Evolution? How?

Quite frankly, i was very surprised by this sudden burst of paranoid delusion on the part of Intrepid. It suggests that the manipulators of christian paranoia have been far more successful than i would have thought. I consider Intrepid to be one of the more level-headed and reasonable self-professed christians at this site. By contrast, i have no respect at all for "real" life, who i consider to be intentionally disingenuous and willfully dishonest about his motives.

To put the case in terms which may be painful to the scientists, but which may make this issue more clear: evolutionary biology does not "care" how the universe came into being--whether it were created or spontaneously generated by some means or the other is not relevant to a theory of evolution. Where the fundamentalists and charismatics run head-on into evolutionary theory is in the conflict between an "old earth" view and a "young earth" view. Evolutionary biology does not stipulate cosmological origins; it does stipulate an old earth, on the order of at least hundreds of millions of years. I'm sure that FM will correct me if this statement is incorrect, but as i have read and understood geological research, that scientific discipline stipulates an earth which is billions of years old. This is a direct contradiction of an ordinary exegesis of the old testament. This is the parting of the ways between contemporary science and fundatmental Protestant and ultramontane Catholic christianity.

It is a rhetorical technique of the creationist lobby to associate evolutionary biology in the minds of an ill-informed christian public with what is commonly referred to as "the big bang" theory. This has a two-fold purpose. The first is to attepmt to discredit evolutionary biology by means of guilt through association, as the "big bang" is by no means a universally held view of cosmologists, and has been subjected to a good deal of criticism. The second purpose of this false connection between "the big bang" and evolutionary biology is to instill in the minds of christians who may already feel beleaguered a belief that evolutionary biology seeks to disprove the existence of a deity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Stipulating a deity does no violence to evolutionary biology. Stipulating a young earth on the basis of "revealed truth" in the old testament, however, does. Those who dogmatically assert the "revealed truth" of the old testament are already lost to reason in the debate about evolution. Other christians, however, who could take a more reasonable view, are being hunted by creationist demagogues with the purpose of inducing in them a paranoia based on a specious contention that evolutionary biology intends to disprove the existence of god. That is truly unfortunate, as it raises strife where none need exist.

Essentially, the demagogues of creationism have a Chicken Little message: They want to destroy god, they want to destroy your way of life, they want to erode your values, they want to promote promiscuity and homosexuality, they want cats to live with dogs . . .

Puh-lease . . .

0 Replies

Just as soon as creationist and "intelligent design" proponents advance a theory to account for species diversity with the same predictive success shown by evolutionary biology, i will personally advocate the inclusion of those "theories" in secondary education.

Your blather notwithstanding, evolutionary biology does not and need not stipulate cosmological origins.

0 Replies

Quote:

If one goes with eternally pre-existent matter as the basis of a subsequent theory of cosmological beginnings, it really matters little what that subsequent theory is, since it is founded upon an unprovable assumption. It is basically an exercise in faith.

Faith is no more valid then an unprovable assumption. When it come to evolution faith is far, far less valid then the science that supports evolution. At least evolution is supported by something. Nothing supports creationism, except an old tribal story.

Quote:

Similarly, the lack of observed instances of life being generated from non-life or lack of observed instances of a creature transforming itself into another creature would seem to be situations that would send up the red flag to the proponents of the respective theories.

One does not have to see evolution to know it is real. We see its footprints. They're called fossils. What are the footprints of creationism; an old tribal story? Creationism is equivalent to the flat earth found in the Bible or the idea that the sun moves about the earth. They're all primitive mythologies based on ignorance.

Today's science is far more valid then the ancient myths trying to explain natural phenomena. That's why Creationism can never stand up to evolution. Science supports evolution. All Creationists can do is scream; "Well, you don't know this or that!" as if that is suppose to give validity to their myths.

It doesn't.

"In the beginning......"

"These words open the book of Genesis, but they also find their echo in every great system of myth. Traditionally, myth has told us about origins, about how things began, and in doing so, it orients us. It tells us where we are from, and, therefore, who and what we are and how we should live. What happens in principio is creation: of the world itself, its physical features, and the realms of beings within it. For the traditional myth teller, to know how a thing came to be is to know something of what it is, and not to know the origin of a thing is not to understand it truly.1 So, in the first place, creation myths have always been myths of origin."

http://www.earthspirit.com/fireheart/fhpmyth.html

Today, because we have the scientific knowledge the ancients lacked, we can ascertain our origins without resorting to fairy tales. This provides a great deal of discomfort for those who still believe in fairy tales.

Here is the Hopi creation myth called the Four Creations. It's a nice story.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSFourCreations.html

Here's a link to creation myths. After taking stock of all the creation myths that have existed you will see that Genesis fits in the same bundle.
http://www.mythinglinks.org/ct~creation.html

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Evolutionary biology does not stipulate cosmological origins; it does stipulate an old earth, on the order of at least hundreds of millions of years. I'm sure that FM will correct me if this statement is incorrect, but as i have read and understood geological research, that scientific discipline stipulates an earth which is billions of years old. This is a direct contradiction of an ordinary exegesis of the old testament.

But not in contradiction to what the OT actually says.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If we follow cause and effect back to what we might call a beginning of our space/time universe, we may not infer any thing to have existed before such an event. In fact, the very word 'before' becomes meaningless, as it may very well be that God, whose name means 'He who causes to become' actually created or fabricated space and time so that what we experience as reality might come to be.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Evolutionary biology does not stipulate cosmological origins; it does stipulate an old earth, on the order of at least hundreds of millions of years. I'm sure that FM will correct me if this statement is incorrect, but as i have read and understood geological research, that scientific discipline stipulates an earth which is billions of years old. This is a direct contradiction of an ordinary exegesis of the old testament.
But not in contradiction to what the OT actually says.

I'll leave the pin-head dancing angels to one of your expertise, Boss. Do note the care with which i chose my words.

0 Replies

neologist says

Quote:

But not in contradiction to what the OT actually says.

Welcome to the revisionist readings of the works of James Price and Henry Morris

0 Replies

As a christian explains the contradiction:

"Contradictions Main Page

DID GOD MAKE ADAM AND EVE AT THE SAME TIME?
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (KJV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (KJV)

Genesis 1 says that God created them both, and that He did it on the sixth day. It does not say that He created them at the exact same moment. He created Adam first, then created Eve from his rib later the same day. Not a contradiction."

Q: Why in the world would god use the rib of Adam to make Eve?

Doesn't god just have to say, "create Eve, a woman." What about the sex of all animals? Did got use the rib from the male to create the female?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Evolutionary biology does not stipulate cosmological origins; it does stipulate an old earth, on the order of at least hundreds of millions of years. I'm sure that FM will correct me if this statement is incorrect, but as i have read and understood geological research, that scientific discipline stipulates an earth which is billions of years old. This is a direct contradiction of an ordinary exegesis of the old testament.
But not in contradiction to what the OT actually says.

I'll leave the pin-head dancing angels to one of your expertise, Boss. Do note the care with which i chose my words.

Use of the word 'ordinary' noted.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

neologist says
Quote:
But not in contradiction to what the OT actually says.

Welcome to the revisionist readings of the works of James Price and Henry Morris

I'm supposed to know who these folks are? The truth needs no revision.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

As a christian explains the contradiction:

"Contradictions Main Page

DID GOD MAKE ADAM AND EVE AT THE SAME TIME?
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (KJV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (KJV)

Genesis 1 says that God created them both, and that He did it on the sixth day. It does not say that He created them at the exact same moment. He created Adam first, then created Eve from his rib later the same day. Not a contradiction."

Q: Why in the world would god use the rib of Adam to make Eve?

Doesn't god just have to say, "create Eve, a woman." What about the sex of all animals? Did got use the rib from the male to create the female?

And this means?

0 Replies

neologist
Whats Joe six's pleasure?
Young Earth Creationist
Old Earth Creationist
Old Earth Intelligent Design
Evolutionis Interruptus Intelligent Designer

"...Objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny_ and in a willingness to then revise or abandon them when the tests fail (as they usually do)..." The Proof of Lavoisiers Plates" SJ Gould, 2000

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

For your edification, the most common circular argument in which the scientific evolutionist deals runs more or less like this:

I believe this because the big bang is the reason.

Nothing in science says this.

Intrepid wrote:

Oh, how do you know that?

It is written in the science books.

No. It's shown by physical evidence. The science books and theories are based on empirical evidence.

Intrepid wrote:

But what is the authority of the science books?

It is inspired knowledge.

No it's not, it's based on evidence and on deduction. Nothing more.

Intrepid wrote:

How can you be certain of that?

Because scientists have said so.

No, we are agree with the prevailing theories (or not) because we understand them and agree with the evidence.

Intrepid wrote:

Evolution is a theory, not a science Creationism is a belief, not a science. If evolution could be proved conclusively then we could do away with God.

No. The fact of evolution does not invalidate any deity because any deity could simply have (and probably would have) created evolution (both cosmic and biological).

Science simply can not use the supernatural as a proposed explanation for any theory, but that does not imply that science invalidates the possibility of the supernatural. It's a shame more people don't understand the nuance here.

Intrepid wrote:

The theory of evolution suggests that non living matter turned into organisms that eventually grew legs and then walked on land and turned into monkeys that further turned into today's man. The theory further goes that this all started with a big bang. They cannot answer what went bang and how that ball of plasma material got there to begin with.

So what.

Intrepid wrote:

If science claims that evolution took place over millions of years to produce what we see today and that the condtions had to be just right, why do scientists search the stars for other life? The odds against it happening once are beyond human comprehension. More than once?

Life evolved to match the conditions, not the other way around. Even though the conditions are unique, it is not unexpected for an evolving complex to have matched itself to the conditions.

The idea of evolution is not only compelling, it is almost inevitible given the way we understand the physics of the universe.

Evolution happened, and is happening, of this there is no question. Whether or not the process was put into place by a deity, science has no comment, even while being unable (by its own definitions) to assume such a possibility.

Those who think science invalidates deities are simply trying to pick a fight where none exists.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

http://www.i-resign.com/images/mhproof.gif

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

One does not have to see evolution to know it is real. We see its footprints. They're called fossils. What are the footprints of creationism; an old tribal story?

So, since fossils exist, therefore evolution is true? What a joke.

A fossil simply tells you that an organism lived and died. It does not tell you how it came to be what it was.

Comparing fossils and noting similarities between organisms, and then postulating that since one is similar to the other then one MUST have evolved from the other is simply interpretation, and a very shaky one at that. More like wishful thinking since there is NO empirical evidence of this change, just your say-so to support the idea.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Oh, how do you know that?

It is written in the science books.

No. It's shown by physical evidence. The science books and theories are based on empirical evidence.

Ok so what is the empirical evidence for the Big Bang? Who observed it and what did he see?

What is the empirical evidence for life spontaneously generating from non-living chemicals? Who observed this?

What is the empirical evidence for one creature turning itself into another? Has anyone actually seen this occur?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
For your edification, the most common circular argument in which the scientific evolutionist deals runs more or less like this:

I believe this because the big bang is the reason.

Nothing in science says this.

Intrepid wrote:
Oh, how do you know that?

It is written in the science books.

No. It's shown by physical evidence. The science books and theories are based on empirical evidence.

Intrepid wrote:
But what is the authority of the science books?

It is inspired knowledge.

No it's not, it's based on evidence and on deduction. Nothing more.

Intrepid wrote:
How can you be certain of that?

Because scientists have said so.

No, we are agree with the prevailing theories (or not) because we understand them and agree with the evidence.

Had you been following the thread, you would have realized that I was spoofing Setanta with these comments based on his post.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

neologist
Whats Joe six's pleasure?
Young Earth Creationist
Old Earth Creationist
Old Earth Intelligent Design
Evolutionis Interruptus Intelligent Designer

"...Objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny_ and in a willingness to then revise or abandon them when the tests fail (as they usually do)..." The Proof of Lavoisiers Plates" SJ Gould, 2000

I hate being categorized. Don't you?

Galileo was a person who believed the scriptures to be correct and the priesthood to be wrong. The bible does not support the idea of a flat earth or a geocentric solar system. And, the bible allows for billions of years for the formation of the earth. However, these distinctions probably meant nothing to most of the Joe Sixpacks of ages past. All Joe's ancestors needed to know was that God is not responsible for war and crime and sickness and death; that God has provided a remedy and a sound guide for living.

It is a sad consequence of human imperfection that the simple explanation of the fall of man and God's promise of redemption has been hijacked and obfuscated by the powerful: the clergy, the politicians and intelligentsia.

What we learn through science or the unfolding of history ought to bring about a change in our thinking. To cling to error is folly. To expect the bible to have been written with the precision of a thesis on nuclear physics is also folly. Joe Sixpack would be left out and that would be a shame. His barbecue recipe is second to none.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Ok so what is the empirical evidence for the Big Bang? Who observed it and what did he see?

Seriously, if you are genuinely interested in this, and are not just asking it rhetorically in an attempt to prove a point, ask it on the science and mathematics forum, and post a link to the thread. It really has doesn't to do with either the historical evidence for, or the theory of, evolution.

To say there's no point discussing evolution until you know how the universe originated is a bit like saying that there's no point trying to build a bridge using newtonian physics until you understand superstring theory.

real life wrote:

What is the empirical evidence for life spontaneously generating from non-living chemicals? Who observed this?

What do you mean by 'living' in these context? Do you mean 'self-replicating? If so, then me. I observed it, in salt crystals, in GCSE chemistry.

real life wrote:

What is the empirical evidence for one creature turning itself into another? Has anyone actually seen this occur?

Evolution doesn't say that one type of creature (I presume you mean species) suddenly changed into another. It happens gradually.

Allow me a brief analogue. Imagine evolution as a change in colour, rather than in living creature. In the analogue, imagine we both agree that it is possible for one colour to change very slightly, very slowly. Like a very small move on this spectrum:

http://www.hgrebdes.com/colour/spectrum/spectrum.png

We'll call this micro-colour-change.

Now, I say that, given enough time, green can change to red. Call this Macro-colour-change. "Nonsense", you say, "this cannot be observed". You point to a green spot on the spectrum. "Look, green", you say, and we watch it for a long time, and it does change, but rightly you say "well, its a very slightly turquoise-y green, but IT IS STILL GREEN. It hasn't changed into a different COLOUR. And see the red there. Sure, it's changed into a very very slightly pinky red, but it's still RED, it hasn't change COLOUR!".

Do you see the error with this argument? Is my analogue fair, or am I misrepresenting you in some way?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know