Creationism/Intelligent Design/Evolution

[blacbird]

Relatedly, Richard Dawkins was on "The Colbert Report" last night. Did you see it? Pretty good interview.

I didn't, and I suspect Colbert was, as usual, more entertaining than his guest. But, in fairness to this discussion, Dawkins is an avowed atheist, and brings that philosophical position to the table. Given that, it's worth paying attention to the specifics of what he says, and not getting sidetracked by his personal view. If he says something unfair or unbalanced on the issue, by all means call him on it. Which is exactly the thing I tend to do to Creationists.

caw.

[Opty]

I meant to add that a valid scientific theory needs to make predictions that can be experimentally tested. I have no problems with explanations of observations that might involve a Designer(s), but if you want it to be science you must design experiments that test your theory.

As I mentioned earlier, both Kuhn and Feyerabend would disagree with you.

Unless you construct some sort of Dexter's Laboratory type of machine which mutates genes/changes alleles and then speeds up time in order to observe and record the changes, then I'm unsure of any lab experiment which could conclusively "test" evolution.

[Opty]

There isn't a Christian evolutionary theory and a Hindu evolutionary theory and a Scientologist evolutionary theory...

Yes, there is, silly!

It's called "Intelligent Design."

Where have you been this whole thread?!

;)

[blacbird]

Now, let's look at the THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS. These folks would be considered IDers. Okay?

Actually, no, Brian, it's not okay, and no real Theistic Evolutionist I'm aware of would accept this statement. There's a HUGE difference between the ideas of Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, as the latter is expressed by its proponents. Theistic Evolutionists (I actually rather hate that term, but . . .) accept the view that there was a Creator who initiated things, and who did so in such a way that the Universe has now worked out the way it has, and continues to evolve toward a future we can only partly predict. IDers, in contrast, insist on having continuous supernatural intervention molding that Universe in an active, participatory way. Which Theistic Evolutionists find theologically disturbing. After all, if God is perfect, omnipotent and omniscient, why would He continually need to be tweaking his Creation? He make a mistake or two along the way, did He? Dinosaurs . . . no, no . . . that one didn't work . . . ammonites . . . naaah, ugly, inefficient . . . let's try . . . woolly mammoths.

So if you're going to participate in a sensible discussion of the Creationist vs. Evolutionist controversy, it helps if you can keep your terms and your factual information straight.

caw.

[Peggy]

In order to bolster your assertions, could you please provide specific examples of claims IDers have made which support your characterization of their views? What "examples they pointed to could have a component taken away and still function?" What, specifically, are the different examples "they then turned to?"

I agree with much of what you're saying but, for the sake of clarity of your position, it would help if you'd use specific examples of some of the crap...er...um...I mean...claims that IDers make and then the scientific refutation of those claims rather than just ambiguously saying, "they said some stuff, then changed what they said to other stuff." Sorry, I didn't want to get too gory and I was speaking in generalities.

ID proponent Micheal Behe has defined an irreducibly complex system as ""[A] single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease function." (page 39 of his textbook "Darwin's Black Box"). He continues "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." He provides several examples of systems he considers to be "irreducibly complex". One of his examples is the complement cascade (part of the immune system). The problem with this example is that there are animals that lack components of the system and it still functions.

Behe has also claimed that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, because, he says, removal of a single protein would render the flagella non-functional. Similar claims are made by ID proponents William Dembski and the Discovery Institute. Again, recent discoveries have shown that there are indeed "precursor" type flagella that are missing one or more components and are still functional. You can read the gory details in the links at the end.

I was fantasizing a bit in saying that IDers gave these systems up. They still argue that any proposed evolutionary pathway for those systems are not sufficient. What has changed, at least in some cases is the argument that a hallmark of an irreducibly complex system is that it cannot function with one of the components removed. Now the argument seems to be that the simpler, potential predecessor system must not only function, but function the same way as the more complex system.

Of course you can argue that Behe, Dembski and the Discovery Institute are not the only proponents of ID. They are, however, the ones who are actively trying to put ID in school science curricula.

Links (science perspective):
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html (testimony of Behe)
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/index.html (exhibit used to refute Behe)

Links (ID perspective).
http://www.nwcreation.net/intelligentdesign.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf
(critique of article: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/irredicible-complexity-revisited/ (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/%7Etoms/paper/ev/dembski/irredicible-complexity-revisited/))

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20Responses&id=1364
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=597

[Peggy]

There's a HUGE difference between the ideas of Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, as the latter is expressed by its proponents. I think the tricky thing is separating out what people in general consider to be "intelligent design" and what the political organizations (such as the Discovery Institute) consider to be "intelligent design". I think for people who don't follow the arguments, theistic evolution and ID sound like pretty much the same thing. But you are right, ID as currently being touted does require a continuing involvement of the "intelligent designer".

[Spirit_Fire]

Why do people keep saying that we can't conclusively test evolution?

If a person is murdered, and the killer goes to trial, and they find his fingerprints on a knife that matches the stab wounds, with blood that matches the victim's, and his DNA matched hair on the victim, and blood in his car, etc... The jury will conclusively agree that he killed the guy. Do we need to build a time machine to go back in time and see him do it?

We don't need a time machine to go back in time to witness evolution, or some "sort of Dexter's Laboratory type of machine which mutates genes/changes alleles and then speeds up time in order to observe and record the changes", to conclusively prove that evolution is fact.

The evidence of evolution is all around us. The evidence of any kind of Intelligent Design is nonexistant.

[Opty]

Why do people keep saying that we can't conclusively test evolution?

If a person is murdered, and the killer goes to trial, and they find his fingerprints on a knife that matches the stab wounds, with blood that matches the victim's, and his DNA matched hair on the victim, and blood in his car, etc... The jury will conclusively agree that he killed the guy. Do we need to build a time machine to go back in time and see him do it?

We don't need a time machine to go back in time to witness evolution, or some "sort of Dexter's Laboratory type of machine which mutates genes/changes alleles and then speeds up time in order to observe and record the changes", to conclusively prove that evolution is fact.

The evidence of evolution is all around us. The evidence of any kind of Intelligent Design is nonexistant.

Coming to the conclusion of evolution based on circumstantial evidence (like your murder example. That is all circumstantial evidence) has nothing to do with directly testing the theory.

"Proving" it through the interpretation of observable data and "testing" it in a lab are two completely different processes.

You're utterly confusing two different concepts.

[Spirit_Fire]

But do we really need to test evolution in a lab to prove it?

Can we test Creation or ID in a lab any better?

If I have thousands of bits of evidence supporting evolution, and exactly zero supporting creationism, or ID, then I think it's safe to go with evolution.

Like I've been saying (and most other people here too), the arguments against evolution are rediculous. As are the arguments for Creationism and ID. I believe in the possibility of God, but there is no evidence to support God's existence at all.

[Opty]

But do we really need to test evolution in a lab to prove it?

Perhaps not, but that wasn't the question I was addressing in my post when I referenced "Dexter's Laboratory" and doesn't explain your confusion between building a case with circumstantial evidence and building one with direct testing.

Can we test Creation or ID in a lab any better?

Nope.

[Spirit_Fire]

Perhaps not, but that wasn't the question I was addressing in my post when I referenced "Dexter's Laboratory" and doesn't explain your confusion between building a case with circumstantial evidence and building one with direct testing.

Ok, I admit I don't really know what 'circumstantial evidence' means. I don't know much about the legal system (and I don't like any of those courtroom TV shows).

But what I'm saying is that the evidence supports evolution. Do you disagree? Can anyone seriously show any flaws in the theory, and back them up with real science?

(I mean, they try to do it on that website, 'All About Creation', but everyone here knows that it's a joke, right? It's not science at all.)

[Opty]

But what I'm saying is that the evidence supports evolution. Do you disagree?

No, but that doesn't address what I was saying in my post about "direct testing," which is what you were trying to refute in your rebuttle.

Can anyone seriously show any flaws in the theory, and back them up with real science?

Well, there is disagreement among scientists as to the exact nature/progression of evolution (phyletic gradualism versus punctuated equilibria, for example). I don't know if I'd consider these disagreements as "flaws" as much as I'd consider them "kinks."

[Spirit_Fire]

Oh I think I see where you’re coming from now. Actually, I wasn’t refuting anything. I was agreeing with posts such as these:

For God's sake, Brian, how many times do we have to tell you that's not what naturalists do (conclude there is no God or Creator)? All "naturalists", and I'll count myself as one here, do is to say there is no scientifically valid way of proving or demonstrating evidence for one. By definition. Science studies the natural universe, and theologians, of any stripe, are in the business of invoking the supernatural. The two are mutually exclusive.

Unless you construct some sort of Dexter's Laboratory type of machine which mutates genes/changes alleles and then speeds up time in order to observe and record the changes, then I'm unsure of any lab experiment which could conclusively "test" evolution.

… in response to earlier threads that make such statements as:

But, can you see that evolutionary science has jumped beyond OBSERVABLE evidence and has entered the world of SPECULATION.

In other words, people saying that
1) We can’t prove that evolution is true, and
2) We can’t prove that Creation is not true;
So therefore they must be both equally valid ‘scientific’ theories.

I probably shouldn’t have said ‘conclusively test evolution’. I meant to prove it beyond reasonable doubt (or any doubt at all!).

[wordmonkey]

Is this really a serious question, wordmonkey? If so, it shows you haven't read Genesis very well at all.

Genesis 5 states that Adam and Eve had "sons and daughters." The writer of Genesis focuses on the sons, primarily because of Cain's murdering Abel. But they had sons and daughters.

Actually it is a serious question. And I'm fighting back the urge to make some glib comment that I spent all those years dating when I coulda been getting it on with my sister.

EeeeeeeW!

However, my point was the literal cherry picking. The whole six day creation deal is literal and exact. But we gloss over the incestuous aspect.
And I went and checked "Genesis 5" as referenced and found:

5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

So at the ripe old age of 129 Adam was up for some horizontal mambo with Eve?

5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Finally, sometime in the next 800 years, Adam begat some daughters. These nameless ones are the first (and nearly the last) girls to be born in the Bible.

And over the next 800 years he and Eve carried on popping out kids like wet gremlins?

OK, I am being flippant again, but the underlying point is valid. Six days to make the universe and then 930 years of dropping kids? My wife was staggering around when she was pregnant with our second kid at the age of 39, Eve must have been a wreck. But we are again ignoring the fact that if this is true, Adam was likely begatting with his own begatage and if not, then certainly said begatage were all at it with each other. Whether you buy evolution or not, the European Royal families interbreeding kinda shows what happens after only a couple of hundred years. 930 years of this would likely have resulted in humans that were severely retarded helophiliacs.

I can buy that six days might be different to a God than to me. I can buy that Adam and Eve were the figurative "firsts" in the religion. But if I am to believe that the Christian idea of creation is valid and literal, then logically I have to also give equal weight to the idea that Odin stole a cow turd and formed the World from it, or Crow rescued the sun and hid it in his beak.

For the record, I think religion should be taught in schools. But all the major religions, not just the favorite of culture or administration. Whether you believe or not, I can't help thinking the world would be a better place is we all understood what everyone else believed. We could certainly talk to each other with a greater respect and appreciation than we currently have.

Like others have said, if the Bible is suposed to be our primer and initial set of instructions, I would have hoped the IDer in question would have done a better job than hiring the guy who writes the instructions for building an IKEA bookcase - 'cos with something so important we shoud never be left with a half dozen washers, three screws, two bolts and a wooden dowl.

Wow. That was longer than I intended.

[Spirit_Fire]

Surely there must be some logical explanation for this. Like maybe, because god is all powerful, he must have the power to make Adam and Eve live for a thousand years without ageing or suffering from after-effects of childbirth, and I'm sure he could make them capable of giving birth to people who are not related to each other. Right?

[Joe Unidos]

Yeah, fvck the ID stuff, I wanna hear someone try to rationally explain the "giants" and the people living to be a thousand years old and all the rest of the craziness in the OT.

[Spirit_Fire]

Giants? Somebody had to fight the dinosaurs, right? I mean, it's only a matter of time before they dig up some giant fossils.

Ok, seriously though. I think it's time to stop making fun of the bible. Literal Creationism is dead and buried already. Maybe we should try to swat this annoying fly called ID, that keeps trying to sneak in through the flyscreens of rationalism. :box:

[SC Harrison]

Ok, seriously though. I think it's time to stop making fun of the bible. Literal Creationism is dead and buried already. Maybe we should try to swat this annoying fly called ID, that keeps trying to sneak in through the flyscreens of rationalism. :box:

Which is why I brought up the issue of failed species. I want someone to explain to me why a Designer would introduce a species, only to have it go extinct, sometimes with Mankind never knowing it existed in the first place. Unless the Designer was imperfect, and only got it right x percent of the time, which doesn't fit with the "All Knowing" God of the OT/NT.

[wordmonkey]

Which is why I brought up the issue of failed species. I want someone to explain to me why a Designer would introduce a species, only to have it go extinct, sometimes with Mankind never knowing it existed in the first place. Unless the Designer was imperfect, and only got it right x percent of the time, which doesn't fit with the "All Knowing" God of the OT/NT.

And here is a big issue for me. The answer to this usual revolves around a shrug and words like "ineffable" and "mysterious ways." Don't ask questions and believe because I do and I tell you to as well.

I think the Bible has some great stories and lessons we can all learn from, but then so has Lord of the Rings. Though maybe The Silmarrilion is a better example,as it has a Creation scene too. And has a lot less contradictions.

[james1611]

I'm not accusing God of arrogance, James. I'm accusing you. For purporting to know exactly what is factually meant by the word "day" in Genesis I, as a for instance. For pretending that there is no "interpretation" going on in your view of the Bible, for pretending that you have intimate knowledge of what is meant in those scriptures, and that anyone who disagrees with you is "WRONG". And now, for warning of "consequences".

If that isn't arrogant, I have trouble defining the word, I guess.

caw.

Why believe that a 24 hour day is meant--there is no reason not to accept it as literal. No where is a time delay or difference made in scripture. There is also no reason to believe that a sovereign, omnipotent God had to elongate his creation into thousands or millions of years. That doesn't seem arrogant to me to just take the scripture at face value.

Arrogance for warning of consequences...hmm...that statement makes no sense. A warning is meant to keep someone from potential danger...how could that possibly be called arrogance? If I had knowledge of a bomb planted in your home and warned you of the danger--would that also be arrogance?? I think your definition needs reworking.

James

[james1611]

Not true. A scientific theory is not the same as me coming home and having a theory that my wife didn't take the dog out before she left for work, based on a large poop in the hall.

And evolution can be proven. We have records enough to show, for example, the there are moths which live in urban environments that have changed their wing color and pattern to a blend in with the greys and blacks of a poluted urban industrial habitat.

But if we are this way by some grand design, why do pretty much all mammals have the same basic skeletal structure? Or a little more surreal, why did the IDer design men with nipples? Or why do we have an appendix which is designed to digest tough grasses and vegetation that our "imaginary" ancestors ate and we no longer do?

My biggest issue with an ID philosophy is that the designer clearly wasn't THAT intelligent and was vastly over reaching his/her abilities. Maybe s/he should have let the Japanese industrialists have a look, they always improve on the initial concepts and likely as not, since they usually manage to make things smaller and more portable, we'd also be smaller and thus have more room and be less of a strain on the planet's eco system.

Mr. Monkey,

An adaptation of wing color is not even close to changing a monkey into a man...or any primordial ooze into a completely different creature. Adaptation is not Evolution, strictly speaking.
And may I ask this question: How does a dumb animal or even less creature go about the complex process of evolving itself? How does it accomplish this mighty undertaking. How does it Evolve by mutating itself or causing a mutation in any successive generation? Talk about teamwork!

What or who is the "brains" behind all of these complex genetic mutations and such? Certainly, if these evolutionary processes are occuring to better the species then some "willful working of thought" must be occuring!? Who is doing it, how are they doing it. Chance, mere chance...I think not. In fact I don't even believe strictly speaking that any species is becoming a completely different organism at all and this has not been observed, EVER. Adaptation is not Evolution--I can adapt to more sunlight or less myself--it's called Melanin--and it will react to different sunlight to make me nice and brown if I need more protection and will decrease with my environment as well. If my work load against my skin becomes too much in my environment then I'll develop calluses to help protect me from the changes in my environment. Adaptations are not Evolution--otherwise, show me that you can cause your progeny of any successive generation to change into a completely different creature, including of course that your chromosomal count also must change--you see apes and humans don't even have the same chromosomal count.

And for those who claim we have no evidence of biblical truth by observable, provable means, then I would direct those people to hundreds of accurately, literally fulfilled prophecies from the bible...these have indeed been observed and recorded not only within the bible but also by secular means as well.
For example: The destruction of the city of Tyre (Ezek)--this happened exactly as God said it would--scraped like a rock and overthrown, under the campaigns of Nebuchednezzar and Alexander--both pagans who had no idea they were exactly fulfilling one of God's prophecies.

I could also point to hundreds of fulfilled prophecies concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at his first coming. One that has been observed most recently though is the regathering of the nation of Israel after some 1900 years of being scattered among the nations--a prophecy in itself--but now after 1900 years this nation has been regathered to their homeland and established, and it doesn't look like they will be moved again--just as God said he would do, and why else would many jewish people be uprooting their families from places where they have been successful and safe to move back to a warzone--and with no other reasoning except they felt drawn back to their homeland--even those who were not born there??

The Bible is quite observable friends--it even foretells the apostasy of our day--which we are currently observing, even in this discussion.

Do I believe this will sway you to my way of thinking? Probably not...but that doesn't matter so much as the fact that as christians we have told it. My conscience is therefore clear before my God.

Have fun with this unending argument--I would not expect it to resolve anything, but it sure does take up a lot of WRITING time.

Peace,
James

[veinglory]

(The moth example is no longer a great one to use as it is believed by many to have been contrived, if not fraudant--posed dead moths proving a point that might not have been, on average, true)

[Bravo]

Which is why I brought up the issue of failed species. I want someone to explain to me why a Designer would introduce a species, only to have it go extinct, sometimes with Mankind never knowing it existed in the first place. Unless the Designer was imperfect, and only got it right x percent of the time, which doesn't fit with the "All Knowing" God of the OT/NT.

actually your reasoning is very flawed here.

1st: youre assuming that dinosaurs or other species are extinct b/c they were imperfect

2nd: youre propping up a claim that God's creations should be perfect beings b/c they were created by God.

for #1, that statement reveals a poor understanding of ecosystem dynamics.

for one thing, in the case of dinosaurs, they lived and flourished for millions of years, quite happily and successfully.

and when they got wiped out, they opened up the possibility for new species to develop and flourish. which provided the setup for new adaptations and creations and eventually us.

dinosaur remains were used by bacteria to create soil, which use the nitrogen from the atmosphere to create proteins for plants. and the cycle continues w/ each organism's death.

flux in the environment can bring about diversity.

and a believer can say that that is a rule upon which God made our universe and that the ulitimate goal was an earth for us.

for #2, unless im mistaken, it never says that God's creations are perfect in the bible. they're limited, which means that they can sometimes fail. but like i said, even if you think dinosaurs flourishing for millions of years and then getting wiped out a sign of a design flaw: they will still benefit the ecosystem and life.

really, w the exception of maybe head lice and a few bacteria, all organisms have a purpose on this planet.

that's incredible to me.

[SC Harrison]

actually your reasoning is very flawed here.

1st: youre assuming that dinosaurs or other species are extinct b/c they were imperfect

2nd: youre propping up a claim that God's creations should be perfect beings b/c they were created by God.



I wasn't talking about the species being perfect, I was referring to the Designer (God) being supposedly perfect.

And claiming all extinct species made a contribution to the overall design is about as legitimate as the claim, "God did it so there must be a reason that we may not understand."

[Bravo]

I wasn't talking about the species being perfect, I was referring to the Designer (God) being supposedly perfect.

okay, maybe you didnt say "perfect". but this is what i took issue w/:

Which is why I brought up the issue of failed species

"failed" species implies that they didnt have a purpose.



And claiming all extinct species made a contribution to the overall design is about as legitimate as the claim, "God did it so there must be a reason that we may not understand."

well all extinct species have "made a contribution to the overall design" b/c A) all species served a purpose while alive & B) b/c death fuels the life cycle as i described earlier.

im not going to waste time proving or arguing that this was all designed by God. its a waste of time to do that in the real world, it's an even bigger waste of time to do that on the internet.

but to claim that imperfection in organisms reveals a flawed God is just poor logic. imperfection/failed species can be the perfect design. it allows for natural selection, for evolution, for adaptation, and diversity.

[wordmonkey]

Mr. Monkey,

MR Monkey?

That sounds so formal. Please, call me Word. We're all friends here, aren't we?

An adaptation of wing color is not even close to changing a monkey into a man...or any primordial ooze into a completely different creature. Adaptation is not Evolution, strictly speaking.
And may I ask this question: How does a dumb animal or even less creature go about the complex process of evolving itself? How does it accomplish this mighty undertaking. How does it Evolve by mutating itself or causing a mutation in any successive generation? Talk about teamwork!

I am gonna assume you don't know that the theory of evolution doesn't actually state that apes turned into men. Maybe educating yourself on the oppositions platform would help your case. I don't mean by that, that you should study evolution and thus be swayed, more that if you knew what I was talking about you might be better able to debate me effectively.

What or who is the "brains" behind all of these complex genetic mutations and such? Certainly, if these evolutionary processes are occuring to better the species then some "willful working of thought" must be occuring!? Who is doing it, how are they doing it. Chance, mere chance...I think not. In fact I don't even believe strictly speaking that any species is becoming a completely different organism at all and this has not been observed, EVER. Adaptation is not Evolution--I can adapt to more sunlight or less myself--it's called Melanin--and it will react to different sunlight to make me nice and brown if I need more protection and will decrease with my environment as well. If my work load against my skin becomes too much in my environment then I'll develop calluses to help protect me from the changes in my environment. Adaptations are not Evolution--otherwise, show me that you can cause your progeny of any successive generation to change into a completely different creature, including of course that your chromosomal count also must change--you see apes and humans don't even have the same chromosomal count.

Why does there have to be a "brains" behind it? Or rather an external brains. My dog can shell a peanut, discard the outer and eat only the inner. Wasn't taught by me (I was actually kinda PO'd to come home and find my living room covered in peanut shells and my football watching snack gone). But by your stance, some kinda ineffable being popped in while I was shopping and taught the dog to do that. I don't think it takes a genius to work out that if my dog can stumble on the inside of a peanut shell, he could teach his puppies to do the same. Extrapolate and you could see how a species might evolve and start looking for nuts. Gross over simplification, but it works.

And for those who claim we have no evidence of biblical truth by observable, provable means, then I would direct those people to hundreds of accurately, literally fulfilled prophecies from the bible...these have indeed been observed and recorded not only within the bible but also by secular means as well.
For example: The destruction of the city of Tyre (Ezek)--this happened exactly as God said it would--scraped like a rock and overthrown, under the campaigns of Nebuchednezzar and Alexander--both pagans who had no idea they were exactly fulfilling one of God's prophecies.

Well which was it? Nebukanezza or Alexander? Which sacking was predicted? Or was God just covering his bets? The problem here is that if you wait long enough any prediction can come true. If you look at it the right way. Nostrodamus is a great example here.

I can even go further. I will make a prediction. In the next six months I foresee an airplane crashing. There will be fatalities and I see red on the tail of the plane.

This doesn't make me some kinda precognative genius. But I'd wager this will happen. All I need to do is wait for a plane crash in the news. Odds are there will be fatalities (it's a plane falling from the sky) and the majority of airline logos have red on the tail. I wait and as soon as the news hits the wire, I claim my ineffable power.

I could also point to hundreds of fulfilled prophecies concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at his first coming. One that has been observed most recently though is the regathering of the nation of Israel after some 1900 years of being scattered among the nations--a prophecy in itself--but now after 1900 years this nation has been regathered to their homeland and established, and it doesn't look like they will be moved again--just as God said he would do, and why else would many jewish people be uprooting their families from places where they have been successful and safe to move back to a warzone--and with no other reasoning except they felt drawn back to their homeland--even those who were not born there??

See above.

The Bible is quite observable friends--it even foretells the apostasy of our day--which we are currently observing, even in this discussion.

OK, apostasy implies people leaving the faith, but what of those who were never in it? Did God make all those heathens by accident? Wouldn't that make him capable of mistakes?

Do I believe this will sway you to my way of thinking? Probably not...but that doesn't matter so much as the fact that as christians we have told it. My conscience is therefore clear before my God.

I did my bit, I'm in heaven, hope it's not too hot for you in hell? Real Christian of ya, bud.

Have fun with this unending argument--I would not expect it to resolve anything, but it sure does take up a lot of WRITING time.

Keeps us off the streets though. Gotta be something said for that.

[ColoradoGuy]

What or who is the "brains" behind all of these complex genetic mutations and such? Certainly, if these evolutionary processes are occuring to better the species then some "willful working of thought" must be occuring!? Who is doing it, how are they doing it. Chance, mere chance...I think not. James
This is a common fallacy about what evolution is and does, and it has been discussed in great detail earlier in the thread, most painstakingly by Peggy. Mutations are random events. There is no purpose to them, and they are not working toward some end to "better the species." It is mere chance, although there are plenty of things that can increase the rate of random mutations above background (radiation, for example). Many of these mutations did not result in better adaptation to the environment, and thus didn't "better" anything; many didn't even result in a usable gene, as shown by much of the "junk" DNA in our genomes.

[BrianTubbs]

Yeah, fvck the ID stuff, I wanna hear someone try to rationally explain the "giants" and the people living to be a thousand years old and all the rest of the craziness in the OT.


Joe, with that kind of a set-up, why would anyone even bother? Your mind is made up. Case closed.

[Joe Unidos]

Joe, with that kind of a set-up, why would anyone even bother?

Because they believe strongly in the Great Commission, and feel they have an obligation to bring souls to Christ?

[BrianTubbs]

For this post, when I write "literal Creationism" (the phrase SpiritFire used), I am referring to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation - one that includes the biblically indicated timelines of the earth having been created 6-10,000 years ago.

Literal Creationism, including the timelines, has been disproven by science IF we accept the validity and presuppositions of the scientific dating methods. By that comment, I'm not meaning to suggest that the methodology is scientifically incorrect. I only mean to state that the modern scientific dating methods are based on naturalistic assumptions - as is all of modern science. Supernatural intervention is not incorporated into the assumptions, and I'm not suggesting it should be. I'm simply saying that, IF YOU ALLOW FOR SUPERNATURAL INTERVENTION, then the results of the dating methods would be potentially very different. For THIS reason...I am not ready to abandon the possibility that Genesis (literally interpreted) is true.

This, of course, means that believing in a literal Genesis comes down to a matter of faith. And I therefore acknowledge that it (again, we're talking a literal interpretation of Genesis) does NOT belong in a science classroom.

However, let's distinguish something here. It's okay for evolutionary advocates (like most of you) to argue vociferously against including a literal Genesis account of Creation into the science classrooms. It is NOT okay for you to mock Christians who believe it. (Again, as I said earlier, not ALL Christians believe in a literal Genesis - but those that do believe in a literal Genesis are mostly Christians). So, ease off the mockery of Christians who believe in literal Creationism.

Now, that's about all I can say on the subject. There's another thread here in the "Take it Outside" community that deals with the Bible. Many of you are participating in that as well. If you want to get into the Flood, the theology of Genesis, the "OT craziness" (as Joe would say), and all that - let's move those discussions over there in that thread. Let's keep THIS ONE focused on ID and evolution.

[blacbird]

Which is why I brought up the issue of failed species. I want someone to explain to me why a Designer would introduce a species, only to have it go extinct, sometimes with Mankind never knowing it existed in the first place.

This issue was a HUGE one for theologians a couple hundred years ago when people started seriously looking at fossils and began to recognize that these remains weren't those of any existing creatures. Ultimately, the Noachian Flood got invoked, at least by many of the day's theologicals, as a kind of desperation measure to explain the "how" of fossils (it still didn't do much of a job of explaining the "why"). That soon became ridiculous as serious geological study proceeded.

caw.

[blacbird]

This, of course, means that believing in a literal Genesis comes down to a matter of faith. And I therefore acknowledge that it (again, we're talking a literal interpretation of Genesis) does NOT belong in a science classroom.



Correct. And neither does its less crotchety cousin, Intelligent Design, for exactly the same reason.

caw.

[BrianTubbs]

Because they believe strongly in the Great Commission, and feel they have an obligation to bring souls to Christ?

Speaking as a Christian who believes in the Great Commission....

First, I never try to jam my religious beliefs down anyone's throat. I think of the early disciples when they were spreading the word about Jesus. Their approach was basically "Come and see." If the people aren't willing to come and see, then fine. That's between them and God. So, I'm not trying to "convert" anyone who doesn't want to be converted. I respect your right to believe in God or not. I believe in religious freedom.

Second, I frankly consider it a waste of time to try to persuade someone about anything related to religion or Christianity if their mind is not only closed, but hostile. Frankly, based on a lot of your posts, it seems your mind is hostile toward Christianity. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, I'm sorry. But that's the way it seems. So, I have no desire to either offend you anymore or to serve as a punching bag for your attacks on Christianity.

[veinglory]

Indeed. Way back then people hadn't heard the news. These days there aren't many people around without easy access to a bible, church etc if they want it.

[BrianTubbs]

Correct. And neither does its less crotchety cousin, Intelligent Design, for exactly the same reason.

caw.

Intelligent Design includes its (as you put it) "less crotchety cousin," but it is far broader than it. I am willing to acknowledge that supernatural intervention - the kind that would mess up scientific dating methods (like the rate of sedimentation) cannot in any meaningful or practical sense be included in public science. However, I am NOT prepared to say that it's unscientific for a scientist looking at the need for lower organisms to transfer new DNA information to higher level organisms to conclude that this is likely impossible without some external intelligence guiding the process. That seems to me to be a fair response to the data, one that scientists should be willing to confront.

[BrianTubbs]

Indeed. Way back then people hadn't heard the news. These days there aren't many people around without easy access to a bible, church etc if they want it.

I used to be a high school history teacher. I once asked my students if they knew much about George Washington. Their response: "Of course." I told them to clear their desks, take out a sheet of paper, and write down five specific things George Washington did for the United States. I told them that just 'getting elected President' doesn't count, and any answers about false teeth and being on the $1 bill would not be considered.

They all failed.

Being familiar with something does not equate to knowing a lot about it.

[robeiae]

However, I am NOT prepared to say that it's unscientific for a scientist looking at the need for lower organisms to transfer new DNA information to higher level organisms to conclude that this is likely impossible without some external intelligence guiding the process. That seems to me to be a fair response to the data, one that scientists should be willing to confront.
It's not a fair response, not in the least. It's a response that is the death knell of science.

Just because something cannot be fathomed by a particular scientist, who is limited to a defined paradigm of understanding, it does not follow that chalking the unfathomable up to an "external intelligence" is a fair and/or reasonable conclusion.

Imagine scientists from the 1400's who are given the opportunity to examine the phenomenon of television. How would they be able to explain the transfer of images from a TV studio to the screen of a TV set? Would it be a fair response to call it Magic, or a ttribute it to an unknown external intelligence (like Ted Turner)? I think not. A fair response is the one blacbird gave earlier: I don't know.

[ColoradoGuy]

For THIS reason...I am not ready to abandon the possibility that Genesis (literally interpreted) is true.
So you're an evolutionary agnostic? Is that the bottom line of all of this?
However, I am NOT prepared to say that it's unscientific for a scientist looking at the need for lower organisms to transfer new DNA information to higher level organisms to conclude that this is likely impossible without some external intelligence guiding the process. That seems to me to be a fair response to the data, one that scientists should be willing to confront.
As Robeiae aptly pointed out, that would be the very definition of a non-scientific approach to the data, akin to that old cartoon of the two scientists at the blackboard, upon which is written between two equations: "then, a miracle occurred."

[veinglory]

I used to be a high school history teacher. I once asked my students if they knew much about George Washington. Their response: "Of course."

You think they couldn't tell you 5 things about Christianity? It's a hell of a lot more pervassive.

[wordmonkey]

Second, I frankly consider it a waste of time to try to persuade someone about anything related to religion or Christianity if their mind is not only closed, but hostile. Frankly, based on a lot of your posts, it seems your mind is hostile toward Christianity. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, I'm sorry. But that's the way it seems. So, I have no desire to either offend you anymore or to serve as a punching bag for your attacks on Christianity.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in someone calling others closed minded, when they are the ones supposedly believing in an idea that can change as new ideas and techniques and scientific tests appear and allow for further study and perhaps changing ideas?

Speaking purely for myself, I simply find it interesting to see the explainations and try to understand how/why others think what they do.

You threw in some big "IFs" there in your concession, dude. Can I add a couple? What about IF Santa is real? What IF the Tooth Fairy is real? What IF ghosts are real? What IF aliens seeded our planet and we are like some massive petri-dish culture that really needs a slosh of bleach? What IF you are all figments of my imagination - the result of a poorly cooked potato I ate? Wouldn't all THOSE make a difference? Aren't they all as nebulous, unproveable and thus just as valid?

IF IF IF. Science is science because it follows rules and laws. The rest is fluff. Maybe well intended and it may well give a lot of people a great deal of comfort, but it still lacks substance.

(BTW, did you like how I even worked in a literary reference? Almost like this is a writing based forum, eh?)

[MacAllister]

Heh. As long as the conversation stays civil--which has been iffy, from time to time--I think you're all fine, Word.

[ColoradoGuy]

the result of a poorly cooked potato I ate?

(BTW, did you like how I even worked in a literary reference? Almost like this is a writing based forum, eh?)
Close, but I think it was "bit of underdone potato." Or Jacob Marley.

[robeiae]

This is the best of all possible worlds...
This is the best of all possible worlds...
This is the best of all possible worlds...
This is the best of all possible worlds...

[badducky]

Incidentally, did you guys here hear that all of Darwins writings -- including his original notebooks -- are available on-line for your perusing.

I used to carry around a copy of "Origin of the Species" in my car because I liked to loan it to Creationists who argued vehemently against a document they never read.

Now, I just need to carry around a piece of paper with a link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061019/ts_nm/britain_darwin_dc

[Bravo]

i just use wikipedia.

[robeiae]

Yeah, that's a good way to avoid falling into the trap of "truth by concensus"....

[Bravo]

and i look up a lot of words before i post to make me sound smarter.

sometimes it doesnt work though.

[ColoradoGuy]

A little off-topic, but there is an interesting story about the Wiki phenomenon in a recent New Yorker. (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact)

[badducky]

Okay, and a quick question to everyone in the debate to answer quietly to themselves:

Have you read both Origin of Species (or any other major Darwin text) and the Bible?

They're big books, you know. Real big. Lots of words. Bigger than all of this thread, in fact.

[ColoradoGuy]

Have you read both Origin of Species (or any other major Darwin text) and the Bible?
Yes
They're big books, you know. Real big. Lots of words. Bigger than all of this thread, in fact.
Give it some time.

[veinglory]

Have you read both Origin of Species (or any other major Darwin text) and the Bible?

Indeed. And I have a copy of each on the shelf here too.

[Joe Unidos]

People can believe whatever they want about the supernatural. But people who believe in the supernatural should accept that nothing is, nor should be, considered part of science if it --as a deliberate part of its very framework-- cannot be tested through the Scientific Method. If being improvable and untestable is part of what reinforces your belief in it, it is not science. That goes for any notion of supernatural involvement in the scientific study of the universe's origins.

This ought not be a controversial view.

[BrianTubbs]

If the measure of true science is that something is observable, testable, and therefore provable, then transitional evolution (one species evolving into another species) fails those standards. Evolution within species (sometimes called micro-evolution) most certainly meets those standards, and therefore can rationally be called science.

But macroevolution or transitional evolution or whatever you want to call the transition of one species to another -- THAT has NOT been observed or scientifically established. Therefore, it cannot claim to be scientifically true and should NOT be taught as a fact - or, as is the case today, a theory presumed to be a fact, because it's the best naturalistic explanation for the universe and all life.

[Joe Unidos]

Have you ever in your life heard anyone refer to the Law of Evolution?

[veinglory]

Other concepts active in science that are unprovable and untestable are animal sentience and paranormal abilities. But they function for the most part as productive and explicitly debatable assumptions, not hypotheses. Religion can, and for some scientists does, fill a similar role. Human sentience also, if you apply "agreement of observers".

[robeiae]

But macroevolution or transitional evolution or whatever you want to call the transition of one species to another -- THAT has NOT been observed or scientifically established. Therefore, it cannot claim to be scientifically true and should NOT be taught as a fact - or, as is the case today, a theory presumed to be a fact, because it's the best naturalistic explanation for the universe and all life.You're kinda stuck in one place, but I understand why. There's no where for you to go, and this place seems to be quite comfortable and safe, even though both aspects are illusions and consequences of a fundamental flaw in your thinking. The evidence is there--it's everywhere--but you have to be looking at it from the right perspective:

Achilles and the Tortoise are going to have a 100 meter race. Since the Tortoise is so slow, Achilles gives him a 10 meter head start. The gun is fired and the race is on! In a flash, Achilles makes up the 10 meter advantage, but the Tortoise has moved forward 1 meter. Bam! Achilles is there, but the Tortiose has moved forward .1 meters. Zip! Achilles gets to that point, but the Tortoise has moved forward .01 meters...

Obviously, Achilles can never quite catch the Tortoise, so the Tortoise will eventually win, when the full 100 meters is covered--though it will take a long, long, time...

[ColoradoGuy]

But macroevolution or transitional evolution or whatever you want to call the transition of one species to another -- THAT has NOT been observed or scientifically established. Therefore, it cannot claim to be scientifically true and should NOT be taught as a fact - or, as is the case today, a theory presumed to be a fact, because it's the best naturalistic explanation for the universe and all life.
You keep saying this, and it indeed seems to be the basis for much of your other arguments. Did you read Peggy's link, (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc)which presents (in summary form, I grant you) the evidence you deny exists? Do you have some specfic criticisms of it's conclusions?

[Joe Unidos]

Do you have some specfic criticisms of it's conclusions?

"It's counter to my belief in the supernatural."

[ColoradoGuy]

Achilles and the Tortoise are going to have a 100 meter race. Since the Tortoise is so slow, Achilles gives him a 10 meter head start. The gun is fired and the race is on! In a flash, Achilles makes up the 10 meter advantage, but the Tortoise has moved forward 1 meter. Bam! Achilles is there, but the Tortiose has moved forward .1 meters. Zip! Achilles gets to that point, but the Tortoise has moved forward .01 meters...

Obviously, Achilles can never quite catch the Tortoise, so the Tortoise will eventually win, when the full 100 meters is covered--though it will take a long, long, time...
Sounds kinda familiar, Rob -- Zero?, Zorro?, Zorba, Zoroaster? -- one of those Z guys.

[veinglory]

Transitional evolution has totally been observed. Several examples from lizards by gradual processes (e.g. Ensantina escholtzii) and numerous cases in plants where a single mutation was sufficient for speciesation to occur in the wild.

[Peggy]

But macroevolution or transitional evolution or whatever you want to call the transition of one species to another -- THAT has NOT been observed or scientifically established. Therefore, it cannot claim to be scientifically true and should NOT be taught as a fact - or, as is the case today, a theory presumed to be a fact, because it's the best naturalistic explanation for the universe and all life. Speciation has been observed and scientifically established.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

We have "transitional fossils". We know the sequences of particular genes from many many species. Those sequences can be arranged in a nested hierarchy of species that is consistent with the hierarchy made by looking at anatomy. We can look at entire sequenced genomes, and see that those genomes show large scale changes and non-functional sequences that, again, are consistent with those hierarchies. All of those things are best explained by evolution from common ancestors. Evolutionary theory makes predictions based on that hypothesis. (An example is the specific predictions made about the sequence and structure of the chimpanzee genome. See here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html) (Washington Post) and here (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/2/278) (journal article) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/) (background) for details).

What seems strange to me is the idea that God would create life with slightly different sequences for common structural proteins and metabolic enzymes. Why have different sequences if the proteins have the same function? Even stranger that those sequences would fit into a nested hierarchy that is consistent with the hierarchy you create by looking at anatomy. I would say that either God wants it to look like evolution or it's really evolution.

I'd like to flip the argument around and point out that no one has observed any kind of barrier that would prevent "macroevolution". You can find in nature (and create in the laboratory) genetic changes in organisms - sometimes those changes are neutral, some bad, but some would give the bearer a slight advantage in the right environment. Genetic variation exists - from point mutations of single base pairs to large scale chromosomal rearrangements. We know that the environment and climate has changed over the millennia. We know that animals and plants have expanded into new territories. We know that small groups of animals and plants can become isolated from the rest of their population. We know that all of the elements necessary for "macroevolution" are there - those are facts and not conjecture. We know that new species form - that's been directly observed. I would say that that "macroevolution" is inevitable.

There is no way around it, the evidence - the facts - are only consistent with evolution from common ancestors. You can claim that God intervenes to prevent macroevolution, but as I've pointed out, science can't speak to that one way of the other.

[BrianTubbs]

Okay, everyone, you're going to have to give me a day or so to comb through all the links that everyone here has provided. I've looked at some, in response to an earlier inquiry. I'm not the kind of person that refuses to look at information or opinions which contradict my beliefs. However, I do have a family, a job, grad school, and ... oh .... I'm also supposed to be writing for publication. So...if I don't type anything in for the next day or so, I'm not surrendering. I'm just reading. Fair enough?

[Peggy]

Come back once you've had a chance read all the stuff and we'll discuss it.

(Oh, and get back to writing :))

[Bravo]

now, can some1 tell me how noah fit 2 of every living creature in his ark??

[Bravo]

oh and for what its worth brian: im glad youre trying to discuss this in an open manner.

good luck.

[ColoradoGuy]

As an example of evolutionary environmental pressure, I've always been fascinated by the example of guinea pig insulin. Most mammalian insulins are so alike that antisera raised against one will cross-react with the others. Their protein sequences are similar and they do the same thing -- allow transport of glucose into cells. All these insulins likely derived from a single ancestral gene.

Guinea pig insulin is wildly different, even though it does exactly the same thing for the little critter as our insulin does for us. Glusose is an efficient fuel for cells, and the environmental pressure to use it seems to have resulted in two completely different ways of making that happen.

It's been a while, but maybe Peggy or somebody knows the latest on this fascinating factoid.

[robeiae]

now, can some1 tell me how noah fit 2 of every living creature in his ark??Wormhole, doofus. Jeez...

[ColoradoGuy]

And why-o-why those mosquitoes? Would it have been too much to leave them with the unicorns?

[Peggy]

Guinea pig insulin is wildly different, even though it does exactly the same thing for the little critter as our insulin does for us. Glusose is an efficient fuel for cells, and the environmental pressure to use it seems to have resulted in two completely different ways of making that happen. Actually, I wasn't aware of that. Very interesting! That makes guinea pigs a bad model organism for diabetes (not that anyone was suggesting they should be).

[Peggy]

OK, so being totally compulsive, I looked it up:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/4/1/10

The sequence of guinea pig insulin and related critters is significantly different from other rodents. It doesn't function exactly the same way as insulin in other mammals, the most significant difference being that it doesn't bind zinc, which is necessary for the formation of insulin hexamers (the form in which insulin is stored in pancreatic cells). It also has different growth-promoting activity.

When insulin sequences are used to generate a tree, however, it's consistent with the analysis of other genes. It looks like a number of different guinea pig genes are divergent from other rodents (actually, it's a matter of controversy whether guinea pigs should be even considered rodents at all).

[badducky]

of course guinea pigs aren't rodents. guinea pigs are cute. hamsters aren't rodents either. miniature giant space hamsters least of all.

i propose a new category of species: Genus Cutikiss. Anything that makes women go "Aww... Cutey needs a wittle kiss!" goes in this category.

[Peggy]

So that would include toy poodles and tabby cats along with the hamsters?

[ColoradoGuy]

OK, so being totally compulsive, I looked it up:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/4/1/10

The sequence of guinea pig insulin and related critters is significantly different from other rodents. It doesn't function exactly the same way as insulin in other mammals, the most significant difference being that it doesn't bind zinc, which is necessary for the formation of insulin hexamers (the form in which insulin is stored in pancreatic cells). It also has different growth-promoting activity.

When insulin sequences are used to generate a tree, however, it's consistent with the analysis of other genes. It looks like a number of different guinea pig genes are divergent from other rodents (actually, it's a matter of controversy whether guinea pigs should be even considered rodents at all).
Peggy, I knew I could count on you to do the actual work! Anyway, zinc-binding aside, and anabolic growth-promoting effect aside (because that overlaps with some other growth factors' functions anyway) it still intrigues me that evolution has found two ways to accomplish the same thing -- get glucose into cells. (Oops, that sounds a bit telic, final-causish for a random process; I feel the allure of ID.)

[LloydBrown]

now, can some1 tell me how noah fit 2 of every living creature in his ark??

Or 7 of some. Or was it 7 of all? Or was it both?

[Opty]

Yeah, that's a good way to avoid falling into the trap of "truth by concensus"....

You mean, Wikiality (http://www.wikiality.com/Main_Page)!

[badducky]

Peggy, that sounds like an intelligent design to me.

To ask a strange question for just a moment:

Science operates basically with the five known senses, yes? Why are we scientist-types so quick to presume that these five are the only ones around?

I had a dream once where I could feel different fields of magnetism and radiation like colors and it got me thinking about how fickle our five senses actually are.

The randomness of the universe within evolutionary boundaries is a hard line to cross when you are a religious man. It is hard, indeed.

[Peggy]

Or 7 of some. Or was it 7 of all? Or was it both? Yes. Genesis 6:19-20
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.

Genesis 7:2-3
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.

Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

[Peggy]

And before anyone asks, yes, I am a member of looker-uppers anonymous.

[ColoradoGuy]

Peggy, that sounds like an intelligent design to me.

To ask a strange question for just a moment:

Science operates basically with the five known senses, yes? Why are we scientist-types so quick to presume that these five are the only ones around?

I had a dream once where I could feel different fields of magnetism and radiation like colors and it got me thinking about how fickle our five senses actually are.

The randomness of the universe within evolutionary boundaries is a hard line to cross when you are a religious man. It is hard, indeed.
Some bacteria are presumed to sense magnetic fields. To save Peggy the work, here's a link (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11651.html).

[Alan Yee]

Okay, question. Someone mentioned people in the Old Testament living into their hundreds and almost a thousand years. I am a Christian who accepts evolution, and I tend to not take the Bible literally. I seriously doubt Adam lived to 930, Noah lived to 950, and his grandfather Methuselah lived to 969.

What was up with all that? Did they just seriously overexaggarate on how long people lived?

BTW, whoever brought up the issue of incest in the Bible, I posted about this yesterday. The Book of Jubilees (which is in the Jewish Bible, I believe) explicitly states the incestuous marriages of the early ancestors in Genesis. I can definitely see why these were not in the Christian Bible.

For example, it states that Cain married his sister Awan, and Seth married his sister Azura. It also states that Eve had nine more sons after the births of Seth and Azura. (Damn, poor Eve. All those babies.) The rest of the line mentions brothers and sisters and cousins marrying. So, the incest is there.

I think the Book of Jubilees was written later, but it seems they must have inserted all those incestuous marriages for a reason.

[Bravo]

Okay, question. Someone mentioned people in the Old Testament living into their hundreds and almost a thousand years. I am a Christian who accepts evolution, and I tend to not take the Bible literally. I seriously doubt Adam lived to 930, Noah lived to 950, and his grandfather Methuselah lived to 969.

What was up with all that? Did they just seriously overexaggarate on how long people lived?

no, ppl in ancient times (and in much of the 3rd world today) dont pay attention to ages.

my own belief is that it's possible that the biblical ages refer to how long the legacy of the prophet lasted. in a way, you can think about it like a dynasty, where the message remained pure for that period of time.


BTW, whoever brought up the issue of incest in the Bible, I posted about this yesterday. The Book of Jubilees (which is in the Jewish Bible, I believe) explicitly states the incestuous marriages of the early ancestors in Genesis. I can definitely see why these were not in the Christian Bible.

well, it's actually not "left out of the christian bible" since the christian bible was an extension of the hebrew scriptures.


For example, it states that Cain married his sister Awan, and Seth married his sister Azura. It also states that Eve had nine more sons after the births of Seth and Azura. (Damn, poor Eve. All those babies.) The rest of the line mentions brothers and sisters and cousins marrying. So, the incest is there.

dont forget the story of noah sleeping w his two daughters.



I think the Book of Jubilees was written later, but it seems they must have inserted all those incestuous marriages for a reason.

that's a good issue to bring up, but i dont have the time to get into it right now.

[veinglory]

Some bacteria are presumed to sense magnetic fields. To save Peggy the work, here's a link (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11651.html).

It's a false assumption anyway. Sciences studies many senses beyond out 5, from electric fish to however the hell pigeons navigate (it's yet to be fully solved)--and yes, some parapsychologists are very much scientists even from my non-beleiving point of view.

[Bravo]

It's a false assumption anyway. Sciences studies many senses beyond out 5, from electric fish to however the hell pigeons navigate (it's yet to be fully solved)--and yes, some parapsychologists are very much scientists even from my non-beleiving point of view.

in superman:for all seasons it was revealed that he could see UV rays.

im not sure about magnetic fields though.

ill have to look into that.

[veinglory]

Even chickens can see UV, superman should be able to do better than that.

[Bravo]

actually in the lex luthor miniseries by brian azzarello, lois found out that superman can actually see some sort of energy around humans.

it was frustratingly vague about what this meant though. was he seeing chi or even the soul of a person, or was it just some sort of biochemical marker on humans that he could distinguish b/c he's an alien?

[Kentuk]

Okay, question. Someone mentioned people in the Old Testament living into their hundreds and almost a thousand years. I am a Christian who accepts evolution, and I tend to not take the Bible literally. I seriously doubt Adam lived to 930, Noah lived to 950, and his grandfather Methuselah lived to 969.

I admit to not taking the Gospel as the gospel truth but still think the Bible is historically useful.
It's generally known that the onset of civilization resulted in people dying earlier because of poor sanitary conditions and dietary limitations, not sure how well this relates to people living to be nine hundred.

Kentuk

[xhouseboy]

now, can some1 tell me how noah fit 2 of every living creature in his ark??

he used the same technology that was applied in Inner Space.

[Alan Yee]

dont forget the story of noah sleeping w his two daughters.


Actually, I believe that was Lot. How could I forgot that one? Through coupling with his own two daughters (who, on two consecutive nights, got their father drunk and slept with him), he became the ancestor of the Ammonites and the Moabites (who aren't exactly well-liked by the Israelites later on). And from what happens, it sounded like he was an old man when he fled Sodom with his daughters, so he wasn't exactly a young stud.

[robeiae]

Captain Marvel has the cosmic sense...

[blacbird]

Actually, I believe that was Lot. How could I forgot that one? Through coupling with his own two daughters (who, on two consecutive nights, got their father drunk and slept with him), he became the ancestor of the Ammonites and the Moabites (who aren't exactly well-liked by the Israelites later on).

Hey, I been to Moab, numerous times. Great scenery. There are people who claim that the most spectacular scenic view in the entire United States is from the Moab, Utah, garbage dump (which sits on a hill, I'm told). So what do the Israelis have against Moab?

caw.

[Spirit_Fire]

Peggy, I have a question for you.

I remember in a thread you wrote a very long time ago, you added a quote by Darwin. He says something like God created the Earth, and then evolution took over (or that it was a process that he set in place).

It'll take me ages to find this on "darwin-online.org.uk". I can't search for it because I can't temember the exact words! Do you remember what it was?

p.s. I think it was in Origin of Species.

[Peggy]

Peggy, I have a question for you.

I remember in a thread you wrote a very long time ago, you added a quote by Darwin. He says something like God created the Earth, and then evolution took over (or that it was a process that he set in place).

It'll take me ages to find this on "darwin-online.org.uk". I can't search for it because I can't temember the exact words! Do you remember what it was?

p.s. I think it was in Origin of Species. I have a vague recollection of that. I'll have a look.

[English Dave]

Peggy, I have a question for you.

I remember in a thread you wrote a very long time ago, you added a quote by Darwin. He says something like God created the Earth, and then evolution took over (or that it was a process that he set in place).

It'll take me ages to find this on "darwin-online.org.uk". I can't search for it because I can't temember the exact words! Do you remember what it was?

p.s. I think it was in Origin of Species.

So Darwin said God created the Earth and then Evolution took over?

Why wasn't I told this?

[wordmonkey]

Okay, everyone, you're going to have to give me a day or so to comb through all the links that everyone here has provided. I've looked at some, in response to an earlier inquiry. I'm not the kind of person that refuses to look at information or opinions which contradict my beliefs. However, I do have a family, a job, grad school, and ... oh .... I'm also supposed to be writing for publication. So...if I don't type anything in for the next day or so, I'm not surrendering. I'm just reading. Fair enough?

I'm pretty sure that nothing will change Brian's mind here, but frankly I gotta give the guy props for the above. Kudos, dude.

[English Dave]

I'm pretty sure that nothing will change Brian's mind here, but frankly I gotta give the guy props for the above. Kudos, dude.
I like Brian. But props for being polite is kinda indicative of the state of the internet.

[Peggy]

Peggy, I have a question for you.

I remember in a thread you wrote a very long time ago, you added a quote by Darwin. He says something like God created the Earth, and then evolution took over (or that it was a process that he set in place). I can't find the original comment I made.

OK, I couldn't figure out what exactly I quoted before, but was it this?

Origin of Species, 1st edition (1859) (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin1859/origin14.html)Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

In the second edition the last sentence was reworded to say:
Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator.

In the third and later editions that sentence was removed.

If you are interested in the history, there is more here:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/02_Events/Workshops/WS_2003_2004_PET/2003_0221_23_OriginLife/OriginLife_PDFs/tutorials/strick.pdf

[wordmonkey]

I like Brian. But props for being polite is kinda indicative of the state of the internet.

No, I meant that he was gonna go look at the stuff that had been heaped on him. My in-laws hold a similar view and their attitude when confronted with things that go against what they blindly believe is: <fingers in ears - eyes squeezed shut> "LA LA LA LA LA LA LAR! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Maybe it's the circle's I mix in, but it's nice to find someone who will go and at least look and read. Even if they come back with, "Nope! I don't believe it. It's still all magic and wishes for me." They still had a look.

I give no props for politeness, we should all do that regardless. Costs nothing.

[English Dave]

No, I meant that he was gonna go look at the stuff that had been heaped on him. My in-laws hold a similar view and their attitude when confronted with things that go against what they blindly believe is: <fingers in ears - eyes squeezed shut> "LA LA LA LA LA LA LAR! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Maybe it's the circle's I mix in, but it's nice to find someone who will go and at least look and read. Even if they come back with, "Nope! I don't believe it. It's still all magic and wishes for me." They still had a look.

I give no props for politeness, we should all do that regardless. Costs nothing.

It's good you've got the internet then because it gives you a release from your idiotic in-laws. Now you just have idiotic internet posters. :)

[wordmonkey]

It's good you've got the internet then because it gives you a release from your idiotic in-laws. Now you just have idiotic internet posters. :)

This is true. But let's be honest, there's nothing like a live audience to taunt.

And with in-laws, it's a great way to get them to go home without actually kicking them out. I just start talking religion or politics and the bags start packing themselves.

[English Dave]

This is true. But let's be honest, there's nothing like a live audience to taunt.

And with in-laws, it's a great way to get them to go home without actually kicking them out. I just start talking religion or politics and the bags start packing themselves.

If all else fails mention Euthenasia. :)

[robeiae]

It's good you've got the internet then because it gives you a release from your idiotic in-laws. Now you just have idiotic internet posters. :)Don't be so hard on yourself, Dave. :D

[blacbird]

if I don't type anything in for the next day or so, I'm not surrendering. I'm just reading. Fair enough?

I'm not sure anybody is asking you to surrender, Brian, or even to agree. Certaintly that's not my interest. What I'm asking you to do, is simply to understand, even while you disagree. I think I understand the Creationist viewpoint, and its basis, quite well, even though I disagree with it on both scientific and theological grounds. From your posts, I'm not at all sure you do the same concerning the theory of evolution.

caw.

[English Dave]

I'm not sure anybody is asking you to surrender, Brian, or even to agree. Certaintly that's not my interest. What I'm asking you to do, is simply to understand, even while you disagree. I think I understand the Creationist viewpoint, and its basis, quite well, even though I disagree with it on both scientific and theological grounds. From your posts, I'm not at all sure you do the same concerning the theory of evolution.

caw.
Ha! or caw!

You fell into my trap. THEORY of Evolution.

That's right. THEORY!


Pick the bones out of that!

[blacbird]

I drove past a car abandoned along the highway this morning. Or at least that's my hypothesis, that it was abandoned. I didn't actually see it being abandoned. There's an air force base nearby, and they often fly helicopters right over that section of highway. The car could have been airlifted and placed there by one of those; that's an alternate hypothesis. Or, as yet another one, it could have been put there by extraterrestrials. Or, simply created there, on the spot, by some supernatural agency.

But I've seen other cars abandoned along highways, and even cars in the process of being abandoned. I presume that something has gone wrong with these cars, probably something mechanical. They were driven to the spot where they ceased to work properly, and the driver and any passengers later picked up by some other person. I've developed a Theory, based on these observations: The Theory of Human Vehicular Abandonment. It competes with the Theory of Military Air Transport, the Theory of Extraterrestrial Vehicular Emplacement, and the Theory of Supernatural Vehicular Creation.

But I think my Theory of HVA is the most probable, based on a large number of observations and available data. It meets the Occam's Razor test better than the others, in my view.

It's just a theory, mind you.

caw

[English Dave]

I drove past a car abandoned along the highway this morning. Or at least that's my hypothesis, that it was abandoned. I didn't actually see it being abandoned. There's an air force base nearby, and they often fly helicopters right over that section of highway. The car could have been airlifted and placed there by one of those; that's an alternate hypothesis. Or, as yet another one, it could have been put there by extraterrestrials. Or, simply created there, on the spot, by some supernatural agency.

But I've seen other cars abandoned along highways, and even cars in the process of being abandoned. I presume that something has gone wrong with these cars, probably something mechanical. They were driven to the spot where they ceased to work properly, and the driver and any passengers later picked up by some other person. I've developed a Theory, based on these observations: The Theory of Human Vehicular Abandonment. It competes with the Theory of Military Air Transport, the Theory of Extraterrestrial Vehicular Emplacement, and the Theory of Supernatural Vehicular Creation.

But I think my Theory of HVA is the most probable, based on a large number of observations and available data. It meets the Occam's Razor test better than the others, in my view.

It's just a theory, mind you.

caw

Hmmph. Use as many three letter acronyms as you like. They are no substitute for Faith!

[wordmonkey]

Hmmph. Use as many three letter acronyms as you like. They are no substitute for Faith!

And yet faith is often a substitute for a life.

[xhouseboy]

I remember in a thread you wrote a very long time ago, you added a quote by Darwin. He says something like God created the Earth, and then evolution took over (or that it was a process that he set in place).



And he didn't believe a word of it. Just didn't fancy being hung drawn and quartered in the God fearing climate of the times.

ETA: metaphorically speaking, just incase someone pulls me up on the history of state executions.

[Spirit_Fire]

And he didn't believe a word of it. Just didn't fancy being hung drawn and quartered in the God fearing climate of the times.

ETA: metaphorically speaking, just incase someone pulls me up on the history of state executions.

Drawn and quartered? You mean he was scared that someone would sketch his likeness, and then cut it into four pieces? :D

[veinglory]

Darwin's letters and diaries show he did temper his message, especially in excluding humans from his discussions.

[English Dave]

And he didn't believe a word of it. Just didn't fancy being hung drawn and quartered in the God fearing climate of the times.



Ten times worse that the Tennesee Scopes trial?

The fact that Darwin didn't want the sh1t kicked out of him by zealots and published what he could at that time doesn't detract from it's validity.

The fact that zealots of whatever persuasion are willing to kick the sh1t out of those who disagree with them rather than discuss facts kinda puts me off religion.

[loquax]

Ha! or caw!

You fell into my trap. THEORY of Evolution.

That's right. THEORY!


Pick the bones out of that!http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory If I meet another creationist who doesn't know the definition of scientific theory, I'm going to shoot myself in the appendix.

[English Dave]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory If I meet another creationist who doesn't know the definition of scientific theory, I'm going to shoot myself in the appendix.
I haven't gotten to the appendix, I'm still on the introduction.

[BrianTubbs]

Hey everyone,

I wanted to post a quick note to let everyone know that I have been reading - probably about a dozen articles in all as well as book excerpts - on this whole discussion. Oh, and 95% of the reading as been from the mainstream scientific community (i.e., evolutionists).

I want to offer a concession. It is clear to me that many Creationists have ignored, denied, or distorted some of the arguments and evidence advanced by evolutionists. I do see a lot of "straw-manisms" at play with some of the Creationist websites and articles that I've read.

I remain a believer in Intelligent Design, but this discussion has impressed upon me the need to make sure that I do not mischaracterize those with whom I disagree.

My personal schedule is filled up right now. I won't bore you with the details, but it's hard to find a free moment. So, I'm not sure when I can jump back in on this as an active participant. Just wanted to say that, so no one thinks I'm being rude if I fail to respond or thinks I might be running-and-hiding. :)

[blacbird]

I take you at your word, Brian, and appreciate your interest. Meantime, however, I've said everything I think necessary in this thread, going waaaaay back. I doubt I'll be adding any more to it.

caw.

[wordmonkey]

I can even go further. I will make a prediction. In the next six months I foresee an airplane crashing. There will be fatalities and I see red on the tail of the plane.

ALL BOW BEFORE THE ALMIGHTY POWER OF WORDMONKEY!

With the amazing power of my all-seeing third eye, I predicted THIS VERY EVENT (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061029/ap_on_re_af/nigeria_plane_crash).

[blacbird]

Yeah, but you didn't predict it in mystical symbolic quatrains.

caw.

[wordmonkey]

Yeah, but you didn't predict it in mystical symbolic quatrains.

Gazing into the beyond and foretelling the future isn't enough?

YOU gotta have it in a bad poem too?

Feh.

[blacbird]

Gazing into the beyond and foretelling the future isn't enough?

YOU gotta have it in a bad poem too?

Feh.

Sure. How you expect people to believe you otherwise? Go ask Nostradamus.

caw.

[English Dave]

Sure. How you expect people to believe you otherwise? Go ask Nostradamus.

caw.

Why are you bringing Vampires into this?

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

Would I totally be ruining the joke if I said, "blacbird said Nostradamus, not Nosferatu!"

I think I shall take the risk. Someone's gotta.

[dclary]

LOL!

[blacbird]

Would I totally be ruining the joke if I said, "blacbird said Nostradamus, not Nosferatu!"

I think I shall take the risk. Someone's gotta.

You totally defanged the joke.

caw.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

It's a cross I'll have to bear.

[BrianTubbs]

Ten times worse that the Tennesee Scopes trial?

The fact that Darwin didn't want the sh1t kicked out of him by zealots and published what he could at that time doesn't detract from it's validity.

The fact that zealots of whatever persuasion are willing to kick the sh1t out of those who disagree with them rather than discuss facts kinda puts me off religion.

I just caught this. THere are a LOT of misconceptions about the Scopes Trial. It appears you may have bought into some of them.

I just hope the people here don't base their understanding of the Scopes Trial on Inherit the Wind. That's like basing your knowledge of 19th century Japan on Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai.

[blacbird]

I just hope the people here don't base their understanding of the Scopes Trial on Inherit the Wind. That's like basing your knowledge of 19th century Japan on Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai.

You mean . . . you mean . . . Tom Cruise didn't really slay all those warriors?????

caw

[dclary]

He only killed half of them. The rest were faking. Sneaky Jap tricks!

[English Dave]

I just caught this. THere are a LOT of misconceptions about the Scopes Trial. It appears you may have bought into some of them.

I just hope the people here don't base their understanding of the Scopes Trial on Inherit the Wind. That's like basing your knowledge of 19th century Japan on Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai.



I haven't seen either movie but thanks for the recommed. ;)

I don't think I bought into anything. I just feel that philosophical ideas shouldn't be subjegated by process of 'law'

[Birol]

Oh, look, a thread about religion and related stuff -- someone was asking about these earlier -- I say we use it to torment Rob, because he can only post sentences of ten words or less this week.

[English Dave]

Oh, look, a thread about religion and related stuff -- someone was asking about these earlier -- I say we use it to torment Rob, because he can only post sentences of ten words or less this week.

Gift for Rob and feel free to use it.

Religion is crap. :D