How we as humans came to be

[Rooster7]

Mattbib,

 

First, thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected. It's just that I've seen others subscribe to the belief, "that when one expresses his faith as fact, he is being intolerant of others." I disagree with that definition. In my zeal to defend my understanding of tolerance or intolerance (depending on one's perspective), I misinterpreted your comment. So, thank you for being tolerant of my faux pas.

 

...yet our entire faith and the religious beliefs of others are based on a book completely devoid of proof.

 

However, as you cleared up my confusion, you gave me a different bone of contention to chew on. I believe the above statement is false. While the bible implores us to keep a strong faith, it does not do so without proof of a living God. All of the people mentioned in the bible are historical figures. No one denies that Jesus existed. There are numerous documents that testify to his existence and the miracles he performed, including his death and resurrection. In fact, the New Testament and much of the Old Testament are supported by more documentation and testimony than most of the stories found in your average history book. No one questions the existence of the Roman emperors, the Egyptian kings, or the stories about them. With much less documentation, these stories are accepted as fact and printed in our schoolbooks. So why should Christ's life (or Moses' life for that matter) be any different? Secondly, there is plenty of empirical data to support the existing of God that can found by anyone living that is not devoid of one's senses. I'm not suggesting that Christianity be taught in public school as our country's official religion. That would be unconstitutional. However, just because its not taught as history, doesn't mean it is not supported by fact. Many scientists, historians, biologists, archeologists, etc., have tried to disprove the bible without success. In their efforts, many of these folks have found evidence to support stories in the bible (i.e., a lost city that was only mentioned in the bible, repeated designs in nature that screams there must be a creator, more documentation supporting biblical stories, evidence suggesting that the earth may not be as old as previous scientists had claimed, etc.). Not surprisingly, many of these same individuals have come to believe in the God of the bible because all of the facts pointed to his existence.

 

I believe one can subscribe to the theories of evolution and still be a believer (an Christian). However, I would question someone's faith that claimed that the God of the bible had to use evolution to create the earth. If God knows the number of hairs on your headif God knows your every thought if God can conquer death, how could anyone believe he lacked the power to create the earth in seven days, or even one second if He so chose? If you believe in God, it seems kind of silly to put Him in a box, as if He must be limited in His power, knowledge, and wisdom. If these things limited His ability to do as He pleased, He wouldn't be God.

 

acco40,

 

Building off the previous dialogue, I just want to point out that evolutionists do not have any solid evidence to support their claim. Evolution is a theorya poorly thought out one too. This theory is not more valid than creationism. Yet, it is taught in our public schools and creationism is not. I believe, if the theory of creationism cannot be taught in our schools, then evolution should not be taught either. We should not promote a theory to be taught that contradicts many religions without scientific proof and/or allowing those faiths to present their alternate theories. If/When scientists universally accept evolution and can prove it, then this argument goes away. Until then, evolution is merely a theory developed by an atheist scientist. It is taught to many Christians and others of various faiths against their wills. Since the proof is not there, I am suggesting that this is unconstitutional. Funny, how some folks will "fight to the death" to get a teacher to take a bible off of his desk, but yet do not recognize the transgressions of this unproven theory.

 

If you subscribe to the liberal interpretation of "separation of church and state" (an over used phrase which has been misinterpreted and does not appear in the Constitution), then you cannot have it both ways. That is, one cannot scream that a Christmas tree on public grounds is unconstitutional, but allow a theory (not fact) to be taught that contradicts many people's faiths. Both of these examples represent an act by the state that either tacitly endorses or denies a faith. Truly, if the tenant of separation of church and state was interpreted properly, then most often the Christmas tree would be left standing and evolution would be thrown out of the public schools. More often than not, the erection of a Christmas tree on public grounds represents the will of the people in that community. Furthermore, the community exercising their will as such does not impede others from practicing their own faith. In short, the erection of a Christmas is not an act of the state that establishes a religion. It's the community exercising their freedom to express their faith publicly. On the other hand, evolution is an unproven theory, which undoubtedly contradicts the faiths of many. Furthermore, by allowing such a theory to be taught in the public school system without solid proof, the state is clearly overstepping its boundaries and imposing its unsubstantiated and anti-religious views on the people. This is further compounded by the fact that the government (or rather the Supreme Court) will not allow a rebuttal by the offended faiths.

 

Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state". He did so in a reply to a letter from a Baptist minister who was concerned that the federal or state governments might over step their authority and interfere in the business of the church. Jefferson' writings supported the thought (and quelled the concern of the minister) that the state should never interfere with the church. Never did Jefferson indicate that the state should be sheltered from the influence of religion. Ironically, until Jefferson wrote his letter, no one suggested that religion could not or should not influence the direction of the state. Yes, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion. However, this is a far cry from the idea that religion and/or any belief held by people of faith cannot have a role in a state sanctioned event or influence the laws of the land. This idea is quite amusing since every law ever created has some sort of moral or amoral basis. Consequently, per the extreme logic of the current interpretation of separation of church and state, only atheists or the irreverent can create constitutional laws. Revisionists and atheists have done much to damage the intentions of Jefferson's reply to the said minister. They have twisted his words and taken them out of context to promote their own desires. We should remember our forefathers and their noble ideasthey were much more profound then most of our current leaders.

[sctmom]

A scientific theory is not just a guess. It is based upon many tests. It can change over time. I found the following on www.encyclopedia.com

 

"If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid only for speeds much less than that of light. "

 

Next, Christianity IS taught in our schools as part of history. My son's 6th grade Prentice Hall Social Studies book, titled "World Explorer - The Ancient World", discusses Christianity's role in world history. It also includes discussions of other dominant religions at that time. It doesn't discuss which one is "right" and if others are "wrong". Just presents basic facts.

 

 

[acco40]

Rooster, it is not my intent to debate the merits of creationism or evolution. However, statements like "No one denies that Jesus existed." prove nothing on their own. No one doubts that Muhammad (or David Koresh or Jim Jones for that matter) existed either. That does not make the religions that they preached "correct."

 

Also your comment about "repeated designs in nature that screams there must be a creator" can be just as easily used to "scream" that evolution is at work. Why do the bone structures of some whales closely resemble that of a cow? Is it because of evolution or because a supreme being decided to "re-use" a well thought out plan?

 

Your comment that "We should not promote a theory to be taught that contradicts many religions without scientific proof and/or allowing those faiths to present their alternate theories." Usually in a science class, science is taught and in the eyes of the vast majority of scientist, evolution is the accepted theory. I would love to see the schools, both public and private, offer comparative religion classes. Let the students see the major similarities and differences of the world's major religions. However, I don't think a Baptist minister would be the perfect choice to teach such a class.

 

Look at Einstein's or Stephen Hawking's view on a supreme being. It shows a nice mesh between "hard" science, faith, and religion.

 

 

Excerpt from Hawking -

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

[scomman]

The funny part about this is that more and more scientists are beginning to doubt the theory of Evoultion as a viable explanation. One book about it is Evoultion a Theory in Crisis which was written by a molecular Biologist and state that there is no support for evoultion from the viewpoint of molecular Biology.

 

on another point I believe in adaption that as time goes by we adapt to our surrondings but if evoultion was a fact why aren't there new species sudenly popping up?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

The funny part about this is that more and more scientists are beginning to doubt the theory of Evoultion as a viable explanation.

 

No, this isn't true at all; this is the wishful thinking of creationists. It's like hoping that crystal-sphere orbital mechanics (propelled by angels) will come back to replace the theory of gravity.

 

Here are a couple of reviews of Denton's anitevolution book:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml

 

...

on another point I believe in adaption that as time goes by we adapt to our surrondings but if evoultion was a fact why aren't there new species sudenly popping up?

 

New species ARE popping up:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

Speciation has been observed; evolution (a change in allele frequencies over time) has also been observed.

 

[firstpusk]

Sorry Scomman, but your analysis of both the Theory of Evolution and Micheal Denton's book are far off the mark. Closer to the truth is the statement by Theodosius Dobzhansky that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

 

Denton's 1985 book has long since been debunked and is certainly out of date. The notion that scientists are abandonning evolution and it is ready for the ash heap is simply untrue. You also mentioned Phillip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial. Both Denton and Johnson consistently misrepresent the Theory of Evolution and the evidence supporting it. Their presentation makes me question if they truly understand the subject at all. I am glad that you are interested enough in the subject to read some books. The problem is these two sources are not the most reliable. I would not view either author as an authority on anything other than authoring sensationalist books for the non-scientific reader.

 

I respect your right to your beliefs. That is my duty under the last point of the Scout Law. Your belief, however is far from universal even within Christianity.

 

My concern is that scouters make statements like following one from Rooster7.

 

"However, I would question someone's faith that claimed that the God of the bible had to use evolution to create the earth."

 

The doubts he has about my faith are of little concern to me. However, if he were to approach any boy in my troop making a statement like that, you and I would have a discussion about the meaning of the last point of the Scout Law.

[Rooster7]

firstpusk,

 

My concern is that scouters make statements like following one from Rooster7.

 

"However, I would question someone's faith that claimed that the God of the bible had to use evolution to create the earth."

 

First, please refrain from taking my statements out of context. If you're going to quote me, state the relative comments before and after. Otherwise, you're just practicing the art of deception. Regardless, to clarify my statement, the key words were "had to use". In other words, I question a faith that represents God as a being with such limitations. This is not the God of the bible.

 

Second, please enlighten me how these animals adapt themselves to new environments and evolve. Exactly when does a fish decide that he needs legs? Is this done on a conscience level or sub-conscience level? How does the next generation know that something has happen that necessitates the development of legs or some other physical manifestation? I realize that the books you may offer will present some technical discussions and some mental gymnastics that will explain all of this. However, as a layman, can you tell me in simple English how simplistic beings such as the early primates, realized that standing erect was something to aspire to? And, how did this aspiration become a physical reality? And how did that reality get pushed down to the next generation, particularly since the need or aspiration had to be initiated in a previous generation without the benefit of genetics. After all, how could previous generations know what the environment was going to do in the future. While I await your answers with baited breath, my common sense tells me the whole concept is ridiculous.

 

[firstpusk]

Rooster7,

 

You seem to be confusing the ideas of Lamarck with those of Darwin. Lamarck died in 1829 years before Darwin took his voyage on the Beagle. He thought that creatures could will changes, i.e., the giraffe can't quite reach the leaves in the trees and wills his neck to lengthen. If you confuse this with natural selection, I can understand why you find evolution ridiculous. You are absolutely right that such willful changes don't happen and if they did, they would not be inherited.

 

Evolution works on populations. Those individuals within a population that are better adapted survive and breed those that aren't, don't. Any change in a poplation over time constitutes evolution. Given the right conditions, populations that are isolated for long enough could become a new species.

 

I am sorry if you are offended by the snip. I think this discussion is important and stimulating. We just need to respect the beliefs of others, especially the boys.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

While trying to cram an entire branch of science into a few lines of text is futile, I will answer this one:

 

However, as a layman, can you tell me in simple English how simplistic beings such as the early primates, realized that standing erect was something to aspire to?

 

Here's an experiment you can try:

 

Go into a meadow (or any grassy area that isn't mowed) with a friend. You are a primate; your friend is a large, carnivorous mammal. Both of you go down on all fours in the meadow; see how far away each of you can detect the other (keep in mind that the predator will probably be able to smell prey). Sight isn't too useful in tall grass if you're on all fours -- you will probably hear them before you see them. Stand up. Compare how far away you can detect large, carnivorous mammals now, while standing. Notice you can also carry food now.

 

Now, if you'll actually observe apes on this planet, you'll notice some of them normally walk on all fours but stop upright to look around.

[scomman]

I was just mentioning those books as a potetnial resource for people to check out. There are plenty of authors and scientists who come down on both sides of the debate. I take the stand that until we actually can prove the theory of Evoultion that is what it is a theory. I have seen to much and expiernced to much to believe that life came about because of chance.

 

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

 

 

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history

not the artifact of a poor fossil record. The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982) The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, p. 57

 

 

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Physiology

 

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160

 

"Man is not an ape, there is no evidence man came from ape." Austin H. Clark Chief Biologist at the Smithsonian Institute

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster, I am gonna take a shot at explaining "Adaptation". Bear with me as its been a few years since I read "Origin of Species".

 

This is purely a fictionally made up account of how I understand adaptation.

 

In a secluded area there may be a herd of antelope and a pride of lions. As the antelope are the lions prime food source, the slower antelopes fall prey easier than faster ones. Over time as the slower animals contribute less and less to the herd's gene pool.The average speed of the herd increase as only the fastest animals are around to breed. Each individual animal isnt thinking, gee, I got to make my child faster, the animals that are the fastest tend to live, mate with other fast antelope and have fast off spring. Being the fastest is an example of "Survival of the fittest

 

Now, of course the same thing may happen with the lions. Now that the Antelope are faster, its harder to catch them. Having a hide/skin color that best blends in with the native vegetation is an asset as it makes being spotted by the antelope harder. Over time having a lighter colored skin helps make the lion a more successful hunter. Over a period of years the prides hides lighten because its the most successful hunters that survive. The lions didnt learn it would be a good idea to have a lighten hide, the ones who had it were able to breed, the others didnt.

 

Now, antelope that have better eyesight than the norm are able to detect the lighten hided lions. As soon as they see them, they take off. Antelope that dont have as good eyesight get eaten. It could be the animals with the better eyesight arent as fast as the antelope they leave behind, but they get way first. Before, being the fastest was prized, now its having the most acute eyesight. Now, not being the fastest but having keen eyesight is an example of "Survival of the fittest".

 

Then the lions.... Ok, I think I can stop now. The animals didnt "learn" anything. The environment in which the animals lived dictated what chacteristics were neccessary to survive. The fastest antelope, and then the lighter hided lions and then the sharp eyesighted antelope were natrually selected for survival(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

I take the stand that until we actually can prove the theory of Evoultion that is what it is a theory.

 

"Theory" is as good as it gets in science. Nothing is ever proven in science, proofs only exist in formal systems like mathematics. And as I mentioned earlier, speciation has been observed.

 

Nobody can prove the theory of gravitation, either; it's still a theory that explains how masses interact (and Newton's theory wasn't quite right).

[firstpusk]

Scomman,

 

You are right, "There are plenty of authors and scientists who come down on both sides of the debate." Generally, the authors of questionable books come down on one side and the scientists the other. Very few trained scientists favor creationism. Such folks are anomalies.

 

As I said earlier, I am glad you are reading on the subject. If you care to broaden your choice of reading material on the subject, I can make some recommedations. I read both of the books you recommended years ago and found them seriously wanting. The arguments were weak, old and uninformed. Aging has not improved them.

 

You provide a few quotations in your latest post and they are even older than the books you cited. Belief in the Genesis account can be justified on the grounds of religious belief, not science. A few quotes strung together, don't refute the scientific evidence supporting the theory. You may take comfort in them, but they don't make the reality of evolution go away.

[Rooster7]

firstpusk,

 

Okay, perhaps evolution can be used as a model to explain why there are very few slow antelope (faster antelope avoided their prey and populated the gene pool) or why certain insects are green (green insects were able to avoid detection and fed the gene pool). I understand this point - "survival of the fittest". However, I don't think you're going to able use that argument to explain how sea creatures adapted to land, or how life spontaneously developed from non-living matter.

 

Belief in the Genesis account can be justified on the grounds of religious belief, not science.

 

If you're as well read as you seem to be, then you know this is not true. Or perhaps, you're simply choosing not to read the books that make strong arguments against your position. There are plenty of good scientists who support the "young earth" theory. Furthermore, much of science (regardless of position) is based on the faith and wills of the scientists as opposed to fact. They conduct a study. They make a declaration. They publish a paper. Then, once they have "gone public", they channel all of their energy and reasoning to support that declaration. They adapt the theory constantly to justify "anomalies" in order to maintain the integrity of the declaration. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the theory becomes so long as the outcome remains the same. A perfect analogy would be the Kennedy assassination. So-called ballistic experts will look you straight in the eye and describe a bullet that takes 90-degree turns in order to maintain the theory of a lone shooter. A quote in scomman's post put it best -

 

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160

 

A few quotes strung together, don't refute the scientific evidence supporting the theory. You may take comfort in them, but they don't make the reality of evolution go away.

 

I realize that you have already stated that you have a belief in God. I take you at your word. However, many folks who support the theory of evolution don't have any faith. In fact, by my reading (elsewhere, not in this thread), it appears to me that most evolutionists are on crusade to deny the existence of God. Ironically, my words to them would sound strangely familiar to you.

 

Poorly constructed theories such as evolution are vain attempts to deny the existence of God. You may take comfort in them, but they don't make the reality of God go away.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[fboisseau]

My belief is very simple. God decided to use evolution to achieve a goal, and with evolution and some hands on work at different points that goal was achieved. That goal was a thinking self-aware creature. This is no different then the process that is used to develop some neural chips. The chip designer sets up a situation that they want a chip to solve. They run chips through a series of test. The ones that do the best on the test survive and are breed together. The chip designer then can make modifications to the test or the chips when they deem it necessary. As to why God may have chosen this method to create us and the life around us, I do not know. As for creationist, that refuse to acknowledge what science has discovered and proven, why did God create that evidence.