Creation V Evolution Debate

Danno

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=224944

Just spent the last week or so following this thread. It really gets going on page 3.

I think that it is a very good read.

Your thoughts... :rolleyes:

Excelsior

It is a topic of particular interest to me. I am an orthodox Christian who could easily be classified as straight down the line evangelical. Yet I accept the fact of evolution as the process of change within species and I firmly believe the modern theory of evolution (a genetics-based theory amalgamating Darwin's Natural Selection with Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium and many other contributions from a vast number of fields) to be (while still a work in progress) an accurate account of how the world works.

Genesis 1 does not contradict this. It is written as an allegory for an unscientific age. It is, I believe, foolishness to pass it off as empirical fact. It is ignorance, I believe, that leads people on the opposite side of the fence to discard it as effectively worthless because it does not claim to be a scientific description of the world.

In terms of the thread, I am saddened by Creationists who so often seem to be withdrawing from non-Scriptural Truth. I believe (and feel I am supported in Scripture both in the Psalms and in Romans 1) that all truth is a gift from God and that a Christian is called to hunger and thirst for truth.

Equally, I am saddened by many of the skeptics who seem to confuse skepticism with cockiness and who display an alarming ignorance of Christian theology, biblical criticism and the history of ideas. If I had a euro for everytime someone discarded Scripture with "half of it contradicts the other half" or "the church rewrote it whenever it suited them".

I might shut this thread down Danno since I don't know how much relevance it has. If people don't take your bait and express opinions, would you mind me putting it out of its misery?

Danno

Oh please don't shut this thread down!!!

It is a fundamental issue to everybody, whether we were created or whether we evolved.

If you accept "evolve" then in effect one is dismissing God and calling him a liar.

If you accept "created" then one is accepting God as creator, and calling him a truthful source.

bus77

Carried on from, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235658

Danno wrote:

And dearest "Bus77" I find the evolutionsist concept of Ape to Man equally offensive!

"Life to/in/around Man" would be my general assesment of the various evoulutionary studies. ''Ape to man'' is the poster on the wall. I may be nit-picking your words here, but this seems to be one of the main sticking points. You may think of other creatures as being lower on the scale of importance in life. This to me is offensive.

Danno wrote:

For a body of study that teaches Apes (Animals) and Man as equals is de-meaning and goes against the Bible teachings.

I can sort of get my head around this, if the point behind it is "I dont want posters on the wall, or proposed theorys, interfearing with my childs chance of "wonder" about the world and preparation of faith for life".
For me, I was left out of any sort of religion. I would however, call myself a ''faithfull'' man. I also heard the word evolution, but never took it to meen any sort of explanation of "creation". In all honesty, It seems that some people arguing about this issue, did. And are ascribing their mistake to others.

Danno

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=26&version=31&context=verse

Genesis 1:26 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


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

I take the above passage as being over animals on the scheme of things! Evolution IMO teaches that animals (apes) being our ancestors therefore being equal.

fradiavolo

Bus77,
You call yourself a "faithful" man. Faithful to what/whom? As regards Danno regarding other creatures as being lower on the scale of importance in life...well I agree with him in total. Are you going to tell me that a spider is as important as a human being??? What about a dog? Is a dog as important as a human being? I for one say no way...yet I love dogs and believe that they should be treated with kindness. If you want to know what would happen to a nation that decides to give equal importance to animals then just go to India. The sacred "Cow" seemingly has more rights there that a human...and look at their economy?
Me personally, I believe in God (note...not a God). I believe that the bible is his word. I also believe that evolution is a blooming joke!!! I have read so much about evolution these last 12 years...it is rubbish. I have also read so much on creation and the proofs of a literal 6-day creation...that I believe it to be true. I have listened to numerous debates between "creationists" and "evolutionists". There is only one winner...period .

Life did not happen by chance and one day everyone will find out the truth. It will be horrible if one finds oneself on the wrong side of the cross for eternity :eek: .

Fradiavolo.

bus77 wrote:

Carried on from, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235658

"Life to/in/around Man" would be my general assesment of the various evoulutionary studies. ''Ape to man'' is the poster on the wall. I may be nit-picking your words here, but this seems to be one of the main sticking points. You may think of other creatures as being lower on the scale of importance in life. This to me is offensive.



I can sort of get my head around this, if the point behind it is "I dont want posters on the wall, or proposed theorys, interfearing with my childs chance of "wonder" about the world and preparation of faith for life".
For me, I was left out of any sort of religion. I would however, call myself a ''faithfull'' man. I also heard the word evolution, but never took it to meen any sort of explanation of "creation". In all honesty, It seems that some people arguing about this issue, did. And are ascribing their mistake to others.

bus77

Danno wrote:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=26&version=31&context=verse

Genesis 1:26 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


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

I take the above passage as being over animals on the scheme of things!

That seems to be the plan alright. He dos'nt say "turn your nose up at my creatures though"

Danno wrote:

Evolution IMO teaches that animals (apes) being our ancestors therefore being equal.

I just look at it as life is our ancestor, our present, and our future.

Danno

Of course, being masters of the animal kingdom means that we are kind compassionate to them, just like an employee of a company, care of goods, other workers etc...!

QUOTE: "I just look at it as life is our ancestor, our present, and our future."

That is vague! Can you elaborate further!

bus77

fradiavolo wrote:

Bus77,
You call yourself a "faithful" man.

I say it, and I meen it.

fradiavolo wrote:

Faithful to what/whom?

Faithfull in spirit.

fradiavolo wrote:

As regards Danno regarding other creatures as being lower on the scale of importance in life...well I agree with him in total. Are you going to tell me that a spider is as important as a human being??? What about a dog? Is a dog as important as a human being?

In life everything is important. Try removing plants from life and see how far you get. Try removing other creatures from fertalising the plants. Try removing dogs and see how lonely youd get.

fradiavolo wrote:

I for one say no way...yet I love dogs and believe that they should be treated with kindness. If you want to know what would happen to a nation that decides to give equal importance to animals then just go to India. The sacred "Cow" seemingly has more rights there that a human...and look at their economy?

Your trying to tell me how nations work now is it?

fradiavolo wrote:

Me personally, I believe in God (note...not a God). I believe that the bible is his word. I also believe that evolution is a blooming joke!!! I have read so much about evolution these last 12 years...it is rubbish. I have also read so much on creation and the proofs of a literal 6-day creation...that I believe it to be true. I have listened to numerous debates between "creationists" and "evolutionists". There is only one winner...period .
Life did not happen by chance and one day everyone will find out the truth. It will be horrible if one finds oneself on the wrong side of the cross for eternity :eek: .

Fradiavolo.

I belive in God aswell. I however belive he is "on my side". Not "On my back".

bus77

Danno wrote:

Of course, being masters of the animal kingdom means that we are kind compassionate to them, just like an employee of a company, care of goods, other workers etc...!

In all the companys I've worked in. The boss was useually related to a fair number of the employees

QUOTE: "I just look at it as life is our ancestor, our present, and our future."

Danno wrote:

That is vague! Can you elaborate further!

If I tried to elaborate futher, I would be an ''evolutionist" in your eyes.:rolleyes:

Poisonwood

Danno wrote:

If you accept "evolve" then in effect one is dismissing God and calling him a liar.

If you accept "created" then one is accepting God as creator, and calling him a truthful source.

Excuse me? Have you never heard of Theistic Evolution as outlined by this forum's moderator? Don't tar all Christians with your particular fundamentalist brush please!! :mad:

Danno

Poisonwood wrote:

Excuse me? Have you never heard of Theistic Evolution as outlined by this forum's moderator? Don't tar all Christians with your particular fundamentalist brush please!! :mad:

Show me where the Thestic Evolution fits in perfectly with the Bible???

Excelsior

Danno, my good man, you will surely agree that while Scripture was divinely inspired as originally given and is of supreme authority (for Christians), your interpretation is neither infallible, inerrant or perfect.

Your literalist inrepretation was not shared by church fathers, who long before the rise of empiricism, never mind the modern theory of evolution, believed Genesis 1 & 2 to be allegorical myth. These are the church fathers who can cite actual apostolic succession. Their testimony cannot be discarded.

The general thrust of their testimony supports the fact that your interpretation of Geneis is a modern phenomenon. Creation science owes a lot more to the Scopes Trial than it does to a serious engagement with Scripture.

Genesis 1 is not meant as a scientific account of creation. It is allegory. This does not in any way make it less true. There are a great deal of ways to represent truth besides the scientific method. As such, and with the citation I already gave from Romans 1 and the many words in the Psalms that relate to this issue, I believe that the position:
"God is the Creator. Evolution is a method He used."
is perfectly "Biblical" (to use a meaninglessly vague term).

Danno

Excelsior wrote:

"God is the Creator. Evolution is a method He used."
is perfectly "Biblical" (to use a meaninglessly vague term).

Show me where it is perfectly Biblical to take this stance...

Excelsior

Romans 1:19&20- "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

We are sanctioned to study and examine and observe for all truth is a gift of grace from God. To deny this would take some dogmatism since you are making an idol that isn't even attractive.

The creation tale in Genesis 1, as I have already said elsewhere in this thread, is a poem. This does not in any way make it less true. It just means that the truth comes in a different form than you, as a result of nothing more than your place in time and civilisation, would like it to be.

The early Christians did not hold to it as either literally true or otherwise false. They took a middle line that held that regardless of its literal worth, Genesis 1 does not intend to tell us about the mechanism of creation but about the over-arching source behind creation.

The structure of the chapter is clearly poetic. Sources suggest that it was around as a verbal tradition up to 3000 years before it was written down. Its phrasing is poetic not literal. There can be no day without light and yet the term day is used before light...

Look, all the mainline Protestant traditions, the RC Church and a great deal more Christians; evangelicals, orthodox, traditional and liberal hold the view of a Creating God who utilises evolution. There is nothing contradictory whatsoever in this view.

Danno

Apologies to EXCELSIOR:

I only have the time to log in every now and again, so please forgive me for dragging this debate out over a substantial time, and also to those others who read and contribute to this thread in any way.


In response to the last post:

While you have quoted Romans 1:19 and 1:20, it might be worth while to add the directly following pieces:

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles

Again, I ask, where would Thestic Evolution fit in perfectly with the Bible?

There are many people who are "sitting on the fence" quite litterally, those of which accept Evolution and The Bible - may I point them to the following:

Revelations 3:15 to 3:22:
15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

QUOTE: "There can be no day without light and yet the term day is used before light...
"
God himself is the light... therefore stating that he is eternal!

You say that Genesis is merely the poem! It certainly doesn't sound or read like a poem, especially for such a fundemental part of the Bible, heck, why is it at the beginning, the first page in all fairness!!!

QUOTE: "Look, all the mainline Protestant traditions, the RC Church and a great deal more Christians; evangelicals, orthodox, traditional and liberal hold the view of a Creating God who utilises evolution. There is nothing contradictory whatsoever in this view"

Look, while I may rub alot of feathers the totally wrong way in this: I refer you to the Revelations 3:15 to 3:22 passage above.

JustHalf

Danno wrote:

While you have quoted Romans 1:19 and 1:20, it might be worth while to add the directly following pieces:

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles

How you think this has to do with evolution is beyond me, particularly considering what Romans 1 says. It seems pretty clear that Paul is talking about idolatry.

Now you can claim that believe that evolution is how human beings came around is the same as idolatry, but it's a bit of a stretch and is not something you have yet supported.

Danno wrote:

Look, while I may rub alot of feathers the totally wrong way in this: I refer you to the Revelations 3:15 to 3:22 passage above.

I don't see how that applies at all.

You ask us to reject science and embrace God, but this is a false dicothomy. It is possible to love God and be a scientist. It is possible to believe that evolution is how God brought human kind about.

Most Christians don't see a conflict between the two, and I've yet to meet a European Christian who insists that evolution is the rejection of God.

pauldeehan

I always remember something my biology teacher told me, that for life to evolve from a primordial soup is akin to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and randomly creating a 747.

Being both a religous person and a believer in science, that stuck with me.

Excelsior

Your biology teacher was being very inaccurate but was getting at an important point:

Evolution still, I think, calls out for a creator.

Revelation is perhaps, after Genesis, the most misunderstood book in the Bible. Whatever else it certainly isn't about, it isn't about Evolution. Anywhere.

Let me quote Rev 3:22 back at you and ask you to consider that the vast majority of Christians outside of the USA see no difficulty in believing in the scientific fact of Evolution as the cause of the development of the species, evolutionary theory as the process that guides that and the fact the the Christian God of the Bible is the sole and soverign Creator.

Genesis 1 & 2 read totally like a poem. Especially in the Hebrew in which it was written!

Danno, you are straying dangerously close at times to suggesting that evolution is a primary matter for Christians. That, I think we can all agree, is crazy.

robindch

Paul -

> I always remember something my biology teacher told me,
> that for life to evolve from a primordial soup is akin to a
> tornado sweeping through a junkyard and randomly creating
> a 747.

Your teacher should have told you that he wasn't teaching biology but instead, teaching fundamentalist religious dogma.

This well-known, infamous, and *utterly* preposterous comparison, between the arising of life and the construction of a 747 by tornado first appeared, I believe, in the writings of the astronomer Fred Holye and is a standard, and very tired, piece of creationist claptrap.

The study of abiogenesis is dealt with briefly at this page and, if you've not read this before, is worth a few minutes of your time, so that you can become familar with science's view of a scientific topic, rather than religion's view of a scientific topic.

- robin.

robindch

Excelsior -

> If I had a euro for everytime someone discarded Scripture with
> "half of it contradicts the other half"

If I had a euro for every time that I'd pointed out any of the large, gaping contradictions present in every part of the bible, and in reply to which I'd received a mealy-mouthed or contradictory or just plain useless, answer, then I'd be a lot richer than you

- robin.

Excelsior

If that was on topic, I will post you a euro.

Feel free to bring up the gaping holes as you see fit in new threads.

robindch

> If that was on topic, I will post you a euro.

If your original comment, to which I was replying, was on-topic, then I would venture to suggest that mine was too and you therefore owe me a euro

> Feel free to bring up the gaping holes as you see
> fit in new threads.

Am finding it difficult to be sufficiently interested to bother -- as I've said, considerable past experience shows that I just don't get any answers that are worth listening to. It seems that as soon as religion comes up, people's critical faculties seem to wilt and die with remarkable speed, and defence of the religion becomes more important than being either logical or honest. It's depressingly like asking some minor politician some mighty Party question or other, and rather than an answer, yiz just a tedious repetition of the Party line and I've heard *that* a thousand times before.

FWIW, and because you did ask me, the nasty and vindictive Matthew 10:34-35 (replicated almost verbatim in Luke 12:51-53) is a wonderful verse [one of hundreds, I need hardly add] to ask biblically inclined folk to explain in the light of their endlessly-repeated contention that universal peace and love might somehow be on the christians' agenda. Do feel free to split the thread here if you reckon it's worthwhile.

- robin.

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

If your original comment, to which I was replying, was on-topic, then I would venture to suggest that mine was too and you therefore owe me a euro

Venture away, but to no avail. I was performing my moderatorly duties. Don't you know that when you put Christians in positions of any power they hold themselves unaccountable and act like tyrants? Therefore, I state with infallibility, that I cannot be off-topic. (Should I add <irony> tags here to ensure that no one gets the wrong idea and thinks I am being serious?)

Am finding it difficult to be sufficiently interested to bother...

Grand so.

Back on topic with creationism/evolution we go...


Edited for clarity

zod

The title of this thread is "creation versus evolution", I assume that means arguments supporting one OR the other.

Am I mistaken is assuming that that has now changed insofar as everyone has accepted evolution as fact but now some say that evolution is the work of the creator.

It seems to me that there is therefore no possible argument that can be made against "creationism" whereby the goal posts wont change and a retort made "ah yes but the creator did that"

Leads us to the premise - If man could create life from lifeless materials and show that this could take place on a early earth would this be the utimate proof?

robindch

> > Am finding it difficult to be sufficiently interested to bother...
> Grand so.

Ah, a fine example of not getting...

> [...] any answers that are worth listening to.

<sigh>

> Am I mistaken is assuming that that has now changed insofar
> as everyone has accepted evolution as fact but now some
> say that evolution is the work of the creator.

No, I'm afraid not. See this thread and this one for evidence of the opposite in the recent debate on the Skeptics board, where a couple of creationists turned up and got roasted.

Belief in some kind of godly involvement in humanity's development is almost universal in the US (around 85% believe so), and it is common here too, though I've yet to see any firm stats (putting my finger in the air, I would suspect that around half of the population subscribe).

> If man could create life from lifeless materials and show
> that this could take place on a early earth would this be
> the utimate proof?

Again, no. See some of the references in the Skeptic's threads to the scientific philosophers (Popper and the rest of them), which point out why doing this is not useful, and why the use of the word 'proof' is avoided.

- robin.

Danno

robindch wrote:

The study of abiogenesis is dealt with briefly at this page and, if you've not read this before, is worth a few minutes of your time, so that you can become familar with science's view of a scientific topic, rather than religion's view of a scientific topic.

- robin.

Robin,

The link above provides us with this in it's early text:

"The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12]."

This to me is VERY vague. Also, running a word count: COULD is on that page sixteen times...

gizzymo

I myself am christian - yet i have no problem accepting evolution as i see it as a system designed by God. As for whether Genesis is a literal account - i see it as an abstration of the actual way it happened , an abstraction that puts across gods love and purposes so clearly without getting stuck in detail that does not effect he message. God wants his message to be clear and simple, faith does not quire a huge IQ. My couisn died last year in a car crash, he had special needs, yet he had a cast iron faith in jesus that was not limited in anyway by his mental ability. Hence in the same way jesus used parables to explain concepts int he NT, I believe God the father used this same teaching method to show us how much he loves us and how we came to be.

Finally as we christians know that what is eternal after our death is not our body, but our spirit that is imparted to us by god, why then must we get so caught up in how the "bit that gets left behind" formed, when the bit that makes us different, the bit that has nothing to do with evolution, that which god imparts to us in the womb, is the "us" that counts in the end of time.

Pete

pH

This to me is VERY vague. Also, running a word count: COULD is on that page sixteen times...

This is the same tired God of the Gaps argument over 'n' over again.

Just because there is not a generally agreed scientific explanation for something doesn't necessarily mean than 'God done it'.

but our spirit that is imparted to us by god, why then must we get so caught up in how the "bit that gets left behind" formed, when the bit that makes us different, the bit that has nothing to do with evolution

Maybe you don't understand evolution. Man (Homo sapiens) was not created intact with a soul but evolved from a common ancestor. At no stage did man appear fully formed with a soul on the earth.

Your new Religous dogma (Let's call it Gizzymoism because it's not Christianity) requires that at some point God reached into the womb of at least 2 women, found children (who were destined to breed in the future) and injected a soul into them. Now you have human (with souls) children whose parents are animals (withou souls).

Unless perhaps you're suggesting that the soul is common to all life?

neuro-praxis

pH if you recognise the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium then you'd accept that the possibility of a consciousness/mind/soul "appearing" at some random point is not at all that unlikely.

robindch

> This to me is VERY vague. Also, running a word count: COULD
> is on that page sixteen times...

Yes, and commendably honest of them too. There was nobody around at the time to see if this was what was actually happening which means that nobody can't be *sure* that it was happening, so -- instead of doing what less careful people might do, and declare that something definitely happened because it fits some dictated belief system -- more careful types instead tend to use the conditional in English to express uncertainty regarding the nature of the existence of some event which goes some way towards explaing some subsequent observation (such as the existence of life). When the event's existence is sufficiently generally agreed, an observation is declared to be a fact, subject to later revision in the light of new observations.

- robin.

robindch

> if you recognise the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium
> then you'd accept that the possibility of a consciousness/mind/soul
> "appearing" at some random point is not at all that unlikely.

The notion of "punctuated equilibrium" describes periods of evolutionary calm, with intermittent periods of unusally rapid evolution and, as such, nothing described by PE is outside of the realms of what can be described by evolution. Your conclusion isn't justified by your premise.

- robin.

Excelsior

Guys, there is a distinctly patronising tone from a lot of the posts on this thread. Whether you are a Christian or not, it would be best for all if this debate were conducted as if amongst friends.

Beware of the old (and more than a little offensive) proverb about debating on the Internet and the Special Olympics...

Passing off being mean as a debating technique probably won't win many to your cause. Are you here to validate your ego and prove yourself right to yourself or are you here to convince others of an important truth?

Be nice.

Danno

How do people feel about the accounts people give of Near Death Experiences - NDEs. Would most people accept their accounts as a proof for Gods Existance???

IMO - Alot of NDEs have resulted in people giving accounts of God, in fact I don't think that there are any NDEs to disprove God.

How would evolutionists account for these NDE accounts? How do Creationists react?

neuro-praxis

robindch wrote:

> if you recognise the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium
> then you'd accept that the possibility of a consciousness/mind/soul
> "appearing" at some random point is not at all that unlikely.

The notion of "punctuated equilibrium" describes periods of evolutionary calm, with intermittent periods of unusally rapid evolution and, as such, nothing described by PE is outside of the realms of what can be described by evolution. Your conclusion isn't justified by your premise.

- robin.

What?

I never said anything described by pH (I assume you meant pH) was outside of the realms of evolution. I am a firm evolutionist.

The point I was making (but I appreciate your hopping to an online dictionary to provide a definition ) was that if incredibly rapid and unexplainable events have occurred in evolution, then a sudden appearance of consciousness isn't an odd idea at all.

And now: I bow out. The circles - oh the circles! :eek:

pH

The point I was making (but I appreciate your hopping to an online dictionary to provide a definition ) was that if incredibly rapid and unexplainable events have occurred in evolution, then a sudden appearance of consciousness isn't an odd idea at all.

I'm not sure how we got from "our spirit that is imparted to us by god" and consciousness. Are you suggesting that consciousness = soul?

If so are you suggesting that we evolved our souls gradualy? I'd love to be the first Darwinian to ask a theist ... "But what use is half a soul?"

Eoghan-psych

Danno wrote:

Robin,

The link above provides us with this in it's early text:

"The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12]."

This to me is VERY vague. Also, running a word count: COULD is on that page sixteen times...

The archives of Science, Nature, Evolution, etc etc etc etc etc are freely available [well, at least the abstracts - whole papers are sometimes difficult]. In them you will be able to look up the explanation for as many of those 'coulds' as you like.

Bear in mind that in the scientific literature the world 'could' is generally stronger than it is when used in everyday language.

robindch

> The point I was making was that if incredibly rapid and
> unexplainable events have occurred in evolution, then
> a sudden appearance of consciousness isn't an odd
> idea at all.

That's not quite what you said in the earlier post You've also not defined what you mean by 'consciousness', from which it's difficult to establish how it might differ from what little we know about what animals experience, so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand *exactly* what you're getting at.

> I appreciate your hopping to an online dictionary to provide a definition

<cough> Very kind of you to think that I did, but I didn't; and only provided the definition for the benefit of any readers who mightn't be familar with the idea.

> And now: I bow out. The circles - oh the circles!

I know them well!

- robin.

J C

Quote (Just Half)
You ask us to reject science and embrace God, but this is a false dichotomy. It is possible to love God and be a scientist. It is possible to believe that evolution is how God brought human kind about.

Just Half, you are correct, it is an obviously falsity to maintain that in order to embrace God we must reject the scientific study of His created Universe.
I wholeheartedly embrace BOTH God and Science. Not only is it possible to love Jesus Christ and to be a scientist – it is possible to be a Bible-believing Christian AND a scientist operating at the very “cutting edge” of scientific research.

Being a BIBLE BELIEVING Christian and a BELIEVER in Evolution is a little more difficult to reconcile. Genesis 1 is pretty clear – it describes 6 literal days of God’s work of Creation, even emphasising the fact that each literal day had an actual evening and a morning!!! See Gen 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 and 1:31.

In case, anybody missed the point, Exodus 20:11 re-emphasises that the basis for the seven day week is God’s 7 day Creation Week. If the original 7 day Creation Week is the basis for our 7 day week, then the “Theistic Evolutionary” concept of a 70 million, or should that be a 700 million year “Creation Week” is certainly quite a novelty!!! I would hate to be waiting for the weekend to come around if the Theistic Evolutionists time frame applied to our working week!!

Jesus is referred to as “The Last Adam” in 1 Cor 15:45 – and without a literal First Adam this would be meaningless. In fact, without the Fall of Adam and Eve from grace, there would not be any reason for God to send his only begotten son Jesus Christ to save humanity from their sin, which according to Rom 5:12, “entered the world through ONE MAN and death through sin”.
Any form of evolution, either “theistic” or “secular”, requires death millions of years before the emergence of Mankind – which is in straight contradiction of Rom 5:12.
Any way, why would God take “the long way round” to create us, using death and cut-throat competition as indispensable ingredients of so-called “evolutionary progress” on the way? If He did, why didn’t He say so?
The Bible makes it clear that death is a direct result of a Man and a Woman’s DECISION to misuse God’s gift of free-will to defy God, and not because God deliberately decided to use death to perfect his original creation.

Of course, God COULD create the Universe and all living organisms in 6 seconds, in 6 days or over 6 billion years. He has told us that it was 6 days – and all repeatable observed phenomena support a rapid Creation and a young Earth. That is good enough for me – until somebody shows me repeatable observable evidence i.e. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Quote (Robindch)
No, I'm afraid not (that everyone has accepted evolution). See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235658 and fhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=224944 for evidence of the opposite in the recent debate on the Skeptics board, where a couple of creationists turned up and got roasted.

Robin is correct, that everybody certainly DOESN’T accept Evolution – and in America the evolutionists appear to be in an ever dwindling minority – in spite of the unquestioning “wall to wall” media endorsement of evolution. As for the “roasting” that I supposedly got on the “Skeptics” board – I would urge everyone to visit the two (now closed) threads to which Robin has kindly posted links above.
On the first thread I proved that Evolution ISN’T a valid Scientific Theory without any SUBSTANTIVE REBUTTAL from the sceptics – who summarily closed the thread down without warning. On the second thread I asked four simple, yet fundamental questions about evolution – and no valid answers were given – but again the thread was suddenly closed down in “mid debate” so-to-speak without any substantive answers forthcoming.
The sudden unilateral closure of the threads and the distinct lack of answers coming from the “sceptics” may be related – but I will leave you to be the judge of that!!!! My own view is that it was scientific evolutionism that was “roasted” – on both threads.

The “game has been up” for evolution for some time, especially since the breakthroughs in our understanding of the organised complexity of the living cell through electron microscopy and molecular biology. We have now scientifically established that cells have functional complexities of a similar order of magnitude to large cities, but at a molecular level of resolution. Many EVOLUTIONARY biologists will privately admit that evolution is a ”dead duck”. Some leading former evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle publicly abandoned evolution years ago.

If Genesis 1 is a myth that may be interpreted as one wishes – then the question arises as to where the fiction stops and the facts start in the Bible – or do “Theistic Evolutionists” believe that the entire Bible is just a collection of nice stories with no basis in reality?

I believe that the entire Bible is firmly grounded in reality and that “all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. II Tim 3:16 (NIV).
I believe that the Universe and the Bible are both tremendous “statements of fact” by an all powerful and sovereign God who has warned us in Deut 8:3 and Mt 4:4 that “Man does not live on bread alone but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God”. (NIV). Where parables are being employed in the Bible, it is quite clear from both the language and the context that this is being done – and neither the language nor the context would indicate that Genesis 1 is a parable.

I too used be an evolutionist – and a number of things pushed me in the direction of Creation Science. I suppose it all started with the smug statements that I observed being “heaped upon” “Genesis-Literalists” by evolutionists (of both the theistic and the secular varieties). Out of a sense of balance, I studied some of the Creation Science literature – and to my surprise, I observed thoughtful, high quality scientific papers, with conclusions based upon repeatable observations – and I had no choice as a professional objective scientist but to accept them. And the rest as they say is history.

The final "clincher" was when I read Rom 1:19-20 and I realised that the Universe and all of life was given to us by God as PROOF that He exists and created us:-
”Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Rom 1:19-20 (NIV).

I found myself without excuse and I accepted His FREE GIFT of ETERNAL SALVATION – and I haven’t ‘looked back’ since!!

I don’t claim to have all the answer – but I now personally KNOW somebody who does!!!

I read somewhere that Natural Selection may explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest – but it doesn’t explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest. Evolution “from GOO to YOU via the ZOO” requires a massive INCREASE in genetic information – and Information Theory shows that new information invariably originates with an intelligent source – and NOT through random natural processes.

Evolution is AT BEST a working scientific hypothesis, or more accurately a collection of many different (often contradictory) working hypotheses. It has never merited the appellation of the word theory in it’s proper scientific meaning – i.e. a precise description and explanation of observed phenomena that is accessible to testing by repeatable observation or experimentation. To remain valid, phenomena must always be observed that are in accordance with and/or predicted by the theory.

Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined, it is highly speculative and is subject to continuous revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”.
2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Core aspects of Evolution are incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation –and therefore can only be believed in through FAITH.
3. Evolution fails even more miserably on the scientific validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, Darwin’s “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Evolution” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis.

zod

J C wrote:

Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined, it is highly speculative and is subject to continuous revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”..

All theory SHOULD be questioned all of the time - as scientific fact is found we must take advantage and constantly question any assumption. It is this questioning which is the very basis of the science community and therein lies its very strength. There is NO blind faith allowed.

J C wrote:

2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Core aspects of Evolution are incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation –and therefore can only be believed in through FAITH. ”..

Thats what we dig for fossils for and carbon date ( along with other methods of dating ) them. Do you think that dinosaurs are a hoax? - they don't mention them in the bible..

J C wrote:

3. Evolution fails even more miserably on the scientific validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, Darwin’s “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Evolution” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis.

The theory of evolution is in itself evolving - when it changes there is no belief system that is broken - only science showing us the truth. A scientist by definition must be questioning and open minded - I think this is the core difference which distances them from statements such as “Blessed is he who believes without seeing"

Excelsior

J C wrote:

Jesus is referred to as “The Last Adam” in 1 Cor 15:45 – and without a literal First Adam this would be meaningless.

You'll have to back that up. I don't believe in a Creation Scientist's interpretation of Adam but 1Cor 15:45 has deep meaning for me. It is obviously not "meaningless" if I don't share your perspective on as secondary an issue as the development of species.

J C wrote:

In fact, without the Fall of Adam and Eve from grace...

Evolution doesn't have anything to say about the Fall. There is no issue with a Christian claiming Christ as Creator and Redeemer and simulatenously believing that through evolution, humans evolved and that the first of these humans made the mistake that is the Fall.

Science doesn't ask questions on the plane of the Fall. Evolution is not, because it cannot, be a challenge to your belief in Original Sin.

J C wrote:

Most of the leading EVOLUTIONARY biologists will privately admit that evolution is a ”dead duck”. However, in public they “hold the line” on Evolution

Who are these evolution scientists? Did they have this conversation with you? How can you know then? What would be their motivation? Back this up!

J C wrote:

If Genesis 1 is a myth that may be interpreted as one wishes – then the question arises as to where the fiction stops and the facts start in the Bible – or do “Theistic Evolutionists” believe that the entire Bible is just a collection of nice stories with no basis in reality?

I don't think Genesis 1 can be interpreted anyway one wishes. I think it should be interpreted the way God wishes. I, along with the vast majority of Biblical Scholars (both Christian and Jewish), believe that Genesis 1 has its roots in a 6,000 year old myth and that it is an allegory.

It is still true, but it does not present scientific truth. If you think this is watering down the Bible or any such insulting knee-jerk attacks, consider the shape of truth presented in the Parables. Did Jesus water down the Bible?

Seamus Heaney gets to the heart of the matter much more efficiently in <a href="http://bama.ua.edu/~clifford/lit/midtermbreak.htm">Mid Term Break</a> than a thousand pages of scientific papers on the effects of death related trauma on surviving family victims, the role of counselling in the education of a student who has suffered through the death of a loved one and the physilogical effects of car accidents. Simply because it is not in the scientific mode that you desire (simply as a product of your cultural setting), doesn't mean it is in anyway diminished.

I too believe that the entire Bible is firmly grounded in reality and that “all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. II Tim 3:16 (NIV). That does not disprove evolution though.

I too believe that the Universe and the Bible are both tremendous “statements of fact” by an all powerful and sovereign God who has warned us in Deut 8:3 and Mt 4:4 that “Man does not live on bread alone but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God”. (NIV). That does not disprove evolution though.

Throughout this thread I have been astounded by the occasionally patronising tone taken by the non-Christian evolutionists but I have been saddened by the divisive nature of discourse extended by the Creation Science Christians.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of this debate (which we will probably only have when God hands us the DVD with extended scences and commentary in heaven ), surely you can see that:
1) It is not primary to the Gospel
2) It is not something that gives you licence to act a bit like an ass.

Be more civilised. Depending on which side you stand on, either evolve to show some more respect or exalt the glory of God by showing more respect.

Danno

zod wrote:

Thats what we dig for fossils for and carbon date ( along with other methods of dating ) them. Do you think that dinosaurs are a hoax? - they don't mention them in the bible...

Carbon dating is a complete disaster. For example, when people took rocks from three seperate volcanos dated 1960s onwards and gave them in to be carbon dated, the results came back as 1/2 million years old!!! Come on!!!

Link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/volcano.asp

zod wrote:

The theory of evolution is in itself evolving - when it changes there is no belief system that is broken - only science showing us the truth. A scientist by definition must be questioning and open minded - I think this is the core difference which distances them from statements such as “Blessed is he who believes without seeing"

Blessed is he who believes without seeing - and to hell is he who sees but denies!!!

The theory of evolution is going exactly where evolution would go if it were true. Total destruction. For something to evolve it needs to change. Change in biological terms means disease, cancers, mutations.

JC - Nice to see you back on Boards!

robindch

Hi Zod -

Most, if not all, of what the hypergraphic JC has just posted has already appeared in over in the skeptics board, on the two threads which I referenced above (here and here) and I suggest that anybody interested should check there for further responses to JC's ideas concerning evolution, because it's unlikely that any of the skeptics are going to bother replying to him again, myself included, having roasted him once (btw, it's interesting to see his claims concerning the thread; study it yourself to see if they're accurate).

> Do you think that dinosaurs are a hoax? - they don't mention
> them in the bible..

Aha, but perhaps you don't have the right flexibility of mind -- see the pleasant Ken Ham's explanation about why dinosaurs probably are mentioned in the bible. To explain it in more detail, he's also, very helpfully, written a book (which believers can buy for a tenner from his busy website).

- robin.

Danno

And if you don't like Mr Ken Hamm's explanation you can read more here: http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_dino.asp by Judah Etinger.

It is of my opinion that the tenner paid to Mr Ham would be much better spent than the €€€ millions of taxpayers money wasted in Evolution Research.

JustHalf

zod wrote:

The theory of evolution is in itself evolving - when it changes there is no belief system that is broken - only science showing us the truth. A scientist by definition must be questioning and open minded - I think this is the core difference which distances them from statements such as “Blessed is he who believes without seeing"

Are you claiming that one cannot be both a Christian and a scientist?

Sounds like you and the hardcore creationists have something in common

pH

Evolution doesn't have anything to say about the Fall. There is no issue with a Christian claiming Christ as Creator and Redeemer and simulatenously believing that through evolution, humans evolved and that the first of these humans made the mistake that is the Fall.

The point of evolution is that there is no first human. No one in the past was any more different from their parents than you are from yours. You may even be the current living ancestor of a future species. But in any one generation (or indeed 100's of generations) the changes are tiny.

You are in effect saying that at some point in the past you can point to one person and say 'she is human, but her parents are not'.

Carbon dating is a complete disaster. For example, when people took rocks from three seperate volcanos dated 1960s onwards and gave them in to be carbon dated, the results came back as 1/2 million years old!!! Come on!!!

The article you linked to is criticising potassium-argon dating, and is actually endorsing carbon-14 dating. Potassium argon dating is used to date much older rocks, and does not have enough detail to date recent rock.

Eoghan-psych

J C wrote:

Quote (Just Half)
Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined, it is highly speculative and is subject to continuous revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”.

Wrong. Every scientific paper explicitly operationalises evolutionary theory. For example a genetics-based paper would define evolutionary theory as the explanatory framework for the change in allele frequency across time for any given genetic population [or words to that effect]. It doesn't get much more specific than that. Unless, naturally, a given researcher seeks to go into even greater detail about some specific aspect in which case their operationalisation will reflect that.

As a fun little excercise, replace "evolution" with "gravity" in your comment above.

J C wrote:

2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Core aspects of Evolution are incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation –and therefore can only be believed in through FAITH.

Wrong. There are multiple, varied methodologies to test the multiple and varied postulates constituting evolutionary theory. Certainly, no methodology, no experimental paradigm will test *all* aspects of the theory - that goes without saying. Thing is, there is sufficient congruency and overlap between the various paradigms employed that the cumulative effect is the same.

J C wrote:

3. Evolution fails even more miserably on the scientific validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, Darwin’s “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Evolution” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis.

Same goes for *every* aspect of science. Every single one. That's how science works. Theory is moulded to fit the data, not the other way round a la religion.

As an aside, intermediate forms *have* been found - quite a number of them.

Also, the more accepted term is "punctuated equilibrium", and "gradual evolution" has most certainly not become an "invalid hypothesis"

Eoghan-psych

Danno wrote:

Carbon dating is a complete disaster. For example, when people took rocks from three seperate volcanos dated 1960s onwards and gave them in to be carbon dated, the results came back as 1/2 million years old!!! Come on!!!
Link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/volcano.asp

I smell mendacity. C12/C14 dating doesn't return dates of 1/2 a million years. The method is only used for organic samples, back to about 100kya [recently extended from a ~60kya ceiling owing to methodological advances]. This is because of the extremely short [~5630 years] half life. Carbon dating isn't used for rocks.

You *might* want to brush up on the area before commenting on it.

Danno wrote:

The theory of evolution is going exactly where evolution would go if it were true. Total destruction. For something to evolve it needs to change. Change in biological terms means disease, cancers, mutations.

More mendacity - quite the cottage industry you have going there.

If you care to actually look, you will find over 100 instances in the literature of observed speciation events.

Change in biological terms means just that - change. Change is neither "good" nor "bad", it is just change. Those changes which are present in an orgnanism that reproduces will be preserved.

Excelsior

I suspect there is more than a slight logical difficulty when Eoghan says that in evolutionary terms, there was no first human.

There is a difference between not being able to identify the first human and there not being a first human. This strays out of science and into causality in philosophy and I suspect from your previous posts that you might fiercely battle against the philosophers taking any of your scientfrific food!

But if you were willing to take trim back your arguments to be more philosophically rigourous, I have no doubt that you would do more damage to the Creation Science argument than 10,000 papers in Nature that they are never going to read.

Danno

Excelsior wrote:

I suspect there is more than a slight logical difficulty when Eoghan says that in evolutionary terms, there was no first human.

There is a difference between not being able to identify the first human and there not being a first human.

Adam was the first human.

Danno

Eoghan-psych wrote:

C12/C14 dating doesn't return dates of 1/2 a million years. The method is only used for organic samples, back to about 100kya [recently extended from a ~60kya ceiling owing to methodological advances]. This is because of the extremely short [~5630 years] half life. Carbon dating isn't used for rocks.

Fair Enough, I called the wrong method into scrutiny. However, the other method there that is used to date rocks is totally off!

If the fossils that are being found in rocks that are supposed to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old and are used to promote evolution, and we see from the example http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre.../i1/volcano.asp that these rocks most likely ARE NOT the age they are estimated to be, where does that put the theory of evolution???

If you have material that you believed to be, say 600,000 years old and later on you find out that it is 300 years old, that blows your whole theory away!!!

This is why we cannot accept evolution as a solid, even close to solid theory.

Eoghan-psych wrote:

If you care to actually look, you will find over 100 instances in the literature of observed speciation events. Change in biological terms means just that - change. Change is neither "good" nor "bad", it is just change. Those changes which are present in an orgnanism that reproduces will be preserved.

Can I have solid examples of repeated observation that can be 100% proved all the time without fail?