Challeng for anti-Evolutionists

[SpidermanTuba]

Actually, chimps, our closest cousins, are the only mammals other than us who kill their own kind.

That's not true. Dogs kill other dogs. But in the normal course of things - they don't. So you're mostly right.

 

[Hobbit]

That's not true. Dogs kill other dogs. But in the normal course of things - they don't. So you're mostly right.

Nah, that was a myth. Mammals kill each other over territory and mates all the time.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Nah, that was a myth. Mammals kill each other over territory and mates all the time.

That's what I thought. I just couldn't think of any other examples.

 

[MissileMan]

Nah, that was a myth. Mammals kill each other over territory and mates all the time.

And they also kill to remove rival genes from the pool.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Then you haven't met my cat or my dog.

I suppose next you'll tell us animals don't use tools and don't have emotions.

No, but they lack the cognitive faculties to engage in the premeditated slaughter of other members of their species.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So when I distill your answer, you basically say that you wish to avoid the question.
Actually, when you take a look at the CULTURE it was written in, it makes perfect sense as to why the dark deep waters precede God’s creation.

As to your REAL question, I’ll give you the REAL answer:
The CULTURE that these people were from as they were writing Genesis, would come naturally pretty close to getting the correct order in which things were “created” or “evolved”: take a look at the status of sophistication of the different organisms in nature, and you will understand why this is so. However, for you to assume that the order corresponds with that in the evolution hypothesis, is a mistake.

It is commonly understood that sea creatures – as life first started in the oceans – were the first to come into existence. This was followed by the conquering of the land, by simple plants and insects. Actually, land animals, from insects to amphibians to reptiles, were then followed by birds, then only did the plants with flowering capacity arrive on the scene, and finally mammals and amongst them, man.

GENESIS----vs-----EVOLUTION
Land---------------Land
Plants-------------Sea creatures
Sea creatures------Plants
Birds---------------Land animals
Land animals-------Birds
Mammals-----------Mammals
Man----------------Man

In short the answer is thus: They didn’t. Next question.

NOW, now, now...the culture at the time would need to be known in detail, not to mention an ability to speak the language fluently even to the point of understanding idioms. For example, filipinos dont know why "right off the bat" means what it means. Americans do. By stating that you nor I have enough ability with our current knowledge to really understand the exact language of the passages, is not avoiding the question.

Now, as for you to say since they could perceive the complexity of the higher up animals on the "evolutionary" scale, hence they could understand the order of creation, is nonsense. At that time, the idea that the more complex developed later was as remote as space travel. They didnt have any of our sciences, biology, medical, anthropology, etc, etc.

THey would have had to be guessing.

Regarding your order of creation in the evolutionary process, I have heard otherwise. The non seed bearing plants were here before the animals. Many animals and sea creatures rely on plant material for their food.

Next question.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No, but they lack the cognitive faculties to engage in the premeditated slaughter of other members of their species.

That's not true.

They're just not as good at it as we are.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by LuvRPgrl:
NOW, now, now...the culture at the time would need to be known in detail, not to mention an ability to speak the language fluently even to the point of understanding idioms. For example, filipinos dont know why "right off the bat" means what it means. Americans do. By stating that you nor I have enough ability with our current knowledge to really understand the exact language of the passages, is not avoiding the question.

By stating that you do not understand the language you provide information.
By stating I do not understand the language you are making an assumption.
I speak three languages fluently, and keep on learning new idioms continuously (there are many of them) - and whereas I do not speak nor read Arameic or whatever the Bible was originally written in, I can read and comprehend the translations.

That is exactly what my original question is aimed at: in my view, the majority of Christians have no clue as to what the Bible is actually saying - therefore they go to church every sunday to listen to some priest pondering the book's meaning - thus they are stuck in circular reasoning.

When basically, it is not all that hard if you're prepared to look at the book beyond the box; i.e. the confines of the walls of the church. That is the one thing I find most frustrating about such discussions as this: I try to provide you with an alternative view, to get you thinking, yet you strike out from the confines of your mental cage and stay put, avoiding or ignoring for fear of some future pain when you find yourself on uncharted mental territory. And instead of admitting defeat, the christian smirks.

If you are afraid of a different reality, just say so. Don't wiggle around the subject and change topics. I've answered your question, and you try and keep me in your line of thought by ignoring and ridiculing my statements. Another example you fail to grasp the Bible's verses full intent. Get out of your box and grasp the bigger picture, that's my advice to you.

Originally posted by LuvRPgrl:Now, as for you to say since they could perceive the complexity of the higher up animals on the "evolutionary" scale, hence they could understand the order of creation, is nonsense. At that time, the idea that the more complex developed later was as remote as space travel. They didnt have any of our sciences, biology, medical, anthropology, etc, etc.

What makes you think you are so much more intelligent than the people that lived in Jesus' age? Whether you believe in evolution or creation, your statement shows sheer ignorance on the matter of both subjects.

Man is unchanged from either Adam and Eve, or from the Homo sapiens sapiens onwards. Can you grasp the similarity here?

That means man's mental capacity has been exactly the same all these years. We are all humans. Idiots and geniuses alike, have been on the planet since the dawn of man.

Obviously they didn't know that DNA was the source of variation or the clay of God; but these people could percieve nature in much the similar way as we do today. Technologically we have grown, but you need only take a look around you to see that is the only aspect of humanity that has seen a significant improvement.

Learn to be humble; it is the road to wisdom.

Originally posted by LuvRPgrl:
THey would have had to be guessing.

Yes, they would have.
At least they were wise enough to take an educated guess, instead of assuming that everything and everyone before them was less intelligent than they were. I guess they were the same as you and me, only living in a completely different age, lacking technology.

Originally posted by LuvRPgrl:
Regarding your order of creation in the evolutionary process, I have heard otherwise. The non seed bearing plants were here before the animals. Many animals and sea creatures rely on plant material for their food.

You have misread my post; on purpose it seems.
I have taken over your order of creation; in evolution there is a little more detail in the animal kingdom than "sea creature" for example.
Sea creatures encompass plants and animals: algae, crustaceans, mammals, reptiles, fish and whatnot. Instead of going into a discussion regarding the fine detail I thought it better to play along your lines.
Non seed bearing plants according to evolution did not arrive before the animals. Actually, the first stages of evolution were a shared experience; between blue algae and carnivorous amoebe: all single cell organisms that depended on either sunlight or other organisms for nutrition.

When you define a plant as a multicellular organism, I have to disappoint you. The first real multicellular organism was an animal instead of a plant.
As for a missing link: sponges were the first multicellular organisms. They filter organic waste from the water and can be quite big. However, they are not a real multicellular organism, but rather a colonial lifeform, that can still be broken down into loose cells that can live independently of one another.

Your love for the fine detail of my post has conveniently missed the other changes I've made to your order of creation however. A bit of selective reading problems? Or selective answering mayhaps?

Birds arrived after the land animals; be it mammals or reptiles.
According to Genesis however, they arrived before the land animals.
Care to comment in round two?

Originally posted by LuvRPgrl:
Next question.

You still haven't solved my previous one; about the WATER.
And now you've got an extra one to solve as well. Good luck.

 

[Powerman]

So has anyone proved this yet?

 

[8236]

I was being sarcastic. I can't think of any rational reason why a perfect God would want to create an imperfect group of beings to watch over and why he would want to send a great majority of them to burn in hell for eternity. This guy sounds like an asshole to me.

i'll second that

 

[LuvRPgrl]

First you say this:

By stating that you do not understand the language you provide information.
By stating I do not understand the language you are making an assumption. .

Then you say this:

When basically, it is not all that hard if you're prepared to look at the book beyond the box; i.e. the confines of the walls of the church. That is the one thing I find most frustrating about such discussions as this: I try to provide you with an alternative view, to get you thinking, yet you strike out from the confines of your mental cage and stay put, avoiding or ignoring for fear of some future pain when you find yourself on uncharted mental territory. And instead of admitting defeat, the christian smirks..

Now, who is making the assumption???

By your statements, you show you have no clue who I am, or what Im about. You have judged me based on past experiences of your own, which have nothing to do with me. Sorry, such people have no credibility with me whatsoever.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah you do. If there is nothing, that means there is nothing. No matter, no laws, no ideas, no concepts, no nothing. There is the absence of existence. If there is nothing, only God, concepts like evil and good don't exist unless God creates them. Get it now?

hahahhahah, going back re reading this thread.

You just dont understand the simple concept. God created an enviorment where one of his creations can create evil, doesnt mean God created that evil.

Creating the potential for something is not the same as creating it.

SCE generates electricity. Electric shocks kill people. SCE is creating the potential for someone to shock themselves to death, but they are not creating the death or the shock.

BUt you will never understand that, because you are hell bent on some fascination that God is responsable for all that you dont like. Get over it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But the fact remains that there would never have been evil if God had not created the potential for it by creating the tree and putting the serpent in the garden to tempt man..

For anyone who may still be interested in this.

Im not gonna waste my time getting into it with mr, "this is how it is, and there is no other way"

But, the line of reasoning above reminds me of people placing "false guilt" on themselves. This is how it works.

I send my son to the store to buy some milk. He gets in an accident on the way and dies. I blame myself for his death.

But then you have to ask yourself the question, is it possible that many times before I may have sent him somewhere, and had I not, he would have died? Suppose I told him to take me somewhere, and if I hadnt, he would have wound up in an accident and died? How would we know? Fact is, we are only responsable for certain things, and God is NOT responsable for the evil WE DO.

I've got another one for you. If we are made in God's image, wouldn't it stand to reason that God is both good and evil just like we are? .

Gee, and this is coming from the mouth of someone who claims to be able to understand the language the Bible was originally written in?

Well, predestination is a fact if you believe that God is omnipotent. If God is all knowing and "timeless" or "infinite" as some of you have put it in other posts, God knows every fact about your life from its beginning to its end. He couldn't know these things unless your life is predetermined. The "free will" that we think we have is an illusion created by our inability to see our own futures.

God can travel in time. He can go into the future, see what we are gonna do, and then we do it, BY FREE WILL. God transcends our logic, our logic dictates we shouldnt even exist, so logic is not the end all of knowledge.

 

[Annie]

By stating that you do not understand the language you provide information.
By stating I do not understand the language you are making an assumption.
I speak three languages fluently, and keep on learning new idioms continuously (there are many of them) - and whereas I do not speak nor read Arameic or whatever the Bible was originally written in, I can read and comprehend the translations.

That is exactly what my original question is aimed at: in my view, the majority of Christians have no clue as to what the Bible is actually saying - therefore they go to church every sunday to listen to some priest pondering the book's meaning - thus they are stuck in circular reasoning.

Your basis on knowing anything is what? Why do you think all are more susceptiple/gullible to what you are trying to argue? And on what criteria are you superior?

When basically, it is not all that hard if you're prepared to look at the book beyond the box; i.e. the confines of the walls of the church. That is the one thing I find most frustrating about such discussions as this: I try to provide you with an alternative view, to get you thinking, yet you strike out from the confines of your mental cage and stay put, avoiding or ignoring for fear of some future pain when you find yourself on uncharted mental territory. And instead of admitting defeat, the christian smirks.

and somehow it never reaches the tween synapses that you fail to connect your attempts with success? You fail. It's not so much a failure of others to think 'outside the box' as a failure on your part to make a point with rationale discussion. You are all about 'tear down' with little or no substance.

If you are afraid of a different reality, just say so. Don't wiggle around the subject and change topics. I've answered your question,

Where?

and you try and keep me in your line of thought by ignoring and ridiculing my statements. Another example you fail to grasp the Bible's verses full intent. Get out of your box and grasp the bigger picture, that's my advice to you.

Your theology degree is from where? At what level? You are beyond fraud.

What makes you think you are so much more intelligent than the people that lived in Jesus' age? Whether you believe in evolution or creation, your statement shows sheer ignorance on the matter of both subjects.

You will not find me 'sticking up for Luv' I find him tedious and bellicose, but then again, so are you. I've seen no evidence that you are more intelligent or authoratative than he.

Man is unchanged from either Adam and Eve, or from the Homo sapiens sapiens onwards. Can you grasp the similarity here?

Condescension anyone?

That means man's mental capacity has been exactly the same all these years. We are all humans. Idiots and geniuses alike, have been on the planet since the dawn of man.

Obviously they didn't know that DNA was the source of variation or the clay of God; but these people could percieve nature in much the similar way as we do today. Technologically we have grown, but you need only take a look around you to see that is the only aspect of humanity that has seen a significant improvement.

Really? I don't think so. In actuality it could be argued that since those times, man has increasingly found reasons not to take 'what has gone before' expanding rapidly.

Learn to be humble; it is the road to wisdom.

Good advice, heed it.

Yes, they would have.
At least they were wise enough to take an educated guess, instead of assuming that everything and everyone before them was less intelligent than they were. I guess they were the same as you and me, only living in a completely different age, lacking technology.

I think not so much, at least for your take. Those that 'went before' not only lacked technology, but also a 'world view' that truly became apparent only in the 20th C.

You have misread my post; on purpose it seems.
I have taken over your order of creation; in evolution there is a little more detail in the animal kingdom than "sea creature" for example.
Sea creatures encompass plants and animals: algae, crustaceans, mammals, reptiles, fish and whatnot. Instead of going into a discussion regarding the fine detail I thought it better to play along your lines.
Non seed bearing plants according to evolution did not arrive before the animals. Actually, the first stages of evolution were a shared experience; between blue algae and carnivorous amoebe: all single cell organisms that depended on either sunlight or other organisms for nutrition.

When you define a plant as a multicellular organism, I have to disappoint you. The first real multicellular organism was an animal instead of a plant.
As for a missing link: sponges were the first multicellular organisms. They filter organic waste from the water and can be quite big. However, they are not a real multicellular organism, but rather a colonial lifeform, that can still be broken down into loose cells that can live independently of one another.

Your love for the fine detail of my post has conveniently missed the other changes I've made to your order of creation however. A bit of selective reading problems? Or selective answering mayhaps?

Birds arrived after the land animals; be it mammals or reptiles.
According to Genesis however, they arrived before the land animals.
Care to comment in round two?

NOW you want to get into details. You gave that up long ago.

You still haven't solved my previous one; about the WATER.
And now you've got an extra one to solve as well. Good luck.

Trojan arguement.

For one of the few times, I'll admit to not reading through a post I'm responding to, for the simple reason that I do read through the posts. In this case, the beginning was enough.

You are tying the Catholic Church; i.e., 'the church'; priests; with what you are saying. Wrong on many points. I'll deal with only the later of what I'm posting about.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Bellicose?? I've been called alot of thing, but that!

Well, in regards to his process of evolution, his presentation is only one of many, many competing theories on the stages of the process. The evolutionists cant even agree amongst themselves what the exact order was "suppose" to be.

and funny, he claims land animals came before seedless plants, yet when I debated one evolutionist, I asked how flowering plants could have come before insects, he claimed, oh, the order was non seed bearing plants, then animals, the seed bearing plants evolved from the non seed bearing ones. I guess which time line they use, depends on which one will fit the needed arguement.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

another thing I have often wondered about, if there is no Creator, how some animals could have "certain" knowledge. Like, birds flying south for the winter. I mean, how the hell would they know when and where to go, time after time, salmon going back upstream,

or, in essence, their "instincts". Instincts, it seems to me, are the programming a Creator, put into the brains.

As for haggy's babble rabble, its one of those oft employed techniques by liberals, they answer a simple question with a long and "seemingly" complex answer, which, in itself, has so many errors, you never wind up back on the original subject.

Example, I asked how it is evil came about if evolution was suppose to breed in superior traits, he goes on a side track of how our superior communication is what sets us apart, but it never answers the original question.

In his own mind that makes him a superior debater, but in debate school, they would knock you points for "evading" the topic, unsucessfully.

Unfortunately, forums like this, dont handle those situations very well, and alas, many of his rants have to go unanswered, which he takes as , not having an answer, and thus he goes into his bathroom and declares himself a winner in the mirror, and awards himself some trophy, (maybe taking a shower or something),,,,

 

[Mariner]

The theory of evolution makes sense of a vast array of facts. It connects fossil findings to geology to astronomical findings. It connects us to all other living things. It's breathtaking and beautiful, to those who can let themselves follow its logic. Has anyone here actually read Darwin? He's profoundly convincing, simply on the basis of observations of the natural world--and he wrote before we understood Mendelian genetics or knew what DNA was.

Despite my easy acceptance of the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for hundreds of thousands of known phenomena, I do also think I understand why so many Christians find the idea upsetting. It's not just that it contradicts the Bible, taken literally (there are so many scientific contradictions in the Bible that only the most ardent fundamentalist could argue that it represents scientific truth). The real problem, I think, is that Christian morality is built on the idea that we are created in God's image. That suggests that we're not supposed to change, and that we couldn't have come from previous creatures who didn't look like us.

Evolution therefore threatens the origin of Christian ethics, leading to a terrible fear that there would be no grounding for right and wrong.

But there are other foundations for ethics, people. Buddhist ethics depend on respect for "all sentient beings," and have no trouble with evolution. Atheist ethics, such as those of Albert Camus, are grounded in simply human decency in the face of the absurdity of life (an absurdity that appears when you live with an idea of God).

As for us being created in God's image--well even that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutinty. Each one of us has, on average, 300 unique mutations. We're all mutants, i.e. not just simple combinations of half-mom and half-dad. These mutations bring us disease at times. At other times they have no effect. And at other times, they might increase our survival advantage, and thereby get passed along to our children. Thus is evolution working, with the birth of each new baby, whether we like it or not. The genetic pool now is different from that in Christ's day--we've evolved since then, and will continue to do so.

Mariner.

P.S. Why is it so hard to accept the evolution of a cell, or of an instinct like a salmon homing in on its birth stream? Cells are simply globules of fat. Fats naturally form such bubbles when mixed with water, just as amino acids naturally form when common chemicals are exposed to conditions typical of the early earth. Salmon have an acute sense of smell, and can smell the stream of their origin. Also, why is it so hard to accept that complexity can arise from simplicity? When a river flows downstream and forms eddies, a complex shape (a spiral) has been formed from a linear flow. In the same way, complexity can "arise" out of simple things. Fractal geometry, for example, creates enormous complexity from simply repeated rules--and plants and animals make frequent use of this, e.g. zebra stripes, or lung architecture. Ever noticed how a microscopic view of a kidney or lung looks exactly like a sky-high view of a river? Perhaps the very same nature, self-organizing processes are at work.

 

[Gunny]

The theory of evolution makes sense of a vast array of facts. It connects fossil findings to geology to astronomical findings. It connects us to all other living things. It's breathtaking and beautiful, to those who can let themselves follow its logic. Has anyone here actually read Darwin? He's profoundly convincing, simply on the basis of observations of the natural world--and he wrote before we understood Mendelian genetics or knew what DNA was.

Despite my easy acceptance of the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for hundreds of thousands of known phenomena, I do also think I understand why so many Christians find the idea upsetting. It's not just that it contradicts the Bible, taken literally (there are so many scientific contradictions in the Bible that only the most ardent fundamentalist could argue that it represents scientific truth). The real problem, I think, is that Christian morality is built on the idea that we are created in God's image. That suggests that we're not supposed to change, and that we couldn't have come from previous creatures who didn't look like us.

Evolution therefore threatens the origin of Christian ethics, leading to a terrible fear that there would be no grounding for right and wrong.

Oh, here's a new one.

But there are other foundations for ethics, people. Buddhist ethics depend on respect for "all sentient beings," and have no trouble with evolution. Atheist ethics, such as those of Albert Camus, are grounded in simply human decency in the face of the absurdity of life (an absurdity that appears when you live with an idea of God).

There is no such thing as "simple human decency. We learn our values from the society that rears us.

As for us being created in God's image--well even that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutinty. Each one of us has, on average, 300 unique mutations. We're all mutants, i.e. not just simple combinations of half-mom and half-dad. These mutations bring us disease at times. At other times they have no effect. And at other times, they might increase our survival advantage, and thereby get passed along to our children. Thus is evolution working, with the birth of each new baby, whether we like it or not. The genetic pool now is different from that in Christ's day--we've evolved since then, and will continue to do so.

You're being too literal, and basing your argument on assumption that fear of not being exactly like God is what drives Christians to argue against the theory of origin suggested by evolution. There aren't many Christians I know of who argue that Man's observation of his environment is what man labels as science. It's when science denies what it cannot explain that the argument begins.

Science can NOT prove, supported by evidence, how life originated anymore than Judeo-Christianity can; therefore, Judeo-Christian belief on the origin of life can NOT be disproven by science.

You eggheads need to stick to your worshipping the test tube and allow Christians the same without all the pseudo-intellectual, dishonest crapola arguments that in the end are founded on GUESSWORK.
Mariner.

P.S. Why is it so hard to accept the evolution of a cell, or of an instinct like a salmon homing in on its birth stream? Cells are simply globules of fat. Fats naturally form such bubbles when mixed with water, just as amino acids naturally form when common chemicals are exposed to conditions typical of the early earth. Salmon have an acute sense of smell, and can smell the stream of their origin. Also, why is it so hard to accept that complexity can arise from simplicity? When a river flows downstream and forms eddies, a complex shape (a spiral) has been formed from a linear flow. In the same way, complexity can "arise" out of simple things. Fractal geometry, for example, creates enormous complexity from simply repeated rules--and plants and animals make frequent use of this, e.g. zebra stripes, or lung architecture. Ever noticed how a microscopic view of a kidney or lung looks exactly like a sky-high view of a river? Perhaps the very same nature, self-organizing processes are at work.

xx

 

[Mariner]

Science can't "prove" anything. It's all theory. But it seems that most people are pretty willing to accept scientific theory when it suits them. Computers, for example, use millions of transistors, every one of which works only because of "quantum tunnelling," which is the very counterintuitive idea that something can pass through a solid wall and appear on the other side. Quantum mechanics is FAR more weird to me than evolution--yet Christians don't go around railing against it.

Or take the TV set, which depends on the bending of space and time, i.e. relativity, equally counterintuitive. Yet Christians watch this theoretical TV.

Evolution is about as well-established as a scientific theory can be. The evidence, for anyone who actually looks, is overwhelming. It happens every day in the hospital, when mutant strains of bacteria overwhelm our newest antibiotics. It happens, as I mentioned above, with every human birth.

Calling me an "egghead" won't make you right. It just makes you a name-caller.

I guess one of the great appeals of Christianity, as is so clear in your responses to my post, is that it provides wonderful certainty in the face of the apparent absurdity of life. It must feel great to wake up in the morning KNOWING exactly what is right and wrong. If that works for you, great. But it doesn't make evolution wrong. It just makes you happy.

Mariner.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Science can't "prove" anything. It's all theory. But it seems that most people are pretty willing to accept scientific theory when it suits them. Computers, for example, use millions of transistors, every one of which works only because of "quantum tunnelling," which is the very counterintuitive idea that something can pass through a solid wall and appear on the other side. Quantum mechanics is FAR more weird to me than evolution--yet Christians don't go around railing against it.

Or take the TV set, which depends on the bending of space and time, i.e. relativity, equally counterintuitive. Yet Christians watch this theoretical TV.

Evolution is about as well-established as a scientific theory can be. The evidence, for anyone who actually looks, is overwhelming. It happens every day in the hospital, when mutant strains of bacteria overwhelm our newest antibiotics. It happens, as I mentioned above, with every human birth.

Calling me an "egghead" won't make you right. It just makes you a name-caller.

I guess one of the great appeals of Christianity, as is so clear in your responses to my post, is that it provides wonderful certainty in the face of the apparent absurdity of life. It must feel great to wake up in the morning KNOWING exactly what is right and wrong. If that works for you, great. But it doesn't make evolution wrong. It just makes you happy.

Mariner.

Well said, well said indeed.