Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...1617181920...30
ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes? confused
/end vent


Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Delete Topic

Mint Sauce
veteran
Location: Lancs England
Member Since: 7th Sep 2003
Total posts: 1453
Posted:evolutionary science, , is full of genuine controversy.

Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face, these are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism versus selectionism in molecular evolution; adaptationism; group selection; punctuated equilibrium; cladism; "evo-devo"; the "Cambrian Explosion"; mass extinctions; interspecies competition; sympatric speciation; sexual selection; the evolution of sex itself; evolutionary psychology; Darwinian medicine and so on. The point is that all these controversies, and many more, provide fodder for fascinating and lively argument, not just in essays but for discussions late at night.



Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one.(Richard Dawkins)





If you are going to believe in ID then why study any science at all confused



I dont need to learn physics god dose it.

I dont need to understand biology god dose it all.

I dont need to learn chemistry things react together because god tells them to.





When I do poi they spin in certain ways because god tells them to wink





If we all believed this then we would still be in the dark ages. biggrin



(replace god with any other creation being ubbloco)


EDITED_BY: Mint Sauce (1142028731)


before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)

Delete

Chronofracture333
Chronofracture333

Hobo Gaylord
Location: I am worldwide and lush
Member Since: 15th Jun 2005
Total posts: 329
Posted:Please note' I'm agnostic.

But surely all domesticated crops/animals are a product of intelligent design, by us.

Imagine we one day find ourselves on an alien world. One on which ,unbeknowst to us, an intelligent race similar to ourselves once lived but had left no obvious trace of their existence. Evolution wouldn't explain the effects left behind on the plant/animal life by these hypothetical aliens, intelligent design would.


*no moves there are no moves there are no moves there are no moves there are no moves there are no*

"Oooh, what a shiny new move!"

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Sym

Written by: Patriarch917

They must have made the leap from walking to gliding (at least) in a generation or two.



This actually made my jaw drop.


Ditto. Incontrovertable proof that Patriarch's grasp of evolutionary theory is nil. The fact is that a change over a hundred thousand years would be practicly invisable in the fossil record, especially in a group which doesn't fossilise well such as the bats. The concept that a full bat wing must have evolve in a generation or two is lunacy.

Leave it to us scientist to say what is and isn't defunct in biology, okay. wink


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:ID is absolutely fundamental to a true understanding of the world. Otherwise you would believe stuff like cars just "evolved." We see things that are intelligently designed all around us. We are pretty good at telling the difference between something that someone has done on purpose, and something that happened by chance. One big disagreement, however, is whether life was created on purpose, or whether it happened by chance.

The key to distinguishing between things that are designed and things that happen by chance is tricky. Mere complexity alone is not enough. If we were to find a pile of rocks at the bottom of a mountain, and one of them were a perfect cube, we would tend to think that the cube might have been cut out on purpose. Of course, all of the rough rocks that broke away randomly will be more "complex" compared to the simplicity of the cube.

How can we look at something like a DNA molecule and tell whether the information was put there on purpose, or whether it was put there by chance? We are good at recognizing the signs of human engineering, because we are human. However, we have a harder time over what engineering by someone like God would look like.

It comes down to a question of faith. Some people believe life came about by chance, others think it was made on purpose. People on both sides label their own beliefs "science" and call the other side "faith," but this is a description of how sure they are that they are correct more than anything else. If you strongly believe something is true, you are likely to call it "the truth."

If we were to find another planet with alien life similar to ours, two people would interpret the same evidence in totally different ways. Someone who believe that life came about by chance would say "See! we have found another planet full of life. That means that life is nothing special, and can occur by chance anywhere." Someone who believed that life was created would say "See! the odds against life developing by chance on our own planet were so great that it was almost impossible to believe. The chance of it happening twice, close enough together for us to find both, is just to great a coincidence to attribute to chance. Someone must be putting life on these planets."

To some people, discovering life on Saturn's moon would be the ultimate proof in favor of life evolving by chance. To others, it would be the ultimate proof that life must have been created on purpose.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
When they say that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, they mean that they don't point to any three animals and say with that the one in the middle was "between" the other two...




Non-Https Image Link

Non-Https Image Link

Non-Https Image Link


But that's beside the point...
Written by: Patriarch917
That's basically why I will teach my children about Evolution. In order to understand what to believe, it helps to understand what others believe, even if you may end up disagreeing with them.


I've no objections to your kids learning about evolution. What I am concerned about is you teaching them about evolution as you clearly don't understand it so they will end up with a completly incorrect view about it.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:
No tines:

Non-Https Image Link


Partially Developed Tines:

Non-Https Image Link


Full Tines:

Non-Https Image Link


I don't think you could find a more clear cut case of transitional forms.


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: patriarch


It comes down to a question of faith. Some people believe life came about by chance, others think it was made on purpose. People on both sides label their own beliefs "science" and call the other side "faith," but this is a description of how sure they are that they are correct more than anything else. If you strongly believe something is true, you are likely to call it "the truth."





Not necessarily- just because at this time, in your eyes, science cannot yet distinguish between a purely evolved process (or, using your tems,'chance') and one designed (by God); does not exclude the possibility that, with further investigation, science will be able to show conclusively that one is the case.

As an analogy, we can think of past competing theories of matter where there was extensive debate over whether matter was made of 5 elements (air, water.. etc) or the one based on atoms which is now seen to be true.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Mint Sauce
veteran
Location: Lancs England
Member Since: 7th Sep 2003
Total posts: 1453
Posted:Patriarch917 could you please answer a few questions for me just to clear things up in my head.

In basic terms can you tell me what you believe in, in relation to evolution and what your alternative explanation for how life began and how we came to have so many different species of plants and animals

I would like you to break it down to high school level nice and simple

Because over the cause of this discussion you seem to have changed your argument on several occasions. Your way of disproving our theories seems to be inconsistent with a single core belief so I no longer know what you believe.

A little clarification hear would be fantastic.

If you where, what would you teach about ID if you where given free reign over science txt books and stuff.
smile


before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:I believe the Sciptural account of Creation found in Genesis is the superior explanation. ID may be valid on some level, but it is too bland to really bother with. ID is to Creationism as Deism is to Islam.

Delete

Mint Sauce
veteran
Location: Lancs England
Member Since: 7th Sep 2003
Total posts: 1453
Posted:ok pretend i know nothing of the bible and cristian belife can you give me a quick run down??

before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Why do you feel the Genesis account is the superior explanation?

To a lot of us, there's the concern that, taking it as it is, it's really got no more content than the many over creation accounts that all cultures seem to have.

We're also troubled by the fact that, as a document written by humans, why would it not potentially contain the flaws that any human-written document has?

Obviously, to you, it's not a document produced by humans, but instead is Gods work- other than faith though, do you have any reason to show it is Gods work?

What, for example, makes it more valid than the Islam account of creation?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:What version of the bible to you follow, and what are your reasons for following that and not the other ones.

Also, what do you think about the other books removed by the roamans? Have you read them? Are they less valid?

Just trying to understand where you're coming from


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Comparing translations of the Bible, and the Bible and the Koran, and evidence that the Bible is God's work, are all excelent discussions that I would like to have. As I said earlier in this thread, however, those discussions really deserve their own topic.

A quick run down of Creation can be found here:

Written by:

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the groundeverything that has the breath of life in itI give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morningthe sixth day

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.




The rest of chapter two switches to the story of humanity, starting with the details of the creation of man. However, this is a sufficiently detailed overview of creation in general.


Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:A large amount of time in this thread as been put towards justifying belief in evolution, seems fair to justify Creationism for a while

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:No it isn't fair.

There is direct evidence that evolution happens. I've observed it. When you work with organisms with short generation times, such as bacteria (E. coli reproduces every 20 minutes), you can watch it happen overnight if you throw a selective force at them. I've bred antibiotic resistance from an antibiotic-sensitive colony in one week. You might argue that my breeding was an artificial selection but the mechanism is the same. I didn't *design* or *create* anything. I just applied a selective force, just like in nature, and evolution took over.

There is also evidence that the earth goes around the sun and that the sun goes around the center of the galaxy. The Church opposed this, too.

See, the difference between "justifying" isn't merely philosophical. Science is about testable facts. It's about the fact that there are easily observable phemonena that clearly indicate a world that is billions of years old. Sedimentation, radiocarbon and krypton-argon dating, even dendrochronology (using tree rings) all support more than 6000 years of existence, which is what pure Christian creationism seems to support.

Science is about just that, fitting observations into a theory. And when the observations don't fit, the theory has to change. Creationism isn't about science, but rather it is about dogma. Creationism cannot change its form because to do so calls into question the entire idea of the Bible in the first place.

It isn't about which one is right. You can never know truth. For all we know the world was created yesterday and everything that we remember is simply an illusion planted there by a rather devious diety.

It's about which one is science. And which one isn't.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:The evolution referred to by Doc (which was described in detail in an earlier post) is a great example of natural selection, but not evolution in the sense that we are talking about. In a population of E. coli, a small portion of the population may be resistant to an antibiotic. If you start growing E. coli next to the antibiotic, the antibiotic will kill off all of the nonresistant ones, and the resistant ones will become the dominant portion of the population.

This can be done with humans as well, with a little more time and effort. If you start killing off everyone without red hair, eventually the redheads will start to reproduce and take over. The dominant features of the population will change.

This is an example of natural selection, which is only one element of evolution. "Molecules to man" evolution requires the addition of new beneficial additions to the genes.

Most evolution we observe today is due to the loss of, and manipulation of previously existing genetic information. When we kill off everyone who doesn't have red hair, we are destroying genetic diversity. The evolution of man into a state of mostly having red hair would not come from any new characteristics that were added, but rather through an elimination of other characteristics.

This is the principle governing breeding things like dogs, horses, and crops. We can start with the original dogs that got off the ark, and through natural or artificial selection produce all kinds of different dogs very quickly. We do not get poodles and Chihuahuas by adding in new genetic information, we get them by eliminating traits that we don't like and emphasizing ones that we do. Of course, the more these dogs evolve the less hardy they are, since genetic errors also accumulate.

One thing that gets a lot of attention is whether chance mutations can occasionally add new genetic information. We know that the vast majority of mutations are harmful, but we also know that sometimes a mutation can be good. Imagine, for instance, a population of bacteria which has the ability to metabolize a certain poison. We use this poison to kill it. One day, an organism is born with a defect in it's gene which makes it no longer capable of digesting that particular poison. It has lost a feature, and has lost genetic information, but it happened to be "good" for it.

Jeff pointed out one of the few examples of a new ability being added: the ability of a bacteria to digest nylon. However, you will have noticed that the ability did not come from a new addition of genetic material, but rather a rearrangement of the existing information (only a tiny change was needed). While they are not sure whether this was a random change, or simply a manifestation of an existing trait that they had never noticed before, we can give it the benefit of the doubt and believe that this was a random reorganization.

Molecules to man evolution cannot work by these methods alone, however. Mutations are needed that increase the information in the DNA. It is not enough to rewrite over a previous ability, or to lose some of your traits in order to survive. In order to go from lifeless molecules to people, new information must be created.

Both evolution and the Bible agree that life came from lifeless material. Evolution teaches that the information in the DNA of the first organism (or organisms) was the product of chance. The Bible says the information was put there by God. We can calculate the odds of chance processes leading to the creation of a living organism, and we can calculate the odds of whether God is capable of creating a living organism. However, odds alone do not tell us which one we have to believe.

According to the Bible, many fully formed organisms were created, and evolution has taken place since then. It is a mistake to think that Creationists do not believe in evolution. We do. We simply believe in the rapid kind that is observable today, that is dominated by degenerative mutations and manifestations of existing traits.

You may remember reading about the "mitochondrial Eve." The evidence strongly suggests that there is only one common female ancestor to which we can all trace our matriarchal ancestry. Evolutionist theorize that there were other females at her time, but they all eventually had all male children or died childless. Creationists believe that she was in fact Eve, the first female, and that no other women were around until she had daughters.

Evolutionists believe our ancestors were genetically inferior to us, and we have been improving on their genes sense then by collecting new beneficial mutations. Creationists believe that our ancestors were genetically superior to us, and that we have been collecting bad mutations since then.

This is not to say that once in a while there might actually be a chance mutation that actually does add beneficial new information. Especially in the "simple" organisms with high copying errors, I would not be surprised to learn of such a thing. However, we know that bad errors are going to vastly outweigh the good ones. Thus, the idea that beneficial mutations are a suitable explanation for life as we know it is a dubious claim that requires a high degree of faith.

When we observe things left to themselves, we see a tendency for things to fall into greater and greater disarray. When you drop several drops of colored water into clear water, for example, they tend to disperse evenly rather than arranging themselves into some meaningful pattern. We can observe our genes and our greater environment doing the same. The fossil record is not one of greater and greater variety and progress. Rather, it is a record of the thousands of types of plants and animals that our environment has lost. The fact that mutations are virtually always destructive rather than creative is clearly seen from the evidence.

Evolutionists think that good mutations occur often enough and are powerful enough to overcome bad ones. Computer simulations have taught us that a system can be designed to randomly reach a target. Some of you may remember a program that was designed to randomly generate letters, weed out the ones that were least like the target sentence, and let the remaining ones replicate themselves with new random changes. You may also have learned the difficulty of setting the parameters. If things aren't balanced just right mathematically, bad errors will occur more often than good ones, and "useful" additions will be destroyed faster than new improvements can be made. Since we know that harmful mutations are overwhelmingly more likely than beneficial ones, it takes quite a bit of faith to believe that our world just happened to have avoided a destructive cascade for so many millions of years.

Very few people in America accept naturalistic evolution (about 10-13%). About half of the remaining population believe in a form of theistic evolution (a form of ID). You can see the reasoning behind it. Even if you want to believe that mutations are responsible for life, it takes much less faith to think that the system was set up and directed by someone who knew what they were doing. The rest of us reject even the compromise that God is working through mutations. One piece of evidence for rejecting this is the Bible, in which God claims He didn't do it that way. I, and many others, choose to believe God rather than man.

Doc mentioned that the Catholic church initially opposed the idea that the earth orbits the sun. This is true. However, their position was drew it's primary support from mainstream science of the day and Greek teachings, not the Bible. Regardless, it is my opinion that the Catholic church has a record of twisting scriptures to fit the teachings of men, and I do not support them or their style of religion. I seek to avoid their error by resisting the temptation to try to twist scriptures to fit the popular science of my day.

Doc has said that there are easily observable phenomenon that demonstrate that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. This is misleading. None of the things that Doc mentioned are clear evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. They are only piece of evidence which it is possible to interpret to mean that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, depending on your starting assumptions. However, if the starting assumptions are changed, the evidence can also be interpreted as being consistent with the age of the earth as given in the Bible.

I have already addressed the underlying assumptions of radiocarbon dating, and showed how the carbon data is consistent with the Bible. The other forms of radiometric dating are much easier to dispense with, since they are incapable of giving short dates in the first place (even a living shellfish will show up as being millions of years old). The oldest tree ring evidence gives dates that go back to the time of the flood (quite a bit less that 6,000 years).

Of course, there is also evidence that suggests the earth could not be billions of years old, such as the salinity of the sea, the amount the moon is moving away from the earth every year, comets, and other things. However, I know that some of these at least have theories that try to fit them into an old earth theory (oort cloud, for example).

Things cannot be directly dated. Any dating method requires you to make assumptions about what the past was like. Evolutionists tend to lean toward the "principle of uniformity" ("the present is the key to the past"), while creationists have two big non-uniform events (creation, and the flood) that they take into consideration. Adam and Eve were created fully grown, and capable of reproducing. By the processes we observe today, we might have thought (if we had seen them) that they appeared older than they really were. If we immediately discounted the idea of God 1 day after creation, we would have had little choice but to believe that they had developed slowly over many years. However, this would have been a false assumption for a scientist to make.

Science is not the pursuit of an explanation that does not need God. Science is the search for the truth, regardless of whether that truth points to God or not. In some areas, it doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not. Whether you believe that the laws of physics were created by God, created by chance, or always existed, you will still be able to calculate the trajectory of the cannonball. Origin theories are one of the few areas in which it matters whether you are willing to accept the possibility of God or not.

Creationists and evolutionists do not disagree over what constitutes evidence. They disagree over how to interpret evidence. Both the theory of Evolution and the Bible agree as to what sort of world their theory describes: the one we live in.

The modern creation science movement is all about testing the evidence to see whether it fits the Bible's account. Of course, our theories about creation have changed just as theories about evolution have changed, but the basic tenants of both explanations remain undisturbed.

Believers in both positions also rely on faith even when there is a lack of evidence, or even evidence that seems to contradict their beliefs. Before the invention of the telescope, I would have had a very hard time scientifically backing up the Bible's claim that the stars could not be counted, when it was scientifically provable at the time that the stars could be counted. If I had lived back then, I may have stubbornly refused to disbelieve the Bible in the face of the contradictory evidence (we could only see about 3,000 stars). Similarly, right now all of the evidence that we have collected suggests that the primeval earth could not have produced a living organism from nonliving material. Still, many supporters of evolution believe that there must have been conditions that we haven't yet thought of and tested that could have produced it, and that it did in fact happen despite the odds against it. Both evolution and Creationists are sure in the ability of scientific progress to vindicate their positions. Neither are likely to just give up any time soon.

In fact, you can always dispute that there is a difference between what is observed, and what is true. For example, earlier in this thread you heard the claim that we have not discover soft tissue and the remnants of red blood cells inside a t-rex bone, but that instead we only discovered what appears to possibly be soft tissue and remnants of red blood cells. Similarly, I would say that we have not discovered transitional forms, instead, we have only discovered things that appear to possibly be transitional forms.

We can rewrite the wikipedia definition of what constitutes "science." We can even rename this topic "The Truth vs What is Correct." Such disputes over the meaning of terms and the labeling of theories detracts from our ability to discuss these things, and adds nothing meaningful to the discussion.

In the end, I still maintain that the theory of evolution should not be taught in schools dogmatically as the only valid way to interpret the evidence that we find. I am encouraged by the willingness of some schools to teach that there are differences of opinion as to what the evidence means. If all the schools were only teaching my preferred theory, I am sure that I would also be reluctant to let other interpretations into the classroom. However, I know that truth does not need to be protected from being compared to lies. Thus, I am willing to tolerate a great deal of freedom in what people are allowed to say and believe.


Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:But just a sec, what about the other Biblical creation story in Genesis 2?



4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth (b) and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.



8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the groundtrees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.



10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [f] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [g] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.



15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."



18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."



19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs (i) and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.



23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [k] '

for she was taken out of man."



24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.



25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.



Which contradicts the order in which God created things in the first bit of Genesis you quoted? And of course, each section has a different name for god, either Elohim or Yahweh.

EDITED_BY: spiralx (1142267443)


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:The theory that this is another creation story makes no sense. For one thing, it leaves out things like the creation of fish, and the sun.

Gen. 2:4 is the begining of human history, starting with the planting of the garden of eden and how Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day. There is no conflict in the order in which things were created. After describing the creation of Adam, it says that "the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air" and tells how he brought them to Adam to be named.

The Bible refers to God in many different ways, including Elohim (God), YHWH (God's name), Adonai (Lord), and others.


Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Patriarch, where do you learn about evolution? have you read any books on it?

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:As a side note,

What is your definition of genetic information?


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

The theory that this is another creation story makes no sense. For one thing, it leaves out things like the creation of fish, and the sun.

Gen. 2:4 is the begining of human history, starting with the planting of the garden of eden and how Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day. There is no conflict in the order in which things were created. After describing the creation of Adam, it says that "the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air" and tells how he brought them to Adam to be named.

The Bible refers to God in many different ways, including Elohim (God), YHWH (God's name), Adonai (Lord), and others.


But surely if the Bible was written by God then all of it has to make sense? Or is God contradicting himself on purpose?


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:sigh

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:Sigh what? The two accounts contradict each other as to when both Adam and Eve were created by God.

"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Written by: Domino
A large amount of time in this thread as been put towards justifying belief in evolution, seems fair to justify Creationism for a while



Written by: Doc Lightning

No it isn't fair.



Creationism, no. ID, yes. The proponents of ID are saying it is a scientific theory, so it should be treated in the say way as any other theory using the scientific method.

If it is faith then great, teach it in an RE class, not as science. If Patriarch seems to think that ID is just as valid as evolution then he should have to stand up to the same tests. If anyone has a problem with the method, then that is another issue, but the point that we are debating is about teaching ID along side science


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:The "accounts" do not contradict each other as to when adam and eve were created. Chapter 1 says when they were created (Day 6). Chapter 2 described how they were created (Adam from the ground, Eve from Adam's rib). The effort to find a contradiction between the two chapters is a waste of time. No contradiction is present.



A contradiction would be if chapter 1 were to say that Adam and eve were created on day 6, and Chapter 2 were to say that they were created on day 20. Two show a contradiction, one must find statements that cannot both be simulataneously true.



By making the assumption that chapter 2 is "another" creation account, one could say that the "accounts" contradict because one says that God created the sun, and the other doesn't. This is just silly. One cannot find a "contradiction" in the text by this method. The contradiction would exist only in your erroneous interpretation.


Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Just out of interest, how do we know about anything before Adam was made? Did God tell someone at some point? If so when? Maybe we should start a 'questions about the bible' thread, as this doesn't relate to the topic very much.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:Hmm, lets' see. The order in Genesis 1 goes

Light/dark
Waters
Land+vegetation
Sun/moon/stars
Sea creatures/birds
Land animals
Man+Woman

but in Genesis 2 is

Heavens/earth
Streams
Man
Trees
Beasts/birds
Woman

The first specifically says that Adam was created after the animals to "rule over" them, the second that "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Contradiction.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:mmm, it seems that statement is debatable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis#Theories_of_textual_interpretation


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:I'm sure some people would try and debate that, yes wink

"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:ubblol

What, like those people who go on forums? They might talk for 22 pages about things like that, yes wink


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Page: 1...1617181920...30

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..