Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still looking for the context of the Gould quote if anyone has any info on that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I can tell, it's made up.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

The quote comes from "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History vol. 86, 5, p. 14.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

This one is good too:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups." from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

This one is total [censored]...

[ QUOTE ]
No new matter is being formed – Genesis 2:2, "By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

[/ QUOTE ]

New matter is formed all the time...and even destroyed...

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The quote comes from "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History vol. 86, 5, p. 14.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh. Thanks. It's ironic that the people who like quoting other sermons verbatim (while not giving credit), wouldn't be very good at quoting Gould verbatim.

So, yeah, he's talking about punctuated equilibrium v. gradualism. Quoting Gould to discredit Evolution, is like quoting Sklansky to discredit the importance of math in poker strategy. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. Mainly because I believe the bible to be a narrative work not a factual or scientific work. At best, I think the important "facts" in the bible are ethical or metaphysical ones and I dont think science has disproved any of these (nor would it try).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less my sentiment.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree. Mainly because I believe the bible to be a narrative work not a factual or scientific work. At best, I think the important "facts" in the bible are ethical or metaphysical ones and I dont think science has disproved any of these (nor would it try).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less my sentiment.

[/ QUOTE ]
It helps to understand this forum to realise that the theist side is dominated by literal christians and the anti-theist side by evidentialists.

chez

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not a single scientific discovery has ever disputed an important biblical fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I'm still trying to figure out what a "biblical fact" is. Is it something like:

- The Bible says "_____ is a fact", or
- The Bible says "_____", which happens to be a demonstratable fact?

Of course, it used to be considered "important" to believe in the Genesis account of creation, Noah's flood, Babel's tower, the exodus of Jews from Egypt, Joshua's sun, Solomon's "empire" ... Interestingly enough, these stop becoming "important" once science disputes them.

Oh, and as a Hydrologist I take issue with any claim that an observent Hebrew scholar noticing that rivers flow into an ocean that doesn't fill is somehow equivalent to describing the hydrological cycle. It's not.

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

The Old Testament advocates slavery.

While this is an opinion rather than a fact, is the OP suggesting that he doesn't have satisfactory proof that slavery is wrong?

Re: Agree or Disagree? Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
While this is an opinion rather than a fact, is the OP suggesting that he doesn't have satisfactory proof that slavery is wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. Do you consider the occurence of slavery to be "an important Biblical fact" that is called into question by a scientific discovery?