A question about Adam and Eve.

[rez]

Quote by: Chimera I didn't say the word could not be applied. I said they were not synonyms....Which they aren't. This is a fact you seem to still be having trouble with.

What is your point then?

More evidence of you generalizing. Phoenix doesn't believe in macro-evolution, but I do. You instantly applied it to every Christian. And then spelled their wrong. Concession accepted.

I guess faith and beliefs does not make EVERY Christian dishonest and ignorant. However, it does make many Christians dishonest and ignorant. If what I say does not apply to you as a Christian, then do not worry about it.

It certainly is a joke that you have to defend this Bronze Age belief that man was poofed into existence by the magic of some god though. I guess it comes with the package of being a Christian follower. Oh well I guess....

[phoenix_fire]

I'm just not convinced that it's the best explanation. Here is a pretty interesting article on the subject: Catholic Culture : Library : The Genesis Controversy

which says that science itself is dismantling the idea of macroevolution. It is from a Catholic source, granted, but it makes some good and well supported points. I especially like the bit about eyes. This is a pretty good excerpt too:

Since the fossil record gives no evidence of the gradual transformation of species, the only other place to look is breeding experiments. But here the evidence also goes against Darwin. Breeders can change the color of a pigeon or the size of a cow to some degree, but they can only go so far. In fact, all breeders have the same experience: if they try to go too far in one direction, the animal or plant in question either becomes sterile or reverts back to type. The most famous breeder of all, Luther Burbank, found no evidence of the unlimited plasticity of species which Darwin’s theory demands and posited a Law of Reversion to Average. The late Richard Goldschmidt, a leading geneticist who taught at Berkeley, spent years observing the mutations of fruit flies and concluded that biologists had to give up Darwin’s idea that an accumulation of micro changes creates new species. If you have a ‘thousand point’ mutation in a fruitfly - a statistical impossibility - it is still a fruitfly.

It's not a matter of superstition. As a matter of fact, and I've said it before, if evolution were proven tomorrow, it wouldn't damage my faith a bit. But I'm skeptical of the mechanism on mundane principles.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I'm just not convinced that it's the best explanation.

Give me a better one.

Since the fossil record gives no evidence of the gradual transformation of species

Damn man...no evidence whatsoever? Absolutely none? I always thought lying was a sin...I guess not. How ignorant can you be? At the very least say you don't find the evidence convincing. There is plenty of evidence.




This is a matter of common sense.

If you take one small step, and keep taking that one small step for a long time, then you reach a totally different spot that you started out.

The same goes for life. If a horse was born with a trait like a long neck, and it just so happened it was a trait that helped it survive, and if that trait was passed on to its offspring...and if this occurred for a long time..then what do you think would happen to that species? Don't you think it would turn out that most of that species would produce offspring with long necks? Which would be a totally different trait then what it started out with?

[nerdvincent]

-We've found interspecies fossils.
-The original evolution theory has been improved many time.
-The eye evolution story has been cited in many threads, and is no more a mystery in scientific world. Dot.
-Breeding experiment gave support to Darwin even before he was born.
-Proving evolution is bullshit would just lead to make another scientific theory, fitting with every experiments. Christian creationism don't, so forget about it. There is more than two sides fighting, so evolution losing desn't mean bible win, it means bible will fight against another stronger theory.

Your site is very partial. It slowly goes, in a not-that-subtile way, from "some scientific say.." to ''...forget about it and let pray!". The "Let common sense prevails" part is especially funny. It shows all the "we told you so, now shut up" side of clericalism.

[phoenix_fire]

Rez: Could you knock off the bigotry, mmmk? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're ignorant. It just means they disagree. If you have an issue with the source, direct it at the source: don't call me a liar. The source, should you care to read it, gives several illustrations on this point. If you would like to talk about them, then let's have an intelligent discourse about them instead of just bleating out hateful tripe.

if they try to go too far in one direction, the animal or plant in question either becomes sterile or reverts back to type.

People have attempted to artificially create macroevolution in the lab. To be perfectly honest, I think the above explanation is far more credible and experimentally supported than the idea that a new species eventually poofed into existence.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: nerdvincent -We've found interspecies fossils. -The original evolution theory has been improved many time. -The eye evolution story has been cited in many threads, and is no more a mystery in scientific world. Dot. -Breeding experiment gave support to Darwin even before he was born. -Proving evolution is bullshit would just lead to make another scientific theory, fitting with every experiments. Christian creationism don't, so forget about it. There is more than two sides fighting, so evolution losing desn't mean bible win, it means bible will fight against another stronger theory. Your site is very partial. It slowly goes, in a not-that-subtile way, from "some scientific say.." to ''...forget about it and let pray!". The "Let common sense prevails" part is especially funny. It shows all the "we told you so, now shut up" side of clericalism.

A lot of these so-called "missing links", however, have been proven to be less than legitimate, either by unintentional mixing at burial sites or by outright and premeditated fraud.

It has been changed, but I rather think that it is beating a dead horse.

Do you have a different explanation for the eye?

Breeding supports microevolution. As demonstrated previously, it runs into problems with macroevolution.

As I've said before, I don't believe evolution and Christianity to be mutually exclusive. I'm all for bringing on a different theory. I have a scientific curiosity in this matter. The new theory wouldn't change my mind either. But for a lot of scientists who want to be taken seriously, evolution has become a dogma, a doctrine in the church of "intellectual honesty" to which one has to ascribe to be a member of the club. Kinda like how anime fans have to hate English dubs to be taken seriously as a member of the community. You guys have a whole lot more emotion invested in it than I do.

I've already mentioned the partiality of the site, so don't act like I was trying to hide it. Interestingly, though, when proposing something different from the dogmatic idols of science, serious scientific dissenters often have to find alternate channels to get a hearing. For many scientists, saying that evolution is not all that plausible is like saying the earth is flat. But I think it is the nature of science to scrutinize and test and trial-by-fire theories like evolution. Do you not welcome the accountability?

[nerdvincent]

As a [future] scientist, I'm all open to new theory, that's how we progress (and how I can get a job...). But as I said this new theory, if a new theory emmerge, will not be founded on Bible (zen! breath and repeat...).
For the eye: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes evolution became rather like a password to be "on the cool side" than a theory. It's the same for E=mc², an expression you have to yell to feel intelligent. Or like Hendrix and Picasso for guitar and painting.
But from now on, evolution held water enough to stay on the path. There is some problems? It's part of science, the fundment of it. But give us a little time to solve them before screaming "Science failed! Let's pray God for our disbelief now." (don't take the previous sentence literally, it's my way to express my ideas)

[phoenix_fire]

I'm not saying at all that science failed. As I've said, as far as my faith is concerned, it's a non-issue. I just have a genuine interest in it. I'm not afraid that science will disprove what I believe. I think that eventually, it should back it up. If I didn't, it wouldn't be much of a belief, would it? I don't expect that any future theory would incorporate my beliefs as authoritative. But it's like the example before where strictly evolutionary sources still bore out the idea of two original ancestors.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Rez: Could you knock off the bigotry, mmmk? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're ignorant. It just means they disagree. If you have an issue with the source, direct it at the source: don't call me a liar. The source, should you care to read it, gives several illustrations on this point. If you would like to talk about them, then let's have an intelligent discourse about them instead of just bleating out hateful tripe.

Sorry, but the source is a complete lie when it says there is no evidence. You just so happen to follow that source. To say there is no evidence would be a lie.

People have attempted to artificially create macroevolution in the lab. To be perfectly honest, I think the above explanation is far more credible and experimentally supported than the idea that a new species eventually poofed into existence.

Where did you read anything just poofing into existence? Please address the actual argument...

If you can't understand macroevolution, then you can't understand microevolution. They work hand in hand.. They are basically the same thing! It is just that one focuses on what happens in the short period of time and the other focuses on the longer period of time.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rez Sorry, but the source is a complete lie when it says there is no evidence. You just so happen to follow that source. To say there is no evidence would be a lie. Where did you read anything just poofing into existence? Please address the actual argument... If you can't understand macroevolution, then you can't understand microevolution. They work hand in hand.. They are basically the same thing! It is just that one focuses on what happens in the short period of time and the other focuses on the longer period of time.

I did address the argument. I do not like repeating myself.

I understand macroevolution. I just think it's wrong. Geez. I can't stand it when people assume that if you disagree with them, you just don't understand the question. Sheesh. The article stated, and I agree, that there is only so much elasticity in the potential for change in creatures. As it says, eventually you will either cease to have a viable creature, or it will revert to the original form.

[freefallife]

Quote by: Chimera Well who else would decide who's right about the Bible besides the person that judges whether or not you go to heaven? It doesn't require an explanation or evidence. It's common sense. Use critical thinking.

I didn't ask who decided which interpretation was right, I asked WHO gave YOU the right to REinterpret the bible?? There are currently over 30,000 different interpretations...WHO gave Christians the right to change the meaning of the bible so many times?? Provide biblical support that this was an option.

1. Speaking of the two as mutually exclusive, Science CANNOT provide valid evidence to disprove God and Christianity can't provide valid evidence to prove God. How are they not equal? 2. If the world's greatest atheist scientist can't disprove the existence of God, how do you expect the world's greatest religious scientist? 3. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Luckily, one does not have to disprove that which has never been proven to begin with. Science wins. It can provide evidence for its conclusions. Religion can not. Simple as that.

In your opinion, many disagree.

Now you're saying that the bible was NOT meant to be historicly accurate?? Please. christians constantly point out the historical accuracy of the bible to support it as factual.

1. As I said, the Bible is a book of spiritual truth, of course it's quoted. Matthew used the situations to compare to the coming of Christ. I'm sorry but that's far from anything you're trying to prove.In Hebrews you have examples of faith ALL used to make a point. Every example you've provided are all used as exactly how I said to take the Bible. A book of spiritual truth.

The prophets took the bible literaly. Why is it that YOU shouldn't?? You have yet to provide any real support that it should be otherwise.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says "Take all of this literally". It doesn't exist. By the very fact that it is NOT there, I am free to interpret it as I will because I am given free will.

And there it is, one of the weakest arguments in history. Easily parried with the fact that NOWHERE in the bible does it say NOT to take it literaly!! And yet it's full of examples from Jesus and the prophets that DID take it literaly.

You're falling back. Answer my Shakespeare question.

What utter nonsence. I didn't answer the Shakespeare question because its idiotic. But if you insist.

You want to compare the interpretations of fictional plays (Shakespeare), to the bible (a book of truth)?!?!? Ok, well, if you concede that the bible is nothing but a creation of fiction, I will concede that you are free to reinterpret it any way you choose.

Or answer all of my questions. You're ignoring so many parts of my post it's not even funny.

I only omitted the statements that were rebutals to quotes not made by me.

By your words, they could potentially have atheist followers, or other religious followers as well.Without the followers being exclusively Christian, your point is moot, due to the fat that it applies across a broad spectrum of belief systems.

Let's examine that. My point was that there are christians living today that adhere to flat-earth, young-earth or geo-centicism. Just because those organisations MAY have followers of differing beliefs does not invalidate MY claim that there are SOME christians TODAY that hold those beliefs. My point stands solid.

Well, as one supporting science so, it's contradictory to say that considering that the scientific method should test EVERYTHING and assume NOTHING. So does God, your argument is dumb.

You can't expect the argument; "I can do this 'cause it doesn't say I CANT" to be taken seriously. I respond with the fact that it doesn't say you can AND provide evidence. How is that contradictory to the scientific method? Im providing EVIDENCE for my conclusion, while you're just stomping your feet. You need to abandon the childish "It doesn't say I can't" arguments.

[loser]

I agree that the opening post is not a good argument. It is more of troll post to get theists up in arms to try and defend this Bronze Age belief that humans came from a supernatural creature that magically poofed them into existence. I honestly would have never thought that humans would still be so silly enough to think thats how life evolves.

It doesn't matter whether you start with God or you start with nothing, the fact is that life has 'magically' poofed into existence. When science can explain how life has always been here (eternal) with no beginning nor end OR how life (something) came from nothing, these arguments are moot. To suggest that God as an explanation (a starting point) is silly while something from nothing is not is...well, silly indeed.

Life hasn't evolved and it's not evolving. Before the dumbing down of the human race, this was universal knowledge. The Bronze Age brain had not yet deteriorated to the present degenerate and diminished capacity.

The only mystery about religion is why people continue to believe in something so outdated and useless for the 21st century.

Truth has a way of remaining long after all of the deception has exhausted. It would only be a mystery if the beliefs were wrong. It makes perfect sense that the beliefs remain when they are based on fact. I doubt that truth will ever be useless.

It certainly is a joke that you have to defend this Bronze Age belief that man was poofed into existence by the magic of some god though. I guess it comes with the package of being a Christian follower. Oh well I guess....

What is YOUR magic poof made out of? You're so disgruntled by Christianity that you can't see how totally ridiculous your counter claims/explanations are. Think a bit and get back to me. How is your poof more legit than mine?

Give me a better one.

You can't understand. God is a concept that you can't fathom.

This is a matter of common sense. If you take one small step, and keep taking that one small step for a long time, then you reach a totally different spot that you started out.

Or...you walk in circles and wind up EXACTLY where you started. This is not circular logic. After all, do straight lines even exist? I don't think so. There's too much curvature in the universe.

The same goes for life. If a horse was born with a trait like a long neck, and it just so happened it was a trait that helped it survive, and if that trait was passed on to its offspring...and if this occurred for a long time..then what do you think would happen to that species? Don't you think it would turn out that most of that species would produce offspring with long necks? Which would be a totally different trait then what it started out with?

That's totally ridiculous and life doesn't exist that way. If it did, all life would be asexual. Humans would be bullet-proof and chickens wouldn't taste so good. Frogs wouldn't bump their ass when they jump.

There's no evidence to support natural selection. Instead, all of the evidence is contrary. Extinction of species is an example. Deformations, retardations, and other defects are more proofs that the species are not getting fitter. After all, your long-necked dinosaurs didn't make it, did they? What happened to all of their evolutionary advantages?

I admit that I am genetically superior to my father. I am taller, bigger (in all the ways that count), and smarter. I've already had more children than him (four to his three). However, my grandfather's prowess and virility was legendary...and I don't think that I will be able to match his output of 18 children.

At least there's no homosexual genes in my family...though I do own a Tommy Hilfiger shirt.

No, evolution is the mule of science...it's going nowhere.

Here's a theory (or a as yet undiscovered law) for you:

God is all energy in existence. All matter in the universe (and beyond) was created from this energy source called God. God is eternal because destroyed matter reverts to energy...they remain constant. All matter is a result of applied energy.

My God is not religious fiction, He is scientific fact...and a lot more capable than chance.

[Athena]

Quote by: Chimera If they were proven true....They wouldn't be much of a mystery...... Even if all religion was completely false, I see no reason why the morals it teaches would be useless.... I didn't say the word could not be applied. I said they were not synonyms....Which they aren't. This is a fact you seem to still be having trouble with. More evidence of you generalizing. Phoenix doesn't believe in macro-evolution, but I do. You instantly applied it to every Christian. And then spelled their wrong. Concession accepted.

How about the morality of treating others differently, such as the Hebrews were not to eat food when it could contanimated, but they could give it to someone who isn't Hebrew. Only Hebrews can not be slaves, because of their special relationship with God, but they can own slaves and pass them on to their children. How about a different justice for slaves than for free people, a justice that treats them more like animals? How about having kings and slaves instead of democracy and equality? How about beleiving you can know God's will and do whatever you want on earth, because God ordained it? How about believing that whatever you do is okay, because your God will take care of you as long as you worship him, and this includes killing everyone, every man, woman and children with the misfortune of being on land you want? How about thinking you have a God given duty to make everyone believe as you do, and destroying people's cultures and way of life, such as was done to indiginous people wherever Christianity goes?

Some of us believe the bible teaches wrongly, and a point by point response that makes all these wrongs rights, would be good debating.

Isn't the big disagreement, how things happen? Do things happen because of cause and effect, or do they happen by a God's whim, depending on if He is pleased or not? How we live really depends on how we answer this question, and I think science has proven our lives are much better if we rely on science, verses thinking everything is God's will or caused by Satan and demons. I would not want to return to the witch hunts and division of power during this non scientific period in our history.

[Jack]

You can't understand. God is a concept that you can't fathom.

Then what good is it? Of what benefit is the Bible if it only illustrates the impossibility of conceiving god? How does this superiority fit into the gospel message? Wouldn't Jesus' life be a complete waste of time if people couldn't fathom the god he supposedly brought to mankind?

There's no evidence to support natural selection. Instead, all of the evidence is contrary.

And Christians accuse us of being close-minded. To what do you credit antibiotics, an act of god?

The golden age of antibiotics proved to be a short-lived one. During the past few decades, many strains of bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics. An example of this is Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the bacteria that causes gonorrhea, shown at right. In the 1960s penicillin and ampicillin were able to control most cases of gonorrhea. Today, more than 24 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in the U.S. are resistant to at least one antibiotic, and 98 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in Southeast Asia are resistant to penicillin.1 Infectious bacteria are much harder to control than their predecessors were ten or twenty years ago. Doctors miss the “good old days,” when the antibiotics they prescribed consistently cured their patients. However, evolutionary theory suggests some specific tactics to help slow the rate at which bacteria become resistant to our drugs.

Relevance of Evolution: Antibiotic Resistance

[Athena]

Since the fossil record gives no evidence of the gradual transformation of species, the only other place to look is breeding experiments

Without question, we can know life forms, depend on the evolution of earth before it could exist, and that when conditions change, those life forms that can not adjust to the change die, while the life forms that can adjust will thrive.

We know without question that dinosaurs existed and the bible makes no mention of them.

We can be confident that the biblical explanation of life is not scientific. Things do not come into being by the will of God. They come into being through a process. Before there could be oxygen breathing animals, there had to be plants to produce the oxygen, and deforesting the earth causes a lot of damage, and can result in the destruction of life. Understanding science is vital to our existence, and fighting science is not real smart.

This does not mean there is no God. It only means God does not do things the way the bible says God does things.

If everyone would just be okay with a God beyond our comprehension, and the other group would make peace with science, than we could use our mental powers to resolve urgent earth problems and stop wasting our minds and energy. People are dying, animals are becoming extinct, we have real problems to resolve, and God is not going to send angels, or birds, or His son to save our sorry asses. It is up to us to identify the cause and effect of these things and make the right choices. It is up to us to understand the laws of nature and nature's God.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I did address the argument. I do not like repeating myself. I understand macroevolution. I just think it's wrong. Geez. I can't stand it when people assume that if you disagree with them, you just don't understand the question. Sheesh. The article stated, and I agree, that there is only so much elasticity in the potential for change in creatures. As it says, eventually you will either cease to have a viable creature, or it will revert to the original form.

And again. If you understand microevolution then you can't think macroevolution is wrong.

it doesn't make sense to think that microevolution actually works, but macroevolution doesn't...

[phoenix_fire]

I don't think you understand what microevolution is.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I don't think you understand what microevolution is.

"Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population"

Not hard to understand at all. even you agree with that definition...

But for some strange reason, you can't accept macroevolution. Which incorporates that definition of microevolution, however, Macroevolution, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species.

Now if you think Microevolution occurs, and if you know that time is real, then you would think macroevolution occurs. Because when these small micro changes occur over a long period of time a whole new species is created...

Now, please tell me how you can accept Microevolution but deny Macro...

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Isherwood Adam was created, according to Genesis, on the 6th day. Some theologians maintain Adam was 800 years old when he died. So that would mean he lived from year 0 (or rather 1 since zero hadn't yet been invented) to year 800, minus 6 days.

The theologians are wrong. The account says the following: "Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." The 800 years is the 800 years after he fathered Seth at age 130.

[Foxfyre]

I take my cue from Anna who patiently explained to the Kind of Siam that those who wrote the Bible were not men of science but people of faith. Since the story itself would not have been written down until at least the invention of writing (and more likely no earlier than 900 or so BC), there would not have been anybody in the Garden taking notes leaving a lot of room for speculation by future historians.

Most modern theologians take Genesis 2 as allegory--not untrue but an illustrative explanation of how things came about. The story of Adam and Eve and their progeny was a theological explanation of the 'why' of things showing that God was the author of everything and also offering an explanation of how, through human disobedience, sin was introduced into the world. The subsequent stories of Cain and Abel, the Tower of Babel, and eventually the Flood story further illustrated how sin spread into family, then the culture, and then throughout the world.

In short God was the author of a perfect Creation that we screwed up and He takes care of us anyway.