Dear Vanna,

A planet can lose its atmosphere. I pointed out that water vapourising is not lost but merely becomes a gas. When it cools down it becomes liquid again.

Dear runner,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth give the scientific evidence for the age of the earth. These references also refer to the moon.

Unfortunately you confuse science fact with science fiction. Most primitive peoples have some form of creation story. The Aborigines have the Rainbow serpent. The ancient Hebrews had the story of the creation in Genesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth tells some of the many creation myths.

One example is that of the Bakuba in Africa. For the Bakuba account the Earth was originally nothing but water and darkness, ruled by the giant Mbombo. This giant, after feeling an intense pain in his stomach one day, vomited up the sun, moon, and stars. The heat and light from the sun evaporated the water covering Earth, creating clouds, and after time, the dry hills emerged from the water. Mbombo vomited once more. Many things were contained in this second vomiting—people (the first man and the first woman), animals (the leopard, the eagle, and the monkey Fumu), trees, the falling star, the anvil, the firmament, the razor, medicine, and lighting. The woman of the waters, Nchienge, lived in the East, and her son, Woto, became the first king of the Bakuba.

The Sumerian creation myth is the oldest known. It was found on a fragmentary clay tablet known as the "Eridu Genesis", datable to ca. the 18th century BC. It also includes a flood myth.

The creation narrative of Islam is split among many verses in the Qur'an. This narrative is similar to the Judeo-Christian accounts of creation. According to the Qur'an, the skies and the earth were joined together as one "unit of creation", after which they were "cloved asunder". After the parting of both, they simultaneously came into their present shape after going through a phase when they were smoke-like.

One need not believe in any of the above. However, they should be recognised as human attempts to explain how we got here.

Vanna,

<<A theory is not a fact.>>

A scientific theory can most certainly be a fact. The two are not mutually exclusive.

<<A fact will withstand any test.>>

Precisely.

Try naming one test evolution has failed.

<<A theory is based on current experimental data only...>>

...and empirical observation as well.

<<...and is put into place until something better comes along.>>

Yes, but a theory can also pass the point where we can know that nothing better will come along and that’s what you seem to be having difficulty grasping here.

<<The belief that a cell (with the enormous complexity of its organelle) can somehow accidentally form is still a theory...>>

Yes, it’s call “abiogenesis”, and no one believes that a complex single-celled organism like the ones we see today “accidentally formed” as you creationists like to claim.

And besides, what does this have to do with evolution?

<<...and it would be best to keep an open mind. Who knows what new experimental data will show.>>

Sorry, but the core fundamentals of evolution surpassed the possibility of new experimental data discrediting them long ago, and arguing otherwise is the equivalent of arguing that gravity may one day be debunked as evolution right up there with gravity as one of the most well-established scientific theories we have.

Again, evolution is both fact and theory.

OUG,

I assumed you would be aware of Bishop James Ussher's calculations based on Biblical genelogies, which was certainly very impressive work, even if it is wrong.

I could not open the link. Does it refute something I said? If so, please let me know the journal's citation and I will open the article on my University's database.

I have covered cell membranes before on otther threads. And with runner (I think) provided details on HIV mutations.

I find it both amusing and sad that these conversations take place so regularly over the internet with such furious rhetoric and passion, yet few of the combatants ever display any level of knowledge in the subject matter at all.

I'm actually willing and able to admit that, scientifically, I'm not capable of assessing the evidence for evolution and intelligent design beyond a very basic level, and I wouldn't be unless I did much more reading and study in the area. I suspect that many of you are in the same boat...except for the admission part ;-).

On a theological level, my amatuer understanding is that it is definitely possible to fit evolution into a theological framework. I tentatively agree with the idea that A harmonious relationship between theology and evolution can be achieved. One good article I found in this area is by Tim Keller (who is actually fairly conservative theologically, if you put him in the overall spectrum and can be read here:
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

Dear Trav,

One may take the Bible in several ways. One may take it as literal truth. This is incompatible with science, but there are other ways to regard the Bible. One may take it as a narrative containing various spiritual lessons. One may take it as containg allegorical meanings. One may take as containing hidden meanings found by decoding the actual words. Of course like poetry this type of analysis would seem to disappear in translation.

However, there is no reason to take the Bible as more authoritative than the Tripitaka, Book of Mormon, the Koran or any other scripture. It depends on the cultural influences we are exposed to.

However, science does not have that limitation. It is irrelevant whether a competent scientist has a particular religious belief or lacks one. She or he will follow the evidence wherever it goes. If the evidence contradicts a scientific hypothesis the hypothesis will be abandoned.

Any scientific hypothesis can be abandoned if the evidence does not support it. Science is not culture bound.

Religious belief is not based on evidence, and its truth or falsity cannot be tested. Religion is culture bound.

The distinction between facts and theories is spurious. Factual claims are theory-laden, for the terms in which they are expressed depend for their meaning on theories. Experience is organised and interpreted using theories. There are no theory-free facts.

That does not mean that beliefs are arbitrary, for there can be good reasons for preferring one theory to another.

Mathematical proofs of scientific claims are only possible if an accepted theory is taken for granted. Like the proofs within Newtonian physics, they can be found at fault--disproven if you like, when the underlying theory is replaced by a better.

That's a rough, partial account. I'm afraid the philosophy of science is a good deal more complex than is being supposed.

And a side issue. One of my students began a thesis on Ghazali. I believe that is his name in Persian. Al Ghazal (no 'i') is the Arabic form, used by Europeans too. He is notable and influential for his view that God created morality according to his arbitrary will--a position later adopted by William of Occam. The reference above is not a good account of his views, but a piece of ideology.