Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2004 - 10:29 PM

A lot of people try to use evolution as a means to say, "There is no God."

Is that a valid conclusion, and does evolution present a challenge to religion? (Specifically Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)

#2 GraniteJJ

GraniteJJ

    King of Scarcity

  • Members
  • 807 posts
  • Location:The Great White North
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2004 - 10:34 PM

Sort of kind of.

If you want to believe the Bible completely literally, then you run into an issue because certain things really don't fit together.

To the same token, people who disprove evolution think that it automatically proves God. Unfortunately, when it comes to this issue, people seem to argue point A, and they think it proves point C, while they completely negate point B.

#3 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2004 - 10:41 PM

Yes, certain literalist interperatations of Genesis don't allow evolution. Those would be the ones where death didn't exist until Adam's punishment took effect. Personally, I take the Creation account to be more allegorical than historical.

#4 Reflectionist

Reflectionist

    Follow the smoke; find the fire.

  • Banned
  • 2,165 posts
  • Location:Missouri
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 25 September 2004 - 11:13 AM

Well, us Christians believe that evolution can't be possible on certain levels. For instance, if we came from monkeys, then most of the first book in the Bible is wrong. But, in the same breath, nothing we believe prevents microevolution, or something like neandrethals to us, because they were humans as well.

and, look at my sig, it's an eminem parody, but it's relevant here

#5 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2004 - 11:20 AM

For instance, if we came from monkeys, then most of the first book in the Bible is wrong.


"Most" is a strong word. Which parts are you referring to?

I would argue that the parts that evolution would acually challenge aren't meant to be taken literally anyway.

#6 Zythe

Zythe

    Beginner

  • Banned
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 September 2004 - 11:33 AM

I always think of early pages of the Bible as an old time way of telling stories, because it's cryptic and edited stranslations of Hebrew Texts that went into Greek then Latin and then every other language.

I beleive that God created the first strands of life which evolved into everything we know today.

#7 Reflectionist

Reflectionist

    Follow the smoke; find the fire.

  • Banned
  • 2,165 posts
  • Location:Missouri
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 25 September 2004 - 11:38 AM

Okay, maybe 'most' was the wrong word to use...

Let's put it this way... if we just kinda appeared, then Christianity has no foundations, no religion has foundations.

#8 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2004 - 11:45 AM

I wouldn't go that far.

I would say that God-guided evolution bridges the discrepencies between Genesis and the fossil record, and simultaneously lessens the sheer ridiculousness of evolution.

#9 Zythe

Zythe

    Beginner

  • Banned
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 September 2004 - 11:58 AM

Ridiculousness? The concept of inherent features is ridiculous?

#10 Hero of Winds

Hero of Winds

    Quiet Riot

  • ZL Staff
  • 2,428 posts

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:03 PM

No, the concept of macroevolution is ridiculous.

Hasn't microevolution been proven already, though? When it comes to evolution, I'm a bit of deist.

#11 Wolf O'Donnell

Wolf O'Donnell

    BSc (Hons) MSc

  • Members
  • 6,486 posts
  • Location:Near the Mausoleum of Napoleon III
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:03 PM

Nnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not another Evolution vs. Creationism topic! (I realise that it isn't actually an Evolution vs. Creationism topic, but chances are, it will descend into one).

Allow me to point out some mistakes.

[quote]Originally posted by "Reflectionist"+-->
QUOTE("Reflectionist")
Well, us Christians believe that evolution can't be possible on certain levels.[/b][/quote]

Erm... don't you think you're overgeneralising a bit too much there? I know a number of Christians that believe in Evolution whole sale.


#12 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:03 PM

Not another Evolution vs. Creationism topic! (I realise that it isn't actually an Evolution vs. Creationism topic, but chances are, it will descend into one).


It probably will, but before happens, hopefully it can a constructive discussion about whether there's any reason for religion to be defensive about evolution.

Originally posted by zythe
Ridiculousness? The concept of inherent features is ridiculous?


No, the concept of randomly going from zero life to the present state of Earth is ridiculous.

#13 Reflectionist

Reflectionist

    Follow the smoke; find the fire.

  • Banned
  • 2,165 posts
  • Location:Missouri
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:13 PM

actually, it says God created Man in His image.

and i was drawing on social darwinism for the 'coming from monkeys' thing.

no, i wasn't overgeneralising. No offense to anyone, but that's kind of hypocritical if you believe that man evolved from other creatures, but belong to a religion that demands that you believe that God created you from scratch.

I'm gonna have to agree with HoW, macroevolution is almost impossible to believe.

If macroevolution is more possible than Microevolution, than there would be no point to humans, we wouldn't be as intelligent of a race as we are. There are some people out there that help out the Darwinist theories (GWB) and some just... don't.

But, yeah, it's just gonna come down to a Evolutionist v. Creationism fight, and no one is gonna win...

#14 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:17 PM

[quote]Originally posted by relfectionist+-->
QUOTE(relfectionist)
actually, it says God created Man in His image.[/b][/quote]

But it doesn't specify whether it was spiritually or physically. I'd put my money on spiritually. Either way, man screwed up and lost that status.


#15 Zythe

Zythe

    Beginner

  • Banned
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:24 PM

Maybe you're all taking the Bible too seriously, it's a message not a literal historical account.

#16 Wolf O'Donnell

Wolf O'Donnell

    BSc (Hons) MSc

  • Members
  • 6,486 posts
  • Location:Near the Mausoleum of Napoleon III
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Reflectionist@Sep 25 2004, 06:13 PM
actually, it says God created Man in His image.


So it does.

no, i wasn't overgeneralising. No offense to anyone, but that's kind of hypocritical if you believe that man evolved from other creatures, but belong to a religion that demands that you believe that God created you from scratch.


But the majority of British Christians I've met believe in Evolutionism whole sale. So you must be overgeneralising.

I'm gonna have to agree with HoW, macroevolution is almost impossible to believe.


Almost as impossible as a supernatural being that created us through magical/supernatural means? Let's face it, both Evolutionism and Creationism are gosh darned difficult to believe. But at least with Evolutionism, people are gathering more and more evidence to prove its existence... if only I could get access to those Evolution Journals (which you have to subscribe to).

If macroevolution is more possible than Microevolution, than there would be no point to humans, we wouldn't be as intelligent of a race as we are.


Is intelligence vital for a species? No. Individual ants aren't intelligent, yet the Colony seems to work chemically to produce some kind of strange form of intelligence that supercedes the individual.

Besides, you make your claim on the basis that "Macroevolution" (I still hate those terms, can't we think up of terms that aren't so inappropriate?) is completely random. It's not, when you think about it... Ah, Heck! I need to go do some more research before I can comment on that particular comment you made.

There are some people out there that help out the Darwinist theories (GWB)


:lol: Good one!

But, yeah, it's just gonna come down to a Evolutionist v. Creationism fight, and no one is gonna win...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I bloody well hope not. Those make me SO angry, because they always go round in circles. It's not coming up with new sources on both sides. Most of the ones I went to kept having me explaining the SAME THING over AND OVER again! :angry: :wall:

#17 Zythe

Zythe

    Beginner

  • Banned
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:43 PM

EDIT: Stupid double posting fast reply, I hate it so much.

#18 Zythe

Zythe

    Beginner

  • Banned
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:45 PM

This thread seems to have become redundant and unnecessary, maybe someone can suggest something new and wacky that my rekindle my interest but like Wolf said in smilie form, we're banging our heads against brick walls.

#19 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2004 - 12:49 PM

Actually, we haven't started banging heads yet, Zythe.

#20 Reflectionist

Reflectionist

    Follow the smoke; find the fire.

  • Banned
  • 2,165 posts
  • Location:Missouri
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 25 September 2004 - 01:27 PM

Heh, i haven't done any research on any of it... and i'm still contending in the debate

#21 Guest_Dirk Amoeba_*

Guest_Dirk Amoeba_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2004 - 02:12 PM

I am a Christian, but I believe in evolution. I don't think the first few chapters of Genesis can be taken literally at all.

Evolution is a tautology. At it's most basic level the theory is just this: "Anything that survives, survives. Anything that cannot survive, will not survive."

#22 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2004 - 02:14 PM

That is the most basic aspect of evolution, and the part that makes sense. The part that "challenges" religion and God is the part that says genetic mutations can cause a change in species, and that species can go on to survive better than its predecessor.

#23 Guest_Vorpal_*

Guest_Vorpal_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2004 - 02:17 PM

I'm going to regret getting into this, but I'm going to make a couple points.

First: Genesis says some things that don't agree with evolution in a lot more direct ways than just man was made in the image of God, and that man was made from the dust of the earth, though those are points that could be made.

When God created the birds, fish, land animals, plants, he said that they should reproduce their own kind. This is directly in confrontation with the whole being of evolution which is a gradual changing from one species to another.

Second: Micro- and macroevolution are correct terms to use when talking in terms of what many Christians who believe in the creation story believe in regaurds to evolution.

First, Microevolution does not help prove macroevolution. A bacteria can become resistant to some drug and it's classified as a new species. Where as a human can become resistant to chicken pox and not be considered a new species. Bacteria are still bacteria. And there is no evidence, or has there ever been, of bacteria mutating into something that is not bacteria, say a multi-celled organism., It has never happened in observable science, ever.

Macroevolution is something greater than a cellular mutation, it is something on a much grander scale than we have ever observed.

I get the feeling that you people who don't like the terms microevolution and macroevolution don't like them not because you think them inappropriate, but because you don't see them as indistinguishable.

#24 GraniteJJ

GraniteJJ

    King of Scarcity

  • Members
  • 807 posts
  • Location:The Great White North
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2004 - 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Vorpal
When God created the birds, fish, land animals, plants, he said that they should reproduce their own kind


What? When did he say this? Can we get a Bible quote, so we can be positive you aren't paraphrasing?

#25 Hero of Winds

Hero of Winds

    Quiet Riot

  • ZL Staff
  • 2,428 posts

Posted 25 September 2004 - 04:29 PM

Personally, I can't see why both sides can't be right. God created Adam, true, but does the Bible ever say how? For all we know, God could've created a bunch of cells, and then guided those cells into becoming Adam and Eve.

And this is why deism is great... ;)

#26 GraniteJJ

GraniteJJ

    King of Scarcity

  • Members
  • 807 posts
  • Location:The Great White North
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2004 - 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Hero of Winds@Sep 25 2004, 05:29 PM
Personally, I can't see why both sides can't be right. God created Adam, true, but does the Bible ever say how? For all we know, God could've created a bunch of cells, and then guided those cells into becoming Adam and Eve.

And this is why deism is great... ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Bible says it was done in a day.

The Bible also says that to create Eve, God put Adam to sleep and then removed a rib, and used it to create Eve. Sounds like cloning.

#27 Wolf O'Donnell

Wolf O'Donnell

    BSc (Hons) MSc

  • Members
  • 6,486 posts
  • Location:Near the Mausoleum of Napoleon III
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 25 September 2004 - 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Vorpal@Sep 25 2004, 08:17 PM
Second: Micro- and macroevolution are correct terms to use when talking in terms of what many Christians who believe in the creation story believe in regaurds to evolution.


Exactly. They're not proper scientific terms.

First, Microevolution does not help prove macroevolution.


Well, it all depends on your view of evolution, I guess. If you make a distinction between the two, then yes, you're correct. If you don't have a distinction, then no, there isn't.

In science, there are no such things as microevolution and macroevolution. Both types of evolution are covered by the same Theory. Evolution is defined as a gradual change in the characteristics of animals or plants over successive generations. That is evolution in a nutshell.

Why call it microevolution? What is your reasoning for calling it microevolution? Because the genetic mutation brings about a small, unnoticeable change? Cite an example. I think you'll find that any "examples" of "microevolution" that you find have anything but small effects on the organism.

A bacteria can become resistant to some drug and it's classified as a new species. Where as a human can become resistant to chicken pox and not be considered a new species. Bacteria are still bacteria. And there is no evidence, or has there ever been, of bacteria mutating into something that is not bacteria, say a multi-celled organism., It has never happened in observable science, ever.


That's a bad example, because though a human can become resistance to chicken pox, that trait can never be passed down through generations genetically. However, the bacteria when it gains resistance can pass that characteristic on genetically.

I get the feeling that you people who don't like the terms microevolution and macroevolution don't like them not because you think them inappropriate, but because you don't see them as indistinguishable.


All evolution is brought about through gradual change over successive generations, or through what you have called, microevolution. If I were to use your terms, I'd say that macroevolution is brought about by successive microevolutions, one after another, gradually, over a large period of time.

Now that I've corrected a few mistakes, let me put this topic back on track by saying that none of this contradicts the existence of God. It only contradicts the Bible and the Holy Texts.

Hence, the main thrust of this debate is not whether Evolution disproves God, because at the moment in time it is impossible to prove or disprove His existence empirically (which is what scientists do and what those scientists investigating evolution do).

The main question is whether that particular book in the Bible, Genesis, can be trusted as a historical account. After all, the different books all had different authors (or at least, the New Testament part did, anyway). You cannot prove it, though. I don't think anyone can prove whether the Creation Story is true through empirical means.

Really, I've never seen anyone provide empirical evidence to prove that Creationism is correct. I've seen people provide empirical evidence to prove that Evolutionism is MORE correct than when it was proposed by Darwin.

For once, I'd like to see someone provide positive evidence FOR Creationism instead of having to provide evidence for evolutionism or seeing people point out flaws in evolutionism. It's all good and well pointing out flaws, but can you come up with an alternative and proof to show that your alternative isn't whole load of hogswash?

#28 Guest_Vorpal_*

Guest_Vorpal_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2004 - 05:09 PM

Geeze... I mean... how can you guys even intellectually discuss Evolution vs. Creation when you don't even bother to read the creation account? Oh wait... I said "intellectually"... silly me.

[quote]Originally posted by Gen. 1:11-12+-->
QUOTE(Gen. 1:11-12)
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.  The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.[/b][/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by Gen. 1:20-22+-->
QUOTE(Gen. 1:20-22)
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."[/b][/quote]

#29 Guest_Vorpal_*

Guest_Vorpal_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2004 - 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Wolf_ODonnell@Sep 25 2004, 06:05 PM
For once, I'd like to see someone provide positive evidence FOR Creationism instead of having to provide evidence for evolutionism or seeing people point out flaws in evolutionism. It's all good and well pointing out flaws, but can you come up with an alternative and proof to show that your alternative isn't whole load of hogswash?


You don't get it! You can't ever PROVE the existence of God under your criteria.

Also, I've never seen emperical evidence to PROVE evolution.

The basis for creation theory or intelligent designer theory is the fact that evolution does not follow the second law of thermodynamics whatsoever. Simply stated, as time progresses, the level of entropy in a system increases. Evolution is the exact opposite, as time progresses in evolution, entropy decreases, things become better suited to their environment, etc.

You look at certain species of animals that evolved at different times and through different chains, and yet they cannot exist without one another because they have a symbiotic relationship. You see similarities between animals that didn't have a common ancestor since the ameoba, but somehow they got similar bone structures or traits (like say some of the bone structures of a shark compared to the bone structures for a dolphin) that scientists can't explain through evolution, except that they are coincidences.

You look at a sandcastle on a beach and you don't say, "that was created by the ocean, there was a small fraction of a chance, but the waves hit just right to form it over the course of a billion years" NO! You don't! a sandcastle on the beach PROVES that there was an intellegent designer behind it. The sandcastle left to the ocean would eventually wash away (the system's entropy would increase)

How more complicated is this world we live in as compared to a sandcastle on the beach, yet you NEED PROOF that there is a designer behind it? OPEN YOUR EYES!

#30 Wolf O'Donnell

Wolf O'Donnell

    BSc (Hons) MSc

  • Members
  • 6,486 posts
  • Location:Near the Mausoleum of Napoleon III
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 25 September 2004 - 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Vorpal@Sep 25 2004, 11:09 PM
But, hey! It's your right to be ignorant if you so choose.


Hm, true, but you could also say that people on the other side are equally ignorant. Those who believe wholesale in Creationism tend not to have been taught Evolution in school. They also tend not to know much about Evolutionism and believe in the common misconceptions about it.

Strange, though. You'd think that having studied Genesis year in year out when I was in primary school (we were taught the same thing every year in our Scriptures class) I'd have known it off by heart.

Well, I'm a classic case of what religious people shouldn't do. Shove religion down our throats in such a boring manner. Every year, it was Genesis in September, Jesus near Christmas, Jesus' resurrection near Easter and then Pentecost after that. Always, the same thing. It never varied. Genesis, Jesus, Jesus' resurrection. Always the same questions, always the same answers.

It was pretty difficult not to get an A+, but then again, this was when I was eight or younger.




Copyright © 2022 Zelda Legends