|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Original Sin and the Theory of Evolution
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nice one Tim. But how did we turn toward God in the first place in our emergent sapience four (not to five, neither to three ...) hundred thousand years ago?
If you must link it to the evolution of humans, it would probably be at the point where we evolved the cognitive complexity for hypothetical thinking: imagination and anticipation (i.e., if I do a, I expect b will follow, but if I do x, the outcome will probably be y...) I don't see how you can have moral responsibility without that. But reducing the myth to a parable about thinking seems to trivialize it. Its power is greatest when it's not a story about what some remote ancestor did, but a story about what I do every day. That's a really yummy looking apple...
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice one again.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Tried the link in the OP and was told it was none of my business. Is tis a redundant H&A Day prank or what?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
This tread was migrated across here just as it got going and then two other threads started up in Purg to replace it - so we ended up in a parallel universe... maybe that's appropriate. But a tad annoying. I get the impression that the Mods here are a law unto themselves.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Itsarumdo, any complaints or comments on hosting decisions go in the Styx and not on any other board. If you think Purgatory hosts have missed a thread which is actually a Dead Horse then you can PM them and ask about it. Please take any further comments on this to the Styx.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Tried the link in the OP and was told it was none of my business. Is tis a redundant H&A Day prank or what?
hosting There's been a recent board tidy up where older threads have been sent to Oblivion. Unfortunately I was away when this thread started and so don't know what the original thread was to re-find it. If someone PMs me the old thread title of the thread this spun off from I'll look for it to relink it.
[edited to add - in fact the thread isn't oblivionated, there seems to have been some kind of problem with the link - I've found it and I hope fixed it]
thanks,
L
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
[ 07. October 2014, 21:21: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You keep trotting in here with some piece of long debunked creationist propaganda and are surprised that it is refuted as nonsense and then scurry away saying that you're not a scientist. Now you return to malign those who look at the mountains of evidence and claim they're scared of the consequences.
Have you considered that Genesis is a crock? Just because you would find it handy for it to be true doesn't make it so. [/QB]
You are a sinner so am I. Sin is our daily reality. So,no fall,no sin,no gospel. The gospel is in essence that Christ came,died a death that atoned for sin, rose as proof of the Father's approval of his sinless life and cosmic mission. None of it makes any sense at all without Genesis. Talk as many will of senselessly wooden interpretation, the alternative is a rationalising away of sin and the denial of the need for Christ.
With Genesis and only with its truth is there a way to make sense of why we are like we are and why the advent and intervention of God in sending Christ,can give us hope.
One of my greatest battles when I first came to faith was to recognise how utterly programmed I had been into naturalism and now faced with an epiphany that Christ was in fact a living reality I realised one thing needed to give way. Believe me I did not accept Genesis easily but the lie of evolution did fall away in the end. If it is true then,quite simply,God is not. We all need to make our own peace with that.
I have made mine and because I do not know your journey I cannot judge yours other than what you posted here. The only thing I would say to you is that the promise that if one loves truth then one will know it has been a saying of The Lord Jesus that has never let me down. And a correlative openness to correction is a necessary complement to that.
I am not a creationist in the sense of preoccupation with their concerns or an apologist or any kind of expert. I am simply someone who over 40 years of a belief in Christ has experienced many personal affirmations of his reality. I am committed absolutely to what he has shown me and one of those non negotiables is the Bible in its entirety.
So, Palimpsest,I wish you well.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Why can't Genesis just be an extended parable to explain the existence of sin - I don't see why it needs to be literally true to explain sin.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That we are all sinners is something that is not that difficult to demonstrate. That we are unable to free ourselves from sin is also obvious. That can all be seen by simply looking at our own lives honestly. It therefore follows that we all need a saviour to rescue us from our enslavement to sin. That is all that is needed to show the necessity of the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ Jesus as a redeeming act.
There is no necessity to hold onto a particular interpretation of a collection of mythic stories that in poetic terms express what we already know, that we are all sinners. We are fallen, that doesn't necessarily mean there was a Fall.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If a literal Genesis is essential to Christianity then Christianity is false, because Genesis is not literally true, any more than grass is blue. It really is as simple as that. If evolution screws your theology, then it's tough titty - the real world doesn't give a monkeys about your theology.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Jamat, it looks to me like you keep coming back here switching between half-baked pseudoscience and bonehead literalism because you're trying to convince yourself of something you know in your heart is indefensible. I'm sorry your faith is so fragile it can only be sustained by believing six impossible things before breakfast.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE]
You are a sinner so am I. Sin is our daily reality. So,no fall,no sin,no gospel. The gospel is in essence that Christ came,died a death that atoned for sin, rose as proof of the Father's approval of his sinless life and cosmic mission. None of it makes any sense at all without Genesis. Talk as many will of senselessly wooden interpretation, the alternative is a rationalising away of sin and the denial of the need for Christ.
With Genesis and only with its truth is there a way to make sense of why we are like we are and why the advent and intervention of God in sending Christ,can give us hope.
One of my greatest battles when I first came to faith was to recognise how utterly programmed I had been into naturalism and now faced with an epiphany that Christ was in fact a living reality I realised one thing needed to give way. Believe me I did not accept Genesis easily but the lie of evolution did fall away in the end. If it is true then,quite simply,God is not. We all need to make our own peace with that.
I have made mine and because I do not know your journey I cannot judge yours other than what you posted here. The only thing I would say to you is that the promise that if one loves truth then one will know it has been a saying of The Lord Jesus that has never let me down. And a correlative openness to correction is a necessary complement to that.
I am not a creationist in the sense of preoccupation with their concerns or an apologist or any kind of expert. I am simply someone who over 40 years of a belief in Christ has experienced many personal affirmations of his reality. I am committed absolutely to what he has shown me and one of those non negotiables is the Bible in its entirety.
So, Palimpsest,I wish you well.
Should you wish to deny the facts of the universe to cover the voids and contradictions in your religious belief, good luck with that. I don't chose to believe things which requires lies to withstand examination.
If you don't know my journey and are not judging me then don't say my disbelief in your theory is due to a fear of having to acknowledge God was responsible. Such disparagement is not the mark of a well wisher.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
That's fine by me. Since you seem to have taken offence there is a forum where snide dismissiveness is acceptable.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That we are all sinners is something that is not that difficult to demonstrate. That we are unable to free ourselves from sin is also obvious. That can all be seen by simply looking at our own lives honestly. It therefore follows that we all need a saviour to rescue us from our enslavement to sin.
Only if there is some reason we need to be rescued, and there is something saying that this need must be fulfilled, and means will be provided to fulfill it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Doublethink quote:
Why can't Genesis just be an extended parable to explain the existence of sin - I don't see why it needs to be literally true to explain sin.
The problem, Doublethink, is that it has been woven into a theological system, The Doctrine of Original Sin, based upon an historic event: humanity's fall from sinlessness, which has compromised the perfection of God's creation. ISTM the proposition that human beings and creation ever existed in such a state is simply not true. It does not help us understand the origins of sin, of what God thinks about sin and sinners, and what the role of Christ was/is in dealing with it. I fail to see how the sin of Adam can be regarded as a parable concerning the existence of sin, its origins, and where responsibility lies for the existence of sin. Even in recognising sin as an entrenched feature of the human condition it cops out by suggesting there was a time when it was not the case i.e. as a myth it's faulty. It really is best set aside.
What intrigues me, as I have written on other occasions, is that Adam's sin does not seem to feature as a core element in Judaism, there is no reference to Adam between early Genesis and Romans, so it does not feature in the teaching of Jesus in the gospels, nor even by Paul in Acts, as far as I can remember. I doubt, therefore, that Jesus had a notion or original sin nor, consequently, that the restoration of a state of paradise was part of his mission. That is not to say dealing with sin was not a major concern of the OT or the mission of Jesus.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What intrigues me, as I have written on other occasions, is that Adam's sin does not seem to feature as a core element in Judaism, there is no reference to Adam between early Genesis and Romans, . [/I QB]
Job 33:31
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What intrigues me, as I have written on other occasions, is that Adam's sin does not seem to feature as a core element in Judaism, there is no reference to Adam between early Genesis and Romans, . [/I QB]
Job 33:31
Sorry, That was Job 31:33
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Hosting
A hostly reminder to people to take any personal component of their argument off to Hell.
cheers,
L
Dead Horses host
Hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What intrigues me, as I have written on other occasions, is that Adam's sin does not seem to feature as a core element in Judaism, there is no reference to Adam between early Genesis and Romans, . [/I QB]
Job 33:31
Sorry, That was Job 31:33
I think that depends on whether the verse is referring to 'Adam' the character or 'adam' which is the Hebrew word for 'man'.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Re Job 32:33. Thanks Jamat and New Spinster. I note that most translations eschew Adam as against King James. I'm not, however, in a position to adjudicate on the matter, not being a Hebrew scholar. That said, the Job reference is at best contestable, and can't be taken as a particular theological position either supporting or refuting the doctrine of original sin.
I remain most intrigued as to the route by which Paul re-introduced Adam to the biblical narrative, given its previous long absence.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Re Job 32:33. Thanks Jamat and New Spinster. I note that most translations eschew Adam as against King James. I'm not, however, in a position to adjudicate on the matter, not being a Hebrew scholar. That said, the Job reference is at best contestable, and can't be taken as a particular theological position either supporting or refuting the doctrine of original sin.
I remain most intrigued as to the route by which Paul re-introduced Adam to the biblical narrative, given its previous long absence.
Well, I think it was his Jewishness. He also argues on the basis of Abraham's faith that believers who exercise faith are Abraham's children. Jesus also did this in the triumphal entry when he stated that the stones could be children of Abraham. The point was that faith is rewarded. It just seems to me that Adam is seen in the same midrashic way, as a progenitor whose heritage has been reversed in its impact by those who have faith in Christ Jesus. The Jewish pilpul logical method is never far from Paul's reasoning since it is obviously mostly for an audience of Jews and Gentile proselytes that he wrote. When the audience is clearly gentile, his task is to persuade that through Christ, they (we) are included in Jewish promises and so he argues the case from a Jewish position.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Jamat, it looks to me like you keep coming back here switching between half-baked pseudoscience and bonehead literalism because you're trying to convince yourself of something you know in your heart is indefensible. I'm sorry your faith is so fragile it can only be sustained by believing six impossible things before breakfast.
Well I think you are perfectly entitled to defend your view. Perhaps though, another way to look at the matter is that my convictions can withstand any kind of ad hominem battering because they are grounded in the truth. I am quite used to being called an ostrich for not believing evolution. But consider what is denied is only a thought system that no one can prove either way in the same way that no one can prove conclusively that the Bible is reliable to everyone's satisfaction. But I do not need this proved in a material sense as it has been proved to me many times in a spiritual sense.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jamat,
quote:
But consider what is denied is only a thought system that no one can prove either way
A bit off the mark there. Christianity is a "thought system" as is Buddhism and Islam and Hinduism and etc. Science is not a belief system. It is controlled observation, repeatable experiments; it is a methodology. The science you deny in evolution uses the same methodology in the science that finds vaccines and the science that keeps the wings from vibrating off the aeroplanes in which we fly.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BereaN
Apprentice
# 18281
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What intrigues me, as I have written on other occasions, is that Adam's sin does not seem to feature as a core element in Judaism, there is no reference to Adam between early Genesis and Romans, . [/I QB]
Job 33:31
Sorry, That was Job 31:33
1 Chronicles 1:1 - Adam, Seth, Enosh...
Luke 3:38 - the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Posts: 4 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Jamat,
quote:
But consider what is denied is only a thought system that no one can prove either way
A bit off the mark there. Christianity is a "thought system" as is Buddhism and Islam and Hinduism and etc. Science is not a belief system. It is controlled observation, repeatable experiments; it is a methodology. The science you deny in evolution uses the same methodology in the science that finds vaccines and the science that keeps the wings from vibrating off the aeroplanes in which we fly.
There is lots of science I do not deny but exult in. Getting somewhere by plane rather than having to swim is a case in point. However, you know what I mean when I say evolution as a thought system is not subject to experiment. Ecoli mutations don't impress me as proving evolution. No one I know denies that viruses mutate either but that doesn't show we evolved from a common ancestor which isn't that surprising when the Bible says we didn't.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Evolution happened, and is fairly explained by the what we call the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
It has never worried me this is contrary to some strict readings of the bible - my faith, such as it is, is dented by other issues.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... However, you know what I mean when I say evolution as a thought system is not subject to experiment. ....
I think I know what you mean: you mean we cannot make another planet and re-run the evolutionary processes that happened on our planet, so therefore there's no way to "prove" humans and all other life forms evolved from common ancestors. And if we did find another planet and could watch life evolve over millions and millions of years, it is exceedingly unlikely that humans exactly like us would evolve there, so even if a wide variety of life forms evolved from common ancestors on another planet, you could still claim that there was no "proof" that humans could have evolved from other species.
That's the same silly argument my father used to assert that smoking had never been proven to cause lung cancer in humans. The fact that animal experiments did show a link between smoking and lung cancer, wasn't "proof", because the experiments were not done on humans. Conveniently, since it would be unethical to do such an experiment on humans, he could also confidently assert that there never would be "proof" and keep on smoking. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The fact is that there are lots and lots of areas of science where we cannot do what you would consider an experiment e.g. astronomy. We can't make another sun but nonetheless, we have a pretty good idea of how the sun formed and what is going on in it, and we're also pretty damn sure that there was no earth or water around when the first stars formed. Do you have a problem with modern theories of star formation, since they also clearly contradict the Genesis myth?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, you know what I mean when I say evolution as a thought system is not subject to experiment.
I accept that there are some uses of the word "evolution" beyond the purely biological that are based on some very difficult to prove ideas. People talk about the evolution of culture and ideas, which has some value in sociology and similar fields of study, but is a far more complex system than biology. I've seen plenty of examples of people assuming that the most recent developments are superior to older forms (whether of life forms or ideas), or that there is some inevitable progress within evolution.
quote:
Ecoli mutations don't impress me as proving evolution. No one I know denies that viruses mutate either but that doesn't show we evolved from a common ancestor
You're right, mutation of viruses or bacteria don't prove anything, in a technical sense science is unable to prove anything. Bacteria do allow us to study evolution though - they have a short generation time so can observe changes over the timespan of research projects, we can get large populations that can be divided and put into multiple environments to see how different selection pressures affect the sub-populations etc. We can, of course, do similar studies on higher plants and animals - flies, fish, peas etc. These experiments demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that mutation of genetic code generates new ways of coding proteins that change the organisms, that the versions of new genes which come to dominate in the populations are responses to environmental pressures. Basically, they demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt all the basic requirements for evolution by natural selection.
Similar demonstrations beyond all reasonable doubt that particular organisms evolved from a common ancestor requires additional evidence, including analyses of the genes of living organisms, the genes of dead organisms (if available), and a fragmentary fossil record.
quote:
which isn't that surprising when the Bible says we didn't.
I think what you mean to say is that it doesn't surprise you as you're interpretation of the Bible says we didn't.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Actually, Jamat, the bible says the vegetation sprang from the ground and we were made from the dust of the ground. So we are plants?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, Jamat, the bible says the vegetation sprang from the ground and we were made from the dust of the ground. So we are plants?
You are winding me up, right?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Hi Alan, Compliments of the season to you. The following from Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True"
quote:
True, breeders haven’t turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven’t turned bacterium into an amoeba (although, as we’ve seen, new bacterial species have arisen in the lab). But it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection. Big transformations take time—huge spans of it. To really see the power of selection, we must extrapolate the small changes that selection creates in our lifetime over the millions of years that it has really had to work in nature.
When he says that it is foolish to think these are serious objections etc, that is a highly contestible statement. He is saying in effect, we KNOW evolution happened we just don't quite know how yet. He is really using the assumed fact of evolution to argue the point.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
But we extrapolate from the small changes we observe over lifetimes in plenty of fields other than evolution. For example, nobody has observed mountains springing up from two tectonic plates colliding, but we extrapolate from what we *have* observed - mountains increasing in size by relatively small amounts - to produce an explanation for how mountains formed.
Likewise, we extrapolate from the mutations we can observe in things like bacteria, fruit flies and so on, to produce the theory of evolution by natural selection.
I'm sure this has been said before on this thread, but I think the problem is that you (Jamat) see observed mutations as a qualitatively different thing from what would be needed for evolution by natural selection to 'work' as a theory. But the vast majority of scientists see the difference as just a matter of scale.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I mean have you any IDEA how long it takes a prokaryote to develop symbiosis with a non-photosynthetic oxidative proteobacterium?
A good billion years or two I can tell you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, Jamat, the bible says the vegetation sprang from the ground and we were made from the dust of the ground. So we are plants?
You are winding me up, right?
Rather I was making a point.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Jamat,
quote:
But consider what is denied is only a thought system that no one can prove either way
A bit off the mark there. Christianity is a "thought system" as is Buddhism and Islam and Hinduism and etc. Science is not a belief system. It is controlled observation, repeatable experiments; it is a methodology. The science you deny in evolution uses the same methodology in the science that finds vaccines and the science that keeps the wings from vibrating off the aeroplanes in which we fly.
There is lots of science I do not deny but exult in. Getting somewhere by plane rather than having to swim is a case in point. However, you know what I mean when I say evolution as a thought system is not subject to experiment. Ecoli mutations don't impress me as proving evolution. No one I know denies that viruses mutate either but that doesn't show we evolved from a common ancestor which isn't that surprising when the Bible says we didn't.
No, it doesn't, but ERVs and human chromosome 2 damned well do.
Evolution is based on more than one line of evidence.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The Bible says that Jesus believed in God the Killer.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Bible says that Jesus believed in God the Killer.
I guess you could argue that all death is caused by God; you could also argue that my garage is mine to clean out. Regarding the dust of that ground though. In a materialistic sense my molecules could have been part of the carbon in trees. The whole issue is that we are more than the molecules that we consist of. Hope you have a great festive season, Martin, Lil Buddah and Karl.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And yourself Jamat. I wouldn't argue that, no, beyond the fact that the act of creation makes it contingently so.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The whole issue is that we are more than the molecules that we consist of.
Not arguing against this.
Happy Christmas to you as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
I'm always puzzled by the idea that anything in nature, which we do not yet, and may never, understand, requires the intervention of the Creator at any point.
I would have said that the Creator is, being supremely capable, able to initiate and sustain any intended series of results without specific intervention.
I see evolution as a example of artistic economy - within a universe of unlimited magnificence.
(posted here because the topic was unwelcome where it was originally, probably irrelevant anywhere)
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waw consecutivum
Apprentice
# 18120
|
Posted
STM the Garden of Eden story is a myth, therefore no more historical than the War of the Ring in The Lord of the Rings.
Adam = red earth, man
the woman = a woman
garden of *eden* = garden of *pleasure* (whence the Vulgate "paradisus voluptatis")
the talking snake is the same kind of animal as the talking horse of Achilles, or the talking birds that Sigurd hears, or the talking donkey of Balaam in Numbers 22.
The story is no more contrary to evolution than the flying dino in TLOTR is contrary to evolution: a narrative about events that make no claim to being historical, cannot be contrary to historical info.
--------------------
James
Posts: 17 | From: North-Western Middle Earth | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
