11 Sep 07
Originally posted by ahosyneyWasn't everybody vegetarian in the Garden Of Eden?
[b]Some think that the appendix hold a minor role in supporting the immune system, but, a more likely explanation is that it is an evolutionary digestic tract hold over from when our diets consisted a significant quantity of roots, grasses and berries.
Is this a fact or your own conclusion. What evidences support this claim? When were humans eating roots, grasses, and berries?[/b]
11 Sep 07
Originally posted by telerionBut if God created using evolution as a tool for such creation, then defending an evolutionary hypothesis about the original purpose of that particular organ is in order.
Of course I agree, but I think your question distracts from the thread. The central point of the OP is to challenge creationists to give a reasonable explaination for why we have vestigials, not to defend an evolutionary hypothesis about the original purpose of that particular organ.
11 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeySure, but then why didn't ahosyney write that he thought vestigials existed because God created via evolution? Why did he respond to a question about creationism by stating suspicion about one evolutionary hypothesis?
But if God created using evolution as a tool for such creation, then defending an evolutionary hypothesis about the original purpose of that particular organ is in order.
Answer: Ahosyney is just dodging the OP's question.
But we can clear this matter up easily enough.
Do you, whodey, and you, ahosyney, think we find vestigials throughout the animal kingdom because evolution did occur on a mass level over long periods of time and these vestigials are transitory "leftovers" from a time/environment where the vestigial played a critical role to the species survival?
If so, then please respond, "Yes," and elaborate.
If not, then please respond, "No," and elaborate.
Either way, let's quit playing games.
11 Sep 07
Originally posted by ahosyneyThat is how the Garden of Eden is described in the story. The Garden is a place where only plants are eaten.
I don't know , do you?
"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, where-in there is life, I have given every green herb for meat; and it was so."
Gen 1:29-30
11 Sep 07
Originally posted by telerionI don't know if you know !!! I'm a Muslim, I don't believe in everything in Genesis.
That is how the Garden of Eden is described in the story. The Garden is a place where only plants are eaten.
"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to e ...[text shortened]... where-in there is life, I have given every green herb for meat; and it was so."
Gen 1:29-30
11 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI apologize, but I didn't mean to do that.
Sure, but then why didn't ahosyney write that he thought vestigials existed because God created via evolution? Why did he respond to a question about creationism by stating suspicion about one evolutionary hypothesis?
Answer: Ahosyney is just dodging the OP's question.
But we can clear this matter up easily enough.
Do you, whodey, and you, f not, then please respond, "No," and elaborate.
Either way, let's quit playing games.
But I (and I think any one believe in GOD) faced many objections when I try to present something (of course regarding my faith) without a strong or clear evidence. So I excpect the one who objects on me to follow the approach he wanted me to follow. That is all?
Do you, whodey, and you, ahosyney, think we find vestigials throughout the animal kingdom because evolution did occur on a mass level over long periods of time and these vestigials are transitory "leftovers" from a time/environment where the vestigial played a critical role to the species survival?
If evolution is proven to be the only valid explaination to the existance of vestigials then I will agree, and my answer is yes. But can you say that?
I said it before I have no problem with evolution if it is proven to be true because it doesn't contradect my faith.
I'm not an expert in biology (actually I didn't like it when I was in high school) so I can't judge it.
I apologize again , and thank you for you patient
!!!
Salam
11 Sep 07
Why does someone even try to have an argument creationism/evolutionism?
There's no logic in religion or in what the Bible/Coran says. It is simply taken as an anquestioned truth. Therefore any argument against what a religious man says eventually end up here (what the Books say), at a final instance. Or he denies is belief or he denies scientific reasoning. Both can't coexist. Both are not right. There's no concililiation possible.
It's very succint.
11 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyNo worries.
I apologize, but I didn't mean to do that.
But I (and I think any one believe in GOD) faced many objections when I try to present something (of course regarding my faith) without a strong or clear evidence. So I excpect the one who objects on me to follow the approach he wanted me to follow. That is all?
[b]Do you, whodey, and you, ahosyney, think we ) so I can't judge it.
I apologize again , and thank you for you patient
!!!
Salam[/b]
Evolution has been essentially proven within the context of natural explainations*. Once you allow supernatural explainations "proof" goes out the window. Why? Because a sufficiently elastic supernatural hypothesis is always consistent with any empirical observation. The world could look the way it does because Yahweh made it so. Or it could be because Allah made it so. Or it could be that Loki made it so and then tried to trick us into thinking Yahweh or Allah made it so. There's no way to distinguish between these (and infinitely other) supernatural possibilities.
So if you wish to allow for supernatural explainations, I'm afraid the proof you require will never be supplied by evolution or anything else.
* - As with all natural things you can't prove anything with absolute certainty. Evolution has been proven as well as gravitational theory (perhaps even more actually), germ theory, atomic theory, and many other major theories that a central to our understanding of the world.
11 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionYes, it seems that vestigals are transitory "lefovers" from an evolutionary process. Am I 100% sure, no, and neither are you but it appears to be the case.
Do you, whodey, and you, ahosyney, think we find vestigials throughout the animal kingdom because evolution did occur on a mass level over long periods of time and these vestigials are transitory "leftovers" from a time/environment where the vestigial played a critical role to the species survival?
If so, then please respond, "Yes," and elaborate.
If not, then please respond, "No," and elaborate.
Either way, let's quit playing games.[/b]
I view the Creation of man occuring in two phases. The first phase was forming the physical aspect of mankind from other biological organisms. The last phase occured when God breathed life into man thus seperating mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom. I will even use Genesis to back what I am saying!!
In Genesis 1:26 it says that God will make man in God's image and likeness and in the following verse it says that God created mankind in his image. The verbs make and create are both used, and so, it appears that both making and creating were involved in the appearance of mankind as we know him today. In both Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19 we can plainly see that God formed both man and beast from the dust of the ground thus common decent can be inferred. In fact, we can see a process for God's creation as he starts in the oceans and then moves to dry ground which is the evolutionary pattern seen in science. Notice also in Genesis 1:11 we see God speaking to the earth to bring forth grass and in in 1:20 he speaks to the waters to bring forth moving creatures in the sea and in the air and then progressed to larger animals in the oceans in 1:21 to whales. Then in Genesis 1:24 God commands the earth to bring forth animals on dry land.
First of all, why does he speak to the earth and the waters, etc, to create? Why not just zap them out of thin air? It appears that God was simply using the materials on earth already created as he progressed even further to his masterpiece which was mankind. Then when he achieves the physical masterpiece seen in Genesis 2:7 we see God breath life, or in Hebrew "neshamah" or "soul life" into mankind and then he was done. Creation, of which the goal was mankind, was completed and then God "rested". A better way of saying it is that he was finished.
You may say that I am simply taking my current knowledge of scientific facts and applying them to what I read in Genesis. However, ancient scholars of Genesis came to similar conclusions. A man by the name of Nahmanides who lived from CE 1194-1270 wrote in his "Commentary on Genesis" that he believed Genesis to be saying that every material thing that was eventually to exist was derived from what was created in the first instant of creation. Perhaps this instant is what we know as the Big Bang today? In fact, he also wrote that in the first seconds of the universe that he believed that ALL matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place which was no larger than a grain of mustard and then it expanded into our known universe. So tell me, how does one living from the years 1194-1270 have such scientific insight derived from the book of Genesis?
Another ancient scholar by the name of Maimonides (1135-1204) wrote in "The Guide for the Perplexed that in the time of Adam there coexisted animals that appeared as humans in shape and also in intellegence but lacked the "image" that makes man uniquely different from other animals, being as the "image" of God. Nahmanides wrote something similar in that he viewed mankind as having come about in stages. The first stage was the force that produced growth "like that of a plant" from the dust of the earth. Then with further Divine input, man was able to move, first as the fish and then as the land animals. Nahamanides continues by saying that animals that became man had both the physical structure and the power perception of a human. Only when this was accomplished was the spirit of God, or neshamah, breathed into him. The neshamah, placed into mankind by God, was the last act in the making and the creating of mankind according to Nahmanides.
What I do know is that there is a huge difference between mankind and the rest of the animal world. Is it genetics? Are we not very similar to monkeys genetically? Yet we are very different indeed! However, this problem is for the atheist, not the person of faith.
11 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoWhy must scientific discovery and ones faith be at odds? How are they mutually exclusive?
Why does someone even try to have an argument creationism/evolutionism?
There's no logic in religion or in what the Bible/Coran says. It is simply taken as an anquestioned truth. Therefore any argument against what a religious man says eventually end up here (what the Books say), at a final instance. Or he denies is belief or he denies scientific reasoning ...[text shortened]... h can't coexist. Both are not right. There's no concililiation possible.
It's very succint.
Really, you might say that the atheist view of how life began is the most at odds with science. For example, how does one get life from nonlife? Name one example. Name one experiment. You can't yet this is what we are expected to believe. I don't have such faith!!
11 Sep 07
2 edits
I view the Creation of man occuring in two phases. The first phase was forming the physical aspect of mankind from other biological organisms. The last phase occured when God breathed life into man thus seperating mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom. I will even use Genesis to back what I am saying!!
If you want to justify your beliefs to some one who believes Genesis has authority in these matters (e.g. many Christians), then it makes sense to back up your claims with Bible passages. However, since I'm an atheist it really isn't necessary to show me how you read Genesis. To me, that book is a collection of stories which have no bearing on scientific origins.
What I do know is that there is a huge difference between mankind and the rest of the animal world. Is it genetics? Are we not very similar to monkeys genetically? Yet we are very different indeed! However, this problem is for the atheist, not the person of faith.
I don't see how this is a problem at all. We are fairly different from monkeys (our closest relatives are actually apes). Apes like orangutans and chimps have outstanding mental faculties. More and more studies are finding that they share our "human" qualities. Other studies are finding how we are different. What parts of our brain development have led us to learning so much faster and to accumulating sophisticated technology. Much of it suggests that our more advanced language capabilities allow us to communicate about objects and ideas that are not physically present. This permits us to share and store far more information. As for the startling difference in technology now, that's just a matter of continued technological growth over time. Once the we have an advantage, the interrelated nature of technology causes that advantage grow. That growth brings proportionally more growth so that our advantage increases at a greater rate. Give that about 1,000,000 years and we have cars and computers while chimps are still working with sticks in ant hills.
11 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyThey don't have to be exclusive in all aspects. Yet they come to contradiction too many times in non-conciliative ways. Science never tries to impose itself as the truth, mas only as the most plausible theory with the present elements. By definition, it admits fault. Evolution *seems* to be the most plausible theory looking at all data we have today. Nothing more. Arguing creationism gets you to a point where you must get to some absolute truth written in the Bible. Well, if by definition it is an absolute truth, there should be no arguing in the first place. So, or you question this is an absolute truth, or you say science must be wrong.
Why must scientific discovery and ones faith be at odds? How are they mutually exclusive?
Really, you might say that the atheist view of how life began is the most at odds with science. For example, how does one get life from nonlife? Name one example. Name one experiment. You can't yet this is what we are expected to believe. I don't have such faith!!
I do I get life from non-life? Well... depends on what you call life. Is a virus "life"? Bacteria? Amoeba? Anyway, providing no evidence or experience is by no means an argument to be wrong. Faith guys should know this better then anyone.
I say the same. Name one example , one experiment.. do you expect us to believe life just came by because an all powerful god wanted to?
I can argue experiments like that can take thousand of years, and it makes sense with everything. Not proof, only something plausible and that fits. I don't defend evolution blindly. It simply fits better then anything else!