Entertaining theory, but this guy offers NO proof or even hypothetical means... he just states it and seems to think that the bible should be considered "justification."
It will be interesting to see if he ever tries to prove this theory in some way...
I wonder if he thinks that this flood created all the limestone in the short amount of time that the flood waters covered the Earth? (according to the bible)
I should e-mail and ask him since he put his addy in the article...
Jared
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 | 03:03 PM
actually this theory has been around for a while and there is considerable evidence that supports it. i am no scientist and do not have access to the first hand journal articles that argue this. however you need to keep in mind that this is a general interest source and so the amount of evidence that is presented is limited and often spun so that the validity of the report is either undisputed or dubious. also keep in mind that evolution and plate tectonics and so on and so forth are also still theory. none of this has ever been observed, measured or repeated and so it has never been proven to occur.
Plate tectonics have been observed and measured. Earthquakes are a component of this theory. Do you doubt their existence? I doubt it. So do you think earthquakes are the result of divine origin? If not, then what might they be the result of, if not plate tectonics?
Evolution has also been observed and in some ways measured as well. Acquired immunities to pesticides / herbicides / anti-biotics are viewed by some as part of evolution. (Adapting and overcoming) Vestigial organs are also an observation of evolution in process. Back leg bones on whales, your appendix, etc., etc.
Like I said, it's an interesting theory. I didn't say there was NO proof for it either, just that he didn't seem to present any. If there was a working hypothesis for how this worked / works I would be very interested in reading it. So just in case you ever remember the name of any of those journals, please remember to communicate them here.
PS - They have also accurately, and repeatedly, measured how fast North America is moving Westward away from Europe and Africa... another aspect of plate tectonics that has been observed, measured, and gotten repeatable results.
According to the article, "DeYoung believes the whole world was once tropical, lacking seasons and having an ideal climate. He points to Alaska and the Middle East -- places with very different climates today. Both places, he says, contain fossil fuels formed from tropical vegetation."
That would work, except for the fact that seasons are created due to the tilt of the Earth. Even in San Diego, which is a very temperate place, there are still some seasons. The only way for there to of not been seasons in the past is if the Earth was not tilted.
In addition, he wants to explain how fossil fuels from tropical vegetation formed in Alaska and the Mid-East. Well, I actually know very little about the formation of fossil fuels, but with weather changes over extensive time periods, and also plate tectonics moving "Alaska" and the "mid-east" to different areas of the Earth, I don't see why there wouldn't have once been tropical weather on these places at one time. However, that does not prove by any means that there was once tropical weather all over the whole planet with no seasons.
He keeps saying he feels science and religion go hand in hand, but then he ignores all the scientific facts.
And Smerk, in honor of today's release of the Hitchiker's Guide movie, I have a comment. You say, "They [fossils] were put there by the creator as joke to frustrate archaelologists!" You're right! And that creator is Slartibartfast.
I have the five hour reading of THGTTG in wma format. It's aboot 45 megs, and well worth the listen, whether or not you are a fan.
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 12:38 AM
I any one is interested
the BBC is begining broadcast of the fourth series of HHGTTG on BBC radio 4
First Episode May 3rd
Each consecutive episode at weekly intervals.
Once played they will be available at this site for one week until the next part comes out.
Jared: if you remain in any doubt about plate tectocnics and evolution, read Bill Bryson's 'Brief History of Nearly Everything', and all will become clear.
apologies: i mean 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'. was getting confused with Stephen Hawking's 'Brief History of Time', which is far less accessible to the average brain!
About five years ago I saw fossils of ancient sea creatures near Lake Louise, Alberta at an elevation of more than 5,000 feet. Does that mean the earth was once covered in water to at least that depth? Some might think so. But I think that spot was once at a much lower elevation and two tectonic plates pushed together to form what is now the Rocky Mountains. But that's just me.
yossie Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 09:05 AM
In all seriousness, the 'scientific' basis for this DeYoung character's arguments is meager at best.
He doesn't seem to understand that seasons result for the tilt of the Earth, as mentioned by Razela. This fact alone is so elementary. How could he not know that?
Eric The Lumberjack
in Florida
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 11:48 AM
Mark-N-Jen:
I would like to point out that there is a very large difference between your point of Vestigial Organs like legs on whales and the appendix (Microevolution) and the entire theory of evolution itself (Which includes both micro and macroevolution). I am a Christian myself, and I do not believe in any way, shape or form that macroevolution could be possible. This part of the evolutionary THEORY is just that, theory. Ask any scientist. However, I not only believe that Microevolution is possible, but it is quite likely. In my beliefs, this world is not millions of years old, only thousands. But either way, the climate is naturally going to change, species are going to die out (Dodo, dinosaurs, etc.), plants are going to die, the temperature and weather patterns will change. Wheres earlier humans (Regardless of whether you believe the first humans were Adam and Ever or ape-like beings) might have had a use for the appendix and wisdom teeth, or whales may have had to adapt to living in the water and over time lost the legs but not the bones for them, nowadays we do not. But even though my thought on this makes sense to me, it might not to some people. For all we know, the existance of God could be proven scientifically tomorrow, or disproved. Complete evolution could be proven, or could be finally put to rest, just as Darwin himself debunked his own theory on his very deathbed (trust me, this happened), claiming that there is no way that by random chance that the eye, which must be created and maintained a certain way in order to work properly, could exist and function as it does.
But of course, these are only my beliefs. You can choose to believe them or not.
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 12:40 PM
The biggest problem I have with religions is that those who follow them refuse to consider things which are actually known as fact. It doesn't fit in with their beliefs, therefore fact is at fault.
Eric the lumberjack correctly points out that Darwin's evolution theory is still only a theory and has yet to be proved.
He also states that Darwin debunked his own theory on his deathbed. This I have heard before and it might well be so. Darwin was a devout christian, he didn't want to publish his findings and didn't for twenty years after returning on the Beagle. His only reason for publishing at all was because someone else was on the verge of publishing and Darwin wanted to get in first.
Eric also claims the world is only a few thousand years old 4004 BC I suppose. But then he goes on to mention dinosaurs who we KNOW died out 65 million years ago...
Finally I've never understood this problem between creationists and Darwinists. Why can't they both be right? Why doesn't God, if you beleive in him, use Evolution as a tool to create what he desires.
If god is as powerful as he's supposed to be, he would have no trouble steering such a tool the way he wants it.
I like to keep an open mind, I'm willing to believe in god, but I want his phone number and immutable proof that he is god.
Why should he supply such proof you might ask
Well, he doesn't have too. But until such time that he does I reserve the right to be skeptical
Eric The Lumberjack,
So you say the earth is only thousands of years old? And that whales may have lost their legs through evolution in that amount of time? If that's not macroevolution, what is? (When did whales walk on land?)
And you would have us believe that dinosaurs were are around only thousands of years ago and that they died out and became fossilized in that short time span?
Just what exactly do you base these beliefs on? Surely not just faith. I'm sure you must have some fantastic evidence to back this up. Can't wait to hear it.
"What good is half an eye?"
"Better than no eye at all!"
You know, there was an interesting article about the evolution of the early eye in science news. I should find it and read it. Remember, the early eye was simply a light-sensitive organ, that could at best help telling up from down. Even lowly clams have thousands of these simple organs.
And captain al, the Big Daddy chick tract uses "scientific evidence" against the theory of evolution.
I personally can't refute its claims, but I have enough confidence in the logic of natural selection, the intelligence of the scientists who support it, and the idiocy of those that don't that I feel I don't have to.
I don't know if Darwin really rejected his theory as he went on. I've heard he became more agnostic over time. Remember, Darwin's theories were pretty remarkable for his time, since even the principles of heredity hadn't yet been established.
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 02:52 PM
It could be a simple case of Darwin on his death bed
He knows he's going to die, people of his era beleive in last minute salvation...
He has nothing to lose.
If god is there he'll be saved
If there's no god, he's lost nothing by trying.
