View Full Version : Should evolution be taught in schools?
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 06:21 PM
I actually think that people turn to God, when in difficulty, out of desperation when they can't think of anything else to do. I could be wrong though.
jerseydevil
10-31-2002, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That's the Golden Rule, a part of the Bible. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
I know it is - I went to catholic school all my life. But it doesn't take someone to read the Bible to follow that or to believe in god.
And I thought this was a thread about Evolution being taught in school - not whether there is a god or not.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 06:34 PM
It is. It's also a contravertial thread prone to tangents, and this is a big one.
If the original topic revives, then so be it. I won't object.
That's certainly the title of the thread, and the people involved in the last few pages of posts have given their opinion on that topic and discussed it at great length, and we are now discussing issues that have arisen from the thoughts expressed about the thead topic. As long as it's ok with the mods, I think it's a very interesting discussion and I'd like to continue, for one.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by jerseydevil
it doesn't take someone to read the Bible to follow that or to believe in god.
I agree.
I"ll start with a quote from jerseydevil: People should be good to others and do the right thing - not because of heaven and hell - but just because you should treat others the way you would want to be treated.
Now I started with this quote, because I wanted to re-bring-up (points off on grammar, I realize :) ) the whole topic of morality. Now I'll quote from a post that I wrote WAY back on page 4: One very interesting observable point that the TOE (th. of ev.) doesn't have any solution for is the very curious propensity of the human race to use the word "should". For ex, if someone bops you on the head for no good reason (i.e., they're not your sibling that is retaliating for you stealing their crayons ), your response would be "you SHOULDN'T have done that!" But the use of the word "should" implies that there is a moral law which has been violated. I won't even get into which moral law is correct, the very fact that all people have some moral law, whether you or I happen to agree with it or not, is enough to go on for now.
Okay, would you people agree with that? (that all people have some moral code, even though it may not be the same). See, jerseydevil, you yourself just used the word "should".
BTW, let me just state here that I'm not trying to do something tricky here! I am, however, trying to present some things that are not usually thought about, and I would like you to honestly think about them and evaluate honestly if you think they are true or not. I sure hope that you people will grant that I have been intellectually honest (whether or not you agree with my statements!) in the sense that I giving you my own thoughts, which I believe to be true, on the issues. I'm NOT, in any sense, trying to get you to believe something that I think is UNTRUE in order to snooker you into becoming a Christian! (i.e., "if I can just get them to swallow this ONE fib, then they'll become Christians, which I know is better for them, anyway - BWAHAHA!)
OK, I'm done with the post finally.
Lizra
10-31-2002, 06:56 PM
I don't have a vending machine mentality towards prayer, really! I was just being polite to LE because that's the direction his posts about how God will "reveal" himself,seemed to be going.
LE, I'm fairly intellegent, and have been through many trials and tribulations over the years. You really aren't telling me anything new. I simply don't buy it.
afro-elf
10-31-2002, 07:01 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to go and read a bunch of authors like that simply because you aren't willing to try explaining what they believe on your own
ERROR LE,
1) its a matter of time which I did not have
2)and prudence.
it not better to read the original soucre than my second hand source
To sum up the belief in god has biological roots.
The switch above was (freewill) was a response to your comment bringing freewill in.
However, the THREAD is about evolution NOT about belief "attacking" belief
we should drop this and get back on track
so can we ( everyone posting) get back on track
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 07:05 PM
Sorry if we misunderstood you, and we didn't mean to jump all over you. We were simply concerned that you were leaving, planning to act, but were certainly going to be disappointed because you were going about it wrong.
Ah, by the way, which part of what I said don't you buy? Or is it all of it?
It actually doesn't matter, it's entirely up to you whether you believe what I've said or not. I'm definitely not expecting anyone to take what I'm saying on my word alone. All that I'm trying to do is to convince you and others to give the God that I believe in a chance.
afro-elf
10-31-2002, 07:07 PM
You posted while I was typing
afro-elf
10-31-2002, 07:09 PM
All that I'm trying to do is to convince you and others to give the God that I believe in a chance.
I did and I found I was in error however if you think you have cool
ciao
jerseydevil
10-31-2002, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It is. It's also a contravertial thread prone to tangents, and this is a big one.
If the original topic revives, then so be it. I won't object.
I didn't realise that the Theism thread was closed. To get some of the people's views on religion you might want to read these two threads.
Theism (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3948) - 27 pages
The Anti-theist Thread (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3951) - 57 pages
You can find a lot opf my views already expressed in the Anti-Theist thread.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 07:16 PM
Ah, I was talking to Lizra ;).
Originally posted by afro-elf
ERROR LE,
1) its a matter of time which I did not have
2)and prudence.
it not better to read the original soucre than my second hand source
To sum up the belief in god has biological roots.
The switch above was (freewill) was a response to your comment bringing freewill in.
Afro elf, I wish you wouldn't sum up. The belief that the belief in God comes from man appears to me to be simply from a belief. I'm afraid I'll have to listen to your second error warning and look to another source before being able to address this statement.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 07:20 PM
I'd personally rather hear people's questions from themselves then read a closed topic. If people want to email or PM me on the topic, they can. If they want to continue inside this topic, I'm open to that too. If the whole thread closes entirely, I'm all right with that.
So basically, I'm not casting my vote as to which way this thread goes. The decision is up to the rest of you.
Well, I finished editing my 2:50 post, and in the meantime, a bunch of posts came in, and it's already history! But anyway, for anyone that's interested, it is finished, and I'd like your opinions.
And Lizra, I'm glad you don't have that vending machine mentality about prayer. It sure seemed to me that you did from your post, and many people do, so I addressed it. What do you think about the way that I presented prayer (or anyone else)? Does it make sense to you?
jerseydevil
10-31-2002, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'd personally rather hear people's questions from themselves then read a closed topic. If people want to email or PM me on the topic, they can. If they want to continue inside this topic, I'm open to that too. If the whole thread closes entirely, I'm all right with that.
So basically, I'm not casting my vote as to which way this thread goes. The decision is up to the rest of you.
I'm just saying that if you're interested in what others have to say - there are two threads that most of us have already taken part in. You might get some insight on why people feel the way they do. I know that Afro Elf has a lot of his comments in there, as well as me.
I'm not saying not to continue this one - just there are two additional sources on people's beliefs if you're interested.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 07:32 PM
All right, thanks for the suggestion :).
Starr Polish
10-31-2002, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by R*an
(BTW, Lief, I think you misinterpreted Starr's post the same way that I did - I think what Starr was pointing out was - why did cass even bother to pray if she didn't believe in God? )
Is that right, Starr? BTW, that's a good point about answered prayers - sometimes we ask, then we don't even notice the answer! But God is faithful.
Exactly what I meant. I could never pray to Allah, or cast a spell to 'my Lady' (at least one sect of Wicca does this as a form of prayer, I think), because I don't believe in those things.
I can see praying just to pray, so something or someone, reveals itself to you, but not specifically to any god.
Lizra
10-31-2002, 09:23 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by R*an
[B
And Lizra, I'm glad you don't have that vending machine mentality about prayer. It sure seemed to me that you did from your post, and many people do, so I addressed it. What do you think about the way that I presented prayer (or anyone else)? Does it make sense to you? [/B][/QUOTE
Well, the vending machine mentality came from Leif. He said you didn't even need to belive in God, just pray that he reveals himself to you, and be sincere. He also said sometimes he answers your prayers sometimes he doesn't. That's where I came up with "pray and see what happens, eh?"
Your thoughts on prayer are very nice, :) , but if you don't believe that God exists, then none of those nice things will happen.
What I find impossible to believe is an afterlife, especially the bit about Heaven and Hell. Also, the Biblical miricles of the old testement, and the Creation story.
I do believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and preached a powerful message of love, that moved many people, spawning the Christian relegion.
cassiopeia
10-31-2002, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Starr Polish
Why would you pray to someone/thing you don't believe in?
I am open to the possibility that God exists. But at the moment, I see no need or evidence that He does exist. I pray at last resort, it's better than nothing, right? Why do we need to pray anyway? Wouldn't God know what we want, since He is all powerful?
I am trying to be nice in this thread, since I do have some rather strong feelings on this topic. I believe that religious people simply distort the 'facts' (like the fact that God does't anwer all prayers, for example) so that they avoid being wrong. If I ask, if God created us, what about the fossil records which show that humans decended from ape-like creatures over millions of years? You will probably find some 'excuse', like the evidence is faulty or similar.
Originally posted by Lizra
Well, the vending machine mentality came from Leif. He said you didn't even need to belive in God, just pray that he reveals himself to you, and be sincere. He also said sometimes he answers your prayers sometimes he doesn't. That's where I came up with "pray and see what happens, eh?"
Your thoughts on prayer are very nice, :) , but if you don't believe that God exists, then none of those nice things will happen.
[/B]
Lizra - I didn't ask if you thought that they were nice ideas, (and I do know that you are trying to be polite :) ) but you can still be polite and state your opinion about whether or not they make sense, if you assume the Christian view that I stated, namely, that God is all-knowing and will answer either yes, no or wait a bit, depending upon which is the best one for us.
Now the way Lief's statement ties in is that it is clearly stated in the Bible that it is God's will that all come to know Him, and that those that seek Him with all their hearts will find Him. However, this is where free will comes in - if you choose to not seek Him, then He will allow you to make that choice. And also, He may not answer it in a way that you would expect - for example, it might take a little time, because He knows that ultimately that will help your belief.
Do you see the subtle (but extremely important) difference? When I pray for about something like "would you please help this person to get better", the answer may be - although it is extremely difficult for us to understand - a 'no'. For our best is not necessarily here on earth, and a person's death may affect people in many painful, but ULTIMATELY beneficial ways, that only God can see and know about.
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I am open to the possibility that God exists. But at the moment, I see no need or evidence that He does exist. I pray at last resort, it's better than nothing, right? Why do we need to pray anyway? Wouldn't God know what we want, since He is all powerful?
I am trying to be nice in this thread, since I do have some rather strong feelings on this topic. I believe that religious people simply distort the 'facts' (like the fact that God does't anwer all prayers, for example) so that they avoid being wrong. If I ask, if God created us, what about the fossil records which show that humans decended from ape-like creatures over millions of years? You will probably find some 'excuse', like the evidence is faulty or similar.
The Bible doesn't say that God answers all prayers with a "yes"!! Could you please take a quick look back at my post that discusses that question and let me know what areas you disagree with? (if you hold on a sec, I'll put the post time in for a reference). And I also listed several other reasons why we should pray. What do you think about those?
(it's the 1:46 pm post)
Starr Polish
11-01-2002, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I am open to the possibility that God exists. But at the moment, I see no need or evidence that He does exist. I pray at last resort, it's better than nothing, right? Why do we need to pray anyway? Wouldn't God know what we want, since He is all powerful?
Ah, you're agnostic then? For some reason I thought you were completely atheist...correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.
About God knowing what we want, well, yes. Have you ever read the Chronicles of Narnia? There's a part, I think in the first book (I haven't read them for a long time), when one of the children comments on why Aslan didn't give them food, since he knew they were hungry. Another one of the children replies something like:
"Well, I think he's the kind that likes to be asked."
Someone can't give you help if you won't accept it.
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I believe that religious people simply distort the 'facts' (like the fact that God does't anwer all prayers, for example) so that they avoid being wrong. If I ask, if God created us, what about the fossil records which show that humans decended from ape-like creatures over millions of years? You will probably find some 'excuse', like the evidence is faulty or similar.
Well, I don't claim that all I say is right. At this moment I may think I'm right, but I could easily be proven wrong. I believe in God completely, and won't say I'm wrong about His existance, but, especially since I'm young in all walks of life, I may be misinterpreting or just not completely understand all the things related to him.
cassiopeia
11-01-2002, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by R*an
The Bible doesn't say that God answers all prayers with a "yes"!! Could you please take a quick look back at my post that discusses that question and let me know what areas you disagree with? (if you hold on a sec, I'll put the post time in for a reference). And I also listed several other reasons why we should pray. What do you think about those?
(it's the 1:46 pm post)
I think you misunderstood my post. I was asking why does God need us to pray, shouldn't He know what we want? I understand what you are saying about not all prayers being anwered, and I for one am glad not all prayers are answered, since I am sure that not all are for good. I think I read the right post - I think because of the time difference the times that posts were posted are different (I hope that just made sense). So praying makes you feel closer to God?
SP: I like that quote from Narnia and yes, I am an agnostic.
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I think you misunderstood my post. I was asking why does God need us to pray, shouldn't He know what we want?
He does know what we want and he could do it if he wanted to. However, if he wants a relationship with a human, as it says in the Bible, then that is an interactive relationship. I read in one devotional book that the ideal prayer is the prayer of silence, which is entirely listening, and learning God's perfect will.
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I am open to the possibility that God exists. But at the moment, I see no need or evidence that He does exist. I pray at last resort, it's better than nothing, right?
The primary evidence that you are going to find for God's existence, Cassiopeia, is that of the witnesses. This evidence you don't have to believe, but it is hopefully sufficient for you to see that God could exist. And if he does exist, well, you have already said that you want to get to know him if he does exist, so I advise you to find out by asking him if he exists. You don't have to believe he exists to ask him if he exists, and I guarantee that he'll answer.
As for whether praying as a last resort is better than nothing . . . I'd actually say that it isn't better. For God isn't likely to answer such a prayer, and could end up damaging your belief because the venting machine fails to operate.
Originally posted by Lizra
Well, the vending machine mentality came from Leif. He said you didn't even need to belive in God, just pray that he reveals himself to you, and be sincere.
Lizra, I'm delighted that you now understand what I mean.
Plenty of people do have a venting machine mentality, and I don't remember if I'm the one who brought it up here. But it is a common problem, and a good idea to address.
Originally posted by cassiopeia
If I ask, if God created us, what about the fossil records which show that humans decended from ape-like creatures over millions of years? You will probably find some 'excuse', like the evidence is faulty or similar.
If you bring up something that goes against the Bible, then I would wish that Christians would look closely at it before accepting it as true. And be careful about bending the Bible to science in your study. This doesn't mean keep ignorance rather than verified fact simply because the verified fact disagrees with what is written in ignorance. It simply is because Christians have a basis of faith and good reasons to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and if it is so then one must be careful before saying that it's wrong in a certain area.
I think that evolution will eventually have far better accuracy and things in it will become a lot better defined then they are now. There is evidence to support swift evolution, and I'm personally more inclined to believe that than the longer term evolution which takes place over millions of years. The dating methods which show things to have existed for millions of years are debatable, anyway, and the longer term belief has some difficulties in it. For example, the fact that many different species are very different from each other, whereas if there was a slow evolution, then there would be many, many species which are closely related to each other. If on the other hand, as genetics have shown is the case with certain species, a species under stress or in difficult circumstances acts to keep itself alive by changing, this would give a reasonable explanation for the different species around the world which are unrelated to each other.
Anyway, this is simply one opinion, and it could be mistaken. I do think that evolution has quite a few things right, but I think that they will discover a lot of new things that they didn't know before, and discard quite a few of the old beliefs.
BeardofPants
11-01-2002, 02:14 AM
Guys, if you want to talk about praying and stuff, I suggest that you open up a new thread, because I am rather sick of having to plow through all these off-topic comments. I know that some people asked questions, but I now feel they have been answered. Can we get back to the topic at question? Evolution?
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 02:25 AM
That sounds reasonable to me. Is anyone interested in continuing this discussion in another topic, or should we let it drop, or continue it on PMs or emails? What is the general consensus?
Cirdan
11-01-2002, 03:32 AM
LE, I'm curious as to why you believe dating methods are debatable. There is no real controversy in the Geology community about dating techniques, New discoveries are more related to precision than accuracy. Whether something is 800 million years old or 780 million does not change the fact that nothing in science today supports the chronology of the biblical creation story. Your example is somewhat flawed in that it doesn't take into consideration mass extinctions and periods of non-stress (the horseshoe crab has changed little in 780 million years) just to name a few.
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Cirdan
LE, I'm curious as to why you believe dating methods are debatable. There is no real controversy in the Geology community about dating techniques, New discoveries are more related to precision than accuracy. Whether something is 800 million years old or 780 million does not change the fact that nothing in science today supports the chronology of the biblical creation story. Your example is somewhat flawed in that it doesn't take into consideration mass extinctions and periods of non-stress (the horseshoe crab has changed little in 780 million years) just to name a few.
Because of the dating methods, people believe that a creature was the way it was 700 million years ago. Besides the dating method and the similarities of structure between the previous crab and the present crab, there isn't that much fossil evidence that comes between any of these creatures. One thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me is why we have bones of creatures 700 million years ago, but when we have several different fossils of one species, we don't have much evidence at all of creatures in between, even though we have several of the far past. Perhaps this lack is explainable, but I think it makes sense that there wouldn't be any creatures in between if there wasn't enough time for there to be. Thus, we also have a reason for there not being an enormous mixture in the species, as I'm sure there would be if we all evolved so slowly. Saying that we evolved slowly over an enormous amount of time doesn't take into account the fact that many species exist which are completely unrelated to each other. When a creature slowly changes, like recieves light sensing material in place of eyes, and this slowly develops into an eye, you're ignoring all the creatures that lie further below. The species would slowly change, and many different creatures of that same species would go in different directions. Thus, you would see an enormous amount of new species constantly developing, each to its different circumstances. We would live on a planet with far more related species.
There actually is dispute over the dating methods. My Dad has written two books which connect the creation and the Old Testament to science, and show what science made mistakes and how and why, and where everything correlates. Unfortunately, I cannot post those discoveries here, because as yet they are unpublished. I'll refer you to them the moment they are (Don't quite know when that will be :rolleyes: ).
In any case, I'm not knowledgable enough about the different dating methods to discuss them with you, unfortunately. BeardofPants didn't give me a very detailed example of what the other dating methods do and how they work, but I'll be keeping my eye out for information on that subject.
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Cirdan
Your example is somewhat flawed in that it doesn't take into consideration mass extinctions and periods of non-stress (the horseshoe crab has changed little in 780 million years) just to name a few.
Periods of non-stress would probably occur, and on these occasions species would probably remain largely as they always were. This would explain why the species we see today are largely the same as they have been for many years. None of their species are near the edge of extinction, but when a species is, it can adapt to make a come back. Assuming that because you cannot see the change, but you can see evolution, it has to be done over a longer period of time, and based upon dating methods that could well be wrong (Because of my lack of knowledge of the other methods, I'm speaking largely of radio carbon dating here), is just not right. There are evidences to support your judgement, but there are contradictions that have to be looked at.
I heard my Dad tell me once about an island upon which there was an endangered species, which was severely threatened because of changes in the environment. The scientists returned to the island and found that the old species was extinct, but they found four new species, all extremely closely related to the extinct one!
I don't have any reason to believe that there have been enormous mass extinctions in Earth's past. I think it is a way of explaining the nonexistence of species that otherwise we would see examples of. I'd appreciate you or someone else giving some of the evidence that supports the existence of such extinctions.
Cirdan
11-01-2002, 01:21 PM
LE, carbon dating is not used much in geology. It is mostly a tool for archeology. Radiometric dating is used to confirm the ages of formations, but the age of rock formations is determined by the relative stratigraphy. Without going into a long dissertation it basically means the order and rate at which formations can occur based on rock type and superposition (which can first and why). For the earth to be much younger some parameter would have to defy physics to excced rates of formation, deformation, and weathering. An example would be sedimentary rocks. If the time were speeded up in the deformantion process they rocks would melt and become igneous, crystalline rock.
As to mass extinctions, the is a great deal of evidence of these. The dinosaurs are the most well known example. The three major ages of the earth in terms of geology (Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic) are defined with mass extinctions as the starting points for each. A mass extinction you can see is the one being caused be humans. Many species has disappeared since human became such good hunters.
You can claim deus ex machina but you cannot claim a young earth without defying all reason. The same holds true for the great flood story. If you are interested in learning about geology there is an author named John McPhee who does a reader-friendly synopsys of US geology. If you are near some mountainous or rocky areas I would reccomend a field trip after visiting a local office of the USGS for info on local geology.
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Guys, if you want to talk about praying and stuff, I suggest that you open up a new thread, because I am rather sick of having to plow through all these off-topic comments. I know that some people asked questions, but I now feel they have been answered. Can we get back to the topic at question? Evolution?
OK, fine by me :) I like to answer questions that people ask (especially when I am named in the post), and because they are questions about complex matters, they take awhile to answer (and I haven't even finished answering them, I was still trying to define some background info so that my answer would be better understood). So starting a new thread is fine, if anyone would like to. I won't finish my answers, though, unless anyone requests me to (and then I will be glad to), because I've probably already bored you guys to tears with my long posts!
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
LE, carbon dating is not used much in geology. It is mostly a tool for archeology. Radiometric dating is used to confirm the ages of formations, but the age of rock formations is determined by the relative stratigraphy.
Most of these dating methods, however, still rely upon steady amounts of radioactive material in the atmosphere/sea. If some event has taken place which causes a shift in the balance, then these amounts are no longer steady and you cannot be certain of your dating method.
Originally posted by Cirdan
As to mass extinctions, the is a great deal of evidence of these. The dinosaurs are the most well known example. The three major ages of the earth in terms of geology (Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic) are defined with mass extinctions as the starting points for each. A mass extinction you can see is the one being caused be humans. Many species has disappeared since human became such good hunters.
The main reason for the assumption of a mass extinction, however, is that a number of species no longer exist. The dinosaurs are certainly a well known example, but science only assumes an astroid collision because it seems a likely possibility. They haven't proved how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Only they know that the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, and humans are, and a good explanation for that is the mass extinction of their species.
This doesn't mean that further or different evidence won't turn up. For these mass extinctions there aren't an enormous amount of evidence for, but they can see that there have been several major shifts in the animal populations of the Earth. There is good reason to believe in these extinctions, if you aren't assuming a young Earth.
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
You can claim deus ex machina but you cannot claim a young earth without defying all reason. The same holds true for the great flood story. If you are interested in learning about geology there is an author named John McPhee who does a reader-friendly synopsys of US geology. If you are near some mountainous or rocky areas I would reccomend a field trip after visiting a local office of the USGS for info on local geology.
We have several geology books here, for my Dad is studying the likelihood of an early breaking up of the continents, and the flood's happening. I could give you his theories, but they are unpublished as yet, so to do so would be wrong. I will certainly refer you to them once they are published.
The historical evidence for the flood is there in the traditions of the peoples of the Earth. All of them differ from each other in one way or another, but they are there. And that is logical, considering that we believe all people came from Noah. His people would have spread out, and it makes sense that they carried on traditions (Obviously slightly alterred over time and changing circumstances) of such a momentous event.
If you close the time frame and assume a young Earth, also all of the dragon traditions in all of the cultures of the world make more sense, for these people would have encountered dinosaurs. There are other accounts also in history of the break up of the continents, like that written by Plato of the disappearance of Atlantis.
Let me remind you of our reference frame. We are looking from a tiny bit of time, just a tiny piece of all that has been and will be. And although science can show us a lot, and what we can see from this reference frame is constantly going, it can be very wrong to make assumptions based upon that reference frame. Simply because we can see the continents moving at a slow rate now, we extrapolate and assume, based on these dating methods and our own observations, that they have always been moving at a constant rate. The continents have moved a long way away from their original location in one whole, which was Pangea. In passages in Genesis it describes all of the land being in one place, all together. That would be Pangea.
When something is observed, in history of other places, one cannot simply always dismiss it if it contradicts the current views of science. The observor, simply because he lived several hundred years ago, shouldn't be dismissed. As a matter of a fact, some attention at least should be put on what he's saying, for he had another reference frame than we do now. Certainly things have been added onto original truths, and a true story can get twisted to become more exciting, and other things can happen to it to alter it from its original form and distort the facts. But on the inside of most legends, there is usually at least a grain of truth. And it is interesting when looking from a Christian or Biblical standpoint, to see the truth emerge from many of these things that are thought of as legends, and come to life.
It appears, because of the evidence that currently is available to science, that there cannot have been a flood and that the continents are steadily and slowly moving apart, as they have been doing for millions of years. All that I have shown is what is readily available in tradition and history, and I am confident that that won't have changed your opinion much. My Dad has much more, but unfortunately I cannot show that until it is published.
BeardofPants
11-01-2002, 07:17 PM
LF: If there was a global flood, there should be evidence of this in the geological strata. There isn't. Deep sea cores do not show uniform "mud" layers where there should have been if there was a global flood. Nor does the disperal of the fossil record support a global flood hypothesis.
As it stands, most of the "flood stories" centred in societies whose lives were governed by the flooding seasons of the rivers, etc that they lived near. Remember, these stories predate irrigation, so they lived right near the water sources. Egypt is a prime example of this; their whole seasonality revolved around the flooding of the nile. Of course there are going to be stories within early cultures of flooding. Their very survival depended on the flood seasons.
jerseydevil
11-01-2002, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
The main reason for the assumption of a mass extinction, however, is that a number of species no longer exist. The dinosaurs are certainly a well known example, but science only assumes an astroid collision because it seems a likely possibility. They haven't proved how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Only they know that the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, and humans are, and a good explanation for that is the mass extinction of their species.
There is evidence of a giant crater in off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Also there is evidence in the rock formations around the time of the dinosaurs death that there was a lack of sunlight and that plant life also died out. Theories are educated guesses by looking at evidence and is similar to fitting the pieces of a giant puzzle together. This is in stark contrast to Creationsim where it is solely based the ideas presented in a book that no one knows who wrote.
Science isn't always right - but at least it attempts to search for the truth. Withouth science - we would still think the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Many scientific people that were looking for the truth were excommunicated and put to death by religious people that refused to give up their beliefs. This is similar to what is going on regarding evolution (although I don't think people are being put to death).
Cirdan
11-01-2002, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Most of these dating methods, however, still rely upon steady amounts of radioactive material in the atmosphere/sea. If some event has taken place which causes a shift in the balance, then these amounts are no longer steady and you cannot be certain of your dating method.
The amount of uranium in the earth is stable and no mechanism has been found to remove it from earth. Also, as I stated the radiometric dating only confirms field observations on the age of the earth.
The main reason for the assumption of a mass extinction, however, is that a number of species no longer exist. The dinosaurs are certainly a well known example, but science only assumes an astroid collision because it seems a likely possibility. They haven't proved how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Only they know that the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, and humans are, and a good explanation for that is the mass extinction of their species.
This is wrong. The actual impact crater has been identified. There were other factors such as increased volcanism and the break-up of the supercontinent which pushed many species to the brink as well. The climate change was recorded in many different ways besides the extinction. There is an immense body of evidence for extinction and none against, save saying it may be wrong without a basis in fact.
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 07:56 PM
BeardofPants, you are speaking of different floodstories than I am. There are stories in China, and worldwide which describe the whole nation being covered by a flood, and only a tiny amount of people surviving, frequently on a boat. They aren't limited to groups that lived on the waterside.
Also, if you are going to continue to refer to these sea cores as evidence against what I'm saying, I'd appreciate it if you gave me a bit more detailed of an account as to how it works.
One further question: Do you think that, if the continents, as I have theorized, have been moving at a fast rate, this would have any effect upon the stability of the mud level? That's simply an idea I thought of just now, I don't know much about the sea cores, and you're welcome to shoot that one down :).
Originally posted by jerseydevil
There is evidence of a giant crater in off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Also there is evidence in the rock formations around the time of the dinosaurs death that there was a lack of sunlight and that plant life also died out. Theories are educated guesses by looking at evidence and is similar to fitting the pieces of a giant puzzle together. This is in stark contrast to Creationsim where it is solely based the ideas presented in a book that no one knows who wrote.
Jerseydevil, I've heard about the crater, and I'm not denying that astroids or meteors haven't hit the Earth at different times in Earth's history. I realize that there is evidence to suggest that dinosaurs might have died off at the time that they are suggesting. I've heard the theories and seen the videos. These don't prove the dinosaurs' death, they give an educated guess, based upon the assumption (Based upon different dating methods which rely upon a constant amount of radioactivity in the atmosphere or sea) that the Earth is old. If it isn't so old, there isn't room for the dinosaurs' extinction, unless you say that God wiped them out before creating Adam, something that I think isn't extremely likely, as pain and death hadn't entered into the world at that point.
That statement simply states that from the Biblical perspective, a mass extinction of the dinosaurs doesn't seem extremely likely. Even though I know none of you were moving from the Biblical perspective.
It is known who wrote various books of the Bible, and I don't think that Creationism can be proved. However, I think that various things that the Bible says God did, did happen and can be shown.
Originally written by jerseydevil
Science isn't always right - but at least it attempts to search for the truth. Withouth science - we would still think the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Many scientific people that were looking for the truth were excommunicated and put to death by religious people that refused to give up their beliefs. This is similar to what is going on regarding evolution (although I don't think people are being put to death).
Here I agree with you. Science isn't always right, it attempts to search for the truth, and it frequently finds it. It has errors in it, which are currently unobserved but most likely in the future will be. There are evidences for all of the things that they have established. Sometimes these evidences are faulty, or are extrapolations.
But science does seek to know the truth and puts its best leg forward at finding it. I know that many wonderful scientific people have been badly treated by the Church for 'heretical' views. I'm not trying to defend the Church hierarchy, and I think that religious people shouldn't shy away from things that go against their views, but rather should come to the forefront of knowledge about them. If what they believe they know to be true, as I do, they should become familiar with the things that go against it, so that they can discuss such topics from a basis of knowledge.
Cirdan
11-01-2002, 07:58 PM
As for the flood, there is nothing inthe was of eviidence. BoP is right about the flood story. It was recorded in Sumeria as old, old, tale. It was merely picked up by the Hebrews when Abraham was there. There have been suggestions of a cataclysmic flood in the Black Sea area dating to 10,000 BC. The research is incomplete and a true link may never be found since the tale probably existed as oral tradition until writing was invented. Tales of Atlantis and the Loch Ness monster are fine stories for children but they hold no real historical value.
Cirdan
11-01-2002, 08:00 PM
The pressure and temperature problems of very fast moving continents are insurmountable. Basically they would melt and all life would be incinerated.
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
The amount of uranium in the earth is stable and no mechanism has been found to remove it from earth. Also, as I stated the radiometric dating only confirms field observations on the age of the earth.
This is wrong. The actual impact crater has been identified. There were other factors such as increased volcanism and the break-up of the supercontinent which pushed many species to the brink as well. The climate change was recorded in many different ways besides the extinction. There is an immense body of evidence for extinction and none against, save saying it may be wrong without a basis in fact. [/B]
I know that they have a crater, and I know that there is evidence to show that his is likely the one that killed off the dinosaurs. More of it was brought up by jerseydevil. But the fact is, there is no proof that this accumulation of events, which is dated by methods that I disagree with, wiped out the dinosaurs. Certainly the amount of uranium of the Earth is stable; they wouldn't have used a dating method based upon it if it wasn't. Personally, I think that the dramatic changes caused by the movement of the continents, the changing of the atmosphere and the solar rays penetration, all around the same time as the flood, could easily have caused changes, even if there aren't ways of showing them yet.
Cirdan
11-01-2002, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I know that they have a crater, and I know that there is evidence to show that his is likely the one that killed off the dinosaurs. More of it was brought up by jerseydevil. But the fact is, there is no proof that this accumulation of events, which is dated by methods that I disagree with, wiped out the dinosaurs. Certainly the amount of uranium of the Earth is stable; they wouldn't have used a dating method based upon it if it wasn't. Personally, I think that the dramatic changes caused by the movement of the continents, the changing of the atmosphere and the solar rays penetration, all around the same time as the flood, could easily have caused changes, even if there aren't ways of showing them yet.
Solar rays are dodgy at best but there is plenty of evidence that volcanism was high during the breakup. There are also other extinctions much futher back in the geologic record. It's fine if you disagree:confused: with radiometric dating. The stratigraphy of the world doesn't allow even the possibility of a young earth. Fine sediments and limestone reefs cannot be laid down rapidly. There is also no source for a global flood. There is evidence that sea level has changed significantly over time for low lying coastal areas. To cover the earth so that only Mt. Ararat is visible is just not possible. How did Noah get the kangaroos to Australia? Why would god give you one story and show so much consistent evidence to the contrary? (rhetorical) It is not a matter of belief of one or another. It is a matter of fact versus fiction.
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
The pressure and temperature problems of very fast moving continents are insurmountable. Basically they would melt and all life would be incinerated.
Depends how fast you're thinking of. One mile per hour, I'd say you're right ;). But simply because they say a gigantic amount of volcanic and superheated activity accompanied the break up of the continents (No doubt supported by some evidence) means that that was certainly the time when it did. (Lief prepares to be given a science lesson) There weren't any human observors to record the event, and I think that some of our dating methods are flawed.
Originally posted by Cirdan
As for the flood, there is nothing inthe was of eviidence. BoP is right about the flood story. It was recorded in Sumeria as old, old, tale. It was merely picked up by the Hebrews when Abraham was there. There have been suggestions of a cataclysmic flood in the Black Sea area dating to 10,000 BC. The research is incomplete and a true link may never be found since the tale probably existed as oral tradition until writing was invented. Tales of Atlantis and the Loch Ness monster are fine stories for children but they hold no real historical value.
Actually, it's only if you twist the Bible story that you get that Abraham wasn't there before the Sumerians, and that Hannurabi's Code wasn't taken from the Israelites, rather than the other way around. There we get into Chronology, a major part of my Dad's first book which is actually called "The Ultimate Chronological Question." I think that current Christian historians are being too willing to go along with what scientific views are at the present.
The account of Atlantis was written by Plato, and personally I'm a little surprised that you're willing to ignore his account so readily. Remember that at that time they didn't know that the world was round, therefore it makes sense that if he saw the continent drifting away over a period of time, he would assume it was sinking.
You know what, all of you, I realize that there is evidence for the accepted theories that science has so far proposed. They are reasonable theories, and contradicting it with a Biblical theory requires evidence as well. Unfortunately, I am not capable of giving what I believe, as it is taken from my Dad, a scientist who has studied this area extensively. You have acknowledged that there are errors in science. These errors are usually supported by evidence, and upon them other theories are built. Thus, they are made very painful to correct.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to continue on this strain or give you my full opinions, as they are my Dad's. I know that they go against the way Christian scientists have been speaking in general, because they are trying to conform the Bible to science. I think it is much better to look more closely at scientific theories than to twist what the Bible says, as it is God's Word. Obviously, a nonChristian wouldn't come from that perspective, but I think that it is Christians' duty to learn, to question, and to be open to new things that they didn't expect.
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
Solar rays are dodgy at best but there is plenty of evidence that volcanism was high during the breakup. There are also other extinctions much futher back in the geologic record. It's fine if you disagree:confused: with radiometric dating. The stratigraphy of the world doesn't allow even the possibility of a young earth. Fine sediments and limestone reefs cannot be laid down rapidly. There is also no source for a global flood. There is evidence that sea level has changed significantly over time for low lying coastal areas. To cover the earth so that only Mt. Ararat is visible is just not possible. How did Noah get the kangaroos to Australia? Why would god give you one story and show so much consistent evidence to the contrary? (rhetorical) It is not a matter of belief of one or another. It is a matter of fact versus fiction.
I realize that there is evidence for scientific theories, otherwise they wouldn't be accepted.
You're not realizing that I'm suggesting the continental divide hadn't happened yet at the time of the flood. Continental plates moving are what cause mountains, thus Mount Ararat didn't have to be that large, at least not at that time. How did Noah get the kangaroos to Australia? Noah didn't do that :rolleyes: . Species migrate, just like humans moved to inhabit over the whole Earth. They couldn't all stay in one place, especially not as there were so many different species competing for life. They had to move. Besides, it is possible that kangaroos hadn't even evolved yet.
There is evidence against the belief of a flood, based on science. I don't think, however, that any of you have examined closely the possibility that some of these theories are wrong, based upon the Bible. That is only logical, as you are not Christian. Theories have evidence, but they can be found to be wrong. Even if other theories are built upon them, and also have to support them. These difficulties have been found in the past, and can be found in the future.
As for the young Earth . . . I'm actually going to drop discussing that. The Bible, anyway, doesn't say one way or the other as to whether the Earth was created swiftly or is old or new, (Unless you take each day to have been twenty four hours, an assumption that we haven't any right to take) and it could have been old.
Cirdan
11-01-2002, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Depends how fast you're thinking of. One mile per hour, I'd say you're right ;). But simply because they say a gigantic amount of volcanic and superheated activity accompanied the break up of the continents (No doubt supported by some evidence) means that that was certainly the time when it did. (Lief prepares to be given a science lesson) There weren't any human observors to record the event, and I think that some of our dating methods are flawed.
The rates could vary, at most, a few inches a year. Miles a year would be needed to account for the difference, and that can't happen with the kind of rock that exists on earth. If you are going to choose the strict theological view why not just say that god made it as it is, instead of by process? There is no need, then to replace science with a made up story. This is Creationism's greatest weakness. It is designed to ape (I couldn't resist) science. What is the big attraction to (pseudo-)science if the bible has the answers? Is it a public relations effort to bring in fence sitters by muddying the water? It's fine to think the dating methods are flawed but the only reason you give is that if nothing is like it was then things would be different. This, however, is not supported by any fact or even the bible.
Actually, it's only if you twist the Bible story that you get that Abraham wasn't there before the Sumerians, and that Hannurabi's Code wasn't taken from the Israelites, rather than the other way around. There we get into Chronology, a major part of my Dad's first book which is actually called "The Ultimate Chronological Question." I think that current Christian historians are being too willing to go along with what scientific views are at the present.
Except the hebrews were not as advanced at that time as the Sumerians so it makes little sense to think they just dropped into Sumeria to give laws and headed back to Israel. Eh, whatever...
The account of Atlantis was written by Plato, and personally I'm a little surprised that you're willing to ignore his account so readily. Remember that at that time they didn't know that the world was round, therefore it makes sense that if he saw the continent drifting away over a period of time, he would assume it was sinking.
Plato also wrote some ridiculous stuff about mythology. Books written before 1200 AD are 90% fiction. The was no real structured, referenced writing and most was done to please the nobiles that commisioned it. It is rare to find accurate texts from the time.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to continue on this strain or give you my full opinions, as they are my Dad's. I know that they go against the way Christian scientists have been speaking in general, because they are trying to conform the Bible to science. I think it is much better to look more closely at scientific theories than to twist what the Bible says, as it is God's Word. Obviously, a nonChristian wouldn't come from that perspective, but I think that it is Christians' duty to learn, to question, and to be open to new things that they didn't expect.
I only set out to explain how the date of the earth is determined scientifically. The creation story is not threatened by science until someone tries to prove it scientifically. There is a reason the ansewrs don't match and it's not because the scientific world is bent on debunking the story. Quite the opposite. Many spent years trying to support the story with fgacts but if doesn't work that way. Whether god made everything appear different as a way of concealing his presense or whether the authors of the bible stories had no frame of reference with which to write the true story. What I do know is what the facts tell us.
Cirdan
11-01-2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I realize that there is evidence for scientific theories, otherwise they wouldn't be accepted.
You're not realizing that I'm suggesting the continental divide hadn't happened yet at the time of the flood. Continental plates moving are what cause mountains, thus Mount Ararat didn't have to be that large, at least not at that time. How did Noah get the kangaroos to Australia? Noah didn't do that :rolleyes: . Species migrate, just like humans moved to inhabit over the whole Earth. They couldn't all stay in one place, especially not as there were so many different species competing for life. They had to move. Besides, it is possible that kangaroos hadn't even evolved yet.
Yes, but it isn't often you see kangaroos in Asia building boats.:rolleyes:
Your magic mountain theory also presumes immpossible geologic rates.
Lief Erikson
11-01-2002, 10:01 PM
I know that all of you have been giving the scientific views of the now, and that there are good reasons why science believes the way they do. The reason that my arguments are so apparently lame is because I have only given a few of the outcomes of the main theory, and I cannot reveal the main theory. It was stupid of me to even try challenging what is generally believed based on a small part of what is known. Very stupid indeed, actually.
Not that I take back anything that I have actually posted, however foolish it might appear. Some scientific views go against the Bible, and some Christian views which attempt to connect it to science go against the Bible as well. Many views that are assumed by Christians to contradict the Bible actually don't.
I agree that science is one source from which a lot of correct information comes, but I think that some of the views and evidences concerning this subject that are commonly upheld now actually are incorrect.
Anyway, I must be going now to eat supper. I'll talk to the rest of you more later.
jerseydevil
11-01-2002, 10:11 PM
I want to know - if Noah took only two of each species - what did the carnivores eat? Did they just starve? If a lion ate a goat after getting off the ark - then there wouldn't a pair of goats to have kids. Or was there breeding on the ark - so there were a lot more animals that left than went on. Of course - still there was only so many animals the ark could have carried and I'm not sure if many of the carnivores could have survived while their prey gestated.
Aeryn
11-01-2002, 10:44 PM
Floods? I like rain. :)
I think that it would be pretty reasonable to assume that Noah brought extra animals for the carnivores to eat - Noah is instructed to bring food for his family and the animals, and I think that it is reasonable to assume that he knew the carnivores ate meat. He was probably partial to a steak occasionally, himself! They definitely bred on the ark - the Bible says that they went off by families. I guess they weren't TOO seasick ... :D
Starr Polish
11-02-2002, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by jerseydevil
I want to know - if Noah took only two of each species - what did the carnivores eat? Did they just starve? If a lion ate a goat after getting off the ark - then there wouldn't a pair of goats to have kids. Or was there breeding on the ark - so there were a lot more animals that left than went on. Of course - still there was only so many animals the ark could have carried and I'm not sure if many of the carnivores could have survived while their prey gestated.
He definitely took more than two of most animals.
"You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds in the air, male and female, to keep the spieces alive on the face of all the earth." Genesis 7:2-3, NKJV
OK, Starr - you made this lazy person get up and find the verse that I referred to because of your good example :D Genesis 6:21
And as for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.
("them" refers to the animals mentioned in the previous verse)
and how on earth did we get to the flood?? *pages back thru posts* oh yeah - BoP brought it up! :D OK, back to evolution... :)
BeardofPants
11-02-2002, 03:56 AM
Nah, I didn't. LF did. :p
Earniel
11-02-2002, 07:09 AM
The historical evidence for the flood is there in the traditions of the peoples of the Earth. All of them differ from each other in one way or another, but they are there. And that is logical, considering that we believe all people came from Noah. His people would have spread out, and it makes sense that they carried on traditions (Obviously slightly alterred over time and changing circumstances) of such a momentous event.
Yes, many cultures speak of a flood but how do you know it was a global one? Those cultures didn't even know the other side of the world. Wouldn't it make more sense if the flood was more local but streched out to the part they saw as their world? They may even have added to the tale to make it more dramatically.
I heard my Dad tell me once about an island upon which there was an endangered species, which was severely threatened because of changes in the environment. The scientists returned to the island and found that the old species was extinct, but they found four new species, all extremely closely related to the extinct one! I'd like some more data on that one, please.
The main reason for the assumption of a mass extinction, however, is that a number of species no longer exist. The dinosaurs are certainly a well known example, but science only assumes an astroid collision because it seems a likely possibility. They haven't proved how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Only they know that the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, and humans are, and a good explanation for that is the mass extinction of their species. Since I'm only a very amateur paleontologist, I may be wrong about this but.... if I'm correctly the idea of multiple mass extinctions is a relatively new one. The first ideas were that of a massive one time mass extinction (for exemple caused by a flood or a asteroïd or something like that) or that of a gradual extinction. Now fossil records show in some layers a gigantic amount of fossils, unlike that of the preceding or following layer. And many of these specimen in this particular layer were not found in any of the following layers, which means those species did not live into the corresponding eras. If you can put all the data together and prove that there are several species found in the one particular layer and not in the following so that they didn't survive into the next era you've got yourself a mass extinction. What triggered the mass extinctions, we may not be able to tell but that doesn't mean they did not occur. So the idea of one mayor extinction between the dinosaurs and us is in my opinion a bit dated.
Methuselah
11-02-2002, 01:18 PM
As many of you know, science, in its infancy, was persecuted by Christianity. It was a post-Renaissance development that represented a relatively new methodology for determining truth. Previously, societal beliefs were based upon religion. The Romans assimilated all religions into their own religion while ruling a world empire. Christianity represented a threat to the Roman representation of truth, and therefore a threat to Roman society in general. Consequently, Christianity was persecuted by Roman society prior to Constantine. Science also represented a threat to Christianity that grew especially strong in the 18th and 19th centuries. Christian-based governments and power centers therefore resisted science, and science developed historically somewhat with an anti-Christian bias. Obviously, there are many great Christians in science, but there has been a bias in the sense that the development of scientific models has been accompanied with a strict insistence upon the separation of science and religion. I think that was a mistake. Since it is evident that science will inevitably be used to critique religion (as has happened frequently in this forum), one should promote multiple threads of scientific development. For example, there should be a thread of scientific development that only allows models developed independently of religion and there should be other threads of scientific development (what many call pseudo-science) that incorporate religious-based models. This is hard to do politically (even in a predominantly Christian society) because people like to hold to just one model of truth. But if science develops by only allowing models without religious influence, then its conclusions should not be used to discredit religious belief because it has begun with an assumption that the religious-based sources are not trustworthy.
Let's face it. Over the centuries, science has changed hats and clothes many times. The first cohesive theory came with Newton (theory of gravity). His famous force-inertia equations revolutionized intellectual thought. Human beings, being what they are, naturally extrapolated all of his conclusions to the nth degree. Consequently, every intellectual became either a Deist or a closet agnostic (I exaggerate somewhat). Deists believed that since all things could be explained as a result of deterministic force-mass interactions, there was no room for God to interact with society. Therefore, God must have created everything from the beginning like one giant clock and set the whole thing into motion. Nowadays, we recognize a quantum mechanical principle that says that the basic fundamental forces of the universe are governed by chance. Applying chaos theory to this quantum mechanical model, we get that very tiny unpredictable events can completely change the outcome of everything. Hence, Deism is out, although there are still many closet Deists who believe that everything can be predictably explained by these fundamental forces. Nowadays, we say that everything happens by chance in a manner that statistically is conformable with the laws that we observe statistically to occur regularly in nature. What it comes down to is that science will constantly undergo change, even dramatic change, as new discoveries are made. To the degree that a religious document is revelatory, it cannot continually undergo change and revision to conform with current views of truth. Hence, it is almost inevitable that it will conflict with current views of truth. An ant will think the world is flat until he has observed enough to contradict his earlier conclusion. We observe and make conclusions about millions of years and billions of light years through the lens of about one century with most observations confined to our planet. Change is inevitable.
Francis Bacon, viewed by some as the father of science, stated that we cannot know anything for certain, but there is safety in relying upon the principles that are observed through repeated observation. He also envisioned huge state institutions developed for the purpose of making such observations and developing all of these principles similar to the way our society works today. Francis Bacon didn't say that this would define truth. He just stated that there would be safety in such a stance. The recent trendy philosopher Popper makes similar assertions. We cannot know how many observations make a statement true. If we were to try to quantify the probability that we know something to be absolutely true by scientific investigation, the probability that we know something is true is zero (my paraphrase -- sorry if I misquote or misunderstand in any way). Hence, science, when developed separate from religious bias, should not be used to rebut religious views.
Methuselah
11-02-2002, 01:23 PM
When God created everything he did so by speaking. Consequently, what we observe in the world around us is as much God's word as what is written in the Bible, and it should be treated with just as much respect. A person’s theology is his understanding of God’s revealed Word. A person’s scientific views are his understanding of God’s creation. Both can be flawed. However, if you really want to know whether Christian revelation can stand up to scientific criticism – and what are valid theological and scientific models for a person holding both Christian and "science" as manifestations of God’s word – then you need to start by trying to develop a biblical model. Give the bible the assumption of truth until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a biblical assertion must be discarded. This is not so easy to do. I would suggest that you start with the biblical genealogies. Put them in a spreadsheet and examine them critically, and you will find that they support the idea of an environmental change occurring at the time of the Flood, and persisting for a period of about 700 years. You may then ask questions about why radiocarbon dating presents a different picture, etc. But you must be open to investigating things at a root level if you really want to understand whether science and the Bible are in conflict – or whether we just have some mistaken theological and scientific views surrounding us.
Cirdan
11-02-2002, 01:58 PM
The assertion that science should not be used to examine the "truths" of the bible is almost as silly as using the bible to create scientific principles. Stripping away those ideas that conflict with the bible and adding on religious concepts unprovable by scientific method is both dishonest to science and disrespectful to religion. Yuor just casting unfounded doubt on science while raising bible parables to fact. Your doubt of the very reproducable technique of radiometric dating coupled with a blind acceptance of the flood story as a global event without a shread of evidence other than an old folk tale shows a blinkered view of the world. Radiometric dating has accurately matched the estimated age of formations time and time again. Estimations by stratigraphy are unimpunable; radiometric dating just gives a conveniently measurable technique. There is no evidence that any wild changes in the amount of uranium spread the the earth has changed and there would be an obvious amount of it. The worst aspect of creationism is that it not only seeks to hide science that is inconvenient but also never produces any scientific discoveries itself. It's only product is ignorance. Let science help man understand the workings of the world and let religion help man understand the human soul. A screw driver makes a lousy hammer.
Welcome to the Moot, Methusalah. Your post sounds a bit like a book. You wouldn't be Lief's father by any chance, would you?:)
Methuselah
11-02-2002, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
The assertion that science should not be used to examine the "truths" of the bible is almost as silly as using the bible to create scientific principles. Stripping away those ideas that conflict with the bible and adding on religious concepts unprovable by scientific method is both dishonest to science and disrespectful to religion. Yuor just casting unfounded doubt on science while raising bible parables to fact. Your doubt of the very reproducable technique of radiometric dating coupled with a blind acceptance of the flood story as a global event without a shread of evidence other than an old folk tale shows a blinkered view of the world.
I didn't say any of the things you accuse me of. You obviously did not understand my post. In mathematics, if you want to prove something is false, you generally do so by assuming that it is true and showing that it leads to a contradiction. In science, you do a similar thing. You assume a model and then hammer away at it to see if it holds up to inspection. If you find inconsistency, then you either modify the model or go back to the drawing board. The fact that you are unwilling to do this with the bible means that you are completely closed to any investigation of its assertions. I'm not sure why you are posting unless you are on an evangelistic mission to discredit Christianity.
Cirdan
11-02-2002, 06:46 PM
I'm not on an evangelic mission to discredit religion. I do believe it has no place in science. If you read carefully I don't mention you except as a greeting. I didn't quote you directly as I would were I critiquing your specific post.
It is generally very suspicious when a poster here heads directly to a non-Tolkien forum. This is a place for people who read Tolkien to discuss ideas as a community, not to stop by on some agenda. If you feel offended by my opinions about the mixing of religious and scientific thought I am sorry, but I do come by them honestly. I like chocolate and I like salmon, but I will not eat a chocolate covered salmon.
completely on a different tangent here, but I'm interested to hear some specifics from the th. of evol. people on what parts of the fossil record, in your opinion, support the th. of evol. (someone mentioned the fossil record awhile back). Could you guys please fill me in with some specifics?
Originally posted by Cirdan
I'm not on an evangelic mission to discredit religion. I do believe it has no place in science.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. When you say "it" ("it has no place in science"), do you mean religion? Well, I would agree that you cannot "prove" any belief system, including Christianity (AND including the th. of evol.) using scientific methods.
But I think what you may be missing is that you can definitely evaluate parts of models, such as (1)the model of creation of the world by evolution, or (2) the model of creation of the world by intelligent design, using scientific methods. Like 2nd law of thermodynamics - evaluate the applicable parts of both models in the light of the 2nd law and see how they hold up. Now do you have a problem with that scenario? If so, could you please explain it to me? See, I'm NOT saying that the Christian beliefs are true if one accepts the model of creation by intelligent design as the more accurate of the two models - we're just talking solely about models for the question "how did the world get here?" and which one seems more accurate (and if several models seem to be reasonable possibilities, then teach them in school - going back to the original thread topic :) ). I think that it is very unfair, let alone dishonest scientifically, if you throw out a model just because it has a "religious" background. Don't you?
Cirdan
11-04-2002, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by R*an
I think there's a misunderstanding here. When you say "it" ("it has no place in science"), do you mean religion? Well, I would agree that you cannot "prove" any belief system, including Christianity (AND including the th. of evol.) using scientific methods.
But I think what you may be missing is that you can definitely evaluate parts of models, such as (1)the model of creation of the world by evolution, or (2) the model of creation of the world by intelligent design, using scientific methods. Like 2nd law of thermodynamics - evaluate the applicable parts of both models in the light of the 2nd law and see how they hold up. Now do you have a problem with that scenario? If so, could you please explain it to me? See, I'm NOT saying that the Christian beliefs are true if one accepts the model of creation by intelligent design as the more accurate of the two models - we're just talking solely about models for the question "how did the world get here?" and which one seems more accurate (and if several models seem to be reasonable possibilities, then teach them in school - going back to the original thread topic :) ). I think that it is very unfair, let alone dishonest scientifically, if you throw out a model just because it has a "religious" background. Don't you?
The only problem I have with it is it becomes a matter of trying to discredit reliable theories, ignoring others, while pushing a metaphysical and philosophical theory such as intelligent design as if it were a scientific theory. There is no basis for ID other than it works backwards from the desired conclusion.
As to your question about evolution, are you asking about all evolution, biological evolution, or human evolution? It's not really a matter of what fossils support it, it is a matter of what changes should be made, if any, to agree with the fossil record. Evolution is based of the entire fossil record so I guess the short answer would be all the fossils.
Cirdan, I'll get back to you later today, gotta run now and pick up my 3 little lovely created-by-intelligent-design kids from school :) (ps - hope your cold or whatever is making you sick (mentioned in venting thread) is better)
Draken
11-04-2002, 06:25 PM
Catching up:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Draken
What an interesting debate. It's not one I hear discussed too much here - it would have as much credibility as suggesting we teach that the Earth is flat and rides on the back of a giant turtle.
I put it down to most of our Puritans getting into boats and sailing away some time ago. Anyone know where they ended up?
Originally posted by R*an
What are you referring to by "it" when you say "it would have as much credibility... " - the theory of evolution? :D Watch the use of those pronouns! :)
I think it's clear that the antecedent is "debate", don't you? And if there IS a vagueness of antecedent, how could the cause of that vagueness be the phrase "the theory of evolution" when that phrase does not appear in the sentence I wrote?
And back to the thread, yes evolution theory should be taught: as many people have said on this thread science is about explaining as best we can what we observe of the world. As such it is always seeking (or SHOULD always be seeking) to acquire new data and amend or replace theories that no longer fit these data. Religious (or for that matter political) doctrines are the opposite: they start with an authoritative, handed down view of the universe, with observed data expected to conform to that doctrine. The point has now arrived where data - and the very act of acquiring data - must be denied in order maintain such doctrines.
No science teacher should ever say "this is the truth" when teaching evolution, plate techtonics, string theory or whatever - he/she should state this is the theory that currently best fits the observed data. Creationism should not be offered as an alternative in science lessons because it is not a science. It belongs to the realm of the Sunday school teacher.
Lief Erikson
11-04-2002, 06:49 PM
Cirdan, Draken, I think that you are both right that if Creationism has no proof at all, it shouldn't be taught as science, for then it isn't.
I think, however, that you are both ignoring part of Methuselah's post. Draken, you were right in saying that the Bible start with an authoritative, handed down view of the universe, with observed data expected to conform to that Christianity.
But when has science ever sought to find links between Christianity and science? Many times people have attempted to link the the two, but science changes, and Christianity doesn't. For every different perspective on truth that science currently holds throughout time, Christianity cannot be expected to accept. Science continues to find out new things and discard old ideas outside of the Bible, and therefore every shifting view cannot be expected to concord with the Bible. If, however, you want to find out whether there is truth in the Bible, you can't expect the unfair, that truth, or Christianity and the Bible, will be willing to meld to each scientific view.
Methuselah describes a reasonable Biblical model that you can adopt in seeking truth. To find out the truth, I doubt that many people in the science field have tried going by such a model. The Bible gives many hints and important pieces of information that can be used to find the Old Testament's place in history, and after you find the correct place, then you can fit the other pieces in like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. They should all fit together, and you can continue throughout the Chronology, seeking and finding the truth.
Has this perspective been tried by any of you, or by science in general?
My goodness, Draken, couldn't you see that I was teasing you? There were TWO smilies, for goodness' sake!!! Was it agreed anywhere that there should be no humor on this thread? I was certainly NOT trying to put you down in any way. And don't you think it's interesting how the use of pronouns, as opposed to names, can sometimes generate some really funny misunderstandings?
I'll address the rest of the post when I get a bit more quiet time, because it is related to the way I wanted to address Cirdan's post.
ps - let me add that I am firmly opposed to mean-spirited humor, and that I haven't seen any here yet, thank goodness. Now Draken, of course it was completely clear what you were saying; I was purposefully "misunderstanding" a pronoun to make a funny statement (complete with 2 smilies :) :) ).
Originally posted by Cirdan
The only problem I have with it is it becomes a matter of trying to discredit reliable theories, ignoring others, while pushing a metaphysical and philosophical theory such as intelligent design as if it were a scientific theory. There is no basis for ID other than it works backwards from the desired conclusion.
As to your question about evolution, are you asking about all evolution, biological evolution, or human evolution? It's not really a matter of what fossils support it, it is a matter of what changes should be made, if any, to agree with the fossil record. Evolution is based of the entire fossil record so I guess the short answer would be all the fossils.
OK, Cirdan, I'm back, if not quite "later on today" - oh well, close :)
Well, now I'd like to ask you 2 questions, because the answer that you gave to one of my questions made me think of another question.
#1) Now Cirdan, if you were a teacher and gave me that answer in class ("all the fossils"), I think the school board would have something to say to you, wouldn't you agree :) ("class, today we will learn how the fossil record jives with the TOE - ok, all of it does! Now on to our next subject..." ) :D I really was looking for some specific info, because I don't really know what parts of the fossil record you believe support what elements of the TOE and I would like to find out. So let me rephrase the question: Could you please give me several specific examples of which areas of the fossil record support which elements of the TOE? Now you may not know, which is also a perfectly valid answer, because NO ONE knows everything about everything (except obnoxious people who THINK they do, but they usually don't know they're obnoxious, so they DON'T really know everything!), but if you do have some info for me, I would appreciate it.
#2) Now actually I think you worded your answer the way you did on purpose, in order to illustrate the point that you and many other people have mentioned, that a theory should be adjusted if data is found that contradicts it. I agree with the adjustment idea, too, BTW. However, that brings up something that I thought about a lot last night - at what point does a theory become untenable? You see, I don't think that you can say that ALL elements of a theory are open to adjustment, and let me explain why. What if in 100 years some beings from another universe landed here, told us that they created the world and us, showed us their plans how they did it, and created another world as an experiment for us, and the leading scientists agreed that this new data clearly pointed to creation by intelligent design. Would you then say "well, let us adjust the TOE in light of this new and convincing data to say that we were a product of intelligent design!"? I don't think so. Wouldn't that make the whole "theory of evolution" name totally inappropriate? You might as well just name it "theory of xyz". So my #2 question is Do you agree that at some point, if convincing data comes up, that adjustments to the TOE will be inappropriate, and a new theory should be posed.
Dunadan
11-05-2002, 01:43 PM
Methuselah is simply wrong about Science and Christianity. Most Enlightenment scientists were committed Christians. They viewed science as the best means by which to understand the mind of God. In the words of Voltaire, "the clockwork implies the clockmaker".
Of course, you can never disprove religious belief scientifically, which is why it's nothing to do with science and why it's a red herring to demand that we attempt to.
I think it's up to the creationists to justify why their beliefs should be taught as fact. Do you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, or is there be some room for interpretation? If so, who says when and where?
Draken - shame on you! ;)
BTW, Cirdan, I know you have a sense of humor - I saw you on the "apostrophes of mass destruction" discussion, didn't I? ;) So please don't take my little joke as an insult, it was not meant to be one.
Interesting fact - when thinking about my response, I was thinking of the "various tenets" of the TOE, and thought the word was "tenents" (note extra 'n'). because I have always heard it pronounced that way. I looked it up and found my mistake, but what was interesting is that tenets and tenants come from the same Latin root word, "tenere", "to hold". One "holds" land and another "theories". Well, you may have already known that, but I learned something new and thought I would share it with you people in case you heard 'tenets' pronounced as 'tenents', too.
One more thing - I was trying to think of an example to show the difference between valid and invalid adjustments, and I came up with the following (which obviously breaks down at some point, but I think will be helpful):
Suppose you wish to state a theory as to what a certain animal is. Someone observes the animal and gives you the following data: "it often lives on a farm, it has 4 legs, it is taller than a sheep, it likes to eat hay, it has hooves." You carefully think about the data that is available and say "well, my theory is that it is a horse." Another person comes along with new data and says "it has a rather shortish, skinny tail", so you look at your horse model and say "well, it's a horse with a short tail; let's trim the tail". Another person comes along with new data and says "its hooves are cloven", so you look at your horse model and say "well, the horse may have had an accident, let's cut the hooves to match the observed data". Another person comes along (with some higher-tech equipment) and says "it has 4 stomachs" (cows do, don't they?), so you say "let's perform stomach surgery" - or at this point, do you say, "well, I think at this point that although many points of my theory matched the available data, it now looks like, given the additional data, that some of the basic tenets are incorrect - let's stop adjusting and make a new theory that the animal is a cow." For, you see, if the answer is a cow, you can never adjust a horse to be a cow.
I thought about that a lot; does that make sense and/or illustrate my point to you?
Earniel
11-05-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by R*an
I thought about that a lot; does that make sense and/or illustrate my point to you?
Okay, now you've lost me. What is your point? :confused:
~Eärniel the stupid~
Lief Erikson
11-05-2002, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Eärniel
Okay, now you've lost me. What is your point?
Her point is that you can't just keep adjusting your theory to fit the evidence, but if there is enough evidence to the contrary, you should be willing to scrap your theory and start another, one that fits all, or at least almost all of the evidence.
Originally posted by Dunadan
Of course, you can never disprove religious belief scientifically, which is why it's nothing to do with science and why it's a red herring to demand that we attempt to.
There is a difference in the Bible between religious belief and historical data. The Bible has a large mingling of both, however the Old Testament is full of historical information. This information is largely questioned by science, and believed by most, because current scientific views run against it, to be myth. Current scientific views cannot be taken as a basis for disproving or proving the Bible, as they alter. You have to be willing to work from a Biblical perspective, assuming the Bible to be true, to find out whether or not it is correct.
I'm not saying that science can prove the existence of God, miracles, or things that cannot be discerned by the physical realm. You might find evidence of all of these if you are looking from a Biblical perspective, but the point that I'm looking at now is the historical validity of the Bible.
to: Eärniel the most definitely NOT stupid
from : R*an, the sometimes too wordy when trying to explain her thoughts on complicated subjects
Yes, Lief somehow managed to wade through my verbiage and get my point, and I like how he stated it, so I'll quote him:
Lief Erikson's interpretation of R*an's lengthy posts:
Her point is that you can't just keep adjusting your theory to fit the evidence, but if there is enough evidence to the contrary, you should be willing to scrap your theory and start another, one that fits all, or at least almost all of the evidence.
The reason that I wanted to bring that up is that it appears to me that when you use an argument like "well, ALL the data agrees with the TOE, because we adjust the theory when we find some data that doesn't agree with it", then why give it a name like TOE at all? Why not just call it "the theory as of (insert date,time) as to how the world got here". The TOE people are trying to defend the TOE!, NOT "the theory of (insert date,time)"! What I would like to know from them is which are the most basic tenets that, if new data contradicts them, would cause the entire TOE to be discarded and a new theory (with a new name, most probably) formulated? For obviously, given my alien race coming to Earth and showing how they made the earth example, adjusting the TOE so that it says "intelligent design is behind the creation of the earth" would make "theory of evolution" a nonsensical title!!
And BTW, I did see Draken say "amend or replace theories that no longer fit these data", and I was very glad to see it, because I don't think I've seen "replace" yet, just "amend". And there is a big difference. For, as in my little story, you can't make a cow out of a horse. Wouldn't you people agree that there is one correct answer out there for the question "how was the earth that we see today made?" And that if the TOE happens to be the horse, when the answer is a cow, that the TOE should be replaced when appropriate if new data comes up? (AND I'm NOT necessarily saying replaced by Intelligent Design theory!! I just want to see if the TOE people are willing to say that the entire TOE should be scrapped if certain basic elements of it are found to be wrong and it can't be adjusted without making the "evolution" part of the name totally inappropriate)
Well, another wordy post, let me know if it was too confusing again.
Lief Erikson
11-05-2002, 08:25 PM
I don't have any trouble reading your posts, R*an :).
Originally posted by Dunadan
I think it's up to the creationists to justify why their beliefs should be taught as fact. Do you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, or is there be some room for interpretation? If so, who says when and where?
I agree that creationists ought to justify why their beliefs should be taught as fact, and I think that science is a useful tool for doing that (Outside of the spiritual side of things). Science has errors, but it is seeking the truth, and a lot has been discovered through it. However, I don't think that someone has any right to make judgements as to what is true or not true in the Bible, if they aren't willing to look at the Bible from the biblical model.
I think that when the Bible says something, there is truth in what it says. If it is too ambiguous and can be taken in different ways, then that's the brakes. But the Bible says most things plainly, and when it does, I think it is wrong to try to skew what it says to twist it to your own purposes. There is a line that is crossed when a person stops seeking the truth, and starts trying to conform the truth to fit what he or she wants it to be.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't have any trouble reading your posts, R*an :).
Yes, but English is your first language :D English is Eärniel's 3rd language - Flemish is #1 and Belgian chocolates is #2 ... ;)
And I've been remiss in not welcoming a new poster, so let me fix that here - welcome, Methuselah, I hope you enjoy Entmoot. There are many interesting threads here, I hope you can find several that you like. If you are Lief's father, then I give you a double welcome! I've posted a lot with Lief and I like his posts. If you aren't Lief's father, then welcome anyway, and I hope you are lucky enough to have a nice and intelligent son like Lief someday. :D *heehee, I bet Lief is blushing!!! But it's true, I think you're nice and intelligent, Lief!*
Cirdan
11-06-2002, 01:22 AM
Rian, I think your question is a bit open ended. I'll respond as I think appropriate for now. TOE (cute) is a framework for discovery, not a description of how things ought to be. FActs are open to interpretation on an individual basis, but that does not affect the theory itself. Only if there were facts that proved heredity and speciation didn't occur could the theory be discredited. All new discoveries only strengthen the specific knowledge of what has happened in the past.
I'm not sure about your "cow" question. I would say that what you describe is basically what has happened over the last ~200 years. Genetics has helped considerably, a well as an ever growing pool of research knowledge. It's not only required to question the zoological tree it's required. Sometimes it's appearance but it is more important to relate reproductive styles and internal physiology. That is why some dinosaurs have been moved from the reptile only branch to one that includes birds. It was the bone density and structure that first lead to the idea that there may be a connection. Bottom line is that nothing is written in stone and it is what works in the field that ultimately determines the order of things.
As to the aliens, I would hope they would also explain where they can from. If they evoled then the theory still holds.:) I've always allowed for deus ex machina as if everything was created to only appear as though it evolved. It's not very useful as a scientific principle since it renders analysis pointless. So, until the aliens or the second coming, analyzing the fossil record keeps geologists employed.:)
I do have a sense of humor but the isn't much about religion and science that's funny, which is why I only read the thread for so long. Didn't you like my chocolate fish?
I didn't agree with the way you used the analogy, but the analogy ITSELF gave me the shivers! (and a laugh :D) UGH!! Chocolate fish! Bleh!
I'll respond in a day or two when I get my next block of quiet time - tomorrow is an all-day field trip to a planetarium (I love astronomy, luckily! Some field trips aren't so fun...)
Methuselah
11-06-2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Dunadan
Of course, you can never disprove religious belief scientifically, which is why it's nothing to do with science and why it's a red herring to demand that we attempt to.
Science doesn’t prove anything, and so, of course, it cannot disprove anything either. Proofs are mostly confined to the realm of mathematics where it is based first upon assumptions. Christians did much to oppose and alienate scientists and intellectuals during the early development of scientific discovery. Contention was especially strong in the late nineteenth century when Thomas Huxley championed the term "The Big Fight" describing the intellectual battle between God and evolution. Consequently, science has developed completely independently of Christianity (or any religion). I say this was a mistake (for the Church) because science cannot help but encroach upon biblical assertions. Therefore, there is great need for Christians to develop a biblical truth model in order to determine if scientific assertions really do contradict biblical assertions. Anyone who has objections to Christianity based solely upon scientific grounds should be interested in the development of such a model as well.
I believe that God’s Word is authoritative and without error. It is expressed both in his creation (God spoke when he created everything) and through revelation. That being said, people’s understanding of creation (scientific views) and of revelation (theology) are always incomplete and require continuous modification (we should always be learning). The Church was wrong in opposing Copernicus and Galileo, even though they based their arguments upon Scripture.
Let me give an example where scientific conclusions, formed independently of Christianity, should not be used to directly critique Christian belief. We know from science that radiocarbon dating shows continuous progression of many cultures over several tens of thousands of years while the biblical genealogies indicate a period of less than 600 years from the Flood to the time of Joseph. Given that the bible claims the flood covered the entire earth, we conclude that the bible must be wrong. However, if we look more closely at the radiocarbon dating, we find that it is based upon the assumption that the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere has remained relatively constant over the long tens of thousands of years as well. When Libby advanced his theory (and won a Nobel Prize), he asserted that a sudden change in radiocarbon could not occur without being noticed since radiocarbon levels would not reach equilibrium if they did. We know that over the last two thousand years, radiocarbon levels have been at equilibrium. This would be convincing except that since that time, scientists have measured the rate that radiocarbon is generated in the atmosphere and the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere. The rate that radiocarbon is generated is significantly higher than the rate at which it diminishes due to radioactive decay. Hence, radiocarbon leaves the atmosphere in significant quantity through other processes as well as through radioactive decay. Instead of requiring tens of thousands of years to reach equilibrium, it can reach equilibrium in a few thousand years. His proof was not vindicated by evidence. Scientists now rely upon tree ring dating to confirm (and adjust) the radiocarbon dating method. But only a few trees – those that can grow atop very tall mountains in extremely dry conditions – have the property that radiocarbon doesn’t seep through tree rings. These trees indicate that things are actually older than one might expect. However, if you actually did assume a global flood, then those trees would experience radiocarbon seepage at that point in history and also give the older dates that are observed.
What you have is this:
Valid scientific theory: the reasonable assumption that certain trees on tall mountains do not experience radiocarbon seepage implies tree-ring data generally supports radiocarbon dating, and that implies the long ages generally accepted as valid.
Invalid scientific conclusion: Therefore the global Flood of Genesis didn’t occur in the time frame mentioned (the problem is that the conclusion makes the whole chain of thought into circular logic).
Thank you for the warm welcome Rian. As Methuselah, I believe I have many descendants, but I will admit to being particularly pleased with Lief Erikson.
And I didn't mean to be cute with TOE, it's just how the initials worked out (and I got tired of typing the whole thing out, or typing th. of ev.).
What was rather funny to me was when you (I think it was you) first used ID for Intelligent Design (I suppose) - I thought you were referring to Freud at first!
And while I'm away on my field trip with a bunch of 6th graders, do you have any info for me on my reworded fossil record question?
Methuselah - oh, how nice! And welcome again. My oldest (boy)is 12 - really growing up fast. I also have a 7 and a 6 year old (another boy and a girl).
Cirdan
11-06-2002, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by Methuselah
Science doesn’t prove anything, and so, of course, it cannot disprove anything either. Proofs are mostly confined to the realm of mathematics where it is based first upon assumptions.
Of course your only referring to that one very limited definition of the word proof and mean no inference that science establish can't facts, right? It might be perceived otherwise.
...science has developed completely independently of Christianity (or any religion). I say this was a mistake (for the Church) because science cannot help but encroach upon biblical assertions.
It would require some kind of censorship by the church to regulate researchers not directly reporting to them. How would this have been imposed? The truth is that the church did do all it could to suppress information that contradicted the bible. The evolution of independent science was critical to the achievements we enjoy today. Limiting ideas to those that don't agree to the bible would lead to... less ideas.
Therefore, there is great need for Christians to develop a biblical truth model in order to determine if scientific assertions really do contradict biblical assertions. Anyone who has objections to Christianity based solely upon scientific grounds should be interested in the development of such a model as well.
Any scientist that would want to to research just to refute Christianity should find a new job. Christions that would want to be sure the bible was wrong would be disturbing. The only motive left is to cast doubt science that conflicts with the bible before it get to be accepted as fact.
The Church was wrong in opposing Copernicus and Galileo, even though they based their arguments upon Scripture.
There is nothing in the bible that predicts that the planets would appear to track a non-circular path. This is what lead to the copernican model of the solar system.
Let me give an example where scientific conclusions, formed independently of Christianity, should not be used to directly critique Christian belief. We know from science that radiocarbon dating shows continuous progression... [edit] ...give the older dates that are observed.
You seem to be discussing carbon 14 as is it naturally occurs separately from carbon 12. Other than radiodecay, they come and go in the atmospere in the same proportions. Nature doesn't segregate the two kinds of carbon. Variations in the atmospere limit the precision not the accuracy. You are finding same exceptions found in local areas and trying to apply them to all situations. Just what wood has been determined to be the ark? Some old wood doesn't make and ark no matter how old it is. The final problem is the total lack of geological evidence for a global flood. Human footprints in lava millions of years old can't be denied by worrying about radiocarbn dating.
Thank you for the warm welcome Rian. As Methuselah, I believe I have many descendants, but I will admit to being particularly pleased with Lief Erikson.
He's a good kid. He really looks up to you. You must be a good dad. I've got an eight year old son myself. It's a great adventure.
Cirdan
11-06-2002, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by R*an
And I didn't mean to be cute with TOE, it's just how the initials worked out (and I got tired of typing the whole thing out, or typing th. of ev.).
What was rather funny to me was when you (I think it was you) first used ID for Intelligent Design (I suppose) - I thought you were referring to Freud at first!
And while I'm away on my field trip with a bunch of 6th graders, do you have any info for me on my reworded fossil record question?
I don't know if I should post a fossil history dissertation on line. I can email you some examples after I get a little sleep if you like. If there is a clamor for something I'll post, heck maybe I'll publish.;)
Earniel
11-06-2002, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by R*an
Yes, but English is your first language :D English is Eärniel's 3rd language - Flemish is #1 and Belgian chocolates is #2 ... ;)
You know me too well. :D I understand now what you were trying to say. Although I must admit that some parts of this thread go right over my head.
Dunadan
11-06-2002, 04:51 AM
Thanks for replying Methuselah.
It seems to me that you're characterising two (parallel) forms of knowledge: scientific understanding of God's creation and spiritual revelation. It is refreshing that you acknowledge that these are not fixed, but are imperfect and evolve (whoops! I mean change) over time.
My problem with religion as ontology is that revelation is essentially private knowledge (whether direct spiritual revelation or mediated by interpretation as a text) made authoritative. That is, I have my revelation which I impose on the rest of you. Throughout history, has there been a greater source of conflict and suffering than "my revelation vs yours"?
One thing that differentiates what we call scientific knowledge is that it is transparent, reproducible and testable. As Cirdan said, science CAN disprove things (beyond reasonable doubt) and, unlike dogma, is capable of wholesale reinvention when a theory is shown to be incompatible with observations.
You seem to lament the Church's failure to embrace science, resulting in an inevitable encroachment on Biblical orthodoxy. Again, I would raise the point that the vast majority of Enlightenment scientists, and Darwin for that matter, were fervent Christians; many of them still are. The problem only arises if you adhere too rigidly to that orthodoxy, or rather, one particular interpretation of it.
One final point: I think our positions are not that far apart. I'd view most of science as "useful framework" rather than absolute fact. As such, I would never advocate teaching that the Bible is scientifically "untrue". It is unfortunate that most kids are brought up to believe that science will provide all the answers.
Equally, I would never want to disadvantage my kids by witholding from them knowledge of the single most important theory of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
cheers
d.
Lief Erikson
11-06-2002, 10:35 AM
Cirdan, I can only say that you've misunderstood large portions of Methuselah's post (Possibly through not reading carefully), so I will attempt to make some of these errors clear to you.
Originally posted by Cirdan
It would require some kind of censorship by the church to regulate researchers not directly reporting to them. How would this have been imposed? The truth is that the church did do all it could to suppress information that contradicted the bible. The evolution of independent science was critical to the achievements we enjoy today. Limiting ideas to those that don't agree to the bible would lead to... less ideas.
Methuselah was saying that Christianity should be more connected to scientific research, in trying to find out new things, then it currently is. He isn't saying that Christianity should control or regulate science, simply that it should remain on top of things, and have a base of knowledge and information from which to discuss the different discoveries.
Any scientist that would want to to research just to refute Christianity should find a new job. Christions that would want to be sure the bible was wrong would be disturbing. The only motive left is to cast doubt science that conflicts with the bible before it get to be accepted as fact.
The biblical model should be assumed by Christians to find out whether the Bible is correct or not. There is motive enough in that, obviously, for Christians that have an interest in history.
There is nothing in the bible that predicts that the planets would appear to track a non-circular path. This is what lead to the copernican model of the solar system.
Methuselah was saying that the Church had its information based upon Biblical scripture, but even though it did, it shouldn't have opposed Copernicus and Galileo.
As for the question about radio carbon, I'll leave that to Methuselah, whenever he posts. I've already had my share of that conversation ;).
Lief Erikson
11-06-2002, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Dunadan
My problem with religion as ontology is that revelation is essentially private knowledge (whether direct spiritual revelation or mediated by interpretation as a text) made authoritative. That is, I have my revelation which I impose on the rest of you. Throughout history, has there been a greater source of conflict and suffering than "my revelation vs yours"?
"My beliefs are correct and yours are heresy." Yes, that has been a large source of conflict throughout the ages. It has all sorts of dark moments, the witch burnings, the Crusades, the extermination of the Cathars, etc.
However, does one see a godly hand behind any of it? Definitely not. Spiritual revelation is when God speaks to an individual and tells them the truth. That is a very holy experience, and doesn't lead to evil things.
Interpretation of a text, however, can cause problems. And this is the reason for many of the religious wars in the past, because one group interpreted a text one way, and another interpreted it another way, and neither were lenient enough to let the other go on with its own beliefs. Others, like the Crusades, were political movements cloaked in religion.
One thing that differentiates what we call scientific knowledge is that it is transparent, reproducible and testable. As Cirdan said, science CAN disprove things (beyond reasonable doubt) and, unlike dogma, is capable of wholesale reinvention when a theory is shown to be incompatible with observations.
Science can disprove things, beyond reasonable doubt, until a theory comes up that disproves the theory that disproved the things. Newer and more accurate theories are always being discovered, and they sometimes topple earlier theories (Even though these had a good deal of evidence for them). Let's say one of the earlier theories shows the Bible to be incorrect, and it has a lot of evidence to support it. Science declares that Christianity is a big lie. Then another theory comes up, which is better and adds up correctly with inconsistencies they were receiving, and the old theory is scrapped.
A theory is only a theory, even though it may have many things to support it. An accepted theory wouldn't be called an accepted theory if it didn't have many things to support it. Theories are accepted based upon the knowledge we have now, and seeing from the reference frame we see from now. We can't see the theory that fifty years from now will be accepted, and which calls the old theories to be "old theories," but it very likely will be coming. Therefore, people can prove things or disprove things based upon what is currently accepted by science, but these things that are currently accepted by science can change. Thus it is rendered impossible to prove or disprove things (Or call them fact) in the final truth, since we are basing our proofs upon things that might be different from how we currently interpret them.
You're quite right that science is flexible and dogma isn't. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your perspective. If you are looking at it from outside the biblical model, you are likely to think that science disproves the historical validity of the Old Testament. If you look at it from the biblical model, and actually find the correct placement of these events, then the biblical model becomes a very good thing, by which you can make predictions and verify them, and find out the historical context of these things. If the Bible is correct, then its unyielding determination to stand the sands of time is a wonderful thing. If it is incorrect, then poor all those Christians out there who base their beliefs upon something that isn't even historically valid.
Lief Erikson
11-06-2002, 01:05 PM
Referring to the 7:05 PM at 11/5/02 post by R*an:
Thanks for the kind words. :)
Originally posted by Cirdan
I don't know if I should post a fossil history dissertation on line. I can email you some examples after I get a little sleep if you like. If there is a clamor for something I'll post, heck maybe I'll publish.;)
Oh PLEEZZEE don't email me anything long! My connection is super-slow and it would really tie things up! No, I just mean could you please give me a few specific examples of specific parts of the fossil record that support specific areas of the Th. of Ev., like perhaps at a "guest speaker at a high school biology class" level. I've been answering questions for awhile, and I just wanted to ask some for awhile and learn some of your opinions on the matter (and other th. of ev. supporters', too, BTW - anyone kick in here, please, with info) . (if you know of any, that is - I have no idea if any of you happen to be familiar with this particular area or not - like I said, no one knows about everything!)
and Lief - you're welcome (and I meant it :) ), and thanks for tolerating some parent-talk! We just can't help it sometimes :D
afro-elf
11-07-2002, 02:39 AM
Newer and more accurate theories are always being discovered, and they sometimes topple earlier theories (Even though these had a good deal of evidence for them)
How does being a more accurate theory mean it topples another?
Can you give an example? And no, quantum physics did not TOPPLE Newtonian physics.
It comes down to evidence. And that is where whoops ass. It does not retreat to phantoms abd shades.
Lief Erikson
11-07-2002, 11:29 AM
Well, (Scratches his head and thinks about it) the idea that everything is predictable and that we live in a mechanical universe was disproved, for at the smaller levels, everything depends on chance.
Besides, what are you trying to say? That science never makes mistakes?
Draken
11-07-2002, 01:04 PM
In cosmology the Steady State theory has pretty much been discarded in favour of the Big Bang theory. I don't think you can say that one is an amended version of the other; they offer distinctly different visions of the history of the universe. The Big Bang best fits the available data so is winning out at the moment.
Btw how does cosmology impinge on Creationism? I take it they'd disagree with that too?
Originally posted by Cirdan
[B]TOE (cute) is a framework for discovery, not a description of how things ought to be. FActs are open to interpretation on an individual basis, but that does not affect the theory itself. Only if there were facts that proved heredity and speciation didn't occur could the theory be discredited. All new discoveries only strengthen the specific knowledge of what has happened in the past.
"framework for discovery" - well, whatever, as long as it is STILL also a theory, ok? And if any theory's basic tenets are proven by new data to be incorrect, then the theory should not be "adjusted", but discarded, and a more correct one formulated, wouldn't you agree? That's my main point that I'm trying to get across, because I feel that some th. of ev. people put that one particular theory in a special class by itself and claim that they can adjust it ad infinitum as new data arises. I would say that if that is the case, then you should NOT call it the "th. of evolution", but "the theory as of (time,data) as to how the world as we see it got here", as I said before. Would you agree that if information comes along that contradicts its main tenets, then the theory should be discarded and another one formed?
I'm not sure about your "cow" question.
You can ignore it, then, if it didn't help to illustrate my point (the one mentioned above). I personally like illustrations, but if it didn't help you, then ignore it.
As to the aliens, I would hope they would also explain where they can from. If they evoled then the theory still holds.:) I've always allowed for deus ex machina as if everything was created to only appear as though it evolved. It's not very useful as a scientific principle since it renders analysis pointless. So, until the aliens or the second coming, analyzing the fossil record keeps geologists employed.:)
Yeah, gotta keep those geologists off the streets, they'd be causing so much trouble otherwise! ;) But you missed my entire point about the alien example (a rather silly story, but useful to illustrate my point). It doesn't even matter if they evolved or not - the theory was about THIS world, and I said that they showed us convincing data that they had created, by intelligent design, THIS world. I was trying to illustrate the same thing but in a different way. Would you then "adjust" the theory of evolution to say that THIS world was created by intelligent design, or would it be more appropriate to discard it and formulate another one that more accurately deals with the new data? I think (and it seems like Dunadan and Draken agree with me - correct me if I'm wrong, people :) ) that the old theory, whose basic tenets have been shown to be incorrect, should be discarded and a new one formulated; in other words, there is a point where it is incorrect to "adjust" a theory any more.
This probably seems like a minor point to some people, but I think that it is VERY important - after all, theories are made to be tested and adjusted, and if data comes in that shows that they are very off-base in an absolutely basic way, then DISCARDED. And I feel that th. of ev. people, like I said before, are unwilling to do that ONLY in the case of ONE theory - the th. of evolution. And that is not only scientifically foolish, but dishonest.
ANd actually, you did say "Only if there were facts that proved heredity and speciation didn't occur could the theory be discredited. " - but you later on talked as if it could indeed be adjusted forever, so that's why I elaborated as I did in this post. Would you (or others out there) agree with what I said?
Lief Erikson
11-07-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Draken
In cosmology the Steady State theory has pretty much been discarded in favour of the Big Bang theory. I don't think you can say that one is an amended version of the other; they offer distinctly different visions of the history of the universe. The Big Bang best fits the available data so is winning out at the moment.
Btw how does cosmology impinge on Creationism? I take it they'd disagree with that too?
The Big Bang is a theory that might be disproven, but it is the best explanation we have for what is observed at present. There are inconsistencies, and some day a better theory might be invented. But no, it doesn't impinge on Creationism.
Earniel
11-07-2002, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by R*an
This probably seems like a minor point to some people, but I think that it is VERY important - after all, theories are made to be tested and adjusted, and if data comes in that shows that they are very off-base in an absolutely basic way, then DISCARDED. And I feel that th. of ev. people, like I said before, are unwilling to do that ONLY in the case of ONE theory - the th. of evolution. And that is not only scientifically foolish, but dishonest.
I hope I didn't misinterpreted this :) but what I have seen of evolutionscience seems willing to discard any theory when it's discovered that the basics were wrong. Take for example dinosaurs. For a long period, people thought that dinosaurs were coldblooded. Now we know that certainly some species were warmblooded. It's a pretty fundamental change, not just an adjustion, I guess. It may look little but it has many implications.
Many new discoveries on the field of astronomy (not my strongest side I'm afraid) forces scientists to rethink what we know of the universe often enough.
Lizra
11-07-2002, 04:55 PM
Evolution is not off base, in an absolutely basic way. (Where do you come up with that!) Thats why it hasn't been discarded. When something new or different is discovered, it's added to the existing info in an intelligent manner. Evolution is not set in stone, (like religion). That would be silly, there is always more to learn. That's probably the main reason the creation story doesn't work for me! It's something that was made up thousands of years ago, and doesn't fit the facts we have learned with modern science. Why would you throw the baby out with the bath water?
Originally posted by Eärniel
I hope I didn't misinterpreted this :) but what I have seen of evolutionscience seems willing to discard any theory when it's discovered that the basics were wrong. Take for example dinosaurs. For a long period, people thought that dinosaurs were coldblooded. Now we know that certainly some species were warmblooded. It's a pretty fundamental change, not just an adjustion, I guess. It may look little but it has many implications.
Many new discoveries on the field of astronomy (not my strongest side I'm afraid) forces scientists to rethink what we know of the universe often enough.
BTW, I love astronomy! And that's a good example. I imagine many theories have been discarded and new ones formed as new data is discovered.
Coldblooded/warmblooded is another good example. I just want to point out that the th. of ev. should, in the same way, also be subject to being discarded IF evidence is found disproving its basic tenets, instead of being "adjusted".
Earniel
11-07-2002, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by R*an
Coldblooded/warmblooded is another good example. I just want to point out that the th. of ev. should, in the same way, also be subject to being discarded IF evidence is found disproving its basic tenets, instead of being "adjusted".
It should and I also think it does that. But of course new groundbreaking discoveries aren't made every day and often new data allows only to make an adjustment and not a whole new theory.
Originally posted by Lizra
(1)Evolution is not off base, in an absolutely basic way. (Where do you come up with that!) Thats why it hasn't been discarded. (2) When something new or different is discovered, it's added to the existing info in an intelligent manner. Evolution is not set in stone, (like religion). That would be silly, there is always more to learn. (3)That's probably the main reason the creation story doesn't work for me! It something that was made up thousands of years ago, and doesn't fit the facts we have learned with modern science. (4)Why would you throw the baby out with the bath water?
I added numbers to your quote for reference :)
(1) - I DID NOT say that it WAS. What I DID say is, that IF data came up that showed that it WAS off in an absolutely basic way, then and only then it should be DISCARDED and NOT adjusted, and a new theory formulated. Wouldn't you agree? However, I see many people so committed to the th. of ev. that they don't seem able to admit this.
(2) - That's fine, as long as the new info doesn't contradict the absolutely core tenets.
(3) - Let me not address the creation STORY at this point (that's a whole 'nother topic!), but rather let me address the model of creation by God, or even (what I prefer at this point) creation by intelligent design. In other words, let's compare apples to apples. We can't compare the creation STORY and the THEORY of evolution. We CAN compare and evaluate the THEORY of Evolution and the THEORY of Creation by Intelligent Design. My quick statement is that there are areas of BOTH theories that are in the realm of being "testable", and areas of BOTH theories that are outside the realm of being "testable". I'll elaborate further if you would like me to.
(4) - sorry, I didn't quite get what you were referring to - what did the baby represent here? (I can be pretty dense on occasion...)
Originally posted by Eärniel
It should and I also think it does that. But of course new groundbreaking discoveries aren't made every day and often new data allows only to make an adjustment and not a whole new theory.
I completely agree. :)
(argh! drat that 90-second posting rule!!)
(argh AGAIN!! I guess I'm just a fast typist!! :D)
Lizra
11-07-2002, 05:53 PM
The baby with the bath water was describing your idea of throwing the theory of evolution out if some new discovery was made. Don't throw the whole theory out, it is sound! Make the adjustments as logic would dictate. Be honest with the facts as they appear. But I guess you are talking about a discovery that hasn't happened, a major discovery that comes along and makes evolution seem incorrect. Since this hasn't happened, I'll pass. I'm starting to get a little confused with all the statements being made! :)
afro-elf
11-07-2002, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Well, (Scratches his head and thinks about it) the idea that everything is predictable and that we live in a mechanical universe was disproved, for at the smaller levels, everything depends on chance.
Besides, what are you trying to say? That science never makes mistakes?
Nope I am not trying to say that at all. The point is that things are improved upon. Science can improve upon itself to make things more accurate.
Your example above is a great illustration.
At the marco-level we still you Newton. Einsteinian demonstated superior accurracy or has uses in special domains.
Does not mean that Newton was tossed out.
As for earlier stuff:
robert can be shown to exist, empiracally.
Theory is not STILL JUST A THEORY.
For layman it means just an guess or idea
However, it is a conceptual framework that explains existing phenomena and makes predictions
the two are not the same
basically you can look at life with empiricism ie believing what the "facts" tell you or transcedentalism.
I am of the former
Originally posted by Lizra
The baby with the bath water was describing your idea of throwing the theory of evolution out if some new discovery was made. Don't throw the whole theory out, it is sound! Make the adjustments as logic would dictate. Be honest with the facts as they appear. But I guess you are talking about a discovery that hasn't happened, a major discovery that comes along and makes evolution seem incorrect. Since this hasn't happened, I'll pass. I'm starting to get a little confused with all the statements being made! :)
I think we agree here - I'm not saying throw it out if it is sound, or don't make any reasonable adjustments, but I am saying be WILLING to throw it out if appropriate and not just say you can NEVER throw it out because it is infinitely adjustable. If you insist on the infinitely adjustable thing, then please take "evolution" out of the name of the theory. Do you see the difference? It is another one of those apparently small things, but when you through the implications, it is very important. Do you understand what I'm saying? If so, do you agree? If not, should I try to explain it again? :eek: :)
Lief Erikson
11-07-2002, 08:54 PM
Well, Lizra, here are some points I can tell you to help you if you're having trouble with contradiction between evolution and the Bible.
1, Evolution is discovering some very important truths, but as yet, it is still has a way to go. As Afro elf said, science does improve upon itself, gaining more accuracy in its predictions and discovering new things.
2, The Bible never says how God created things. It says that he created by speaking, and things came to be. This can address the question of the Big Bang, as well as the Theory of Evolution. It doesn't say whether at his speaking everything simply went "pffft!" and came to be, or whether he spoke and evolution happened.
Actually, R*an, I tend to disagree with you about Creation taking place in seven twenty-four hour days, and the traditional interpretation, being a theory. I think that it needs a good deal of evidence before it can be accepted as such (Just as scientific theories do).
Originally posted by afro-elf
robert can be shown to exist, empiracally.
Theory is not STILL JUST A THEORY.
Afro elf, as you know, a theory is used to observe, learn about and predict nature. I'll take R*an's cow example for a moment (Somewhere up there among all of the posts). You can observe things, and learn about them. You create a model which assembles all of the facts (assuming that the cow is a horse, because of lack of data), put it together and learn something new. There are facts that science knows, for instance, that the creature has four hooves, frequently lives in a barn and eats hay. But we have to be careful where we go from the observed data, and what model we choose. If, from the available information, we decide that the creature is a horse, we could be wrong. So usually, it isn't the data available that is inaccurate, it's the theory based upon the available information.
(Okay, I'm going to change R*an's example here) A difficulty can come when you create a model based upon an inaccurate model. For example, let's say you know something to be a cow, based upon observed data, when it is actually a horse. Then, you observe something black with at least two legs on it. You might theorize that this is a crow. What you don't suspect is that it might actually be a human with black clothes on, because what would a human be doing on a cow?
Now you've run into an obstacle, and until you go back to square 1 and show that the cow is actually a horse, you're not going to understand what's on it. Therefore, an inaccuracy in one thing, which has some evidence and can sometimes lead to errors in other things. If the inaccuracy is in something that is used to measure and discover about the nature of other things, then you've got a worse problem, for the information you are receiving can be incorrect.
Thus, sometimes not only can a theory be wrong, but observed data can be in error.
It is possible that the tools we have used to discover atoms were flawed, and thus we don't know that atoms exist. The things that we observe based upon our study could be tapping into something which is different entirely.
I don't think that this is a frequent happening in science by any means, and I'm not using this to combat evolution (Though R*an might ;)).
basically you can look at life with empiricism ie believing what the "facts" tell you or transcedentalism.
I am of the former
And I completely understand. I don't ask you to give up your "facts" for transcedentalism. I don't ask you to give them up for something that you can't observe, based on simple faith. I certainly didn't.
I didn't have to have faith at that point. All I had to do is ask God if he existed, and he showed me that he did. It didn't take faith to ask a question. Faith comes later, and if you ever meet God, I might talk to you about it.
But science is a wonderful thing, leading us on to truths about our own planet, about the universe and about life itself. It can be fascinating for Christians and nonChristians alike.
Lief Erikson
11-07-2002, 09:06 PM
By the way Afro elf, it is possible, on a sidenote, to show you methods in which you might be wrong in your proof that Robert exists.
afro-elf
11-07-2002, 09:23 PM
I asked God if he existed and he said "No.":)
Yes, Robert could be an actor named John pretending to be a guy named Robert. . But in the above example I do not believe that nature is attempting to deceive us on purpose.
Robert could just be a figment of my mind. There are more
I understand the cow example. I am aware that science is not perfect however I know of no other endeavor that has been as "useful"
Originally posted by afro-elf
robert can be shown to exist, empiracally.
Would you explain how, please?
(1)Theory is not STILL JUST A THEORY.
(2)For layman it means just an guess or idea
(3)However, it is a conceptual framework that explains existing phenomena and makes predictions
(4)the two are not the same
(I added numbers for reference)
(1) if you were quoting my earlier post, you quoted incorrectly. I said "still ALSO a theory", not "still JUST a theory" - a very big difference.
(2) that is probably true; however, I certainly don't think that because I am not a layman. Were you implying that anyone here was, or was that just a general observation?
(3) Right. However, do you agree that there is a possibility that the explanation that is formulated after careful evaluation of the data may be wrong? (and that, obviously, is where the adjustment process comes in, and in extreme cases, the discarding).
(4) I agree.
basically you can look at life with empiricism ie believing what the "facts" tell you or transcedentalism.
I am of the former
Why not both? In the empirical realm, believe what the facts tell you; in realms where things cannot be measured, use your common sense and experience and whatever else you have found to be important and reliable.
afro-elf
11-07-2002, 09:33 PM
(1) if you were quoting my earlier post, you quoted incorrectly. I said "still ALSO a theory", not "still JUST a theory" - a very big difference
noted then I would amend and say all theories are not equal.
Were you implying that anyone here was, or was that just a general observation?
the latter
3) Right. However, do you agree that there is a possibility that the explanation that is formulated after careful evaluation of the data may be wrong? (and that, obviously, is where the adjustment process comes in, and in extreme cases, the discarding).
I concur.
in realms where things cannot be measured, use your common sense and experience and whatever else you have found to be important and reliable.
I am not sure what domain you are using realms in but you seem to be begging the question that such "realms exist"
Would you explain how, please?
I can take you to physical meet him. You don't have faith.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Actually, R*an, I tend to disagree with you about Creation taking place in seven twenty-four hour days, and the traditional interpretation, being a theory. I think that it needs a good deal of evidence before it can be accepted as such (Just as scientific theories do).
Hey, Lief, I NEVER said I thought creation took place in 7 24-hour days! Funny how misunderstandings can take place! I am purposefully NOT stating what I believe to be true, and I don't intend to. What I am trying to achieve is to get a "fair playing field" for theories OTHER than evolution about how the world got here, so that they, too, may be fairly and scientifically evaluated.
One thing I am trying to do at this point is get th. of ev. people to think out the implications of "all data fits my theory, because it can be infinitely adjusted" idea. I think that most people now agree that if ANY theory's basic tenents are past adjustment, INCLUDING the th. of ev., then the theory needs to be discarded and a new one formulated. Am I right, people?
Next I want to talk about why the theory of creation by intelligent design is suitable for scientific evaluation, but first I have to make dinner :) . I'll check back later :)
Actually, Lief, I think I just misinterpreted YOUR post - *sigh* - looking back, I think you didn't say that I necessarily believed it, but that the classic creation theory based on the creation story in the Bible wasn't necessarily an appropriate theory - is that right?
afro-elf
11-07-2002, 09:47 PM
What I am trying to achieve is to get a "fair playing field" for theories OTHER than evolution about how the world got here, so that they, too, may be fairly and scientifically evaluated.
Do you think they haven't been? All the point raised here about the the METHODS of Evolution have been successfully defended. Once that had been done the next move was to swift to the weakness of all Theories Manuever. However, That does not strenghten the creationist arguement.
If you are swifting to ID. MY question is how intelligent is this
"Creator"?
There are several "design flaws" in Nature
Are you going to use anthropic arguments?
afro-elf
11-07-2002, 09:49 PM
Should we give equal valence to Flat earthers and ether theories?
If they come up with some compelling evidence they will be taken more seriously.
afro-elf
11-07-2002, 09:52 PM
Oops and there are less than optimal designs also.
Lizra
11-07-2002, 10:34 PM
In reply to Rian.....The field is always fair for me. That is why I don't get where you are coming from with the "if evolution hit a serious flaw why would you still keep it" point. I wouldn't! Who would insist on believing something that had been discredited with real evidence. not me! :) But this hasn't happened of course. I treat all theories equal, I have no special fondness for evolution other than it's the most reasonable scientific theory to date. It makes sense,(to me) much more so than anything else out there. I've considered the options, and I'll take evolution.
sorry, I'm just taking a quick peek while finishing preparing dinner - what does "swifting" mean? :confused:
Lief Erikson
11-07-2002, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by afro-elf
Yes, Robert could be an actor named John pretending to be a guy named Robert. . But in the above example I do not believe that nature is attempting to deceive us on purpose.
Robert could just be a figment of my mind. There are more
I understand the cow example. I am aware that science is not perfect however I know of no other endeavor that has been as "useful"
Nature doesn't have to be tricking us on purpose for the example that I have above stated to take place. If you think about my example, you'll see that that's true. Nature doesn't have to be tricking you simply because you observe a cow when the animal is actually a horse. You've been tricked because you didn't have all of the evidence which pointed to something else. And if you did notice a piece of evidence, you might have simply adapted your theory to cope with that too. For example, you might simply change your theory because of the new evidence and say "Okay, this is a cow with a mane." Thus, even with this glimpse of the bigger picture, you've made it so that you still don't know that there is a man riding the horse.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
But science is a wonderful thing, leading us on to truths about our own planet, about the universe and about life itself. It can be fascinating for Christians and nonChristians alike.
I already said that science, even with its errors is certainly a wonderful thing. I'm in agreement with you about that. Whether there has never been so useful an endeavor, that depends upon how you define "useful." Since we're already basically in agreement on that one, though, I won't bother with quibbling as to whether it's the most useful thing. I'm sure you'll agree with me that there isn't any point.
afro-elf
11-07-2002, 11:11 PM
Nature doesn't have to be tricking us on purpose for the example that I have above stated to take place.
I was refering to MY Robert example not the cows.
Lizra
11-07-2002, 11:22 PM
What's for dinner? :)
mirial
11-07-2002, 11:33 PM
I don't care,
*SORRY FREAK OUT MOMENT*
Lief Erikson
11-07-2002, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by R*an
Actually, Lief, I think I just misinterpreted YOUR post - *sigh* - looking back, I think you didn't say that I necessarily believed it, but that the classic creation theory based on the creation story in the Bible wasn't necessarily an appropriate theory - is that right?
That is correct. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, simply giving my opinion.
Originally posted by afro-elf
I was refering to MY Robert example not the cows.
I'm aware of that. But what does that have to do with it? Science is science, whether you're giving one example or another. Why should your example work in one instance and mine only in another? In the circumstance you're using, we're being tricked, and Robert is an illusion by purposeful intent. In mine, trickery doesn't have to be by purposeful intent.
If you are swifting to ID. MY question is how intelligent is this
"Creator"?
There are several "design flaws" in Nature
Are you going to use anthropic arguments?
I'd like to hear some of these flaws. I've read about one of them, an insect that lives a rather (from human standpoints) disgusting, awful and brief existence.
We're assuming that the Creator is very, very intelligent. So go ahead and take potshots at his way of creating, if you like. But remember that you're only a human, and he is God. Job once challenged God in the Bible as to why he was doing things the way he was. It was a different topic, but I think the answer might be applied to this question as well.
I am not sure what domain you are using realms in but you seem to be begging the question that such "realms exist"
Scientifically you cannot prove that such realms exist. Once you come to God, evidence is given that these realms are very real, and then you have to use the methods R*an mentioned to discover more about them. Please explain how you mean that she's begging the question.
cassiopeia
11-08-2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by R*an
[b]One thing I am trying to do at this point is get th. of ev. people to think out the implications of "all data fits my theory, because it can be infinitely adjusted" idea. I think that most people now agree that if ANY theory's basic tenents are past adjustment, INCLUDING the th. of ev., then the theory needs to be discarded and a new one formulated. Am I right, people?
You are right, Rian, but as people have said, small changes don't necessarely mean the whole theory must be thrown out. I suppose that if somehow there is evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, the theory of evolution would have to be seriously looked at, because there would not be enough time for organisms to evolve. But I really don't think that that is going to happen in the future.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
[b]I'd like to hear some of these flaws. I've read about one of them, an insect that lives a rather (from human standpoints) disgusting, awful and brief existence.
We're assuming that the Creator is very, very intelligent. So go ahead and take potshots at his way of creating, if you like. But remember that you're only a human, and he is God. Job once challenged God in the Bible as to why he was doing things the way he was. It was a different topic, but I think the answer might be applied to this question as well.
If He (the creator) created the whole universe, with all its wonder and intricancies, I would think He would be very intelligent. I can think of several design flaws. Animals have defects that are passed on to their young to thier detriment. Animals have parts of the body not used (for example the appendix in humans). This points to evolution.
Cirdan
11-08-2002, 12:28 AM
ID is a philosophy that is beyond scientific proof so there is an "apples and oranges" problem with dragging this into a discussion about what to teach in a science class.
Problems with ID? How about infantile cancer? Just can't be a problem of sin now can it?
EDIT: yeah, I'm days behind on responses to long posts. Too busy reading Tolkien.:)
afro-elf
11-08-2002, 01:51 AM
I'm aware of that. But what does that have to do with it? Science is science, whether you're giving one example or another. Why should your example work in one instance and mine only in another? In the circumstance you're using, we're being tricked, and Robert is an illusion by purposeful intent. In mine, trickery doesn't have to be by purposeful intent
Why should ALL examples lead to the same result?
They were two examples where our knowledge could be faulty.
One from mal-intent the other not.
I am failing to see your point here. Is there only ONE way to be wrong?
By the way Afro elf, it is possible, on a sidenote, to show you methods in which you might be wrong in your proof that Robert exists.
I was just offering ONE example to show were I was could be wrong.
But remember that you're only a human, and he is God. Job once challenged God in the Bible as to why he was doing things the way he was.
You are assuming the antecedent again
You state God exist but where is your tangible "proof"
If I say the Invisible Pink Unicorn has spoken to me and has said she is real. And that all other faiths are false you would not believe me. Why should I believe you.
I am not saying believers are liars but are "sidetracked" by the need to believe.
How you tell the difference between a neutral net transient that can example via neuro-science and and supposedly inner knowing?
Scientifically you cannot prove that such realms exist.
And without tangible evidence I find faith in the preternatural to be empheral.
Please explain how you mean that she's begging the question.
as above with your quest about god, you assume god exist she assumes "realms" exist
but you have not given evidence tangible evidence that what you believe is real
when someone mentions you just gotta have faith it means that the idea can not stand on its own.
as for design flaws the panda's thumb, the human eye, human appendix etc
your response about only being human again assumes that there is a creator. If I lowly human can see the design flaws then something is wrong
barrelrider110
11-08-2002, 10:30 AM
I really don't understand the great amount of passion that this topic evokes.
There is no conflict between faith and science. Science is the process of observation, questioning, hypothesizing, experimenting, and observing. Scientific theories have given us such wonderful things like space travel, cellphones and computers, on and on. Science is what we can see. It serves our purpose while we are here on earth. Faith, on the otherhand, does not require us to see, but to follow what we believe.
Christian faith tells us that our faith on Earth will serve us after we have finished our time on earth. They are two different paradigms of thought.
Natural Selection and other theories of Evolution are just that, scientific theories. They should be taught in the science classroom as such. Competing theories about the origins of man that are derived from religious teachings, or intended to reconcile the truth of religious teachings with the natural world or are simply not science, and should not be taught in the science classroom.
Scientific truths are truth, religious truths are also truth. We are not always wise enough to reconcile them.
Dunadan
11-08-2002, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Lizra
What's for dinner? :)
Wednesday's chilli (mmm, nicely matured) and a lovely bottle of Wolf Blass Yellow Label I've been saving. :cool:
That reminds me of the Douglas Adams theory of cultural evolution: all societies progress through three phases of intellectual enquiry. These are the what, why and where phases. This is best illustrated re: food
1) what are we going to eat? Once this practical issue is settled, we can evolve to stage 2.
2) why do we eat? Inevitably, this leads to a lot of bloodshed and a crisis point is reached at which the society either blows itself up or evolves to the next stage, namely
3) where shall we have lunch? Having discarded circular and self-referential argument as tiresome, we retire to a jolly nice restaurant and consume some fine food and wines.
Accordingly, this debate resides firmly at stage 2. Can we evolve it to the next level?
Just kidding...
Methuselah
11-08-2002, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Dunadan
My problem with religion as ontology is that revelation is essentially private knowledge (whether direct spiritual revelation or mediated by interpretation as a text) made authoritative. That is, I have my revelation which I impose on the rest of you. Throughout history, has there been a greater source of conflict and suffering than "my revelation vs yours"?
One thing that differentiates what we call scientific knowledge is that it is transparent, reproducible and testable. As Cirdan said, science CAN disprove things (beyond reasonable doubt) and, unlike dogma, is capable of wholesale reinvention when a theory is shown to be incompatible with observations.
d.
One can opine that science CAN disprove things, but not with the rigor that is in mathematics. Since you use the term reasonable doubt as is used in a courtroom, let’s continue the analogy. A jury hears the prosecutor’s evidence and believe beyond reasonable doubt that the verdict is clear. It is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Then they hear the evidence of the defense, and all of a sudden, they find they do have reasonable doubt. Hence, it seems one must hear the case against as well as the case for something before making a judgment that something is proved beyond reasonable doubt. But suppose the person making the case against a verdict is a poor defender and the jury opts for the prosecutor. Is the reasonable doubt case satisfied? Or suppose the defender is a good defender, but didn’t have all of the evidence at his disposal? Or suppose one lawyer has a $30 million dollar budget and the other lawyer has a $1000 budget?
For at least the past 4000 years prior to the last few hundred years, everybody could see beyond reasonable doubt that the sun rose in the morning, moved through the sky, and set in the evening. But now the case against that theory appears much stronger. What scientific models do have is utility for making sense and order of phenomena that we observe. The theory that the sun rises and sets has utility. The theory of gravity and Newtonian physics has greater utility. But what is the confidence that we have in a theory? "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a subjective measure of collective belief that has a bad historical track record. Is there some way to put a metric on whether a theory can be believed beyond reasonable doubt? Don’t quote statistics to me. I know about statistics. Statistics can validate whether measurements are consistent with a theory, but it doesn’t prove the theory.
One thing that I cannot tolerate is the argument: Would God deliberately deceive us by making things other than how our senses and observations perceive things? (I don't accuse you of saying this.) The problem is not that He would contradict His own universal laws (whatever they may really be), but that He really is not constrained to make everything simple for us to understand. The sun doesn’t move (except relative to the galaxy), it is we that move. But we don’t see ourselves moving, and we do see the sun moving. If we use Newtonian physics, we can say that if we move in a certain direction long enough we will reach a specific distant galaxy. However, if you really do head in that direction, you find that you miss the galaxy because the light from the galaxy bends due to the motion of our own planet (general relativity). So would God make the world different from what our senses tell us? I guess the answer is yes. It is not because he creates a grand delusion, however. It is because He speaks through His creation as a professor, and not as a kindergarten teacher.
Now dogma is a topic I heartily agree with you on. However, this is not a problem with religion as much as it is a problem with all political institutions. In order to be persuasive, you must argue from points of reference that you and your audience believe. Hence, if you want an argument to be accepted by many people, you must simplify your argument and also make many generalizations that aren’t necessarily true. There are reasons why most politicians sound rather dumb. It is because their arguments are tailored scientifically to reach and persuade as large an audience as possible. All human truth institutions will have their priests who decide the more difficult issues and their dogma for motivating the masses. Twentieth century Europe (and especially Germany) was about as far from religious belief as we have seen historically. They were home to many of the most notable scientists and philosophers. Yet this did not protect them from wars based upon dogma held in common by the masses (genetics and race for example). It is better to listen to God as you would listen to a professor. Don’t look for God in dogmatic assertions. Don’t judge Christianity by the Christian with the loudest mouth.
Methuselah
11-08-2002, 01:08 PM
A number of people in the evolution debate seem to think that we can tell (scientifically?) the difference between chance and design with regard to our origins. I wonder if you can tell whether this sequence of numbers is the result of chance or design. I will accept the view that if the sequence is generated by a random number generator (a distinct possibility), then it is the result of chance. I can give you more numbers if you like. I can generate a lot of them. It also suffices if you can tell me how you would go about figuring out the answer.
By the way: I don’t like the answer to the related question that if there are imperfections, then we can conclude that there is no design. That’s like saying that there is no design in creation because man sins. It isn’t very convincing.
Here is the sequence:
82148086514428810975724587006633057270369833673362 00056812714201995661150244594555982534904380952572 05574857242858361603593313677026782354781321165344 98164706001454776241682796797660674427862946576407 84962524517686838689443904512440168427394150760694 79009714909542858444703742007318191197939567945208 00306803844100550810623055876317229109816671113699 08932261854233260972918093773442131449576665573092 53348850346700237877663432858780990796547938971311 1853061422897692656726171196377622247715
Dunadan
11-08-2002, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Methuselah
Don’t look for God in dogmatic assertions. Don’t judge Christianity by the Christian with the loudest mouth.
I wouldn't dream of it. Having been raised in a strongly Christian environment, I have a great deal of respect for its ideals, especially:
1) thou shalt not kill, and
2) love thy neighbour as thyself
The problem I have is with the large number of rather prominent and self-professed Christians who seem quite at ease with leaving these ethics for Sunday and going around smiting infidels and generally being obnoxious to their neighbours left, right and centre, Monday to Saturday.
You're right about mathematics, of course. But this is purely because it is a contrived, closed system. The real world is composed of innumerable shades of grey, and needs a system of establishing "reasonable doubt". Science is open and explicit about this process, providing a means of acknowledging and exploring different views; revelation is private and obscure, and therefore ultimately dogmatic. Whether or not we believe that revelation provides absolute truth, it is a different type of knowledge and does not belong in the science class.
cheers
d.
Cirdan
11-08-2002, 01:19 PM
Actually if you go in the direction of the oblect in space you would pass along the same space-time curves due to the gravitational lenses that the light passed through. You would of course have to adjust for relative motion.
Whatever god may have intented by creating a world in which physical evidence contradicts some aspects of a literal interpretation of the bible has little bearing on it's relation to scientific thought.
Your sequence is by design. There are no random numbers in a computer. This is a known. A random number generator is still an algorythm with a predictable output.
barrellrider is the closest to a rational conclusion to this topic. Everything else is an emotional pitch to one strongly desired, but logically faulty conclusion. Yes, it is ultimately impossible to disprove design, but there is not physical evidence for it.
Lizra
11-08-2002, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by barrelrider110
I really don't understand the great amount of passion that this topic evokes.
There is no conflict between faith and science. Science is the process of observation, questioning, hypothesizing, experimenting, and observing. Scientific theories have given us such wonderful things like space travel, cellphones and computers, on and on. Science is what we can see. It serves our purpose while we are here on earth. Faith, on the otherhand, does not require us to see, but to follow what we believe.
Christian faith tells us that our faith on Earth will serve us after we have finished our time on earth. They are two different paradigms of thought.
Natural Selection and other theories of Evolution are just that, scientific theories. They should be taught in the science classroom as such. Competing theories about the origins of man that are derived from religious teachings, or intended to reconcile the truth of religious teachings with the natural world or are simply not science, and should not be taught in the science classroom.
Scientific truths are truth, religious truths are also truth. We are not always wise enough to reconcile them.
That was very neat barrel rider. :) The last line loses me though!
I'm not sure I get your point Meth. I like to distill things down till they are uncomplicated and clear. (Is this what you call "dumbing down?" indeed! :eek: ) I feel I am concerned with what "is". You seem to be elaborating on what "might be". Since I do not have your "faith", the "what might be" comes off as just one of many possibilities that really don't matter to me. Yes, this could be and that could be, but until there's proof I'm not putting much credence in it. If something comes along to disprove (in a big way) the theory of evolution, I'll be right there, listening to every word with delight. Barrelrider's remark is very good for me. You know, if you don't have religious faith, you just don't have it! You really can't pretend! :) There are way too many religions for starters! :) I think your son is a doll!
Methuselah
11-08-2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
Your sequence is by design. There are no random numbers in a computer. This is a known. A random number generator is still an algorythm with a predictable output.
If the numbers were generated by a random number generator, you would be correct. Of course, you would not be able to tell from the few numbers that I gave you. That is why I said I would accept that numbers from a random number generator as being chance. But I never said that this sequence came from a random number generator. Maybe I just pulled them out of a hat with paper slips for each number. Are you saying that it is impossible for me to generate numbers by chance, but that the world can generate chance outcomes? Are you saying that it is easier to tell whether life evolved out of chance than it is to tell whether my sequence comes from chance or design? The real question is: how do we know something is chance or not. The answer is that we can't tell. We can only tell that it is design if we know the design. If we don't know the design, then it can (and often will) appear as chance. Hence, the question of design or chance is a rather moot argument from a scientific perspective. It seems to belong to the realm of faith.
Yes, it is ultimately impossible to disprove design, but there is not physical evidence for it. [/QUOTE]
I agree. If God gave clear proof that everything was created by design, then people would not have to come to God by faith. They would come to God by sight. That is inconsistent with the Bible. If you say that you won't believe anything unless it can be proven to you first (the infamous reasonable doubt argument), then you rule out any possibility of spiritual revelation. It is true that science works that way, but I wouldn't be my soul on that process as the only way of determining truth.
As to evolution, I have no problem with it as a scientific theory except that I think it is a little primitive. The process of evolution sounds to me like attemting to go from a primary grade reader to a Tolkien trilogy by just changing a few letters at a time with the requirement that each step make sense. Actually, I think evolution requires faster steps, more along the way that great works of literature are created. That may to many imply design, but if you assume that human mental processes evolved out of chance, you would readily see that it does not imply design. However, I don't see any contradiction between the basic theory of evolution and biblical creation. Actually, one can take the biblical creation as: first verse: God created heaven and earth. That is all that is said about the creation of galaxies and the rest of matter. The rest is about the creation of life, and especially human life. The seventh day, God rested, is about man's completion -- that we can enter into God's rest. I can expound later if you like. Basically, theology can evolve (or change, although I like the word evolve) just as science can evolve. It is all a study in understanding truth. The simplest interpretation of the bible is not necessarily the winner -- nor is the simplest scientific model the winner.
Cirdan
11-08-2002, 04:36 PM
Pulling numbers out of a hat is still non-random, unless the hat contains a infinite number of "slips".
Please don't expound as I have read the stories. The interpretation of the bible is unnecessary in a model that presumes all the physics of evolution are, to paraphase Einstein, revealing the mind of god at work. This doesn't then attach itself to any particular religion except renaming nature "god". It is still Frankenstein's monster to try and accept and reject enough of each, science and religion, to make the two as one. Many parts of each have nothing to do with the other. The points at which they overlap or conflict are meaningless within the application of each. Most Christians are comfortable with compartmentalising the two and making sense of their world in the light of each as they feel appropriate.
Methuselah
11-08-2002, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Lizra
That was very neat barrel rider. :) The last line loses me though!
I'm not sure I get your point Meth. I like to distill things down till they are uncomplicated and clear. (Is this what you call "dumbing down?" indeed! :eek: ) I feel I am concerned with what "is". You seem to be elaborating on what "might be". Since I do not have your "faith", the "what might be" comes off as just one of many possibilities that really don't matter to me. Yes, this could be and that could be, but until there's proof I'm not putting much credence in it. If something comes along to disprove (in a big way) the theory of evolution, I'll be right there, listening to every word with delight. Barrelrider's remark is very good for me. You know, if you don't have religious faith, you just don't have it! You really can't pretend! :) There are way too many religions for starters! :) I think your son is a doll!
I was just elaborating on the point that what "is" today, based upon science, does change over time. Science doesn't prove things, and so it is wrong to take things observed over a short period of time, extrapolate it over millions of years (or even tens of thousands of years) and assume that the conclusions are incontrovertible. One may have strong reasons for believing what science says "is." I don't deny that, and I am glad that you are flexible in your beliefs.
I don't see science and religion as contradictory, especially in the matter of evolution, but I do see Christianity as a religion with plenty of historical assertions that are definitely relevant to the faith. On these accounts, science has been used to discredit Christianity -- going from the Flood to the time of Solomon. It is only in this area that I feel that a biblical model needs to be developed to determine whether there really are inconsistencies between science and the bible. Some people assume that there are. I have spent a bit of time, not really focussed on Creationist literature but scholarly works, to see whether the case is strong. I have found that much of the evidence I've seen thus far falls short of proving the assertions against the bible in these areas. I've also found that a reasonable post-Flood model can be developed, and I am in the process of determining whether a Flood and pre-Flood model can also be developed. Of course, these things are difficult to do by one's self. But since faith is often personal, sometimes one has to attempt it by one's self rather than just assume that what you read is true. If I hadn't checked whether radiocarbon dating did contradict the Flood, I would have just assumed that it did. As it was, I discovered the measurements (reflecting world behavior and not local behavior) did not support Libby's original proof, which would have been convincing had the data supported it.
Methuselah
11-08-2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
Pulling numbers out of a hat is still non-random, unless the hat contains a infinite number of "slips".
The whole universe does not contain an infinite number of possibilities. Are you therefore arguing for creation by design? I'm just looking for an admission that one cannot tell chance from intelligent design (unless you are God and can eliminate all possibilities of intelligent design because you know everything).
Lizra
11-08-2002, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Methuselah
I was just elaborating on the point that what "is" today, based upon science, does change over time. Science doesn't prove things, and so it is wrong to take things observed over a short period of time, extrapolate it over millions of years (or even tens of thousands of years) and assume that the conclusions are incontrovertible. One may have strong reasons for believing what science says "is." I don't deny that, and I am glad that you are flexible in your beliefs.
I don't see science and religion as contradictory, especially in the matter of evolution, but I do see Christianity as a religion with plenty of historical assertions that are definitely relevant to the faith. On these accounts, science has been used to discredit Christianity -- going from the Flood to the time of Solomon. It is only in this area that I feel that a biblical model needs to be developed to determine whether there really are inconsistencies between science and the bible. Some people assume that there are. I have spent a bit of time, not really focussed on Creationist literature but scholarly works, to see whether the case is strong. I have found that much of the evidence I've seen thus far falls short of proving the assertions against the bible in these areas. I've also found that a reasonable post-Flood model can be developed, and I am in the process of determining whether a Flood and pre-Flood model can also be developed. Of course, these things are difficult to do by one's self. But since faith is often personal, sometimes one has to attempt it by one's self rather than just assume that what you read is true. If I hadn't checked whether radiocarbon dating did contradict the Flood, I would have just assumed that it did. As it was, I discovered the measurements (reflecting world behavior and not local behavior) did not support Libby's original proof, which would have been convincing had the data supported it.
Well, Good luck on your work!
Cirdan
11-08-2002, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Methuselah
The whole universe does not contain an infinite number of possibilities. Are you therefore arguing for creation by design? I'm just looking for an admission that one cannot tell chance from intelligent design (unless you are God and can eliminate all possibilities of intelligent design because you know everything).
No giving away my secret.:)
Actually, the universe might...
As to science being used to "disprove" the bible, it has been my experience that much of the historical parts of the bible have been verified by science, using carbon dating (dead sea scrolls)among other methods. Would you selectively reject those findings as well?
Libby's work may have been refined but it has never been held as unsupported in the scientific community. The same with Newton; Einstein refined his theory but people still use newtonian calulations for everyday applications.
Lief Erikson
11-08-2002, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Dunadan
The problem I have is with the large number of rather prominent and self-professed Christians who seem quite at ease with leaving these ethics for Sunday and going around smiting infidels and generally being obnoxious to their neighbours left, right and centre, Monday to Saturday.
Yes, I realize that there are a lot of Christians out there like that and I have a big problem with them too. But as Methuselah said, don't believe that the Christian with the loudest mouth is the one who represents the Christian religion. There are a lot of jerks out there who do that kind of thing. Luckily, no one in the discussion group I go to every Sunday is anything like that, and all of them have a strong personal relationship with Christ. There, I once heard an estimate that 90% of so called Christians actually aren't part of the true body of Christ. And the example set up by those people is very dismaying. There are rules in the Bible that they largely ignore, or that people twist to mean what they want.
But please, simply because a lot of people are setting a very bad example when they should be doing the exact opposite, don't assume that Christ doesn't exist. (Thinks about it for a second) Besides, such an assumption is illogical.
Originally posted by Lizra
Barrelrider's remark is very good for me. You know, if you don't have religious faith, you just don't have it! You really can't pretend!
I couldn't agree with you more, and it isn't right to pretend. One thing that I wanted you all to notice about Methuselah's post, is that he was demonstrating that God doesn't have to show to the world that he exists, for this, in observable physical evidence, would be inconsistent with the Bible and remove the need for faith. However, faith doesn't have to exist before you come to God.
Lizra, I know that you don't have a religious faith, and to speak plainly, I'd be amazed if you had a true faith, for you haven't yet met Christ. Faith comes after, and is very vital to Christianity, and in coming to know God better. But its true nature is different. Many people simply assume that you have to have faith to come to know God, but that's a view I've been fighting ever since I started posting on this thread. You don't have to have faith that he exists to ask him if he exists, and if you ask him from a sincere heart and with a willingness to continue seeking until he answers, he will answer. Time is in his hands. For some people, it is the same day they pray, while for others it is several months (Like in my case). He knows what a person needs, but you have to be earnestly seeking him.
Barrelrider, I very much agree with just about all of your post. I'd just like to elaborate on it a little, though.
Christian faith tells us that our faith on Earth will serve us after we have finished our time on earth.
That's true, but that faith isn't only for after we leave Earth, it is for the here and now as well. But you're right in saying that Christianity, for the most part, doesn't go against science. And even if it did, that's not likely a substantial enough evidence for why it couldn't have happened. That is because of the Chaos Theory aspect that Methuselah touched on, also for the reasons that I stated in my earlier example. There are many different things that show why science cannot prove something for a certain fact, and therefore if it goes against Christianity in a certain aspect, then it would be worthwhile for Christians to look more closely at their evidence.
Methuselah
11-08-2002, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
As to science being used to "disprove" the bible, it has been my experience that much of the historical parts of the bible have been verified by science, using carbon dating (dead sea scrolls)among other methods. Would you selectively reject those findings as well?
Libby's work may have been refined but it has never been held as unsupported in the scientific community. The same with Newton; Einstein refined his theory but people still use newtonian calulations for everyday applications.
Archaeology gives good support for the bible post Solomon. It currently gives little support for the bible pre-Solomon. I am not being selective in my use of radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating is very accurate during the period of the last two thousand years. Radiocarbon dating, tree-ring-corrected radiocarbon dating, and archaeological dating prior to 1000 BC is inconsistent within reasonable measurement limits. This is discussed in journals. Archaeologists generally do not rely upon radiocarbon dates for these time periods. They prefer to rely upon stylistic considerations of pottery and other samples that they dig up. Everything in the Ancient Mediterranean (pre 1000 BC) is compared against the Egyptian timeline, which is based on historic records and Sothic dating. Sothic dating is based on the absence of a leap day in their solar calendar and the sighting of a particular star that rises right before their flood season. Prior to about 3000 BC, they rely upon radiocarbon dating because it is the only source of dating information. I would be very disappointed if they did not use radiocarbon dating during that time period. Even if the dates are wrong in the possibility of changing radiocarbon levels (i.e. assume a large cloud layer that significantly reduces the amount of cosmic rays entering our atmosphere), it still serves as a relative measure of time. Scientists are aware of the fact that the radiocarbon equation (how much C14 is produced vs. how much goes out due to radioactive decay or sedimentation) is unbalanced. After I pointed it out to a colleague of mine at work based upon my own analysis, he attended a lecture at UCLA where the same subject was discussed. The fact that the equation is unbalanced, however, does not disprove RC dating for the time period. It just weakens the proof somewhat in that it is now based upon the assumption that there were no major environmental changes during the period in question. RC dating generally dates to about 50000 BC. This is the limit of measurement error assuming no major environmental errors.
Lizra and cass -
I'm glad we're in agreement over the amend/discard theory stuff. The reason I wanted to even address it is that some people DO think the th. of ev. can be infinitely amended. I think that MOST of the people on this thread don't, but I was very concerned over those that DO. If people think it thru, they'll see the nonsense in the idea, but many people just hear over and over how it can be adjusted, and thus think that it will ALWAYS be able to be adjusted to fit ANY data. And if they think that, then they will never bother to consider any other theory.
And that's also why I was so picky earlier on the thread about people seeing that the "th. of ev. is a theory made ABOUT facts", and that it was not IN ITSELF a fact, because they won't consider any other theories if they have the misunderstanding that the th. of ev. is in itself a fact. Again, it probably didn't apply to most people here, but some people definitely thought that it was a fact, and I wanted them to think it thru and see that it wasn't true.
But now onto new things ....
Now the third misconception that I want to bring up will probably be a little more controversial, as I imagine most, if not all, of the th. of ev. people believe it. I see posts saying over and over how we shouldn't bring religion into science. But we have already, for atheism is a religion, and it should be taken out of science, too. Now, it's not an organized religion with buildings and hymnals, etc., but it is most definitely a belief w/o scientific proof, which is what th. of ev. people are objecting to about Christianity, and why they are saying it should be taken out of the scientific realm.
People are mistaken if they think the atheistic position is scientifically neutral. You say to a Christian, "you can't prove scientifically that God exists!" and I say, "you're right!" Well, as a Christian, I say to the atheists, "you can't prove scientifically that He doesn't!" And I think that the atheists here would probably be able to say that I'm right.
Now, what I really object to is when people say that you can't scientifically evaluate the theory of creation by intelligent design! Of course you can't, if that one statement is all you are trying to offer up for evaluation. Neither can you scientifically evalute the theory of evolution by that one phrase. But what you CAN evaluate is a theory that goes along these lines: "My theory is that the earth as we see it was formed by: evolutionary processes. What I mean by that is the following: (add details). And given these details, here is what I would expect to see in the following areas: In the area of physics, I would expect to see a, b, and c; in the area of biology, I would expect to see d, e and f; in the fossil record, I would expect to see g, h and i; and so on. If it doesn't quite mesh, I will make some adjustments and retest.
Now why in the world wouldn't a theory that goes like this: "My theory is that the earth as we see it was formed by: creation by intelligent design. What I mean by that is the following: (add details). And given these details, here is what I would expect to see in the following areas: In the area of physics, I would expect to see a, b, and c; in the area of biology, I would expect to see d, e and f; in the fossil record, I would expect to see g, h and i; and so on. If it doesn't quite mesh, I will make some adjustments and retest."
The only thing I changed was putting in "creation by intelligent design" for "evolutionary processes"! Wouldn't everyone agree that BOTH theories are perfectly suitable for evaluation by the scientific method? If not, why not?
Earniel
11-08-2002, 06:39 PM
If you've said this before please direct me to your previous post, R*an. But I was wondering to what extent to you see intelligent design? Do you think that a god merely started life in the primeval soup or do you think he deliberately shaped each and every species or that he occasionally gave evolution a nudge in the direction he wanted to take it? I'm just curious.
BeardofPants
11-08-2002, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by R*an
But we have already, for atheism is a religion, and it should be taken out of science, too.
Hate to be nitpicky, but atheism is a lack of belief thereof. So it's not a religion per se, but an ideology.
I agree partially with your point though. Science should attempt to be as objective as possible; theories should not be clouded by either a fanatic belief in a higher power, or a fanatic lack of belief in a higher power. The key to a good scientific approach is to leave your baggage at the door... I remember from my post-grad papers in anthro, that we dealt with a lot of this stuff. Especially since anthropology isn't technically a science. It was rather irritating how a lot of anthropologists (and I'm dealing mainly with archaeologists here) made the facts BEND to their theories, instead of looking for the most likely answers. :rolleyes:
Now for a bit of levity:
"Let 'em say we're crazy, what do they know
Put your arms around me baby don't ever let go
Let the world around us just fall apart
Baby we can make it if we're heart to heart ...
...And we can build this thing together
Stand this stormy weather
Nothing's gonna stop us now "
:p
Lief Erikson
11-08-2002, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Eärniel
If you've said this before please direct me to your previous post, R*an. But I was wondering to what extent to you see intelligent design? Do you think that a god merely started life in the primeval soup or do you think he deliberately shaped each and every species or that he occasionally gave evolution a nudge in the direction he wanted to take it? I'm just curious.
I believe that he has designed the species.
I think that he very well might have done it through evolution, as well. At the quantum level, everything depends upon chance. It is even possible, by an extremely unlikely chance, that I would be successful in running through a brick wall. This thing happening is so unlikely that I'd say anyone who tried it was quite stupid, but because of chance, it is possible.
Evolution also is based upon chance, and if, as Methuselah suggests, chance is or can be manipulated by intelligent design, then it is perfectly reasonable that God could create. The chance of evolution could be the design of God, and this explains his ability to, using evolution, create man in his own image.
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hate to be nitpicky, but atheism is a lack of belief thereof. So it's not a religion per se, but an ideology.
Actually, I tend to agree with R*an on that one. And R*an, thanks for pointing that out! I'd never thought about it before.
Atheism is a lack of belief, BeardofPants, as you say. But it also isn't proven by science. Religion and nonreligion alike are the same in being beliefs without evidence. Thus, in being alike in nature to religion, atheism, the lack of religion, can be said to be religion.
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hate to be nitpicky, but atheism is a lack of belief thereof. So it's not a religion per se, but an ideology.
Hate to be nitpicky about your nitpick ;) , but atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God.
Are those lyrics from a song?
Originally posted by Eärniel
If you've said this before please direct me to your previous post, R*an. But I was wondering to what extent to you see intelligent design? Do you think that a god merely started life in the primeval soup or do you think he deliberately shaped each and every species or that he occasionally gave evolution a nudge in the direction he wanted to take it? I'm just curious.
Now Eärniel, I just said a couple of posts ago that I wasn't going to tell what my personal beliefs were as far as the "how did this world as we see it get here" question :D I'll have to consider making an exception for you, though - let me think about it... :) (I'm open to being bribed by Belgian chocolates, BTW .... ;) )
Cirdan
11-08-2002, 08:06 PM
The idea of adding god as an extra step to evolution as in Rian's theory is that it's only purpose is to insert god. It becomes problematic for people of differing beliefs to make use of the theory. It is still not supported by anything except supposition. Many tests have been done to test the possibilities of the mechanisms of evolution.
Atheist - one who disbelieves god
Agnostic - One who doesn't believe the existence of god can be proven.
...or something like that.
BoP... what song is that?
Edit: mmmmmm.... belgian chocolate!
Let me add reference numbers to your post, please:
Originally posted by Cirdan
(1)The idea of adding god as an extra step to evolution as in Rian's theory is that it's only purpose is to insert god. (2)It becomes problematic for people of differing beliefs to make use of the theory. (3)It is still not supported by anything except supposition. (4)Many tests have been done to test the possibilities of the mechanisms of evolution. (5) Atheist - one who disbelieves god
(1) Whoa, whoa, whoa there! I NEVER added God as an extra step to evolution!!!!!!! My theory said "creation by intelligent design". (please refer to my post of 3 posts back, if that makes sense). I did NOT add God onto evolution in any way, shape or form. Someone did ask me if that's what I believe, maybe that's how you got confused.
(2) That's why I say "intelligent design", not The God of the Christian Faith.
(3) Absolutely untrue. As I said in my 3-posts-back post, the initial line of EITHER theory cannot be tested; it is the details of the theory that can be tested ("given this, I expect to see the following in these different fields:". ... )
(4) Good. And many tests should be done to test TESTABLE elements of a theory of creation by intelligent design.
(5) Do you mean "one who disbelieves that God exists?" The way you have it worded now, "one who disbelieves god", it looks like you mean "one who disbelieves what God says", which I doubt is what you mean. This is a sincere question! I would really like to be sure of what you are saying.
cassiopeia
11-08-2002, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by R*an
And that's also why I was so picky earlier on the thread about people seeing that the "th. of ev. is a theory made ABOUT facts", and that it was not IN ITSELF a fact, because they won't consider any other theories if they have the misunderstanding that the th. of ev. is in itself a fact. Again, it probably didn't apply to most people here, but some people definitely thought that it was a fact, and I wanted them to think it thru and see that it wasn't true.
I believe that evolution is a fact. I believe that species did evolve over millions of years. Whether this was by chance or by a supreme being, I know not, but I do lean towards the former. There is still debate over the details of how species evolved, and I wish I was more familiar with this, so I could discuss this furthur.
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I believe that evolution is a fact.
But how do you mean that? Do you mean that you think it is the true description of what really happened? You certainly have every right to believe that; many intelligent people do.
That is different, however, from saying that you believe that the entire theory has been proven scientifically. Which do you mean? or do neither fit what you mean?
cassiopeia
11-08-2002, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by R*an
But how do you mean that? Do you mean that you think it is the true description of what really happened? You certainly have every right to believe that; many intelligent people do.
That is different, however, from saying that you believe that the entire theory has been proven scientifically. Which do you mean? or do neither fit what you mean?
I think that evolution is a true description of what really happened. All the evidence points to evolution as a real process. Evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. I don't believe that the theory of evolution can ever be proven scientifically.
afro-elf
11-08-2002, 11:39 PM
Atheism is a lack of belief, BeardofPants, as you say. But it also isn't proven by science. Religion and nonreligion alike are the same in being beliefs without evidence. Thus, in being alike in nature to religion, atheism, the lack of religion, can be said to be religion.
I think you might wanna change that
The lack of health can not be said to be health even though they are physical conditions
Athiest do not worship
being alike in one aspect does not make them the same in another
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by afro-elf
I think you might wanna change that
The lack of health can not be said to be health even though they are physical conditions
Athiest do not worship
being alike in one aspect does not make them the same in another
I don't want to change it. Being alike in one aspect doesn't mean being the same in another, but there are plenty of religions which don't involve worshiping some entity. Some religions believe that everyone is part of one entity, and they don't worship. Others believe in reincarnation. Not all religions believe in God, and not all religions worship, but that doesn't make one of them not religions. All religions have different names to demonstrate which this one is. Buddhism and Islam are totally different religions and have very different things to them. Because they are different religions and many things in them are different from the other, they are both given different names. Atheism has different aspects to it then the other religions, but it still is what other religions are: Nonprovable belief.
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I believe that evolution is a fact. I believe that species did evolve over millions of years. Whether this was by chance or by a supreme being, I know not, but I do lean towards the former.
That's fine, and completely reasonable. Evolution is a current scientific theory, with evidence to support it, and believing it is fine. Believing in the millions of years evolution is also fine, even though there is some evidence to the contrary, like the fact that there isn't more similarity among the species, and the fact that quite a few more recent books are discussing the likelihood of a faster evolution (I can't give you many of the names of these books, though, so don't ask). But the millions of years model still stands, for the time being, and believing the current scientific theories is fine for you to do.
Chance and a supreme being . . . it is impossible to tell, from a scientific standpoint, which is. It's up to you to decide what you believe for yourself.
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 12:23 AM
No, sorry Leif and Rian, but we've been over this before.
atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
re·li·gion Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
[I]The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Ideologies on the other hand...
i·de·ol·o·gy Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
Denotes a subscription to a set of ideas without necessarily imbuing it with a sense of devotion, which the term 'religion' can do.
I should have been more clear; I meant that atheism subscribes to the lack of belief in a higher authority. Ideologies are a set of belief systems... without the devotional aspect. At no point in my post did I want to specify that atheism was outside the realm of being a belief system. I hope I have made that more clear this time.
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 12:41 AM
I suppose you're right, we would have to slightly broaden the definition to label it as a religion. But you'd probably also have to broaden the definition of an Ideology to squeeze it into that category as well.
Meanwhile, we're agreed that it falls under the same catagory as religion in at least some respects. I think the title 'religion,' is irrelevant as to whether it is the same or not in the respect we're looking at. The point is that it is the same as religion in that it is utterly impossible to touch upon the truth of by any means in the physical realm.
R*an, I have one question: Are you leading this somewhere? I can't see what the point is of establishing Atheism as a religion. Thanks for pointing out the similarity, though, I hadn't noticed it before you mentioned it.
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Evolution is a current scientific theory, with evidence to support it, and believing it is fine. Believing in the millions of years evolution is also fine, even though there is some evidence to the contrary, like the fact that there isn't more similarity among the species, and the fact that quite a few more recent books are discussing the likelihood of a faster evolution (I can't give you many of the names of these books, though, so don't ask)
Try reading "Invertebrate Fossils"; Moore, Lalicker, and Fisher. You will soon cast aside the silly notion that there isn't similarity among the species. Faster evolution doesn't explain the existence of Brachiopods over a period of 300 million years and the fact that they have been extinct for even longer. Unless they were tucked into the rocks under so many other rock deposits, they are very old, they show consistent evolution into modern mollusks, while lacking a small funtional feature mollusks have.
But the millions of years model still stands, for the time being...
Yes, any day know the earth is going to get much younger...
Chance and a supreme being . . . it is impossible to tell, from a scientific standpoint, which is. It's up to you to decide what you believe for yourself.
How long does it take a small chance to become an inevitability?
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I am pointing out, however, that other religions also don't believe in God.
I haven't been specifically mentioning a belief in 'God.' Note I've been mentioning 'higher authority.'
re·li·gion Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Religions have an inlaid belief in some sort of higher authority, or spiritual devotion. Atheism does not in any sense of the word, subscribe to this. That is why atheism can not be a religion... it is an ideology.
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Cirdan
Try reading "Invertebrate Fossils"; Moore, Lalicker, and Fisher. You will soon cast aside the silly notion that there isn't similarity among the species.
Cirdan, I must ask you something, as politely as I can. You've misinterpreted me, R*an, Methuselah, and just now, me again. Please read our posts more carefully next time. I'm very sorry if this seems rude, but you're interpreting us too narrowly.
Reread the selection of my post that you quoted, and you'll see that I didn't say there isn't similarity between species. On the contrary. I'm simply saying that if everything evolved over millions of years with many minor changes, we'd be seeing far more similarity between all the species than we do now. I suppose you might say that I'm wrong in this, but I really think everything would be much more mixed than it is now.
Faster evolution doesn't explain the existence of Brachiopods over a period of 300 million years and the fact that they have been extinct for even longer. Unless they were tucked into the rocks under so many other rock deposits, they are very old, they show consistent evolution into modern mollusks, while lacking a small funtional feature mollusks have.
I know that evolution still has a long way to go in developing its accuracy, its ability to test things, etc. We extrapolate too often, and that is a mistake. The millions of years could be incorrect dating, I've already discussed my opinions on that in previous posts.
Besides, I doubt that you've read any of the faster evolution books, so how can you say what they explain and what they don't?
Yes, any day know the earth is going to get much younger...
Yes, any day it might :). Though I'm not arguing for a young Earth, we might suddenly find reason to believe that it is.
How long does it take a small chance to become an inevitability? [/B]
Please elaborate on your question; I'm missing your point.
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I think the title 'religion,' is irrelevant as to whether it is the same or not in the respect we're looking at. The point is that it is the same as religion in that it is utterly impossible to touch upon the truth of by any means in the physical realm.
I'll say this again. Religion denotes a belief in a higher authority of some sort; ideologies themselves are the blanket term in which religion falls under. The difference between an ideology (of which religion can be attributed to) and a religion, is that an ideology is simply a belief system, whereas religion presupposes a belief in that previously mentioned higher authority. Atheism is a lack of belief in that authority. And it in no way subscribes to the belief system of a religious/spritual order.
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm simply saying that if everything evolved over millions of years with many minor changes, we'd be seeing far more similarity between all the species than we do now. I suppose you might say that I'm wrong in this, but I really think everything would be much more mixed than it is now.
Far more similarity? Is it not enough that we share most of our DNA with a chimp? :rolleyes:
LF:
I know that evolution still has a long way to go in developing its accuracy, its ability to test things, etc. We extrapolate too often, and that is a mistake. The millions of years could be incorrect dating, I've already discussed my opinions on that in previous posts.
All dating has a degree of error. The way that it is built up (ie, half lifes, decay etc) indicates that a young earth is an improbality. Even if dating had a +/- error of 30% (it only has a +/- degree of error of about 1-4% depending on the dating method) it would still point to a billion year old earth. Also, the stratification of the fossil record (the build up can actually be measured according to a specific rate of build up) indicates an older earth.
LF:
Besides, I doubt that you've read any of the faster evolution books, so how can you say what they explain and what they don't?
In my degree of ANTHROPOLOGY I covered quite a bit of this source material thank you very much.
jerseydevil
11-09-2002, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Far more similarity? Is it not enough that we share most of our DNA with a chimp? :rolleyes:
Isn't it 99% of our DNA is the same as chimps?
This website is funny. :)
Creation Tips: Could humans and apes evolve from a common ancestor? (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/apeman.html)
Could people evolve from apes, or even from apelike creatures? No! Even though evolutionists believe people and apes have evolved from a common ancestor, there is no indisputable evidence that this happened. In fact there is overwhelming evidence against its ever happening.
Apes are programmed to give birth to apes — not to humans or anything else....
This guy's argument is also funny -
Human/chimp DNA similarity Evidence for evolutionary relationship? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp)
Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!
I was trying to find the percentage of DNA that apes and humans have in common and I found those two sites.
Philia
11-09-2002, 01:47 AM
Surprisinly all I here is BLAH BLAH BLAH CHIMPS BLAH BLAH BLAH DNA BLAH BLAH BLAH. Shows you how much I listen :D
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 01:55 AM
LOL! :D
JD - it is around 98.5%, so yeah, late 90s is a good estimation.
Philia
11-09-2002, 02:01 AM
If you want I can translate what you just said BoP!:)
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Cirdan, I must ask you something, as politely as I can. You've misinterpreted me, R*an, Methuselah, and just now, me again. Please read our posts more carefully next time. I'm very sorry if this seems rude, but you're interpreting us too narrowly.
I think I have a pretty good idea were you stand no matter how fast you "swift".
Reread the selection of my post that you quoted, and you'll see that I didn't say there isn't similarity between species. On the contrary. I'm simply saying that if everything evolved over millions of years with many minor changes, we'd be seeing far more similarity between all the species than we do now. I suppose you might say that I'm wrong in this, but I really think everything would be much more mixed than it is now.
[/b][/quote]
I actually did understand that is what you are saying. The misunderstanding is that what I am saying is that the earth is not a steady state environment, that there isn't one ideal species, that a more complex organism is not necessarily a more successful one, and organisms that have differentiated from others evolve new characteristics from others and don't share genetic code. I don't think what you've said is rude, just misplaced.
I know that evolution still has a long way to go in developing its accuracy, its ability to test things, etc. We extrapolate too often, and that is a mistake. The millions of years could be incorrect dating, I've already discussed my opinions on that in previous posts.
You are dead wrong about this, and since I have posted why I can only assume that you do not read my posts. It is not a matter of opinion. There is no way that the dating could be incorrect. You can argue ID about it but the time line is fixed by the stratigraphy of the earth. Well the earth is covered with ancient rock formation with fossils that are even older.
[quote]
Besides, I doubt that you've read any of the faster evolution books, so how can you say what they explain and what they don't?
It may exist in some obscure bateria or something irrelevant form of life, with regards to evolution. It can not explain the millions of species that evolved over millions of years as shown in the fossil record. How do I know? The experience of walking up to an outcrop, looking for a fossil and discovering a trilobite, taking it back to find that the species was predicted to bbe found in that formation based on it's age and environment of deposition. And education is more than books and ideas; it's also about reality and functional information. It's not just because I have a degree in geology, it is because I have experienced the reality of what is out there in the fossil record.
[quote]
Yes, any day it might :). Though I'm not arguing for a young Earth, we might suddenly find reason to believe that it is.
The idea that the world will suddenly become topsy-turvy is very amusing. Maybe we will discover that we don't use oxygen from the air. Maybe the Roman Empire never existed. And maybe the sun really revolves around the earth. Golly, anything could happen.:rolleyes:
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by jerseydevil
This website is funny. :)
This site has just set my blood boiling.
Ramapithecus turned out to be an orangutan, and the australopithecines like the famous “Lucy” fossil seem to have been more like chimpanzees that spent some of their time walking upright. Some authorities have said “Lucy” and the australopithecines were dead-ends, not links between apes and humans at all.
Ramapithecus actually predates the species Orangutan by a significant margin. Also, it is not an ape, it is a hominid.
"Lucy" also predates chimpanzees. She has a divergent big toe that chimps simply don't have. Her chest, while barrel shaped like that of a chimp, has a tendency towards the funneling that hominids have. I could go on, but eh, can't be bothered.
A lot of australopithecines were dead ends. The idea that human evolution was linear has long been shot in the foot. It is now postulated that there were several austrolopithecines co-existing with each other, and divided up by geographic barriers. Homo erectus actually co-existed for some time with them.
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I think that evolution is a true description of what really happened. All the evidence points to evolution as a real process. Evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. I don't believe that the theory of evolution can ever be proven scientifically.
It looks like we're in agreement, then, except I wouldn't say ALL the evidence. But I won't bother about that. :)
jerseydevil
11-09-2002, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Cirdan
I actually did understand that is what you are saying. The misunderstanding is that what I am saying is that the earth is not a steady state environment, that there isn't one ideal species, that a more complex organism is not necessarily a more successful one, and organisms that have differentiated from others evolve new characteristics from others and don't share genetic code.
Yeah - all you have to do is look at the horseshoe crab - whihc we have a ton of here. They've been around for about 250 million years and haven't changed. They're considered a living fossil. Obviously the horsecrab - for whatever reason - is a very successful creature.
HORSESHOE CRABS: THE ANCIENT MARINERS (http://www.beach-net.com/horseshoe/Bayhorsecrab.html)
jerseydevil
11-09-2002, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
This site has just set my blood boiling.
Well I meant funny as in ridiculous.
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 02:18 AM
Yeah, I know you meant that. :) I just make it a point to avoid creationist sites if I can; I tend to get really really annoyed when reading them. :D
What is your new avatar btw?
jerseydevil
11-09-2002, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
What is your new avatar btw?
It's an F15 - I got it off of http://civfanatics.com . They have over 400 avatars for their messageboard.
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I meant funny as in ridiculous.
It was both. What is irritating is that people believe that ^%#$. genomes are like words... only different.
It gets tiresome when scientists do tons of research filling volumes of books, shelves of libraries, and some joker using a misplaced analogy goes. "see, it could be wrong".
JD, I love the horseshoe crab! I grew up by the beach. I guess hunting for seashells is protopaleontology.
Is that an F-17?
BoP - your defs:
atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
I am referring to the #1 def.
re·li·gion
1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I am referring to the #3 def., and the zeal part is especially appropriate. And devotion does not necessarily mean worship, it also means loyalty to something.
I haven't been over this before, but maybe you guys have - I'm pretty new still. But it doesn't matter at all to me if you want to use the term "ideologies" - what matters to me is whether or not people are willing to scientifically evaluate the testable details of a theory! - be it named the "theory of evolution" or the "theory of creation by intelligent design". I saw lots of "of course you can't!!" for the latter theory earlier on this thread. Are you people of the same opinion now?
jerseydevil
11-09-2002, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by Cirdan
JD, I love the horseshoe crab! I grew up by the beach. I guess hunting for seashells is protopaleontology.
Yeah - I grew up 5 minutes from the ocean and went to school a couple of blocks from the beach. I used to play with them when I was little. They make cool designs in the sand when they walk/crawl.
Is that an F-17?
I guess it may be. I thought I had chosen the F15. I copied a bunch from that site. I looked and this one is the Jetfighter - not the F15. I also have a Stealth Bomber, nukes and a ton of other ones.
jerseydevil - I love F-15's - one of the few aircraft that can go straight up! I worked on the radar end of the F15 a teensy bit as a summer hire at Hughes Aircraft Co. I worked full-time after graduation as an engineer for a radar company, working with military air traffic control radars, but that was B.K. (before kids); now I consult part-time while kids are in school. F15s are my absolute all-time favorite a/c!! (my son's, too - he always says "F-15 E Eagle"). See if you can find a good pic of one.
jerseydevil
11-09-2002, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by R*an
...what matters to me is whether or not people are willing to scientifically evaluate the testable details of a theory! - be it named the "theory of evolution" or the "theory of creation by intelligent design". I saw lots of "of course you can't!!" for the latter theory earlier on this thread. Are you people of the same opinion now?
I don't believe in a supreme being - so I don't believe in intelligent design. I believe we are the result of chemical processes.
The new "Intelligent design" theorists I believe are just trying to get creationism taught in schools - without any real backing to support their theory other than the bible. They've basically invented this theory and tried to incorporate the Theory of Evolution in with the story of creationism.
In order to have intelligent design - you'd need a supreme being. Science isn't trying to prove or disprove god - but it is trying to explain where we came from.
We'd still be living in the dark ages without science - without religion we would most likely be living in peace.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
R*an, I have one question: Are you leading this somewhere? I can't see what the point is of establishing Atheism as a religion. Thanks for pointing out the similarity, though, I hadn't noticed it before you mentioned it.
Now why would I lead it somewhere? :D Yes, but it's too late to get into it tonight...
jerseydevil
11-09-2002, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by R*an
jerseydevil - I love F-15's - one of the few aircraft that can go straight up! I worked on the radar end of the F15 a teensy bit as a summer hire at Hughes Aircraft Co. I worked full-time after graduation as an engineer for a radar company, working with military air traffic control radars, but that was B.K. (before kids); now I consult part-time while kids are in school. F15s are my absolute all-time favorite a/c!! (my son's, too - he always says "F-15 E Eagle"). See if you can find a good pic of one.
I always liked F16s - but here is a pic of an F15 that is cool.
http://www.usmilitaryart.com/yeagers_last.jpg
It's located at - http://www.usmilitaryart.com
Or were you looking for an avatar?
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by R*an
I am referring to the #3 def., and the zeal part is especially appropriate. And devotion does not necessarily mean worship, it also means loyalty to something.
I'm sorry Rian, but I don't think that atheism can be classified as a religion, just because there are some *zealous* atheists out there. Also, zeal I would have to say, is more traditionally associated with religion, not atheism. Furthermore, a belief system does not automatically get categorised as a religion; religion is a very specific belief system/ideology which has specific criteria, namely that of a belief in a higher power.
Devotion doesn't necessarily mean worship, but conscientious devotion has a religious ring to it.
As I said earlier, this has been covered numerous times before. If I'm being tetchy about it, it is because we've gone down this particular garden path before. :rolleyes: On top of this, I have also done several papers for my degree relating to the study of ideologies, and how they evolve. Without meaning to sound arrogant, I know what I'm talking about when I say that atheism is an ideology NOT a religion (just as religion is an ideology.) If I'm nitpicking, it is because I have covered this so many times now with my lecturers, and on respective boards.
(Late editting to fix some very bad grammar, and state my arguments more clearly. :))
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 04:20 AM
Far more similarity? Is it not enough that we share most of our DNA with a chimp?
I'm not fighting evolution, and I didn't say that we don't possibly share a common ancestor. I'm not agreeing either, that's simply not what I'm talking about.
I'm saying that there should be more mixture between all of the species, or most all. When something changes a tiny amount over time, and reproduces, and those others also reproduce a tiny amount over time, these two different branches aren't going to necessarily branch off in completely different directions. There are many different species out there, and many different kinds of insects which are totally unrelated to each other. This doesn't make sense if they were all originating from a similar source. We'd have perhaps a very few species which are completely unrelated to each other, not an enormous number.
If a species changed its entire genetic makeup over a very large period of time, then you would see others in the same area/climate doing the same thing, although possibly in slightly different ways. All species don't evolve in precisely the same way, simply because they live in the same, or a similar area. The likelihood of such a thing happening is extremely small. If that was the case, then I think you'd see very, very many human related species around now, from species that didn't quite evolve the same way that we have. More human primates than we see now. And that's only one species, there are many others which also would be very closely related to one another.
Assuming a fast evolution solves this problem, for although you would get different species closely related to each other, just like in the slow evolution example, you wouldn't get nearly as many. And I think the evidence that exists around us in the way that species are now suggests the likelihood of this theory being the correct one.
Forgive me if some of my information is wrong on this. Unlike some of you, this isn't a subject that I've studied in great depth.
Originally posted by Cirdan
You are dead wrong about this, and since I have posted why I can only assume that you do not read my posts. It is not a matter of opinion. There is no way that the dating could be incorrect. You can argue ID about it but the time line is fixed by the stratigraphy of the earth. Well the earth is covered with ancient rock formation with fossils that are even older.
So you're arguing that the dating methods used today can't be wrong? (Sighs) I thought we'd already covered the ground of the marigin of error, and that nothing can be proved by science. A faulty tool can lead to false assumptions, and simply because it hasn't yet been shown to be faulty doesn't mean it isn't. How we measure the laid out timeline could be faulty. How we insert years can be faulty. Our means of measuring the data that is given to us is what has room for error in it, and has been shown to have such in history.
Originally posted by Cirdan
The idea that the world will suddenly become topsy-turvy is very amusing. Maybe we will discover that we don't use oxygen from the air. Maybe the Roman Empire never existed. And maybe the sun really revolves around the earth. Golly, anything could happen.
Maybe we'll discover the world is round instead of flat. It was discovered in history. The people back then had their measurements incorrect, and their frame of reference was too small at that point to see the real picture. In our own methods of showing things to be true, there is marigin of error. You seem to think that something science has established can't be shown wrong.
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
In my degree of ANTHROPOLOGY I covered quite a bit of this source material thank you very much.
I was talking to Cirdan. I haven't seen you argue for the millions of years evolution over the faster paced one.
Originally posted by BeardofPants
All dating has a degree of error. The way that it is built up (ie, half lifes, decay etc) indicates that a young earth is an improbality. Even if dating had a +/- error of 30% (it only has a +/- degree of error of about 1-4% depending on the dating method) it would still point to a billion year old earth. Also, the stratification of the fossil record (the build up can actually be measured according to a specific rate of build up) indicates an older earth.
I'm not arguing about an older Earth, I'm saying that the theory that evolution takes place over a longer period of time could be wrong, and giving one or two of the inconsistencies that would be explained by a faster evolution. I'm not arguing with the evidence that the Earth yields, I'm saying that our dating of fossils and organic tissue to get these longer dates could be flawed. I'm not explaining how it could be flawed, simply establishing that it could be.
You know what, I think that the difficulty in what is being said by all of you in this is that you're suddenly ignoring all of the discussion we just had about chance, and the possibility of science making a mistake. We've agreed (I think) that errors have happened in the past, and they might happen in the future, and they might be happening in the present.
Believing the current scientific theories is a perfectly fine thing, and if no one believed them, then we wouldn't get anywhere. I'm not denying that there is evidence to support basically all of the theories that are out there now, so you don't have to quote the evidence to me. I know that there are reasons why people believe what they believe just now. But all scientific theories are still theories, and a groundbreaking discovery might suddenly uproot things that were previously "known."
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 04:35 AM
Oh, Earniel, quite some time ago you asked for further information about that situation which helps give credit to the fast evolution theory that I mentioned. The one where four species evolved from one in only a few years on an island which had major environmental shifts going on which were forcing the first species to the edge of extinction. Well, I'm sorry to report that that was something my Dad heard on the radio and told us about later, so I don't know where to access further information. But new things are being discovered about genes and genetics, and I dare say that in a few years there'll probably be more new books out about new possiblities that need to be explored in the theory of evolution.
Earniel
11-09-2002, 05:01 AM
It's okay, I was just curious about it because it seemed so unlikely.
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm not arguing about an older Earth, I'm saying that the theory that evolution takes place over a longer period of time could be wrong, and giving one or two of the inconsistencies that would be explained by a faster evolution. I'm not arguing with the evidence that the Earth yields, I'm saying that our dating of fossils and organic tissue to get these longer dates could be flawed. I'm not explaining how it could be flawed, simply establishing that it could be.
Of course it could be flawed. We're only human. In fact, it is probably flawed. However, there are some things that we can safely say with certainty. The earth is round, and it is billions of years old. The fossil record is also very very old. Flaws aside, there is just no arguing with that fact. The age of the earth, and the progression of life (and its age) are very very old.
Please state these one or two inconsistencies. What time frame are you postulating for this faster evolution?
LF:
We've agreed (I think) that errors have happened in the past, and they might happen in the future, and they might be happening in the present.
The beauty of science is that it *is* made up of shifting paradigms. It refits the theories around the available facts accordingly.
Regarding evolution; there are facts that simply can't be dismissed. To use an analogy, if a boat sinks in the middle of the ocean, and pieces of the wreckage are recovered, we know that a boat sank. We don't know, however, what caused the boat to sink. The same can be said for evolution. We have recovered bits and pieces of the fossil record - unfortunately it does not survive well - but we don't know the causal factors.
Just because every step can not be explained in the evolutionary process, does not mean that it is totally in error.
The same can be said for the timeframe of evolution, and ultimately of the Earth's age. The is enough evidence to break down what happened when, and how long it took for each process (approximately.) Obviously, with the very early fossil record, much of it is speculative, given the sheer age of the earth, and the fragility of the fossil record. However, I can say that if some new breakthrough is going to pop up to confuzzle everyone, it certainly won't be postulating a younger earth, but rather, a much much older one.
Finally, I'm not sure what you're going on about regarding faster evolution. The rate of change in evolving organisms is not constant. Several factors have to be taken into consideration, ie speciation, competition, resources, etc. Some biological adaptations occur at a much faster rate than others.
LF:
But new things are being discovered about genes and genetics, and I dare say that in a few years there'll probably be more new books out about new possiblities that need to be explored in the theory of evolution.
I think we all agree with this. There are many holes in the theory of evolution due to the lack of information. The further back you go on time, the more patchy the evidence is in the fossil record. It's a good thing that science, as a general rule, is so fluid; thanks god for the shifting paradigms!
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Just because every step can not be explained in the evolutionary process, does not mean that it is totally in error.
I agree with you completely. As a matter of a fact, I agree with just about all of your post.
I'm personally a little surprised that you consider our current dating methods to be just as accurate as the fact that the world is round, but it's your choice how strong you think these methods are.
I'm not postulating another time frame for the faster evolution. Unfortunately, I haven't studied the subject enough to do that kind of thing. However, two of the primary reasons that I am advocating it is because the possibility has lately been coming to scientific thought, as more knowledge is procured, and secondly, because the Bible also tends to advocate that more than a longer evolution. You might not take the Bible as a valid source of evidence, and I'm not using it as such. If it said nothing at all on the subject, then I'd let the matter be. But I tend to believe that Adam was the first man, and the faster evolution certainly implies that this could easily happen. How long the animals had been around before him, I'm not sure, but in the Bible it says that sin and death were brought to the world when Adam succumbed to temptation, and this would imply that none of the animals had died yet. Here you'll probably start laughing, but that is one of the reasons why I am attempting to cast doubt on the dating method for a millions of years evolution.
But it really isn't my place to cast doubt on this for you. In years to come, we'll see where evolution goes, and if this other version might be adopted.
Even the creation of Eve from Adam falls into the realm of definite possibility by scientific causes if you accept the faster evolution idea. Frogs, when under dire straights, have been known to change sexes to produce a female. The same sort of thing as that island scenario which I told you about. Species, in their genetics, have a strong ability to adapt. Evidence of this is visible all through creation, how in the desert, desert animals live, in the forest, forest animals live, in the swamp, swamp animals live, etc. Some species, once introduced to a difficult habitat, can even change themselves to adapt at a faster rate.
In my most recent post, one of the larger reasons why I was showing the evidence that what I was suggesting could be is because of this:
Originally posted by Cirdan
There is no way that the dating could be incorrect.
That statement is what I was trying to pound ;).
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 01:09 PM
There seems to be some confusion here about the fossil record. Most life on earth is made up of large organisms. Most of the world's life is made up of invertebrates. The vertebrate fossil record is irrevelent in dating the age of the earth, It's not like the fossil record is patchy here. Some huge rock formations are made of nothing but fossils. The isn't any gaps at this level. There are literally mountains of fossils in the record. Extending BoPs analogy to this record;it is like saying were found the entire fleet, all the crews, the place were they wrecked, a clock the broke witht he exact time frozen, and a calendar beside it with the days marked off.
The age of the earth, determined by stratigraphy alone, is still billions of years. Radiometric dating is only a secondary tool of convenience.
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Unfortunately, I haven't studied the subject enough to do that kind of thing.
That is abundantly obvious.
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 01:27 PM
Cirdan, if there were as many fossils as you're saying, then I think I should bring up the point that many interim species that should exist between one species and another haven't shown up. How we date the exiting fossils, and the accuracy of that dating is what can be questioned, not the existence of fossils themselves. We are in agreement that there are fossils of species that are now extinct :rolleyes: . But there are problems in that although one species from seventy five million years ago or some such number have many specimins to support their existence, there isn't much at all by way of species in between. This is one of those inconsistencies with the current representation of evolution that I was talking about.
I'm not arguing, when saying this, that there aren't any in between species at all. I know that there are some, like the Neanderthals. But when such discoveries do come, up, they are generally major discoveries. We have the evidence of many Neanderthals having existed at one time now, but we don't have a constant, slightly evolving chain of species. This is easily explained by a faster evolution, for by that theory a species would hop from one stage of development to another within a rather small space of time, and doesn't even need hundreds of in between species.
Meanwhile, I say again that I wasn't arguing about the age of the Earth. It doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth in the Bible, anyway. How we date the fossils is what has room for error, as anything that we do in science does.
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 01:42 PM
Geographic Distribution of animals indicates gradual development of life, becuase dissimilarities between faunas of different areas are largelt correlated with the length of time during which they have been isolated from one another. The peculiar mammalian fauna of Australia, for example, composed largely of marsupials, is evidently a result of Australia's separation from Asia in Cretaceous or early Cenozoic time. Evolution on a sub-specific level is indicated by tree snails of some tropical islands of the Pacific, in which trees grow only in the valleys; here, each valley has its own subspecies of snails, morphologically distinct from those of adjacent valleys, because mixing and interbreeding of the various populations is prevented by dry, treeless divides between the valleys. This situation is most readily explained be postulating descent of the various subspeicies from a single ancestral form which spread widely during a time of continuous forest. presumably, the subspecies evolved from local populations which became isolated by the development of arid treeless divides.
"Invertebrate Fossils" Moore, Lalicker, Fischer p. 30
I hope this helps you understand how species become separated, differentiate, and branch differently from their parent forms.
Earniel
11-09-2002, 02:00 PM
LE:Even the creation of Eve from Adam falls into the realm of definite possibility by scientific causes if you accept the faster evolution idea. Frogs, when under dire straights, have been known to change sexes to produce a female. The same sort of thing as that island scenario which I told you about. Species, in their genetics, have a strong ability to adapt. Evidence of this is visible all through creation, how in the desert, desert animals live, in the forest, forest animals live, in the swamp, swamp animals live, etc. Some species, once introduced to a difficult habitat, can even change themselves to adapt at a faster rate.
Of course I may be dead wrong about this but to me you seem to think that evolution happens in the blink of an eye. A frog, be it previous male and now female or visa versa is still the same frog, just becasue it can change sex doesn't mean it can turn into a salamander. A caterpillar can turn into a butterfly but it will always turn into a butterfly and not suddenly into a musquito. I have heard of discoveries of new species but I have never heard of a new species that wasn't there a couple of years before ( unless it was a primitive organism where mutations are more likely to occur) Which was why I wanted to know more about this mystery island.
Desert animals live in deserts but you won't get a desert frog by dumping an ordinary one in the desert and telling it to adapt. Some species do adapt to their environment but some species deliberately chose their habitat because they had the advantage there.
About the fossil record. The circumstances of fosilisation are pretty rare which means that only a small amount of the remains of creatures that once lived are found again in fossils. That's why you don't get complete evolutionary lines with all the intermediate species.
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Cirdan, if there were as many fossils as you're saying, then I think I should bring up the point that many interim species that should exist between one species and another haven't shown up. How we date the exiting fossils, and the accuracy of that dating is what can be questioned, not the existence of fossils themselves. We are in agreement that there are fossils of species that are now extinct :rolleyes: . But there are problems in that although one species from seventy five million years ago or some such number have many specimins to support their existence, there isn't much at all by way of species in between. This is one of those inconsistencies with the current representation of evolution that I was talking about.
Now you are just making things up. You don't even know if there ar gaps or not. The fact is, you are wrong about this. Brachiopods existed hudreds of millions of years ago. They are identical to Mollusks except for one festure that gave the Mollusks a distinct advantage in competing for the same space. Mollusks exist continuously since. This is one example is very, very, many.
I'm not arguing, when saying this, that there aren't any in between species at all. I know that there are some, like the Neanderthals.
No wonder you don't get evolution if you think that the Neanderthal is important in Evolution. It may be important to man but is irrelevant to the fossil record.
But when such discoveries do come, up, they are generally major discoveries. We have the evidence of many Neanderthals having existed at one time now, but we don't have a constant, slightly evolving chain of species. This is easily explained by a faster evolution, for by that theory a species would hop from one stage of development to another within a rather small space of time, and doesn't even need hundreds of in between species.
[/b][/quote]
That is nothing but silly. Neanderthalensis is a subspecies at best. There is so little variation that "fast evolution" is really just... evolution. Look at the apparent differences among races. This happened quickly. That doesn't mean it is even vaguely close to a significant change. We may look wildly different from one another but that means little.
Meanwhile, I say again that I wasn't arguing about the age of the Earth. It doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth in the Bible, anyway. How we date the fossils is what has room for error, as anything that we do in science does.
Then how do you explain the fossils buried in that very old earth? They have to be older than the formatrion they are buried in.
The biblical age of the earth is easily derived by counting backwards the ages of the people in the hereditary line, as your father mentioned, to the day Adam and Eve were created. The earth is just a few days older. Of course if you want a non-literal translation then anything goes, as they say.
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Eärniel
Desert animals live in deserts but you won't get a desert frog by dumping an ordinary one in the desert and telling it to adapt. Some species do adapt to their environment but some species deliberately chose their habitat because they had the advantage there.
I agree. That would kill the frog :). But an envirnoment doesn't always go from lush to bleak in a matter of seconds, and the time lapse can be enough for species to adapt to the changes. Sometimes this adaptation, as in my island example, can cause a large change in the species.
Originally posted by Eärniel
About the fossil record. The circumstances of fosilisation are pretty rare which means that only a small amount of the remains of creatures that once lived are found again in fossils. That's why you don't get complete evolutionary lines with all the intermediate species.
That's what I was assuming, but Cirdan said something about "mountains of fossils."
And there's something I'd liked explained to me: that we do see the same species found in different places more than once. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a somewhat odd coincidence that we find the same species several times in different parts of the world, but don't find many of the intermediate species at all.
Forgive me, Cirdan, but I saw little in your post in terms of factual evidence that contradicts what I said. All that did contradict was opinion and assumption.
Originally posted by Cirdan
Brachiopods existed hudreds of millions of years ago. They are identical to Mollusks except for one festure that gave the Mollusks a distinct advantage in competing for the same space. Mollusks exist continuously since. This is one example is very, very, many.
That is based upon your opinion of an infallible dating system.
Originally posted by Cirdan
That is nothing but silly. Neanderthalensis is a subspecies at best. There is so little variation that "fast evolution" is really just... evolution. Look at the apparent differences among races. This happened quickly. That doesn't mean it is even vaguely close to a significant change. We may look wildly different from one another but that means little.
I'd like to see your proof for that; it seems awfully much to me like a matter of opinion.
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
Then how do you explain the fossils buried in that very old earth? They have to be older than the formatrion they are buried in.
That is the primary serious argument I can see in your post, and let me tell you one thing: the Earth is changing. If you throw a human dead body in with a bunch of ancient mummies (To use a rather morbid example), and the skeletons are retrieved later, you can't simply say that because the one body was with the others, it is the same age. If the Muslims built a Minarette beside an Egyptian pyramid, the fact that something new is with something old doesn't make the new thing old as well.
You might say that the Earth doesn't change that much, and when it does it's at an extremely slow rate because of the slowness of the continental divide, but the assumption that the continental divide was always as slow as it is now is erroneous. Simply because we observe, from our limited reference frame, that this is how fast it is moving now, doesn't imply that it has always been moving at that rate. And your earlier statement, by the way, that the continents would melt and life would cease to exist is entirely a matter of opinion. I'd like to see some strong evidence to back that up.
In any case, I'm not going to get into an argument for an early continental divide. You'd all throw all the evidence of the current scientific theories, supported by the current scientific dating at me, and I'd have little to respond to it all with. But current scientific theories are still merely current scientific theories. They have a lot of knowledge in them, usually, and science is a very great thing that has done a lot for humanity. It has some errors for it, and simply because it hasn't found the evidence for the flood or an earlier continental break-up yet doesn't mean that it never will.
The difficulty is, Cirdan, that in your arguments, you're assuming the accuracy of current scientific theories and dating methods, and you're saying that there isn't any chance that they're wrong. I'm believing in a universal truth, which is the Bible, and I'm assuming that there isn't any chance that that's wrong. That's an assumption I don't mean to prove the accuracy of to you, and the only way that you could find out whether it's accurate or not is to discover whether God exists or not, by seriously asking him, because you want to know. In numerous previous examples and in history, science has been shown to make mistakes, therefore I think your assumption as to the accuracy of current scientific theories is invalid. Mine is unusable, because the evidence to support it is all only evidence to me, not to the world.
There is some evidence out to support a quick evolution; I've mentioned some of these evidences here, and you can read others by looking at what material is available. The original theory of a longer evolution taking place also has evidence, due to dating and other things. As I've said many times before, there is a lot about evolution that we still don't know, and science has a long way to go in exploring that field. Time and further discovery will show which is the more likely, so I'm simply going to wait on that. I'm not attempting to prove to you all which is the truth, for I don't know that for certain. I simply tend to believe in the faster evolution, partly because it supports the Bible, and partly because it explains some of the inconsistencies we see in the old model.
Anyway, in this I'm not trying to prove to you that the dating's off, that the continental divide happened, that the flood happened, or that faster evolution happened. I'm simply establishing the possibility that these things happened, and I think the discussion about chance, scientific room for error, and design that we had before goes further in establishing that then any of the evidences that I have offered.
Originally posted by Cirdan
The biblical age of the earth is easily derived by counting backwards the ages of the people in the hereditary line, as your father mentioned, to the day Adam and Eve were created. The earth is just a few days older. Of course if you want a non-literal translation then anything goes, as they say.
In the New Testament, Jesus says that he is returning to the Earth "soon." Several centuries, by a human standard, isn't what I'd call soon. There is evidence in the Bible that our time is nothing. There is reason to believe that God's 7 days are different from human's seven days. Besides, during the earlier parts of creation, the sun hadn't even be created yet. Things in the Bible do sometimes have to be taken nonliterally.
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I know that there are some, like the Neanderthals. But when such discoveries do come, up, they are generally major discoveries. We have the evidence of many Neanderthals having existed at one time now, but we don't have a constant, slightly evolving chain of species. This is easily explained by a faster evolution, for by that theory a species would hop from one stage of development to another within a rather small space of time, and doesn't even need hundreds of in between species.
First of all, Neandertals are NOT the precursor to Sapiens. They were a side branch that developed in Europe when Sapiens were still in the African/Middle East region. The precursor to Neanders is most likely Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and possibly antecessor in Spain. Erectus is our direct precendent.
And that is why you are wrong about there being no slightly evolving chain. There are many slight differrences between heidelbergensis and the neandertal. So much so, that it is now generally a given that they were two separate species, as opposed to what they previously thought - that heidelbergensis was Neander.
I'm not even gonna get into the timeframe here, but needless to say, a long period of time stretched between Heidelbergensis and Neander (who were developing before sapiens expanded out) and the expansion of Sapiens. On top of all this, there is a convergence between Erectus, Sapiens, and Heidelbergensis, of several thousands of years. Your faster evolution theory is simply not possible.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm personally a little surprised that you consider our current dating methods to be just as accurate as the fact that the world is round, but it's your choice how strong you think these methods are.
I didn't even mention dating methods there. (See my post below regarding precision vs accuracy) Here, I was talking about the fossil record, and stratigraphic layers. Just by using geomagnetic reversals tells us that the earth is very very old.
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 04:11 PM
LF:
Here you'll probably start laughing....
No, I'm not laughing at all. I'm am just completely overwhelmed I guess, by your lack of knowledge on this subject. Let's break this down.
Leif:
"However, two of the primary reasons that I am advocating it is because the possibility has lately been coming to scientific thought, as more knowledge is procured, and secondly, because the Bible also tends to advocate that more than a longer evolution."
The possibility that a younger earth, or a faster rate of evolution in the sense that you are talking about has NOT come into the scientific community. As I said earlier, if there is going to be a rethink on dating, it will most likely be because the dates are OLDER than previously thought. Also, as I also mentioned earlier, the rate of evolutionary change is NOT constant, and it is NOT linear. So, in a certain sense you are right - there are *some* aspects of evolution that can be considered "fast", but not in the sense that you are implying.
Leif:
"But I tend to believe that Adam was the first man, and the faster evolution certainly implies that this could easily happen."
If Adam was the first man, then where would we place him in the record? Ramapithecus? Creationists think that he was an orangutan!
Faster evolution implies nothing of the sort. Adam would have to have been a brachiating, barrel chested, vegetarian.
Leif:
"How long the animals had been around before him, I'm not sure, but in the Bible it says that sin and death were brought to the world when Adam succumbed to temptation, and this would imply that none of the animals had died yet."
From Ramapithecus, right up through all the australopithecines, there is evidence that their diets were primarily of the floral variety. So, we're looking from 6 million years ago, right up until approximately 500,000 years ago. That is a long time frame for 'Adam' to have been a vegetarian, brachiating, barrel chested wonder. We can analyse their diets using strontium-radium methods, which compare the ratios of fauna versus flora in early hominid diet. The rate of strontium in a mammal that eats grass for instance, is vastly different from that of a carnivore, which eats the mammal who eats the grass, and gets the strontium indirectly. We can also look at the morphology of australopithecines, ie their mandible, teeth, and zygomatic processesp; this tells us, due to the extreme robusticity, that they were eating hard grains, and fruit, NOT meat.
Leif:
"Here you'll probably start laughing, but that is one of the reasons why I am attempting to cast doubt on the dating method for a millions of years evolution."
And I'll say it again, while the margin of error for dating methods can not be relied on for precision (note, precision, NOT accuracy. The accuracy of dating methods is not in doubt), geomagnetic reversals in the stratification of the geological and fossil record BOTH indicate a very very old earth. Your possibility of a faster evolution is improbable.
LF:
But it really isn't my place to cast doubt on this for you. In years to come, we'll see where evolution goes, and if this other version might be adopted.
As new evidence arises, new theories will have to be formulated accordingly. Like I said earlier, evolutionary theory has come from being linear, to now knowing that there was a lot more co-existence and dead end links than previously thought.
LF:
Even the creation of Eve from Adam falls into the realm of definite possibility by scientific causes if you accept the faster evolution idea.
I think I covered this already, when detailing the longevity of the australopithecine subspecies.
LF:
Species, in their genetics, have a strong ability to adapt.
Not all species have a strong ability to adapt. Well over 90% of mutations are neutral. Adaptation, speciating, adaptive radiation, these are all mechanisms that determine a species adaption to its niche, and NONE of them are as instant as you are making them out to be.
LF:
That statement is what I was trying to pound ;).
But he is right. The problems of dating lie with the precision mechanisms. No one is doubting the accuracy of dating, it is the precision of radiometric dating that casts the doubt on the dates.
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That is the primary serious argument I can see in your post, and let me tell you one thing: the Earth is changing.
"The earth is changing."
Can you justify this statement please.
LF:
If you throw a human dead body in with a bunch of ancient mummies (To use a rather morbid example), and the skeletons are retrieved later, you can't simply say that because the one body was with the others, it is the same age.
Perhaps you have heard of the field of taphonomy? It was my specialisation in anthropology. The basic gist is that geologists and anthropologists, and paleontologists all take into account that the fossil record will be 'invaded' by outside influences, whether they be cultural or natural.
LF:
I'd like to see some strong evidence to back that up.
Actually, LF, I think we'd like to see you cite some evidence to justify your statements as well. Something that your father heard on the radio about a mystery island is hardly good evidence to support your arguments.
Regarding continental drift, again, we can look towards the study of stratigraphy.
LF:
I'd have little to respond to it all with.
Rather telling, ain't it?
LF:
But current scientific theories are still merely current scientific theories. They have a lot of knowledge in them, usually, and science is a very great thing that has done a lot for humanity. It has some errors for it, and simply because it hasn't found the evidence for the flood or an earlier continental break-up yet doesn't mean that it never will.
There is no uniform mud layer to indicate a global flood. Evidence is not just gonna pop up out of mid air... it simply is not there!
LF:
The difficulty is, Cirdan, that in your arguments, you're assuming the accuracy of current scientific theories and dating methods, and you're saying that there isn't any chance that they're wrong.
See my arguments above for precision vs accuracy. The accuracy of radiometric dating is not in doubt, it is the precision that needs to be adjusted for.
LF:
In numerous previous examples and in history, science has been shown to make mistakes, therefore I think your assumption as to the accuracy of current scientific theories is invalid. Mine is unusable, because the evidence to support it is all only evidence to me, not to the world.
Of course science has been known to be make mistakes! It is going on the best possible fit with the evidence that we currently have. If we get new evidence, the theory gets adjusted accordingly. The thing about science is that it IS a changing paradigm!!!!!!!
Again: accuracy good, precision not so good. :rolleyes: Please, be careful on your terminology. Your ignorance is showing.
LF:
There is some evidence out to support a quick evolution; I've mentioned some of these evidences here, and you can read others by looking at what material is available.
You have not cited much in a way of evidence. As I said earlier, adaptation is not as instant as you're trying to make it out to be.
LF:
I simply tend to believe in the faster evolution, partly because it supports the Bible, and partly because it explains some of the inconsistencies we see in the old model.
Can you cite the inconsisties please?
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That is the primary serious argument I can see in your post, and let me tell you one thing: the Earth is changing. If you throw a human dead body in with a bunch of ancient mummies (To use a rather morbid example), and the skeletons are retrieved later, you can't simply say that because the one body was with the others, it is the same age. If the Muslims built a Minarette beside an Egyptian pyramid, the fact that something new is with something old doesn't make the new thing old as well.
What does this even mean?
You might say that the Earth doesn't change that much, and when it does it's at an extremely slow rate because of the slowness of the continental divide, but the assumption that the continental divide was always as slow as it is now is erroneous.
Your lack of knowledge is overwhelming. How can you discuss a subject about which you know so little? Please stop trying to channel your father and pick up a proper book on the subject. The continental divide is a geographic delineation showing where rivers flow to different seas. Are you trying to discuss mid-ocean ridges? That is a very different thing.
Simply because we observe, from our limited reference frame, that this is how fast it is moving now, doesn't imply that it has always been moving at that rate.
Actually is does, within certain boundaries. Clays can only deposit separately from sands if the stream flow is a certain rate. I can take a clay sample from and ancient rock and repeat the test in a flume. All processes have physical requirements that must be met.
And your earlier statement, by the way, that the continents would melt and life would cease to exist is entirely a matter of opinion. I'd like to see some strong evidence to back that up.
ReallY? And you know this how? Tell me what the melting point parameters for basalt are? Do you know? On wdo you base your claim?
It has some errors for it, and simply because it hasn't found the evidence for the flood or an earlier continental break-up yet doesn't mean that it never will.
It would be impossible since the entire earth has been surveyed. If such a significant event had occurred there would be evidence.
As for your opinions about the bible's relevance to the history of the earth, I am truely sorry for you that you will choose to ignore what you believe god created. If you want to be able to engage in these discussions you should at least allow yourself to obtain a proper understanding of the prevailing science before you support unproven theories because you have the impression that your religion would suffer otherwise.
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
The possibility that a younger earth, or a faster rate of evolution in the sense that you are talking about has NOT come into the scientific community.
Are you at the head of the scientific community? Different scientists look at different things. These two ideas, I know have not been accepted by the scientific community, and are probably not even being seriously looked at yet. But this doesn't say scientists aren't looking at them, and at the evidence for them.
For what must be the tenth time, I'm not arguing for a younger Earth, either.
The things you stated about Adam are based upon the slow evolution, if it's faster, these don't hold.
I have a question for you, BeardofPants. Theoretically, if the break-up of the continents came shortly after the flood, would this effect the universal mud layer you say everything should have? I asked you questions before about the universal mud layer, and they weren't answered.
In any case, I'm not going to get wrapped up in an argument for an early break-up of the continents, a flood, and a faster evolution. All I wanted to do is point out that since science has error in it and there are things out there and probably even general laws that aren't yet observed, it can't be used as a basis for going against these other ideas.
I ask again the same question that I asked in an earlier post, and which went unanswered. Why should what is written in the Bible be forced to conform to every scientific theory that is currently held? Since science changes as we learn new things and discard old ideas, it is ridiculous that Christianity, which holds to a firm and unyielding truth, to have to evolve with science.
Forge315-Halfling
11-09-2002, 05:28 PM
Well I’m not gonna read all the posts to this point, but as a Creationist I’ll take the point of view against Evolution as science.
So to make my entry into this topic here’s one reason against evolution, (which should be easy to combat)
1 - Natural Selection disproves Evolution, because it chooses against mutations so no change will stay; E.G. an ape can’t turn into man even over time because no mutation can be passed on.
Simple you say? Well it had to start somewhere.
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
Well I’m not gonna read all the posts to this point, but as a Creationist I’ll take the point of view against Evolution as science.
So to make my entry into this topic here’s one reason against evolution, (which should be easy to combat)
1 - Natural Selection disproves Evolution, because it chooses against mutations so no change will stay; E.G. an ape can’t turn into man even over time because no mutation can be passed on.
Simple you say? Well it had to start somewhere.
Not all mutations are deadly and not all prevent reproduction.
Next...
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I have a question for you, BeardofPants. Theoretically, if the break-up of the continents came shortly after the flood, would this effect the universal mud layer you say everything should have? I asked you questions before about the universal mud layer, and they weren't answered.
I would suggest that you read up on the Laws of Superposition sometime if you want a better understanding.
Forge315-Halfling:
Natural Selection disproves Evolution, because it chooses against mutations so no change will stay; E.G. an ape can’t turn into man even over time because no mutation can be passed on.
I can tell you haven't read the thread.
Well over 90% of mutations are neutral. And what Cirdan said: not all a deadly, and not all prevent reproduction. Obviously. :rolleyes:
Natural selection is about selecting for the best possible fitness. If a mutation helps an organism fit into its niche better, it will be selected for.
Men do not come from apes. We share a common ancestor.
Next. (Will it be the second law of thermodynamics? :rolleyes: )
Earniel
11-09-2002, 06:34 PM
I agree. That would kill the frog . But an envirnoment doesn't always go from lush to bleak in a matter of seconds, and the time lapse can be enough for species to adapt to the changes. Sometimes this adaptation, as in my island example, can cause a large change in the species.
Still the mystery island pops up. I'm sorry, Lief but without reasonable data on this island I simply don't buy it. Such speedy adaptation seems (to me) highly unlikely. It takes more than one generation for a species to emerge from another, certainly with more advanced organisms. So without more data I can't consider this island a good argument for faster evolution.
And there's something I'd liked explained to me: that we do see the same species found in different places more than once. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a somewhat odd coincidence that we find the same species several times in different parts of the world, but don't find many of the intermediate species at all.
Moving out on a limb here because this is less common ground for me. I think this is because we can't see evolution happen. We know it happens or happened, we often know what was first and what came after. But of the actual change we have no data. We can perhaps pinpoint the period in which it would take place and the differences between what came first and what came afterwards. But we do not know just WHAT happened, and there are often too much interfering factors to even try. Somehow I doubt that there is something like the missing link. If you find a fossil with treats of species A and the later species B, you're not going to name it species C just so you could have a intermediate species. Chances are it gets cataloged under either A or B. Also not every animal pleases paleontologists with a fossil. Fossilasation takes places under special circonstances and is more rare that common. So gaps are to be expected.
That is the primary serious argument I can see in your post, and let me tell you one thing: the Earth is changing. If you throw a human dead body in with a bunch of ancient mummies (To use a rather morbid example), and the skeletons are retrieved later, you can't simply say that because the one body was with the others, it is the same age. If the Muslims built a Minarette beside an Egyptian pyramid, the fact that something new is with something old doesn't make the new thing old as well.
If you're a decent archeologist you'll know the body is new and added later. Also one specimen doesn't make or topple a theory. Science is about repeating evidence. You find on one spot a species A in the same layer as species B and you find the same occurence in several other spots only then you can be sure to assume that species A and B shared the same era. Contamination of a archeological site is not entirely uncommon. If you find a piece of plastic in the layer of the roman empire you know, your layers are desturbed. Archeologists DO take this into account because if they don't their whole dig could be ruined.
cassiopeia
11-09-2002, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I ask again the same question that I asked in an earlier post, and which went unanswered. Why should what is written in the Bible be forced to conform to every scientific theory that is currently held? Since science changes as we learn new things and discard old ideas, it is ridiculous that Christianity, which holds to a firm and unyielding truth, to have to evolve with science.
I don't think that we (evolutionists) are asking that the Bible conform to every scientific theory. YOU are using the Bible as evidence against evolution, so you should use science to back up these claims, as we are. I ask (and forgive me if you have already answered this): how do you explain that we humans share 98.5% of our DNA with apes?
Forge315-Halfling
11-09-2002, 06:49 PM
Not all mutations are deadly and not all prevent reproduction.I’m not saying reproduction would be stopped by mutation, nor that mutations don’t get passed on. But there does need to be evidence of this evolution creating a ‘new’ species.
If a mutation helps an organism fit into its niche better, it will be selected for.If there’s a superior mutated gene and an inferior normal gene then the normal gene is selected.
how do you explain that we humans share 98.5% of our DNA with apes?There are similarities or near exactness because we were made by the same Creator.
About the flood being world wide, I don’t think water covered the whole earth nor that every-living thing outside of Ark died, but that all human beings outside of the Ark died and most animals if not all. However it’s okay to use the word world wide with the flood because the flood caused the ice age and that was world wide.
(edit - changed creator to Creator)
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
If there’s a superior mutated gene and an inferior normal gene then the normal gene is selected.
Pffft. That's all I have to say to that.
You're also forgetting to take sexual selection into consideration.
FH:
About the flood being world wide, I don’t think water covered the whole earth nor that every-living thing outside of Ark died, but that all human beings outside of the Ark died and most animals if not all.
Oh? This is the first that I've heard, that the flood wasn't a world wide phenomenon. :rolleyes:
FH:
However it’s okay to use the word world wide with the flood because the flood caused the ice age and that was world wide.
Ice age? World wide? My ass. The ice age I assume you are talking about was the one that occured during the time of the Neandertal. It was centred mainly on the European continent.
There have been several glacial maximums, btw.
How does a massive flooding lead to a glacial maximum exactly? :rolleyes: Glacial maximums are caused by the Earths position to the sun, not some heavy rain. :rolleyes:
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
I’m not saying reproduction would be stopped by mutation, nor that mutations don’t get passed on. But there does need to be evidence of this evolution creating a ‘new’ species.
So the new species isn't enough proof?
If there’s a superior mutated gene and an inferior normal gene then the normal gene is selected.
What is this conclusion based on?
There are similarities or near exactness because we were made by the same Creator.
Really? When?:rolleyes:
About the flood being world wide, I don’t think water covered the whole earth nor that every-living thing outside of Ark died, but that all human beings outside of the Ark died and most animals if not all. However it’s okay to use the word world wide with the flood because the flood caused the ice age and that was world wide.
You would be better making up a story about the ice age causing the flood. More ice = less water. So your interpretation of the flood is based on what? How were the human killed and not the animals? How would it kill all humans when it is clear that therewere humans everywhere? Why weren't there different races on the ark? How did they reproduce from such a small gene pool?
Lizra
11-09-2002, 07:12 PM
I see some very good reasons in this thread, why evolution should be taught in school. I'm seeing quite a few posts by people making big cases against it when they do not fully understand it! It is not simply "man came from apes" . I was shocked when I home schooled, and realized many of the parents were not teaching evolution. The children were growing up ignorant of this important, but somewhat complicated theory. It was enough to send us back to public school, despite some of the positive aspects of home schooling. (HS is mighty lonely if you don't have other home school families to get together with. )
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Lizra
I see some very good reasons in this thread, why evolution should be taught in school. I'm seeing quite a few posts by people making big cases against it when they do not fully understand it! It is not simply "man came from apes" . I was shocked when I home schooled, and realized many of the parents were not teaching evolution. The children were growing up ignorant of this important, but somewhat complicated theory. It was enough to send us back to public school, despite some of the positive aspects of home schooling. (HS is mighty lonely if you don't have other home school families to get together with. )
I think it is the complexity that makes it easy to confuse people. There has been intimations that science is out to get religion when it is plain to see that the reverse is the case. Can you imagine if scientists protested the teaching of creation in church?
Home schooling is difficult because you lose the socialization without numbers. I found what you did as well; that hs was just a way to supress thought that wasn't from the bible.
jerseydevil
11-09-2002, 07:35 PM
This is one way evolution works...
Say there was a lot of competition for food in the early oceans with most fish swimming in the middle depths - but nothing really occupying the lower depths. Some fish start to swim down to the ocean floor and pick up the scraps. After some time they really don't need their fins anymore - and the fish that are born with flat fins that would have been considered deformities and would have died in the upper depths, survive better on the floor of the ocean. Through successive generations these deformaties become more pronounced because having flat fins on the ocean floor allow them to walk which is better for life down there - but now they can no longer swim.
This new flat finned fish eventually migrates to the shore and starts to move up through the low surf. Some of them walk out of the water - but they can't survive - because they still have gills. Some of these fish can develop a deformity that allows them to breath for a short time on land - through successive generations this "deformatity" gets passed on to it's offspring and becomes a standard part of the fish. These new fish evetually are able to crawl out of the water and live. You can see this fish today called a lung fish (http://www.neosys.ne.jp/neo/english/HG01.html).
There is another fish that was very scary this summer in Maryland called the Northern Snakehead (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/snakeheadinfosheet.html) - ABCNews - They're Here... Two Unusual Fish Invade U.S. Waters (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/invasivefish020709.html). (I had several Lion Fish - they're a really cool fish, I especially like the Fu Man Chu Lion Fish.)
Forge315-Halfling
11-09-2002, 07:51 PM
BeardofPants: Pffft. That's all I have to say to that.
You're also forgetting to take sexual selection into consideration.
Cirdan: So the new species isn't enough proof?quote, "But there does need to be evidence of this evolution creating a ‘new’ species."
What is this conclusion based on?Natural Selection; if you don’t know what it is, go and read about it.
Cirdan: Really? When?If your asking me to prove Creation and the existence of God I can’t; what I’m doing is presenting that you can’t prove evolution either.
BeardofPants: Oh? This is the first that I've heard, that the flood wasn't a world wide phenomenon.Cirdan: How were the human killed and not the animals? How would it kill all humans when it is clear that therewere humans everywhere? Why weren't there different races on the ark?I only stated the probability of that, since we have no way of directly knowing whether it covered every mountain top. The only life forms I believe that lived through the flood was water faring ones; but I am open to the idea that little parts of Earth were not covered.
BeardofPants: How does a massive flooding lead to a glacial maximum exactly?It doesn’t I was referring to the event of the flood and everything that happened then. The world was covered by an ice/water shield back then, the flood happened because God had an object strike the Earth sending us off balance and shattering this cover.
Cirdan: So your interpretation of the flood is based on what?See just above, and you could also see the Bible. (I’ll give a reference in it later if you want.)
Cirdan: Why weren't there different races on the ark? How did they reproduce from such a small gene pool?Assuming the Earth is about ten thousand years old the gene pool would have been a lot purer then, so marrying in your close family would not be unhealthy. Natural Selection results in refinement of specific traits, so as beings bread and spread out across the Earth specific traits like light colored skin or dark skin become more apparent.
Cirdan
11-09-2002, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
It doesn’t I was referring to the event of the flood and everything that happened then. The world was covered by an ice/water shield back then, the flood happened because God had an object strike the Earth sending us off balance and shattering this cover.
Wow! This is much more challenging when you just start making stuff up. Well, let me try. Do you have a shred of evidence this happened?
I like a nice dark rye, but a nice crusty white bred is good too.:)
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
Natural Selection; if you don’t know what it is, go and read about it.
Oh, we're familiar with it. I have a whole degree based on it, if it helps. :rolleyes: It seems that YOU are not familiar with how natural selection works.
Would you care to explain it to us? :rolleyes: Yeah, I thought not.
FH:
I only stated the probability of that, since we have no way of directly knowing whether it covered every mountain top. The only life forms I believe that lived through the flood was water faring ones; but I am open to the idea that little parts of Earth were not covered.
Now, I could be mistaken here, since theology is not my specialty, but isn't it mentioned that the flood covered everything? :confused:
HF:
It doesn’t I was referring to the event of the flood and everything that happened then. The world was covered by an ice/water shield back then, the flood happened because God had an object strike the Earth sending us off balance and shattering this cover.
The WORLD?? COVERED??? My god this is ignorant. I said earlier that the glacial maximum of the Neander time period ONLY occured in the European continent!!! And an 'Ice Age' does NOT cover things with an ice shield!!! It is just a colder period in time. Due to the frigidity of the atmosphere, the water levels are lower, and land bridges are formed due to ice and exposed land.
HF:
Assuming the Earth is about ten thousand years old the gene pool would have been a lot purer then, so marrying in your close family would not be unhealthy. Natural Selection results in refinement of specific traits, so as beings bread and spread out across the Earth specific traits like light colored skin or dark skin become more apparent.
Okay, smaller gene pools do not equal purity. They actually equal weakness. Have you perhaps not heard of founders effect?
Refinement? Hmm... Natural selection acts on an organism, and the organism responds by adapting. Natural selection is the process by which the organism adapts. The refinement comes into play with SEXUAL selection.
Light coloured skin was a result of hominids moving up into the colder regions of the north (Europe), and adapting so that their skin could take in more vitamin E. There is evidence that their earlier counterparts were dying of rickets (esp. the old and the very young), cos their darker skin wasn't used to the smaller degree of vitamin E. Those who didn't produce children ridden with rickets would have made more desirable mates. Sexual selection.
jerseydevil
11-09-2002, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
The WORLD?? COVERED??? My god this is ignorant. I said earlier that the glacial maximum of the Neander time period ONLY occured in the European continent!!! And an 'Ice Age' does NOT cover things with an ice shield!!! It is just a colder period in time. Due to the frigidity of the atmosphere, the water levels are lower, and land bridges are formed due to ice and exposed land.
The glaciar stopped halfway through NJ. There is a clear difference between Northern NJ and Southern NJ. Also - as BoP said - NJ's shore was a lot further east because of the lower ocean levels. NEW JERSEY GEOLOGY & FOSSILS (http://www.geobop.com/paleozoo/World/NA/US/NJ/2.htm) (simplified site)
BeardofPants
11-09-2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by jerseydevil
The glaciar stopped halfway through NJ. There is a clear difference between Northern NJ and Southern NJ. Also - as BoP said - NJ's shore was a lot further east because of the lower ocean levels. NEW JERSEY GEOLOGY & FOSSILS (http://www.geobop.com/paleozoo/World/NA/US/NJ/2.htm) (simplified site)
Yes, there was a land bridge I believe between the Siberian region, and what makes up America today. Either way, the glacial maximum only effected a small region of the earth, in the northern region. (Sorry, I should have included the northern parts of the American continent in that. <sheepish look>)
jerseydevil
11-10-2002, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yes, there was a land bridge I believe between the Siberian region, and what makes up America today. Either way, the glacial maximum only effected a small region of the earth, in the northern region. (Sorry, I should have included the northern parts of the American continent in that. <sheepish look>)
I was actually just agreeing with you - I didn't even think that you were leaving America out. For one thing - when most people think of the ice age - they think of Europe. The land/ice bridge did connect Russia with Alaska - this enabled the Indians to come over (or at least that's the common theory).
It is cool to go into museums and see how the land once looked. It makes you realise how insignificant we are and that in the future everything that we build and do won't even matter.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I don't think that we (evolutionists) are asking that the Bible conform to every scientific theory. YOU are using the Bible as evidence against evolution, so you should use science to back up these claims, as we are. I ask (and forgive me if you have already answered this): how do you explain that we humans share 98.5% of our DNA with apes?
Well, one thing in your post I'd like to correct you on, and that is that I'm using the Bible as evidence. I was simply using that to demonstrate my reasons for arguing over the matters of dating. I'm also advocating a faster evolution, primarily because this recent idea that some scientists have been developing better agrees with the Bible than the current model, and I think it's quite possibly correct, considering the fact that evolution still has a long way to go in accuracy or precision.
I don't disagree that humans and apes have a common ancestor, and I don't agree with it either. I'm not taking the traditional interpretation of biblical passages, and I think evolution is possible.
The children were growing up ignorant of this important, but somewhat complicated theory.
Well, it is a question as to whether or not children should be taught evolution at an early age with an assertion of truth. At that young age, children aren't usually ready for the question of how to decide whether something is true or not, that's something that they're more ready to think about as a teenager. The theory has a way to go and our understanding of evolution will probably change a great deal in the future. Once something is taught to a child at an earlier age, it is much harder for them to ignore later on.
Oh, by the way, someone earlier posted that homeschooling was simply an excuse to ignore evolution (or something to that effect). That's actually extremely untrue. Homeschooling has many extremely useful purposes; I've written a report on it. And indoctrination isn't one of them. You can follow a child's learning level instead of forcing them to keep to the speed of the class, you can have a better relationship with your kids, etc. There are many reasons, but the suggested one in this thread is definitely not one.
I think the theory of evolution should probably be presented to these young people, when they're at an age where they can see that it is still simply theory. A good deal of it could be over their heads anyway, and there are other more useful things to teach them at that age like writing, math, and language to name a few.
Forge Halfling, I really hate to argue with you when several other people are already jumping all over your posts.
But I frankly think your ideas about the flood, like a meteor hitting, the connection to the ice age, and the whole Earth not being covered . . . I frankly think those ideas are a little weird and very shaky. Neither the Bible nor science supports them, but what I'd suggest if you're truly interested in this subject, like many other people are, including myself, you look closely at what science has to say and then read the books on geology and the scientific explanations for what happened. Then you'll be in a far better position to create a model. I'm not in the position to create a model for what might have happened, so I'm not attempting to. BeardofPants and Cirdan, in previous posts of theirs, have underlined this statement.
Meanwhile, to all those others who are saying faster evolution is impossible, the flood is impossible, the continents breaking up earlier is impossible, let me say this: Science, as you know, is still learning. Some theories are taught and accepted, but then they give way to further understanding at a later date. It has happened before and it can happen again. Current scientific knowledge goes against the possibility of these things happening, but unless you accept science as infallible (Which I seem to understand most of you don't), you cannot say with certainty that you won't learn something new and find that these things might have happened.
Until that time comes, you can certainly continue with believing the current scientific theories, methods and information on these subjects. But because it is possible that you are wrong, it cannot be certainly said that these things didn't happen.
Thus, the Bible doesn't have to mold to science whenever science disagrees with it, and we shouldn't twist its passages and read between lines to indicate that science is right when the Bible plainly disagrees. I think it is our (Speaking of Christians) duty to explore the possibilities and gain a firm grounding in these subjects.
Basically I'm saying that because science can be wrong, Christianity doesn't have to be wrong in those areas that are contradictory. I'm a proponent of further seeking, exploring and discovering.
BeardofPants
11-10-2002, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by jerseydevil
I was actually just agreeing with you - I didn't even think that you were leaving America out. For one thing - when most people think of the ice age - they think of Europe. The land/ice bridge did connect Russia with Alaska - this enabled the Indians to come over (or at least that's the common theory).
It is cool to go into museums and see how the land once looked. It makes you realise how insignificant we are and that in the future everything that we build and do won't even matter.
Well, I didn't forget it per se, but in my minds eye I was only thinking of Russia, Europe, and Siberia. :o I WAS thinking about the land bridge, but forgot to include that parts of the American continent were also effected later on during the glacial maximum, as it spread out from the European continent. Can't be expected to remember everything all the time, even if I try to be an obnoxious know-it-all. ;)
I love museums. Te Papa Museum (in Wellington - the same museum that's gonna have the $2m LOTR exhibit) has a newish interactive section where you can watch videos of how Pangea and Gondwanaland looked, and you can enter this house, and experience what the Napier earthquake felt like (it's on these suspension things that bounce up and down.)
Lizra
11-10-2002, 10:31 AM
A two million Lord of The Rings exhibit!! OH my!! That sounds so wonderful! :)
Methuselah
11-10-2002, 11:38 AM
Earlier I gave a sequence of numbers and asked if you could tell whether it was chance or design. The point I was making is that intelligent design can look like chance if you don’t know what the design is. The answer to my sequence is that the numbers were taken from the number pi (the distance around a circle of diameter 1) – omitting ten digits. Pi is an irrational number. It is impossible to tell the difference between the sequence of numbers in pi and a sequence generated by chance unless one knows the "design." I think most people agree that intelligent design can appear as chance to someone who does not know the design. But if creation represents God’s communication to us, then we should be able to comprehend at least part of what He is saying. Hence, we should be able to say something, but not nearly everything, concerning what that intelligent design represents.
If creation is God’s Word, then it should communicate truth to us. In my opinion, creation is there to help us understand who God is. When Jesus says, "I am the light of the world," he identifies himself as having attributes similar to that of light. Many analogies can be made. I would like to make one from the theory of relativity. Jesus said, "Before Abraham, I am." If one thinks in terms of relativity, this takes on new meaning. In relativity, the more something travels near the speed of light, the slower time proceeds. In the limit, if something travels at the speed of light, time does not progress at all. Consequently, for light, the past, present, and future are all present. The idea that past, present and future are all present to God gives Jesus’ statement new meaning.
Water is an excellent example of the meaning of the incarnation, or the union of flesh and Spirit. The hydrogen atom must surrender its sole electron to oxygen in order to combine. It reaps the benefit of sharing in practically all of the electrons of the oxygen atom. Hydrogen and oxygen together are very volatile. It is like the flesh resisting the spirit and the spirit condemning the flesh as evil. However, in their union they are like a new creation with a new nature. The flesh submits to the spirit, and the spirit gives grace to the flesh. In the relationship between flesh and spirit, flesh and spirit exist together and behave according to their own natures. But in the union of flesh and spirit, flesh and spirit produces a separate, new creation with a completely different nature. There is no longer God condemning people and people resisting God as in the time of Moses. There is God loving people, people loving God, and people loving one another.
In the creation of animals and other life forms, I think we each share in our own nature portions of the nature of all other animals (and perhaps plants, too). Observing their natures and their lives can teach us something about ourselves. Incompleteness and imperfection is as much a part of our nature as their natures. It was God’s pleasure to manifest His Son as perfection residing in imperfection. God could have designed the world to be more comfortable for us, but this would not help us to understand and experience who He is.
Novels like Tolkien’s "Lord of the Rings" and Hugo’s "Les Miserables" reveal real truths about humility and forgiveness that represent something greater than a chance combination of molecules following abstract laws. In my opinion, there is an inseparable union of spirit and flesh in the nature of Christ, there is an inseparable union of thought and physical activity in the human body, and there is an inseparable union of God’s nature and matter manifest in His creation. If this unin is inseparable, then we can always explain spiritual actions with physical actions. That, in brief, is what design means to me.
I am interested in your opinions. Do notions of truth, humility, and love have intrinsic meaning or do we just attribute meaning to fictitious concepts? If they have intrinsic meaning, do we learn about them because God has imprinted them into nature (ours or the world’s) in the form of design, or because some chance combination of molecules produces comprehension of these ideas?
Methuselah
11-10-2002, 12:30 PM
My own views on faster evolution - or rather the question I am trying to understand - is: What is the right mechanism for specie change? How can one really go one character at a time from a Dick and Jane reader (I am showing my age) to a Tolkien trilogy and require that each version make more sense than the last. It seems to me that the transition steps must be faster and more distinctive. I think Lief does make a good point about questioning why similar fossils are observed in multiple geographical regions without the observation of many intermediate fossils. Formation of fossils can be a rare event, but the occurrence from one location to another should be somewhat independent unless there were a lot of globally climactic events. I won’t rule out the latter. Mixing rates in the atmosphere and oceans are rapid (tens of years), so maybe one can have a large number of globally climactic environments that alternate between producing conditions appropriate for fossilization (or faster evolution for that matter) and conditions for producing steady state conditions. This is not meant to deny that in some cases there are stronger evidences for intermediate stages than in other cases. Anyway, I think a faster mechanism is needed to go from one stage to another - unless you can satisfy me that intermediate stages can be reached one mutation (or character) at a time while requiring each step to be better than the last. One thing I am wondering is whether viruses could be agents for faster change. It is known that viruses carry genetic material and do reproduce in the cells of living organisms. It is also known that at least in some rare instances, viruses can carry a double-stranded form of DNA. Does anyone regard this as a possible mechanism for specie evolution? The second question I would wonder about is whether anyone has given much thought to the fact that environmental change can cause phenotypical changes in species that could account for some changes in the geological fossil record. For example, it is known that a Drosophilia fly can grow an extra pair of wings if ether is present in the environment when the fly is born. Any views on that subject? Please note, I am not at all trying to be argumentative here or to prove a point, I’d just like to know people’s opinions.
Cirdan
11-10-2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Methuselah
I am interested in your opinions. Do notions of truth, humility, and love have intrinsic meaning or do we just attribute meaning to fictitious concepts? If they have intrinsic meaning, do we learn about them because God has imprinted them into nature (ours or the world’s) in the form of design, or because some chance combination of molecules produces comprehension of these ideas?
Using science for an analogy doesn't make the subject of the analogy science itself. If Pi isn't known to the observer then it could mean the observer has insufficine information. To what scientific prinicple do you compare this?
The water analogy is lost in the fact that one has nothing to do wqith the other except they reside together in your sentences.
If Jesus is literally light then he would be detectable if not visible. This also makes Mary's conception of him somewhat complicated.
Human activities ar impossible without the chemical reactions. You propose no tangible mechanism that there is some other mechanism at work. What there is are biological structures that are at a level of complexity above the base chemical reaction. There structures have functionality that accomodate the activities tthat allow the creative process of the writers you mention. These are far easier to measure and comprehend than a non-existant force of mystery.
Reducing the subjects to base analogy and ignoring the body of work regarding these subjects is a gross simplification of things that are very complex, but also whcih there is a great deal nore information about than intimated in your theory. It is common practice when trying to prove a concept wrong to prsent the previously held body of material for comparison and debunking. This material might be interesting to discuss in philosophy of religion but it needs much more backing for that.
Cirdan
11-10-2002, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Methuselah
I think Lief does make a good point about questioning why similar fossils are observed in multiple geographical regions without the observation of many intermediate fossils.
This is not uncommon or unexplained. If the change is not recorded in a formation is it did not occur in that region of deposition in the time of the deposition. It is the geographical separation. If the Mollusk supercedes the Brachiopod in the northern pacific, it will tak some time for it to spread to another location. It will take some time to build up a population large enough to spread as well.
Formation of fossils can be a rare event, but the occurrence from one location to another should be somewhat independent unless there were a lot of globally climactic events. I won’t rule out the latter. Mixing rates in the atmosphere and oceans are rapid (tens of years), so maybe one can have a large number of globally climactic environments that alternate between producing conditions appropriate for fossilization (or faster evolution for that matter) and conditions for producing steady state conditions.
The formation of fossils is not all that rare unless you are talking about large terrestrial animals and plants. Bivalves, corals, plankton, spores, and pollen are all examples of creatures that are easily found as fossils in many formations. The weather has a very small effect on these. If you are saying that weather causes increased evolution then I think you must mean increased extinction. There is a long way to go from there to say that it changes the rate at which one particular species may evolve. If the adaptations aren't there then the species may not survive the change. Some other species may then be poised to take the extict species place in the ecosystem, but it must already possess the requisite adaptation when the opportunity arises.
This is not meant to deny that in some cases there are stronger evidences for intermediate stages than in other cases. Anyway, I think a faster mechanism is needed to go from one stage to another - unless you can satisfy me that intermediate stages can be reached one mutation (or character) at a time while requiring each step to be better than the last. One thing I am wondering is whether viruses could be agents for faster change. It is known that viruses carry genetic material and do reproduce in the cells of living organisms. It is also known that at least in some rare instances, viruses can carry a double-stranded form of DNA. Does anyone regard this as a possible mechanism for specie evolution?
Again it is the species that has already made adaptations that survives, not the one rushing to adapt. Mammals existed long before the dinosaurs became extinct. They didn't thrive because the dinosaurs were better adapted to the majority of the earth's envronments. When the environment changed negatively for the dinosaurs it then favored the mammals. Virus changes to DNA could in some instance be beneficial but that would probably be rare since virus' tend to have a negative impact or be inert.
The second question I would wonder about is whether anyone has given much thought to the fact that environmental change can cause phenotypical changes in species that could account for some changes in the geological fossil record. For example, it is known that a Drosophilia fly can grow an extra pair of wings if ether is present in the environment when the fly is born. Any views on that subject? Please note, I am not at all trying to be argumentative here or to prove a point, I’d just like to know people’s opinions.
Again most species are either prepared for environmental change or not. Simpler creatures can adapt quickly. There are bateria that have a dozen or more polymorphs within a single species. The reason that mass extictions are interesting is that usually the large species and/or complex species are wiped out for the very reason that they cannot adapt as quickly as those with the shortest reproductive cycle. Other species simply adapt to climates that are at the extremes of life. The tube worms that feed in the chemical exhuast of the deep ocean volcanic vents are an example. They wouild never be effected as a species by climate change or asteroid impact within the ranges shown in the fossil record.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 03:52 PM
I have another question. BeardofPants, would you mind answering this one? You seem to have a lot of knowledge in this and other fields.
A slow evolution enhances the species, but I have trouble with the environment issue. If a swamp creature is slowly changing into a forest creature, then you have to assume that the environment is changing at an equal or even slower rate than the creature is in order for the genetic changes to be selected. However, if the environment changes too suddenly, then the creature, which is unable to adapt, will have a lot of trouble in the new surroundings. How could evolution keep up with environment? Is environment observed to change at such a slow rate?
jerseydevil
11-10-2002, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I have another question. BeardofPants, would you mind answering this one? You seem to have a lot of knowledge in this and other fields.
A slow evolution enhances the species, but I have trouble with the environment issue. If a swamp creature is slowly changing into a forest creature, then you have to assume that the environment is changing at an equal or even slower rate than the creature is in order for the genetic changes to be selected. However, if the environment changes too suddenly, then the creature, which is unable to adapt, will have a lot of trouble in the new surroundings. How could evolution keep up with environment? Is environment observed to change at such a slow rate?
Evolution doesn't necessarily keep up with environment - that is made clear by deforestation or man introducing non native plants and animals into an ecosystem. Look at the fear of the Northern Snakehead I mentioned before in a previous post. Maryland was extremely afraid that it was going to wipe out native fish if it was unable to be killed. The worst part with that fish - was that it's able to crawl across land and can move from pond to pond. Also look at the affect that cats have had on the Hawaiian islands. There are any number of examples where evolution has not kept up with environmental changes.
If the environment is a gradual change (which is generally the case, except when acted upon by some outside force) - then evolution can keep up. On the other hand the environment has a remarkable way of rebounding from catastrophic events - as has been observed and studied at Mount St Helens.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 05:03 PM
There is evidence of the deserts in Africa and Asia, such as the Sahara Desert, that they changed probably between the last six thousand to nine thousand years. How does this compute with the slow nature change theory?
jerseydevil
11-10-2002, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
There is evidence of the deserts in Africa and Asia, such as the Sahara Desert, that they changed probably between the last six thousand to nine thousand years. How does this compute with the slow nature change theory?
I think it depends on your definition of what is slow climatic and environmental changes.
I found this on National Geogrpahic's website trying to find out about why the Sahara might have dried up....
Desert-Adapted Crocs Found in Africa (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0617_020618_croc.html)
Adam Britton, a zoologist and crocodilian expert at Australia's Wildlife Management International, concurs. "The Sahara desert is definitely a surprising location to find a crocodile," he said. "The fact they can survive at all is testament to their remarkable ability to adapt to relatively hostile conditions."
The desert crocodiles have adapted to the changing environment in northern Africa; 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, what is now desert was probably lush savannah and grasslands. Today the Sahara is hot and arid, the land sandy, rainfall minimal, and vegetation sparse.
"The extension of range almost certainly reflects climatic changes," said Ross. "We know that even in Roman times, the Sahara was much wetter and greener than it is now. As these places slowly dried up, remnant populations became isolated from the other crocodiles on the continent. How these populations adapted to the changing conditions is most interesting."....
Although the crocodiles living in these extreme conditions are much smaller than is typical for the Nile crocodile species, scientists are currently classifying them as Nile crocodiles, the most widespread species in Africa. Nile crocodiles normally reach about 16 feet (5 meters) long; the dry-land crocodiles are about 5 feet (1.5 meters) long.
"The dwarfism exhibited by this population is typical of crocodilians in resource-poor areas—there simply isn't much food available for most of the year so they eat little, grow slowly, and reach small adult sizes," said Britton.....
DNA analysis might help determine whether the Mauritania crocodiles are stunted—from not getting enough to eat—or are smaller as a result of genetic adaptation. ....
Nile crocodiles on the island of Madagascar, for example, are still similar genetically to those from mainland Africa, he noted, adding: "I would be surprised if the Saharan population was sufficiently different." ...
Extinction is always a threat to small, isolated populations, but the desert crocodiles may be luckier than most. They are revered by local people, who protect them from occasional poachers.
"There's a complete lack of fear of the crocodiles among the local people," said Shine. "They even swim and wade with them. There are no stories of attacks, even in times of duress."
jerseydevil
11-10-2002, 05:57 PM
I did find this off of Columbia University's website. It seems as if science is still trying to figure out the quick climatic change and basically this is a recent discovery or theory.
Lamont Scientists: African Climate Changes Quickly (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/14/25.html)
Africa becomes significantly colder and wetter every 1,500 years, and stays that way for centuries, according to the new research by Peter deMenocal, a paleoclimatologist at Lamont-Doherty, Columbia’s earth sciences research institute in Palisades, N.Y.....
DeMenocal found that larger-scale, longer-term climate change, such as the one that turned northern Africa from a landscape dotted with crocodile-filled lakes 9,000 years ago into the vast Sahara today, took not thousands of years but less than a century.
The prevailing theory is that such long-term changes, which are governed by 20,000-year cycles in Earth’s orbit that affect the amount of solar radiation received by the planet, should occur slowly and progressively.
Instead, the new discoveries add mounting evidence that Earth’s climate system reaches certain thresholds, then switches gears relatively quickly from one distinct operating mode to another, spawning dramatic climate changes that occur precipitously, he said.
“The transitions are sharp,” deMenocal said in an interview. “Climate changes that we thought should take thousands of years to happen, occur within a generation or two.”
The new discoveries by deMenocal and Bond are the latest important clues indicating that Earth’s climate over the past 10,000 years—after the last ice age ended and human civilization began to flourish—was not nearly as stable or resistant to change as previously believed.
Abrupt changes occurred even in relatively warm, ice-free conditions such as today’s.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think it depends on your definition of what is slow climatic and environmental changes.
Didn't that article you found point more towards what creatures did in response to the change, rather than the reason for the change itself?
Well, I think that the observed changes in environment are too fast for evolution by slow rate to cope with. That's my opinion and the evidence, as you also helped to point out, indicates fast environmental changes, so I'm interested to see what some of you have to say in answer to this question.
Oh, by the way, that was a good idea to look at the National Geographic website! They're a great source of interesting information; we have several of their videos at our house.
About those crocs again . . . it says in the selection you have given that they have adapted to the environmental change. It agrees with the dates that I suggested, about it recently (Within a few thousand years) having been a jungle. I might be wrong, but couldn't this be another example of faster evolution? The species alterred itself to adapt from jungle to desert in a relatively quick space of time. Isn't this the same sort of thing that evolution does?
And I don't think, Cirdan, that even if you'd classify a fly as a simple creature, the crocodile falls under the same category.
That was an interesting selection indeed, jerseydevil. In these ideas I have quoted, I might be all wrong, but I'm interested in hearing what the current theory has to say in response to these subjects. And please, don't just refer me to a book. I'd rather hear your own opinions, as most of you seem already to have researched these things.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 06:18 PM
The new discoveries by deMenocal and Bond are the latest important clues indicating that Earth’s climate over the past 10,000 years—after the last ice age ended and human civilization began to flourish—was not nearly as stable or resistant to change as previously believed.
Abrupt changes occurred even in relatively warm, ice-free conditions such as today’s.
That's really fascinating stuff . . . thanks for the links, jerseydevil!
jerseydevil
11-10-2002, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That was an interesting selection indeed, jerseydevil. In these ideas I have quoted, I might be all wrong, but I'm interested in hearing what the current theory has to say in response to these subjects. And please, don't just refer me to a book. I'd rather hear your own opinions, as most of you seem already to have researched these things.
Thanks. I have to realy on the experts though and scienctific findings in these regards. I'm not as knowledgable with geology as BoP and Cirdan are. I know very little about the environmental history of the African continent - other than what I have gathered from seeing history shows on Alexandria and ancient Egypt in general. I know at the time of Alexandria - Egypt was believed to be very furtile lush environment. I have no idea what might have or does cause the climatic changes in Egypt.
Also - in terms of the crocodiles - they may have evolved before 8,000 years ago. The other post I did states that the climatic change is believed to occur every 1500 years - but exactly how long has it been going on it doesn't say. Also this theory is new and I don't know if additional information has come out on it since 1998. Was there a period of slow climatic change at some point that would have allowed the crocodiles to evolve and be able to live in the desert? This is possible.
By the way - El Nino and La Nina are a recurring climatic change. It has drastic affects on the environment (don't think they're generally long lasting though).
Earniel
11-10-2002, 06:31 PM
article:The desert crocodiles have adapted to the changing environment in northern Africa; 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, what is now desert was probably lush savannah and grasslands.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
About those crocs again . . . it says in the selection you have given that they have adapted to the environmental change. It agrees with the dates that I suggested, about it recently (Within a few thousand years) having been a jungle. I might be wrong, but couldn't this be another example of faster evolution? The species alterred itself to adapt from jungle to desert in a relatively quick space of time. Isn't this the same sort of thing that evolution does?
Lush savannah definately isn't jungle IMO. The change from savannah-life to desert-life would be less dramatic than from jungle to desert.
jerseydevil
11-10-2002, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Eärniel
Lush savannah definately isn't jungle IMO. The change from savannah-life to desert-life would be less dramatic than from jungle to desert.
Very true - it wasn't as if the Sahara was at one time the same as the Amazon Jungle and just changed overnight into desert.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 06:44 PM
Of course not- I'm not suggesting that evolution does take place overnight. As I said before, if you drop a waterfrog out in a desert, it'll die.
Right, I was wrong in saying jungle. But that doesn't answer my question about the environment. Evolution in its current form is believed to change slowly over enormous periods of time. Environmental shifts are observed, I think, to be much quicker.
Adam Britton, a zoologist and crocodilian expert at Australia's Wildlife Management International, concurs. "The Sahara desert is definitely a surprising location to find a crocodile," he said. "The fact they can survive at all is testament to their remarkable ability to adapt to relatively hostile conditions."
My misspeaking one word doesn't diminish my point.
Cirdan
11-10-2002, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by jerseydevil
Very true - it wasn't as if the Sahara was at one time the same as the Amazon Jungle and just changed overnight into desert.
Plus there is no analysis as to whether the crocs posessed the adaptation from previous experience and it was maintained as a recessive passive trait. Remember that the environment changes are functuations and not permenet. An adaptation to a historical tendency of the environment to vary is a slow adaptation that occurs in spurts of reduction of the non-adapted genotype.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
Plus there is no analysis as to whether the crocs posessed the adaptation from previous experience and it was maintained as a recessive passive trait. Remember that the environment changes are functuations and not permenet.
Good point. But wouldn't the first change have either killed them or forced them to migrate?
Cirdan
11-10-2002, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Good point. But wouldn't the first change have either killed them or forced them to migrate?
Migrate makes sense. Plus I think that as long as the crocs have been around they must have some pretty good adaptation skills. They outlived a lot of other less fortunate close relatives.
Edit: Plus it's not the only source of crocs. They should be able to repopulate environments that switch back.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 06:59 PM
But if they migrated, wouldn't that remove the need for them to adapt?
Cirdan
11-10-2002, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
But if they migrated, wouldn't that remove the need for them to adapt?
The population would be enriched by those that might possess an adaptation. If the ability to survive erratic weather has been selected for over a long period then no further adaptation is neccessary. LIke BoPs example of losing melanin. Certainly somes died but the previously dormant ability to adapt responded to the environmental change rather quickly.
I was responding to your either or question without elaboration. My bad.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 07:20 PM
If the environmental shifts are predictable over a course of thousands of years, and a few of the crocs do gain the ability to adapt to their new circumstances (With strange speed), wouldn't this gene be rather overwhelmed? These creatures would be living in new environments with new circumstances for a few thousand years, and in that time many other genes to their new location would far take priority. Migrating back and forth until their gene becomes strong in them doesn't make that much sense to me, unless their new location became also bad for them in a quick space of time.
It seems much easier to believe that we are observing the same effect there that causes the fly to lose or gain a wing depending upon its environment, and that they can change to their surroundings.
Are you applying this principle of migration with the crocodiles to all of the species throughout time that have had to deal with the continually shifting environment?
One other thing as well: I'd like to bring up again my other question about the fossils. That is the question about the lack of intermediate species, even though the same species is found in several different locations. It is possible that we are finding only the predominate species, but if this is the case, that still doesn't dismiss the fact that there are many hundreds of unaccounted for species in between. I don't quite think that using a dominance slant quite removes the need for all of these other "lesser" species entirely.
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 07:29 PM
Also, after the species have migrated away, there is little incentive for them to migrate back unless the new place that they live also becomes too hostile for them to any longer endure. And in that event, there is only a random chance that they might return to their original home.
“The transitions are sharp,” deMenocal said in an interview. “Climate changes that we thought should take thousands of years to happen, occur within a generation or two.”
Isn't that too fast, by the current evolutionary model, for them to create new genes?
Cirdan
11-10-2002, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If the environmental shifts are predictable over a course of thousands of years, and a few of the crocs do gain the ability to adapt to their new circumstances (With strange speed), wouldn't this gene be rather overwhelmed? These creatures would be living in new environments with new circumstances for a few thousand years, and in that time many other genes to their new location would far take priority. Migrating back and forth until their gene becomes strong in them doesn't make that much sense to me, unless their new location became also bad for them in a quick space of time.
Less focus on migration except that there would certainly be crocs in other locations that are the most conducive to the crocs. These would mingle with the crocs possessing the gene that helps them adapt. The gene is shared passively by all the crocs in the unstressed areas. It is the gene that would do most of the migrating. The selection only kills of the unadapted crocs. After a while all crocs have the adaptation. There must be stress to remove the unadapted crocs from the pool. I think water-borne creatures would have very little problem moving around places with water.
It seems much easier to believe that we are observing the same effect there that causes the fly to lose or gain a wing depending upon its environment, and that they can change to their surroundings.
Except your expecting a population to change genetically, in isolation, and in unison before they die. This seems harder to believe. Mutations are different than weight gain. Remember if they have the gene passively already they have adapted and no migration is neccessary.
Are you applying this principle of migration with the crocodiles to all of the species throughout time that have had to deal with the continually shifting environment?
Like a dog with a bone. Lose the migration thing. Population mixing is more likely than migrations, but they occur as well.
One other thing as well: I'd like to bring up again my other question about the fossils. That is the question about the lack of intermediate species, even though the same species is found in several different locations. It is possible that we are finding only the predominate species, but if this is the case, that still doesn't dismiss the fact that there are many hundreds of unaccounted for species in between. I don't quite think that using a dominance slant quite removes the need for all of these other "lesser" species entirely.
There are variations within the species and sub-species. It the the biologist that determines were to draw the line. I would still like and example of these hundreds of missing fossils. It sounds like heresay. Some species show many intermediates. Simpler organisms are very easy to track because the changes are simple. Mollusks are easier because they live in the sediment that becomes the rock so they are preserved at a much higher rate. Their population densities are great as well. A few stray teradactyls are harder to track changes in, but they are not evolutionarily significant anyway.
Forge315-Halfling
11-10-2002, 11:36 PM
Sorry for the delay.
Do you have a shred of evidence this happened?Go see these verses, Gen. 1:6&7, Psalms 148:4 and II Peter 3:5.
Oh, we're familiar with it. I have a whole degree based on it, if it helps. It seems that YOU are not familiar with how natural selection works.Would you care to explain it to us? Yeah, I thought not.I wasn’t talking to you, the speech is catered to the ready. I don’t have degree in natural selection, but I understand it well enough.
When will you provide evidence of evolution creating a ‘new’ species?
The WORLD?? COVERED??? My god this is ignorant. I said earlier that the glacial maximum of the Neander time period ONLY occured in the European continent!!! And an 'Ice Age' does NOT cover things with an ice shield!!! It is just a colder period in time. Due to the frigidity of the atmosphere, the water levels are lower, and land bridges are formed due to ice and exposed land.Perhaps it would be better said that a canopy of water surrounded the earth. See the first verses.
Oh and seems the whole earth was submerged by water, see this verse, Psalm 104.
I don’t have more time today but I’ll be back Tuesday, and look into the founder affect too.
jerseydevil - thanks so much for the cool F15 pic! Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I've been out of commission with an awful cold. No, I wasn't looking for an avatar, but I enjoy pictures - thanks again.
and COMPLETELY off the thread topic, but on the F15 topic and rather interesting- my dad, who was in airborne radar and a project manager on the F15, was talking to an Israeli fighter pilot trying to see which a/c he preferred - F15 or F16 (the pilot was qualified to fly both, which is rather unusual). The pilot talked about the pros and cons of both, but my dad wanted a definitive answer, so he finally asked the pilot: "ok, you're sitting here and the alarm goes off. You run out to the tarmac where there is an F15 and an F16 sitting there, both ready to go. Which one would you choose?" The pilot's answer? "Doesn't matter! The MiG will go down either way!!" (typical pilot answer! ;) )
Also, my dad said that most American pilots preferred an F15, since the missile range is greater. The F16 is more maneuverable, but the F15's strategy is to keep getting off shots and staying out of the F16's range. Of course if you go up and the F16 is right there, that's a different story!
jerseydevil
11-11-2002, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
Sorry for the delay.
Go see these verses, Gen. 1:6&7, Psalms 148:4 and II Peter 3:5.
....
Oh and seems the whole earth was submerged by water, see this verse, Psalm 104.
Sorry, but verses from the Bible do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. That is like me writing something on a piece of paper and saying that it's true because it says so. No one knows who wrote the Bible - you may believe it's the word of god - but that doesn't make it true.
BeardofPants
11-11-2002, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
A slow evolution enhances the species, but I have trouble with the environment issue. If a swamp creature is slowly changing into a forest creature, then you have to assume that the environment is changing at an equal or even slower rate than the creature is in order for the genetic changes to be selected. However, if the environment changes too suddenly, then the creature, which is unable to adapt, will have a lot of trouble in the new surroundings. How could evolution keep up with environment? Is environment observed to change at such a slow rate?
This will have to be short and sweet, as I have had a rough day, and I'm feeling very much the worst for it.
Evolution is not about enhancing the species, but about selecting for the best possible fitness. The environment (and hence, natural selection) is a big part of this process. Going into basic genetics, do you remember the terms phenotype and genotype? Well, the genotype is the coding part of DNA, and the phenotype is the observable phenomena (expression of a trait) of what the genotype coded for (basically.) So you could say that, the Environment + Genotype = phenotype. Thus, it is not really about the process of evolution keeping up, per se, but more that they go in tandem with one another. The environment is a powerful 'force', if you will, and goes hand in hand with natural selection. Also, environmental changes are very seldom sudden. They tend to be cyclic, and gradual. One of the key theories postulated for early bipedalism is one of semi-arborealism; the reason? - a gradual change in environment from densely wooded forrests, to sparsely wooded forrests, to open savannahs. As the trees thinned out (due to rising temperatures (and drier climates)), hominids were forced to travel greater distances between trees due to areas of open land, and hence, greater exposure to predators. Nobody is quite sure how exactly this lead to bipedalism, as at that stage, quadrupedalism would probably have been faster, but there may have been some reason that they needed to free up their hands... carrying food, or young? Anyway, what I'm trying to say, in a rather rambling fashion, is that although these early primates showed traits that lead us to believe that they were bipedal (slight funneling of the rib cage, longer femurs, a change in the line of balance angles, a "platform" in the metatarpal/tarpal region, etc), there were still arboreal adaptions (long arms, divergent big toe, etc.) So, from one environment to another (wooded forrests to open savannah) there is evidence that while new traits were being picked up, some of the old ones were being retained. Gradualism is the key word here.
I'll also mention that I subscribe to the theory of punctuated equlibrium, which basically means that evolution occurs in fits and starts; periods of activity, followed by periods of stasis.
Dunadan
11-11-2002, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Methuselah
I am interested in your opinions. Do notions of truth, humility, and love have intrinsic meaning or do we just attribute meaning to fictitious concepts? If they have intrinsic meaning, do we learn about them because God has imprinted them into nature (ours or the world’s) in the form of design, or because some chance combination of molecules produces comprehension of these ideas?
So, either God exists or the world is just a chance combination of molecules. This is what I find depressing about Christianity: the idea that love derives from God, not from us. I also find it to be arrogant to relegate my most profound experiences to some bloke in a robe poking about in my subconscious.
Doesn't this externalise love, taking it beyond the individual? In turn, doesn't this process reduce the individual's responsibility in the matter of morality, thereby permitting the rank hypocrisy which has characterised the practice of religion throughout history?
BeardofPants
11-11-2002, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
I don’t have degree in natural selection, but I understand it well enough.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you do. Care to disabuse me of this notion?
FH:
When will you provide evidence of evolution creating a ‘new’ species?
Have you studied the fossil record lately? Or perhaps you think that all species that currently exist have always existed. :rolleyes: What about extinctions? They aren't all in the same time frame, and can not necessarily be explained way by catastrophism.
FH:
Perhaps it would be better said that a canopy of water surrounded the earth. See the first verses.
That doesn't work either.
I really would suggest that you read up on the subject matter a bit first, before posting on it.
FH:
Oh and seems the whole earth was submerged by water, see this verse, Psalm 104.
So it is as I remembered.
How is it that you are severely lacking in the theological dept as well?
It should be interesting to see how you warp the founders effect.
Lief Erikson
11-11-2002, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Cirdan
Like a dog with a bone. Lose the migration thing. Population mixing is more likely than migrations, but they occur as well.
I don't think you can. And I'll tell you in a moment why.
Originally posted by Cirdan
There are variations within the species and sub-species. It the the biologist that determines were to draw the line. I would still like and example of these hundreds of missing fossils. It sounds like heresay. Some species show many intermediates. Simpler organisms are very easy to track because the changes are simple. Mollusks are easier because they live in the sediment that becomes the rock so they are preserved at a much higher rate. Their population densities are great as well. A few stray teradactyls are harder to track changes in, but they are not evolutionarily significant anyway.
Thank-you, but that doesn't answer the question at all. Yes, there are (Quoting from the World Book) a few species which have the intermediates found for them. Not many at all though, and I'm certainly not warring with the existence of intermediates. But because I think a faster evolution happened, it makes sense that there aren't a whole lot of those found.
All that you basically said is that there are a few intermediate species. What does that prove? What I'm saying is that there are several different species found in many different locations. Why should these species appear in multiple locations while hundreds of intermediate species of all sorts of creatures go entirely unobserved. I think that we should be seeing less of the same creatures and more of many different species.
Now back to the environment question. Between 150,000 and 120,000 years ago, the Sahara/Gobi desert chains were all lush without any evidence at all of any desert life. Between 120,000 years ago and 9,000 years ago, this area became extremely arid, turning into a desert type region. Between 20,000 years and 18,000 years ago, this area became so hot, dry and impossible to live in that there is extremely little evidence of any creatures living in these regions. That period was the most difficult during that stretch for the desert inhabitants.
Then, between 9,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, the climate changed again, and forest and grasslands spread all over the region, with only a few patches of desert left. The country then received 50 times as much precipitation as it had during the arid years before.
Then everything became desert again. I get these dates from the World Book Encyclopedia and an Internet article written by E. Lioubimsteva called "IMPACTS OF CLIMATIC CHANGE ON CARBON STORAGE VARIATIONS IN AFRICAN AND ASIAN DESERTS." You can reach it through a search at google.com.
Lief Erikson
11-11-2002, 10:01 AM
Now to continue my question posing. Between 150,000 and 120,000 years ago, you have a lush climate. This supports creatures that live in a beautiful and fertile land, and there is no evidence at this time of any desert life. This information is based upon pollen. The first question that this (if you accept the current methods and information) raises is: Where did the desert animals come from that filled the Gobi and Sahara desert regions? And where did all of the other animals that filled this enormous space of land (18,000,000 km., all the territory from the Atlantic Ocean and Sahara Desert to Northern China) go to? Did they all migrate or die? And the desert creatures, there was no evidence of desert life at all to our knowledge in these areas, even in minority. Yet they came from no where to spread out over enormous tracts of land, replacing the former inhabitants.
You have to assume the migration of enormous numbers of creatures if you're going to get anywhere. Let's say you do this. What then? You have these creatures migrating into already populated areas by other creatures, thus causing enormous conflict over the resources available. Predators would be encountering other predators and needing food just as the others did.
But enough of raising those issues, let's get back to the dates. Between 18,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago, there is almost no life recorded due to the enormously hostile environment in these regions. Then, between 9,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, everything became lush again. You had grasslands and forests (Information taken from the World Book) in these regions. The desert creatures largely vanished. Migration, or death? Anyway, out of the blue in this period of time, we have Hippos, Giraffes, Elephants and many other species. These forementioned creatures cannot possibly have managed to live through the thousands of arid years and survived the extremely hostile period. They need, as I'm sure you know, water and foliage in large amounts in order to survive. The nature of the body structures of the creatures makes it impossible for them simply to have "adapted" over millions of years of the same events happening in structured pattern. They had to have migrated in; there's no other explanation by the current evolutionary standard.
Also in the Arabian peninsula you see no arid landscape at all between the last 9,000 and 6,000 years.
Then the desert took over again, and its creatures. This actually also helps to go against Natural Selection, which says that all the creatures best adapted to an environment are the ones that will survive. The desert creatures would be at a severe disadvantage during this period of 3,000 years, and would be easy prey to the new creatures which are so much better adapted to the climate.
If these sorts of drastic changes (Not influenced at all by man at that time) were happening over those periods of time, we cannot simply assume that it is only during the past million years or so that these things are happening. There isn't any reason why the time we're looking at now should be any different than that which has been since life on Earth first evolved. This implies that these enormous shifts we see today could easily have been happening during these older periods of time as well.
The main explanation that I can see is migration, but there is a difficulty with the migration theory. And that is that slow evolution theory assumes that creatures slowly evolve to their environment. The migration theory basically shoots that, for they no longer need to evolve that much (Although they still can, to some extent), they can simply migrate, and they have to migrate. Species built for plentiful food resources cannot survive in arid desert climates, however much you argue "adaptation due to experience."
And BeardofPants, jerseydevil, whoever out there has some knowledge of evolution and this kind of thing, I don't want to be holding a private conversation with Cirdan. I'd rather hear of your opinions on this as well.
Cirdan
11-11-2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't think you can. And I'll tell you in a moment why.
Thank-you, but that doesn't answer the question at all. Yes, there are (Quoting from the World Book) a few species which have the intermediates found for them. Not many at all though, and I'm certainly not warring with the existence of intermediates. But because I think a faster evolution happened, it makes sense that there aren't a whole lot of those found.
If the change is one genotype, how many intermediates would you expect to find? What do you consider "fast"? How many millions of years is fast?
All that you basically said is that there are a few intermediate species. What does that prove? What I'm saying is that there are several different species found in many different locations. Why should these species appear in multiple locations while hundreds of intermediate species of all sorts of creatures go entirely unobserved. I think that we should be seeing less of the same creatures and more of many different species.
The gaps in fossils only applies to large species were preservation is poor. What does the gap prove? No preservation? No intermediates doesn't imply fast unless you can find the before and after lying right next to one another. A lack of data proves nothing.
Lief Erikson
11-11-2002, 11:22 AM
All that says is that a lack of data proves nothing. It doesn't answer my question.
Cirdan
11-11-2002, 11:37 AM
There is no real problem with the changing environment unless you try to establish that all the species that were there had to leave and return and that all the species there were there before. If a species migrates to a compatible area from another then it simply populates. Look at any pacific island. They are populated by species that can fly or float. The air-born and water-born species of plants and animals are the paratroopers of nature. Coconuts are know to travel thousands of miles.
If the species that have existed for a long history are found in the new desert are you implying with fast evolution that they evolved from a grassland species? The problem arises when the identical creature is found elsewhere and at other times. Simple creatures adapt quickly. Larger or more complex species migrate.
Look at the impact of humans on native species. Humans destroy, cultivate, genetically select, and redistribute species. Human activity is shown to follow herds while hunting. Even passive distribution of organisms can be highly effective. The margins of the deserts moved and did not outpace the speed of the herds.
Cirdan
11-11-2002, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
All that says is that a lack of data proves nothing. It doesn't answer my question.
You're trying to push "fast evolution" using lack of evidence. Do you have any evidence that it happens? You have yet to even define it. You're just dancing around your case without making it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.