Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes/No?

[I800C0LECT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

It's confusing because it's all based upon *symbolism*. Why do people continue to take numbers and phrases completely literally from a work written based upon symbolism??

It's just mind-boggling.

I apologize...but you are taking the idea of symbolism in this reference out of context. It is based on comparative understanding of specific timeframes. This is not a simile or a play on words.

i.e. the issue of kilometers vs. mile

Obviously if an American goes to Europe...he has no clue how far a kilometer might be. However, if he researches it is still understood to be said distance in terms of a mile. That understanding of distance is universal reguardless of what standard you might use. The same goes for agriculture, which in many cultures is the basis for the measurement of time.

No, you're missing the point. It's like an American going to Europe only to find a map given to him has distances expressed as doohingles. Where a doohingle has no conversion value to any other system. Many numbers in the OT are simply fictional, they are purely symbolic (3 days, 40 days, etc.) Those are numbers which are symbolic in terms of times of trial or just meaning a long period of time.

uh...I have no idea what you are referring to. If you look at what I posted the gentleman and his theory is laid out. Argue against the point the gentleman made...disprove his math maybe?

That guy is not talking about every other idea thrown around in the bible. What he referenced he laid out specifically in terms of his theory and the creation of Israel in 1948.

Address the post...not the rest of the bible. You can use the link in the original post to his web site.

I did. That's what you keep missing!

Many of the numbers used to calculate the dates are FICTITIOUS numbers! They are SYMBOLIC numbers not meant to be taken literally.

The "math" used to come up with that May 1948 date was from purely picking and choosing numbers and assigning various formulae to them to arrive at the desired date.

Could you provide the link to that place on his web site then? That email was pretty old and I can't find where you read the article on his site. The email I posted just supplemented his argument.

Point out one of the symbolic words for time you're referring to?

 

[MadRat]

cpnjur probably doesn't accept the FACT that calendars around the world were universally accepted at 360 days. They must all have been wrong since its clearly closer to 365.25 days in year now.

:roll:

Then again its hard to grab what ideas he dearly holds as truth and which all others to him are wrong. He's clearly a progressive-minded well-organized black and white clear thinker type.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Creationism is just as supported as Abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is heavily taught along side the theory of evolution.

You know, upon thinking about this, I'm not entirely sure that abiogenesis IS taught widely, as some claim. Ask the average middle school student what evolution is, and then ask them what abiogenesis is.

From what I can recall from my own primary education, I think most teachers just sort of skim over the whole "how the first life got here" and go right to "the first living things evolved". I think because that issue is so up in the air, most teachers just skip it or don't get into the subject too much. I doubt many kids can describe the process by which life first appeared according to abiogenesis.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

Faith in the intangible doesn't necessarily indicate that a person is weaker (or stronger). But as an approach to determining objective truth, pondering the intangible is obviously wildly unreliable.

We humans are extremely poor at separating our emotions and our self interest from our perceptions. Science (a framework for pondering the tangible) provides a discipline that attempts (not always successfully) to separate human nature from nature. To the extent that "truth" is based on objectively measureable phenomena, and also to the extent that the methods of measurement are subject to disciplined debate (aka "peer review"), we can slowly, painfully see physical reality.

Absent such discipline, grounded in physical measurement, the human mind will fervently believe in what "feels" right, where "right" usually parallels inner needs of one sort or another.

One obvious example (there are an infinity of others) was the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the entire political left advocated a post-election approach that coincided with the interests of Al Gore? Similarly, do you really think that the right's precisely opposite approach, which coincided with the interests of GW Bush, was based on fundamental conservative principles? Do you really believe that one side or the other was lacking in intellectual honesty? That is, do you doubt that the left and right believed to their deepest cores that the approaches they advocted were right and just?

And consider: If the Florida results had been exactly the opposite (Gore holding a slight edge after the initial count), do you seriously doubt that the right would have been the ones demanding recounts, or that the left would have taken on the "equal protection" stance? And do you doubt that, holding these reversed roles, both sides would have fervently believed in these changed positions?

The point is, we humans seem unable to see, think, or feel beyond our self interest. And human history is filled to overflowing with examples of the tragedies we humans create because of our natures. I am not advocating the rejection of faith, but rather advocating recognition of the limits of faith.

I advocate the recognition of our subjective view on what definitive truth might be

POV from a limited capacity will always be subjective, no matter how intelligent, knowledgable, or learned one might be. We're all flaming idiots...some just have a more logical approach. Our faith, whether placed in science, theology, or whatever else you might conjure, will always be circumstancial.

This is the ultimate in skepticism. We as humans must take some grounding in something that is absolutely true. Usually, it is agreed that we take the method of logical analysis to be something that provides an absolutely true result given true premises. In terms of faith and understanding, science and theology are completely different. While the scientific method is inherently unprovable because it is inductive, it provides theories that are readily testable using rules of logic, which are generally agreed upon to be fundamental to our understanding of this world. Theology, on the other hand, does not provide testable theories, and is therefore much more limited in its explanatory ability. Honestly, how can one truly determine which of two theological theories is true?

Theological theories are static in nature, while scientific theories evolve with increased testing.

IMO, truth is absolute, as you say. The way we arrive at that truth is subjective. But just because two differing ideas are both subjective does not mean they should both be rejected to the same degree. Some subjective conclusions are testable and withstand extensive testing. Others are either refuted by testing or unable to be tested at all. As long as we can claim at least one method as an absolute truth - such as logic - we can arrive closer to the absolute truth from our subjective conclusions.

While theology might be right on the spot from the start, it has very little potential to move closer to the absolute truth if it is not absolutely correct from the start.

Science usually is not correct right from the start, but it has great potential to move closer to the absolute truth because it is testable.

And this is why I place my trust in the scientific method rather than in theology to understand the world - because I believe it has greater potential to find the truth.

I think that what is called absolute Truth is really a state of complete awareness, being as aware as the human brain can be aware, being in command of ones own full faculties the nature and state of which most people are completely unaware. It is not a statement of some factual reality, but the ability to be. Truth is not a thing, but a state of BEING. Science may help us study this but it is us who must actually experience being. You can't make yourself be by reading or being told. You enter BEING when you die to what you mistake is your real self, the ego. Science cannot help you die and be reborn. In fact, nothing the ego self does can lead to being. It is an accident of grace but you can git yourself out in the road by suffering, feeling what you really feel.

But this is the exact problem I referred to in my last post: Using a "feeling" to determine "truth" is completely unreliable.

Do you really think that the followers of Al Qaida "feel" anything but certainty in the rightness of their cause and of their methods? Yet you would claim that they are wrong. Why? How is it possible? How is it that the certainty felt by a terrorist doesn't correlate with objective truth, yet your certainty does? Can't you see that this is a symmetric situation? We ALL feel certainty. We ALL disagree. Almost all of us are obviously wrong. Why, then, do you have so much faith in the perception of "being" and truth? Can you not see that just because something makes sense doesn't make it so? Don't you get it?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
Could you provide the link to that place on his web site then? That email was pretty old and I can't find where you read the article on his site. The email I posted just supplemented his argument.

Point out one of the symbolic words for time you're referring to?

Here's a better analysis now that I've had time to go over it:

The math is sound. It was first published in a book called "Armageddon - Appointment with Destiny" in 1988 and has never been refuted in all the years since despite high publicity and awareness among Bible scholars who have examined the math very carefully.

Beginning point is 536BC, when the Jews were released from captivity.

Well, 538BCE according to the sources I've read (Friedman; Finklestein and Silberman; and the NSRV)

God had decreed through Ezekiel that Israel would suffer 430 years of punishment. Removing the 70 years of captivity would bring the remaining 360 years to the year 176BC. At that time the punishment clearly did not end and the Jews were not yet living in a land that was entirely theirs. So we have to take a closer look because *either* God was wrong or there is another answer to the puzzle.

IOW, oops, the math doesn't work so let me manipulate some things to make it work. BTW, what's this "remove the 70 years of captivity"? What captivity is this? And, wouldn't that have been part of the punishment?

Are you referring to the 70 years mentioned in Jeremiah? If so, that started in about 609BCE (with the death of King Josiah) which leaves 71 years (about 70 years, or, a generation - according to Pslams 90.10) until 538BCE. Although, the years of captivity were closer to 50 years (587BCE when the Temple was destroyed - after Zedekiah, a puppet king installed by the Babylonians, attempted to revolt - to 538BCE when Cyrus wrote the Jews should return home.)

And, what do you mean the land wasn't theirs? It was theirs after 538BCE. Although, the Temple/Tabernacle was never rebuilt as the ark was apparently destroyed (or, at the least, it was buried beneath the Temple and its location was unknown until the 12th century CE - as noted by the sudden rise of Gothic architecture based upon the Tablets of Testimony - which had been recovered during the latter part of the Crusades from the tunnels under the ruins of the Temple in Jerusalem)

Or, can we assume the 430 years to be the time the Jews were in Egypt (Exodus 12.40)? That would make sense for Ezekial to use that number since his work (part of DTR2) was written after Exodus 12.40 (which is part of the P texts...the same as Leviticus)

There were many places in Scripture, including Isaiah's prophecies more than 100 years prior to the captivity itself, that prophetic proclamations called for the Jews to celebrate their release from Babylonian captivity and to go back to Jerusalem at that time with joyful worship. It was clearly God's plan that they all return to the land that had been promised and won with such great faith and effort.

This appears to be a mistake in taking the Bible as having been written as events occurred. We know now that it was written and edited after-the-fact with gaps filled with symoblism and "prophecy" to account for the unknown.

Unfortunately, only a small handful returned. Scholars aren't sure exactly how many Jews were living in the Babylonian/Persian empire at the time, but estimates range from 500,000 to 700,000 and only 44,000 returned. This is well below 10 percent! It is clear that the vast majority were enjoying the wealth and comfortable life they had made in this tolerant yet pagan empire. There was little anti-Semitism. Jews held positions of honor and had built vast business empires. Although many of the Jews were devout and held to their beliefs faithfully, they had no temple and could not fulfill all the requirements of the Law, so clearly their lack of desire to return would be seen by God as a sinful attitude. This is especially true given His direct commands to return home when allowed to do so.

Not sure where that 500,000 - 700,000 came from but based upon archaelogical findings, it's been found that, at most, about 75,000 total population for Judah in the late 7th century BCE. And, using the most liberal numbers, about 20,000 fled Judah for other parts.

In Leviticus 26:18, 21, 23-24, 27-28 God declares that after Israel suffers the 70 years of punishment for not keeping the Sabbath of the land, if they continue to disobey "then I will punish you seven times more for your sins."

That's called SYMBOLISM! And, compare the related section in Deuteronomy. You will find no such statement of a set timeframe. What you are doing is mixing two different authors. The author of Leviticus wrote his work before the fall of the kingdom of Judah while Jeremiah (part of DTR2) was written after the end of the exile (hence the knowledge of the 70 years of captivity, or more accurately, the 70 years between the death of Josiah and the return from exile)

This meant that the Jews would remain without a nation they could call their own for another 2,520 biblical years from 536BC (360 x 7 = 2,520). Note that the Bible only deals in 360-day years.

Or, is it 12 months of 29 days each (since it was based upon the lunar cycle)? There were also intercalary months added when deemed necessary. In any event, the number of 360 here represents absolutely nothing other than a convenient value to arrive at the necessary date in CE.

 

[piasabird]

If you accept evolution at science and you can believe that species b evolved from species A, then you have to eventually go back to the beginning. Where did the first species come from?

Is it really theoretically possible to beleive that the first species invented its own DNA?

 

[wchou]

Since life is not kind, I'd have to say Evolution
A lion, tiger needs prey to survive due to our ecological system of survival of the fittest
and that's true with us today preying on less intelligent animals like chicken, cows, pigs, turkeys, horse and even monkeys

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If you accept evolution at science and you can believe that species b evolved from species A, then you have to eventually go back to the beginning. Where did the first species come from?

Is it really theoretically possible to beleive that the first species invented its own DNA?

Evolution theory says nothing about a first species inventing its own DNA...

It just talks about a process by which organisms become differentiated and evolve.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

Faith in the intangible doesn't necessarily indicate that a person is weaker (or stronger). But as an approach to determining objective truth, pondering the intangible is obviously wildly unreliable.

We humans are extremely poor at separating our emotions and our self interest from our perceptions. Science (a framework for pondering the tangible) provides a discipline that attempts (not always successfully) to separate human nature from nature. To the extent that "truth" is based on objectively measureable phenomena, and also to the extent that the methods of measurement are subject to disciplined debate (aka "peer review"), we can slowly, painfully see physical reality.

Absent such discipline, grounded in physical measurement, the human mind will fervently believe in what "feels" right, where "right" usually parallels inner needs of one sort or another.

One obvious example (there are an infinity of others) was the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the entire political left advocated a post-election approach that coincided with the interests of Al Gore? Similarly, do you really think that the right's precisely opposite approach, which coincided with the interests of GW Bush, was based on fundamental conservative principles? Do you really believe that one side or the other was lacking in intellectual honesty? That is, do you doubt that the left and right believed to their deepest cores that the approaches they advocted were right and just?

And consider: If the Florida results had been exactly the opposite (Gore holding a slight edge after the initial count), do you seriously doubt that the right would have been the ones demanding recounts, or that the left would have taken on the "equal protection" stance? And do you doubt that, holding these reversed roles, both sides would have fervently believed in these changed positions?

The point is, we humans seem unable to see, think, or feel beyond our self interest. And human history is filled to overflowing with examples of the tragedies we humans create because of our natures. I am not advocating the rejection of faith, but rather advocating recognition of the limits of faith.

I advocate the recognition of our subjective view on what definitive truth might be

POV from a limited capacity will always be subjective, no matter how intelligent, knowledgable, or learned one might be. We're all flaming idiots...some just have a more logical approach. Our faith, whether placed in science, theology, or whatever else you might conjure, will always be circumstancial.

This is the ultimate in skepticism. We as humans must take some grounding in something that is absolutely true. Usually, it is agreed that we take the method of logical analysis to be something that provides an absolutely true result given true premises. In terms of faith and understanding, science and theology are completely different. While the scientific method is inherently unprovable because it is inductive, it provides theories that are readily testable using rules of logic, which are generally agreed upon to be fundamental to our understanding of this world. Theology, on the other hand, does not provide testable theories, and is therefore much more limited in its explanatory ability. Honestly, how can one truly determine which of two theological theories is true?

Theological theories are static in nature, while scientific theories evolve with increased testing.

IMO, truth is absolute, as you say. The way we arrive at that truth is subjective. But just because two differing ideas are both subjective does not mean they should both be rejected to the same degree. Some subjective conclusions are testable and withstand extensive testing. Others are either refuted by testing or unable to be tested at all. As long as we can claim at least one method as an absolute truth - such as logic - we can arrive closer to the absolute truth from our subjective conclusions.

While theology might be right on the spot from the start, it has very little potential to move closer to the absolute truth if it is not absolutely correct from the start.

Science usually is not correct right from the start, but it has great potential to move closer to the absolute truth because it is testable.

And this is why I place my trust in the scientific method rather than in theology to understand the world - because I believe it has greater potential to find the truth.

I think that what is called absolute Truth is really a state of complete awareness, being as aware as the human brain can be aware, being in command of ones own full faculties the nature and state of which most people are completely unaware. It is not a statement of some factual reality, but the ability to be. Truth is not a thing, but a state of BEING. Science may help us study this but it is us who must actually experience being. You can't make yourself be by reading or being told. You enter BEING when you die to what you mistake is your real self, the ego. Science cannot help you die and be reborn. In fact, nothing the ego self does can lead to being. It is an accident of grace but you can git yourself out in the road by suffering, feeling what you really feel.

But this is the exact problem I referred to in my last post: Using a "feeling" to determine "truth" is completely unreliable.

Do you really think that the followers of Al Qaida "feel" anything but certainty in the rightness of their cause and of their methods? Yet you would claim that they are wrong. Why? How is it possible? How is it that the certainty felt by a terrorist doesn't correlate with objective truth, yet your certainty does? Can't you see that this is a symmetric situation? We ALL feel certainty. We ALL disagree. Almost all of us are obviously wrong. Why, then, do you have so much faith in the perception of "being" and truth? Can you not see that just because something makes sense doesn't make it so? Don't you get it?

You are applying thought to the analysis of feeling according to your understanding of feeling. In other words you can only know what YOU know. What you cannot know is the experience of other people and what they know about feeling. Just as the mad can become sane through psychotherapy, the unredeemed mad can know nothing of health. The wine is known in the drinking, or "he who tastes knows" The thing you lack, therefore, is experience. You cannot know what the Zen Master knows, for example, unless you have awakened. You assume that your state of consciousness is universal. You may want rational proof that you are dreaming, but the awake know who is awake.
The science of consciousness is also an art. It is the touchstone knows real gold and the jeweler who knows the gem from colored glass.

 

[imported_Sasha]

Originally posted by: mattsaccount
If you've gotten this far, congratulations! This is exactly what evolution is all about. You've just proven why evolution is certainly true!

As long as those with opposing views to not attempt to sufficate you in government then I see no importance in whether one side is right and the other is wrong.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

You are applying thought to the analysis of feeling according to your understanding of feeling. In other words you can only know what YOU know. What you cannot know is the experience of other people and what they know about feeling. Just as the mad can become sane through psychotherapy, the unredeemed mad can know nothing of health. The wine is known in the drinking, or "he who tastes knows" The thing you lack, therefore, is experience. You cannot know what the Zen Master knows, for example, unless you have awakened. You assume that your state of consciousness is universal. You may want rational proof that you are dreaming, but the awake know who is awake.
The science of consciousness is also an art. It is the touchstone knows real gold and the jeweler who knows the gem from colored glass.

Your are deluding yourself, and it's clear you've missed my point: The history of the world is filled with abundant evidence of those who acted in the name of truth and righteousness, yet who ended up perpetrating acts of extreme evil. Based on that, and on the irrefutable fact that people who "know" disagree diametrically with other people who "know" ALL THE TIME, it's completely obvious that anything anyone THINKS they know based on faith/pondering the intangible might well be nonsense. The only way wars can be fought is for two populations to have a view of reality so at odds and justified with such a degree of certainty that each side is willing to sacrifice the lives of many thousands or millions of its citizens to enforce its version of "the truth".

And here you are telling us that it is possible to know, and you spin vaporous phrases that sound like something out of Kung Fu.

The only thing I assume about myself and my fellow humans is that I/we are all hopelessly incapable of "figuring things out" based on pondering the intangible. Considering the overwhelming weight of evidence in support of that assumption, why do YOU think you are any different?

 

[I800C0LECT]

This is funny...it's blown up into one big philosophy trip.

The point everybody is fussing is that......truth is definitive. As humans we will never be able to see truth in its entirety...we're too stupid and incapable. It is BEYOND our capacity.

The whole point of this thread is where do you place your faith? Since we all know we will never figure out exactly why and how everything works....do you believe in evolution, or something else?

I find my faith in Christianity, I don't care what study proves what....science is ultimately an educated guess. Science will never be certain. Of course it will come closer to the standards of "truth" that we set much more than the Bible, but that is through choice. Choice of faith...

 

[gflores]

Just a quickie question. So, evolution does not attempt to show how life came to this earth, correct? Then what theory tries to show this? AFAIK, the Big Bang Theory is only to show the creation of the universe, not life. Could someone point me in the right direction (wikipedia link or whatever).

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: gflores
Just a quickie question. So, evolution does not attempt to show how life came to this earth, correct?

"Evolution" is not a theory, but merely a statement that "life on Earth changed over time". The theory is "Natural Selection". And yes, Natural Selection does NOT seek to explain how life on Earth originated.

Then what theory tries to show this? AFAIK, the Big Bang Theory is only to show the creation of the universe, not life.

Right. The BB seeks to explain how the universe we see today originated.

Could someone point me in the right direction (wikipedia link or whatever).

I don't know if the theory has a formal name, but you might google on "primoridal soup" and "origins of life". There's a theory that tries to explain how life might have originated from basic compounds circulating in ancient oceans and stimulated by vast lightning storms.

You might also want to google on "exobiology" and "origins of life". There's a significant group of scientists who believe that the earliest lifeforms might have gotten here on asteroids or meteorites, and Natural Selection did the rest.

 

[wchou]

I think evolution is modern science, while the bible is ancient science that is mostly emotional and not to the point.
Those who are willing to learn and are gifted will soon learn the truth, that life is not here to stay forever. We will oneday perish as if meant to be and I have no problem with that as life has been pretty crazy for us since the beginning of time.
when everything ends, we will all be at peace..
Is life wonderful? Sometime yes, sometime no and there you have it

To understand Evolution one needs an IQ greater then 160, Einstein must be like 200

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: gflores
Just a quickie question. So, evolution does not attempt to show how life came to this earth, correct? Then what theory tries to show this? AFAIK, the Big Bang Theory is only to show the creation of the universe, not life. Could someone point me in the right direction (wikipedia link or whatever).

abiogenesis

Also, look up exobiology.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

You are applying thought to the analysis of feeling according to your understanding of feeling. In other words you can only know what YOU know. What you cannot know is the experience of other people and what they know about feeling. Just as the mad can become sane through psychotherapy, the unredeemed mad can know nothing of health. The wine is known in the drinking, or "he who tastes knows" The thing you lack, therefore, is experience. You cannot know what the Zen Master knows, for example, unless you have awakened. You assume that your state of consciousness is universal. You may want rational proof that you are dreaming, but the awake know who is awake.
The science of consciousness is also an art. It is the touchstone knows real gold and the jeweler who knows the gem from colored glass.

Your are deluding yourself, and it's clear you've missed my point: The history of the world is filled with abundant evidence of those who acted in the name of truth and righteousness, yet who ended up perpetrating acts of extreme evil. Based on that, and on the irrefutable fact that people who "know" disagree diametrically with other people who "know" ALL THE TIME, it's completely obvious that anything anyone THINKS they know based on faith/pondering the intangible might well be nonsense. The only way wars can be fought is for two populations to have a view of reality so at odds and justified with such a degree of certainty that each side is willing to sacrifice the lives of many thousands or millions of its citizens to enforce its version of "the truth".

And here you are telling us that it is possible to know, and you spin vaporous phrases that sound like something out of Kung Fu.

The only thing I assume about myself and my fellow humans is that I/we are all hopelessly incapable of "figuring things out" based on pondering the intangible. Considering the overwhelming weight of evidence in support of that assumption, why do YOU think you are any different?

Like I said, you judge by what you know and the 'only assumption' you make is false. And you are competitive. You want to be right. Isn't that interesting? Where do you think that might come from? Man can become conscious but you don't want to hear. It makes no difference to me. I told you so you might see but I have no need for you to do so. Try explaining an orgasm to somebody who has not had one.

 

[Trevelyan]

Welll, in case anyone is interested still at this point.

I don't accept evolution, but I accept all 15 of those points. I don't have a problem with new species being created, because species is just an arbritrary separation in nature that we assigned. What you've done is gotten me to accept that some different species can be formed, but not that ALL different species can be formed.

It doesn't take a genius to see that there is a difference between a finch turning into a finch with a larger beak, and a fish turning into a gorilla. Regardless of how our arbitrary separtions in nature are being crossed by things we observe with science, there still are present obvious limitations to how far variations in allele frequency can invoke change.

We see bacteria adapting, finch beaks changing, moth color changing, but we don't see anything else happening on a more extreme scale and nothing tells us that it is possible, and yet we preach it likes its fact. And I say its because of philosophic reasons, not scientific ones. Most people don't get too worked up about the mass of an electron, most people don't care if a new star is discovered, or if a new species of fish is found. But mention evolution and touch on public education and everyone gets all heated up. It's not because of science, it's because of the philosophical implications, for atheists and monotheists alike.

 

[mhillary]

Age of myology-III

 

[wchou]

I believed that life as we know is only possible because we are self existing
meaning we never die because matters cannot be destroyed but cannot only take another form
nothing can be created out of nothing, therefore proving that god is nonexistent
science can do miracle, faith cannot:sun:

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: wchou
I think evolution is modern science, while the bible is ancient science that is mostly emotional and not to the point.
Those who are willing to learn and are gifted will soon learn the truth, that life is not here to stay forever. We will oneday perish as if meant to be and I have no problem with that as life has been pretty crazy for us since the beginning of time.
when everything ends, we will all be at peace..
Is life wonderful? Sometime yes, sometime no and there you have it

To understand Evolution one needs an IQ greater then 160, Einstein must be like 200

meant to be? how can self inflicted extinction at a rate exponentially greater than that of any dominant species prior (which was altuistically in our favor... what with fossil fuels and all) be meant to be? chalk us up as the first evolutionary miracle that didn't put it's gift to good use. "I think, therefore I am"..... what stides has that afforded us?

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

It doesn't take a genius to see that there is a difference between a finch turning into a finch with a larger beak, and a fish turning into a gorilla.

Yeah. The difference is about 3 BILLION years.

 

[Shlong]

Bible isn't a science textbook trying to tell you in scientific detail how all things were created. That's the fault with both sides, both want to compete against each other when one's apples & the other is orange's. To me, it's not Evolution is wrong nor Creation is Wrong, it's they're both right in their own context.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shlong
Bible isn't a science textbook trying to tell you in scientific detail how all things were created. That's the fault with both sides, both want to compete against each other when one's apples & the other is orange's. To me, it's not Evolution is wrong nor Creation is Wrong, it's they're both right in their own context.

Wow this thread just keeps going and going just like the mutation and adapation of many species everyday including humans but is that God's work or Science???

Each side digs in and swears their side is the only side.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Welll, in case anyone is interested still at this point.

I don't accept evolution, but I accept all 15 of those points. I don't have a problem with new species being created, because species is just an arbritrary separation in nature that we assigned. What you've done is gotten me to accept that some different species can be formed, but not that ALL different species can be formed.

It doesn't take a genius to see that there is a difference between a finch turning into a finch with a larger beak, and a fish turning into a gorilla. Regardless of how our arbitrary separtions in nature are being crossed by things we observe with science, there still are present obvious limitations to how far variations in allele frequency can invoke change.

We see bacteria adapting, finch beaks changing, moth color changing, but we don't see anything else happening on a more extreme scale and nothing tells us that it is possible, and yet we preach it likes its fact. And I say its because of philosophic reasons, not scientific ones. Most people don't get too worked up about the mass of an electron, most people don't care if a new star is discovered, or if a new species of fish is found. But mention evolution and touch on public education and everyone gets all heated up. It's not because of science, it's because of the philosophical implications, for atheists and monotheists alike.

I agree with your main point, but not your conclusion.

I also don't accept evolution by fiat--and I answered each point as such, somewhere at the beginning of this thread. No scientist does--that is the take home message. It is only by the weight of evidence, that scientists can make statements of hypothesized mechanisms.

Fiat, by-the-way, is the religious alternative to explain biodiversity. That is--that God created each and every organism--as is. End of story.

But here is the critical evidence you are missing:

We obviously do see "extreme" changes as you characterize them: such as birds and mammals, both of which are incredibly coherent in their morphology, physiology and genetics.

That is to say, Finches and Gorillas are VERY, VERY similar in every biological characteristic imaginable. The difference between them is tantamount to pure trivia. Spinal chord, heart, lungs, circulatory system, etc... The works.

In the great scheme of biological organization, say within multicelled animals = Eumetazoa, there are 30+ Phyla. The difference between Phyla--now that is extreme jumps in biological organization.

Out of these 30+ Eumetazoa phyla, 99.99% of these are invertebrates. The differnce between a mollusc and a worm--now your talking BIG.

Vertebrates (that by the way evolved from invertebrates, see amphioxus for a beautiful intermediate extent taxa) are only a small part of one rather measly Sub-Phyla.

Birds and mammals are way further down in biological organization so coherent they are both members of the same Class Reptilia. Older texbooks call mammals and Birds classes, but they are really sub-classes within the Class reptilia.

All reptiles including Finches and Gorillas are just minor modifications on a reptilian theme. Nothing extreme here.

Philosophical implications aside, scientists have to limit themselves to real data, real evidence, in the real world.

Metaphysical questions that aren't governed by or require real evidence are not the domain of science.