Originally posted by mmanuelHi mmanuel. To answer your question on behalf of Christianity. When scientists looked at the description of creation in the book of Genesis (using the original Hebrew), it describes the sequence of events God took. Asking the question today with our advanced science knowledge, the sequence of Genesis 1 is 100% correct and it goes further by saying that any change to the sequence of the 10 key events would not work.
It has as much credibility as Norse mythology, Native American mythology, Greek mythology, Roman mythology or religions such as Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam/Shintoism/Zoroastrianism/Mithraism.. owuld anyone like me to continue. How can Christianity claim to be the true creation theory[/b]
NO other religion's holy books gives a description that can be verified by science.
Originally posted by Reaper
Hi Cheshire Cat. Yes, you are refering to the peppered moth example. To take this a bit further, in this example (1850's) 98% moths in a village was white and 2% black. Birds could easily see and prey on the black moths. This was due to the trees that had white lichen covered bark. Polution eventually killed the lichen and the natural dark bark of the trees now made the white moths vulnerable. Within a few years 98% of the moth population was black. This is an example of microevolution. Adaption within a species. But genetic options within the species never changed, no new species macroevolved, it's still moths, they just adapted.
Maybe I am confused on the terminology. Does the definition for microevolution state that after the evolution there has to be a new species or is the species just changed? I was just pointing out that there is proof for microevolution, not that there is proof for macroevolution. Though, I also have to wonder how much a species has to microevolve before it is considered to have macroevolved.
On your last question, the reason why God did not "create" through macroevolution? God created by design. There is no way that all the things required for life (can I just add that ONLY to have life, there are 60 criteria - have you any idea of the probability that this will happen trhough evolution?) could actually happen through macroevolution. DNA shows it's not possible. God created seasons, systems, hierarchies so that "life" would be maintained in equilibrium. Just look at what happened to the people of Easter Island. Man would not be able to sustain life if God did not put the mechanics in place.
As to this part, I have to say that I thought that no one knew what happened to the people on Easter Island. Second, in a universe as vast as ours is supposed to be and in the amount of time that could have possibly gone by in that universe, a lot of things could conceivably happen. It would seem to me that , if there is a god and he is omniscient, he would have known exactly what would happen when he started events without having to set in place seasons, etc.
Originally posted by geniusAre you trying to say, that it has been proven that men once lived to hundreds of years old? Or, that god flooded the entire earth? What about that a "garden of Eden" existed? I would very much like to see this "proof." 😲
well, everything in the bible, save the first few chapters of genisis, have been proven to be true... problems with translations? well, the dead sea scrolls were extrairdinarilly accurate compared to recent translations.
mmanuel-you might not understand how people can belevie this stuff. personally, i can't understand why people cannot...
Hi belgianfreak. Thanks for your response. I want to respond to just some of your comments:
Originally posted by belgianfreak
What order did moses predict? - this one has left me a little confused.
Didn't he say "let there be light" before the sun or moon or start were created?
OK, it is important here to refer to the original Hebrew, because the English translation cause some confusion. For example, Genesis 1:16 (day 4) might imply that the sun and moon were created after the formation of plants. The Hebrew verb and tense correctly indicates the sun and moon "became visible" at the surface of the earth on day 4 (but were previously created.)
The order:
1. Heavenly bodies (Gen1:1) - The initial conditions on earth as describes in the Bible (Dark, formless and void) are accepted by science.
2. "Let there be light" (Gen1:3) - Atmosphere became translucent to allow some light - critical pre-requisite for life, process of photosynthesis.
3. Development of hyderologic cycle (Gen1:6) - Perfect condictions of temprature, pressure, distance from the sun allows all forms of water (ice, liquid and vapour all required for life).
4. Formation of land and sea (Gen1:9,10) - 30% of surface is land and this happens to be the ideal ration to promote complexity of life.
5. Creation of vegatation (Gen1:11) - light, water and carbon dioxide set stage for vegetation, the first life form.
6. Atmosphere transparancy (Gen1:14) - Plants start to produce oxygen to a level of 21%. This, and other factors, caused a transparent atmosphere to form and permitted "lights in heavens" to become visible at the surface, making day and night and seasons.
7. Small sea animals and birds (Gen1:20)
8. Land animals (Gen1:24)
9. Man (Gen1:26)
10 No additional creation (Gen2:2) - No unique creation has occured since.
Originally posted by belgianfreak
What order did he predict that was so amazing?
Well 1. The fact that Moses knew which 10 events were required, and 2 to place them in absolutely the correct sequence, with no "science" at his disposal. And let me just state again, Moses wrote Genesis under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by belgianfreak
The argument that "satan has won a great battle by getting Evolution taught in schools" is IMHO a cheep one.
Well, I want to know how it happened that in the West we all jumped right into the "Evolution" train, when the theory was full of holes to start off with. Also, when you occupy a position (Creation), why suddenly change to the opposite position (evolution) based on only a theory? Why don't we get press when macroevolution and it's allie, carbon dating, gets disproved, why is there no review of what we teach children in school?
Originally posted by belgianfreak
Check out the circular argument for evolution... Carbon dating (and the other radiation dating methods) were set by what we know. eg. we 'know' that this dinasaur bone must be 5,000,000 years old, therefore this radiation reading is from 5,000,000 years of decay. To then say that we know evolution to be true because radiation dating shows tat the bone is 5,000,000 years old is silly. A quote from a leading archeologist was "if radiation dating agrees with what we think, we quote it in the paper. If it;s close, we'll add it as a foot note. If it's way off, we ignore it".
All I can say is halleluja!
Originally posted by Cheshire CatYes, microevolution says that the adaption within a species stays with that species. So there is no new species. When does this happen? My guess is that DNA will show the proof.
Maybe I am confused on the terminology. Does the definition for microevolution state that after the evolution there has to be a new species or is the species just changed? I was just pointing out that there is proof for microevolution, not that there is proof for macroevolution. Though, I also have to wonder how much a species has to microevolve before it is considered to have macroevolved.
Originally posted by Cheshire CatOK you mention a few things here.
Are you trying to say, that it has been proven that men once lived to hundreds of years old? Or, that god flooded the entire earth? What about that a "garden of Eden" existed? I would very much like to see this "proof." 😲
1. Age: I'm not sure how this will be proven.
2. Noah's Flood: How about flooding the known world?
3. Garden of Eden: Well the Bible says in Gen1:24"After he drove the man (Adam) out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim (A type of angel) and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." From this I will say that we will never find it.
Originally posted by Reaper
2. Noah's Flood: How about flooding the known world?
What do you mean by this?
3. Garden of Eden: Well the Bible says in Gen1:24"After he drove the man (Adam) out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim (A type of angel) and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." From this I will say that we will never find it.
This means that not everything in the first few chapters of the bible have been proven; which is what I was pointing out. 😵
Originally posted by Jay Peatea1. an aspect of the usual concept of God is that God is not the effect of any cause: God is usually taken to have existed forever, or to be self-creating, or outside of time, or a combination of these. if something created god, then he would not be god, but whatever created him would be a candidate...
1) How did god come to be created ?
2) How does the evolution theory work right at the start of the beginning of the universe ?
2. the theory of evolution applies to the changing of one species into another - Darwin pointed out that this happens through natural selection. in the beginning of the universe, there was no life, hence no evolution.
Originally posted by dfm65
1. an aspect of the usual concept of God is that God is not the effect of any cause: God is usually taken to have existed forever, or to be self-creating, or outside of time, or a combination of these. if something created god, then he would not be god, but whatever created him would be a candidate...
Just pointing out that this is a completely illogical concept. 😀
2. the theory of evolution applies to the changing of one species into another - Darwin pointed out that this happens through natural selection. in the beginning of the universe, there was no life, hence no evolution.
Does the theory of evolution only apply to "life"? 😀
Originally posted by Reaper
Hi ivanhoe. Can I just ask you, when you say you believe in evolution, do you mean micro or macro?
Hi Reaper,
I don't recall saying I "believe" in evolution.
I said I accept the scientific theorie (!) of evolution.
I can't see why it would contradict anything that has been written in the Bible. As I mentioned before I do not regard the Bible as a biology book .When I want to find out something about God or the relationship between God and man or the relationship between me and my neighbour and the way God wants us to see this, I'll have a look in the Bible . When I want to learn about biology I'm gonna read a biology book. A lot of people believe that science and religion are incompatible, especially the True Believers on either side. True science and true religion share a common goal namely to find out what is true and what is false. They can have different stances on various subjects, but that does not mean that they are basically incompatible. From this misunderstanding stems that other misunderstanding that all religion is irrational. Not all religion is irrational ... and not all science is rational.
About your question: I'm willing to believe whatever is true. Remember the Evolution Theorie is a scientific theorie, not a God given dogma, nor a Rationalist given dogma.
So, in principal the issue is a scientific one, not a theological one.
That's why I stated earlyer that this (American) discussion is a politicised discussion between political left and political right and that casts a shadow over the real issue at stake. That is a pity for both true science and true religion.
IvanH.
Originally posted by Cheshire Cat1. what is a completely illogical concept?
Originally posted by dfm65
[b]1. an aspect of the usual concept of God is that God is not the effect of any cause: God is usually taken to have existed forever, or to be self-creating, or outside of time, or a combination of these. if something created god, then he would not be god, but whatever created him would be a candidate...
Just po ...[text shortened]... as no life, hence no evolution. [/b]
Does the theory of evolution only apply to "life"? 😀[/b]
2. yes. the theory of evolution only applies to life. that is what it is about. what else do you suggest it is about?
Originally posted by dfm65
1. What is a completely illogical concept?
The completely illogical concept is that anything could exist without a cause such as growth or evolution or creation.
2. Yes, the theory of evolution only applies to life. that is what it is about. What else do you suggest it is about?
I do not suggest that it is about anything else. I just want to point out that, if the big bang did occur, then the theory of gasses turning into solids by fusion and thus creating planets and starts would be an interesting example of evolution.
[b][Evolutionists] theorise that some input of energy like radiation could change DNA sufficiently to cause a series of favourable mutations to allow simpler live-forms to become more complex ones. And further that these mutations were passed on to offspring. Unfortunately, microbiology now proves that this is not possible.[\b]
This is flat wrong. Microbiology has not shown that macroevolution is impossible. Please refer me to a peer reviewed scientific journal that has published an article proving that macroevolution is impossible. At the very least, summarize how microbiology has allegedly done this.
Originally posted by ReaperThis is flat wrong. Carbon dating does not presuppose the theory of evolution. It does presuppose other physical theory dealing with rates of decay of radioactive materials. Carbon-14 decays at a particular rate, and through measuring the amount of C-14 in a sample (along with an estimate of how much was there to begin with), one can roughly calculate an object's age. Of course, the estimates of the amount of C-14 are crucial, but since the appearance of C-14 in masses of carbon has been found to be constant (to a high degree of statistical significance), and since it is fairly rudimentary chemistry to find out how much carbon exists in parts of animal bodies, it is neither particularly complex not circular to use such estimates to calculate age. Creationists seem to think that if a scientific theory presupposes the truth of ANY other scientific theory, then it is circular. This, of course, is fallacious.
Check out the circular argument for evolution... Carbon dating (and the other radiation dating methods) were set by what we know. eg. we 'know' that this dinasaur bone must be 5,000,000 years old, therefore this radiation reading is from 5,000,000 years of decay. To then say that we know evolution to be true because radiation dating shows tat the bone is 5, ...[text shortened]... in the paper. If it;s close, we'll add it as a foot note. If it's way off, we ignore it".