Jump to content

Canadians divided over creation and evolution


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

Yes I would have.

Since you're so fond of links, why don't you go back to your wiki link and re-read this sentence a few times until it sinks in:

"Memeticists have not definitively empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism; they do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences."

So, do you have any ideas of your own, or am I to understand that you're here to cut and paste links and present them as arguments?

Ego is only an appearance, an illusion, a fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 857
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Belief in God requires belief in the eternal existence of God. God always was and always will be. This isn't a leap of faith by any standards. Scientists believed, before the Big Bang Theory (ie The beginning of the universe), that the universe has always existed.

Correct....a faith based belief system is hardly limited to the existence of "God". Cosmologists have unified theories about the origin of the universe with infinite mass and the smallest instance of time just to get their math to work out.

But they could be wrong.

So it will be difficult for the scientific community to criticize Christians' belief in an eternal God when they (scientists) believed until recently in an eternal universe. The difference is belief in an eternal God accounts for the Big Bang.

Without it, where is cause and effect?

People create and test faith systems every day.....from the outcome of hockey games to the recovery of a long lost child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. You put that into words better than I could have. I lose sight of my arguments when I get frustrated with ignorance.

:lol: It must be a perpetual frustration...you're living with it. No offense to your wife.

No. I think what's he's trying to say is that when Isaac Newton sat under the apple tree, he came up with a theory about gravity that, with emperical testing, withstood the rigours of the scientific method and became widely accepted. There was no "law" set forth from above---just a scientific theory that bears scrutiny.

Quite apart from the mutual admiration society that seems to be developing here, neither of you really has any idea what you're talking about.

I'm not sure whether you'll remember, I'm not sure how old you are....when I went to school, we learnt that Columbus discovered America. A few years later, we were told that he didn't "discover" America - air quotes abundant in every converstaion - because people were already there. Modern liberalism rears its ugly head. And now it appears we have another "duh" - don't you hate that expression -it's almost as irritating as the post-affirmative NOT. But I digress.

Because Newton noticed (was he really the first - that's unbelievable :lol: ) that apples fell to earth, it twigged on him that some force must have compelled that action - you know, cause and effect. I'll try a few experiments, he thought. He might have pushed a few sheep over a cliff, maybe he tried flying again - scientists in those days liked to try to fly - who knows. But we can be sure he thoroughly tested his theory to ensure there were no holes (just like Darwin would do many years later). We do know that soon he was convinced and went out and told his friends. Cool they said. And thanks Isaac - we were just about to be hurled off into space! So in the nick of time, Isaac "discovered" gravity. Or did he - you know it was actually already there.

Anyway there is a happy ending. Some of Isaac's friends were "scientists" and THEY decided to make it a law - the Law of Gravity. Isaac proved his theory, the scientists got their law and everyone lived happily ever after - pretty much anyway. BTW, where did that gravity come from, you know the force that keeps us in our exact position relative to the sun and keeps the moon and other stuff where it should be and my Masarati on the highway (well it would if I had one). Thank God for Isaac Newton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings me back to my original questions. If the Bible is not the literal truth, which has been shown by scientific advancement, then it must be interpreted to be understood. And if the Bible needs interpretation, whose interpretation of the Bible are we to believe?

Actually, this is your original question:

Let me ask you something. If science has shown that many parts of the Bible are not to be taken as literal truth because in fact they are plainly wrong, what part of the Bible can be taken as literally true? And if none of the Bible is literally true, then whose humanly interpretations are we to believe?

But to respond to your new question...

First of all who says the Bible is not literally true? Do they say the whole Bible is not literally true? Or what parts of the Bible are true or not literally true? I know of no one who says that all of the Bible is literally true.

I do know that there are many who believe that the Word of God, as expressed in the Bible - both Old and New Testament - is literally true.

What are your sources?

Furtrher, what scientific advancement are you talking about? At least, give examples of these proofs. Many scientists are beginning to realize the truth lies in the Bible. Because some disagree is hardly proof.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man. First off, Columbus "discovered" America for himself and his people. This is as true as it ever was, but it has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with this debate. It's just a matter of semantics.

Secondly, Newton didn't discover gravity, nor has anyone claimed he did. I'm sure the first neanderthal realized how the apple, when released from the tree, would fall to the ground. Newton was the first to describe universal gravitation and the three laws of motion (but that's not a "law" in a legal sense--it's just a well-tested theory). Basically, these were theories that the motion of objects on Earth and the motion of objects in space are governed by the same set of natural laws. For it to be a scientific theory that withstands the rigours of scientific scrutiny, he demonstrated the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation. This, of course, was all based on the "theory" that the earth actually rotates around the sun, which is contrary to what the bible teaches us.

Why is it that you get caught up in this Darwin versus Genesis argument when those two ideas are not particularly contradictory, but accept that the heliocentric model of the universe depicted in the bible is wrong?

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct....a faith based belief system is hardly limited to the existence of "God". Cosmologists have unified theories about the origin of the universe with infinite mass and the smallest instance of time just to get their math to work out.

But they could be wrong.

People create and test faith systems every day.....from the outcome of hockey games to the recovery of a long lost child.

Agreed. Faith is essential to the human condition. We haven't the capacity to know everything but we know things exists that we can't explain. In fact, life would be meaningless without faith. Christians know that and have a specific faith. And you're right. Others do have faith in other matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that you get caught up in this Darwin versus Genesis argument when those two ideas are not particularly contradictory, but accept that the heliocentric model of the universe depicted in the bible is wrong?

Do you mean you want me to accept that the geocentric model is wrong? I do. And of course it's not in the Bible.

It developed between the second and fourth centuries AD. most significantly through the influence of Greek philosophy on church leaders such as Origen and Augustine. But that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean you want me to accept that the geocentric model is wrong? I do. And of course it's not in the Bible.

Yes, silly me. Geocentric.

But cybercoma's post, which I so lavishly praised, presented a good argument that the bible indeed does propose a geocentric model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

betsy, stop trolling. I have already answered the questions you asked and have given clear examples. The only person that doesn't know what they're talking about in this thread is you. Many of the things you have posted are completely wrong. If you want to have a serious conversation, answer the question that I asked.

The Copernican Theory shows that the geocentric view posed by the Bible is false. Galileo, however, resolved this theory by saying the Bible does not explain nature literally. You agree that the Bible is not literal; therefore, it must be interpreted. Since human interpretation is necessary to understand the Bible, whose interpretation is the truth when there are contradictions? Furthermore, how can the Bible be considered a source of unquestionable knowledge when it's open to interpretation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

betsy, stop trolling. I have already answered the questions you asked and have given clear examples. The only person that doesn't know what they're talking about in this thread is you. Many of the things you have posted are completely wrong. If you want to have a serious conversation, answer the question that I asked.

The Copernican Theory shows that the geocentric view posed by the Bible is false. Galileo, however, resolved this theory by saying the Bible does not explain nature literally. You agree that the Bible is not literal; therefore, it must be interpreted. Since human interpretation is necessary to understand the Bible, whose interpretation is the truth when there are contradictions? Furthermore, how can the Bible be considered a source of unquestionable knowledge when it's open to interpretation?

Leap of faith is the best way to face the incompleteness found by Gödel in any logical reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the moment imagine that I don't care what you conclude about creationism (I really do care because I believe that finding the truth will be good for the path of your life)...but just imagine for the moment.

All that is expected of science is to admit when its theory falls through. Overwhelming evidence (including Scorpio, the fossil record), shows that Darwin was wrong. Period. Take it like a man. All we ask is that you come up with an alternative! Or not. But don't tell others they're wrong when the evidence against YOUR theories (evolutionism, darwinism etc..) support another point of view.

What are these scientists afraid of? Do they think others will expose the truth? Something they don't like?

Why do they want to hush up oppositions to their beliefs if they believe they're right?

This is just pure crap. The fossil record has not been overthrown, in fact, over the last thirty or forty years, the development of the twin-nest hierarchy has completely established Common Descent.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're probably just ignorant. I'll wager, even, that you have never even read anything by an actual biologist, let alone Darwin. But attacking Darwin is silly. Evolutionary theory was in its infancy in the 19th century. It has progressed significantly since then.

But hey, here's a challenge, go through the 29 points and show how its wrong, with full references to peer reviewed and primary literature.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Implausible is not the same as impossible. I'm not defending ID because I wholly agree that it is highly unlikely. I'm simply stating that evolution does not necessarily contradict creation. Something can be created then evolve, however unlikely that may be.

I didn't say it was impossible -- just improbable, because the expectations that first life were created by intelligent design leads to the expectation that evolution must have a pre-determined purpose or goals. This used to be a common assumption, even among evolutionary theorists, but the history of life on earth doesn't lead to a pattern that evolution has goals.

The other problem is that huge gap between the discovery of the first bacteria micro-fossils in some of the oldest rocks available, yet the first multicellular life forms don't appear for more than 2 billion years later. In the last few years, there has been a number of major breakthroughs in research on abiogenesis -- a field of research that had virtually stalled for decades, after the Miller-Urey experiments. It seems more likely that the explanatory gaps are more likely to be resolved, leading to a fully developed theory explaining how life can start through natural processes, than a god providing the spark for life, and then disappearing and letting nature take its course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just pure crap. The fossil record has not been overthrown, in fact, over the last thirty or forty years, the development of the twin-nest hierarchy has completely established Common Descent.

That could be why creationists want to spend all of their time talking about fossils. A missing link fossil like Tiktallic Rosae does not look like a missing link between fish and amphibians to the uneducated observer. It takes an expert to know what to look for and point out the significant features.

Many years ago, a creationist book given to me, had two drawings: one of an Australopithecine skull, the other one was a Chimpanzee skull. They looked similar, so the caption under the drawings asks why the Australopithecine skull should not be regarded as just another ape skull! Doing a little reading of my own down at the local library, I discovered that modern ape skulls have a gap for the spinal column located at the back of the skull; whereas a human has the gap at the base of the skull, because of the fact that we walk upright. So, guess where the gap was located on the Australopithecine skull? And that's why Louis Leakey and the other paleontologists who first discovered their fossilized remains knew that they walked upright. It's something that the non-expert wouldn't be aware of, and that's why creationists love to play around with fossils, rather than take on genetic and biochemical evidence that all living creatures on earth have a common ancestor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could be why creationists want to spend all of their time talking about fossils. A missing link fossil like Tiktallic Rosae does not look like a missing link between fish and amphibians to the uneducated observer. It takes an expert to know what to look for and point out the significant features.

Many years ago, a creationist book given to me, had two drawings: one of an Australopithecine skull, the other one was a Chimpanzee skull. They looked similar, so the caption under the drawings asks why the Australopithecine skull should not be regarded as just another ape skull! Doing a little reading of my own down at the local library, I discovered that modern ape skulls have a gap for the spinal column located at the back of the skull; whereas a human has the gap at the base of the skull, because of the fact that we walk upright. So, guess where the gap was located on the Australopithecine skull? And that's why Louis Leakey and the other paleontologists who first discovered their fossilized remains knew that they walked upright. It's something that the non-expert wouldn't be aware of, and that's why creationists love to play around with fossils, rather than take on genetic and biochemical evidence that all living creatures on earth have a common ancestor.

It is well established that human's big brain forces a premature birth on our species. It doesn't seem to me that biology has much to say to explain this extreme and specific neoteny. For psychoanalysis on the contrary, this neoteny is well explained by the unique challenge poses to human fetuses when they hear their mothers speak.

Edited by benny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is well established that human's big brain forces a premature birth on our species. It doesn't seem to me that biology has much to say to explain this extreme and specific neoteny. For psychoanalysis on the contrary, this neoteny is well explained by the unique challenge poses to human fetuses when they hear their mothers speak.

To my mind, the most key evidence for evolution now is the twin-nested hierarchy. We've known the fossil record indicated faunal succession even before Darwin's time. But the real key has come with the huge strides in molecular biology, which has allowed us to examine the genetic makeup of species both closely and distantly related. While it has moved some groups around a bit, for the most part, molecular data has confirmed the phylogenetic trees built up since Linnaeus's time.

When you have two independent lines of evidence that confirm each other, that's a very powerful argument that the theory your dealing with is legitimate and has explanatory power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is well established that human's big brain forces a premature birth on our species. It doesn't seem to me that biology has much to say to explain this extreme and specific neoteny. For psychoanalysis on the contrary, this neoteny is well explained by the unique challenge poses to human fetuses when they hear their mothers speak.
Which doesn't explain why a baby hearing its mother speak would provide a survival advantage over other offspring.

And it has been recognized that the growth of the human brain also has a high metabolic price tag accompanying it because of the increased need for protein and the demands put on the body's heating and cooling systems to keep everything optimal for this large brain. There is no definitive cost/benefit analysis yet that can explain exactly how it happened, but many published research papers like this one have noted that brain size has been growing in mammals in general already, even before humans arrived on the scene. In general, carnivores have larger brains than herbivores and scavenger, because hunting often requires stealth, planning and coordinated activity among group predators like dogs. Interesting side note that on average, the brain size of domestic dogs have decreased because they have gone from being a carnivore to becoming a scavenger dependent on humans for livelihood. So brain size does not have to increase; if environmental pressures turn the other way, brains can get smaller.

In humans, many researcher like the one above, propose that the growing complexity of human social groupings put more stress on cognitive ability, and that would have given more intelligent primitives advantages over their more dimwitted fellow travellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which doesn't explain why a baby hearing its mother speak would provide a survival advantage over other offspring.

And it has been recognized that the growth of the human brain also has a high metabolic price tag accompanying it because of the increased need for protein and the demands put on the body's heating and cooling systems to keep everything optimal for this large brain. There is no definitive cost/benefit analysis yet that can explain exactly how it happened, but many published research papers like this one have noted that brain size has been growing in mammals in general already, even before humans arrived on the scene.

To me, (anthropomorphic) concepts like "survival advantage" and "cost/benefit analysis" don't apply since hearing their mothers are traumatizing experiences for fetuses to a point where they risk the lives of their mothers by requiring too much sugar (for their own brains) from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything you ever wanted to know about evolution:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

Too bad the people that should go through that website won't.

(Human) Evolution is driven mainly by traumatic events. This is the reason why, before taking your precious time to listen to PBS videos, you should allocate some time to read: Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Lacan: But Were Afraid to Ask Hitchcock.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1vp_flyTr...esnum=4#PPP1,M1

Edited by benny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A coma is a worthless kind of sleep because, when someone experiments a nightmare inside a coma, s/he doesn't wake up. At the most significant level, a human being, compared to other animals, is a living being who "wakes up" when confronted to her/his sex drive.

Edited by benny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...