[Cause]

cauthon;126334 said:

Concerning the moths example. They are still moths, no? And the two kinds always existed. The one that could hide bteer, survided, true. But some of them still carry the other gene around. IMO, most of these evolutionary examples are simple adaptions the species make, but they do not become a new species.

This is proof of micro evolution. Is it so hard to imagine in a million years the butterfly might glow in the dark if that means it will be a creature better able to breed. Also I aske before what defenition of species are you going on. For a virus to be considered a diffrent species all it has to do is change 15 % of its genetic material. This happenes every week. Where did SARS come from? Also to take darwin, a lot of what he said is nonsense, but he discovered everal species of bird in the galipego islands. They cant interbreed. They are still birds but they are considered diffrent species. Some have beaks for eating insects others for eating fruit.

Quote

I think that most creationists have trouble with the fact that school educations tries to convince students that creation is false, instead of just explaining to them that according to evolutionary theory ... etc. etc. But is is true that religion is not science, though I think the bible is scientifically correct. But it's not a science book.

Creation is not false, as far as science is concerned its just not relevant. Maybe od started the big bang maybe he did not. Science only cares if it happened or not, how, why.

Quote

And when the bible says human are created, the universe already existsed millions of years. The text read as follows:

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
2. Now the eartch proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
3. And God proceeded to say: Let light come to be. Then there came to be light.

So, 3 is the first 'day'. But before that, clearly the universe already existsed. As such, the argument made by creationists that the eartch ios only 6000 years old is simply false.

Thats your interpretation. Many choose the 7 days equals one week theory. My rabbi says (I asked specifically for this) again only his view is that since adam was born the world is +-6000 years old (I think he said 5400). Iether way I would say that is nonsense, and provably so.

Now you say the bible is scientifically correct. As pots already said sun first than planets. Infact according to generation god created light before the sun or stars. Makes no sense according to the laws of the universe. Also Im not sure if the bible said the earth was the centre of the universe or not. Iether way it proves that religeon gets things wrong and tries to hold onto them long after they are proved nonsense

[Illuyankas]

Of course, accepting the evidence that the sun came first would be the same as admitting the evidence that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago, or any other Bible-contradictory fact.

And speaking of contradictions...

[Cause]

Site has got alot of good points. But also a lot of ignorance.

[stone monkey]

The problem being that the faith of a certain class of fundy is so weak that it has to be predicated on the Bible being literally true.

Actually, when you think about it, what these people have isn't faith at all.

[cauthon]

Sure the sun came first. Duh. The light just became visible from the surface of the earth. Contrary to what you lot think, I'm not a complete idiot. First you have the universe, then the solar system and then the earth and stuff on it. Really ...

The reason I quoted that was to make clear that the earth existed prior to the existance om man. And not just a few thousand years prior to that. If you take day to be quite short, you're probably also taking other stuff literally, which clearly you're not always supposed to do.

@Cause I thought science was concerned with the how and why ...

[Dolorous Menhir]

If you're not supposed to take the Bible literally, why consider it at all?

Your "don't take it literally" is a more reasonable person's "it's wrong".

[Cause]

Creation is not false, as far as science is concerned its just not relevant. Maybe od started the big bang maybe he did not. Science only cares if it happened or not, how, why.

I guess its a bit confusing. Science cares if it happened or not. It than cares why it happened and how. God is not an acceptable answer to any question.

Cauthon why should you not take it literally. Theirs no indication, the writing style is the same for chapters which are literal. Only now that science is saying wait a sec do people think its maybe not literal

Also you say of course the sun came firts. This not only rejects the literal interpretation it would mean the anology is quite poor. darkness-light-earth-heaven-plants-sun-birds-animals-man. The sun came after light? It came after the earth?

[cauthon]

No, I think Genesis is written from the POV of an observer on earth. As most scientific theories on the formation of planets explain, most likely the sunlight did not penetrate the atmosphere at first, so basically, there was no such thing as light on the surface of the earth. So while the sun did exist, an observer on earth could not see it. But then, the atmosphere was cleared and sunlight penetrated onto the surface and the rotation of the earth became noticable.

And as for interpretation, I see it this way. On the premise that the bible is the word of god, (bear with me :-)) then it should be consistent. So any interpreation that causes a contradiction is wrong. You hence need to find the one that maintains the consistency. No doubt, I'll get bashed over this again :-)

BTW, guys, can we keep it friendly here?

[Dolorous Menhir]

How can Genesis be written from the POV of an observer on Earth, when there were no people there to see the first days (not being created until the 6th)?

Sorry if I'm being abrasive, I'm not used to people using Bible quotes in serious arguments. It's a bit startling.

[Cause]

cauthon;126440 said:

No, I think Genesis is written from the POV of an observer on earth. As most scientific theories on the formation of planets explain, most likely the sunlight did not penetrate the atmosphere at first, so basically, there was no such thing as light on the surface of the earth. So while the sun did exist, an observer on earth could not see it. But then, the atmosphere was cleared and sunlight penetrated onto the surface and the rotation of the earth became noticable.

And as for interpretation, I see it this way. On the premise that the bible is the word of god, (bear with me :-)) then it should be consistent. So any interpreation that causes a contradiction is wrong. You hence need to find the one that maintains the consistency. No doubt, I'll get bashed over this again :-)

BTW, guys, can we keep it friendly here?

It take 8 minutes for light to go from sun to earth. The sun existed for thousands of years before planents formed in its gravity. That means light would hit the planent instantly since its already their and more is constantly coming. Without sunlight on the surface of the earth its too cold for life too cold for an observer.

[cauthon]

@DM Heh, sorry :-) I was merely using it to indicate that it's strange to think the universe was created in 6000 years. Notice too that the bible does not give more information to the formation of the universe than say iot was created. Many creationists doubt the big-bang theory, but I find it has merits, and is not in contradiction with any biblical explanation. The bible gives only more detail about the creation of life.

True, there were no people. But anybody were around on the planet, that is what they would have observed. It is a simple explanation, without rigorous explanation, but anybody who reads it can understand it. Besides, it said first that god created the heavens and the earth, so surely the sun was around when that verse was finished.

IMO, the bible was written by men, analogous to the way a secretary writes letters her boss dictates her. So the person writing it was not around, by the creator was. But this will perhaps start another argument, that is not really valid w.r.t. this thread.

[The Rope]

potsherds;126196 said:

Hey Rope, for kicks, will you reference that for me? Where in the Bible does it say that civilization is 6000 years old? I mean, that's not necessarily correct, but as far I have read in the Bible, the writers of the thing never possessed any decent concept of time or any understanding of just how ancient humanity is.

Counting genealogy from the time of christ, where it says "so and so lived until the age of... then had a son... who lived until... then had a son..." etc etc. The brings about 2000 yrs from man's birth to flood... about 500 to moses... 900 to Judah's exile to babylon... daniel's prophecy of "weeks of years" to Jesus' birth in 1 BC, his death and ressurrection in 33 AD, his enthronement as King in Heaven in 1914 AD...
And btw, i meant humanity and civilization in the simplest of term - group or groups of humans living together with any sort of community structure, which would make the very first pair of humans the beginning of civilization. Its my own interpretation of the word.

As to the rest, thanks for clearing it up for me. Very little is not "none" last i checked... but i guess school was a waste of time as i learned nothing about speech. The only issue i have with evolution is how religiously some ppl hold to it and apparent randomness some ppl still hold to. It just doesnt make sense that organisms can fix a fatal flaw on their own. Darwin apparently renounced his claim to evolution much later, though of course you'll argue I made hat up, or he went crazy, or he gave in to religious opposition and lied. AS to every other tenant of the theory, I just plain don't care how it works. I believe there is a Creator who created everything in six stages, set in place the mechanisms for life and matter and energy to sustain itself without direct intervention, allowed room to change within that, and thats all thats necessry for me to know.

I don't believe science and religion have to be mutually exclusive, i don't believe creationism and evolutionism should be diametrically opposed. As for everything else i said - delete it if you want. There's no point in expressing views if nobody wants it to be reasonable or logical and decides its not. So i dont have education, that means i'm stupid because i never had the oppurtunity to get it. Prove that scientifically and i can just go right ahead and die. (Sorry if that seems overly defensive... cuz it was.)

Facts take second place for me. People take first...

[cauthon]

@Rope: calm down.

[The Rope]

sorry. the threads not about me, its about the argument... i was pretty defensive and fired up... i was also a page behind when i typed it.

The Rope said:

I don't believe science and religion have to be mutually exclusive, i don't believe creationism and evolutionism should be diametrically opposed.

Thats about the only worthwhile thing i said.

btw: theres no need to continue attacking me directly.

@cauthon: i share your viewpoint, but you're better at expressing it, so i'll leave you to it

[Dolorous Menhir]

The "Darwin deathbed recantation" story is not true. Google "darwin deathbed" and you'll see that 9 of the first 10 results extensively debunk the claim.

The tenth is very cautious and finally concludes that we don't know for sure (though they clearly want you to finish the article with the impression that he did). And since it's the website of "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry" I'm thinking they might have a bias in this matter.

It's just one of those enduring myths, that people always bring up. Of what objective worth would such a story be anyway? Would Darwin's scientific theories be rendered null and void if he became a Christian while he lay dying? (and all the evidence is that he didn't anyway, the story is only kept alive by people who want to cast doubt on his work in this underhanded way).

I'm sorry if I'm being too personal in arguing against your viewpoints "the Rope". Let's make a clear distinction between "your ideas" and "you". Before I go criticising your ideas some more though, is English your first language? I don't want to start bashing your explanations and then find out you're actually a French-Canadian or that English is otherwise not your first language. And there's no need to take it so harshly. I don't take it as a personal insult when people say they don't believe in evolution.

Cauthon, the Rope, since you seem willing to continue this argument, try and answer this please.

Can you reject evolution on grounds other than "the Bible disagrees" or "I don't see how it can happen"? I'm looking for a more convincing counterargument than "but God created man!" or "I don't understand it, so it didn't happen".

[Cause]

The Rope;126520 said:

The only issue i have with evolution is how religiously some ppl hold to it and apparent randomness some ppl still hold to. It just doesnt make sense that organisms can fix a fatal flaw on their own. Darwin apparently renounced his claim to evolution much later, though of course you'll argue I made hat up, or he went crazy, or he gave in to religious opposition and lied. AS to every other tenant of the theory, I just plain don't care how it works. I believe there is a Creator who created everything in six stages, set in place the mechanisms for life and matter and energy to sustain itself without direct intervention, allowed room to change within that, and thats all thats necessry for me to know.

Its a scientific theory that was built using the scietific method. Its not held to religously, its simply held to as strongly as science holds to the theory of gravity. All evidence points to it. Its the closest thing we have to the truth. Well use it till it stops working. SO far nothing has disproved it.

Your right organisms cant fix fatal flaws by their own. If your born with a fatal genetic problem youll die. You wont breed you wont pass on that flaw and eventually that flaw will be removed from poulation. The only way such flaws are able to sruvive is that people hetrozygous for the condition can carry it but not suffer the ill effects.

Darwin is not on record for denouncing evolution. I dont think you made it up you probally heard it some where but it would appear false

If you dont care how it works you are BIASED. It makes your arguments meaningless

The Rope;126520 said:

I don't believe science and religion have to be mutually exclusive, i don't believe creationism and evolutionism should be diametrically opposed. As for everything else i said - delete it if you want. There's no point in expressing views if nobody wants it to be reasonable or logical and decides its not. So i dont have education, that means i'm stupid because i never had the oppurtunity to get it. Prove that scientifically and i can just go right ahead and die. (Sorry if that seems overly defensive... cuz it was.)

They are not mutually exclusive. Lots of scientists believe in god. But when they are doing science they act as if god, religeon, well anything thats not science does not exist. Science cant go against religeon since it acts like it does not exist. Any facts which disprove the bible or god are unintentional side effects of the research

We are reasonable and we respect opinions. But you have to realise you just admitted you were biased whereas before you told us you who have no scientific knowledge but have scientifically explored evolution and creation and believed creation won. This is not possible scientifically only with added personal belief. Science cant prove god, cant find any evidence for or against him. So it cant prove creationism.

Im sure you are a decent intelligent man. But science can only be attacked with science in the same way maths cant be disproved with english.

[The Rope]

its my first language - i just never mastered it... funny considering how much i read write and talk...
i reject the idea that evolution replaces a creator. Call it cynicism - if mankind is the highest form of life in the universe... the universe is damned. We need to evolve damn fast before the evolution going on around us destroys us - cause mankind is just getting worse... physically speaking. But thats not scientific, its just viewpoint... for whatever its worth...

saying i have scientifically considered... a statement of ignorance and a fancy way of saying i thought about it alot and proved my own doubts wrong.

[cauthon]

@DM: To be honest, all the material dug up, was searched with the purpose of confirming evolution. I've no wish to make dumb claims here, so let me get back to you on this. I'll just say this for the moment. It seems to me that all the examples of so-called evolution are an adaptation of a species, or certain specimens of it to changing surroundings. Notice that the bible does say anything that opposes this, but that is not evolution as is usually meant, i.e. the changing of a complete species into something new. Creation, as I see it, is the introduction of a new species without bringing on changes to exisiting species. AFAIK, the vatican condones evolution as the way God used to create life. That however is not my POV. Just to be clear on this.

Anyway, glad we can keep chatting on a more civilised level.

@Rope: I'm not sure I share all your ideas. In fact, I'm quite certain we can clash too :-)

[Cause]

the fossil record shows lizards turning into birds. Thats radically diffrent

The genes in a human being are Im not going to look up the excact figure but lets go with 99% the same as an apes. This suggest that we have similiar ancestry. That percentage of common DNA can than be traced back further and further giving a line of evolution. Is this as good a proof as seeing a chicken give birth to a four eyed yellow featherless fluff ball on tape? No. Can it jsut b dismissed? No.