Poll: Creation vs Evolution

[GoldenTiger]

Bump!

 

[petrek]

Tarzanx, in regards to your suggestion that the bible is a 2000 year old outdated book, allow me to enlighten you with some facts.

-during WWII Hitler succeeded in " ridding the world" of about 6 million Jews

-after the Jews were given a "homeland" (which is a partial piece of the land God promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who God renamed Israel)). A piece of land which is about one sixth of one percent of it's arab neighbours. It's arab enemies tried to destroy Israel on 3 seperate occasions, and on all three occasions the Nation of Israel succeeded in conquering it's enemies even though on all three occasions (for obvious reasons) it was outnumbered (as high as ten to one) in personel and military fire power. (A feat, I offer, was only possible due to the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people whom He promised to protect)

-the Nation of Israel is in the news on an almost daily basis due to the vast number of terrorist attacks against it, and the subsequent instability to the middle east region that that brings.

-I have also heard it reported that the United States's (although biblically watered down) stance in support of the Nation of Israel was partly to blame for the terrorest attacks that occured in the US on September 11th.

Now considering the Bible contains a historically accurate account of the Nation of Israel (the Jewish people, who God refers to as his witnesses to the world that he is God), and contains numerous prophecies regarding the Nation of Israel, including some which are currently being fulfilled, to refer to the bible as being outdated shows a complete disregard for the facts.

Dave

 

[DuffmanOhYeah]

<< Tarzanx, in regards to your suggestion that the bible is a 2000 year old outdated book, allow me to enlighten you with some facts.

-during WWII Hitler succeeded in " ridding the world" of about 6 million Jews

-after the Jews were given a "homeland" (which is a partial piece of the land God promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who God renamed Israel)). A piece of land which is about one sixth of one percent of it's arab neighbours. It's arab enemies tried to destroy Israel on 3 seperate occasions, and on all three occasions the Nation of Israel succeeded in conquering it's enemies even though on all three occasions (for obvious reasons) it was outnumbered (as high as ten to one) in personel and military fire power. (A feat, I offer, was only possible due to the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people whom He promised to protect)

-the Nation of Israel is in the news on an almost daily basis due to the vast number of terrorist attacks against it, and the subsequent instability to the middle east region that that brings.

-I have also heard it reported that the United States's (although biblically watered down) stance in support of the Nation of Israel was partly to blame for the terrorest attacks that occured in the US on September 11th.

Now considering the Bible contains a historically accurate account of the Nation of Israel (the Jewish people, who God refers to as his witnesses to the world that he is God), and contains numerous prophecies regarding the Nation of Israel, including some which are currently being fulfilled, to refer to the bible as being outdated shows a complete disregard for the facts.

Dave >>


Wow dude, your logic is spurious at best.

 

[VisionsUCI]

<< Ok, I know for a fact beings evolve... look at different pigmentations! But I'm not denying there would be some sort of supreme entity(who's to say there isn't something in the atom). Not a god, that is omnipitant... or perfect. Really, would a perfect being create a race of irrational bipeds? >>



i just wanted to see the results, but i find things like this interesting. many people don't make the distinction between adaptation and evolution. i don't know of people who don't concede adaptation or micro-evolution, but as a result of "missing links" abstain from concluding macro evolution.

 

[S0me1X]

41% atheist ... wow! higher than general population i'm sure.

 

[Elledan]

<< In re"Funny, the other currently existing religions (about 999 of them) have similar 'sacred texts'. So, in your arrogance or blind faith, you say that what is written in those 'holy texts' of 'your' religion is true, and that what is written in any other 'sacred' text is false?"

The statement made in the Christian text (the bible) by Jesus Christ "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6, necessarily implies that only the bible contains the entire truth, and that all other religious texts are false. (note, that it is God that says the bible is true and that all other religions are false, not me as you imply) >>

Okay, so because in a text stands that the story which is told in that particular text is true, only that text is true and every other text which tells a different story is wrong?

Right.... you care to explain that kind of logic to me? I seem to have quite some trouble accepting that way of thinking. Perhaps I'm not 'compatible' with your type of blind faith?



<< The fact that other existing religions usually contain some kind of creation, and flood account like that found in the bible would be an obvious expectation. Adam and Eve would have passed the story of their creation to their children, who would have passed it on to their children...who would have passed it on to Noah, who would have passeed it on to his children, and they would have passed on the story of the creation along with the story of the flood which destroyed all mankind except for Noah, his 3 sons and their 4 wives. The story of the creation and the flood would continue to be passed down from generation to generation. And at the tower of Babel God confounds the peoples language and scatters them upon the face of the earth. Thus you find a common creation, flood account throughout many religions, even those found in remote villages around the world. >>

Problem: there's no evidence to be found anywhere of such a flood as described in the bible. At best there was a localized flood, which appeared to the people living in that area (being the Middle-East) to be a flood covering the entire planet.

Also, a flood which would cover the whole planet so that only the summits of the highest mountains would not be covered by the water would be impossible for a multitude of reasons:
- first, where did all the water come from? There's no logical explanation for this and it would violate countless laws of physics, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
- second, if there would have been such a large amount of water on the planet, this water would have pushed the atmosphere away from the Earth's surface, away from the planet's gravitation, so that this planet would have lost most of its atmosphere, resulting in all life on Earth being exposed to lethal amounts of radiation. No life would have been possible.

For this and many other reasons is the story about Noach and a world-wide flood a child's story.

I've already discussed creation (genesis) in this thread and I've tried to explain to you that creation can only be proven by a total lack of evidence for any other theories. And by divine intervention, of course.

And not all religions have a similar story of creation etc. as the version in the bible. These stories of how life was created all differ on many points. And it's not like the version of the bible is the first creation story there was. All religions, even those of prehistoric times must have had similar stories.


<< Your suggestion, however, that about 999 currently existing religions contain a similar historical, scientific, and prophetically accurate text as that of bible is one based solely on opinion and not the facts. There are maybe a handful of religious texts which quote verbatim passages from the bible (which incidentally was completed around 2000 years ago, but was started some 3500 years ago by moses who wrote the first 5 books of the bible as God inspired him.) The Koran written about 1400 years ago, and the book of mormon written about 200 years ago are the two I am most familiar with. >>

You're not very familiar with other 'sacred' texts, are you?
But your claim that the bible is historically, scientifically and prophetically accurate is totally false. The bible, like every other sacred text of any other religion, is highly biased and totally unreliable. There have numerous books been published which discredit the bible as being accurate on all of the points you mentioned.

BTW, know that I'm not some atheist-zealot, who attacks everything which has something to do with religion. In fact, I'm a Buddhist, philosopher and scientist who despises anything which is untrue or highly subjective.

 

[JupiterJones]

<<<< FINALLY!! Somebody who understands. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain this to my ultra-religious family. It seems like no matter how many times their pathetically misguided arguments are destroyed they keep coming back. Some people are so damn ignorant it's incredible... >>>>


<<There's a reason why it's called 'blind faith' >>


An education is a wonderful thing. A little knowledge, however, is quite dangerous. All you guys who look down on religious people because of their 'blind faith', and yet believe that natural selection is responsible for the origin of species are hypocrites. Stephen Jay Gould originated the idea of punctuated equilibria, which has replaced Darwinism.


Gould, Stephen Jay - The Pandas Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History

In this book, in the section entitled Double Trouble, Gould writes about the problems presented by one variety of the Angler Fish. After many words, what he basically states is that while we can't imagine how the particular constructs inherent the Angler Fish could have come about it must have been thru natural selection. In other words, he is exercising blind faith in natural selection.

 

[Elledan]

<< An education is a wonderful thing. A little knowledge, however, is quite dangerous. All you guys who look down on religious people because of their 'blind faith', and yet believe that natural selection is responsible for the origin of species are hypocrites. >>


Uhm, people who 'believe that natural selection is responsible for the origin of species'? Natural selection is one of the proposed mechanisms behind evolution, together with random mutations it forms the most well-known theory on the mechanisms responsible for evolution.

It sounds like it would do you good to take your own advice.

BTW, total lack of knowledge combined with ignorance is far more dangerous.

 

[DuffmanOhYeah]

<< <<<< FINALLY!! Somebody who understands. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain this to my ultra-religious family. It seems like no matter how many times their pathetically misguided arguments are destroyed they keep coming back. Some people are so damn ignorant it's incredible... >>>>


<<There's a reason why it's called 'blind faith' >>


An education is a wonderful thing. A little knowledge, however, is quite dangerous. All you guys who look down on religious people because of their 'blind faith', and yet believe that natural selection is responsible for the origin of species are hypocrites. Stephen Jay Gould originated the idea of punctuated equilibria, which has replaced Darwinism.


Gould, Stephen Jay - The Pandas Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History

In this book, in the section entitled Double Trouble, Gould writes about the problems presented by one variety of the Angler Fish. After many words, what he basically states is that while we can't imagine how the particular constructs inherent the Angler Fish could have come about it must have been thru natural selection. In other words, he is exercising blind faith in natural selection. >>


Are you aware of what a pompus ass Gould is and how many scholars can't stand him because he is often so far off in left field that he can freely stand with his thumb up his ass and nobody will notice?
And besides, PE is not radically different from Darwinism. Fine, we now accept cladogenesis rather than anagenesis. Big freakin deal. PE is really more an edit of Darwinian evolution rather than a rewrite. And I think as most people of science backgrounds, (call us agnostic if you like) we prefer to have blind faith in what has the most recent background of demonstrable substance. If that happens to change, watch us EVOLVE with science and now replace old beliefs with new ones.

 

[JupiterJones]

<<Perhaps... perhaps you're forgetting about the Second Law of Thermodynamics: matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

All matter was already there and was never created.

Yes, I know that that is hard to grasp for beings who are trapped in linear time and their own little world they've constructed just to keep reality out, but it's undeniable.>>


What a hoot! You're talking about the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about Entropy.

In fact, the Second Law provides difficulties for the spontaneous generation of life. In order for the pre-organic material to become more complex there would have to be some mechanism in place to convert the available energy into something useable by the pre-organic material. But, that mechanism could not develop without another mechanism being in place, and so on. This is a serious quandary for the spontaneous generation apologist.

 

[Elledan]

<< <<Perhaps... perhaps you're forgetting about the Second Law of Thermodynamics: matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

All matter was already there and was never created.

Yes, I know that that is hard to grasp for beings who are trapped in linear time and their own little world they've constructed just to keep reality out, but it's undeniable.>>


What a hoot! You're talking about the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about Entropy. >>

I meant the first law, of course. My apologies for the confusion.



<< In fact, the Second Law provides difficulties for the spontaneous generation of life. In order for the pre-organic material to become more complex there would have to be some mechanism in place to convert the available energy into something useable by the pre-organic material. But, that mechanism could not develop without another mechanism being in place, and so on. This is a serious quandary for the spontaneous generation apologist. >>

I don't see what you're getting at. Care to elaborate?

 

[DuffmanOhYeah]

Ok, you have got it all wrong. The first law of Thermodynamics is all about how to bake the perfect apple pie. I have heard there are other laws in this series, but they are of little consequence.

 

[JupiterJones]

<<Uhm, people who 'believe that natural selection is responsible for the origin of species'? Natural selection is one of the proposed mechanisms behind evolution, together with random mutations it forms the most well-known theory on the mechanisms responsible for evolution.

It sounds like it would do you good to take your own advice.

BTW, total lack of knowledge combined with ignorance is far more dangerous>>

I possibly should have said 'believe that natural selection is the driving force behind the origin of species', rather than 'responsible'. The point being that everyone exercises blind faith. This due to the fact that no explanation is without problems. The person who claims otherwise is a hypocrite, resorting to a technique of debate rather than reinforcing his argument.

Evolutionary theory eventually boils down to natural selection. For one reason or another, organism A is better able to reproduce than organism B, and therefore replaces organism B. This can be due to either internal or external change (for example, mutations or environmental change).

A change that does not enable the organism to better reproduce cannot employ natural selection. Therefore, the Angler Fish would have to basically generate it unique features as a whole in order to outperform it's ancestors. This involves way too much genetic material.

Some of the best work out there is being done in the field of Intelligent Design Theory. The Discovery Institute is a good place to look.

Discovery Institute: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture

 

[JupiterJones]

I don't see what you're getting at. Care to elaborate?

Elledan,
Entropy is basically a tendency toward chaos. The Universe is winding down. This is simplistic - more detailed info is available elsewhere. The application of this concept is widespread. That the persistence of living things is at odds with the second law of thermodynamics is well understood. For while the entropy of a plant or animal is plainly less than would be the entropy of its inanimate chemical components at the same temperature, the strong statement of the second law that entropy tends to a maximum applies only to closed systems which, at maximum entropy, are in equilibrium. Living things, whose survival depends on a steady flux of energy and material, are excluded. Living things are excluded because we have a mechanism to use energy from external sources. Personally, I am partial to Papa John's Pizza.
The application here is that inorganic material is, in effect, a closed system. While it can certainly heat up, there is no mechanism to USE this external energy. Therefore inorganic material cannot become more complex, at least not at the level needed to generate life.

 

[Elledan]

<< The application here is that inorganic material is, in effect, a closed system. While it can certainly heat up, there is no mechanism to USE this external energy. Therefore inorganic material cannot become more complex, at least not at the level needed to generate life. >>


Inorganic material is a closed system? Has no mechanism to use external energy?

I'm sorry, but have you ever been taught real science? This is just pure nonsense.

 

[exp]

<< A change that does not enable the organism to better reproduce cannot employ natural selection. Therefore, the Angler Fish would have to basically generate it unique features as a whole in order to outperform it's ancestors. This involves way too much genetic material. >>



"Way too much genetic material"?? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Even by the most conservative estimates of mutational rates the current level of species could have been achieved several times over. Are you suggesting that after some number of generations a magical regulator kicks in and prevents further evolution because "way too much genetic material" has been lost/added/modified from the original parental population? No, there is no such thing as "too much" mutation over time.

"Unique features"? Again, how do you define this? If you are suggesting the Angler Fish needs to instantaneously evolve opposable thumbs or something of that caliber in order to achieve a competitive advantage then that is not the case. Even a single nucleotide substitution can result in better fitness for that organism relative to the population as a whole. Most mutations are deleterious and even beneficial ones are rarely successfully maintained beyond a few generations, but the gradual accumulation of smaller mutations under selective pressure is sufficient to account for evolution of even the most complex structures (e.g. organs).

 

[petrek]

Elledan, you say in your above post that you are concerned with the truth and thus the facts. May I suggest than that we discuss the facts (regardless of where those facts (for which we contend) come from, while at the same time providing the source for those facts) paying due diligence to the wording of our posts so as to avoid as best as possible the misinterpretation of the intended meaning of each others posts. For if the proven evidence supports your belief that the facts presented in the bible are inaccurate, I would like to be the first to know about it.

Sincerely
Dave

 

[Moonbeam]

You'd have to be descended from apes not to believe in evolution.

 

[rahvin]

<<Some of the best work out there is being done in the field of Intelligent Design Theory>>

Intelligent design is a crock of sh!t. It's an attempt to staple a predefined supposition onto partial scientific data.

The human Genome contains nearly 4 billion "words" (words comprise 3 base pairs). Of that vast genetic material only 3% is used/usefull. The other nearly 97% is crap that is left over. The cells don't expend energy preventing damage to these DNA pairs because they provide no value to the cell, because of this the mutation rate is exsesive. Given time and the level of mutation seen in these sequences it isn't hard to image a section of this DNA getting "turned on" (ie the START ENCODING HERE word). All organisms contain vast tracts of this crap that is leftover instructions from the past.

Evolution is a simple concept that works and has experimental evidence backing it up. The strongest evidence for evolution lies in our DNA (evidence Darwin yearned for but had no knowledge of). Molecular Biology is the proof of evolution.

 

[Shermanator]

<< Evolution is a simple concept that works and has experimental evidence backing it up. The strongest evidence for evolution lies in our DNA (evidence Darwin yearned for but had no knowledge of). Molecular Biology is the proof of evolution >>

 

[TheDebater]

another vote for darwin

oh, anyone know where i can get one of those cool little fish stickers, but with legs coming from it, for my car?

 

[petrek]

Elledan, I await your reply.

Dave

 

[chansen]

TheDebater,

I've never seen them, but dir a Google search for "fish stickers". Here's what you're looking for:
www.evolvefish.com
Ring of Fire Ent.

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan, you say in your above post that you are concerned with the truth and thus the facts. May I suggest than that we discuss the facts (regardless of where those facts (for which we contend) come from, while at the same time providing the source for those facts) paying due diligence to the wording of our posts so as to avoid as best as possible the misinterpretation of the intended meaning of each others posts. For if the proven evidence supports your belief that the facts presented in the bible are inaccurate, I would like to be the first to know about it.

Sincerely
Dave >>

I can't name specific books because I can't remember their titles, nor the authors, besides, they were all in Dutch.

Anyway, I've got a site to keep you busy with for a while: The Bible - Its Evolution, Contradictions and Inconsistencies.

There are countless similar sites, a single search with Google is more than sufficient.

I stick to my opinion that the bible is, like every 'sacred' text, a highly biased, totally inaccurate and unreliable story. So far I've seen no 'facts' to convince me otherwise. Especially because it becomes increasingly clear to me that religions are merely constructions to preserve order and law in early, more primitive civilizations. Advanced civilizations have no use for religions and the individuals in such a society will reject any form of blind faith instantly.
It appears that Humankind has still quite a lot to learn.

 

[darren]

havent read the posts in response to this but how bout -

creation via evolution

as a possible answer.