Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[Kipper is King]

The two ideas are not oil and water, like I have said. They are not entirely incompatible.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

The two ideas are not oil and water, like I have said. They are not entirely incompatible.

Please explain?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

The two ideas are not oil and water, like I have said. They are not entirely incompatible.

Well no their not completely incompatible. The idea of a God helped evolution or creation of some sort could be a possibility and I think that even those who don't believe in it yield that as a possibility however logically slim.

However we are also saying that creationISM or literally translating the bible IS incompatible with evolution and is probably a believe that borders on dangerous or irresponsible when acted upon or forced on others or trying to be taught as fact or an alternative.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Please explain?

My previous posts explain. That's why I said "like I have said". You may be happy to know that your post asking me to explain was not intelligently designed!

Edit: Sorry, I come off as being harsh there. I really just wanted to work that zinger in!

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well no they're not completely incompatible. The idea of a God helped evolution or creation of some sort could be a possibility and I think that even those who don't believe in it yield that as a possibility however logically slim.

Fair enough. Trying to play the "Is God Logical" game, I will give it a try.

In my opinion, I see the vast complexity of the world, and I think that someone was behind it all. I think it's too brilliantly complex just to be a fluke particle reaction or whatever.

Just my two cents, though. Trying to shoehorn God into logic is difficult. That's part of the reason why it's called faith, not knowledge.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Just my two cents, though. Trying to shoehorn God into logic is difficult. That's part of the reason why it's called faith, not knowledge.

Which is also fair. I'm just of the belief that adding God to the equation adds often adds another variable you don't need, and all things being equal, the simplest or most likely example is often the correct one.

IE the typical back and forth... How did the universe begin? By answering God you're not really answering the question, you're just pushing back the question or adding another variable. Cause the the question becomes: Where did God come from? The typical believer would answer, 'He (it) didn't, He was always there.' Then why isn't that an acceptable answer for the universe then?

A belief in a God (or at least a self aware conscious one) doesn't really answer any of these questions, it just adds another variable, which isn't a logical way of looking at the questions.

Then again, I will admit that doesn't mean it can't be true. I have no idea.

I agree there could be an element of conscious God guided creation behind everything, I just don't believe there is. I could be wrong of course, many minds better than me have come up empty or unsatisfied on the question.

All that said, I will agree that creationISM and literalISM in religion is sily and dangerous as I mentioned before.

[Kipper is King]

^^^^ yeah, this stuff tends to go in circles doesn't it? But it's almost always entertaining, and often quite respectful.

I marvel at being able to have discussions about this on the Internet. Philosophers of the pre-Internet era would have killed for a thinktank like the Web!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

In my opinion, I see the vast complexity of the world, and I think that someone was behind it all. I think it's too brilliantly complex just to be a fluke particle reaction or whatever.

Here's one to twist your brain then..

If you see the vast complexity and see that there has to be design behind it all, what do you have to compare with that leads you to that conclusion?

Usually you evaluate something based on criteria and parameters, but if EVERYTHING is designed, then there's nothing not-designed to compare with! You aren't even capable of imagining something not designed, because your entire existence is designed. So there's no criteria to evaluate based on.



(Personally I think things look designed as well, though not perfectly designed, just designed as if natural selection was the designer, designing things that are just good enough to compete.)

[AC]

I never understood that argument that because everything is so complex, it must be designed.

So complex beings designed by an even more complex being, who doesn't need a designer? Its just circular logic.

Meanwhile evolution explains that complex species have evolved slowly from less complex species regressing back to the most simplistic beings possible.

simple -> more complex -> even more complex

[AC]

Originally Posted by photon

(Personally I think things look designed as well, though not perfectly designed, just designed as if natural selection was the designer, designing things that are just good enough to compete.)

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a funny argument against the idea of intelligent design.

If you were designing a species, why would you make the passage for air and food the same thing? Wouldn't that obviously lead to choking?

Logically, you'd want to design one passage for food and one entirely separate passage for air to eliminate the risk of choking.

And it's not even an impossible request. Just look at dolphins.

[photon]

Yeah that's a whole separate avenue of discussion, the bad designs that are out there (just read how the Spotted Hyena gives birth!!)

Not to mention all the terrible pathogens that cause huge amounts of suffering and wipe out millions.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by photon

(just read how the Spotted Hyena gives birth!!)

Googling now...

Edit: Ow! That's gotta hurt!
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...yena_cubs.html

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Googling now...

Edit: Ow! That's gotta hurt!
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...yena_cubs.html

Guess we know where the old saying "Practise makes perfect" comes from!

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If the theory of evolution does not include how life started, then how is it that it exists in a manner that is mutually exclusive of creationism which is explaining how life started.

To me it is all the same thing.

I missed this response, but wanted to address it even though it's a few days old and other posters have touched on it.

Evolution is not intended to be a replacement for creationism; if any scientist sat down and attempted to come up with a replacement theory for creationism, they would be operating outside of the scientific process.

Creationism is essentially answering two questions: how life came into being, and how that life came to be the life on earth that we know today.

Evolutionary Theory is only interested in that second question; it looks at life today as well as the fossil record, and attempts to determine how one lead to the other, and how we might predict further evolutionary changes in life on earth. This is typical of the best scientific theories: they look at evidence, and attempt to produce hypothesis from the evidence, and eventually, if they're lucky, they will answer some big questions. They don't start with big questions and attempt to answer them.

So it's not a replacement for creationism, because it does not answer that fundamental question of how life came into being. However, it and (classical) creationism are still mutually exclusive, since they have very different ideas about how life as we know it today came to be.

There are a number of hypotheses about how life came to be in the first place. It's an important distinction that these are hypotheses rather than theories. The strongest one thus far is surrounding RNA: Basically, a DNA-based life-form could not have been created on its own, because DNA is simply an information storage system. It can not actually duplicate on its own, without the presence of proteins. However, as I understand it (and I appreciate corrections if anyone knows more about this than I do), RNA isn't quite as good as DNA for information storage, but it can also act as an enyzme, meaning that it can replicate itself. This RNA-life forms a theoretical missing link between chemical reactions and extremely simple DNA-based life.

A hypothesis like this obviously owes a lot to Evolutionary Theory. It is based on our understanding of DNA and reproduction mechanisms, but to include it as part of evolutionary theory would be to weaken the entire theory. Our understanding of how life first came into being isn't nearly as sophisticated as our understanding of how it has adapted and changed, and how it continues to do so.

I think this is one of the major stumbling blocks for the acceptance of evolution; creationists are used to a theory that attempts to answer everything, even this answer is full of problems. Evolutionary Theory simply attempts to answer one question very well.

[troutman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of the origin of life is a question of how the first nucleic acids came into existence.

Some facts about the origin of life are well understood, others are still the subject of current research.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by AC

If you were designing a species, why would you make the passage for air and food the same thing? Wouldn't that obviously lead to choking?

Or, why design a device that a man pees out of yet a woman will put into her mouth. God must be male.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Finny61

For me the Genesis book is very relevant and so is our discoveries in science...

If you believe this, then you clearly do not understand the Book of Genesis.

Originally Posted by Finny61

1. God created the world in days, 1 at a time. Whose to say this means an actual 24 hour day, 1 day could mean 1,000 or 100,000, or 1,000,000 million years.

No. The first creation myth states quite explicitly that the cosmos were created in six 24-hour days. To think otherwise is silly because the parametres for what constitutes a day are defined in vv. 4, 6. 13, 19, 23 as "evening and morning". The sun rose and set on each of the first six days of creation.

The notion of "day-ages" comes from misguided theologians who are desperate to reconcile the ancient tribal myth with the modern reality that our universe is ancient. Such a sentiment is borne from a conviction that Scripture must be and always is accurate; thus, when there is a clear contradiction with what occurs in the real world, the "logical" conclusion is that we were wrong to use our common sense when reading the text in the first place.

The creation stories in Genesis are ancient Near Eastern myths. They were written from a primitive template through which people necessarily understood and constructed their world in theological terms. The Genesis 1 account is based on an even more ancient myth of epic battle between two or more gods that resulted in the creation of the world and everything. However, the story was redacted and in many respects "re-written" by a priest, who was ultimately concerned to show that there was only one god, and not several, and that this god's creative activity echoed his own cultic convictions: it was no accident that God observed the first "Shabbat".

Originally Posted by Finny61

2. God molded Adam in his own image, Eve was created from Adam. Why can't evolution still exist with this biblical statement? Can 'molded' not be the evolutionary chain from where we started whatever that be (a cell) to a human?

First of all, you are confusing the details from two DISTINCT creation stories. There is no moulding of dust and no Adam and Eve in the first creation story in Genesis 1, and there is no "image of God" in the second story in chapters 2 and 3. And there is really no room at all for evolution between the gaps that we invent when we read these stories.

I read an interesting article this week about this idea of the "image of God" as it appears in Genesis 1:22. It is widely agreed upon in scholarly circles that the creation account in Genesis 1 is based on old, Akkadian "creation war" myths, but in which the nature of the struggle between the deity (or deities) and the cosmos has been decidedly neutered. Regardless, we are naive to think that the conflict in Gen 1 is gone altogether. John T. Strong writes that the language used in God's proclamation in v. 26 to "make humankind in our likeness" is identical to the formulae used by ancient Near Eastern kings in establishing victory stelae over their vanquished enemies. Victory columns were commonly erected by ancient rulers to signal to outsiders that they had conquered a given city or region, and that they now wielded absolute control—or "dominion"—over that place. Because of the similarities between the account in Gen 1 and several of these stelae, Strong arrives at the following conclusion:

"God had just brought order to the formless void (Gen 1:2 [what I have described as 'watery chaos']), and before resting he established his victory stele to testify to his domination over his vanquished enemy. Humankind, then, was set up after God's victory and to declare God's dominion in a conquered region" (p.631).

So then, in light of the ancient context for the writing of the Genesis 1 creation account, the presence of humanity serves as a declaration of "dominion" over the vanquished foe: "Watery chaos" has been obliterated, and humanity essentially exists in place of the ancient phallic symbols to enforce this fact.

Originally Posted by Finny61

Personally I believe there is room for both and I accept the religious belief with the advances in science. They can go hand in hand even if evolution one day becomes 100% fact it doesn't change the faith aspect. Ultimately the reason why there is struggle in teaching is that it is so wide open to discussion and firm answers can't be given and that's where the disagreements are coming out.

I agree that there is "room for both", but I disagree that the old creation myths can in any way be reconciled with modern science. They are religious stories with NO factual bearing. I am a Christian, but that does not mean that I must find a "niche" for every nonsensical or obsolete story or teaching that happens to appear in the Bible. Misconstruing the Bible by making it into something that it most obviously is not is the problem in all of this, and the sooner that people begin to recognize it for what it is—an ancient collection of religious literature in the form of myths, folk-tales, poems, songs, and propoganda—the better off we all shall be.

[mykalberta]

I also doubt Britian has evolved any. Look at the Royal Family, hello.

[Cheese]

It should also be noted that when talking about supposed Christian revelations like the Genesis story, they are not their own stories and most likely not fact. The VAST majority of Creation fables were either borrowed or outright stolen from Pagan or Babylonian cultures.

Pagan Origins

Comparing creation stories

[Thor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I also doubt Britian has evolved any. Look at the Royal Family, hello.

OH and don't forget the joy of Prince Charles becoming king, now there's a nutter.

Step away for a few days, nice discussion here, always learn something when textcritic posts.