Evolution

[The0ne]

as I have said before, I don't believe one way or another (even though I don't believe in god, interesting situation huh ). . . I am merely playing the part of devils (or should I say gods) advocate. . . The funny thing is that people who believe totally in evolution are just as unwilling to accept creationism as creationists are unwilling to accept the evidence of evolution.

Yes, we have a record of microevolution (the rearrangement of DNA without adding large chunks) for millions of years, and I pretty much believe this did happen (but who knows, following a christian argument it could have been placed by god to test the believers or something. . .), but there is no record, or any really truely coherent theory for living creatures coming from inanimate objects. Just as there is no record of god making the world in 7 days. . . That's just the way it is. . .

[The0ne]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

you're kidding, right?

Even if it's just that he could do it, it still proves that there can exist a situation where God is impotent. thus, he isn't omnipotent, since if he were there could not exist a situation where he'd be impotent (even in theory). this is the problem with the concept of omnipotence in general.

As jeff pointed out, it's a logical flaw.

Besides, even if your argument did hold water (instead of leaking like a rotted out rowboat), do you really like the image of your God saying "well, I could do it, but I don't wanna!"

-m

of course logic doesn't nessicarily pertain to him, maybe it's just for us mortals!

[jeff]

Heh, heh, Mike... very good. I suppose that a book with a story in it is "evidence" of some sort, though I meant "physical evidence", rather than "somebody says so"!

There's an old joke: a scientist is explaining to a villager that the Earth is a spherical object floating in space. The villager says "Nonsense! The world is flat, and sits on top of the back of a turtle". The scientist thinks he's won this argument and says "Oh? And what does the turtle sit on?", Answer: "another turtle". So, what's under that turtle, huh? And the villager looks at the scientist and says dismissively "it's turtles all the way down".

You can come up with all kinds of fun theories and stories if they don't have to relate to any form of reality.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by The0ne

people who believe totally in evolution are just as unwilling to accept creationism as creationists are unwilling to accept the evidence of evolution

The difference is that there is no evidence whatsoever to back creationism. So why should any non-believer accept this? Why not pick the Navajo or Hopi creation myths instead?

As I pointed out in a previous post, God could have "falsified evidence" to make it look as if the world were ancient, even if it were ony a few thousand years old (and created in 7 days). Sure, and he could (if he exists) have created the entire universe 2 seconds ago and falsified the evidence and implanted our memories to make us think we existed yesterday. But this is just solipsism. If we're to throw away all evidence of the real world, there's no place for science, or indeed, for any rational thought altogether.

[Musketeer]

In simple terms, I'm also basically a Theistic evolutionist - God chose to create the material universe via processes we with our finite understanding have termed "evolution."

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by The0ne

as I have said before, I don't believe one way or another (even though I don't believe in god, interesting situation huh ). . . I am merely playing the part of devils (or should I say gods) advocate. . . The funny thing is that people who believe totally in evolution are just as unwilling to accept creationism as creationists are unwilling to accept the evidence of evolution.

I'm not complaining that they're unwilling to "accept" evolution, but rather that they are unwilling to consider evidence of evolution. Speaking as somebody who does believe "totally in evolution" I will GLADLY consider ANY evidence to the contrary (after all, I need to consider and comprehend it before I can debunk it).

Yes, we have a record of microevolution (the rearrangement of DNA without adding large chunks) for millions of years, and I pretty much believe this did happen (but who knows, following a christian argument it could have been placed by god to test the believers or something. . .), but there is no record, or any really truely coherent theory for living creatures coming from inanimate objects. Just as there is no record of god making the world in 7 days. . . That's just the way it is. . .

who here has espoused a belief that living creatures came from inanimate objects? that isn't an issue of evolution, but rather of origin. a very different debate. regardless of whether the chemicals lined up correctly or God created life, there is dramatic evidence that the proccess by which it then developed was evolution.

What about the other issue raised, about how there can be dissent if the evidence is overwhelming? has that been cleared up to your satisfaction?

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by The0ne

of course logic doesn't nessicarily pertain to him, maybe it's just for us mortals!

and this position is a position of faith which I cannot (and will not try to) argue with. that's the problem with arguing spirituality v. science: the religious side can always fall back on the "logic doesn't apply" argument. I guess logical debate is kind of like fencing for me: I'm content just to have forced my opponent off the back of the strip.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by jeff

If we're to throw away all evidence of the real world, there's no place for science, or indeed, for any rational thought altogether.

Ha!!! so you concede the point! the bible was right!!!

-m

[The0ne]

That's why we should not even bother with the beginning of the world until we find a planet that is going through evolution, where one theory can be proved. The only things that can really be proved are things we ourselves can see, or has been seen and recorded acurately. . . This is why I have a neutral position of the beginnings of the world. (this way also I won't get lynched by any crazy fundamentalists from alabama! )

[jeff]

So, do you believe in hard to see things like atoms, electrons, neutrons, viruses, etc, etc, or stars being other than points of light? Not to mention how evidence of evolution has been literally strewn around the whole planet. Of course, I do sympathise with your strategy for self-preservation...

[The0ne]

I use "see" in a loose way, We can see the effects of atoms, electrons, etc. so I count them as "proved". We also decently understand stars, and microevolution. I am definitely a believer in science, but I think that there are some places that science can't take us (like millions of years ago!). . . We should stick to the future, and the documented past. . . Living in Vermont I also have to deal with the opposite side of fanatics who would drown me to death in Starbucks Lattés for even arguing that evolution might not be true. . .

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by The0ne

I use "see" in a loose way, We can see the effects of atoms, electrons, etc. so I count them as "proved". We also decently understand stars, and microevolution. I am definitely a believer in science, but I think that there are some places that science can't take us (like millions of years ago!). . . We should stick to the future, and the documented past. . . Living in Vermont I also have to deal with the opposite side of fanatics who would drown me to death in Starbucks Lattés for even arguing that evolution might not be true. . .

you can "see the effects" of evolution, as well. In the fossil record, for example, you can see some fairly strong evidence as species gradually change. You can see the shared genetic material across species.

Additionally, you can also see the PROCCESS in the form of mutations. as stated earlier, logic dictates the rest.

-m

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

do you really like the image of your God saying "well, I could do it, but I don't wanna!"

-m

Well, He could make me rich, famous, and sexy, but for some reason He has obviously decided not to...



You'll have to forgive me; I don't quite get how just the possibility of not being omnipotent makes it so.

[labouche]

Soldier: Jeff and doug are right. This is a logical fallacy. If God could create a rock He couldn't lift than He is therefore, not omnipotent. If he could lift it than He obviously can't create a rock He can't lift and again is not omnipotent. The problem is that the statement is logically flawed.

[labouche]

Originally Posted by jeff

TheOne, unfortunately, as you say, there's no way to reproduce millions and millions of years of the planet's early chemistry millions of years ago. Even if we could, there would be people saying they didn't believe it. However - even though we can't reproduce those circumstances, we can see a trail of evidence from when it happened. There is plenty of evidence of evolution - literally millions of pieces of evidence if you look at the fossil record - even though we can't "do it ourselves" in a lab. Just as we have a handle on how physics works in a star (I'm just picking an example at random) even though we can't recreate it. Or, people who say "well, it's only a theory!" as if that were a retort. Well, even the "theory of gravitation" is only a theory"! (but it sure seems to work) Evolution is the only theory that fits the facts. Creationism does not. No way. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

I don't find creationism in the least compelling, and never did. Even if you believe in a god, and even if you believe in the Judeo-Christian one, there is just no physical evidence whatsoever that the universe, this planet, and the life in it were created in 7 24 hour days only a few thousand years ago. Sure, you can believe that god faked all the world's evidence of millions of years of evolution just to play with our heads, but it's science's job to relate to evidence of the real world, not to ignore what's there and make up stories unrelated to reality.

There needn't be a contradiction. I know religious people who have no conflict with the story in Genesis and actual reality, simply because they accept that a "day" in Genesis needn't be 24 hours, and understand that the story there is poetic and metaphorical, not to be interpreted literally. They believe in Genesis as "what God did", and see evolution as "how God did it". No problem. In fact, see Peter "a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day" (for the Christians in the audience). It's only the people who insist on a literal reading of Genesis who have any problem.

Evolution is a theory that explains the evidence we can observe. Creationism is not.

Actually, there is really very little evidence of evolution. The problem is that evolution was founded on a lack of understanding of genetics. Darwin witnessed microevolution and thought that this could lead to macroevolution. However, any geneticist knows that there is a very large difference between the two. In fact, human kind has never seen an example of a beneficial which added genetic information. Any mutations that have been called "beneficial" were actually a loss of genetic information and usually did equal bad to the organism as it did good.
Microevolution is completely biblical! It is the process which God designed to have a racial mixture of people on the earth. Every race you see today came from the same ancestor...not an ape. Adam and Eve! Adam and Eve most likely had a large gene pool in which contained all the genetic information you see in the races today.
However, macroevolution is neither biblical, nor scientific. People that try to fit macroevolution in the bible are being highly misled. First, they are taking the fallible human opinions over the infallible Word of God. Second, they are not even taking the time to research the lack of evidence behind the evolutionary hypothesis.
There is no way to fit evolution into the Bible and here are some reasons why: 1) The Hebrew word for day used in Genesis is "Yom". Whenever "Yom" is used in the context that it is used in Genesis it means a literal 24-hour day. So Genesis 1:5 could be interpreted to say "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first [literal 24-hour] day." All of the sudden that clears up some things doesn't it? I've heard some people say that even though it means a literal 24-hour day it is only an analogy. I ask, an analogy of what??? I'll go on...
2) Genesis teaches that before Adam and Eve sinned there was no death. To reiterate death came in with the fall. However, evolution requires species dying over and over again as they continue to "increase in genetic information". This is a clear contradiction.
It is quite amazing what some christians have done to try to tie evolution in with the Bible. R.C. Sprowl even came up with the "soul-less man theory" to make evolution biblical. In this theory he says the there was a pre-adamaic race that were the early humans. This race was literally soul-less. This is completely unbiblical. On top of all this most Hebrew scholars will tell you that there is no way Genesis can encompass evolution.
I personally don't even like arguing this issue any more, as I see it rarely bears fruit. My hope is that people will be saved because of what they see in my life and the amazing power of the Holy Spirit. An intellectual argument about evolution vs. creation will never save you. However, I still believe it is a worth-while debate because it has made many scientists realize that christianity is a very intelligent theory on the origin of the earth, and through this revelation, many have accepted Jesus.
If you honestly care about both sides of the issue (or even want to better understand creation so you can refute it), I would reading some of the following books: Creation, Facts of Life by: Dr. Gary Parker; Starlight and Time by: Dr. Russel Humphreys; Darwins Black Box by: Michael Behe.
Take care,
elijah

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by labouche

Soldier: Jeff and doug are right. This is a logical fallacy. If God could create a rock He couldn't lift than He is therefore, not omnipotent. If he could lift it than He obviously can't create a rock He can't lift and again is not omnipotent. The problem is that the statement is logically flawed.

That's fine. The logic of it just escapes me.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Soldier

That's fine. The logic of it just escapes me.

let me see if i can help with the logical aspect:

1 Suppose that God is omnipotent. (Supposition)
2 X is omnipotent if and only if X can bring about any logically possible state of affairs. (Definition of omnipotence)
3 For any person X, it is logically possible that X create a stone so large that X cannot lift it. (Premise)
4 God can create a stone so large that he cannot lift it. (From 1, 2 and 3)
5 For any person X and for any stone S, it is logically possible that X lift S. (Premise)
6 There is some logically possible state of affairs that God cannot bring about. (4 and 5)
7 So, God is not omnipotent. (5 and 6)

[The0ne]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

you can "see the effects" of evolution, as well. In the fossil record, for example, you can see some fairly strong evidence as species gradually change. You can see the shared genetic material across species.

Additionally, you can also see the PROCCESS in the form of mutations. as stated earlier, logic dictates the rest.

-m

Yes, I have said I see the evolution from species to species, but for me the hard conscept to grasp is going from inanimate objects to living creatures. . . To me there is a world of difference between man evolving from apes, than bacteria evolving from rocks. . . Since conditions were very different those millions of years ago, we will never really now how all this happened, unless we see it happening on another planet, and that won't be in MY lifetime. . .

[noodle]

Originally Posted by The0ne

Yes, I have said I see the evolution from species to species, but for me the hard conscept to grasp is going from inanimate objects to living creatures. . . To me there is a world of difference between man evolving from apes, than bacteria evolving from rocks. . . Since conditions were very different those millions of years ago, we will never really now how all this happened, unless we see it happening on another planet, and that won't be in MY lifetime. . .

just a thought:
i've mentioned it before in another thread.
given the assumption that space is infinite, statistically speaking, somewhere out there there's a carbon copy of this exact area of space down to every last applied force and subatomic position.

do you believe this statement holds water (via the "infinite monkeys + infinite typewriters = complete works of shakespeare" theorey)?