Evolution

[saltydog]

I believe that I was created in the image of God according to the bible but, on the other hand, the way some people act, they must have evolved from monkeys!

 

[Lurker66]

Yep. As for the rest ... well ... it's mostly just a thought exercise for me. I don't get emotional about it because I don't subscribe to the notion that creation and evolution must necessarily be mutually exclusive.

I've said before, there are 3 sides to a coin. Most believe either heads or tails but a few learn of the edge.

 

[TenBears]

The argument of brown bear v polar bear and dark skinned v pale skin is not evolution, it shows the variations of a species. If a brown bear and a polar bear were to breed, they would have a bear not a platypus. My problem with evolution is when species A breeds with species A and give birth to species 4. Animals of the same type and kind will produce animals of the same type and kind.

 

[dennishoddy]

Sex and god are the only two things men will consistently run into the fire and die willingly for, and some religions up the ante by promising god-given sex.

My wife told me to STFU because I was laughing so hard.......Dammmit, Ridge, you never fail to tell the truth in one simple sentence.

That one sentence simplifies this whole thread.

 

[Defnestor]

I once listened to a Christian who was a scientist (not a Christian Scientist) explain there was only a 1 in 1x10^39 chance of life spontaneously erupting from lightning hitting chemicals, or whatever.
Later on I realized that an infinite universe/10^39 = infinity.

 

[NikatKimber]

Spent a lot of my career in the sciences. A theory becomes law only when its been out there unsuccessfully challenged through reputable means for a long enough period of time. Evolution is a unquestioned fact for the vast majority of educational and scientific professionals. The evidence is there. The mechanisms have been demonstrated. There's really no question to it but there are some out there who will always refuse to acknowledge anything outside of their belief system. It all comes to ...... "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible"

I think this goes both ways.

This is why I made the comment about macro evolution. To my knowledge, mankind has never witnessed evolution that has added beneficial information the gene code. The fact that under the theory of evolution this would require millions of years is very convenient to this.

I am an engineer - a scientist of sorts. I have applied the same practice I use in my career as I have to faith. I research, study, and if someone or something can prove that I should think differently, then I will. To date, I have not encountered a natural causes explanation of the world/universe that is superior to creation. IMO that is.

There are two problems when it comes to discussing evolution:

1) many people who try to discuss the topic don't know the difference between theory and hypothesis. Knowing the difference is critical. Theories can be tested and verified. Hypothesis are the foundation upon which theories are derived.
2) People who believe in evolution have a fact/logic based world view. People that don't quite often don't based on religious views which (psychological term - not mine) have a magical thinking based world view. The problem here is that "neither the twain shall meet".

Invariably any discussion of evolution breaks down to you do or you don't and it's a waste of time to try to change the view of the opposition.

Which leads to this: One wonders how long it will take before this thread gets LOCKED!

Point 2 is why - from both directions - this argument boils down to neither side going anywhere. Both sides view the others' as refusing to be open minded based on their faith in their view of the origin of the universe. Or conversely, as tearing the other side down as "non fact/logic based". Under such terms, there is no argument here, only whether or not we attack the other sides integrity.

First, I'm not trying to argue. I'm genuinely interested in your statement. Are you saying that you believe the creation that happened 8-10 thousand years ago was the creation of living things? i.e. the rocks and stuff that make up the cosmos can be billions and billions of years old, but living things came to be 8-10 thousand years ago at the hands of God?

Prior to "In the beginning" there was nothing. So yes, literally that was the beginning.

Sanford please don't take this as ridicule. It's not my intention. I love discussing this stuff. I also like to use simple analogies.

If explaining life and where it came from was being explained to a small child, I would use Santa, Christmas and presents to explain it. Then I would explain that as children get older, they'll better understand that while Santa is a myth, Christmas was once Holy, and presents once represented gifts from the fable and evolved from simple gifts to very expensive consumerism type things.

Life exists, life evolves, life either was created or just happened....this much we know for 100%. At some point, kids stop believing in Santa, yet celebrate Christmas. People who deny evolution are stuck in their childhood. They understand Christmas but can't NOT believe in Santa. They are torn. Santa without Christmas is just a story.

In the other thread I asked if God could exist outside of the Bible? I think the answer is yes. The question I ask now is; do we need God to evolve? I think the answer is no. We don't need him to evolve. We have the power to create life, and modify life, independent of God or his will.

Now we just need a good story that will make us feel good. Once upon a time or In the beginning. ....some day, some where there will be an end to mono theism because smart people quit Believing in Santa and just practice Christmas because it makes us feel good.

It's very convenient to just call the core tenet of the opposition a "myth" and then call the opposition "children".

The bolded part is the dividing line. Those who believe in god(s) and those who don't. There are some who blur the lines, maybe they have it all right. Maybe not. But for the others, if you are theistic, then your view of the origins of matter AND life can be explained around that deity. If not, your understanding of the origin must not include a deity of any kind. So the poster that said "and never the twain shall meet," is partly right.

Fundamentally, for a member of either side to change sides, it would require a radical change in their world view and faith. For the creationist, science would have to explain to such an extent and so completely that it proved there was no god, and that that being was utterly unnecessary. For the evolutionist, believing in an intelligent design would require admission of a deity who by default would be "GOD" of the world (they created it).

Calling this argument (evolution vs creation) a science vs religion argument is the fallacy here. It is a faith vs faith argument; one world view opposing another. Each of us here is simply choosing what they think explains the unexplainable best - or have relied on their realm of influence to decide for them.

 

[Podman]

I still can't figure out which came first the chicken or the egg!

 

[dennishoddy]

I spent my time in HS wanting to be a Marine Biologist, and went to college with that same desire.

Grew up in a very religious Catholic family that believed in creation. Period.

In College, I did the thing, and came away with somewhat of a different interpretation of evolution.

Basically I believe in God, 100%.

Somebody had to get this started. It was God.

I believe in evolution. I believe that the omeba, a one celled animal was first because god created it.

All life evolved from that omeba.

Evolution is totally admissible because God made it so.
The simplistic view of adam and eve in a garden that look like you and me, is really not true. I grew up with those views. We looked like Neanderthals or worse.

The great lie the folks put out of Darwin saying man evolved from apes is nothing but a pure lie.

He said man and the ape evolved from the same specie, and man evolved higher.

Is that not wrong?

 

[Lurker66]

I think this goes both ways.

This is why I made the comment about macro evolution. To my knowledge, mankind has never witnessed evolution that has added beneficial information the gene code. The fact that under the theory of evolution this would require millions of years is very convenient to this.

I am an engineer - a scientist of sorts. I have applied the same practice I use in my career as I have to faith. I research, study, and if someone or something can prove that I should think differently, then I will. To date, I have not encountered a natural causes explanation of the world/universe that is superior to creation. IMO that is.



Point 2 is why - from both directions - this argument boils down to neither side going anywhere. Both sides view the others' as refusing to be open minded based on their faith in their view of the origin of the universe. Or conversely, as tearing the other side down as "non fact/logic based". Under such terms, there is no argument here, only whether or not we attack the other sides integrity.



Prior to "In the beginning" there was nothing. So yes, literally that was the beginning.



It's very convenient to just call the core tenet of the opposition a "myth" and then call the opposition "children".

The bolded part is the dividing line. Those who believe in god(s) and those who don't. There are some who blur the lines, maybe they have it all right. Maybe not. But for the others, if you are theistic, then your view of the origins of matter AND life can be explained around that deity. If not, your understanding of the origin must not include a deity of any kind. So the poster that said "and never the twain shall meet," is partly right.

Fundamentally, for a member of either side to change sides, it would require a radical change in their world view and faith. For the creationist, science would have to explain to such an extent and so completely that it proved there was no god, and that that being was utterly unnecessary. For the evolutionist, believing in an intelligent design would require admission of a deity who by default would be "GOD" of the world (they created it).

Calling this argument (evolution vs creation) a science vs religion argument is the fallacy here. It is a faith vs faith argument; one world view opposing another. Each of us here is simply choosing what they think explains the unexplainable best - or have relied on their realm of influence to decide for them.

The core tenet for all Christians, Jews and Muslims comes from Genesis Ch.1&2. You can toss out everything after Genesis chapter 2. Focus just on those 2 Chapters.

These 2 creation stories, more or less the same, are in fact, 100% Jewish creation stories. This is the core tenet that you are arguing from. A Jewish creation story.

You claim to be open minded, you are an engineer, a reasonable man, intelligent.

Judgeing solely from Gen. 1&2, when compared to Evolution, your saying "nope I'm going with the Jewish story?"

Creation stories have been studied a long time. There are hundreds of creation stories, so many that there are lots of things in common with most of them.

The reality is, a person could actually choose any creation story and that would be as good as the Jewish story. Man came from mud, man was made from clay, man came from a swamp......one could choose any story and probably be correct. We evolved or did something mold us and give us life? I go with accidents happen. And I think they happen all over universes.

 

[Billybob]

You know the great civilizations before ours, Egyptian, Greek, Romans were founded on much the same principles except they believed in multiple Gods.

Imagine being the last person who worshipped Zeus and Applo.

It seems that you think that the idea of God, creation, religion, great civilizations came from the west. Although we Americans are more familiar with the Wester Civ, the East rivals or surpasses Western thought and civilization.

Recreation religions are thought to be far older than creation type religions.

Opinions/beliefs vary just like translations, and maybe creation v. recreation are just a translation apart.
Something interesting I heard long ago from someone who could read Hebrew, I've linked it from Wiki so it can be followed up if anyone has interest.

Tohu wa bohu (תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הו&#1468 is a Biblical Hebrew term found in the Book of Genesis 1:2. Numerous interpretations of this phrase were made by various theological sources, though it is usually translated as "waste and void," "formless and empty," or "chaos and desolation." It describes the condition of the earth before God said, "Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3). Precise translation of the phrase is difficult, since it is a Hebrew wordplay, like ve-ha-oniyyah hishevah le-hishaver in Jonah 1:4.

The Septuagint renders it as ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατα-σκεύαστος, "shapeless and formless".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu

So if another translation had won out, (or was used in the other early Greek translations) or should have been, say "chaos and desolation", since chaos is something and not nothing it raises the question of Pre-Adamic creation which has been around for some time and could possibly mean dinosaurs, neanderthal's and cro magnon's existed before the Adam/Eve timeline and why there are two creation stories in Genesis that don't match up. Not saying it's so, just that others have asked these questions for a long time.