[Aimless]

Interested reading for those who want to learn more about the case for common descent: http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

Back with a real post later cheers!

-- P

[Dolorous Menhir]

Chewy;129677 said:

I'm glad that we are seeing more serious discussion of real provable facts. I tire of statements such as 'its true so we don't need to discuss it'. Evolutionists who assert this are no different from those who they dispute.

That's not true Chewy. Drawing an equivalence between evolution & creation proponents is a central creationist strategy, but it is a falsehood. Evolution backers (educated ones) have the backing of science and the scientific community. Creationists do not.

I can't emphasise enough, they are not two opposing camps of ideologues blindly pushing their own prejudices. The fact that creationists are reduced to this line of attack at all ("they're just as bad as we are!") is clear evidence of how weak their position is. They can't assail the facts, so they attack motivations.

The Rope;129676 said:

Its already been explained that the days aren't necessarily literal 24 hour days - did you just ignore that?

I didn't ignore that. I just think it's tripe. If the Bible doesn't mean "days" when it says "days", and instead means whatever you require it to mean to agree with reality, then where is the usefulness of the Bible? If you need to put so much tortured interpretation into even the simplest notion

"the creation took six days"

does that not tell you something about the accuracy of your source? The Bible is a book of religious mythology, not a science textbook or an accurate guide to anything (except history in some small measure, and mostly the history of the earlier peoples whose own mythology it was borrowed from). People who assert otherwise have no credibility in my view.

I think the Bible account of the Creation is as reliable as the Japanese creation legend (the Sun God ejaculated on the ocean, producing the Japanese islands) or any other such story. They are just stories in books.

[D Man]

The Rope;129676 said:

Prove to me in scientific language and with scientific method that Creation is not science. So far all I've got is the same kind of ramblings creationist/ID's use - "I say so, because I believe it, Because someone else told me, so therefore it MUST be true!"

I've looked at your 'evidence' - it hasn't made any definite proof.

The scientific method is, in order that occurs:

Oberservation: you see something in nature and quantify it in some way. You observe the basic rules it operates by; its behaviour.

Idea: You have an idea about what the underlying mechanism might be that explains the obervations.

Deduction: You use the idea to deduce what is going to happen, or what must be the case, if your idea is right.

Experiement: You test the prediction.

Induction: You take the resulsts of the prediction and feed them back into the origninal idea, to prove, disprove or refine it.

That is the scientific method. Evolution uses every section and satifies every requirement.

Creationism in any form excludes deduction, experiment and induction. It stops at 'idea': God did it. That doesnt lead to any testable predictions because the action of God is unfalsifiable: he can allegedly do what he wants how he wants, and so believers can make him fit any observation.

Therefore creation is not a science. Its just imagination.

[Imperial Historian]

Personally, as a catholic I have no problem with the theory of evolution, I don't take a lot of the old testament particularly seriously as a) it's provenance as coming directly from god isn't great and large parts of it are obviously the stories and legends of the jewish people, which are likely to be no more accurate on the answers to the creation of the universe than most of the stories made up by people over the ages to explain their origins...

On the creationism debate, the question seems to centre on the fact that god made everything, so evolution is somehow in opposition to this... but a God whose managed ot create a universe with the wonderfully complex laws we see today, must be quite capable of creating life which improves, and diversifies adapting to every enviroment... I mean which is more impressive, an engineer who designs a bridge for a specific crossing, or an engineer who designs something that will build a bridge for any crossing and adapt itself accordingly?

I'm not particularly qualified to comment on the creationist evolutionist debate, so ill leave that to those who are, personally everything I've seen on the theory of evolution makes sense, and since there are several things which would definitely disprove evolution, such as a creature appearing in the fossil record at the wrong time period, and I haven't seen any evidence from creationists who would surely trumpet any such claims woudl suggest evolution is the most likely theory at this time.

[stone monkey]

Isn't "It's true so we don't need to discuss it" actually the creationist line? Science is all about discussing it, in the case of evolution it's just that the discussion has reached they point where, for the broad strokes of the process, people are agreeing with each other.

How do you square the "God made all creatures in the forms they presently possess" literal reading of the Bible with the "when it says six days it doesn't really mean six actual days" interpretative reading? If you're working on the assumption that not all of what the Bible says is actually literally true then why get so very attached to the idea of literal truth of very particular bits of it?

[The Rope]

Quote

Sometimes the word “day” is used to indicate a measure of distance, as in the expressions “a day’s journey” and “a sabbath day’s journey.”—Numbers 11:31; Acts 1:12

Quote

In prophecy a day is at times used to stand for one year. This can be noted at Ezekiel 4:6: “You must lie upon your right side in the second case, and you must carry the error of the house of Judah forty days. A day for a year, a day for a year, is what I have given you.”—See also Numbers 14:34.

Quote

The term “day(s)” is also used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as for example, “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.”—Luke 17:26-30; Isaiah 1:1.

Quote

This flexible use of the word “day” to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident in the Genesis account of creation. Therein is set forth a week of six creative days followed by a seventh day of rest. The week assigned for observance by the Jews under the Law covenant given them by God was a miniature copy of that creative week. (Exodus 20:8-11) In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning” a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23,*31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P.*Schaff, 1894.

Quote

The entire period of the six time units or creative “days” dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing “day” at Genesis 2:4: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that God made earth and heaven.”

Quote

Man’s situation does not compare with that of the Creator, who does not reside within our solar system and who is not affected by its various cycles and orbits. Of God, who is from time indefinite to time indefinite, the psalmist says: “For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch during the night.” (Psalms 90:2,*4) Correspondingly, the apostle Peter writes that “one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Peter 3:8) For man, a 1,000-year period represents some 365,242 individual time units of day and night, but to the Creator it can be just one unbroken time period in which he begins the carrying out of some purposeful activity and brings it on to its successful conclusion, much as a man begins a task in the morning and concludes it by the day’s end.

All the scriptural passages where "day" is used that I could find, as well as commentary by Scholars... I'm not just trying to fit my own interpretation to suit my own needs.

Imperial Historian;129929 said:

On the creationism debate, the question seems to centre on the fact that god made everything, so evolution is somehow in opposition to this... but a God whose managed ot create a universe with the wonderfully complex laws we see today, must be quite capable of creating life which improves, and diversifies adapting to every enviroment... I mean which is more impressive, an engineer who designs a bridge for a specific crossing, or an engineer who designs something that will build a bridge for any crossing and adapt itself accordingly?

I don't dispute this line of reasoning - its kinda been my angle since early on in the discussion...

The Rope;126191 said:

It is not right for a cretionist to ignore any statement about evolution simply because it is evolutionary.

[stone monkey]

I was about to stick my pedant's head on and start deconstructing those uses of the word "day", but I'll restrain myself. The question still stands however and another one presents itself:

By some Christians' own admission parts of the OT aren't literally true and shouldn't be taken to read that way; so if some of it is metaphorical or allegorical, why not all of it?

[D Man]

stone monkey;130258 said:

I was about to stick my pedant's head on and start deconstructing those uses of the word "day", but I'll restrain myself. The question still stands however and another one presents itself:

By some Christians' own admission parts of the OT aren't literally true and shouldn't be taken to read that way; so if some of it is metaphorical or allegorical, why not all of it?

You just barely missed the head of the nail!

If some can be taken metaphorically then all can be. True. But those that choose a literal interpretation of some parts often think that therefore they must take all of it literally. So they rationalise literal interpretation of all of it, including genesis.

In my experience these people are rigid and dogmatic, with little ability to judge anything independently. They require and adhere to rules and absolutes in a general sense in their lives.

There are others that use thier own judgment about which parts to take literally and metphorically. The I've heard dogmatists call them whishy-washy! "You can't pick and choose which parts of the word of God to believe", They say; "You must accept all of it or none!"

[fan_83]

so basically you arguments consists of that one picks and choose which parts ones wants to believe in and hang the rest of it..

wow.....

so why can;t i accept and take in the beliefs of the old testament which allows me to own slaves, kill unbelievers and stone aldulterers??
after all we can all pick and choose what we want to believe in from the holy book

[Demon X]

fan_83;130305 said:

so basically you arguments consists of that one picks and choose which parts ones wants to believe in and hang the rest of it..

wow.....

so why can;t i accept and take in the beliefs of the old testament which allows me to own slaves, kill unbelievers and stone aldulterers??
after all we can all pick and choose what we want to believe in from the holy book

And dont forget the part where you can execute homosexuals!

[Illuyankas]

And your own children if they disrespect you.

[Demon X]

So what happened to "Thou shalt not kill"? It doesnt say "Thouh shalt not kill unless they're homosexuals or adulterers" Oh wait I forgot - those parts of the bible were written by somone else about 500 years later! Silly me!

[D Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zju8wSDAdXY...related&search=

Funny because its true

[Illuyankas]

Heh, time for the obligatory Bill Hicks quote - "Do you think when Jesus comes back, he'll ever want to see a cross again?"

[Cause]

depends whether you consider jesus god in human form ie an idol. All christianity is suspect

[Demon X]

D Man;130368 said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zju8wSDAdXY...related&search=

Funny because its true

That is so good!

[Dolorous Menhir]

A little EVIDENCE for the "but there's no proof of evolution!" crowd.

From CNN today

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/1...s.ap/index.html

[Tes'thesula]

OH NOES!! The Dophins are coming back to land!!11!!!

But to be serious for a moment, walking dolphins are a major worry in low lying countries. I would advise people in Holland to keep their tuna under lock and key.

[The Rope]

didnt someone say the tailfins were the legs? im confused - and the evidence was premature - at the end the (was he a biologist?) stated that it could be a freak mutation... not conclusive in any case. If you would like to dif up some more related information to stabilize and solidify the "evidence", i will be happy to consider it.
Also, since i already have questions and "doubt" in my mind about the "evidence", but know i have not the scientific degress for you to take them seriously, i would like you to think of objections, and defend the position from your own objections... if you think you can be objective enough...