toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[chair]

... the words of some bronze age goat herders ...

Hey! Those are my people you're talking about! What a great bunch of herdsmen they were too! More sheep than goats, as far as I can tell.

The Bible is a wonderful book, but I'll be the first to admit: My Bronze Age ancestors were not scientists, and they didn't write science texts.

 

[taikoo]

Hey! Those are my people you're talking about! What a great bunch of herdsmen they were too! More sheep than goats, as far as I can tell.

The Bible is a wonderful book, but I'll be the first to admit: My Bronze Age ancestors were not scientists, and they didn't write science texts.

Nothing wrong with the book, just the goat-heads who think they have inerrant translation ability and then take that off into the wild blue...

like the reformed baptist i ran across who is sure that all the excess "flood" water is now on Neptune, where is shines to this day as a warning beacon against incoming wayward angels.

to an outsider looking in at Christianity, it doesnt make a good advertisement someone in the faith presents that he must be near literally de-mented in order to be a christian.

I've read it thru twice, and read various passages a lot more than that.

Overall i think its way overrated, but it sure has some good stuff in there too.

 

[chair]

Nothing wrong with the book, just the goat-heads who think they have inerrant translation ability and then take that off into the wild blue...

like the reformed baptist i ran across who is sure that all the excess "flood" water is now on Neptune, where is shines to this day as a warning beacon against incoming wayward angels.

to an outsider looking in at Christianity, it doesnt make a good advertisement someone in the faith presents that he must be near literally de-mented in order to be a christian.

I've read it thru twice, and read various passages a lot more than that.

Overall i think its way overrated, but it sure has some good stuff in there too.

It's better in the original.
If you felt it was yours, part of your heritage, you might think better of it.

 

[taikoo]

It's better in the original.
If you felt it was yours, part of your heritage, you might think better of it.

Oh more than likely yes.

I dont get it how Caucasians decided to just adopt the whole thing as if it were their own heritage.

but you can see how, say, japanese dont connect like its their story.

 

[Flipper]

We are getting bogged down in the technical part without really getting to the heart of the issue and leaving me in a cloud of confusion. Lets cut to the chase. Why do you say that God could have created humans and chimps using genomes that are much less similar than 98%?

The question is "why are chimp and human genomes so similar, and why are all primate genomes (including chimp and human) more alike than they are when compared to mammal genomes? And why do the mammalian genomes share more similarity than, say, with fish or reptile genomes?" This is a required evolutionary prediction (and indeed turned out to be true) but it is not a requirement of design, particularly when considered with some of the other genetic markers that point towards evolution, such as the teleomere fusion event, the evidence of retroviruses, etc.

None of these make any sense in the light of the design paradigm, yet they have clear evolutionary explanation. The nested hierarchy of genetic differences and our knowledge and ability to track mutation events and viral pressure provide solid and consistent evidence of common descent. I have yet to see a creationist explanation that amounts to much more than handwaving in a way that violates Occam's razor.

 

[Cruciform]

Isn't that what the evolutionist argument always boils down to? Scripture can't be right -- we know better.

Not at all. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture one way or the other. Indeed, the modern "creationsist" argument assumes just the opposite: "evolution can't be right---we know better."



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[JoeyArnold]

Remember Charles Darwin on his death bed.

 

[taikoo]

Not at all. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture one way or the other. Indeed, the modern "creationsist" argument assumes just the opposite: "evolution can't be right---we know better."



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

zactly so.

A textbook example of projection, provided courtesy of the single eyed one.

and whatever belief in one's own infallibility is called.

 

[Alate_One]

We are getting bogged down in the technical part without really getting to the heart of the issue and leaving me in a cloud of confusion.

To be honest this isn't THAT technical. There's a ton of detail I am leaving out. Learning these processes is a normal part of the first few years of a biology major's education. Much (and in many cases all) of it is covered within the first semester.

Lets cut to the chase. Why do you say that God could have created humans and chimps using genomes that are much less similar than 98%?

Again, that goes back to the "technical stuff". Science has revealed enough about DNA to know that there are multiple ways to make the same structures and do the same processes.

There's no functional reason for the close similarity of organisms such as humans and chimps or whales and artiodactyls (hoofed mammals).

If God wanted to make the point to us that each creature was specially created individually, He could have. The possibilities we are left with is God either intentionally made creation look AS IF they originated in a continuous line of descent or He actually did create using evolution. It's up to you what to believe since those two options are not separable scientifically.

 

[Alate_One]

Remember Charles Darwin on his death bed.

That's a myth. Darwin never recanted anything.

 

[Alate_One]

I can't speak for Alate and Alate can correct me if I'm wrong, but Alate's point is that the exact same codons are used in the same place in many of proteins across species. The further apart the organisms are believed to be in evolutionary terms, the greater the difference in the proteins (and not necessarily differing codons for the same amino acid, but that's certainly a possibility). Furthering the point, God could have been more creative and even if He wanted to use the same enzymes or proteins, the DNA could be much more "creative" by using different codons for the individual amino acids than using the exact same sequences for proteins across species.

You hit the nail on the head, thanks.

 

[Ktoyou]

This seems to be a good thread with plenty of dialogue.

Do you believe in evolution? It is an idea one might believe in, yet acknowledge there are gaps, it is not a proven theory.

Do you believe in Jesus, one may believe in Jesus, but one may also know Jesus and it is the knowing, which matter most.

 

[Tyrathca]

To be honest this isn't THAT technical. There's a ton of detail I am leaving out. Learning these processes is a normal part of the first few years of a biology major's education. Much (and in many cases all) of it is covered within the first semester.

Even you are overstating how technical this is :chuckle:

The essentials of everything you and King have been teaching Volt are parts of my old highschool biology class curiculum. I would have been about 15 or 16 when this (and more) was taught to me. If distracted hormonal teenagers, at a catholic school no less, can grasp these concepts then surely it shouldn't be to hard for Volt (If he is willing to try... )

 

[Stripe]

Isn't that what the evolutionist argument always boils down to? Scripture can't be right -- we know better.

Pretty much.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Oh more than likely yes.

I dont get it how Caucasians decided to just adopt the whole thing as if it were their own heritage.

but you can see how, say, japanese dont connect like its their story.

Aren't you Chinese? What do you think of Shang Di?

 

[Alate_One]

Even you are overstating how technical this is :chuckle:

The essentials of everything you and King have been teaching Volt are parts of my old highschool biology class curiculum. I would have been about 15 or 16 when this (and more) was taught to me. If distracted hormonal teenagers, at a catholic school no less, can grasp these concepts then surely it shouldn't be to hard for Volt (If he is willing to try... )

Yeah we hit some transcription translation in my high school though we didn't talk about the redundancy of the genetic code in much detail or what proteins actually do.

I'm mostly talking about a non-majors biology class in college (like the one I usually teach). If we were talking about a majors biology course or genetics it would have a lot more depth to it.

 

[taikoo]

This seems to be a good thread with plenty of dialogue.

Do you believe in evolution? It is an idea one might believe in, yet acknowledge there are gaps, it is not a proven theory.

Do you believe in Jesus, one may believe in Jesus, but one may also know Jesus and it is the knowing, which matter most.

Keeping in mind that NO theory can EVER be proven, but they can be demonstrated far far beyond any reasonable doubt. Which is the case with the ToE.

Gaps? In a bridge, thats pretty bad, or gaps in teeth, maybe. There are many many gaps in the history of WW2.

Its not like those gaps call into question whether there was a war. or teeth.

no gap in the ToE is any more a reason to doubt the validity of the theory than gaps in the history of WW2.

 

[taikoo]

Aren't you Chinese? What do you think of Shang Di?

Old superstitions that people outgrew. Wouldnt you agree?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Old superstitions that people outgrew. Wouldnt you agree?

I can't say that I would. The parallels between YHWH and Shang Di are incredibly striking. Too much so for me to simply dismiss.

 

[taikoo]

I can't say that I would. The parallels between YHWH and Shang Di are incredibly striking.

I know not everyone has outgrown these things yet.

If you want to find "striking parallels" you always can.

Comparing Kennedy's death to Lincoln's gives you a host of weird coincidences. Some examples are:

Both Presidents were shot in the back of the head, on the Friday before a major holiday, while seated beside their wives, neither of whom were injured.

Both were in the presence of another couple, and in each case that man was also wounded by the assassin.

After both assassinations there were loud and insistent claims that the fatal shot must have come from a different direction.

Each President in his thirties married a socailly prominent twenty-four year old girl who spoke French fluently.

While in the White House, each President had a family of three children, and both lost a child through death.

Both Lincoln and Kennedy were second children.

Both had been boat captains.

Both were related to a U.S. Senator, Attorney General, ambassador to Great Britain, and the mayor of Boston.

Each had been elected to Congress in the year '47 and were vice-presidential runners-up in the year '56.

Each was elected president in '60.

Before each was elected, a sister died. Both had a friend named Billy Graham and knew an Adlai Stevenson.

President Kennedy had a secretary named Mrs. Lincoln and President Lincoln had a secretary named John Kennedy.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both were succeeded by vice-presidents named Johnson: Andrew born in 1808 and Lyndon in 1908, both of whom had 13 letters in their names and two daughters.

Both assassins have fifteen letters in their names.

Booth shot Lincoln in a theatre and fled to a warehouse. Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and fled to a theatre.

Both assassins were in their turn assassinated by shooters who used a Colt revolver and fired only one, fatal shot.

There are many more coincidences. But does any of this prove any connection whatever between the two murders? No, of course not. It just exemplifies the minor mysteries and ironies that surround any great public tragedy. But true believers see gathering unanswered questions as an end in itself, believing somehow that even if none of the anomalies implies anything, the sheer number they come up with must have some significance. But when you are adding zeroes, it does not matter how many you add, the sum is still zero.