disproving evolution

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:13 pm

What book?

flood control is lame
need to shut that option off
haiku really rocks

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:30 pm

Meat, your arguement about the fact that our arguements about God proves his existence because we were created by him so that is why we talk about him is totally OFF in the wrong direction.

The reason we can debate/argue, call it what you want to, is because we are free thinking and have developed the ability to communicate, although in Bong's case, somewhat communicate our thoughts and opinions on things which are developed through our life experiences and the knowledge passed down to us by other people.

Being that our knowledge base, that being modern knowledge, comes from only a very short period of time in the scale of humanities time on this planet, we only have so much to go on which leaves our own minds to attempt to develop explanations for things on its own.

I don't think the Greeks, Romans or Egyptians EVER thought their belief structure would be replaced by just ONE God. To even mention such things got you killed for the most part. The reality of things is that being that we have free will, the belief structures in every culture develop based on what a majority chooses to believe in. The fact that most people in certain faiths are raised to believe in those faiths doesn't mean they will, but it does mean they will probably have a more likely chance of believing that faith then not believing in it.

Basically its all a matter of what we choose to believe and as time has shown, beliefs do eventually change over a great amount of time. Religion is one of those touchy subjects though, because as a small child you are raised with something that can't really be disproven or proven. So, you don't really question things until you're much older and make a decision on what YOU believe on your own. Whatever feels right to most people is the path they will take.

I don't personally believe in God, but if there is one, the fact that I don't believe in him isn't a factor to him IMO. He created me right? He created all of us, the fact that we have free will is proof that we were designed to think for ourselves and guide ourselves. Humanity is really whats important in the long haul, your fellow man, depending on what you believe that is usually a common factor. Just be a good person while you're here because you only get one shot to do so. Whatever happens afterwards is out of your hands.

You can sit and debate this topic until you're blue in the face when all it comes down to is the here and now. Who cares about then, and this and that and the other and who is right and who is wrong. What we do now and how we treat people and live our lives is what is important. No matter what you believe this should be something that is universal.

Warlock · Post by **Warlock** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:40 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Meathead:
With an IQ of 137 I think someone gave me something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh oh where wanting to compair brain pans, 162 ★■◆●. yes i know my spelling and bad but thats cause of my dislexica and i cant do aney thang about that but just try my best but aney who exolution is possable, hell look at us now compaired to some one born in like 1910 there not much of a diff but its there.

but i saw a sit trying to put the 7day creation thang in to geological times witch was all BS.

but the shrinking of the sun is BS, well the sun may a little but who knows maybe every so many mill or bill of years it sheds a few pounds and ganes it back (that kinda sounds like opra girl) but we have been onley studying the sun for ohh i think 20 years IIRC i cant rember how long soho has been out there but what the sun is doing now u cant say its been doing that for all of its life span.

yes a skimed a little but i didnt feel like reading all of it

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:37 am

1) the only difference between us and someone from 1910 is diet, breeding and lifestyle. Nothing to do with Evolution at all.
2)7-day creation does make sense, when you look at a cool car, you ask "who made that car", when you look at a tree you say, "look what a colossal explosion and millions of years did". someone built the car, easy to see. The tree is more complex, but it's an accident???
3) The sun HAS to shrink, where would the enegry come from? when you drive your car the gas tank dosn't randomly fill up and empty, so why woult the sun change sizes? And where would the mass come from, any large amount of mass hitting the sun would throw all the planets out of orbit. They've been measuring carbon 14 for less than the sun, and they extrapolate that back millions of years.
(soho has been out there for 6 years, but they've been using Earth based telescopes for much longer than that)
I don't blame you for not reading all of it, it grew a little larger than I thought it would. heh

Warlock · Post by **Warlock** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:27 pm

so that meen every time i jerk off my dick is going to shrink in size cause im running off a few layers of skin, well at the rate im going its getting bigger insted of smaller

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:48 pm

"But Evolution says there is no God, and we don't need that ability, so why do we have it?"

Huh? When did evolution say there was no god? AFAIK god could be the creator of evolution. Evolution and God are not conflicting.

If you want to read a really interesting book on DMT, I would read Dr. Rick Strassman's book DMT: The Spirit Molecule. Very interesting, he contemplates the possibility that many spiritual experiences (not the kind lothar described in prayer, don't get me wrong here, I am not saying christians are on DMT, haha) and alien abduction experiences are pineal secretions of DMT.

Lothar that's interesting about the personality in prayer, but I never got that in about 12 years of praying when I was growing up. I went to catholic school for 6 years and genuinely tried praying.

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:01 pm

Lothar: you describe Christians in prayer :

"in prayer, they interact with a personality that is distinct from them -- a personality who displays kindness in particular ways, and who displays firmness in particular ways, and who sometimes reveals information that the person praying couldn't possibly know, and so forth."

I assume prayer brings devout Christians a feeling of being "closer to God"...

It seems like a parallel description to some of the DMT-precipitated "encounters" with beings that you'll read about in the links I posted ... I say "parallel", or I should emphasize it's "vague similarity" to DMT-beings, as not to make you think I'm making fun of your comment.... Do devout Christians squeeze a little something out of their pineal glands when in deep prayer ..? Does that suggestion sound plausible, .. helping explain the parallels between all our experiences of God ?

Lothar, ! Are we going to get a chance to carry this conversation on in person during the Califest 2004 Caravan/convoy ..?

...As I post this I'm also feeling like this has gone on too long ! Die Thread Die.!. Any more comments from Meathead and I'm gonna have a conniption ! ... Jeez Meat-brain.. ! you are from what part of the world, ..? and you went to what school to learn how to flex that IQ of yours..? (I am being nice .. ! ok ! no nastiness from me.. Just incredulity !) .. But you did start a doozer of a thread ..!

Ciao !

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:08 pm

When it was first thought up!! Darwin's Grandfather thought up Evolution because he thought the British were better that all other people.(he went MUCH further than that, but that would start a flame war, so I won't go there)Evolution, until recently, supported bigotry.(I'm not kidding, look it up in old textbooks, you'll find Blacks are a step down from White men)

God says everyone is equal, Evolution says some are lesser than others. Not conflicting? I think not.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:12 pm

Having personally done DMT, I can say it is nothing similar to the prayer lothar describes.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:23 pm

Meat, I don't think that it was darwin's grandfather.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/
Looks like his cousin was in favor of eugenics, but prove me wrong on this one.

You are referring to Social Darwinism, which has no connection with charles darwin's theories.

I would also say that the amanita muscaria and christianity connections are nothing more than silly reaches by pro-psychedelic hippies.

Drakona said:

"Christians and Jews were the screwballs that thought it had begun when God created it."

There have always been scientists who believed in evolution, big bang, and even Judaism, christianity, or the existance of god as the creator.

"Then the scientific theory changed, and the evidence mounted; ultimately everyone had to acknowledge the universe did, indeed, have a beginning. (referring to big bang)"

Actually, a lot of scientists never agreed the universe had to have a beginning. There may have been an initial big bang, but there have always been many theories about the universe and its expansion, for example one theory that recently fell out of favor, which is the expanion and contraction of the universe (meaning, bang, but mass is eventually enough to bring everything back together, collapse on itself, and bang again).

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 3:28 pm

Christians and Jews didn't initially believe that God created the world. It was Adam and Eve. Eventually as time went on people turned away from God and refused to believe in anything about Him, and that's how u think people "re-learned" that God created the world

In reality we've always known.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 3:30 pm

His Grandfather started the idea of evolution, but Darwin turned it into what we see today. Gramps said white british people were created by God, and all others evolved from monkeys and apes. Darwin said all people came from apes, whites were on top, and the rest were steps up to white. Not as bad, but still not good enough for general consumption. The theory of Evolution has changed so much that 2 year old textbooks are considered obsolete. Cars reached a point in like the 1940's(?) where cars only really changed in looks, maybe engine type, but are still not obsolete. Shows you how unstable Evolution is. (like computers)

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 7:45 pm

Got some links to back that up meat? I don't know much about Social Darwinism, so perhaps you can educate me.

"The theory of Evolution has changed so much that 2 year old textbooks are considered obsolete"

Strange, I have a 3 year old texbook, and it still covers the most current basics of evolution. Perhaps you should substantiate your remark. In fact, the 2 biggest parts of the theory of evolution, Mutation and Natural selection, have been around since the 1920s.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 7:54 pm

I saw something on the history channel about the evolution of evolution, they said his grandfather thought it up, his cousin got the facts, and Darwin altered it and made it public.
The basics, yes, they will stay around, but the facts that back them up are always changing. numbers, years, continental shift etc. etc. Creation science numbers change very slightly if at all.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:19 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Drakona said:

"Christians and Jews were the screwballs that thought it had begun when God created it."

There have always been scientists who believed in evolution, big bang, and even Judaism, christianity, or the existance of god as the creator.

"Then the scientific theory changed, and the evidence mounted; ultimately everyone had to acknowledge the universe did, indeed, have a beginning. (referring to big bang)"

Actually, a lot of scientists never agreed the universe had to have a beginning. There may have been an initial big bang, but there have always been many theories about the universe and its expansion, for example one theory that recently fell out of favor, which is the expanion and contraction of the universe (meaning, bang, but mass is eventually enough to bring everything back together, collapse on itself, and bang again).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both true. I am probably guilty of oversimplifying the account in order to make a philosophical point.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:51 am

Well, I haven't read all the threads, too much to wade through, but think about this:

Evolution is still a "theory" because not enough evidence has been found to prove without a doubt that Darwin was correct in "every" aspect of this theory.

What Darwin actually observed is what anyone of us can observe - the adaptation of any species to local environment. But what the theory can't prove is the creation of NEW species. The finches Darwin observed were different from the finches found elsewhere, but they are still FINCHES.

This is the difference between Micro and Macro evolution. God created all living things to reproduce "according to it's kind." In other words, to generate offspring of the same species. But that still allows for adaptation within the species.

See Michael Denton's book "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis." He is not a creationist. He is a Biologist.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:06 am

I still don't understand why someone would admit adaptation occurs, but speciation is not possible. If a small change can occur over time, add up all those little changes over time...and you have yourself a different species

So you believe adaptation occurs, but under what scientific mechanism?

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:17 am

a random thought while reading this thread:

i have an iq of 135 according to the last test i took, but i dont think ive ever brought it up when trying to give reasons on why my argument was correct.

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:46 am

Micro evolution occurs. Thus, macro evolution must also occur.

That's the assumption that the early evolutionists made. The problem is that macro evolution cannot be experimented with because of the slow nature of the process. And micro evolution does not result in a change of species.

I'm gonna keep my faith in the Bible. As the guy before me said the Bible states that "every species shall produce after its own kind." If you're a Christian, that disproves evolution. Christians should not try to compromise on their values by saying that God could have used evolution. Sure, God COULD have, but he says he didn't in His Word. Genesis says it all.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:23 pm

Micro evolution is changes WITHIN the DNA strand, macro evolution is changes adding onto the DNA strand. Micro evolution happens often, and sometimes quite quickly. Macro evolution requires an addition of information; and, last I checked, information dosn't come from nothing, it takes work and intellegence. The Bible supports micro evolution, 2 dogs on the ark are the ancestors of Great Danes and chiwawas alike. Micro evolution has it's downsides too, study Panda bears some time, they're really screwed up geneticly.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:26 pm

8 pages and STILL on topic?!?

Holy sh!t you guys! I'm proud.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:50 pm

"last I checked, information dosn't come from nothing, it takes work and intellegence"

Mutation. It's proven that mutations occur that make new traits.
It doesn't take intelligence.

It's hard to argue with people that don't have any scientific background. C'mon lothar ;p

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:11 pm

Show me a BENEFICIAL mutation that had an increase in information. Then I'll believe your statement Birdseye.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:42 pm

well,well,well. this is quite a discussion. And you know what? It will never be conclusive. One side will never convince the other side - especially over the internet. We all believe what we believe based on experience. Hopefully most of that experience has a solid base in real knowledge (but that's another discussion just waiting to happen).

People who believe in creation do so on faith.
People who believe in evolution do so on faith.
So at least we have that in common.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:07 pm

People that believe in Creation do so because they were TOLD TO.

People that believe in evolution are given the evidence, have the theory explained to them, and make a personal evaluation of the validity of the theory which relies mostly upon a more-or-less point-to-point coorelation between the evidence and the theory, filtered by their personal experience and beliefs.

Given the choice, I'd rather make up my own mind...

The true irony is that the only reason 'creationists' are opposed to the theory of evolution is that they rely upon a 'literal' interpretation of a holy book that has been translated from one language to another to another.

The reason I find this ironic, is that there has been a cumulative effect congruent to "mutation" in that various errors of transcription have led to the expression of new ideas ("Traits?") utterly different, and at times even opposed to the ideas espoused in the original, aramaic transcription of the old testament.

If a mere BOOK can evolve merely due to mistakes in translation...Why not a creature? After all, DNA is merely a book of traits and the means for expression in an organism.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:33 pm

edit: crap I hate it when you write a long response and then forget to fill out the REQUIRED fields and it deletes the whole thing

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:27 pm

The reason I find this ironic, is that there has been a cumulative effect congruent to "mutation" in that various errors of transcription have led to the expression of new ideas ("Traits?") utterly different, and at times even opposed to the ideas espoused in the original, aramaic transcription of the old testament.

From that statement I can tell you are not a scholar.

As far as DNA is concerned: how can a system of infomation storage as complex as DNA come about by chance? For evolution to succeed, mutation must occur at this biological level, and even deeper at the protein level. I know of no human invented storage system that can rearrange itself, duplicate itself, all in a matter of minutes, without an orangized, intelligent designer behind the process. And yet DNA is much more complex than any human information system, and yet you say it happend by chance.

You really do have faith.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:49 pm

there has been a cumulative effect congruent to "mutation" in that various errors of transcription have led to the expression of new ideas ("Traits?") utterly different, and at times even opposed to the ideas espoused in the original, aramaic transcription of the old testament. -War

You should know better than to make an assertion like this with me in the thread... seriously, you're about as far off here as Meathead is when he's talking about evolution.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, not Aramaic (except for a few parts of Ezra and perhaps some other isolated passages.) Our modern translations are based upon Hebrew manuscripts that are from ~150 BC to ~800 AD, a span of nearly a thousand years, over which we can verify that the Hebrew manuscripts changed only a trivial amount. We also use other translations (such as the Latin Vulgate from ~300 AD, and the Greek Septuagint, which is at least that old) to verify meanings of obscure words and phrases. It's not as though we're working off of a translation of a translation of a translation that has thousands upon thousands of transcription errors; rather, our modern English translations (the good ones, anyway) are based directly off of original-language manuscripts and can be verified from other translations. Now, one might complain that we don't have older Hebrew manuscripts, so maybe the Hebrew we do have is greatly changed, but the fact that the dead sea scrolls and the Masoretic texts (written a thousand years apart) match up almost perfectly, and understanding the process by which the Hebrews copied their texts (they invented the checksum), gives me great confidence that the text says essentially what it originally said.

It's fairly well documented where there are (even likely) transcription errors, and any study Bible worth its ink will note them in the margins. I happen to have a Hebrew-Greek-English interlinear, and it goes to great pains to document every single place where any ancient manuscript differs from any other by even one character. Suffice it to say, there is not a single doctrine in the Bible that is in question due to possible manuscript errors; I've checked. I know it's a common belief that there are, but most people believe such things because they were TOLD TO, not because they've actually looked at the evidence (and I have no qualms with calling you on this point, especially since it leads in very nicely to the next one.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>People that believe in Creation do so because they were TOLD TO.

People that believe in evolution are given the evidence, have the theory explained to them, and make a personal evaluation of the validity of the theory -War<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So are you telling me that you made a personal evaluation of the validity of the theory? You understand, then, what Hardy-Weinberg proportions are, and the assumptions made therein? You understand the mechanisms of evolution -- natural selection, for example, and how it relates to Hardy-Weinberg? You know what genetic drift is, and how it interacts with selection? You know which Hardy-Weinberg assumptions are broken for each of the standard mechanisms? Can you explain to me, please, the fundamental mechanics of evolution? Judging from your explanation of where the Bible came from, I think it's fair to say you haven't actually looked that closely.

Chances are, out of everyone who's posted to this thread, me and Birds are the only ones who wouldn't have to go find a book to figure out how gene migration works and what its effects are. There may be a few more who have reasonable familiarity with the theory, but probably almost nobody here knows more about evolution than you hear in high school or freshman biology, and very few are likely to have actually analyzed the evidence.

No, my friend -- most people believe in evolution because their teachers told them to, because their teachers said "the evidence proves it" and handed them some evidence that doesn't really prove jack diddly, just like most people believe in Creation because their sunday school teachers told them to, and maybe handed them some evidence that doesn't prove jack diddly. People believe in things because they're told to -- and that includes creation AND evolution. I'll put down five bucks right now that says you can't explain genetic drift off the top of your head -- you believe in evolution because you were *told* the evidence supports it, not because you actually analyzed the evidence.

Lothar that's interesting about the personality in prayer, but I never got that in about 12 years of praying when I was growing up. I went to catholic school for 6 years and genuinely tried praying. -Birds

I have no doubt you tried genuinely to pray when you were little, and I wouldn't even pretend to have a reason why you didn't interact with the aforementioned personality. But most people -- whether or not they went to church when they were little -- never get to that point, which is why I made the statement about "serious Christians" rather than "people who go to church". For some people, the connection just never happens -- God never speaks to them, and I have no idea why, because I'm not them and I'm not God so I can't see inside that relationship. But, I think my point stands as it was intended -- in response to Ka Bong's argument about DMT, I'm fairly certain there's a single personality that a large number of people (who share Christianity in common, and nothing else) interact with and describe in very similar ways, and this does not fit the "DMT" explanation, as we'll see below...

I assume prayer brings devout Christians a feeling of being "closer to God"... -KaBong

There are some "vague" similarities -- but "vague" is as far as they get, and as soon as you look deeper, it falls apart (which was the whole point of my post.) There's this vague idea you speak of as a "feeling" (key word) of being closer to God, but that certainly doesn't match up with the "distinct personality" I described, which is decidedly and markedly more than a "feeling" and definitely not the sort of thing that can be easily explained through a small amount of neurotransmitter. You're trying to say that, essentially, the "experience" of God can be explained by DMT, but like Birds said, it doesn't fit with what I described. You can cover quite a few of the superficial aspects of prayer by invoking neurotransmitters, but it's very, very difficult to explain how my wife and I both interact with a personality we've each known longer than we've known each other, and how a friend of mine who became a Christian very recently describes the exact same personality during her conversion, before she'd had nearly enough Bible training to be able to "manufacture" such a personality, and how the same thing goes on worldwide amongst serious Christians, but that non-Judeo-Christians never (to my knowledge) describe the same personality interacting with them in their prayers. I don't know of any drug or neurotransmitter that makes people think they're interacting with an intelligent, compassionate, quick-witted being consistantly over the course of their lives, whose words they look back upon years later and find them to be brilliant and enlightening. It just doesn't add up.

Are we going to get a chance to carry this conversation on in person during the Califest 2004 Caravan/convoy -KaBong

I wish -- but probably not. IIRC, Califest is during school for me (I don't get done until mid-June.) Chifest, on the other hand, might be wide open, and I think I owe some people out that way a visit, so I'll likely make that trip...

I still don't understand why someone would admit adaptation occurs, but speciation is not possible. If a small change can occur over time, add up all those little changes over time...and you have yourself a different species -Birds

"Not possible" would be too strong a word for me -- more like "not convincingly likely based on the evidence presented." It's very much the same problem as most people have with Meathead's assertion that the sun is shrinking, and therefore, couldn't be older than a particular age because it would've been the so huge before -- it's a question of *how* the changes add up over time. Let's say the sun really is shrinking 5 feet per century or whatever -- well, how does that add up in the past? How safely can we extrapolate that information back through all history? We all look at Meat and laugh at him for trying to extrapolate it beyond what's warranted. It might be possible, but the evidence presented just doesn't establish what he's trying to establish.

Birds, do you admit that between when I was conceived and when I was born (9 months) I likely grew about 18 inches? And over the next 9 months, I likely grew several more inches? Well, so that growth occurs, and I'm 23 years old now, so how can you POSSIBLY not believe I'm 38 feet tall? I just can't comprehend that

I apologize for the ridiculously heavy sarcasm, but I think it gives you some idea of where I'm coming from -- I'm a mathematician; I don't just see a trend and decide it must be possible to follow it infinitely far. I have to see how far the trend is valid; I have to be able to get down into the details and work them out to my satisfaction. If you say something happened, I have to be able to look into the mechanisms and reproduce the behavior in my head or on a computer or somehow.

So, I ask the same question with respect to evolution -- we see small changes, and we see them adding up, but HOW do they add up? It's not really well established how quickly they add up, or how much they'd need to add up to lead to separate species, or how they actually do so -- it seems like the hands just wave furiously over this point every time I ask it, and in every resource I read. It's hypothesized that changes adding up will lead to breaks between species, and based on the fossil record the number of species over time is fairly well established, but from all the evidence I've seen, it's not very well established how the changes add up in order to create the species we have on the timescales proposed, or how far species can reasonably evolve before they "hit a wall" in some sense. Like I said, I have to get down into the details and work them out to my own satisfaction, but even in reading books on theoretical population genetics, and in talking with a world-class evolutionist in Joe Felsenstein, I find myself consistantly running into concepts where the details just aren't there, and nobody seems to know where they are. This is why I have trouble -- I keep digging deeper, and I keep running into things that it seems like *should* be answered (and that sometimes seem like they'd be fairly easy to answer) but that nobody seems to have looked at. Now, in a scientific sense, it's great -- I could probably find a dozen PhD thesis problems to work on just in the hand-waving parts of various papers and textbooks I've read so far -- but it's very frustrating in an epistomological sense, because I'm being told this theory is almost perfectly established, but a number of critical parts of the theory aren't satisfactorily explored. (I realize I'm waving my hands a bit here too; I'm not giving adequate detail on which parts, because I want to give the general concept before I try to get any specific answers.)

I'm coming from a standpoint where it doesn't emotionally matter one bit to me whether or not the theory is true -- I have a strong enough understanding of Genesis 1 that you'd be hard-pressed to find a mainstream origins theory that would bother me in the slightest. But I have had a hard time finding solid, convincing evidence -- there are just too many places where everything seems to be extrapolated far beyond what's warranted. It might very well be correct in the end, but I have to work through it in order to really buy it.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:37 am

"People that believe in Creation do so because they were TOLD TO."-War
Personally I studied Evolution all the way through 9th grade, and only discovered Creation less than 5 years ago. It took me less than a year to discover that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution. Saying the most complex systems in the universe are all mistakes?? That's like saying Blue Gene was accident.(Blue Gene is the fastest computer on the planet) It dosn't add up.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:18 pm

Actually, Meat, evolution doesn't say everything is an accident.

Naturalism says everything is an accident -- that is, that life came about randomly as a result of natural and undirected causes, and that there's no "higher reason" for life. Evolution says that life came about through natural selection, mutation, and so on -- it doesn't say why; it doesn't say whether or not there's a higher reason. It's quite possible, for example, that God (or some sort of designer) used evolution in order to create life -- so evolution is entirely compatible with the idea that there's a designer. (Furthermore, it's quite compatible with Genesis 1 and 2 -- I suggest you read the thread I linked to a few pages back.)

Naturalistic evolution = "we evolved for no reason"
Theistic evolution = "we evolved because God made us evolve"
Creation = "we were formed in our current kinds because God wanted us that way"

Notice only one of these (naturalistic evolution) assumes everything was an accident.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:24 pm

I posted much earlier in this thread, but my reply, along with several others, was lost when the DBB went down. Unfortunately, most of it wouldn't fit in at this point in the discussion. However, I still do have a few comments.

Lothar, what you call "theistic evolution" pretty much describes my beliefs as to how we came to be. I feel that Darwin's theory of natural selection accurately describes how new species have changed from old ones. (As a slight interruption, according to my AP Biology book, "evolution" is not Darwin's real theory. His theory is that of natural selection, which states that environmental factors cause the most favorable genes in a population to proliferate, eventually causing change and speciation. Evolution is the gradual change of species over time, leading back to a common ancestor. Evolution is a proven fact due to the fossil record, homologous structures, genetic similarity, modern observances, etc. In other words, we know that evolution occurs; we're not just entirely positive why it happens. Darwin's theory explains the observation of evolution, and until this point, it has proved to hold up pretty well.)

Sorry for the long gap, but I'm back to my original purpose.

As I said, I believe in Darwin's theory, but I also believe that God (you may insert your name for any other higher power here

) created the universe and everything in it. After all, we can't exactly ask God how He created the world, and I believe that the image of God intervening in the creation of new life throughout Earth's history is very satisfying and fulfilling. This also ties in with modern theories of the universe's creation. I think that the Big Bang theory is a plausibe theory, but I also feel that it doesn't work without a belief in some higher power. It's a basic law of physics that "something cannot come from nothing." Something like the Big Bang had to have some sort of impetus to occur, and maybe that image of God stretching out His hand from the Sistine Chapel explains it pretty well.

With regards to Genesis, I'm sorry if I offend any Christian fundamentalists, but do you realize that Genesis is not intended to be a literal, word-for-word account on the creation of the universe? The Bible includes many forms of literature, such as narratives, allegories, myths, parables, songs, poems, historical lists, etc. Genesis is simply a story that is meant to reinforce the belief in God's creation of the world and its life. That one fact is what I feel is the real worth of the Genesis creation story.

P.S. I only feel it's fair to say that I'm a practicing Catholic, and my beliefs do not conflict in any way with the teachings of the Church. The Church does not oppose the theory of evolution but sees it as a possible explanation for God's act of creation.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:50 pm

If you can't take Genesis literally, then how can you take the rest literally? If you read the first paragraph in a book about humans, and the first paragraph said humans were alien outcasts so deep in our disguises that we forgot we were aliens, would you believe anything in the rest of the book?
I admit there are parts in the bble that aren't ment to be taken literally, but Genesis is. If we discount the foundation of Genesis, like any building, the bible will simply fall apart. If the bible goes, so does Christianity. If Christianity goes, think Rome.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:39 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lothar:
Notice only one of these (naturalistic evolution) assumes everything was an accident.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're reading too much into meaning here. Naturalistic evolution probably more appropriately states that evolution happens because the conditions were right for evolution to happen. There is no "mistake" or "accident" because that implies that something else was supposed to happen. If you want to qualify it, I guess the best word would be "by chance".

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:50 pm

Well, as I said before, no one will win this argument, but I must comment on a few of the most recent statments. Please follow closely because I can ramble sometimes.

Evolution is the gradual change of species over time, leading back to a common ancestor. Evolution is a proven fact due to the fossil record, homologous structures, genetic similarity, modern observances, etc. -TopGun

The supposed evolution of birds would have needed to be far more complex than gradual change would allow. In addition to the problem of the origin of feathers and flight, birds possess other unique adaptations which also seem to defy plausible evolutionary explanations - like the avian lung and respiratory system. Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard verebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory funtion is absolutely vital to the life of an organism, to the extent that the slightest malfunfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ unitl all its parts fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it, and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply, are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner. Any gradual change would kill the bird.

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bactiria to mammals, which some site as proof of evolution. However, things go farther than that. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.

Theistic evolution = "we evolved because God made us evolve" -Lothar

This is impossible if Christianity is the true form of worship. How so? Before Adam died he had children (our ancestors). All these offspring were born into imperfection (which is the meaning of "sin") . We are all born to die, but because we did not willfully choose to be born into this condition (as Adam willfully chose to disobey God), there is hope for a return to perfection. God could have cleared the Earth of all disobedient humans and started over. He chose instead to demostrate his mercy to Adam's offspring, by creating a way to negate inherited imperfection. The solution was Jesus. Jesus willfully ransomed his perfect life (and the potential within him while on Earth to father a race of perfect humans) for Adam's imperfect children. A ransom is something of equal value that's paid to buy back something that has been lost. Jesus' perfect human life was equal to what Adam had before his fall. Jesus is even called the "last Adam." (1 Corinthians 15:45) If Jesus wasn't the equal to Adam then his sacrifice would have no value. Adam was created from the dust of the ground, he did not evolve. We did not evolve from Adam, we decended from him. If Adam is a myth, then inherited imperfection is also a myth and the need for a ransom sacrifice does not exist, which would also mean that Jesus died for nothing. (I copied some of this last satement from one of my other posts, so it may sound familar.)

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:59 pm

I'm sorry to traverse off topic here (I know this isn't a discussion about Genesis), but I feel that I have to defend myself.

Meathead, your argument is inherently flawed. Do you think that believing that the Genesis stories are creation myths reduces their importance? I sure don't. Believing that the Genesis stories aren't literal, scientific accounts of the world's creation doesn't mean that I don't believe in Christ's virgin birth, resurrection, or ascension.

Plus, when you read Genesis, can you actually think that it is literal? It is based on the ancient Isrealites' view of the world. Hence, on the second day of creation, God creates the sky as a great "dome" that holds back the upper waters, which were supposed to flow through gates in that dome when it rained. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the Mars rovers ran into a sky "dome" on their way to the red planet.

Also, notice that though God creates day and night on the first day, he creates the sun, moon, and stars on the fifth. Another point is the difference between the two creation stories. In the first, mankind is the final act of creation. In the second, man is created before plants and animals.

Look, I'm not trying to knock your personal beliefs; I'm simply stating what biblical scholars have found: that the Genesis stories were not meant as factual, but as a myth explaining the world's creation. The key points from them are that God is the Creator of the universe, that mankind is the pinnacle of creation, that man has dominion over the rest of creation, and that man is created in the image and likeness of God. As I said before, acknowledging these stories as scientifically inaccurate doesn't change their theological significance. As you said yourself, other parts of the Bible aren't literal. Many parts of it are historically or scientifically flawed, but that doesn't demean it. Why can't the same be true for Genesis. My point is, remember that the Genesis stories are very ancient texts. Also, though Scripture is inspired by God, it was still written by humans, and it does contain some human flaws. I'm sorry if you took offense to any part of my earlier post.

P.S. I took some of my statements from the online version of the New American translation of the Bible, which can be found here if you're interested.

P.P.S. I definitely agree with some of the earlier posts; this thread is starting to show its age.

P.P.P.S. Shoku, you posted while I was posting, so I'll make a brief reply to you. I think you may have a slight misunderstanding of how natural selection works. You mention the in-between stages of bird evolution as being fatal. Evolution isn't like "morphing"; the body parts of a particular species don't mutate. Rather, those members of a population that are best adapted to surviving are able to live longer and pass on their genes to their offspring. Across a population, there is a range of traits; with your respiratory system argument, there are slightly different lung structures, breathing rates, etc. Today, most scientists think that birds and reptiles share common ancestors, with dinosaurs being especially close relatives. Dinosaur skeletons look very similar to those of birds, we know that some dinosaurs had feathers (a recent discovery in China), and the first bird, Archaeopteryx, looks a lot like a dinosaur. By using natural selection, you can hypothesize that smaller, feathered dinosaurs with lighter skeletons were favored, and that, over time, flight became possible. Note that my arguments are probably fatally flawed, but I'm sure that there are many other sources out there that could explain it much better than I could.

P.P.P.P.S. That enough P.S.'s for ya?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:20 am

There was no human death before the fall, but such cannot be said of plants and lower animals. Leaves falling from trees and decaying would provide death. Animals devouring each other, plants, and the microscopic organisms on them would certainly mean death. In fact, Adam and Eve were familiar with death. That's how God was able to use it to warn them.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 11:41 am

The Bible says that the Genesis story is to be taken literally. And if that statement can't be taken literally, than how can you know that the rest of the Bible, where God says to take it literally, can be taken that way.
The dome that's in the Bible refers to the layer of water or water vapor that kept the Earths air pressure higher before the flood.(It would have doubled air pressure and oxygen content, but we can get into that later) When the flood happened God dropped the dome(which was at 300 below zero and most fell onto the poles, again I'll save that for later) which was part of the cause of the flood.

P.S. I also heard that Bible scholars could prove that serpents could not only walk on 2 legs, they were also sentient, so I take "scholar" with a grain of salt.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:18 pm

Today, most scientists think that birds and reptiles share common ancestors, with dinosaurs being especially close relatives. -Topgun

Then most scientists need to go back to school. All you need to do is examine a reptilian egg and compare it to an avian egg to see the great difference in these two species. My earlier point about avian lungs, as well as other aspects of avian anatomy, support the fact that birds and lizards could not posibly have had a common ancestor - the biological differences are too great. In fact no lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming birds, ostriches, and hawks - because they are all BIRDS - different types of the same species.

Dinosaur skeletons look very similar to those of birds. -Topgun

This is true. Maybe dinosaurs were avian. Maybe some were avian and some were reptilian and some were mammilian. But there is danger when comparing similar skeletons of different creatures. Examining a marsupial and a placental dog skull will attest to the almost eerie degree of convergence between the thylacine and the placental dog. Yet in terms of the soft anatomy of their reproductive systems, there is an enormous difference between the two groups - they could not possibly be related. However, if dinosaurs were proven beyond a doubt to be the ancestors of modern birds that would be cool. And it would also imply that they were avain and that modern birds are not a new species, just
modern types of the same species.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:41 pm

All right, I think I'm getting in over my head here (as well as driving this thread hopelessly off topic

), so let me make just one more post.

Meathead, where exactly does it say in the Bible that Genesis has to be taken literally? Also, where does God say to take any of the Bible literally? Faith is based upon what you believe, not what someone says is true. As for me, I am comfortable in my faith even if the Bible is not completely scientifically and historically accurate. As I said before, the Bible was written by human beings, and their world views, experience, and personal biases are represented in the text. However, that doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't represent spiritual truth. As for your argument about the dome, I'm sorry, but I think you're completely wrong. As I learned in sophomore-year theology class, the Isrealites believed in a dome that separated the waters of the heavens (which caused rain) from the waters of the earth, the seas. The sun, moon, and stars were supposed to be set in that dome. The writers of Genesis reflected that view of the world in their writing.

As for your dome theory, I don't know what you were talking about there.

An icy dome of water vapor? Can you give me a link as to where that theory came from? I mean, it makes absolutely no scientific sense. As for the flood, modern scientists now think that the flood has some basis in fact, as flood myths are present in civilizations around the globe around the same time period. However, I don't think it involved the entire landmass of Earth being covered by water, as most terrestrial life would have become extinct. That's not to say I'm not open to the possibility that there actually was a Noah who built a big boat and filled with animals. Once again, I have no idea what your point is with that serpent line. I've never heard of any educated "scholar" trying to prove that sentient serpents used to walk around on legs.

Shoku, I wasn't referring to eggs, I was just referring to skeletal structures. If you look, the skeletons of smaller carnivorous dinosaurs are very similar to those of modern birds. I know that there were many differences between dinosaurs and birds; I'm not saying that they were identical. I'm simply repeating what modern evidence has shown, through the skeletal similarities as well as other factors. I'm sure if you do some searching on Google, you'll be able to find the relevant information. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to with regards to avian respiratory systems; maybe I just don't know, but what's so different about the lungs of birds? One last point: you keep referring to all birds as of the same species. Birds are members of different species; however, they are all members of the class Aves.

Anyway, that's it for me; I know I'm in over my head, and I should really learn not to stick my large nose in where it doesn't belong.

Sorry for making you sit through my long, rambling posts, but I hope you learned something. I certainly have.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:39 pm

Top Gun: Thanks for the correction concerning "class" and "species." I never paid much attention to that catagory structure in school - I didn't major in biology. However, the avian lung is unlike the respiratory system in any other vertebrate. They are truly in a "class" of their own. Study the details and you'll understand how different they truly are.

As for the eggs: any evolutionary change (if it is a valid theory) must affect every aspect of a creature. This means change on a mirco as well as macro level. The fact that repilian and avian eggs are so different suggests they could not have evolved from a common ancestor - and the egg is only on aspect of their very different anatomies.