The Co-existence of Science and Theology

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/13/2007 04:05:50 PM · #176

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Gravity is observable; Mathematics is provable; Macro evolution is neither.

What do you mean? Why not?

You cannot observe macro evolution. It is not something that has been observed and recorded first-hand.

In your lifetime, you mean. That doesn't mean it can't be observed over the course of time and recorded scientifically. Many scientific studies span more than several generations.

No, I mean in recorded history.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

If there's even one case of a new species deriving from an existing one sometime in the next 100,000 years or so, I'll expect you to put down your harp for a minute and go shake Mr. Darwin's hand. ;-)

I should live so long. On the other hand, Darwin was at one time a Christian, and Scripture makes it clear that once saved, always saved. So if, in his early years, his faith was genuine ( mind you, not all who claim to be Christian are born-again ), then it cannot be "undone" as it were, and so I shall someday have the opportunity to shake his hand.

cheekymunky

Canon EOS-40D

11/13/2007 04:10:02 PM · #177

It makes me laugh when people poo-poo elovution, yet almost daily we hear about virsus and germs etc getting 'stronger' or more 'resilient'. Why could that be? weaker one dying off before they can reproduce?

Message edited by author 2007-11-13 16:10:18.

11/13/2007 04:15:42 PM · #178

Originally posted by RonB:

...what 'now defunct' has to do with anything, I don't know. The implication is that if any religion ceased to retain adherents, it proves that all religions share the same fatal flaws. That's analogous to saying that all languages are flawed if any language has become defunct. It's illogical.

If a large group of people considered a single language to be the one true means of communication- created by an omniscient master and required of all people for all time- then the fact that no single language out of thousands has survived for more than a few thousand years OR commanded a simple majority of the world's population implies that the original premise is false. All of what we consider mythologies today were at some point the only choices on the religious menu.

11/13/2007 04:26:46 PM · #179

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Every born-again Christian that I have spoken with has at least one, and usually many more than one, personal experience(s) that support(s), and strengthens their belief.

I'll meet you at the next appearance of Jesus in a taco shell.

Don't bother. When I pointed out that staunch believers of UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster often have personal experiences that support and strengthen their beliefs, Ron said, "So what?" Since he obviously doesn't consider such experiences to be valid proof of anything, we're just back to, "I believe it because I believe it." Can't really argue with that.

11/13/2007 04:57:21 PM · #180

Originally posted by GeneralE:

BTW: Exactly how "macro" does it have to be to be considered a "macro-evolutionary" event?

That is a good question, for which there is no generally accepted answer. But my distillation of the generally accepted usages of the term is this: An event ( or events ) resulting in the formation of a new group of organisms that are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but are not capable of successfully interbreeding with their ancestors. I.e. A new group of organisms that are genetically incompatible at the Chromosome level with their ancestors.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

How is it determined? Number of chromosomes? Total base pairs? Human hearing becoming sensitive in the microwave band so we can get rid of our cell phones and receive the signal directly? When pigs fly?

Determination: See above. Keywords: new, capable of interbreeding, fertile offspring, genetically incompatible with ancestors.

Human hearing becoming sensitive would likely be microevolution - they'd still be humans. Pig's that fly would probably no longer be pigs. Whatever they were called, they would likely be the result of macroevolution.

11/13/2007 05:05:17 PM · #181

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
That's analogous to saying that all languages are flawed if any language has become defunct. It's illogical.

...or that if a prior theory of evolution was incomplete, the current theory must be dismissed. :-P

Incomplete is a whole lot different from defunct. Though, by the time the theory of evolution is populated with 'more better' facts and gains a more 'largely proven' status the original version of that theory may very well be thought of as defunct. :-)

ryand

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/13/2007 05:08:06 PM · #182

Honestly speaking, tomorrow there could be a story that is all over the news about Evolution being proved wrong, and Evolutionists would have that thrown in their face by those who don't believe in it. Those who do believe it would most likely dismiss it as inaccurate or a hoax or something to that effect. If someone were to come out and say that they have disproved Christianity, I honestly think that i would dismiss that person as either an insane person who honestly thought that he had disproved it, or a straight up liar. There really is nothing that someone could tell me that would make me believe in something other than Creation or to make me disbelieve in God. Absolutely nothing said would deter me from that. I have had to many proofs in my own life of that to disagree with it because of something that someone said. The truth is nothing i say will convince you, the only way you will change your mind would be if you saw something that proved me right, and nothing will convince me, unless i see something that proves to me that i am completely out of line and incorrect.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/13/2007 05:18:43 PM · #183

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
You cannot observe macro evolution. It is not something that has been observed and recorded first-hand.

YOU don't believe something because you can't see it? That's priceless! :-D

You're either complaining that something can't be observed because it takes a long time, or that scientists believe a dinosaur suddenly *poofed* into a duck one day. Both are patently absurd. We're talking about tiny changes accumulating over millions of years... and they CAN be observed.

Show me the fossils of a) a dinosaur, b) a duck, c) the common ancestor of a dinosaur and a duck, and d) the intermediate stages between the dinosaur and the duck.

Originally posted by scalvert:

The fossil record gives us time-lapse data that's readily observable... as if we took a picture every 10 million years.

Oh yeah. That picture ought to be proof enough for all. It's observable ( the picture, that is ). Now let me direct you to THIS 'readily observable' picture that should offer equal proof of the existence of God.

Originally posted by scalvert:

We can also extrapolate from smaller changes observed within our lifetimes, much as we extrapolate major geological features from smaller contemporary processes. Just because something takes a long time doesn't mean it can't be proven, and Darwin's conclusions were drawn from observation.

Extrapolate: 1. to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.
'nuff said.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
You cannot prove macro evolution. Every conclusion drawn to support macro evolution is based upon assumptions. While fossils are factual ( in that they are observable ), the conclusions about their age is based on assumptions.

Thanks to the fossil record and genetic science, there is far more tangible evidence for evolution than there was for atomic theory. Kaboom.

Evidence, perhaps. Proof, not a chance.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

11/13/2007 05:19:31 PM · #184

Originally posted by ryand:

Were you born or did you just appear? If you were born of another then you have evolved into a being through gestation. There may have been an instant of creation but the rest my friend is evolution. Now I say this without proselytizing or sharing my faith.

To deny evolution is to deny your very own existence. The fact that at 16 you are now taller then you were at 5 has evolution written all over it. Now I would never tell you that for you God doesn't exist just that for others that may be the case.

11/13/2007 05:20:28 PM · #185

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

That is microevolution.

11/13/2007 05:28:44 PM · #186

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
...what 'now defunct' has to do with anything, I don't know. The implication is that if any religion ceased to retain adherents, it proves that all religions share the same fatal flaws. That's analogous to saying that all languages are flawed if any language has become defunct. It's illogical.

If a large group of people considered a single language to be the one true means of communication- created by an omniscient master and required of all people for all time- then the fact that no single language out of thousands has survived for more than a few thousand years OR commanded a simple majority of the world's population implies that the original premise is false. All of what we consider mythologies today were at some point the only choices on the religious menu.

I have re-read your post several times and do not understand what point you are trying to make. My confusion is in what the antecedent of "original premise" is. Is it "considered a single language to be the one true means of communication"? or is it in reference to a statement in MY post?
FWIW, According to the Bible, there WAS a single language until that brouhaha at the Tower of Babel. But that, supposedly, occurred within the last 6 thousand years or so.

11/13/2007 05:32:00 PM · #187

Originally posted by ryand:

There really is nothing that someone could tell me that would make me believe in something other than Creation or to make me disbelieve in God.

You and every other devout believer of every other religion, past and present. I can't help but wonder what you would have believed in 3,000 years ago.

Blind faith allows otherwise-rational people to stare directly at moons orbiting Jupiter and still claim that everything revolves around the earth. This explains a lot. :-/

11/13/2007 05:43:35 PM · #188

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

This is why when I mention evolution I specify macro- or micro-. Micro-evolution is real. I can't speak for all but I, for one, have never argued against the process of micro-evolution.
FYI, while it's possible that some type of micro-evolution occurs with each human that is born, growth from birth to adulthood is not indicative of either micro- or macro-evolution - that kind of growth occurs without a genetic change.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/13/2007 05:55:45 PM · #189

Originally posted by RonB:

Show me the fossils of a) a dinosaur, b) a duck, c) the common ancestor of a dinosaur and a duck, and d) the intermediate stages between the dinosaur and the duck.

Dinosaur. Duck. Common Ancestor. Intermediate Stage. Not that it matters because you've already covered your eyes and dismissed fossil evidence as proof of anything. LALALALA... not liiiiistening!

Originally posted by Scalvert:

The fossil record gives us time-lapse data that's readily observable... as if we took a picture every 10 million years.

Originally posted by RonB:

let me direct you to THIS 'readily observable' picture that should offer equal proof of the existence of God

You couldn't have illustrated our difference of opinion any better! My picture was drawn from examination of actual fossils while yours was drawn entirely from imagination. You're welcome to your opinion, but I certainly don't consider both equally valid.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

11/13/2007 05:59:05 PM · #190

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Were you born or did you just appear? If you were born of another then you have evolved into a being through gestation. There may have been an instant of creation but the rest my friend is evolution. Now I say this without proselytizing or sharing my faith.

To deny evolution is to deny your very own existence. The fact that at 16 you are now taller then you were at 5 has evolution written all over it. Now I would never tell you that for you God doesn't exist just that for others that may be the case.

This is why when I mention evolution I specify macro- or micro-. Micro-evolution is real. I can't speak for all but I, for one, have never argued against the process of micro-evolution.
FYI, while it's possible that some type of micro-evolution occurs with each human that is born, growth from birth to adulthood is not indicative of either micro- or macro-evolution - that kind of growth occurs without a genetic change.

If that were the case then why do mutations occur? Like the little girl that was born with 4 arms and 4 legs or conjoined twins.

Now on the Macro scale how do you explain tectonic plate movement? The Grand Canyon and the time it took for a small river to erode a crack into a canyon?

"The Bible does not speak directly about continental drift and plate tectonics, but if the continents were once together, as Genesis 1:9-10 suggests, and are now apart, how does that fit into a biblical view of geology with a time line of only thousands of years?"

Message edited by author 2007-11-13 18:04:04.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/13/2007 06:14:10 PM · #191

Originally posted by RonB:

Micro-evolution is real. I can't speak for all but I, for one, have never argued against the process of micro-evolution.

We can witness micro-evolution on a scale of years or even weeks through random mutation, gene splicing, or even intentional breeding. One gene can change an eye color, hair length, body proportions, etc... Over a few hundred years, a common dog can be as different as a toy poodle and a great dane. Carry that process over tens of millions of years, and micro becomes very macro indeed! Fossil hominids from 1 million years ago are quite different from modern humans. Fossils from 5 million years ago are even more different. What do you think their ancestors looked like 50 million years ago?

ryand

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/13/2007 06:23:16 PM · #192

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by ryand:
Honestly speaking, tomorrow there could be a story that is all over the news about Evolution being proved wrong, and Evolutionists would have that thrown in their face by those who don't believe in it. Those who do believe it would most likely dismiss it as inaccurate or a hoax or something to that effect. If someone were to come out and say that they have disproved Christianity, I honestly think that i would dismiss that person as either an insane person who honestly thought that he had disproved it, or a straight up liar. There really is nothing that someone could tell me that would make me believe in something other than Creation or to make me disbelieve in God. Absolutely nothing said would deter me from that. I have had to many proofs in my own life of that to disagree with it because of something that someone said. The truth is nothing i say will convince you, the only way you will change your mind would be if you saw something that proved me right, and nothing will convince me, unless i see something that proves to me that i am completely out of line and incorrect.

Were you born or did you just appear? If you were born of another then you have evolved into a being through gestation. There may have been an instant of creation but the rest my friend is evolution. Now I say this without proselytizing or sharing my faith.

To deny evolution is to deny your very own existence. The fact that at 16 you are now taller then you were at 5 has evolution written all over it. Now I would never tell you that for you God doesn't exist just that for others that may be the case.

I'm not really interested in debating evolution vs. creation, I was simply stating that I believe in God and Creation, and nothing anyone can say is going to change that. I don't for one second believe that i can convince you of my point either, my job isn't to prove everyone wrong, by job is to love everyone.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

11/13/2007 06:23:58 PM · #193

Originally posted by ryand:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by ryand:
Honestly speaking, tomorrow there could be a story that is all over the news about Evolution being proved wrong, and Evolutionists would have that thrown in their face by those who don't believe in it. Those who do believe it would most likely dismiss it as inaccurate or a hoax or something to that effect. If someone were to come out and say that they have disproved Christianity, I honestly think that i would dismiss that person as either an insane person who honestly thought that he had disproved it, or a straight up liar. There really is nothing that someone could tell me that would make me believe in something other than Creation or to make me disbelieve in God. Absolutely nothing said would deter me from that. I have had to many proofs in my own life of that to disagree with it because of something that someone said. The truth is nothing i say will convince you, the only way you will change your mind would be if you saw something that proved me right, and nothing will convince me, unless i see something that proves to me that i am completely out of line and incorrect.

Were you born or did you just appear? If you were born of another then you have evolved into a being through gestation. There may have been an instant of creation but the rest my friend is evolution. Now I say this without proselytizing or sharing my faith.

To deny evolution is to deny your very own existence. The fact that at 16 you are now taller then you were at 5 has evolution written all over it. Now I would never tell you that for you God doesn't exist just that for others that may be the case.

I'm not really interested in debating evolution vs. creation, I was simply stating that I believe in God and Creation, and nothing anyone can say is going to change that. I don't for one second believe that i can convince you of my point either, my job isn't to prove everyone wrong, by job is to love everyone.

Cool! :-)

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/13/2007 06:56:05 PM · #194

Reminder for Forum Rule #7:

When posting potentially adult content, include a warning. When possible, include the warning in your subject line. If you are posting in an existing thread, consider carefully whether the content is appropriate for the thread. If it is, include a warning at the beginning of your post. Unless your warning is in the subject line, any images must be linked rather than thumbnailed or posted directly.

Also, please keep on topic. Thanks!

Message edited by L2 - Referencing posts that needed to be hidden :).

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/13/2007 07:09:22 PM · #195

I can't see any adult links in this thread. I must've missed it again.

zxaar

11/13/2007 07:38:22 PM · #196

Originally posted by L2:

Sorry I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding.

11/13/2007 07:46:09 PM · #197

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Show me the fossils of a) a dinosaur, b) a duck, c) the common ancestor of a dinosaur and a duck, and d) the intermediate stages between the dinosaur and the duck.

Dinosaur. Duck. Common Ancestor. Intermediate Stage. Not that it matters because you've already covered your eyes and dismissed fossil evidence as proof of anything. LALALALA... not liiiiistening!

Originally posted by Scalvert:
The fossil record gives us time-lapse data that's readily observable... as if we took a picture every 10 million years.

Originally posted by RonB:
let me direct you to THIS 'readily observable' picture that should offer equal proof of the existence of God

You couldn't have illustrated our difference of opinion any better! My picture was drawn from examination of actual fossils while yours was drawn entirely from imagination. You're welcome to your opinion, but I certainly don't consider both equally valid.

I'm going to make some observations and then call it quits for this line of discussion ( except to reply to direct questions, of course ).
Your link, in response to my request for a fossil that represents the common ancestor of both dinosaur and duck wasn't what I expected. Instead of the fossil of a pre-dinosaur that was also a pre-duck, you provided a link to a fossil purported to be a dinosaur that was the DIRECT ancestor of a duck. I assume that you couldn't find the common ancestor, and so provided the DIRECT ancestor fossil instead. That's OK, it just means that they dinosaurs and ducks aren't cousins. That being said, I will quote ( selectively, of course ) some of the article you linked to, highlight what I consider to be key words, and interject some of my own thoughts:

"The feet of previously discovered specimens were sort of scrunched up, making it difficult for scientists to determine toe configuration. That resulted in reconstructions showing feet with a hind toe, typical of modern birds."

( this means that evolutionists previously assumed something not in evidence, and published those assumptions ( in peer reviewed journals, no doubt ) as though they were facts; if they assumed then, why should we believe they are not continuing to make assumptions now? perhaps not about the feet, but about other things? ).

"But the Thermopolis specimen, discovered in the Solnhoren region of southeastern Germany, clearly shows that Archaeopteryx's first toe extends from the side of its foot, like a human thumb, instead of backwards. The middle toe could be extended, and it had a large claw at its tip.

This configuration is similar to some late Jurassic dinosaur families, including the claw-footed Velociraptor and its cousins. As scientists consider Archaeopteryx to be the first known bird, this discovery strengthens the argument that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs."

( At least this article notes that scientists only "consider" Archaeopteryx to be the first known bird, and that the discovery only "strengthens the argument" ( but does not prove ) that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. )

"It is unclear exactly when the perching toe developed, but it was within 30 million years after Archaeopteryx lived. By this time â�� the early Cretaceous period, about 120 million years ago â�� all birds appear to have a perching foot with a hind toe."

( Note 1: scientists are probably "unclear" when the perching toe developed because they haven't found any intermediate fossils for that missing 30 million years ( their stated timeframe ). Note 2: by the time a single bird fossil with a perching toe does appear - ALL of the bird fossils have it. The theory of evolution would have us believe that ALL of the birds had a common ancestor WITH a perching toe. So where is its fossil? Without it, it takes "blind faith" to declare that there must be one, it just hasn't been found yet. )

I haven't covered my eyes. I see the fossils just fine. And marvel at them. I just don't subscribe to the assumptions being made about them that are required in order to justify a denial of God's hand in creation.

But I think that we've debated macroevolution enough.

After all of my tiresome posts, I am of the opinion that anyone who won't admit that the premise of macroevolution is all ultimately based on assumptions fully intends to keep their eyes covered. To quote yourself, LALALALA... not liiiiistening!

Let's move on, shall we?

11/13/2007 08:13:12 PM · #198

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

Originally posted by RonB:
I don't for one moment believe that there is a 'religion' gene. My point was that IF the need for religion had evolved in humans ( across widely dispersed people groups ), then it should have a scientific basis ( I don't believe there is one

I'd like to discuss that if I may. What is the 'benefit' of religion? By 'benefit' I mean in the darwinian sense. This normally means some enhancement to the survial of ones gene. But Darwinian 'benefit' can be applied to individual organism not just genes. An animals behaviour tends to maximise the survival of the genes FOR that behaviour. Why to moths fly into flames? It doesnt seem advantageous to the individuals genes! It has been shown that insects use celestial bodies such as the sun and the moon to navigate in a straight line. This works as they are at optical infinity, if not it throws them out and they end up circling the source, and elegantly, logarithmically, spiral to a flamey death! On the whole though, this behaviour is of an obvious advantage to the moth.

The fact that religion is so ubiquitous probably means it worked for the benefit of something. It is thought by some therefore that the religious 'need' that all humans(apart from me!) have, served a purpose that allowed us to survive and thus reproduce - for the good of the gene! Religion was a survival mechanism, safety in numbers you might say.

Others have said more, and far more eloquently, but you get the idea! Now that the gonad bashing is out of the way this is turning into an interesting discussion!

I don't personally believe that there is a Darwinian benefit to religion apart from the possible benefit of what you call 'safety in numbers'.

Quite the contrary, actually. Consider that religion is a root cause of war ( not all wars, mind you, but some ), morality, chastity, celibacy, and compassion.

War is obviously detrimental to the gene pool in that the majority of casualties are the most robust members of the population. They are not, therefore able to reproduce to the same extent they would were it not for war.

Morality is detrimental to the gene pool in that robust men and women refrain from promiscuous reproduction - resulting in fewer offspring.

Chastity is detrimental to the gene pool in that it, too, results in a reduction in the number of offspring.

Same for Celibacy.

Compassion is detrimental to the gene pool in that it tends to extend the timeframe, or make possible, the ability of the less robust members of the population to reproduce - and thus pass on their genes.

Also, some cultures offered up human sacrifices as part of their religious practices. This would also have been detrimental to the gene pool.

Note: It is NOT my intent to turn this thread into a debate on eugenics. I'm just providing my response to an intelligent question about whether religion provides a Darwinian benefit.

smartypants