to do is believe it. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 09:02:38 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by papa:
Not sure what the value is of trying to pin a christian down to a question nobody has the answer to. Nobody knows silly, cept God and those that have already gone.
I would be interested as well to find out why you believe God is ruthless and narcissistic. Might explain why you come off sounding aggressive towards anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. Not saying you are, just seems that way. I understand the internet is very hard to convey true emotions and attitudes.
And no, being a good guy is not enough. There is only ONE way to heaven. The wages of sin is death. Fortunately for you (and everyone), Jesus paid that price for you. All you have to do is believe it. |
Then the wages of sin isn't necessarily death? There's a buy-out clause?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 09:04:40 PM · #444 |
| It's the mother of all buy out clauses! |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 09:27:01 PM · #445 |
Ruthless:
God committed genocide and so have his followers in his name many times over.
Narcissistic:
God says you can be as good a guy as anyone, you can even be the Dali Lama but if you donât acknowledge me as the ultimate king, I will send you to an eternal hell of pain and suffering (also see ruthless).
My opinion of course. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 09:51:43 PM · #446 |
narcissistic
adj : characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance.
Doesn't apply to God as he is the reason all things are. He created everything, is omniscient, omnipresent. I believe that places Him above "inflated idea of their own importance".
ruthless
adj.
Having no compassion or pity; merciless.
Again, doesn't apply. There is no one with more compassion and pity than God. He had enough compassion to send his son Jesus to pay the final price for our wickedness. Jesus had enough pity to heal hundreds, teach the way of salvation, raise the dead.
You appear to have chosen one specific event and based your entire opinion on it. I wish I could express to you how much insight you would gain if you (re)read, say the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. It can't hurt to read it.
Anyway, it's been fun debating with all you folks. I'm glad we could keep it to a civil discussion. These things seem to have a tendency to get out of hand sometimes. Have a good night! |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 10:30:22 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Ruthless:
God committed genocide and so have his followers in his name many times over. |
1) Genocide for humans is a sin. For God it is not a sin for three reasons. a) He is Holy; He cannot sin; b) He created men - they are His to keep alive physically or not according to His will c) physical death is not the be all and end all with God ( read the story of Ezekiel and the dry bones ) - it is the eternal soul that really matters.
2) What people do in His name is not His doing. If I were to murder someone while shouting Hail MadMordegon, should YOU be held responsible? I don't think so.
As for Ruthless: adj. Having no compassion or pity; merciless:
2 Kings 13:23 But the LORD was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.
1 Chronicles 16:34 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.
2 Chronicles 36:15 And the LORD God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place:
Psalms 86:15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
Psalms 111:4 He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the LORD is gracious and full of compassion.
Psalms 145:8 The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.
9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
There are hundreds more. But I won't bore you by posting them all. Suffice it to say that God DOES show compassion and mercy. He is not ruthless.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Narcissistic:
God says you can be as good a guy as anyone, you can even be the Dali Lama but if you donât acknowledge me as the ultimate king, I will send you to an eternal hell of pain and suffering (also see ruthless). |
1) God doesn't demand acknowledgement as ultimate king. All he demands is that you believe in the One whom He sent.
2) He doesn't send anyone to an eternal hell of pain and suffering. That decision is yours alone. He has made you aware of the IF and the THEN and the ELSE - it is a quid pro quo. He will not alter the rules. It is your choice that determines whether you get the THEN or the ELSE.
As for Narcissistic: adj. exhibiting excessive love or admiration of oneself.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Suffice it to say, If God so loved the World, that He gave his only begotten Son, He doesn't love Himself more than He loves You.
Originally posted by MadMoredegon:
My opinion of course. |
Of course.
Message edited by author 2005-04-15 22:32:08. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 11:01:00 PM · #448 |
"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Ka'deshâbarne'a even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel." -- Joshua 10:40-42
(genocide)
---------------------------
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Am'alek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass... And he took Agag the king of the Amal'ekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." -- I Samuel 15: 2, 3 and 8
(genocide)
----------------------------
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." -- Numbers 31: 17-18
(the taking of slaves -- sex slaves?)
----------------------------
"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." -- Leviticus 25: 44-46
(foreigners bought as slaves and their families enslaved forever)
-------------------------------
"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: so that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave: so that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates. The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, and toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates. If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD" -- Deuteronomy 28: 53-59
(if the bible god is not obeyed, he will cause an enemy to come and wreak such havoc that they will eat their children; cannibalism)
-------------------------------
"And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them." -- Jeremiah 19:9
(I guess cannibalism was one of god's favorite punishments for disobedience)
Message edited by author 2005-04-16 00:40:27. |
|
|
|
04/16/2005 12:46:38 AM · #449 |
Judith, you point to some really interesting scriptures that at first glance seem to prove your point. However on closer inspection...
The first several you cite, God punished these people for their disobedience. It was severe, but not out of left field. They were warned and chose to continue their disobedience. The account of the great flood is another display of punishment for wickedness and disobedience. God saw that all peoples thoughts were of evilness and wickedness; except for Noah. God dealt accordingly with those that chose the path of evil, He spared Noah, who chose to follow God. God created everything, including man. He could have made us mindless drones that worshiped Him, but chose to give us free will. We have the choice to spend eternity with Him (heaven). We also have the choice to spend eternity apart from him (hell).
You can pick and choose parts of scripture to make them fit your views, but the bible must be taken as a whole, with no parts deleted and nothing added. What sense does it make to believe certain parts and discard others? The devil used pieces of scripture to tempt Jesus. Jesus used scripture to rebuke him. Context is everything when it comes to the bible.
Nighty-night.
Pslams 145:8-9
The Lord is gracious and full of compassion,
Slow to anger and great in mercy.
The Lord is good to all,
and His tender mercies are over all His works.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2005 01:21:47 AM · #450 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The Creationist position has never denied micro-evolutionary processes, such as those which result in new strains of bacteria. The debate is about MACRO-evolution. Some have accused me of mis-using the term THEORY when speaking of scientific THEORIES. But some, like you, continue to mis-use evolution to refer to both micro- and macro- evolution. Creationists, as I say, do not dispute micro-evolution, only macro-evolution. Perhaps both sides could use the micro- and macro- prefices henceforth to avoid confusion and erroneous charges. |
Nonsense. There is only one theory of evolution. The theory of evolution encompasses both macro- and micro- by definition. I havenât misused the word evolution in the slightest and you donât get to define what the phrase âtheory of evolutionâ means. In the future, when I talk about evolution, Iâll be referring to the entire theory, macro- and micro-. When you or someone else comes up with the mechanism that stops micro- from becoming macro-, you can suggest a redefinition of the âtheory of evolution.â
Originally posted by RonB:
On MACRO-Evolution:
"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary- Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883) |
You left out the next sentence of that paragraph of the article:
âWhat is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.â
The article goes on to talk about the argument going on in the scientific community at the time over the rate of evolution. The author has no problems with evolution occurring over large timeframes with the appearances of new species. Here is a notable paragraph:
âNo one questions that, overall, the record reflects a steady increase in the diversity and complexity of species, with the origin of new species and the extinction of established ones punctuating the passage of time. But the crucial issue is that, for the most part, the fossils do not document a smooth transition from old morphologies to new ones. "For millions of years species remain unchanged in the fossil record," said Stephen Jay Gould, of Harvard, âand they then abruptly disappear, to be replaced by something that is substantially different but clearly related.ââ
You can read the whole article for yourself here.
Originally posted by RonB:
More:
Dr. David M. Raup, Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, in the museum's Bulletin, Jan. 1979, p25 says:
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." |
Perhaps the readers would like to see the paragraph in the broader context of what Dr. Raup wrote (you can read more about this quote here - about 1/4 the way down the page):
"We must distinguish between the fact of evolution - defined as change in organisms over time - and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences.
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.
So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
- David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January 1979.
Dr. Raup goes on in his article to state this with regard to fossil record:
"Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent."
Id. at p. 26
There is a more extensive discussion of the quote about 1/2 way down the page here.
Originally posted by RonB:
More:
Dr. Patterson in the Keynote Address at the Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981, said:
"Last year I had a sudden realization, for twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so mislead so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff of the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in High school.' " |
Regarding his âkeynoteâ address at the Museum of Natural History, Dr. Patterson wrote in a letter:
âThat brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else."
RonB, would you please be more responsible and rely less on sources that are willing to mislead you? It's tiresome to have to correct your oversites. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 02:43:46 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 02:43:46 AM EDT.
|
