Evolution and Creationism

#26
#26
IBlvNTmWrk said:
There is so much of this that is incorrect. First of all, Darwin did not say man evolved from ape, and your reference to a mountain of evidence is also false. Rather, he believed, based on years of research in the fields of biology and comparative anatomy, that anatomically similar species such as humans, apes, and monkeys probably evolved, over a period of many thousands of years, from a common, ape-like ancestor, now extinct. He also believed (based on his theory of natural selection) that favored races such as the Caucasian would one day "in the not too distant future" triumph over the races of man that he saw as being closer to the ape-like ancestor from which they descended. Does anyone have a problem with this being taught in schools as "science"? I would certainly hope so.

Now, for the purpose of clarification, there is a major difference in micro-evolution (which has supporting evidence) and macro-evolution which remains theoretical at best and I'm assuming is the reference for this discussion. I mentioned big bang simply because macro-evolution has no basis without a pre-existence, so "big bang" or "abiogenesis" (10 plus billion years of accidental, random atomic collisions resulting in the formation of some simple, initial form of living organism) has to be part of the overall theory.

The evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. However, this isn't because it's been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications that go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. A closer examination of the "evidence" reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof. There is no empirical proof for abiogenesis or macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, how much higher level education have you had on this subject? Taken any college level biology courses?
 
#27
#27
orangeblooded2 said:
That our limited intelligence in such matters is governed by the very things that we profess to be determinable. To accept the fact that we are as infants along the path to discovery in this debate is one of the most freeing Epiphanies I have ever experienced.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading this right the I agree.

I'm certainly not advocating ID as public school curriculum. I have no problem sticking to "science-based" evidence for covering the questions of our physical history.

However, I find the notion that all of existence must be subject to a concept that man created (falsifiable science) is short-sighted.

Why would cognition capable by man be the ultimate measuring stick for stating what is and what can be? Why must all that exists conform to a specific approach to thinking devised and advanced by man in the last couple hundred years?

Ah, the arrogance of man
 
#31
#31
IBlvNTmWrk said:
There is so much of this that is incorrect. First of all, Darwin did not say man evolved from ape, and your reference to a mountain of evidence is also false. Rather, he believed, based on years of research in the fields of biology and comparative anatomy, that anatomically similar species such as humans, apes, and monkeys probably evolved, over a period of many thousands of years, from a common, ape-like ancestor, now extinct. He also believed (based on his theory of natural selection) that favored races such as the Caucasian would one day "in the not too distant future" triumph over the races of man that he saw as being closer to the ape-like ancestor from which they descended. Does anyone have a problem with this being taught in schools as "science"? I would certainly hope so.

Now, for the purpose of clarification, there is a major difference in micro-evolution (which has supporting evidence) and macro-evolution which remains theoretical at best and I'm assuming is the reference for this discussion. I mentioned big bang simply because macro-evolution has no basis without a pre-existence, so "big bang" or "abiogenesis" (10 plus billion years of accidental, random atomic collisions resulting in the formation of some simple, initial form of living organism) has to be part of the overall theory.

The evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. However, this isn't because it's been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications that go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. A closer examination of the "evidence" reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof. There is no empirical proof for abiogenesis or macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

First, evolution is not a religion, and Darwin is not our God. Learn just a little bit about the scientific enterprise before sounding like a complete jackass. Darwin could have been wrong about everything he said, and it would do nothing to change the truth of evolution. Schools don't teach "the morality of Darwin" in biology classrooms, they teach the current fact of evolution.

Second, Macroevolution is not that different from microevolution; they are not dependent on different processes, or different forms of mutation. Macroevolution is simply the result of microevolution + a lot of time for this to work on isolated populations.

And finally, that last paragraph was utter BS. Evolution gained favor in the scientific community because a lot of scientists working independently saw increasing amounts of evidence that evolution is a fact. And, evolution is not becoming more 'belief centered', rather, there is more evidence for it now that there has ever been. The metaphysical baggage of ID and creationism is only the reason why it is not taught as an alternative in science classrooms, not why evolution is thought to be true. Jesus man...
 
#32
#32
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
heres a grand thought, what about natural selection as a mechanism set in place by the Creator, you know kinda like gravity?
Click to expand...

Because this would mean the Creation story isn't literal. This would call into question more of Genesis as being non-literal. If it's only at best a parable and at worst a myth, it begins to call into question the whole belief structure and ultimate authority of the Bible. This is why some Biblical scholars say things like "maybe the dinosaurs just missed the boat in the flood."
 
#33
#33
oklavol said:
Jesus is a Sun God


  • The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
  • In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
  • The sun is the "Light of the World."
  • The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
  • The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
  • The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
  • The sun "walks on water."
  • The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
  • The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
  • The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
  • The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected
Click to expand...

I forgot to add that the similarity of "sun" to "sun" is purely coincidental. In Jewish sun is "shemish." (I just looked it up, I didn't know that off the top of my head). Son is "bn."

The fact that sun and son are homophones in English is irrelevant since the English language didn't exist by a thousand years at the time of the birth and rise of Christianity.
 
#34
#34
IPorange said:
Because this would mean the Creation story isn't literal. This would call into question more of Genesis as being non-literal. If it's only at best a parable and at worst a myth, it begins to call into question the whole belief structure and ultimate authority of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Not really. I could understand it being written so that it would be much easier for people at the time to understand. There is absolutely no reason why the two theories couldn't co-exist in some way.
 
#35
#35
tvolsfan said:
Not really. I could understand it being written so that it would be much easier for people at the time to understand. There is absolutely no reason why the two theories couldn't co-exist in some way.
Click to expand...

You are part of the liberalization of the church. Hell, a while back they didn't think not burning witches and heliocentrism could coexist with the church, now people are saying it could all be allegorical and that the world could have evolved over billions of years! I like it, don't get me wrong, but it is just the church inching towards its death. It must make concessions to appease an enlightened world, but every concession takes away a bit more of its power. Church of England, here you come!
 
#36
#36
IPorange said:
Because this would mean the Creation story isn't literal. This would call into question more of Genesis as being non-literal. If it's only at best a parable and at worst a myth, it begins to call into question the whole belief structure and ultimate authority of the Bible. This is why some Biblical scholars say things like "maybe the dinosaurs just missed the boat in the flood."
Click to expand...

explain this please?
 
#37
#37
turambar85 said:
You are part of the liberalization of the church. Hell, a while back they didn't think not burning witches and heliocentrism could coexist with the church, now people are saying it could all be allegorical and that the world could have evolved over billions of years! I like it, don't get me wrong, but it is just the church inching towards its death. It must make concessions to appease an enlightened world, but every concession takes away a bit more of its power. Church of England, here you come!
Click to expand...
Not really. The church develops, like it always has. The church isn't dieing.
 
#39
#39
Creationism: Man's interpretation of how the Earth and all things in it came to be. Devised roughly 2000 years ago.

Evolution: Man's interpretation of how the Earth and all things in it came to be. Desvised roughly 200 years ago.

??????: [insert here in 50 - 100 years]
 
Last edited:
#40
#40
utvolpj said:
the church only adapts to keep it's revenue stream strong.
Click to expand...
Possibly at first, but it really isn't the point. I'm sure at some point, even church leaders actually stopped believing the earth was the center of the universe. Some interpretations about certain topics may have changed overtime, but the actual religion and the main beliefs associated with it haven't changed that much over time. Stances of the church that have been questioned aren't necessarily about things specifically stated in the bible, but they are actually about the church's interpretation of certain topics in the bible. The church on earth is ruled by men, and definitely not perfect and all knowing men. It's okay for them to be wrong at times, too.
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
explain this please?
Click to expand...

Haven't read it in awhile, but the creation story said that God made each bird, fish, and land animal by hand in stages in the first seven days. With natural selection, he didn't hand make anything, and it didn't happen in seven days, and they all weren't created relatively simultaneously.

Also, biogeography pretty much ruins the flood story, as does genetic relationships between various species on different continents.
 
#42
#42
turambar85 said:
(1) First, evolution is not a religion, and Darwin is not our God. Learn just a little bit about the scientific enterprise before (2) sounding like a complete jackass. Darwin could have been wrong about everything he said, and it would do nothing to change the (3) truth of evolution. Schools don't teach "the morality of Darwin" in biology classrooms, they teach the (4) current fact of evolution.

Second, (5) Macroevolution is not that different from microevolution; they are not dependent on different processes, or different forms of mutation. Macroevolution is simply the result of microevolution + a lot of time for this to work on isolated populations.

And finally, that last paragraph was utter BS. Evolution gained favor in the scientific community because a lot of scientists working independently saw increasing amounts of evidence that evolution is a fact. And, evolution is not becoming more 'belief centered', rather, (6) there is more evidence for it now that there has ever been. The metaphysical baggage of ID and creationism is only the reason why it is not taught as an alternative in science classrooms, not why evolution is thought to be true. (7) Jesus man...
Click to expand...

(1) I didn't make either statement, nor am I aware of anyone else making these claims... but thanks for the clarification.

(2) Must've missed my target as I was only shooting for 70% jackass, but it's nice to be recognized for exceeding my goal.

(3) Which "truth" do you speak of, and is it in reference to micro or macro evolution?

(4) Facts, as I'm sure you would be glad to explain to me, are different from truths. So the same question applies... facts for micro or macro evolution?

(5) Perhaps this partly answers my previous questions. Thank you for such a scientific explanation between the differences of micro and macro. I have to admit, at first I couldn't quite grasp the full concept of "not that different", but I read it a few more times and I believe it has now sunk in.

(6) If you're referring to macro-evolution, please share this evidence with me and the rest of the world.

(7) You provided a synopsis of bookends in that both your first statement and last statement were correct. Yes... Jesus was a man.

I stand by my statement that macro-evolution and abiogenesis are based more on beliefs than any facts or evidence. Darwin himself said: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
If I'm reading this right the I agree.

I'm certainly not advocating ID as public school curriculum. I have no problem sticking to "science-based" evidence for covering the questions of our physical history.

However, I find the notion that all of existence must be subject to a concept that man created (falsifiable science) is short-sighted.

Why would cognition capable by man be the ultimate measuring stick for stating what is and what can be? Why must all that exists conform to a specific approach to thinking devised and advanced by man in the last couple hundred years?

Ah, the arrogance of man
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:
 
#45
#45
IPorange said:
Haven't read it in awhile, but the creation story said that God made each bird, fish, and land animal by hand in stages in the first seven days. With natural selection, he didn't hand make anything, and it didn't happen in seven days, and they all weren't created relatively simultaneously.

Also, biogeography pretty much ruins the flood story, as does genetic relationships between various species on different continents.
Click to expand...

So the question becomes was the term day (when used in that context) used in the literal sense meaning one 24 hour period or did the term day refer to an age or extended period of time. There are other places in the Bible were the word day, weeks, ages or times were used in a similar way.

The flood story most probably refers to a localized incident that did indeed cover the whole known earth at that time. It was also very likely a story handed down to the people of differing peoples and nations of that era and region. It seems to be a common story among different civilizations that probably shared a common background and ancestors. From there the story was told to other civilizations and trading partners making it a common story throughout so many differing cultures spanning the globe.
 
#46
#46
KB5252 said:
So the question becomes was the term day (when used in that context) used in the literal sense meaning one 24 hour period or did the term day refer to an age or extended period of time. There are other places in the Bible were the word day, weeks, ages or times were used in a similar way.

The flood story most probably refers to a localized incident that did indeed cover the whole known earth at that time. It was also very likely a story handed down to the people of differing peoples and nations of that era and region. It seems to be a common story among different civilizations that probably shared a common background and ancestors. From there the story was told to other civilizations and trading partners making it a common story throughout so many differing cultures spanning the globe.
Click to expand...

*Coughs*

Bosphorus flooding........
 
#49
#49
KB5252 said:
So the question becomes was the term day (when used in that context) used in the literal sense meaning one 24 hour period or did the term day refer to an age or extended period of time. There are other places in the Bible were the word day, weeks, ages or times were used in a similar way.

Good Point.
In the KJV version of the Bible, 2 Peter 3:8 states
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Click to expand...
 
#50
#50
how about this.

God is a scientist and there are millions of worlds out there in the cosmos that he has seeded with the potential for life. Should one of these "petri dishes" ever develop the technology required to travel to distant stars, God the Scientist concludes that experiment and starts the process over again on that planet.

sorta like the Architect from "The Matrix".
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top