Evolution vs. Creation [Archive]

Eriol

12-15-2003, 05:47 PM

Well, first of all I'd like to note that the " " around Christian are hardly fair. I don't claim that you are a lesser kind of Christian because of your beliefs. I am a Catholic. Does that make me a "Christian" (as opposed to a full Christian), in quotes, in your view, even if I were a Creationist? Even though we may disagree on some details we are both Christians, without " ".

Also, the matter of Creationism x Evolutionism is a very, very minor matter in Christianity. The real issues in Christianity are sin, salvation, grace... the "good news". The origins of humans are almost irrelevant in that context.

So there is no need to get mad :). And if you've heard of "a lot of people like me", believe me, I've heard of many more "people like you"... and if we were to stop at classifying each other none of us would have learned anything.

The question on the Bible was answered on the "Question on the Bible" ;) thread. Genesis is a myth. Now I'll spend the next 10 to 15 posts explaining why a myth is not a lie, why a myth is a way to tell very important truths :D.

There is no error in the Genesis, properly interpreted as a myth.

Let me point out that the immense majority of theologians agrees with me on the matter of Genesis' mythical character. It is also the position of the Catholic Church, which holds the greatest collection of theologians among the denominations (2000 years of theologians ;)).

There are those who believe the Catholic Church holds a monopoly of error, and who will thus disregard the suggestion of a mythical Genesis from the start. Are you one of them?

This question was extensively debated between me (on one side) and Thorin, Elendil3119, BranMuffin... and perhaps some others... in that "Question on the Bible" thread. I don't want to convince anyone that this interpretation is correct; I merely wanted to show to them (and to you) that it is not contradictory to Christianity.

You may not believe in what I said, and I'll have no quarrel with you. But if you claim that what I said is contradictory with Christianity, then you should be able to prove it. Contradictions are very easy to show. Likewise, if you claim that evolution is "impossible", show it.

Elessar II

12-15-2003, 07:41 PM

So there is no need to get mad . And if you've heard of "a lot of people like me", believe me, I've heard of many more "people like you"... and if we were to stop at classifying each other none of us would have learned anything.

Who's getting mad?:)

And I didn't mean to "classify" you, I'm sorry if you got that impression.

Well, first of all I'd like to note that the " " around Christian are hardly fair. I don't claim that you are a lesser kind of Christian because of your beliefs. I am a Catholic. Does that make me a "Christian" (as opposed to a full Christian), in quotes, in your view, even if I were a Creationist? Even though we may disagree on some details we are both Christians, without " ".

My definition of a Christian (as well as the Bible's definition of a Christian) is one who has come to the realization of the saving grace of Jesus Christ, repented of their sins and
accepted Him as their Savior. ( Now if Jesus descended from a monkey then my name is J.R.R. Tolkien!)

The question on the Bible was answered on the "Question on the Bible" thread. Genesis is a myth. Now I'll spend the next 10 to 15 posts explaining why a myth is not a lie, why a myth is a way to tell very important truths .

Don't bother. The fact of the matter is, I'd rather believe the prophet Moses who had an intimate relationship with God and was inspired by God to write the Genesis than a mere scientist named Darwin who, several milleniums later, decided to come up with a theory to oppose it.

There are those who believe the Catholic Church holds a monopoly of error, and who will thus disregard the suggestion of a mythical Genesis from the start. Are you one of them?

Yes, I do disregard a mythical Genesis from the start, but not because the Catholic religion DOES have a monopoly of error.
Why would Moses come up with some mythical account of creation after writing several other books that were accurate up to the letter? Also, in the Scripture, it clearly states that the Bible is the divine Word of God. Why would God come up with a myth?
It doesn't make sense.
(And don't get me wrong I'm not prejudice against the Catholic religion. I have known several people from that religion and find them to be good, honest, people. :) )

Eriol

12-15-2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Elessar II
My definition of a Christian (as well as the Bible's definition of a Christian) is one who has come to the realization of the saving grace of Jesus Christ, repented of their sins and
accepted Him as their Savior.

A good definition. I fit into it. So that's settled :).

( Now if Jesus descended from a monkey then my name is J.R.R. Tolkien!)

Why is the notion of a Jesus descended from a monkey so much more horrible than the notion of a Jesus descended from dust? You are going dangerously close to a well-known heresy here, denying Christ's humanity. When the Incarnation took place the Uncreated, Perfect Being assumed the mantle of Humanity, with all of its flaws. Whether they come from dust or monkeys is beside the point.

Do you deny that Jesus was a human being? Do you think he was some sort of avatar, of emissary, of angel, without human flesh and human mind and human soul?

Don't bother. The fact of the matter is, I'd rather believe the prophet Moses who had an intimate relationship with God and was inspired by God to write the Genesis than a mere scientist named Darwin who, several milleniums later, decided to come up with a theory to oppose it.

Sigh... Darwin did not come up with a theory "to oppose it'. He came up with a theory to explain the observations of Nature.

God is not only the author of the Bible, He's the author of Nature, too. If you choose the Bible over Nature, you're accusing God of being deceptive. There is no reason for us to choose one over the other. "Truth does not contradict Truth" (St. Augustine).

Yes, I do disregard a mythical Genesis from the start, but not because the Catholic religion DOES have a monopoly of error.
Why would Moses come up with some mythical account of creation after writing several other books that were accurate up to the letter? Also, in the Scripture, it clearly states that the Bible is the divine Word of God. Why would God come up with a myth?
It doesn't make sense.

See how you are equating myth with lie?

God would come up with a myth because it is the best way to teach some very important concepts (much more important than the origin of human beings, by the way).

Genesis teaches us that:

a) God created the world from nothing (ex nihilo)
b) He created both spiritual and physical beings
c) Sin was introduced into mankind by an external agent
d) Mankind fell into sin by disobeying God's command
e) God made a covenant with mankind after that

...

etc.

Now, if you think that Moses should have written a philosophical treatise to expound these truths, you are wrong. The best way to teach is by myths. Recall Jesus and his parables. Stories that drive the point home are God's favorite way of teaching.

Genesis is not meant to be a scientific treatise. It was never considered one.

Note that to say that Genesis is mythical does not mean saying that it is mistaken or wrong. It means simply that we have to interpret it correctly, with the help of the Holy Spirit (as well as the rest of the Bible). Do you remember when Philip helped the man who wanted to read the Scriptures? (in Acts). "If no one will explain it to me, how will I understand?". That's a Biblical precept for reading the Scriptures correctly, for you ;). It's not cut and dry. It needs interpretation.

(And don't get me wrong I'm not prejudice against the Catholic religion. I have known several people from that religion and find them to be good, honest, people. :) )

Good, and I didn't think you were prejudiced against Catholics, I just asked if you were :).

Elessar II

12-15-2003, 10:02 PM

Ahh... I see that the only subject we are divided on is the origin of the earth.

Why is the notion of a Jesus descended from a monkey so much more horrible than the notion of a Jesus descended from dust?

Because in the Bible it clearly states that we are formed out of the dust of the earth, not that we are descended from the lineage of the gorilla. Never once, does the Bible even hint at mentioning evolution.

Do you deny that Jesus was a human being?
No, I firmly believe that Jesus Christ was God in human form.

Sigh... Darwin did not come up with a theory "to oppose it'. He came up with a theory to explain the observations of Nature.

That's the problem whenever man tries to explain God, there is always going to be error.

OK, so you believe Genesis to be a myth, and assuming I do not equate myth with lie (which I don't) There's still so much that flows out of Genesis into the rest of the Bible, i.e. Satan's downfall, the lineage of man, etc... that a lot of things evolutionists claim doesn't seem to fit into the story of Genesis.

You're a tough cookie Eriol, you have a lot of knowledge behind your beliefs. But have you tried to see creation from my perspective. I have tried in the past to see evolution through yours and I cannot. (Also I still challenge you to read "Evolution of a Creationist". It would do a better job explaining my beliefs than I could.)

Helcaraxë

12-15-2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Elessar II
If you're meaning micro-evolution, yes I do agree with you. But the renowned theory of macro-evolution, however, is completely impossible and unbased.
BTW, have you heard of all the assumptions evolutionists make?
Ridiculous.

Pray tell, exactly how is it impossible and ridiculous? If it it indeed impossible and ridiculous, creation theory is equally (if not far more) impossible and ridiculous.

Secondly, the bible is a book. Nothing more. It's a good book, that can teach us important ethical truths. But I challenge you to prove that the Bible is truly the Holy Word of God. I challenge you to prove God's existence. I challenge you to prove Jesus's truth. I'll be surprised if you can. (No offense meant).

(This is why I am a skeptic:D )

MB

Narya

12-15-2003, 11:36 PM

Do I join this debate?? Hmmmm, I wonder....

Well, let me just say a few words....

EVOLUTION is still a theory. Never proven, and most of it's "evidences" are fallacious (i.e. Missing Link?? Get your records straight, the bone was a fraud). Second thing is if you believe that Evolution happened, that only means one thing, you have a monkey for an uncle (Joke! I know it's corny, but I can't get over that one).

Furthermore, according to the Bible, this is exactly what Satan the devil wants us to believe: That there is no God, and that we are here on our own, to act as our own God (Genesis 3:1 - 5 - conversation with EVE, please take note of the statement made, "...for God knows that on the day you eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil your eyes will be open to the world, and you will become like God, knowing good and bad.") And if you believe in that, then Satan has triumphed over you indeed.

I know I'm gonna get lynched for this, but, so this will be my first and last post.:D

Narya

12-15-2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by MorgothsBane
Pray tell, exactly how is it impossible and ridiculous? If it it indeed impossible and ridiculous, creation theory is equally (if not far more) impossible and ridiculous.

Secondly, the bible is a book. Nothing more. It's a good book, that can teach us important ethical truths. But I challenge you to prove that the Bible is truly the Holy Word of God. I challenge you to prove God's existence. I challenge you to prove Jesus's truth. I'll be surprised if you can. (No offense meant).

(This is why I am a skeptic:D )

MB

Sorry couldn't help it...ummm...just one question MB, do you believe in the Webster Dictionary? or the Encarta perhaps? or the Science Books from school? Because if you do, I'll bring back the question to you, those are JUST books(well one is a CD version of an encyclopaedia)..NOTHING MORE. Why then do you believe and put faith in them? They are man-made. Men make mistakes. Men are inclined to write only what is comfortable to them. Like I said, Evolution is still a theory, hasn't been proven yet, otherwise it would have been a law. And Evolution only came from the mind of a MAN - CHARLES DARWIN. And even he failed to prooved it, that's why it isn't a law yet. And new evidences have come up pointing that the missing link was in fact a hoax. Also new evidence shows that carbon dating is not reliable, not accurate. Where is the solidity in that notion now? The concept of creation hasn't changed a bit. From the beginning till today, it remains the same. And it is built on solid foundation unlike Evolution, which still has to prove itself plausible.

There are countless evidences of Jesus's existence, and if he trully isn't real, why has he so much influence in the world today? Only real people such as Jesus have a wide and deep impact on human civilization. Even you, a skeptic, knows about him and his work. otherwise you wouldn't question them.

Ok this IS my last post. Byee!:D

Helcaraxë

12-16-2003, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Narya
Sorry couldn't help it...ummm...just one question MB, do you believe in the Webster Dictionary? or the Encarta perhaps? or the Science Books from school? Because if you do, I'll bring back the question to you, those are JUST books(well one is a CD version of an encyclopaedia)..NOTHING MORE. Why then do you believe and put faith in them? They are man-made. Men make mistakes. Men are inclined to write only what is comfortable to them. Like I said, Evolution is still a theory, hasn't been proven yet, otherwise it would have been a law. And Evolution only came from the mind of a MAN - CHARLES DARWIN. And even he failed to prooved it, that's why it isn't a law yet. And new evidences have come up pointing that the missing link was in fact a hoax. Also new evidence shows that carbon dating is not reliable, not accurate. Where is the solidity in that notion now? The concept of creation hasn't changed a bit. From the beginning till today, it remains the same. And it is built on solid foundation unlike Evolution, which still has to prove itself plausible.

There are countless evidences of Jesus's existence, and if he trully isn't real, why has he so much influence in the world today? Only real people such as Jesus have a wide and deep impact on human civilization. Even you, a skeptic, knows about him and his work. otherwise you wouldn't question them.

Ok this IS my last post. Byee!:D

No, no! Stay!!:D

(you're assuming I do put faith in those books...I don't.:))

But how is the Bible built on solid foundations? For all we know, it could have been written by some self-righteous merchant in ancient rome who had too much time on his hands.

As to your first question..that's a slightly different thing. Yes, I agree that there is no true proof that Webster or Encarta have true information (what kind of a skeptic would I be if I believed that?:D ). However, I think that the truth of a dictionary is irrelevant. Language is about communication. As long as we understand each other linguistically, and have a standard system, it doesn't matter whether that standard system is CORRECT or not, because it seems to work regardless of its truth. As for encarta, the same is true. Even if the world we percieve exists only in our minds (only in our perception), than it is still irrelevant whether it is correct.;) The reason for this is that even IF this world that we percieve is not the true reality, it is ONE reality, A reality. The information in Encarta is provable in THIS reality, be it the true one or not. The percieved reality is the only reality that is relevant to our lives, and thus, as Encarta provides provable information as to the perceived reality, it is relevant.

MB

Lúthien Séregon

12-16-2003, 02:30 AM

I don't think humans are descended from monkeys, I've always thought they merely share the same ancestor?

I think that evolution is fairly obvious – not just by looking at past fossils and dating the spread of animals and the changes that occurred at the same time, but just by looking at the subtle variations within animals of the same species living in different locations ( subspecies ).

For example, tigers ( I know, I’m always going back to big cats, but oh well, why not? :D ). Look at the difference between a Siberian tiger and a Sumatran tiger. The Siberian tiger lives in an extremely cold climate in Siberia and the northern part of China, whilst the Sumatran tiger resides in the relatively hot island of Sumatra in Indonesia. At some stage, the ancestral population of the two must have spread and moved into different regions. As a result, these two types of tigers look physically different, even though they are the same species. The Siberian tiger is much larger, for a start, because larger animals retain heat more easily. To add to this, it has a 5-cm thick layer of fat beneath the skin, which acts as insulation. Its fur is long and thick, and is lighter in colour than that of the Sumatran. However, the Sumatran tiger is much smaller, as an adaptation to living in a hotter climate. Its fur is much shorter, and much darker, seeing as it doesn’t live in the snow.

These changes occurred because of tiger evolution, otherwise there would be no difference between these subspecies of tiger. There are five living subspecies of tiger: ALL of them are different in some way. Evolution is in a constant state of flux and change. Even the overall population of tigers itself was thought to have gradually appeared around 2 million years ago - all cats, sabre-toothed and modern, evolved as a result of the gradual changes in the small carnivore called the proailurus, around 23 million years ago. If they hadn't, there would be fossils of cats dating before this time - none have been found at all.

Elessar II

12-16-2003, 04:41 AM

Secondly, the bible is a book. Nothing more. It's a good book, that can teach us important ethical truths. But I challenge you to prove that the Bible is truly the Holy Word of God. I challenge you to prove God's existence. I challenge you to prove Jesus's truth. I'll be surprised if you can. (No offense meant).

Many things prove that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. First of all the Bible contains many prophecies, all of which have been fulfilled. Now think, this book was written thousands of years ago, and many prophecies, though seemingly impossible, have come to pass. Take the nation of Isreal. In the book of Jeremiah (I could be wrong) it clearly prophecies the coming to pass of the state of Isreal. Just a mere hundred years ago, even devout Christians though that that prophesy would several hundred years into the future if it ever happened. But well! What do you know? There IS a state of Isreal. That's just one of the many prophecies that have been fulfilled over the course of time.

As for Jesus truth, there are 48 prophecies in the Old Testament that a man had to have fulfilled to "prove" that he was the Messiah. The chances of one man fulfilling all of those prophecies was one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion ( I'm serious). To get a grasp of just how large that number is, take an atom. It takes one million of these to reach the width of a human hair. Now take our universe and how expansive it is. Pretend there are a trillion trillion trillion trillion of these universes. Now throw your atom out into one of these trillions of universes. Now the chances of one man fulfilling all the prophesies in the Old Testament is the same as you driving your spaceship into one of these universes, reaching out with tweezers and pulling in your one atom. That's the chances of one man fulfilling all 48 prophecies, Yet Jesus did that. That's truly amazing.

But how is the Bible built on solid foundations? For all we know, it could have been written by some self-righteous merchant in ancient rome who had too much time on his hands.

Because archeologists and historians are consistently uncovering proof that all of the events in the Bible DID happen.

Ok this IS my last post. Byee!

Noooo! I need you to help me fend off all these evolutionists, I can't do it by myself!

Gandalf White

12-16-2003, 05:03 AM

Luthien, I agree with what you're saying about tigers. Where I would disagree is if you said that tiger turned, over time, into a whale.

Eriol

12-16-2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Elessar II
Because in the Bible it clearly states that we are formed out of the dust of the earth, not that we are descended from the lineage of the gorilla. Never once, does the Bible even hint at mentioning evolution.

The Bible also clearly states that God made the sun stop to foil Senacherib's army. Note, not the Earth's rotation, but the sun stopped. And we are talking about a historical event, with witnesses. Unlike Genesis, which was "relayed" to Moses directly by God.

What does that mean? Should we disbelieve the miracle against Senacherib? Or should we disbelieve our science and assert that the Earth is stationary and the Sun rotates around the Earth? The Bible also does not "hint" that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Is it less true because we don't see a hint in the Bible?

I choose neither. I choose to believe that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, that the point of the Bible is not to teach us about the physical world, but rather to teach us about salvation. Of course something happened to foil Senacherib's army. Whether God miraculously stopped the Earth (and this would be QUITE a miracle... think of the inertia of the Earth while it spins. Not impossible, but also not "God's style", when you look at his other miracles), or provoked a collective hallucination, or some other explanation for the defeat of Senacherib, the point of the story is that Senacherib was defeated with the aid of God. The details don't matter.

So I can believe in both the Bible and in science. It is very comforting to be able to do both :).

The same reasoning applies to Genesis. Sure, God does not state "and man evolved from protozoans after 3 billion years of evolution", but "... and God made man from the dust of the earth" is NOT too different.

The Christian must try to make his observations conform to each other, not preferring either. What you don't realize, Elessar (and Thorin & Co. in that other thread did not realize either) is that when you read the Bible, you are interpreting, just as much as when you make a scientific experiment. There is no sure-fire way to interpret the Bible without error. When you read it, whatever conclusions you draw, you may be mistaken. And the same applies to science. This means that to use one to trump the other is fallacious. We must try to make one conform to the other.

Evolution is not contradicted by the Bible. It explains a lot of our observations of the natural world. Why not accept it? Because most Christians believe that Evolution entails that "there is no God"? (Check Narya's post)

Well, "most Christians" are wrong in that. They are following the rhetoric of the extreme materialists. Evolution does not force us to disbelieve in God. This is quite obvious if you study it in depth, and even if you don't study it... for science (ANY science) studies only the natural world, by definition. It can't explain (or explain away) the supernatural. It can't overthrow metaphysics. If any scientists claim that, they simply don't understand metaphysics -- or science ;).

That's the problem whenever man tries to explain God, there is always going to be error.

We humans can't escape "error". What happens here is that you say that Darwin fell into "error" when he built his theory, and I'm saying that YOU (as well as thousands of other Christians) are falling into "error" in your interpretation of Genesis. But this is a hypothesis never contemplated by Creationists... they assume that Genesis is literal and simple. Even though the Scriptures themselves warn us that they need careful interpretation! (Remember Philip's story I alluded to in my last post).

I don't claim that I'm right, either, when I invoke the mythical interpretation; I just claim that this satisfies much more observations than the literal reading of Genesis. "Observations" include science and Bible-reading -- you can't claim that one is vouchsafed from error and that the other is not. Both are fallible.

OK, so you believe Genesis to be a myth, and assuming I do not equate myth with lie (which I don't) There's still so much that flows out of Genesis into the rest of the Bible, i.e. Satan's downfall, the lineage of man, etc... that a lot of things evolutionists claim doesn't seem to fit into the story of Genesis.

Ok, so myth is not a lie, that's good :). Mythical Genesis says nothing about human origins except that "man was formed out of the dust of the earth in the image of God, and God breathed into his nostrils and he was made a living soul" (I'm paraphrasing from memory).

This is not at all contradictory with Evolution. Evolutionists simply say that this "formed out" was an evolutionary process. What denies that in that passage of the Genesis?

... have you tried to see creation from my perspective. I have tried in the past to see evolution through yours and I cannot. (Also I still challenge you to read "Evolution of a Creationist". It would do a better job explaining my beliefs than I could.)

I'd love to read that. But I must emphasize that Evolution is not a "fad", I don't believe in it because I happen to like it. I believe in it because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. I worked with that, Elessar. I was harrassed :D with creationist sites in that other thread, "Question on the Bible", and I haven't been impressed with their arguments. They mostly exhibit a shocking ignorance of biological theory, or of the principles of science.

Posted by Narya

Furthermore, according to the Bible, this is exactly what Satan the devil wants us to believe: That there is no God, and that we are here on our own, to act as our own God (Genesis 3:1 - 5 - conversation with EVE, please take note of the statement made, "...for God knows that on the day you eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil your eyes will be open to the world, and you will become like God, knowing good and bad.") And if you believe in that, then Satan has triumphed over you indeed

And why does evolution mean that there is no God? I can almost say the opposite, Narya -- that wilful denial of the evidence of Nature is denial of God. Who is denying God? I am affirming God, through evolution. Creationists affirm God, through a denial of nature.

If I were God, I wouldn't like to see my creation, Nature, dismissed so flippantly ;).

If you want to say that I am denying God, you'll have to show why does evolution force God out of the picture... it can't be done. Scientific theories simply do not work like that. They can't further our knowledge of the supernatural.

Conversely, if I want to say that you are denying Nature, I need only point to the overwhelming evidence for Evolution.

Which will it be? Shall we discuss whether the scientific evidence for Evolution is good enough for a scientific theory, or shall we discuss whether Evolution is compatible with the Bible, or both?

I also hope you'll stay on the thread :)

Niniel

12-16-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Narya
Second thing is if you believe that Evolution happened, that only means one thing, you have a monkey for an uncle (Joke! I know it's corny, but I can't get over that one).
Is that a bad thing? I mean, all animals have their specific function in the world, just as man (man is just another animal IMO). So we're not 'better' than a monkey, or an earthworm for that matter. Every species started from single-celled organisms, and since I do not believe in God there is no reason for me to think that man has a special duty on earth that would give it primacy over all other species. The only reason why man should control other species is because he is more intelligent and thus able to dominate, but that is just the old adagium of 'survival of the fittest' and has nothing to do with moral supremacy.

Narya

12-16-2003, 08:21 PM

It is truly sad to see people especially young people who don't believe in God.

But I guess it was bound to happen anyway. For it is written in the Bible. tsk!tsk!tsk!

Helcaraxë

12-16-2003, 08:39 PM

Elessar, the prophesies in the Bible coming to pass is mere coinceidence. If people wanted to believe that there would be a state of Israel, then of course they would write it down as prophesy. Magic is not the only way to try to predict the future. The writers of the Bible probably looked at the situation of the Hebrews during their time, and because they seeemed to be a strong and enduring people, they thought that it stands to reason that eventually they would gain their own state, and their prediction turned out to be correct. To sum up, the writers of the Bible could easily have made "prophesies" when they had evidence existing at that time that would back it up (in this case, as I mentioned, the fact that could be the basis for such a conjecture was the Isrealis being a strong people.)

Secondly, the you are assuming that the Bible was written before Jesus was alive. In fact, I'd like you to prove that the prophecies existed BEFORE Jesus, not the other way around. It's easy for the Biblical writers to state that there had to be 48 criterea in order to be a messiah if there already was a person who met these criteria.

Thirdly, I'm not denying that SOME events in the Bible really did happen. I'm not denying that some person named Jesus Christ actually existed. These are provable histocically. It's easy to write down something that actually happened. That's history, not prophesy.

MB

Helcaraxë

12-16-2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Narya
It is truly sad to see people especially young people who don't believe in God.

I never said I don't believe in God.

MB

Narya

12-16-2003, 11:37 PM

I was not referring to you MB.

Well, have you recruited anyone yet?

Narya

12-16-2003, 11:44 PM

In defense of the Bible...it's prophesies not only of the coming of the Mesiah but of other events such as World War I and II, League of Nations and the United nations, and the fall of several empires and civilizations were written thousands of years before it actually happened. And in great accuracy.

And did you know that the Bible recorded the earth was round about 1,500 years before Chris Columbus discovered it was round? Scientists believed that the earth was FLAT on top of two large elephants standing on a giant tortoise. But if they read the bible, it recorded the earth was in fact ROUND. Also recorded in the bible was the fact that the earth was not on top of anything, that it was floating in space, a discovery solidified only when man first went into space.

Now if that is not proof of Divine inspiration...

One question to those who are skeptical about the Bible...have you actually read it through and through? Or even done a thorough study on it? because if not, you are in no position to judge it, nor question it.

How would you feel if someone who hasn't read LOTR nor any of Tolkien's books said that they were rubbish?

GEt my point?

Elentári

12-17-2003, 01:01 AM

I have a question to put to all the people who have said that they believe in God and also in evolution.

(And I am fully prepared to get blasted out of the water in what I say- seeing as I am still not overly versed in how to defend against such strong, and thought out, attacks as these are. But please don'tkill me!;) )

You say that you believe in God and do you believe him to be a loving, kind and caring God?
If yes then tell me how can such a loving God decide to let us (as in the not yet human but micro- orgs and so on) go through years and years (upon more years!) of pain and suffering? (the fighting to survive...) And for us to have the mind set (if you will let me use that term- although at that time we might not have had minds that could think in such a manner?) that you either kill or be killed?
How does this show that our God in Heaven cares about us? By letting us kill one another?Especially if He hates killing and sin?(as He states in the Ten Com. Although you might not like me using as a defence since it is from the Bible...:confused: )

*knows she did not write it out the best*

Anyway- I should like to know- yet now I am going to do a little bit of reading up to come back better armed! If I make it through this up coming attack...;)

Narya

12-17-2003, 02:00 AM

Why does God permit suffering?

This is a very good question. Now I can answer this question, but you would have to have an open mind and a Bible beside you. And I will proove to you that God is loving, and we are all indebted to his loving-kindness. And that very soon all these sufferings will end.

Elentári

12-17-2003, 02:08 AM

Oh dear...

Did I sound like I was for Evolution?

:( :( :(

What I was trying to do was disprove that God let Evolution happen. (Unless that is what you are trying to prove against... that God did...)

I know why God has alowed us to continue with having pain, wars and whatnot but I was trying to show that He would not alow us to start with that.

Ermmmm... that still doesn't sound right but maybe you understand what I am saying now?

BTW- I am a very devout Christian and this theory that I have brought up is something that I have read about before in a book about Christians believing in God and Evolution both.

Lúthien Séregon

12-17-2003, 08:59 AM

Hmm, I can see how it is possible for there to have been both a God and evolution - if you define God as a primary trigger that started the Big Bang, which in turn triggered everything else to come ( universe evolution :D ). Why does God necessarily have to be especially conscious of humans?

Luthien, I agree with what you're saying about tigers. Where I would disagree is if you said that tiger turned, over time, into a whale.

Definitely ( for one thing, whales don't have miacids as ancestors ). :p

arisen pheonix

12-17-2003, 06:21 PM

ok i havent read the whole thread but here is my theory anyway.....the theory of evolution is not incorrect it is simply backwards! we are devolving....the remants of ancient that have been recovered show that we were much taller and stronger than we are now....and amzing structures like the pyramids show that we have lost the knoledge of ancient years......today we only use 10 percent of our brain capacity.....it is illogical to say you dont need it all for thinking cause the part we are losing is the thinking part....if we are still here in a few thousand years the only parts of our brains that will still be active will be the brain stem...the part that tells our hearts to beat and our lungs to breath...we will be little more than animals!

Barliman Butterbur

12-17-2003, 07:07 PM

You guys are all missing the point. Elessar is a creationist looking for a fight, and nobody's going to win but Elessar, because he believes he's "right" and you all are "wrong."

I used to see this all the time on the AOL religion boards (when I used AOL a long time ago). The fundamentalists would bait people into arguments which would never end, and then they'd claim victory.

—Lotho

Eriol

12-17-2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Elentári
I have a question to put to all the people who have said that they believe in God and also in evolution.

(And I am fully prepared to get blasted out of the water in what I say- seeing as I am still not overly versed in how to defend against such strong, and thought out, attacks as these are. But please don'tkill me!;) )

You say that you believe in God and do you believe him to be a loving, kind and caring God?
If yes then tell me how can such a loving God decide to let us (as in the not yet human but micro- orgs and so on) go through years and years (upon more years!) of pain and suffering? (the fighting to survive...) And for us to have the mind set (if you will let me use that term- although at that time we might not have had minds that could think in such a manner?) that you either kill or be killed?
How does this show that our God in Heaven cares about us? By letting us kill one another?Especially if He hates killing and sin?(as He states in the Ten Com. Although you might not like me using as a defence since it is from the Bible...:confused: )

*knows she did not write it out the best*

Anyway- I should like to know- yet now I am going to do a little bit of reading up to come back better armed! If I make it through this up coming attack...;)

How curious. The prevalence of pain and suffering in nature being used as an argument against Evolution. It is usually the other way around, and this is used as an argument against Theism. I could give several examples of how this twist was instrumental in establishing Darwin's own doubts about Theism. For instance, the Inchneumonidae comment:

There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter.

This shows why I like Darwin, the man, a lot :).

Anyway, my point here is that suffering is a given. We can't use it to disprove either God or Evolution. If you argue that "God wouldn't use such a painful process", I answer that the same reasoning applies to human history, and to the lives of us all. And yet we don't refuse to believe in History -- or in our lives.

In other words, pretty much what Narya said in her last post :).

GW:

Luthien, I agree with what you're saying about tigers. Where I would disagree is if you said that tiger turned, over time, into a whale.

Would you disagree also if she said that tigers and wolves share a common ancestor? That does not seem so far-fetched as whales, right? What about tigers and bears? Where is the line drawn?

Narya

12-17-2003, 08:16 PM

OK...I think we should make one thing clear - EVOLUTION AND ALL IT'S DOCTRINES ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS STILL A THEORY. MEANING NOT A PROVEN FACT. So we can all but speculate where everything came from but unless there is solid proof, this "science" will never become a law of nature.

Another thing, the big bang theory is also JUST A THEORY. Noone has ever proven that it happened. Nor can the Big bang theory explain why the universe is perfect in every way.

If you go by the creation way, the answer is simple - GENESIS 1:1 - In the beginning God made heaven and earth - PERIOD.

When you see a beautiful house, do you conclude that oh that house just sprouted from the ground, it evolved from a mushroom. No, of course that is ludicrus. There is definitely someone who designed the house, built it and that is why it is standing in front of you, leaving you in awe of its beauty. NOW THAT IS JUST A HOUSE.

The universe is much more complex, much more breathtaking, much more gigantic in comparisson to a house. Yet you question if there was anyone who designed it. You conclude that it sprouted out of NOTHING.

That doesn't sound rational to me.

Eriol

12-17-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Narya
OK...I think we should make one thing clear - EVOLUTION AND ALL IT'S DOCTRINES ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS STILL A THEORY. MEANING NOT A PROVEN FACT. So we can all but speculate where everything came from but unless there is solid proof, this "science" will never become a law of nature.

As the cops say in the movies, "Hold it right there!"

;)

NOTHING is a "proven fact". No observation of ours can ever be a "proven fact". Our existence is not "a proven fact" to other people.

I encourage you to read that "Thoughts on Darwinian Evolution" thread, Narya (there is a link to it provided by Gandalf White, in this thread). There I discuss the difference between the popular and technical uses of the word "Theory". Yes, Evolution is a "theory", but just as all "laws of nature" are "theories".

Science does not work with "proven facts", or with "solid proof". Science is inductive reasoning. "Solid proof" can only be achieved by deductive reasoning.

So, you are both right and wrong. Evolution is not (and never will be!) a proven fact. But that is completely irrelevant to the question, "is it a good scientific theory?" You see, if we require proven facts we will reject ALL science -- including Gravity, Relativity, Chemistry, etc. etc.

Evolution is "only" a theory, but so is every other instance of a "law of nature".

Helcaraxë

12-17-2003, 09:44 PM

Well, Narya, I'm considering recruiting myself...I'm getting more info from Cir. So don't worry.:)

As for your defense of the Bible....

I said before that there is no proof that the prophesies of the Messiah were not actually written AFTER Jesus had already died.

Second: The writers of the Bible predicted the fall of empires for several reasons:

a.) Because they were already declining

or

b.) Because it is not too difficult to predict something's decline when you have ALREADY observed that every empire that ever existed eventually fell into decline. The Bible's writers would be smart enough to know that.

As for the world's shape:

The Bible's writers had a novel idea that the world was round (if they wrote it before Aristotle..) At that time, the notion was preposterous. If someone 500 years ago had said that we would be able to speak into pieces of plastic that transmitted our voices thousands of miles away, he would be thought insane. But what do you know, we have phones. That the person turned out to be right is coincidence.
Essentially I'm saying: Just because someone had a new idea before its time and happened to be correct does not make him or her psychic. Having a new idea of the world's shape before the notion is commonly accepted is no miracle. It is simply a theory before the theory was widespread.

MB

Helcaraxë

12-17-2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Narya

That doesn't sound rational to me.

I think you'll find that not everything that is rational is true. Reason and logic are flawed.

MB

Narya

12-17-2003, 10:32 PM

Yes, Evolution is a "theory", but just as all "laws of nature" are "theories".

Science does not work with "proven facts", or with "solid proof". Science is inductive reasoning. "Solid proof" can only be achieved by deductive reasoning.

The Laws of Science - based on proven facts

"LAWS" OF NATURE, JAMES H. SHEA, Editor, Journal of Geological Education, "The most serious problem with this concept grows out of the fact that it uses a metaphor, the Laws that govern or control nature.... We seem to believe that there literally are such laws. The concept is anachronistic in that it originated at a time when the Almighty was thought to have established the laws of nature and to have decreed that nature must obey them.... It is a great pity for the Philosophy of Science that the word 'law' was ever introduced.", Geology, v. 10, p. 458

1st Law of Thermodynamics

ALBERT EINSTEIN, "Classical thermodynamics...only physical theory of universal content concerning which I am convinced that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts, it will never be overthrown." Science, Vol. 157, p. 509

ISAAC ASIMOV, "This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. No one knows why energy is conserved... All that anyone can say is that in over a century and a quarter of careful measurement scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of energy conservation, either in the familiar everyday surroundings about us, or in the heavens above or in the atoms within.", Smithsonian Institution Journal, June, 1970, p.6

ORIGIN OF MATTER, ISAAC ASIMOV, "Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these blobs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it.", Science Digest, Vol.69, p.69

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

FAMILIAR TO EVERYONE, Isaac Asimov, "Another way of stating the second law then is 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and ev-erything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself–and that is what the second law is all about.", Smithsonian Institution Journal, June, 1970, p. 6

Hopeless, Sir Arthur Eddington, "...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.

JUST STATISTICAL? A.B. Pippard, Cambridge Univ., "There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.", Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics, p.99-100

NO WAY AROUND, Frank A. Greco, Harvard Medical School, "Being a generalization of experience, the second law could only be invalidated by an actual engine. In other words, the question, 'Can the second law of thermodynamics be circumvented?' is not well worded but could be answered only if the model incorporated every feature of the real world. But an answer can readily be given to the question, 'Has the second law of thermody-namics been circumvented?' Not yet." American Laboratory, 10/82, p.88.

COMPREHENSIVE APPLICATION, Richard Morris, "The second law of thermodynamics has a chameleonlike character. It can be expressed in more different ways than any of the other laws of physics. The reason that it takes so many different forms is that it is the most general of all the laws that scientists have discovered. It applies to practically everything." Time's Arrows: Scientific Attitudes Toward Time, 1984, p.113

entropy of information, TOM SIEGFRIED, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 5/14/90, "Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ....The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental..." [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]

EVOLUTIONARY "FAITH", V. F. Veisskoff, Head Dept. Physics, M.I.T., "The evolutionary history of the world from the 'big bang' to the present universe is a series of gradual steps from the simple to the complicated, from the unordered to the organized, from the formless gas of elementary particles to the morphic atoms and molecules and further to the still more structured liquids and solids, and finally to the sophisticated living organisms. There is an obvious tendency of nature from disorder to order and organization.", American Scientist, Vol.65, July/Aug, 1977, p.409

Applies To Open System

WORKS GREAT, John Ross, Harvard University, Chemical and Engineering News, p.40 July 7, 1980, "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."

IMMATERIAL, Arnold Sommerfel, , "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, p.155

USEFUL ABSTRACTION, Richard Morris, "An isolated system is one that does not interact with its surroundings. Naturally there are no completely isolated systems in nature. Everything interacts with its environment to some extent. Nevertheless, the concept, like many other abstractions that are used in physics, is extremely useful. If we are able to understand the behavior in ideal cases, we can gain a great deal of understanding about processes that take place in the real world. In fact treating a real system as an isolated one is often an excellent approximation.", Time's Arrows, p.113

UNSATISFACTORY "EXPLANATION" Charles J. Smith, "biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

SURPLUS ENERGY: INSUFFICIENT! George Gaylord Simpson & W.S. Beck, "But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.", An Introduction to Biology, p. 466

INFORMATION REQUIRED, Eigen (Nobel Laureate) "Here at the molecular level are the roots of the old puzzle about the chicken or the egg. Which came first, function or information? As we shall show, neither one could proceed the other; they had to evolve together." EVOLUTION, p.13, NOV.10, 1982.

EVOLUTION REQUIRES Energy & Information

Both Increasing Energy & Information Require An "Open System" (Outside Source)

1. Outside Source For Energy is the Sun. 2. Outside Source For Information is ?????

MOST PROBABILE, Peter T. Mora, National Institute of Health, "Crystallization occurs because it leads to the lowest energy state, and to the most stable arrangement of atoms or molecules under the given conditions. Crystallization leads to simple, very uniform repeating structures, which are inert. These structures do not function, and are not designed by function." Nature, Vol. 199, 1963, p 216.

STRUCTURE CONFUSED WITH ORDER, Richard Morris, "For example, when a crystal grows in a liquid, structure appears that was not present before the process of crystallization began. As the crystal becomes larger, the entropy of the system does increase. .... The appearance of structure does not always imply an increase in order, even though "structure" and "order" are equated in our everyday speech." TIME'S ARROWS, p.119.

Applies To Life

LIFE PROCESSES, Harold Blum, Prinston Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14

LIFE WON'T "FORM" ILYA PRIGOGIN (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.

Narya

12-17-2003, 10:35 PM

CONTINUATION:

Observed In Life Of The Past

UNEQUALED BEGINNING DEGENERATED, Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "I'll say it once more, maximal diversity of structural design right at the beginning with the late history of life being the story of reduction of the initial maximal diversity by the extinction and loss of most of the lineages and the failure of any of the survivors...ever again to generate fundamental new designs.", S.M.U. Speech, Oct.2, 1990

mutations DEFINED, THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY, "....one can say that mutations are owing to incorrect copying, to occasional mistakes in the generally so remarkably accurate process of replication.... You may, if you wish, compare mutations to accidental misspellings or misprints which even the most experienced copyist makes from time to time. ...harmfulness of most mutants is just what could be reasonably expected. ....an accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or into one's radio set can hardly be expected to make it work better.", HEREDITY AND THE NATURE OF MAN, p.126

"SLIPS" PRODUCE BRAIN??, Jean Rostand, "No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these 'slips' of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding 'adaptations,...I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way; " The Orion Book of Evolution, p. 17

MUTATIONS ARE NON-PRODUCTIVE, Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species....That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.", Lecture, Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980

BIGGER & MORE DIVERSE, Von Engeln & Caster, "Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times.", GEOLOGY, p.19

GIANTS OF THE PAST, "Leakey...had been scouring the gorge since 1931. Over the years he has unearthed the bones of an ancient pig as big as a rhino, a six-foot-tall sheep, a twelve-foot-tall bird and the flattopped skull of the erect 'Nutcracker man'.", TIME Magazine, March 10, 1961

BIGGER BUGS, CLIFFORD SIMAK, Trilobite, Dinosaur And Man, "In general all the Pennsylvanian insects were larger than the ones we know today." p.158

Observed Throughout Universe

DEGENERATING UNIVERSE, Lincoln Barnett, THE UNIVERSE AND DR. EINSTEIN, "The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere in the cosmos heat is turning into cold, matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space. The universe is thus progressing to an ultimate 'heat death'.....And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the second law of thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves just one way.", p.102

OBSERVED DETERIORATION, FRED L. WHIPPLE, Dir., Smithsonian Astro. Obs., "Comets tend to split in pieces, particularly when they are near the Sun or Jupiter, but also when they are quite undisturbed in space. Some comets seem to tire out and die.", MYSTERY OF COMETS, 1985, p.93

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. BRANDT, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", The Sun and Stars, p.111

STARS UNEXPECTED, GEOFFREY BURBIDGE, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.", Stellar Structure, p.577

GALAXIES UNEXPECTED, MARTIN REES, Astrophysicist, "The most basic questions about galaxies are still not understood. If galaxies didn't exist, we would have no problem explaining that fact.", The Dallas Morning News, Aug.15, 1988

GALAXIES "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, James Trefil, Prof. Physics, George Mason U., "It seems that the more we learn about the basic laws of nature, the more those laws seem to tell us that the visible matter–the stuff we can see–shouldn't be arranged the way it is. There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. ... The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientist..Despite what you may read in the press, we still have no answer to the question of why the sky is full of galaxies, although we've succeeded in eliminating many wrong answers." DARK SIDE OF THE UNIVERSE, 1988, pp.2, 55

"The Face Of God, Take 2" "Last year when it was announced that such variations had been detected for the first time by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, there was tremendous excitement among cosmologist, and even some lose talk of having seen the face of God...The variations the satellite observed occurred over areas of the sky the width of 14 full moons–areas much too large to have been the actual seeds of clusters of galaxies." Discover, 12/93, p.34.

ORIGIN OF SOLAR SYSTEM, Sir H. Jeffries, Cambridge, "I think all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.", The Earth, 1970, p.359. Fred Whipple, Harvard "All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied." Orbiting the Sun, 1981, p.284. Nafi Toksoz, M.I.T., "It's far easier to explain why the moon shouldn't be there than to explain its existence.", Science 81, 3/81, p.120.

ORIGIN OF ORDER? Paul C.W.Davies, Kings College, London, "The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding toward disorder?" Universe In Reverse," SECOND LOOK, 1, 1979, p.27

Eriol

12-17-2003, 11:27 PM

Er... I thank you for the quotes, Narya -- I am a big fan of quotes :) -- but do you realize that most of them support what I said above? About the epistemological uncertain nature of science?

In other words, what is your point? I am assuming that the goal of the quotes was to further discussion about the status of some theories as "laws of nature". But the quotes only support what I said. And that is no wonder; for what I said is intrinsic to Science.

I call your attention to a few observations I made here and in other threads:

a) the problem of the origin of life is NOT contemplated by Evolutionary theory. Evolution only works after there are organisms to evolve. When you read that "Evolution says that life came from inert chemicals arranged randomly without external intervention", this is quite simply -- wrong. This is not within the field of Evolution. Using the Theory of Evolution to prove that is wompletely wrongheaded -- as if we used the Theory of Evolution to prove the origin of stars (after all, the chemical elements in our bodies -- carbon, nitrogen, etc. etc. -- were all produced in stars.)

Evolution is simply this: a theory stating that organisms change through time and transmit these changes to their descendants. The diversity of life forms is explained by this phenomenon.

Nothing that is NOT stated in that paragraph pertains to Evolutionary Theory proper. Including, by the way, Natural Selection ;). Natural Selection was Darwin's proposed hypothesis (note, not a theory :)) for explaining Evolution. It is quite sufficient for explaining many things, but it is not the only proposed explanation, and even Darwin acknowledged that. Gould's quotes, for instance, are simply a repetition of that point; Natural Selection is one among many hypotheses to explain Evolution (which is the theory proper).

b) This point applies with MUCH more force when we discuss the origin of the Universe. Don't be fooled by people who say they can explain the origin of the Universe by observing fruit flies :D. When I state it like that their foolishness is exposed, isn't it?

c) Evolution does not predict a uniform and constant increase in complexity. Actually, evolution predicts nothing :). It is an explanatory theory, not a predictive theory. The increase in diversity throughout the story of life is simply an observed fact; and that sometimes this trend is disturbed by mass extinctions does not mean that the trend is not there. (This is about the quote about the more diverse mammalian population in the Pleistocene).

Narya

12-17-2003, 11:33 PM

Ok sorry about that long post, and yes, I posted that to proove that most of evolutions supposed theories actually coincide with Creation rather than the notion of evolution alone.

I wanted to post another long list of laws of science that had proof, but my file won't open before. it's still not opening. I will post it soon and show you that there are laws in science that have been proven by fact.

I think one of those laws was Gravity.

Zale

12-18-2003, 01:18 AM

OK. I class myself as a scientist. I will now argue against science. There is no scientific theory that can be proven. If I drop my pen I cannot prove that it will fall toward the ground. All I can say is: "If I accept Newton's Law of Gravitation (F=Gm1m2/r^2) as true, it will fall toward the centre of the Earth". Newton did not 'derive' his formula from nature; he did not distil it from the air around him. He got all the quantities he thought relevant, whacked them in the equation (you can tell the general form because it has to be dimensionally consistent) and to make it fit with experimental observations he had to include the Universal Gravitational Constant, G.
Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity disagreed with Newton's equation: according to Newton, if the Sun vanished, the Earth would instantly cease to orbit and acquire a linear trajectory. This cannot happen becuase then whatever gravity travels through would travel faster than the speed of light, which Einstein could not accept. His alternative included comparing the fabric of the Universe to a rubber sheet. Hard to prove, as there has to be something on either side of the 'sheet' (no matter what dimension it's in) and this has to be included in the definition of the Universe, so it would in fact have to be outside itself.

Quantum mechanics: based on the theory that atoms are the smallest constituents of matter, and it (although it is a statistical technique) has NEVER, I repeat NEVER made a false prediction. Think this would favour atomic theory? We can actually 'see' atoms using a scanning tunneling microscope, which should put their existence beyond doubt. Yet there is this thing called "string theory", which states that all matter is just vibrations of tiny strings of energy, contradicting all other major ideas before it. Cleverly, it cannot be disproved either. (Have you noticed I'm a physicist yet?)

Darwin's theory of evolution is even worse. It is more of an observation, and all evidence supports it so far. Larmack's contemporary (to Darwin) theory was quickly disproved. The same may happen to Darwin's theory.

OK. Back on topic. I read an article somewhere that a scientist had set up a chamber containing just the gases thought to be present in the atmosphere at the time life on Earth was thought to begin, slapped a voltage across it, and he noticed that objects fulfilling all 7 criteria for life (movement, reproduction, sensitivity, nutrition, excretion, respiration, growth) appeared around the electrodes. HE CREATED LIFE IN A GLASS TANK. That is without including carbon (which our metabolic biochemistry is based on) or any nitrous compounds that may have been present in the Earth.
Can you now say that life couldn't spring from nothing, and a God had to be involved?

Also: mutations produce a change in a gene. A gene codes for a specific protein. Change the gene, and a different protein is produced. This has an effect on the physical appearance (phenotype) of the individual. E.g. albinos: cannot produce melanin. In some cases this change can confer an advantage relative to the environment of the individual, but most of the time it doesn't, so it dies without passing it on.

For people who take the Bible literally: in the Old Testament there is a passage stating that anyone physically imperfect (including, bizarrely, menstruating women) is on no account allowed in a church, and that this would be an affront to God. Now do you still accept these prophecies that Jesus had to fulfill in order to be the Son of God? The OT is not for the faint of heart!

Barliman Butterbur

12-18-2003, 02:16 AM

Zale said: For people who take the Bible literally: in the Old Testament there is a passage stating that anyone physically imperfect (including, bizarrely, menstruating women) is on no account allowed in a church, and that this would be an affront to God. Now do you still accept these prophecies that Jesus had to fulfill in order to be the Son of God? The OT is not for the faint of heart!

Why stop with just the Bible? That's just one holy book out of many! What about all the stuff in the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita? What about the assertions of the spiritual paths of the American Indians, the Mao Mao, the Eskimos, etc., etc., etc.? There is more than one holy book in the world, and the interesting thing is — they all imply(if not actually claim, and many do) to be the One True Way.

—Lotho

Narya

12-18-2003, 03:26 AM

This is what I don't like about threads like these, it's impossible to get a rational thought out. Now you people are saying you are all better than the scientists whose work by the way has been proven already and solidified through centuries.

Personal attacks are not permitted. Do NOT try this again.

Gothmog
I just get frustrated with these arrogant and boastful posts that are unfounded. Just because you are cornered like a rat.

I should never have posted here in the first place. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Eriol

12-18-2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Narya
This is what I don't like about threads like these, it's impossible to get a rational thought out. Now you people are saying you are all better than the scientists whose work by the way has been proven already and solidified through centuries.

Personal attacks are not permitted. Do NOT try this again.

Gothmog
I just get frustrated with these arrogant and boastful posts that are unfounded. Just because you are cornered like a rat.

I should never have posted here in the first place. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Narya, take it easy. No one is claiming to be better or worse than anyone. I'm a scientist too, by the way. The point is simple, and it is not a scientific point, it is a philosophical point (or rather an epistemological one) -- scientific truth is not "proven" in any means. No work by any scientist is ever "proven" in the sense that 1+1=2 is "proven". This is not a claim to fame, this is common knowledge among scientists. Aristotle was the first one to point this out by the way. If I wrote about claiming that, the answer would be a big shrug -- everybody in the business knows it.

The problem is that you are misusing the word "proof". Logical proof is never achieved by Science. Newton was pretty much the God of physics throughout 3 centuries, and then Einstein came along and pointed the errors in Newtonian physics. Does this mean that Newton is stupid or a bad scientist? Not at all. And yet this was "believed by anyone through MORE than one century".

I advise you to read up on the nature of science before making sweeping claims about it. Check the writings of Popper. In fact, just google on Popper and you'll probably find enough to understand the point we are making here.

No one is being arrogant or boastful, though you are getting very close to it with that "cornered like a rat" comment. Is that a boast? Sounds like one to me ;).

If you get frustrated, I'm sorry. You should take your time, then. But really, there is no reason to get frustrated, and what we're saying here is widespread knowledge, so you should try to understand it before lashing out.

Elessar II

12-18-2003, 07:37 PM

You guys are all missing the point. Elessar is a creationist looking for a fight, and nobody's going to win but Elessar, because he believes he's "right" and you all are "wrong."

Hey! I resent that! ;) To put the subject straight, I am NOT looking for a fight. The reason I started this thread was to have a good natured debate on a subject I have been interested in for a while, as well as to find out more of where evolutionists stand. You are right, of course, in the assumption that I believe I am right on this subject, and evolutionists are wrong, though :p .
The purpose of this post was NOT to convert people over to Creation or Evolution. It was to lay out all the philosophies, ideas, and facts about both points of views. I had no idea it was going to turn out to be a battle of the titans so to speak ( although it has turned out to be quite fun:D ).
So let's keep up the friendly debate, and put aside the squabbling ( Which I admit I also have been guilty of :( )

Captain

12-19-2003, 12:36 AM

I believe a while back someone questioned how life began on the Earth:

First of all it is important to know that water is a liquid at average earth temperatures. Without this, nothing would exist on Earth. Now we'll start with the creation of the Earth. A nearby star exploded by a supernova, which made a large ball of gas. Eventually, the gas turned to liquid in the form of hot magma. After millions of years, it turns solid as a barren wasteland. The gases surrounding the enormous rock turn to rain, and the water erodes rocks and creates chemical reactions and fermentation among the molecules in the rocks. The inorganic molecules combine with carbon to form organic molecules. They next change into biomolecules, a more complex form. Next come micells, the basic form of cells. The micells evolve into primitive cells, which give rise to living organisms.

There you have it, the start of life on Earth. I have not read through the whole thread, so I apologize if something similar was already posted.

Gandalf White

12-19-2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Captain
There you have it, the start of life on Earth. You fail to mention where the star that exploded came from. :confused:

Zale

12-20-2003, 09:34 PM

I think it is almost common knowledge that the Earth condensed out of a cloud of "space debris" caused by a supernova. Apparently the chances of this creating a planet as life-friendly as the Earth are comparable to that of a whirlwind hitting an aeroplane factory and purely be chance assembling a perfectly working Boeing 747. Before claiming that it must have been God that arranged this, however, consider the amount of times this must have happened given the size and age of the Universe. In fact, the odds are against it not happening again at least once.

So: the creation of the Earth is explained scientifically, but that leaves us with a bigger problem: hte creation of the Universe. Interestingly those parts ot the Universe that are not Earth are not mentioned in the Bible (not sure about the other holy texts), so we'll have to play this one by ear.

Lantarion

12-21-2003, 12:20 AM

Excellent point abot the odds Zale, I agree completely.
(And very funny analogy too :D)

Yes the creation of the Universe.. But it has been hypothesized (well, I personally believe) that there are several, if not almost an unlimited amount of universes existing 'simultaneously'; in each Universe, something is different. The reason that there are so many universes is that in one universe, the only thing that might be different is that a particle of dust moves in a different direction than in another universe. Think about it from there: the options are practically limitless.
Just my own crackpot theory though. :D
I'd like to learn a lot more abuot stirng theory and quantum physics..

Captain

12-22-2003, 09:41 PM

Lantarion, If you want to learn more about quantum physics, I suggest that you read Timeline by Michael Crichton. It is fiction, but it is very well researched and it summarizes what scientists currently know about it and the "multiverse" theory.

Eriol

12-22-2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Captain
I believe a while back someone questioned how life began on the Earth:

First of all it is important to know that water is a liquid at average earth temperatures. Without this, nothing would exist on Earth. Now we'll start with the creation of the Earth. A nearby star exploded by a supernova, which made a large ball of gas. Eventually, the gas turned to liquid in the form of hot magma. After millions of years, it turns solid as a barren wasteland. The gases surrounding the enormous rock turn to rain, and the water erodes rocks and creates chemical reactions and fermentation among the molecules in the rocks. The inorganic molecules combine with carbon to form organic molecules. They next change into biomolecules, a more complex form. Next come micells, the basic form of cells. The micells evolve into primitive cells, which give rise to living organisms.

There you have it, the start of life on Earth. I have not read through the whole thread, so I apologize if something similar was already posted.

Please don't think I'm posting this just for fun, or to play "Devil's Advocate" :D. Yeah, I'm an evolutionist, but I am a careful evolutionist; and I like to stress that evolution does NOT deal with the transition between non-living and living. "Origin of Life" theories are not the concern of Evolution.

That said, I like to point out that there are several gaps in this textbook explanation of the origin of life. Skipping astrophysical points and focusing on chemistry and biology, there is no good explanation so far (in my opinion, and I'm speaking as a biologist here... though of course a good explanation might be being written right now :)) for the appearance of the genetic code, and for the transition between the simple aminoacids we were able to synthesize in the lab and the complex molecules which are observed in real organisms.

I don't rule out the possibility that this will be solved in the near future. If it is actually solved, it won't have any bearings on the matter of Theism. I just wanted to point out that it is not solved yet -- scientifically speaking. All that we have, so far, are hypotheses -- no theory. "Origin of Life" nowadays is a field akin to chemistry in the Middle Ages :) -- many guesses, none of them good enough to rule out the others.

Eriol

12-23-2003, 06:15 PM

:)

I thought this article was very interesting. It raises many of the points I once discussed with Thorin and Elendil in the thread "Question on the Bible". Here as there, my goal is to establish that a non-literal reading of Genesis is a possible stance for a Christian. Just as I don't state that everybody who believes in a literal Genesis is not a Christian, I don't think there are any grounds for the opposite statement -- that if I don't believe in a literal Genesis (with a Young Earth and 6-day creation) I am not a Christian.

I also think that the evidence (oh, that fateful word :D) is strongly in favor of Evolution, but this is a scientific matter (i.e., not a matter of Bible interpretation). The decision to study the evidence -- or not -- rests with each individual. In any way, my point in THIS post is theological, not scientific -- I'm showing (or trying to show) that the non-literal reading of Genesis has a good standing among theological circles.

Bob Bakker's article (http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/features/articles/bakker/index.htm)

A few highlights to whet the appetites of the posters in this thread ;):

St. Augustine, bless his Fifth Century heart, wrote three long books on Genesis seeking to understand what the words meant, and what the concepts meant, seeking to integrate it to what was known of science from the Fifth Century (which was a lot ). They already knew the Earth was round in 430 A.D. and Augustine was the type of pastor and theologian who knew scientists. He read them. He read the Latin translations of the best Greek philosophers and astronomers and he knew all this stuff. And after reading Genesis and thinking about it he came up with the conclusion that the story in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 was not a simple historical sequence of events. It just couldn't be. It's not what the words meant. It just wasn't. He wrote three whole books on it and Augustine is, nearly all church historians will tell you, the single most influential guy in forming basic Christian doctrines for every denomination. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, you name it.

(Emphasis, of course, is mine, in all quotes :D)

And you've got Jewish writers in the Middle Ages who wrote books on Genesis and they didn't read Augustine but they came away with the same conclusion: that the six days of Creation could not be six literal days. No way. That's not what the Hebrew says. And that they weren't six things in a row either but that they were six revelations of what happened in order of importance. So there are two thousand years of thoughtful guys reading The Old Testament carefully and treating it with respect and coming away with the conclusion that is was not simple, secular, history.

Poor Reverend Buckland, the guy who found Megalosaurus, probably THE MOST IMPORTANT GUY in shaping our understanding of the Jurassic, he was a pretty devout guy. He was a minister and theologian. He was EXPECTED to uphold THE HONOR of the Bible. And he was one of a whole bunch of English geologists, theologians, who said, "Look the Bible is not to be degraded to common history. It's more eternal than that. The world is very old and it has gone through a very long history."

(Ok, these big caps fonts are not my empahsis, they are Bakker's :)).

And Bakker blames the misinformation among Christians to the same group I fingered in another thread -- the scientists themselves, and how their arrogance and their -- unnecessary -- linking of Evolution with atheism scared Christians away from a scientific theory. The result today is two opposed groups, none of which with a clear grasp of the other's position, both misunderstanding the other and refusing -- for the most part -- to listen to the arguments of both sides.

An example of this tragic and unnecessary linking of Evolution and atheism -- a phenomenon observed in both Christian and scientific environments:

We had this terrible school shooting a year and a half ago at Columbine, where two students, one a junior and one was a senior in high school, came in and killed 13 students and 1 teacher and then themselves. And this was a suburban school, very, very, high scholastic standards, and everyone was terribly upset. The day after, Tom Delay, Tom Delay the Majority Whip in Congress, issued the statement that, "This is what happens if you teach Evolution in the schools."

:eek: :(

Anyway, it is a good read. I hope you like it.

Elessar II

12-23-2003, 10:07 PM

Just as I don't state that everybody who believes in a literal Genesis is not a Christian, I don't think there are any grounds for the opposite statement -- that if I don't believe in a literal Genesis (with a Young Earth and 6-day creation) I am not a Christian.

I agree with you there. The belief of how the earth came into being is NOT essential to salvation one way or the other.

I also think that the evidence (oh, that fateful word ) is strongly in favor of Evolution, but this is a scientific matter (i.e., not a matter of Bible interpretation).

( AHHH, here we go again.)
I believe you're wrong there. ( No offense;) )
The evidence does point to Christianity. As several evolutionists put it, "...the creationists DO seem to have the better argument."
Even if you just look around you, you'll see many creatures in Gods creation that couldn't have evolved.

Another point is that theists have no scientific reason not to believe the Holy Scriptures of the Bible as it is written. The belief that God used the evolutionary process over extended periods of time to change primitive molecules into you and me (Macroevolution, Theistic Evolution, Progressive Evolution) is inadequate. It portrays a vicious, stupid God who needed millions of years of ferocious animals eating animals or "survival of the fittest," to produce something He considered perfect enough to announce that man was finally in His own image. Evolution destroys God, His infinite power and His image. Furthermore, evolution enslaves God to the restrictive boundaries of time and robs him of his glory.

Gothmog

12-23-2003, 10:26 PM

As an outsider with (I hope) a reasonably open mind, I have been following this thread with some interest. :) There have been many good posts on here. However, I have to make a comment now.
The evidence does point to Christianity. As several evolutionists put it, "...the creationists DO seem to have the better argument."
Even if you just look around you, you'll see many creatures in Gods creation that couldn't have evolved. The evidence may well "point to Christianity" but what difference does that make to what seems to be the main point of this thread? Both you and Eriol profess to be Christians.

As for who has the better argument. Neither side has convinced me or even swayed me in either direction.

Now can you please tell me which creatures are those that could not have "Evolved"?

What I see from reading this thread is that the question is a matter of method and comes down to "Is God a Mechanic or a Husbandsman?" In other words Did he "Make" or "Grow?"

Legolam

12-23-2003, 11:44 PM

I too have been following this thread closely, and will continue to do so. It's fascinating!

Originally posted by Elessar II
[B[The evidence does point to Christianity. As several evolutionists put it, "...the creationists DO seem to have the better argument."
[/B]I think the point is that creationists don't need to have evidence, because belief in God (no matter which one) is a matter of faith. Therefore, if you believe, it's true for you. So their argument is always going to be stronger - it's the nature of scientists that they must question until the overwhelming body of evidence is in their favour, and even then it is never "proven" (or is it proved? I can't think right now :rolleyes: ).

Elessar II

12-24-2003, 12:30 AM

As for who has the better argument. Neither side has convinced me or even swayed me in either direction.

Then what do you believe if you don't believe in one or the other?

Now can you please tell me which creatures are those that could not have "Evolved"?

Well, let's start with a tiny insect. Now, if there's any creature that could not possibly have evolved, it's the Bombardier beetle. It needed a God to create all of his systems fully functional.

To put it short, this little guy has an extraordinarily intricate defense system which is a cross between a tommy gun and tear gas. When he insect senses danger it internally mixes enzymes contained in one body chamber with concentrated solutions of some rather harmless compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, confined to a second chamber. This generates a noxious spray of caustic benzoquinones, which explodes from it's body at a boiling 212 degrees F. What's more, the fluid is pumped through twin rear nozzles, which can be rotated, like a B-17's gun turret, to hit a hungry frog with bull's eye accuracy.

Evolutionary theory has big problems trying to come up with an explanation for the Bomardier beetle. Each stage in its evolution would have ultimately led to its destruction. Half an inch in length, this insect mixes chemicals that violently react to produce something similar to an explosion. And to prevent its own destruction, the little bug manufactures a chemical called an inhibitor and mixes it in with the reactive chemicals. but with the inhibitor, it would not be able to use the expulsion of hot, burning gases to discourage its enemies. Now, without the use of its toxic liquids,, it would be eaten by a predator in the snap of a finger or without the inhibitor it would explode, now correct me if I'm wrong, but a dead insect can not evolve!!!! Dead bugs cannot evolve the next chemical needed to release the protective reaction. That chemical turns out to be an anti-inhibitor. the anti-inhibitor is added to the other chemicals, an explosive reaction does occur and the beetle is able to defend itself.
Now how could a little beetle have evolved such a complex means of defense without killing itself in the process?
Evolutionary theory says if you don't use it you lose it. But how could this insect use it if it wasn't already in fully functional form?
Also, unlike fractions, the bombardier beetle can not be reduced. It needs all of its components to survive. Without ALL of its parts it could not defend itself, or in a worst case scenario it would end up blowing itself to pieces!
Now, I leave question to you, what is the most reasonable way the bombardier beeetle came into being, evolution over eons or creation in an instant?

There is a whole hoard of creatures I could mention ( I will if you want me to :D ) That could not have evolved that give proof of the fact that God creates in an instant.

Zale

12-24-2003, 12:50 AM

Scientific theories are never proved, that is why they are theory and not fact.
I defy anyone to find anything more ridiculous than protein synthesis. The idea that that ocurred by evolution alone is fairly ridiculous, and it's the basis of life as we know it. No proteins = no enzymes = no handily controlled reactions, like respiration, or photosynthesis.
I agree that the Bombadier beetle seems like one of those "impossible" creatures, but bear in mind that those without the inhibitor or the anti-inhibitor or the right mix of chemicals did die, so only the right ones were passed on to the offspring.
If God creates in an instant, why is there so much of our history missing? Were we (Homo sapiens) created as we are, like your beetle? in which case, what about the evidence for Homo habilis, Homo erectus and so on?
Or does He create some lifeforms which do not evolve (I'm contradicting myself here) as your beetle, if it was created as it is now, and some as "bases" from which others evolve, like us? Is that not rather inconsistent of Him?
One method must be better than the others. If God is perfect then He must recognise this. Why then does He not use just that one?

Legolam, scientists are just more actively curious than the others. At least, I am.

Gothmog

12-24-2003, 12:55 AM

Then what do you believe if you don't believe in one or the other? It matters not at all. I have already said that I was an outsider. :)

As for the infomation. I thank you. I will look in to this.

Walter

12-24-2003, 01:21 AM

Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html)

On a sidenote: 1+1=10 for a computer, and if cloven-hoofed animals can count they would probably claim that 2+2=10... ;)

Elessar II

12-24-2003, 01:36 AM

I think the point is that creationists don't need to have evidence, because belief in God (no matter which one) is a matter of faith. Therefore, if you believe, it's true for you. So their argument is always going to be stronger - it's the nature of scientists that they must question until the overwhelming body of evidence is in their favour, and even then it is never "proven" (or is it proved? I can't think right now ).

I don't even see evolution as science. Belief in evolution is a matter of faith. I see it as just another humanistic religion.
If you evolutionists don't believe me. Look at the seven basic assumptions you guys make:

1. Non living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.
2. Spontaneous generation only occurred once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.
4. Protozoa ( single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa ( multiple-celled life forms).
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. The invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates.
7. Within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

You must have faith that all those things occurred to also believe in evolution.

bear in mind that those without the inhibitor or the anti-inhibitor or the right mix of chemicals did die, so only the right ones were passed on to the offspring.

How can you produce offspring if you're dead?

Gothmog

12-24-2003, 02:00 AM

Walter, Thank you for that link. A very interesting article. :) I had already found one which seemed to show that some species had what looked like an improved system. But the one you pointed to was in greater detail. :)

Lúthien Séregon

12-24-2003, 02:02 AM

How can you produce offspring if you're dead?

The point of that statement was that only those with the right combination to ensure survival in the particular environment that they live in would survive to pass this on to their offspring. The ones that did die were those without that right combination.

I don't even see evolution as science. Belief in evolution is a matter of faith. I see it as just another humanistic religion.
If you evolutionists don't believe me.

Perhaps not quite, because the theory of evolution is based on hypotheses, which are in turn based on observations ( the similarities or differences between particular fossils and their living equivalent ) and possible reasons for these changes.

We can even see evolution taking place during the existence of modern day humans - domestic dogs evolved from wolves, and domestic cats evolved from wild cats.

Look at the seven basic assumptions you guys make:

1. Non living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.
2. Spontaneous generation only occurred once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.
4. Protozoa ( single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa ( multiple-celled life forms).
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. The invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates.
7. Within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

You must have faith that all those things occurred to also believe in evolution.

This is definitely a matter of theory - but then again, so is almost every single aspect of science, and living for that matter. I wouldn't exactly call it faith though, because it is based on observation and logic. How else would there be fossils so conveniently fitting in with the evolutionary timeline ( like the cambrian era, and mesozoic, etc. ) proposed by scientists?

Walter

12-24-2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Gothmog
Walter, Thank you for that link. A very interesting article. :) I had already found one which seemed to show that some species had what looked like an improved system. But the one you pointed to was in greater detail. :) You're welcome!

Eriol

12-25-2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Elessar II
I believe you're wrong there. ( No offense;) )

I've been wrong before, and I hope to be wrong again in the future... it is the price we pay for thinking, hehe.

The evidence does point to Christianity. As several evolutionists put it, "...the creationists DO seem to have the better argument." Even if you just look around you, you'll see many creatures in Gods creation that couldn't have evolved.

(a) As Gothmog said, Christianity does not equal Creationism. I agree that the evidence points to Christianity (else I wouldn't be a Christian), but I wouldn't consider the biological evidence (what we are discussing here after all) as a telling point in favor of Christianity over, say, Islam.

(b) If an evolutionist thinks that the creationists have the better argument, he is not an evolutionist.

(c) To prove a negative is very, very hard. "This COULD NOT have evolved" is a negative statement that is very dependent on the amount of knowledge we hold (which is not complete ;)). Walter posted a great article in response to the specific claim of the bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle falls into a general "style of criticism" of evolution, one which has been refuted again and again -- the "complex organs" argument. The favorite examples in Darwin's time were the eye and the wing. Needless to say, we have good explanations for the "impossible evolution" of these complex organs by now. And -- to reinforce the point of the amount of knowledge -- even though the eye was supposed to be so intricate that any "half-evolved" eye would be useless, we have found in living organisms examples of "half-evolved eyes" ranging from a few cells that can detect light or darkness (and nothing else) to a full eye. The whole spectrum of "half-evolved eyes" is there to be seen.

This is not to say that the complex organs argument has been completely discredited, and it is in fact the main argument of Intelligent Design -- that some structures are "irreducibly complex" and therefore impossible to evolve by any means. I don't discard ID out-of-hand, but they are still short of disproving Evolution, in what I've read of their ideas; and the fact that we have seen many examples of organs which "could not evolve", which were later dismissed as easily explainable (such as the vertebrates' eye) is bad for this style of criticism.

Also, IDers' still have to contend with that overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution ;). And most of their concerns are directed to the problem of the origin of life and of life's basic mechanisms (such as the genetic code). As I said earlier, origin of life is not a matter for Evolution.

Another point is that theists have no scientific reason not to believe the Holy Scriptures of the Bible as it is written.

Well, you should read the article I linked, then. Many (if not most -- after all, Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination and it does not subscribe to a literal Genesis) theists disagree with you, and they did so before we unearthed the millions of fossils and other evidence (like molecular biology, biogeography, etc.) in favor of evolution. St. Augustine would be ecstatic with the amount of data we have on the matter nowadays ;).

It portrays a vicious, stupid God who needed millions of years of ferocious animals eating animals or "survival of the fittest," to produce something He considered perfect enough to announce that man was finally in His own image.

Aren't you falling into a very weak anthropomorphism here? Do you think that "God's own image" means that God looks like an ape? All right, I'm making an extreme point here, but I hope you see what I mean. The "image of God" in us is not related at all to our physical appearance. It is not our bodies which are "perfect enough to announce that man is finally in His own image". That expression relates to our spirit, not to our body.

I hope you clarify what you mean here, or I'll be forced to conclude that you think we are made in the image of God as regards our bodies, a notion I find very odd (since God does not have a body).

Evolution destroys God, His infinite power and His image. Furthermore, evolution enslaves God to the restrictive boundaries of time and robs him of his glory.

This is the mindset I am trying to dispel (I just state it in the clear so that you know what you are up against :D). It is no wonder that you don't accept Evolution if you believe in what you said. This is why my first goal here is to show that Evolution and Christianity are compatible. I have skipped the purely scientific arguments (such as a list of evidences for Evolution -- which I have ready in my sleeve :D) because there is no amount of scientific argumentation that can convince you if you are stuck in that fallacy of composition. What you are criticizing here is the materialist worldview, which is NOT the same thing (and it is not even linked to) as Evolution. I must show to you that the two are not related. And that therefore Evolution is not inimical to Theism, and much less to Christianity.

Evolution is just as restrictive on God as gravity and chemistry and electricity. All of these could be criticized on the same grounds that you are criticizing Evolution.

Creationists fall into that trap all the time -- they erect a barrier between Evolution and other branches of Science, and then criticize Evolution with arguments that apply to all other branches of Science. If your argument is good against Evolution, it is good against gravity, chemistry, etc. etc. All of these rob God of His glory, destroy His infinite power, restrict him to Time, etc. etc.

In other words, you are abolishing Nature in your attempt to enshrine God :). Nature is good (as is stated on Genesis :D), and so we should study it. God chooses to work through Nature most of the time, and He follows a set of rules -- which we call natural laws. That's what we are studying here, and to detect a natural law in no way detracts from God's sovereignty.

(In fact the concept of natural law requires God's sovereignty... or at least this is how it was developed in the first place, in the West.)

I don't even see evolution as science. Belief in evolution is a matter of faith. I see it as just another humanistic religion.

A definition of science would be welcome at that point.

Look at the seven basic assumptions you guys make:

1. Non living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.
2. Spontaneous generation only occurred once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.
4. Protozoa ( single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa ( multiple-celled life forms).
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. The invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates.
7. Within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

1. Unnecessary assumption for Evolution;
2. Unnecessary assumption for Evolution (and quite false regarding the Universe by the way);
3. Merely a hypothesis (and probably false as regards viruses); certainly not necessary for Evolution to work;
4, 5, 6, 7 -- not articles of faith, merely the most probable conclusions based on the evidence. (I could nitpick on your wordings of those).

If you will consider "the most probable conclusions based on the evidence" as "articles of faith", the entire structure of human knowledge falls. There is no science at all, only "articles of faith". Your criticism -- again -- embraces the chemist and the physicist.

If you will call Evolution "a kind of faith", you'll have to call your shower "faith", and your toaster "faith", and your car "faith"... or be inconsistent. Of course these examples are "stronger" than Evolution (that's why physics and chemistry are called the "hard sciences"), but there is no hard line dividing Evolution from them. If you refuse to believe in one because it is not "proven", you must refuse all -- remember, nothing is proven in Science.

Though I think the definition of Science would make that point even clearer. I'll wait for it.

Oh, and Merry Christmas to you Elessar, and to everybody in this thread (and in the Forum as well :) )