Theory of Evolution Vs. Genesis Thread [Archive]

Mr. Anderson

Mar 28, 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by medea
On your question though, you are a bit mistaken, you see evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys only that we both have a common ancestor. And furthermore new species evolve by splintering off from already established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct. So even if man branched off from monkeys, the original form of monkey might or could still exist.

Exactly right - and if you look at the genetic evidence, we share 98.5% of the genes with monkeys and a little less with gorillas and orangutangs. Our common ancestor broke away from the gorillas ancestor farther back in time.

The myth of the missing link is just that, a myth. Today there is a fairly well accepted archeological record of the development of the species.

So it took God several billion years to get to us, that's fine. What's a billion years to God. He got to play with the dinosaurs first and then made things fall into place for us to come on the scene.

If you think about the extinction of the dinosaurs, well, its not hard to imagine that as an act of God.

D

dabirdwell

Mar 28, 2003, 02:39 PM

Mass extinctions are the rule on earth, not the exception, and we are due for another anytime now...

jayscheuerle

Mar 28, 2003, 02:42 PM

Keep in mind too kids, that just because the "Theory of Evolution" has the word "theory" in it, doesn't mean it isn't an accepted scientific fact. The word "theory" in this case (and many others) refers to its initial postulation. What isn't understood is its mechanism, whether it be gradual or in spurts.

Creationism on the other hand, is simply part of a system of beliefs and has no (and needs no) facts to back it up other than faith.

- j

beez7777

Mar 28, 2003, 02:45 PM

man did not evolve from apes, we evolved with apes. and both theory of evolution and creation can be accepted at the same time- man may have evolved from other species as long as it was part of god's plan.

Mr. Anderson

Mar 28, 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Creationism on the other hand, is simply part of a system of beliefs and has no (and needs no) facts to back it up other than faith.

But why not accept that creationism is evolution. Why would God put the fossils in the Earth only to confuse the issue. I don't think you need to rely on faith here, just accept a different definition for creationism.

Again, it gets back to taking the Bible as fact, which I can't in some parts.

D

pantagruel

Mar 28, 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet
Exactly right - and if you look at the genetic evidence, we share 98.5% of the genes with monkeys and a little less with gorillas and orangutangs. Our common ancestor broke away from the gorillas ancestor farther back in time.

The myth of the missing link is just that, a myth. Today there is a fairly well accepted archeological record of the development of the species.

So it took God several billion years to get to us, that's fine. What's a billion years to God. He got to play with the dinosaurs first and then made things fall into place for us to come on the scene.

If you think about the extinction of the dinosaurs, well, its not hard to imagine that as an act of God.

D
Hmm looks like was mislead about that, makes more sense now in a way, but if evolution happens gradually then there shouldnt be any gaps inbetween species, and classifiying them would be near impossible right?

JesseJames

Mar 28, 2003, 02:54 PM

At the risk of being seen as a fool. I believe Darwinism has some serious merits worth mulling about.
You know what I think? I think the very fact that we can use keyboards and such gave us THE edge. Our desire to be more dexterous with our hands increased our brain capacity. From the use of primitive tools to becoming a concert violinist, that's one way of looking at it.

Groovsonic

Mar 28, 2003, 02:55 PM

I am copying this from my two most recent posts on the other thread.

This has been a very interesting thread to read. I am a born-again Christian.
Here is the thing. It is a difficuly concept for me to hear someone believe there is no God. I do not mean any offense here, I just can't wrap my mind around it. I am not talking about a specefic god/God, I am talking about not believeing there is any god/God at all. Think about how life formed, how amazing we are as human beings. Think about how the earth revolves around the sun. Think about the birds that know to fly south, and can find their spot. Think about the amazing majesty of the mountians. Think about the complexity and simplicity of it all. I simply cannot believe that their was not an incredible Creator behind it all.
Where did the original life come from if not from God? Did a blob of chemicals just suddenly become life? Where did those chemicals come from? You can just keep going back from there.
I hear about the "big-bang" theory. Where did the bang come from? There is no effect without cause. If there was nothing before the bang, what caused the bang?
I really don't care if 6 days was a literal 6 days or if it was figurative. I believe that it is literally 6 days because I choose to believe that Bible over very limited "science". Don't forget, it is the THEORY of evoloution and the big bang THEORY. They cannot prove it as a fact becaue it cannot be proven. You can find "evidence" to back it up, but you can find "evidence" to "prove" alot of things. OJ simpson had "evidence" that he didn't kill anyone. It takes just as much faith to believe evoloution as it does to believe in a Creator, because neither can be "proven" right now.

There is such a thing as a reasoned faith.
The truth is you will never be able to "prove" either one whlie we are alive, because you cannot observe it. I read somewhere that you can have a thousand sucessful tests to support a theory, but it only takes one unsucessful test to disprove it. The truth is that I could sit here all day and spout evidence that supports my way of thinking, but if you didn't want to believe it, you wouldn't. You could explain it all away.
The problem I have with the theory of evolution is that it is taught as fact. It is a theory. People think you are a backwards hick or religious fanatic if you say you don't believe in evolution. There was once a theory that the earth was flat. It took people questioning that theory to find out it wasn't true. Be open minded. Like I said, I don't really care what method God used to get us here, but I wouldn't shut my mind to thinking it happened just like it says in the Bible.

Faith is the evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not yet seen. (I am pretty sure that is a verse in the Bible. I just don't remember which one)

medea

Mar 28, 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by pantagruel
Hmm looks like was mislead about that, makes more sense now in a way, but if evolution happens gradually then there shouldnt be any gaps inbetween species,
No evolution is not always gradual and is often sporadic._Also evolutionists never said there should not be gaps, gaps dont prove creation any more than a blank spot in human history proves all civilizations were spontaneously created.

Stelliform

Mar 28, 2003, 03:26 PM

I believe in evolution, simply because if God is all of those omni's, why would he build a universe that requires so much of his intervention? Isn't is much more elegant to put a tiny dot of matter, and have it explode and expand into the universe. Now, I think he exists, and he cares about us. And he does intercede with humanity when he needs to.

If you believe that God created us in his image, why is it so hard to believe that we can understand the process of how we came to be? Obviously to be a image of God means that you would have some degree of his intelligence....

On a final note, this is what I was taught in Catholic school. And as I was told, it is the official teaching by the Catholic church. Humanity evolved into an animal that looks somewhat like a modern human. Then God bestows self awareness on two of these pre-humans. (Adam and Eve) And that is how Genesis is explained.

But I am repeating this without having checked it myself. This is what I was told by my Senior Religion teacher. (Who did hold a Dr. in Theology)

howard

Mar 28, 2003, 03:28 PM

has anyone here read the book "The Source"? you might be very interested in it.

Sedulous

Mar 28, 2003, 03:31 PM

Evolution has its flaws. However, much like any other piece of science, it is a work in progress.

The bible demands more "faith" than science. In a few cases that I am aware of (I don't study the bible) the actual references the bible makes to evolution are contradictory to what we know. For example, it talks about an impassible barrier making it impossible for one kind to evolve into another. Yet, in any lab across the world, on a daily basis, scientists move genetic elements through various species as a trivial step in an experiment.

The bible is fraught with elements that at least seem to conflict with fact.

The whole story about Noah is not credible. How was it possible for this one man (or even with a team of thousands) manage to collect two of every animal on Earth and fit it on a hand made boat? How could he even have enough time to feed them all and build this boat and manage to get over to Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, Africa, all of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East to collect these animals (especially during the flood when there was just eight people on the boat)? I can't imagine a boat large enough to hold all these animals along with all the various food stuffs for at least 40 days. The Arc would have had to be the size of a supertanker. Following the flood, how did Noah again manage to redistribute all of these animals back to their appropriate biosphere (i.e. Brazilian rainforest animals back into the Brazilian rainforest, polar bears back to the Antarctic, etc). Furthermore, the bible doesn't mention Noah collecting plants. How did plants survive the deluge?

"... until even the tall mountains are covered by 22 ft of water" means that the Earth was covered by an additional 30,000 ft of water. Where did that water go? There isn't that much water contained in the present earth+sea+atmosphere. Likewise, under the pressure of 30,000 feet of water nearly everything would be dead due to pressure/cold/darkness (again, where did all the plants come from?). Where did all the corpses go? Shouldn't there be fossilized remains from what was nearly the entire human/animal/plant population of the planet?

lmalave

Mar 28, 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by pantagruel
Hmm looks like was mislead about that, makes more sense now in a way, but if evolution happens gradually then there shouldnt be any gaps inbetween species, and classifiying them would be near impossible right?

Evolution does not happen gradually, but rather in fits and starts. Evolution is a reaction to the environment which is of course also always changing. Evolution does not say that species "progress", only that a species will have a greater probabiliy of propagating itself if it is better adapted to its specific environment.

There are a lot of misconceptions about evolution. Darwin's theory was much more nuanced then the common misperception of it that people have today. For a really good read I recommend the essays of Stephen Jay Gould. They are super, super well written and actually quite entertaining.

The way I see evolution is this: evolution is a probabilistic system. Why did life arise? In the beginning everything was chaos, a big chemical vat. Then all of a sudden molecules started to replicate themselves (if you've taken bio then you know how DNA and RNA work, these primordial molecules would have been the precursors).

Naturally, a molecule that replicated itself was more likely to persist, so it's basically like a chain reaction: all of a sudden that molecule was everywhere (provided the conditions were such that that molecule was stable). But then guess what, another molecule comes along that is even better at replicating itself, at least in a particular environment, so then it becomes dominant in that environment. And notice that I didn't say "more complex" or "more sophisticated", merely better at replicating itself. All evolution says is that whatever molecule, organism , or what have you that is better at reproducing itself in a particular environment will be dominant. In fact, bacteria are still the dominant species on Earth today, and they'll be here long after we're gone, and yet we can coexist with them because through hundreds of millions of years of evolution us and our ancestors have found different ways to propagate.

That's basically how I see evolution: practically a mathematical inevitability once you have self-replicating molecules in a stable environment. Which is also why I'm convinced that the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial life. But that's another topic entirely ;)

howard

Mar 28, 2003, 03:38 PM

just because we don't know something doesn't mean that god did it. we might not be able to explain some things, like evolution or the big bang but thats not necessarily because god made it happen, maybe we just don't know, either yet or ever.

SDimaging

Mar 28, 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by pantagruel
This thread is based off the current Religious thread, though that thread has majorly veered of its intended path and has no real focus, this thread is for the discussion of evolution and what is known as creationism which centers around Genesis.
I'll start off with a simple question against evolution. If man came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys in the world?

Lets keep this thread as civilised as can be with no one liners for or against religion.

We didn't come from monkeys, we are monkeys. There are a whole bunch of different kind of apes or whatever the proper name is. We are just one of many different spieces of ape.

The major difference is we can realize it.

wdlove

Mar 28, 2003, 04:10 PM

There isn't anything in the "Theory of Evolution" that contradicts Creation. To God a day is a 1000 years and a 1000 years is a day.

mischief

Mar 28, 2003, 05:10 PM

Homo Sapiens is NOT descended nor directly related to Monkeys. We are cousins to Apes (as Apes are closer Genetically). We are technically both Apes and Homonids meaning that we share the most traits with Apes but are differentiated by stance, diet and the peculiarity of being the only Ape that Swims.

Monkeys are diferentiated from Apes by Size, having Tails, Ratio of Animal Protien in the diet, mid and forebrain development and the fact that no other Ape but Man can swim.

All 3 are descended of a common ancestor, Monkeys diferentiating from what would become both Apes and Homonids, then the Apes parted from what would become the Line of Homonids.

It is interesting to note that there are roughly as many Homonids leading to
"modern Man" as Genesis counts Individuals between Adam and Seth. There is also evidence to show that the last 2 Homonids to evolve before the current (us) variant waged war and interbred.... that strife led to the current line.

scem0

Mar 28, 2003, 05:15 PM

if(creation == no evidence && evolution == much evidence)
{
evolution = better;
}

I don't know what prompted me to write like that, but basically
I think, from a scientific standpoint, in evolution. I don't believe
in creation at all, but I could understand a christian believing
in it (and evolution).

iJon

Mar 28, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Sedulous
Evolution has its flaws. However, much like any other piece of science, it is a work in progress.

The bible demands more "faith" than science. In a few cases that I am aware of (I don't study the bible) the actual references the bible makes to evolution are contradictory to what we know. For example, it talks about an impassible barrier making it impossible for one kind to evolve into another. Yet, in any lab across the world, on a daily basis, scientists move genetic elements through various species as a trivial step in an experiment.

The bible is fraught with elements that at least seem to conflict with fact.

The whole story about Noah is not credible. How was it possible for this one man (or even with a team of thousands) manage to collect two of every animal on Earth and fit it on a hand made boat? How could he even have enough time to feed them all and build this boat and manage to get over to Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, Africa, all of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East to collect these animals (especially during the flood when there was just eight people on the boat)? I can't imagine a boat large enough to hold all these animals along with all the various food stuffs for at least 40 days. The Arc would have had to be the size of a supertanker. Following the flood, how did Noah again manage to redistribute all of these animals back to their appropriate biosphere (i.e. Brazilian rainforest animals back into the Brazilian rainforest, polar bears back to the Antarctic, etc). Furthermore, the bible doesn't mention Noah collecting plants. How did plants survive the deluge?

"... until even the tall mountains are covered by 22 ft of water" means that the Earth was covered by an additional 30,000 ft of water. Where did that water go? There isn't that much water contained in the present earth+sea+atmosphere. Likewise, under the pressure of 30,000 feet of water nearly everything would be dead due to pressure/cold/darkness (again, where did all the plants come from?). Where did all the corpses go? Shouldn't there be fossilized remains from what was nearly the entire human/animal/plant population of the planet?
well for one all those continents you listed were probably not there back then. they were probably bigger single islands and they broke off as the years went on. plus chances are there werent as many animals then as there are now. plus i believe there been some proof of noah's arc being found in turkey on a mountain somewhere. plus many scientists have done research and seem a world flood would have made sense from studying certain things. although this is just only tidbits i have learned over the years and i have no hard evidence to prove it. maybe someone else has some links. but i agree with you on one thing, it does seem impossible, just too hard for our little minds to think of this as possible. but i think about god making everything we have seen so far and nothing seems to big in my mind.

iJon

wdlove

Mar 28, 2003, 05:37 PM

I pray for you scem0, it's very possible that in you lifetime you will change your views. Creation is consistant with evolution. Everyday science is finding more evidence of the facts in the Bible!

scem0

Mar 28, 2003, 05:39 PM

I didn't realize there was much evidence supporting creation.
Relative to the evidence supporting evolution, that is.

iJon

Mar 28, 2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by scem0
I didn't realize there was much evidence supporting creation.
Relative to the evidence supporting evolution, that is.
i think you should go read a bible, there is soem awesome stuff in there. even if you dont want anything to do with god read it anyways, just pick up and read some chapters. some awesome stories.

iJon

scem0

Mar 28, 2003, 05:51 PM

there is already a discussion in the 'rapture' thread gone wrong
about why I don't read the bible for its philisophical or historical
content (or just literary content in general) as opposed to other
books. :)

mischief

Mar 28, 2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by iJon
i think you should go read a bible, there is soem awesome stuff in there. even if you dont want anything to do with god read it anyways, just pick up and read some chapters. some awesome stories.

iJon

Yeah and theres even some of it that's not directly "borrowed" from either the Talmud or a local Mediteranian mythos. Most of the really good "original" stuff is in the "Revelations" section.

mischief

Mar 28, 2003, 06:08 PM

Clarification:

Homo Sapiens is NOT descended nor directly related to Monkeys. We are cousins to Apes (as Apes are closer Genetically). We are technically both Apes and Homonids meaning that we share the most traits with Apes but are differentiated by stance, diet and the peculiarity of being the only Ape that Swims.

Monkeys are diferentiated from Apes by Size, having Tails, Ratio of Animal Protien in the diet, mid and forebrain development and the fact that no other Ape but Man can swim.

All 3 are descended of a common ancestor, Monkeys diferentiating from what would become both Apes and Homonids, then the Apes parted from what would become the Line of Homonids.

It is interesting to note that there are roughly as many Homonids leading to
"modern Man" as Genesis counts Individuals between Adam and Seth. There is also evidence to show that the last 2 Homonids to evolve before the current (us) variant waged war and interbred.... that strife led to the current line.

wdlove

Mar 28, 2003, 06:18 PM

A good suggestion iJon! I would be pleased to hear that some of the young fellas on this forum were reading the Bible, it's a beginning! :)

iloveMac

Mar 28, 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Sedulous
Evolution has its flaws. However, much like any other piece of science, it is a work in progress.

The bible demands more "faith" than science. In a few cases that I am aware of (I don't study the bible) the actual references the bible makes to evolution are contradictory to what we know. For example, it talks about an impassible barrier making it impossible for one kind to evolve into another. Yet, in any lab across the world, on a daily basis, scientists move genetic elements through various species as a trivial step in an experiment.

The bible is fraught with elements that at least seem to conflict with fact.

The whole story about Noah is not credible. How was it possible for this one man (or even with a team of thousands) manage to collect two of every animal on Earth and fit it on a hand made boat? How could he even have enough time to feed them all and build this boat and manage to get over to Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, Africa, all of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East to collect these animals (especially during the flood when there was just eight people on the boat)? I can't imagine a boat large enough to hold all these animals along with all the various food stuffs for at least 40 days. The Arc would have had to be the size of a supertanker. Following the flood, how did Noah again manage to redistribute all of these animals back to their appropriate biosphere (i.e. Brazilian rainforest animals back into the Brazilian rainforest, polar bears back to the Antarctic, etc). Furthermore, the bible doesn't mention Noah collecting plants. How did plants survive the deluge?

"... until even the tall mountains are covered by 22 ft of water" means that the Earth was covered by an additional 30,000 ft of water. Where did that water go? There isn't that much water contained in the present earth+sea+atmosphere. Likewise, under the pressure of 30,000 feet of water nearly everything would be dead due to pressure/cold/darkness (again, where did all the plants come from?). Where did all the corpses go? Shouldn't there be fossilized remains from what was nearly the entire human/animal/plant population of the planet?

Dont' forget, things that are impossible to man, are possible to god. Therefore, Noahs incredible journey was in the hands of god.

MacRumorSkeptic

Mar 28, 2003, 06:27 PM

To anyone who is interested in hearing an interesting argument on the flaws of evolution theory, as well as a good argument in favor of creationism, may I recomend you go to (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video) which has 7 seminars on the subject. The speaker is creationist Dr. Kent Hovind who does seem to have some wacky theories himself, but does a pretty good job debunking what is considered to be fact to many people who beleive in macro-evolution.

zarathustra

Mar 28, 2003, 06:36 PM

I believe in basic thruths set forth by the world's religions, but throught the generation the nuances have been lost or we have taken stories too literally. I believe God set of the big bang. I believe that Adam and Eve were NOT humans like us, very much like mischief explained in the above post. I believe that the 6 days of creation are just six stages lasting millions, if not billions of years. We, in this form on Earth, cannot yet comprehend all that goes on in the universe.

On a lighter note:

mischief

Mar 28, 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
To anyone who is interested in hearing an interesting argument on the flaws of evolution theory, as well as a good argument in favor of creationism, may I recomend you go to (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video) which has 7 seminars on the subject. The speaker is creationist Dr. Kent Hovind who does seem to have some wacky theories himself, but does a pretty good job debunking what is considered to be fact to many people who beleive in macro-evolution.

Opie is teaching complete ************ under the guise of debunking!

Why couldn't you stick to trying for Oscars with Tom Hanks as your leading man Opie?

Just from reading the descriptions of those seminars I can tell you that Logic is nowhere to be found. Most of the things being "Debunked" are either popular misconceptions anyway or were scientifically disproven from accepted theory YEARS AGO.

Why is this sort of "teaching" so easily accepted when it is exactly what it claims evo-theory is (brainwashing)?

MacRumorSkeptic

Mar 28, 2003, 06:47 PM

Opie is teaching complete ************ under the guise of debunking!

Why couldn't you stick to trying for Oscars with Tom Hanks as your leading man Opie?

Just from reading the descriptions of those seminars I can tell you that Logic is nowhere to be found. Most of the things being "Debunked" are either popular misconceptions anyway or were scientifically disproven from accepted theory YEARS AGO.

Why is this sort of "teaching" so easily accepted when it is exactly what it claims evo-theory is (brainwashing)?

Why don't you try listening to the seminars before you make a judgement.

mischief

Mar 28, 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Opie is teaching complete ************ under the guise of debunking!

Why couldn't you stick to trying for Oscars with Tom Hanks as your leading man Opie?

Just from reading the descriptions of those seminars I can tell you that Logic is nowhere to be found. Most of the things being "Debunked" are either popular misconceptions anyway or were scientifically disproven from accepted theory YEARS AGO.

Why is this sort of "teaching" so easily accepted when it is exactly what it claims evo-theory is (brainwashing)?

Why don't you try listening to the seminars before you make a judgement.

Because:

1: I have no interest in spending money or bandwidth on what is both bad science and bad religion.

2: I've heard these arguements before and I guarantee you they're twice as false as what they claim to debunk.

3: Preying on the Bible Belt masses is despicable and deserves a swift kick in the ass.

Fizix

Mar 28, 2003, 08:06 PM

Interesting discussion so far...

There are two points I would like to make.

First, it is interesting to note you rarely, if ever, see any evidence outside of the Bible that supports creationism. All of the "evidence" I have seen for creationism is couched as attacks on evolutionism. This is not how science works. One's theory does not become accepted scientific fact through attacks on the current accepted theory. IF (and that is a HUGE if) creationism is to challenge evolution as the predominate theory its adhearants must begin to search for evidence supporting their claims.

Second, even if we assume the universe was created as creationists claim does this mean creationism is an appropriate scientific theory? The answer is NO! It is very important to understand if creationism is factually correct (which based on current scientific undestanding it is not) and evolution is not factually correct creationism is still not science! There are certain established rules of the scientific community which must be followed and until such time as creationists can support their theory within the established norms of the scientific community is cannot be considered as science.

As an analogy, if you are playing the game of chess you must follow the rules of that game. You cannot play the game of chess and move your piece around the board as if you are playing checkers. Likewise if you want to play the game of "science" you must play by the established rules.

My $0.02

Fizix

Sedulous

Mar 28, 2003, 08:18 PM

well for one all those continents you listed were probably not there back then. they were probably bigger single islands and they broke off as the years went on. plus chances are there werent as many animals then as there are now. plus i believe there been some proof of noah's arc being found in turkey on a mountain somewhere.

Actually, the biblical "flood" would have occurred approximately 5000 years ago. The continents were in about the same place they are now +/- a few meters. Pangea (the theorized aggregation of all continents) existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

Here is another inconsistancy with the bible...

Eve was supposedly created from a rib of "Adam". Doesn't this suggest "Eve" would have been a clone of Adam? If not, why does the bible even mention this detail? Why not simply say god created a woman if it didn't mean to imply genetic material for Eve was taken from Adam? Even if Adam and Eve were heterozygous for every gene, why do we see such diversity today? Why is there red, white, blonde, black, and brown hair? There wouldn't be enough alleles from only two people to explain this difference.

Another inconsistancy can be seen in data from the "maternal mitochondria". We inherit mitochondria directly from our mother's egg. Mitochondria are essentially independent cells. They have their own DNA and do not undergo meiosis (recombination). All mitochondria duplicate by splitting into sister clones. Research has shown that mitochondria of all species is very similar. This suggests that the mitochondria in apes, rats, birds, lizards, and plants are derived from the same source.

medea

Mar 28, 2003, 08:39 PM

also on a lighter note:

scem0

Mar 28, 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by medea
also on a lighter note:

I looked for that pic for about 30 min last night when posting in
the other religion thread. :o :rolleyes: :D :D

vniow

Mar 28, 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Sedulous

Eve was supposedly created from a rib of "Adam".

This is a bit off-subject, but there's been much debate on whether it was a rib at all, some versions of the Bible say rib while others say angular organ or just side, here's a comparison I found on a quick http://forums.tactical-ops.to/images/smilies/google.gif:
KJV And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

ASV And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof:

YLT And Jehovah God causeth a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he sleepeth, and He taketh one of his ribs, and closeth up flesh in its stead.

CV And falling is a stupor on the human, caused by Yahweh Elohim, and he is sleeping. And taking is He one of his angular organs and is closing the flesh under it.

TEV And YHVH ELOHIM caused a deep sleep to fall upon the soil-man, and he slept; and he took one from his sides, and he closed flesh under it.

Some scholars have even speculated that the origional text referred to Adam's p*nis, not his rib or side (which would make much more sense poetically which I think is how most of the Bible is supposed to be read in the first place) and Eve having been created from Adam's genitals (or even his side) has a completely different meaning than rib.

Another rather intresting note comes from the Concordant version of Genesis (the Concordant Publishing Concern has since 1909 attempted to translate the Bible as directly as possible from the origional scripture as completely as possible, more info here (http://www.concordant.org)) which has a note on rib:

Note on Gen 2:21 - ribs: This stem is rendered beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, side in the A.V. Only here is it "rib." It denotes an angular enclosed space. The "boards" of the tabernacle consisted of two planks, forming an angular vault. Here the female parts of humanity are severed from the male, to build the woman. The breasts of the male are a vestigial reminder that humanity was originally bisexual.

Just some thoughts from me.http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=251585

boskie

Mar 28, 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Sedulous
Eve was supposedly created from a rib of "Adam". Doesn't this suggest "Eve" would have been a clone of Adam? If not, why does the bible even mention this detail? Why not simply say god created a woman if it didn't mean to imply genetic material for Eve was taken from Adam? Even if Adam and Eve were heterozygous for every gene, why do we see such diversity today? Why is there red, white, blonde, black, and brown hair? There wouldn't be enough alleles from only two people to explain this difference.

Maybe this shows evolution as being a more viable answer over creation as the human species could be made up of sub-species: whites, blacks, pinks, browns, whatever... Such as the evolution of trees: Oak, Beech, Pine... Birds: Pengiuns, Crows, Chickens...

Mal

Mar 28, 2003, 10:16 PM

I would like to remind all of you that the Theory of Evolution, as has already been pointed out, is a theory, as is Creationism. The difference? Evolution does not attempt to incorporate God into the picture. There are many, many facts to support both theories, but I find evolution much harder to accept since it teaches that chance determined what we would turn out to be, not the God that I know watches out for us.

Also, I have noticed many people like to argue that "God wouldn't have done it that way" or even "God couldn't have done it that way". PLEASE!!!! If God can create the entire universe, he certainly can do it just as easily in 7 days as he could in billions of years, or for that matter, in a millisecond! He is not limited by the laws of nature, he created them. If you don't believe in God, then you obviously don't believe in creation; stick with the arguement that you don't believe in God, but don't say what God can and can't do!!! That's like telling me what I can and can't think!! I can think anything I want, and it's impossible to stop me, and the same is true of God, except what he thinks really makes a difference to everyone.

JW

lmalave

Mar 28, 2003, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic

Why don't you try listening to the seminars before you make a judgement.

I listened to the first 35 minutes of the first seminar, and here are my impressions:

He sort of hints at the fact that science is a type of religion (which I think is a valid argument that can be made - but that's whole other philosophical issue unto itself). But then he undermines his whole argument by saying that most science is good but that it's just evolution that's a religion. This to me is not philosophically consistent.

Accepted scientific theories are based on observational evidence - that's what uniquely defines science. For example, Aristotle assumed that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects and gave a whole rationale why that would be the case. But scientists like Galileo and Newton proved that any object you drop would accelerate at the same rate, and in fact quantified that acceleration.

And true scientists try to draw conclusions from data, rather than the other way around (like the cartoon above). And that data can sometimes debunk previous theories as an oversimplification. For example, it was accepted theory that the atom was the smallest unit of matter, until experiments such as the Photoelectric Effect proved that even atoms were made up of mostly empty space, with other smaller particles making it up. That's science. Let the data tell the story.

That being said, evolution is clearly an accepted theory. I mean, there is a huge preponderance of evidence supporting it. Especially the way that he defines evolution so broadly, as "cosmic" evolution (big bang), "chemical" evolution (starting with hydrogen atoms and then 'evolving' into more complex atoms), organic evolution (simple organisms evolving into more complex organisms), macro evolution (one species becoming another), and micro evolution (adapting to environment).

His contention was that the first 4 were religion and only the last one was scientific fact. I mean jeez, I don't even know where to begin with that. He's discounting huge and important parts of the fields of Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology (and of course Anthropology). He might argue that the theories behind the first four are wrong. but to say they're religion and not science, when clearly the preponderance of scientific evidence supports them, is to say that science itself is a religion (which as I stated above is actually a philosophically self-consistent point of view).

I am also troubled by his use of misinformation and oversimplification of scientific theories, and taking quotes out of context from textbooks to ridicule them. For example, he misinterpreted a quote in a texbook as the Big Bang as saying that the universe came from "nothing" (as in no mass/energy), when the point that the book was trying to make was that in the big bang says that at the time of the big bang the universe had zero volume. Not just really, really small, but actually zero volume, what's called a "singularity" in space. (black holes are another example of singularities in space). Just like black holes, the universe had finite mass, but zero volume, and therefore it had infinite density.

He also misinterprets the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that in a closed system the total entropy of the system will always increase. In the universe as a whole, therefore, entropy is always increasing. He argues: how is it that evolution can lead to greater structure - doesn't that violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Well, no it doesn't: as long as the total entropy increases, it is possible to have parts of the system have greater structure. The law only refers to the total entropy.

Now, I respect his right to disagree with the theories, or even to say that science is invalid, but I think it's misleading of him to say that science in general is valid, and then blatantly misrepresent scientific theories to shoot them down.

I'll try to work my way through more of the seminars. But man, they are 2 hours each!

:eek:

Sedulous

Mar 29, 2003, 12:27 AM

Also, I have noticed many people like to argue that "God wouldn't have done it that way" or even "God couldn't have done it that way". PLEASE!!!! If God can create the entire universe, he certainly can do it just as easily in 7 days as he could in billions of years, or for that matter, in a millisecond!

This is reasonable. Yet, in some ways isn't a good justification. There are precidents in the bible, yet in many cases the bible's own precidents are not in agreement with itself. I guess the easiest way to express this is, in the first half of the bible, god is very wrathful and interjects quite often (usually to murder people, or give them rules). Yet today, we see nothing of "god" regardless of how wicked we are. No booming voices from the sky, no floods, no guys being resurrected. In my most honest opinion, god is either something people can use to better themselves or serve in a twisted form as an excuse to kill other people or drive divisions between them.

There isn't anything in the "Theory of Evolution" that contradicts Creation. To God a day is a 1000 years and a 1000 years is a day.

Actually, this is incorrect. The biblical explaination of creation is that god created things as they are. The catholic teachings are probably a capitulation to stay in agreement with what science can support with fact.

Maybe this shows evolution as being a more viable answer over creation as the human species could be made up of sub-species: whites, blacks, pinks, browns, whatever... Such as the evolution of trees: Oak, Beech, Pine... Birds: Pengiuns, Crows, Chickens...

Not the best analogy. A defining feature of a species is the ability to interbreed. All races of humans can interbreed and produce viable offspring. A crow can't breed with a penguin. Most often this has to do with number of chromosomes.

macfreek57

Mar 29, 2003, 12:36 AM

completely and utterly outside of the "conflict between evolution and creationism"....

it's really amazing looking back on old evolutionary theory that has been 50 fold proven wrong or extremely faulty that still resides on textbook pages. por example: the peppered moth experiment and haekel's (sp?) embryo drawings (which i KNOW are generally accepted to be distorted, but they only until recently have been paid attention despite the long-ago-made discovery that they were almost entirely insane. they are also still presented as fact in more textbooks than they should be). and there's more.
but the problem lies with the "scientific" source
pure opinion: scientists are hard nosed about and unwilling to accept critisism on one theory - evolution. the Copernicus argument, as i like to call it, basically uses the idea that since Copernicus went against the general beliefs of "The Church" ( in 1543, mind you ) and a bunch of aristocratic church hierarchy members were unwilling to accept such a challenge to their power, we should more fully believe any theory simply in the light of it coming into great conflict with church's.
scientists in the professional realm cannot offer real debate for or against evolution simply for the fact that anyone providing any sort of evidence against evolution is instantly believed to be a "creationist" and will therefore be essentially shunned scientifically (though dimplomatically). thus, once a case or bit of evidence is found in favor of the great theory, unless it is instantly able to be proven wrong or faulty, it stays and is accepted by the masses because 'Scientist A' thinks "It's just a little discrepancy." No use in waisting a reputation just to speak out on a discrepancy. But little discrepancies add up. it is extremely difficult for one to graduate from college in a geological or biological field being entirely open with one's sceptisism of evolution. i spoke once to a man once who was a christian (so hang him :rolleyes: ). he told me how he was basically threatened by professors when he would "speak his mind" (he is a bit loud-mouthed, though).
wonderful, brilliantly-made, intelligent conclusion: though it may be somewhere close to the right track in it's ever objective search for the truth, "science" is corrupting the minds of millions with the cult that it has formed from the theory of evolution (and minor discrepancies).

kylos

Mar 29, 2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by scem0

if(creation == no evidence && evolution == much evidence)
{
evolution = better;
}

Nice code, but

if (evidence)
then
evolution;

which, though a more accurate representation of current evolutionary thinking, is still invalid.

Valid logic following:

if (evolution||creation)
then
evidence;

Think about it.

kylos

Mar 29, 2003, 12:59 AM

Originally posted in the rapture thread:

Originally posted by mischief
Okay:

1: The single celled organism isn't the basis of it all. The 2 things that are closest to what existed originally are rhybosomes and viruses. After so much time it's not suprising that "the original" life form is no longer present. This is compounded by the fact that anything that existed in the earliest points of Earth's history as far as Life would have been killed off by the changeover from Anaerobic living to the aerobic environment we live in now.

1a: The eye's component parts can, indeed be found individually on other organisms that don't need the whole apparatus to get what they need from light-based info.

2: Current evolutionary theory states that Darwin's basic gradualism hypothesis is indeed wrong. Evolution has been observed. A new species of Frog was discovered in Washington in the Mt. St. Hellens area (which was extremely well documented) just months after the mountain exploded. Research since then has shown that environmental adversity causes sudden and dramatic evolution.

3: The Fossil record is "spotty" because the conditions neccessary for fossilation are very limiting and quite rare. Finding a complete skeleton for even a single animal is rare enough to be extraordinary. There are hundreds of thousands of fossils sitting in storage having never been properly analyzed because they were considered insignificant or not sensational enough to bring in money for another dig. This kind of behaviour among scientists is, indeed equivalent to your kind of Theology.

4: DNA has destinct "chaptering" and is by no means randomly organized. Even the lengths of code that exist "between" alleles serves the same function as blank pages in a reference book between sections. Since it has been recently discovered that only a very small portion of DNA differs significantly between Humans and (say) Fruit Fly's the remainder accounts for all the diversity seen in between. This means that changes to the code would be very small.

4a: There has been no change in the code because the code is not a novel or diary, it is the biological "oral history" of our species and on a much smaller scale the record of our personal forbears.

Conclusionary rebuttal:

The Universe has demonstrated that true Chaos does not exist. All things are organised by the behaviour of their components, and in turn the components of those components.

Life is an expression of the Universe's most common parts (Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen) and what happens when the 4 of them interact in a fluid medium in the presence of sunlight, lightning and agitation.

I will not argue that there is no overallawareness to the Universe and it's inhabitants, rather I will argue that, in a respect the Universe is the greatest and most complete Acid Trip imagineable... We are the Hollucinations of the Devine. I do not argue against the presence of a Devine Presence, I mearly argue against foolish literalism in the face of logic, evidence and science.

1. Precisely why evolution should not be taught as fact. Look, if the best you can do is say "Well it might be, and so therefore evolution is true", then why do you ridicule those who believe a biblical account? You see, science can't describe the past, that's for history; science only predicts the future. You can never claim a certain cause from the effect only.

2. Current evolutionary theory: yup, the name speaks for itself, it keeps evolving to fit the changing evidence to a predetermined cause, a humanistic origin to life.

Sudden and dramatic evolution? You have a new species of frog. It's called a genetic mutation caused by adverse conditions. Is this new species even sustainable? BTW, current creationist textbooks stress microevolution (adaptation within a species, e.g., dogs are able to interbreed and yet there are so many variants and other more extreme examples). It's the macroevolution (trans-species) that is rejected.

3. Hundreds of thousands of fossils in storage because they aren't sensational enough? That's as much as saying that they don't support the fossil record they're "supposed" to support. If they build the case for evolution, it would be logical to build it small piece by small piece. Boy, the people in charge of proving evolution sure are a bunch of dolts if they think not building their case piece by piece will win it for them.

4. Similarity in DNA can also point to a God who saw a good system and stuck with it. After all, that's what computer programmers do with code libraries. And I haven't heard anybody ever claim similarity in computer code to mean that the computers are generating their own code. Once again, effect does not determine cause.

Conclusionary Rebuttal:

What causes those chemical sequences that we call DNA to have any significance? Why should they have any meaning? Just because? Just as someone set up the languages for programming computers, it seems logical that someone would create the language of life, DNA. You say all things are organized by their components. Where did the littlest of components derive their organization? Random chance can organize even the most complex arrangements if given time. But the key word is organization; there has to be some organization scheme in order to organize.

Logic, evidence, and science. Logic is one way; causes bring about effects, but effects never indicate a specific cause. The evidence can be explained in many ways. If you check into creationist science, you'll find a lot of explanations for the evidence. In fact, if you check into humanist explanations for the evidence, you'll find many different explanations for the same data. This shows further that effect does not determine cause, since multiple cause can be generated for one piece of evidence. Science has nothing to do with history, it predicts forward, it doesn't look back.

SDimaging

Mar 29, 2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by macfreek57
"science" is corrupting the minds of millions with the cult that it has formed from the theory of evolution (and minor discrepancies).

Oh God.

macfreek57

Mar 29, 2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by SDimaging
Oh God.

hope you read the whole thing and not just the last sentence
partially quoting is misquoting
and by the way, "Oh God" says little if anything in the way of actually responding to what was said and/or stating a full thought

note: i'll not jump anyone one else. this was just too dumb

Sedulous

Mar 29, 2003, 03:43 AM

Anyone notice that the guys that wrote the earliest parts of the bible were the ones that directly derived power (leadership) from their own works? For example, Moses is the one that wrote the account how "god" gave him the tablets of the 10 commandments. Why did it take 30 or 40 days for "god" to write these 10 short sentences? And "god" was the one that supposedly demanded a temple filled with treasure... and coincidentally, is the place where the leaders/preists resided. If I were even a bit open-minded I would question these things.

Even more blatant, the writers or early scriptures demanded that when people sacrificed to "god" (for any number of reasons), these sacrifices had to be shared with the priests! And of course, only priests could sacrifice... those who were not priests and performed these services would be executed.

All of this can be found in Leviticus 3:1-17, 7:11-36 for example.

alset

Mar 29, 2003, 07:45 AM

In the words of 311:

"Evolution is fact;
We're all from the same Lucy,
Despite differences you see"

Seriously, though - Can you really walk through the natural history museum and not fall for evolution?Don't tell me it's too much of a stretch, because the idea of divine plan, an omnipotent being in the heavens, and all the miracles of the bible are pretty hard to swallow. Also, if you say swallow it on faith, I tell you to do the same with evolution. That is, if you just have to deny the indisputable proof.

Dan

jayscheuerle

Mar 29, 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by skywalker
I would like to remind all of you that the Theory of Evolution, as has already been pointed out, is a theory, as is Creationism.

Actually, you're wrong here.

Evolution is a theory and a fact.

Most people have misconceptions as to the definitions of "theory", thinking that it means simply a guess as to how something happens or works. A brief glance in my dictionary will give me:

1) the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2) a) a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b) an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles or circumstances

3) the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

4) a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of princicples offered to explain phenomena

5) a) a hypothesis assumed for the sake of arguement or investigation b) an unproved assumption

6) abstract thought

It seems that most anti-evolutionists cling to definition #5, even though that is not the one that applies. Note that the word "fact" shows up in the first two definitions and how "theory" is usually coupled with "scientific", which is why there can be no "Creation Theory" because it does follow the scientific method of taking facts to draw conclusions. You could sneak it in under definitions 5 or 6 I guess, but those meanings don't hold much weight. Besides, Creationism is part of a set of beliefs and needs no facts to back it up. It's faith, which needs to come from the heart, but doesn't need to even touch the mind... - j

Mac til death

Mar 29, 2003, 08:22 AM

_____ A variation on the theme of evolution is theistic evolution. It states that God initiated life on earth and allowed evolutionary principles to bring man to where he is--maybe with a little help from God here and there. At least this theory includes God. But this theory was developed in part by Bible believing people who thought that evolution had some merit. In addition, it is an attempt to answer the many problems existing not only in the fossil record but also with how life could somehow randomly form out of nothing. Because of problems like this, some believe they can be explained by simply adding God to the picture: God directed evolution.
_____ For those who hold to the Bible as the word of God, theistic evolution should not be a viable option. The Bible says, "Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us..." (Psalm 100:3). The Scriptures state that God created. God said, "Let there be..." and there was. The Scriptures speak of the creative word of God. When God speaks; it occurs. He said "Let there be" and it was so. It does not say, "Let there be a slow development through an evolutionary process."
_____ God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." The Hebrew word for "make" in this verse and in verse 25 where God makes the beasts, is "asah." It means to do, work, make, produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of evolutionary principles.
_____ The land animals were made differently than man. The animals were made from the ground but man was made directly by God: "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7). Evolution states that man evolved from life forms that developed in the ocean. Here, God made man from the dust of the ground--not the water of the ocean.
_____ If evolution is true and the Bible is true then how is the formation of Eve explained? She was created out of one of Adam's ribs (Gen. 2:22). There is no way to explain this if theistic evolution is true; that is, unless you want to say that Eve wasn't made from Adam's side. Then, if you do that, you are doubting the very word of God.
_____ Also, Jesus said in Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God ?made them male and female.'" The beginning was not evolutionary slime; in the beginning of creation there was Adam and Eve.
_____ Though this information is brief and far from complete, it should be obvious that theistic evolution and the Scriptures cannot be harmonized.

Quote taken from www.carm.org which has a very interesting section on Evolution.

alset

Mar 29, 2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Kyle?
Originally posted in the rapture thread:

1. Precisely why evolution should not be taught as fact. Look, if the best you can do is say "Well it might be, and so therefore evolution is true", then why do you ridicule those who believe a biblical account? You see, science can't describe the past, that's for history; science only predicts the future. You can never claim a certain cause from the effect only.

2. Current evolutionary theory: yup, the name speaks for itself, it keeps evolving to fit the changing evidence to a predetermined cause, a humanistic origin to life.

Sudden and dramatic evolution? You have a new species of frog. It's called a genetic mutation caused by adverse conditions. Is this new species even sustainable? BTW, current creationist textbooks stress microevolution (adaptation within a species, e.g., dogs are able to interbreed and yet there are so many variants and other more extreme examples). It's the macroevolution (trans-species) that is rejected.

3. Hundreds of thousands of fossils in storage because they aren't sensational enough? That's as much as saying that they don't support the fossil record they're "supposed" to support. If they build the case for evolution, it would be logical to build it small piece by small piece. Boy, the people in charge of proving evolution sure are a bunch of dolts if they think not building their case piece by piece will win it for them.

4. Similarity in DNA can also point to a God who saw a good system and stuck with it. After all, that's what computer programmers do with code libraries. And I haven't heard anybody ever claim similarity in computer code to mean that the computers are generating their own code. Once again, effect does not determine cause.

Conclusionary Rebuttal:

What causes those chemical sequences that we call DNA to have any significance? Why should they have any meaning? Just because? Just as someone set up the languages for programming computers, it seems logical that someone would create the language of life, DNA. You say all things are organized by their components. Where did the littlest of components derive their organization? Random chance can organize even the most complex arrangements if given time. But the key word is organization; there has to be some organization scheme in order to organize.

Logic, evidence, and science. Logic is one way; causes bring about effects, but effects never indicate a specific cause. The evidence can be explained in many ways. If you check into creationist science, you'll find a lot of explanations for the evidence. In fact, if you check into humanist explanations for the evidence, you'll find many different explanations for the same data. This shows further that effect does not determine cause, since multiple cause can be generated for one piece of evidence. Science has nothing to do with history, it predicts forward, it doesn't look back.

Many people try to discredit the scientific method because science often corrects itself. Some use this as an argument to suggest that science is flawed by nature. We say "THEORY" because we are comfortable admitting that we don't have concrete answers. Then again, Theory of Relativity, right? Can't put any faith in that, it's a theory! :eek:

Well, let me ask you - do you take it from a group that updates it's ideas and admits mistakes, or the group whose ideas have barely progressed in several thousand years? Science will drag you into the future kicking and screaming, if need be.

On the note of fossils, I once saw an interview with an archeologist or zoologist who made a point that we rarely find the bones of black bears (or grizzly bears, maybe?). The point, of course, being that we KNOW they exist today. We don't find their remains, though. Well, consider the difference between these bears and creatures that lived thousands of years ago. Does this make it easier for you to accept our difficulty in producing more fossils?

Your argument that DNA supports the idea "god" is laughable, and the analogy about computer code is a joke. I shouldn't even touch that one, but I can't resist. Saw a good system and stuck with it? Right. You are solving for one complete unknown with another.

Blah, I've been up all night. I'm sure my grammar is terrible, right about now. I'll come back to this one tomorrow.

Dan

btw - Most ideas drawn directly from religion are far more preposterous than any of the arguments for evolution, so don't tell me we're ridiculing your beliefs

Also - Your comments about science being unable to explain the past, but rather that it predicts the future is exactly the type of misunderstanding I expect from someone who can't just deal facts that contradict what your family/church fed you all your life.

*** This one is directed at no one in particular *** Look, if you need religion to feel that you have purpose in your life, great - go to it. Do not, however, sabotage the progress of our species by spreading baseless anti-science propaganda *** this one is directed at no one in particular ***

EDIT - Besides, Creationism is the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. People can't handle that we are no more special than any other creature on the planet. People like the idea of being made in the image of a supreme being and being made to rule over the animals. Well, big news, people: We're nothing special.

macfreek57

Mar 29, 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by alset
Many people try to discredit the scientific method because science often corrects itself. Some use this as an argument to suggest that science is flawed by nature. We say "THEORY" because we are comfortable admitting that we don't have concrete answers. Then again, Theory of Relativity, right? Can't put any faith in that, it's a theory! :eek:

the proof or disproof of evolution is not in the definition of what "modern scientists" call it. simply because it's called a theory doesn't say how much or how little evidence exists in the scientific realm for it or against it. yeah - the theory of realtivity.. and the theory of wormholes and the theory of an expanding universe and the theory of a static universe and the millions of theories of time-travel and the theory of a pink earth. who gives a crap whether or not someone has had a scientific idea and pinned "the theory of" to the beginning of it.

mischief

Mar 29, 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by macfreek57
the proof or disproof of evolution is not in the definition of what "modern scientists" call it. simply because it's called a theory doesn't say how much or how little evidence exists in the scientific realm for it or against it. yeah - the theory of realtivity.. and the theory of wormholes and the theory of an expanding universe and the theory of a static universe and the millions of theories of time-travel and the theory of a pink earth. who gives a crap whether or not someone has had a scientific idea and pinned "the theory of" to the beginning of it.

Actually being a Theory Does assign it more weight. The word "Theory" when attatched to a meme designates a status within Science as having been independantly verified through repitition of the processes that were used to initially generate what was at that point a "Hypothesis". A Hypothesis is an intuitive guess based on limited evidence that is in the process of testing to either prove (creating a Theorem) or disprove the central statement of the hypothesis.

macfreek57

Mar 29, 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by mischief
Actually being a Theory Does assign it more weight. The word "Theory" when attatched to a meme designates a status within Science as having been independantly verified through repitition of the processes that were used to initially generate what was at that point a "Hypothesis". A Hypothesis is an intuitive guess based on limited evidence that is in the process of testing to either prove (creating a Theorem) or disprove the central statement of the hypothesis.

i'm not trying to be harsh, but please read my post again
i think you bypassed the point of it and responded to one or two sentences.

you have a good point though. a lot of people arguing that "evolution is just a theory" are thinking the definition of theory as being too close to the definition of hypothesis.

mischief

Mar 29, 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by macfreek57
i'm not trying to be harsh, but please read my post again
i think you bypassed the point of it and responded to one or two sentences.

you have a good point though. a lot of people arguing that "evolution is just a theory" are thinking the definition of theory as being too close to the definition of hypothesis.

Okay, I'll be more blunt: A Theory is, by definition proven by independant verification. The process of that verification is often referred to as "proving".

macfreek57

Mar 29, 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by mischief
Okay, I'll be more blunt: A Theory is, by definition proven by independant verification. The process of that verification is often referred to as "proving".

i'll do the same:
the point of my original comment was that ther are other theories, entirely unrelated to the beginnings of life, that are guesses, educated though they may be.
nothing is concrete. once something has been proven, that's not simply the end. every scientist has a theory or multiple theories about everything imaginable. and people like to talk about what they think happended. that's all darwin did. he had proofs but so does every theory.

mischief

Mar 29, 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by macfreek57
i'll do the same:
the point of my original comment was that ther are other theories, entirely unrelated to the beginnings of life, that are guesses, educated though they may be.
nothing is concrete. once something has been proven, that's not simply the end. every scientist has a theory or multiple theories about everything imaginable. and people like to talk about what they think happended. that's all darwin did. he had proofs but so does every theory.

Darwin's original theory has been all but abandoned in favor of far more accurate theorems that make up the body of current theory. If you want to say that Darwin's theory was wildly inaccurate, you'd be right.... in light of more current study. To argue that a theory that's 200 years old and no longer accepted as scientifically valid is proof of a contrary hypothesis based on no verifiable or repeatable evidence is ludicrous at best.

macfreek57

Mar 29, 2003, 08:03 PM

good god no. that's not anywhere near what i was implying
you're again ignoring my point and twisting my words

i realize that's what darwin did but that's not what scientists today do (for the most part). they say thier truth is the unrefutable truth because most of the scientific reaserch for perhaps the past 200 years in the way of finding a source for life has gone into proving and supporting evolution.

and no i was not advocating the creationist side, though it is my personal belief. i have spent some time in the past few months looking at this controversy and my biggest beef comes not so much with the overwhelming evidence for creation that has gone ignored (which i don't think really exists because i think that's God's intent for us not to understand everything about our universe) but with the incredible amount of fault that has been found in the evolutionary theory which HAS gone ignored.
i am not and have not been arguing for creation here. i don't think it's relavent to my purpose.

kylos

Mar 29, 2003, 10:05 PM

In response to several posts:

About the flood, obviously no one can know for sure what the world looked like before the era the Bible places the flood in, but the book of Genesis states that the fountains of the deep opened up and caused massive flooding, likely most flooding came from this source, not rain. This indicates that the earth's surface went through massive upheaval at this time due to all the water bursting forth (a watery volcano). This could indicate that the earth's surface was quite flat and that the flood started plate shifts, forming our current crop of mountains. Also, in such a scenario, all animals around the world could just as easily have been in the location of the ark since continents likely started forming afterward.

Moses did not just receive the 10 commandments on the mountain. In fact, he received the entire jewish law.

Uhh, there were some others but I'm heading to bed now. Maybe I'll look back tomorrow.

Rower_CPU

Mar 29, 2003, 10:09 PM

OK, here's a flood-related question...

For those who say evolution of species/sub-species is not real/possible, how do you account for the limited space on the Ark for animals, and the current plethora of species, that never would have fit on a boat of any size?

kylos

Mar 30, 2003, 02:11 PM

Good question. Most creationist biology texts fully support species/sub-species evolution (micro-evolution). I'd say all, but I'm sure there are some out there who don't approach creationism scientifically and don't realize the incongruity such a situation presents them. Creationists very much support micro-evolution as scientific (observable) fact. It's macro-evolution they disagree with.

Rower_CPU

Mar 30, 2003, 02:45 PM

So, your position is that the ancestors of all current species were on that boat and that they've only evolved slightly since then?

What about Noah and his family? How have we arrived at the very diverse and plentiful races of people from a small group of people on the Ark?

kylos

Mar 30, 2003, 03:06 PM

Yes, for the most part. I'm not setting a limit on what animals were on board, but it needn't have been many. Biological change and mutation would provide variety after a while.

How would we have arrived at the diverse and plentiful races of people even if macro-evolution is true. We would still likely come from one original line. In fact, we would have to, otherwise reproduction would likely not work between races (or at least poorly). So, a micro-evolutionary sequence makes great sense.

Rower_CPU

Mar 30, 2003, 04:09 PM

What's the timeline for the Great Flood? When was it supposed to have taken place?

Mac til death

Mar 30, 2003, 05:47 PM

something interesting that I read along the same lines of your questions rower....

QUESTION:__ Creationists keep missing one very important detail; what happened between Noah and Jesus? That's only 2,500 years. God killed all life on land, even that which creepeth on the earth. If I take the Bible literally, then he killed worms, beetles, microbes, bacteria, and everythi ng else that makes the soil fertile. When Noah landed, he only had two worms, two beetles, two microbes, etc. He also only had seven people with him. Given these severe restrictions, Noah had to found the kingdom of Egypt, the dynasties of China, the Indian culture of North and South America, in perhaps only a hundred years. Modern Archeology can provide dates not only through carbon dating, but in the case of China, from one the history of one uninterrupted culture._ Noah had one square inch of fertile soil on the side of Mount Ararat, thousands of hungry animals, and seeds waiting to be planted. He also had to found all of our modern human cultures. Make a timeline specific to location and population, in decade increments. It's only 2,400 years--that's a heck of a lot easier than 4 billion.

RESPONSE: Creationists haven't missed that little detail. But I think you missed some of what the Bible says. There were two qualifications for the animals on board the Ark: they not only had to be those which moved about on the earth, but also those that had the breath of life, or "nephesh." The word "nephesh" refers to those animals with soul: or, if you like, "responsive personality." Thus you would have all mammals that lived on land, reptiles, and birds. Amphibians did not need the Ark and insects, worms, bacteria, etc. do not have the nervous system which is complex enough to mark the animal or organism as having a uniqueness and the trainability which "nephesh" implies. Thus these organisms were preserved in various ways outside the Ark through the flood._
____ Regarding the food situation, if you read Genesis, you will notice that no one disembarked until the dove brought back an olive shoot. Olives do not grow as quickly as grass, and so there is the indication that the vegetation was quite adequate for survival immediately after release from the Ark._
____ As far as the cultures are concerned, you will find a very accurate and widely-referred-to Table of Nations in Genesis 10. It is used by archaeologists, historians, and linguists to help trace the roots of various ancient cultures and has proven to be quite accurate. As far as repopulation of the earth is concerned, not much time was needed for the early civilizations. In Genesis 11 you will read of the long ages (although only half of what they were pre-flood) which then went down again after the event of Peleg's time and gradually, after that, to what we know today as the upper limit on human ages -- about 120 years. In the early generations we read of families being rather large, and when the average family has about six children or more, the population can grow quite rapidly.

iMook

Mar 30, 2003, 05:54 PM

FOR EVOLUTION BASHERS:
read Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not a Christian" (especially First Cause and Morality). Though this does not focus solely on Creationism, it'd make youthink twice about organized religion.

FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC:
Yes, evolution is a theory. A theory, in the scientific sense, is something has not yet been proven, and not yet been disproven. Once a theory is proven beyond doubt, it becomes FACT.

To put it that way, Creationism is a theory, too *gasp*. But, I believe that a theory which states that the world is ever-changing and has become steadily more complex and advanced over the course of eons is a bit more plausible than a theory which states that its creators (Man) are the ultimate creation, that all of the Earth's flora and fauna were crammed onto a oversized wooden boat (leading to catastrophic inbreeding, which gives us trillions of animals in the world today devoid of genetic defects), everything began in the year 4004 B.C., and that a massive mysterious Flood killed all upon the land and sea at once (and only once).

mischief: you discredit Darwin, saying that there are better theories out there, and that a rusty theory that's (heaven forbid) 200 years old should be considered rubbish, and defending it is the essence of stupidity. Hmmm... how old is the Bible?

macfreek57: Anyone can call a half-baked drunken proposition a theory, yes. I grant you that. But, the vast majority of theories have been disproven, or have little to nil evidence in their defense. To take you at your word: expanding universe: this theory is in doubt by today's physics only because the calculation for the Hubble constant is extremely close to the threshold between eternal expansion and eventual collapse. It's so close that the requisite margin of error straddles the line.
A scientific theory has LONGEVITY and CREDIBILITY only when: 1) the evidence in its defense keeps piling up, 2) the body of evidence against it is far smaller than the evidence for it, 3) no better (by "better", I mean better fit to presented evidence) theory presents itself.

All scientific theories undergo editing. Good example IMHO: Newton's laws of physics. They were adequate for everyone until a few contradictory and undeniable results prompted a certain patent clerk to look into the matter, and question the very thing sthat people have taken for granted for millenia: space and time. Thus, Einstein's theory of relativity was born. Later, Heisenberg, Dirac, and others refined a theory which described processes at the subatomic level, something Newton's laws couldn't do (because it didn't fit collected data). Thus, quantum mechanics was born.
This is science. When a theory becomes inadequate for the current body of evidence, a search ensues for its replacement. Science is ever-evolving, as is evolutionary theory. But, Creationism has stayed the same, nay, it has been FORCED to stay the same, for millenia. This is one ofthe main reasons I 'd prefer science over religion any day.

P.S. - Yes, I realize that this post can be construed as flamebait by some. So be it.

P.P.S. - I didn't realize there was a such thing as a "Creationist biology text" Learn something new every day.

I need to recover some files, so I'll check in tomorrow.

scem0

Mar 30, 2003, 06:04 PM

about Noah's arc:

Everybody knows the story of the Flood and Noah’s Arc from the Bible, but it’s not so well known that this story in a very similar form is part of the mythology of various peoples around the world. The Gilgamesh epic is the oldest testimony of the Flood, only that the man who is told by God to build a ship and flee with his family is called Utnapishtim instead of Noah. The parallels with the Bible story are so obvious that it can’t be a mere coincidence. Is this the original version of the old myth that is based on an actual event? For the first time scientists managed to present conclusive evidence for a flood disaster that occurred 7600 years ago in the area of the Black Sea.

from http://sites.inka.de/sites/darwin/books/pqr/noah.html .

The Noah's arc story was a rip off of the story of Gilgamesh.

iMook

Mar 30, 2003, 11:40 PM

I agree, scem0.

Many Biblical events may have been based on actual, then-inexplicable, events. For example, there are now Biblical researchers (I forget the actual term) who suggest that the parting of the sea by Moses may have been caused by an unusually low tide at a point where the floor of the Red Sea was naturally uplifted. Another theory says that Moses' turning of the Sea into blood could very well have been a dinoflagellate reaction to a sudden nutrient influx (red tides are how the Red Sea got its name). The list goes on. Though some attempts at reconciliation between science and religion are rather far-fetched, others seem to hold water.
But, even if such scientific explanations for seemingly supernatural phenomena become concrete enough to be accepted as fact, there will still be those who will take the Bible at face value, interpreting the miracles as just that: miracles, and weaving them into a foundation for a way of living (wherein, I think, lies the possibility for the greatest good to be gotten from religion).

dermeister

Mar 31, 2003, 01:36 AM

If you walk off a cliff, will god grasp you in his hands and guide you to safety, or will you plummit to a watery grave at ~9.81 m/s^2 ?

its creators (Man) are the ultimate creation, that all of the Earth's flora and fauna were crammed onto a oversized wooden boat (leading to catastrophic inbreeding, which gives us trillions of animals in the world today devoid of genetic defects), everything began in the year 4004 B.C., and that a massive mysterious Flood killed all upon the land and sea at once (and only once).

Well said.

And all this talk about "theory"... Well put it this way, we have absurd amounts of highly complex data, and are simply rationalizing in a systematic manner that explains it beyond a reasonable doubt. With better analysis techniques, we can refine these "theories", account for more data, and as such the theory evolves.

Finding counter proofs (if even that, in this case we are talking about simply unaccounted possibilities, which are endless) to an opposing theory does not make yours any more correct.

In terms of evolution VS creation, let me just say that while evolution is becoming more and more precise, and in most cases fact-material, creation is a mere story, and while it may be based on some fact, it is, as a story, largely untrue. Lets just say the basic framework is likely correct.

Linking what you can't account for to an unknown variable "God" does not make "God" a feasible figure, but an abyss of ignorance.

My opinion:
Why are we SO complex? Because we are the result of random evolutionary mutations at the genetic level, and a superior mutation will prevail. This notion can be repeated over eons, to create a being that is the direct linear result of all these mutations; the human (omitting other species, since we are beyond any doubt the most advanced in terms of neural networks and what not).

I do have a religion, and will likely marry someone of my own religion and what not, but the thruth is that religion has become tradition in light of all this science. Do I feel bad about it? Do I hate myself for "not believing"? Theres no point in hidding from reality. After a while I have come to acknowledge my own disbelief in "creation", and accept it as tradition, and play along.

I am not imposing this to "believers", nor attempting to belittle them, but for god sakes (lol, hehehe), SUBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, it's not hard to see which horse is the one to bet on.

Clark C

Mar 31, 2003, 02:53 AM

I'll start out by saying how cool I think it is that there are so many Christians on this board. I'm glad that our numbers are growing. On to the subject.....
I have always strongly believed (maybe known is a better word) that evolution is fact. It is, you can't deny it. To say it isn't (at least to some degree) is lying to yourself. Christians never argue how valid gravity is. Why evolution? Science is the study of God's creation. The way I look at it God gave us many gifts to learn about the nature of himself, the Bible, us, and his creation. Buy studying these you get insight into God's design. Now obviously it is much easier to take Genesis and consider it a parable, then to take science and try to make the story of Genesis fact.
I want to add that evolution or the universe in general is so percise that it is good as impossible for it all to happen by random chance. Thats where the harmony of Gods creation comes in.
Face it, some lessons in the Bible are parables. The prodical son didn't have to be a true story, it is simply teaching a lesson. Obviously snakes don't talk, nor do I think Satan would have the ability to take the form of a snake. The story of Noah make absolutly no logistical sense. Some storys teach a lesson, plain and simple. That's how Jesus taught, because the point of increadibly difficult concepts were taught in a parable.

I have no idea what the fuss is all about. God has his hand in everything, science doesn't disprove God, but it does prove evolution to a large degree.

noht*

Mar 31, 2003, 05:28 AM

i find it amusing that the whole creationism/evolution debate is really only happening in the states. even the most die-hard christians in europe/elsewhere don't think that creationism is more credible that evolution..
i somehow think this is related to the usa being a nation where the president asks its people to pray for him...:rolleyes:

iMook

Mar 31, 2003, 07:48 AM

i believe there won't ever be a true reconciliation between Genesis (interpreted strictly) and evolution, nor do I think there needs to be. The Bible has been a foundation for Christian life, usually. I don't want to sound like a Bible-basher, but if you think about it, a VAST number of atrocities have been committed by those who believed they were following God's word to the letter (Though this may be an exaggeration, I've read from several sources that more crimes have been committed in God's name than for any other cause). I don't believe in the Bible outright, but I understand how it can be a model for a good and moral life. But, to follow its teachings to the letter would be a gross injustice (adultery, heaven/hell, etc.). Then again, the established Church itself often makes concessions concerning which parts of the Bible it feels is important. Thus, what duties beyond "Book of Ethics if Loosely Interpreted" the Bible actually performs is up to debate... at least in my mind.

Alte22a

Mar 31, 2003, 07:49 AM

Wintel is a miracle and apple is Evolution..:D sorry had to break the tension some how..:rolleyes:

Anyway I with evolutionist, and have nothing against believers. Sorry guys the only lights I see is the hugh one the shines through my window in the morning and the other one that i flick a switch that comes on at night. Dont see the light switch as too much of a miracle though, more like science.

Sorry to be so simplified in my observation. But thats my view of life....

dfl

Mar 31, 2003, 10:48 AM

hi all, just joined in. I'm a mac programmer from Israel. Over here, the creationism/evolution debate is not a major issue, despite the heated religious/secular debate (almost war...). The reasons for this may merit a different message.

Although my sympathy lies with the evolutionists, I think that they are setting back their cause by insisting that evolution theory is true. This exposes them to cheap attacks and also gives a religious taint to their discourse.

Evolution theory is the best scientific explanation offered so for for a huge range of findings. Not only that, but it has also interacted very positively with various scientific disciplines and inspired a lot of research with very useful findings. This does not make it a fact in the common sense of the word, which should not trouble evolutionists the least bit. Being the leading scientific theory (with no competition, mind you) is enough. The semantics of truth and belief are not relevant to the efficacy of evolutionism as a scientific approach.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory at all. It is rather a name given to the default explanation "something did it". This is the state of our knowledge before we approach any new phenomenon. We accept this approach after we've exhausted our scientific ideas.
By saying this, I am *not* denying the existence of a creator. This would be infinitely pretentious on my part. I'm only saying that until the details of the creator are explained in terms of form and/or function, it is nothing more than the "something" answer, essentially meaning that we don't know.