Evidences for evolution

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
That is a view very highly influenced by your own wordlview, and does not reflect how Christians view the concept of worship. looking around in the world, Christians tend to blame the obvius culprit for human wrongdoing: humans. Even if I were to hypothesize that we have made up a God, I would suggest that the reason for that action, and the subsequent worship of that being, would be precisely that our rational minds have seen the dichotomy between what would be good and what is, and have used both our rational minds and our spiritual or emotional souls (or feelings/instincts, for your benefit) to come up with an artistic and pragmatic solution to the problem. Again, that is assuming thre is no God.


Interestingly, the Ancient Greeks were the first society to formalize logic and rationalism. Plato wrote extensively about the nature of the "Good" and the dichotomy between the real (shadows) and the ideal (forms).

At no point did this lead him to conceptualize a God. In fact, the Greek pantheon of gods lost some credibility with the philosophers.

The Hebrew (and later Christian) conception of God was born out of cultures with few, if any, ties to formalized rationalism.

What I am saying is that I think history itself speaks against the point you are trying to make.

Obiously if there IS a God, He's just miffed you think He's vain. (kidding!)

But if he's all-knowing, he'll know that it is my attempt to give him "more credit" than he's apparently getting from his believers.

But I mean seriously, you get the two views I'm getting at here, and how if there's a God, your view is invalid from the get go, and even if you are right and there is no God, this does not necessarily represent the imaginationless and stupid but rather an invention of the whole mind, both rational and emotional?

I appreciate that you now understand that I was not trying to be offensive with my earlier post.

But I disagree with that. If there is a God, my view is not invalid from the get go. That would be true only if it were a God that I was specifically atheistic towards -- the Christian God being one. There are many varieties of potential creators that I would not deny the possibility of existence.

Secondly, I think you are wrong on the second point. Humans anthropomorphize just about anything they can relate to -- pets, animals, plants, stuffed animals, cars, etc. Why should our conception of God be immune to that? It is only natural to try to understand God's thought processes as similar to our own. So we assume that he has goals and desires that we can relate to.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Shane Roach

Furthermore, working in worms and bacteria and yeast does not give much support to the idea of development and speciation in the higher order animals.


Worms are definitely higher order animals. They are multicellular. They have a nervous system and a digestive tract. They can mate as male/female.

There is another interesting example I read where one breed of a certain animal could not cross with another breed of the same species, but it was brought on by microrganisms. WHen the beasts were fed antibiotics, they could once again cross-breed. Very odd stuff.

You're reaching.

You have said, just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it didn;t happen. It is also true, however, that just because something happens now doesn't mean it happened before.

Now you're really reaching. If something can happen now, then I think that any reasonable person would accept that it could have happened in the past under similar conditions.

So even if you could get some examples of convincing speciation in higher order animals, I'm afraid it would still not be proof to many.

Let's repeat that for emphasis:
So even if you could get some examples of convincing speciation in higher order animals, I'm afraid it would still not be proof to many.

Apparently, denial ain't just a river in Egypt! That statement equates intellectually to you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you la la la" whenever someone provides proof of speciation.

Part of the problem with these competing worldviews is a difference of opinion on the very nature of consciousness and free will, and on the understanding of what is "likely" or plausible in the minds of the adherents to the oposing viewpoints.

Just some things for you to chew on.

In other words, you can justify your denial of reality by calling it a "competing worldview"

sheesh.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Ray K


Interestingly, the Ancient Greeks were the first society to formalize logic and rationalism. Plato wrote extensively about the nature of the "Good" and the dichotomy between the real (shadows) and the ideal (forms).

....

What I am saying is that I think history itself speaks against the point you are trying to make.

Firstly, I don't see the formalization of logic as being as necessary to the view in discussion as simple, rational thought, which must exist before anything can be formalized to begin with. Also, I don't think the example you're giving between real and ideal forms applies here either. The concept of God goes too far, and would break apart the Greek concept of ideal form, while humanism simply ignores it as irrelevant.

But I mean seriously, you get the two views I'm getting at here, and how if there's a God, your view is invalid from the get go, and even if you are right and there is no God, this does not necessarily represent the imaginationless and stupid but rather an invention of the whole mind, both rational and emotional?

Originally posted by Ray K
I appreciate that you now understand that I was not trying to be offensive with my earlier post.

But I disagree with that. If there is a God, my view is not invalid from the get go. That would be true only if it were a God that I was specifically atheistic towards -- the Christian God being one. There are many varieties of potential creators that I would not deny the possibility of existence.

Secondly, I think you are wrong on the second point. Humans anthropomorphize just about anything they can relate to -- pets, animals, plants, stuffed animals, cars, etc. Why should our conception of God be immune to that? It is only natural to try to understand God's thought processes as similar to our own. So we assume that he has goals and desires that we can relate to.

On the first point, since we were talking about Christianity mainly I just left that as assumed. On the second point, anthropomorphising is only bad when creating a philosophy or aesthetic or ethic if we only give the subject of this anthropomorphization qualities of our base impulses. This is not the case in the concept of the Christian God.

There's no reason for you to just find an insult to men or God in the Christian view of God. It is not a debased view.

 

[ThienAn]

Originally posted by TheBear
That being said, I see absolutely nothing in scripture, that tells me not to use my God-given brain, to search for answers that lie outside the scope of Biblical teachings.

We live by faith, not by sight. II Corinthians 5:7

I don't consult scripture to work on my car. I don't consult scripture to get cooking recipies. I don't consult scripture to use the internet. I don't consult scripture to use my brain for many things that lie outside the scope of Biblical teachings. Is microbiology usefull for the betterment of mankind? You bet it is. Does the Bible address that subject? Absolutely not. Does this mean we are to scrap all medical advancements, that improve and prolong lives, just because it is not wrapped up in some theological doctrine, written in scripture? Of course not. Does the Bible address magnetism, radio waves, gravity, geology, medicine, computer science, aerodynamics, hydrofoils, mathematics, televisions, the combustion engine, indoor plumbing, or electric guitars?

Of course, you can see these things. These things are obvious and does not require faith to understand.

But evolution requires one's faith because you can't prove it, you can't see it, you weren't there.

Save your faith for God; not earthly knowledge.

Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. I Timothy 6:20b - 21

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Ray K

Originally posted by Shane Roach

Furthermore, working in worms and bacteria and yeast does not give much support to the idea of development and speciation in the higher order animals.

Worms are definitely higher order animals. They are multicellular. They have a nervous system and a digestive tract. They can mate as male/female.[/B]

You're kidding me right? I know worms are higher order than bacteria and yeast, if that's the point you're making....?

There is another interesting example I read where one breed of a certain animal could not cross with another breed of the same species, but it was brought on by microrganisms. WHen the beasts were fed antibiotics, they could once again cross-breed. Very odd stuff.

Originally posted by Ray K
You're reaching.

Reaching for what? This example is a factual example from a websie I got from one of you guys. This is how complex all these interactions really are.

You have said, just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it didn;t happen. It is also true, however, that just because something happens now doesn't mean it happened before.

Originally posted by Ray K
Now you're really reaching. If something can happen now, then I think that any reasonable person would accept that it could have happened in the past under similar conditions.

Obviously. I've already conceded the point it could happen. You are insisting that because it can happen, it did. This is a leap on your part, not mine.

So even if you could get some examples of convincing speciation in higher order animals, I'm afraid it would still not be proof to many.

Originally posted by Ray K
[Apparently, denial ain't just a river in Egypt! That statement equates intellectually to you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you la la la" whenever someone provides proof of speciation.

You separated this comment from the rest of the paragraph, and the separation has completely anihalated any possibility for you to understand. Furthermre, I've brought this up to you befire and you have apparently no good answer for it. Inteligence and consciousness exist. It is not unscientific to assume that it exists in some fashion aside from our own selves. It is because you operate under the prior assumption that ours is the highest order of inteligence and that none can possibly exist beyond ours, that creation is even remotely "unlikely" to you.

Part of the problem with these competing worldviews is a difference of opinion on the very nature of consciousness and free will, and on the understanding of what is "likely" or plausible in the minds of the adherents to the oposing viewpoints.

Just some things for you to chew on.

Originally posted by Ray K
In other words, you can justify your denial of reality by calling it a "competing worldview"

sheesh.

No, rather I am able to fully understand both views, whereas you're unable to see mine. This is why it is so easy for you to belittle mine, whereas I am able to fully acknowledge the possibility that you are right without losing faith in my own beliefs. I am totally aware of and comfortable with the uncertainty inherent to this world. You find certainty where there is none for some as yet undiscovered reason.

 

[Shane Roach]

My appologies for the formatting of the previous. It is apparently way too late for me to be posting! I've edited it 3 times and still am not getting it straight!

I give up. (On formatting that is)

 

[2infinity]

There are no objective facts. All supposed "facts" are contaminated with theories, and all theories are infested with moral and political doctrines. Because different theories express different perceptions of the world, there's no neutral yardstick for measuring one against another. The choice between competing theories is always a political choice. Therefore, when some guy in a lab coat tells you that such and such is an objective fact--say, that there isn't any firmament, or that people are related to wolves and hyenas--he must have a political agenda up his starched white sleeve.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by 2infinity
There are no objective facts. All supposed "facts" are contaminated with theories, and all theories are infested with moral and political doctrines. Because different theories express different perceptions of the world, there's no neutral yardstick for measuring one against another. The choice between competing theories is always a political choice. Therefore, when some guy in a lab coat tells you that such and such is an objective fact--say, that there isn't any firmament, or that people are related to wolves and hyenas--he must have a political agenda up his starched white sleeve.

You have made a crucial mistake: You have forgotten the distinction between "I cannot know whether or not this is a fact" and "this cannot be a fact". It is certainly true that one of two things is a fact: Either we are distantly related to wolves, or we are not related to wolves at all. One of these is true.

There is various evidence for each of them. None of the evidence is unshakeable; some of it is very compelling, however.

It is not, in general, the case that the choice between competing theories is always a political one. Sometimes, the evidence is overwhelming. Not that long ago, heliocentrism was a politically unacceptable belief, but the evidence kept piling up.

Personally, I think that our relationship to the animals is so obvious as to not even merit much questioning. The question for me is not "did humans evolve", but "how actively was God involved in the process". I don't have an answer yet. I may never. I don't *need* an answer; my relationship with God is not going to falter either way, because I haven't built it on shaky foundations.

 

[ThienAn]

Originally posted by seebs
The question for me is not "did humans evolve", but "how actively was God involved in the process". I don't have an answer yet. I may never. I don't *need* an answer; my relationship with God is not going to falter either way, because I haven't built it on shaky foundations.

Your statement already showed that your foundation is shaky. Either God created the process of evolution or He didn't. How "actively involved"? What were you expecting, a percentage?

If God didn't create evolution, it DOESN'T exists. If He did, show me the scriptures.

As it stands, God hasn't revealed to me that He has created evolution. So, as far as my faith is concern, evolution doesn't exists. But if God has revealed to you, enlighten me - show me the scriptures.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by ThienAn

Your statement already showed that your foundation is shaky. Either God created the process of evolution or He didn't. How "actively involved"? What were you expecting, a percentage?

Consider a number of explanations, ranging from
"God created the world in seven days" to "stuff like this just happens randomly". There's a lot of intermediate models, like "God created a system that produces results like us", or "God created a system, and nudges it occasionally."

If God didn't create evolution, it DOESN'T exists. If He did, show me the scriptures.

Ahh. So, since I can't find any scriptures referring to 19" monitors, there can't be any? God created everything. You're going at this backwards; the solution isn't to say "If I can't find it in the book, it doesn't exist"; it's to say "If I find a thing, I know that God made it."

As it stands, God hasn't revealed to me that He has created evolution. So, as far as my faith is concern, evolution doesn't exists. But if God has revealed to you, enlighten me - show me the scriptures.

"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's". In other words, use the right tool for the right job. I don't look at the Bible when I want to know the specific gravity of mercury. I don't look at the Bible when I want to know how many bones a cat has. I look at the Bible when I want to know how I should feel about my fellow humans.

God has equipped me with eyes, with which I can see the world. He has also equipped me with a brain, with which I can evaluate the world I see.

He has revealed to me that there's a lot of very cool stuff, and that He is a great stickler for detail.

There is nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of that says that, if you focus a narrow sunbeam onto a triangular piece of glass, it makes a rainbow, or that this is the same result that makes rainbows in the sky. However, God gave me the resources to see these things, and appreciate the amazing beauty and depth of His creation.

With these same tools, I have seen things that make me believe that evolution really happens, and that this is the way in which God chooses to create creatures. It is not my place to tell him that he's not allowed to do things on a time scale that I would think of as slow; He has all of eternity to watch his creation fulfill His plans.

If one of his plans is that it would be really neat if creatures gradually changed over time, then I'm not gonna be the one to tell him that it's not allowed.

 

[Shane Roach]

"Render to Caesar what is Caesar's" has nothing to do with using the right tool for the right job. It is a statement about authority and the nature of it, and whose authority lies where.

In ThienAn's post, She seems to imply that her faith is in the Bible more than in people, and that she believes in creation because that is in the Bible, and she doesn't believe in evolution because it is not in the Bible. The story that is in the Bible contradicts the concept of evolution. This is the conflict. It has nothing to do with using this or that tool.

None of the tools you use go back in time and prove anything. This is why you cannot show the theory well enough to convince folk in the same sense that people believe in things like the properties of gravity.

It's a matter of which source people trust.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by seebs
If one of his plans is that it would be really neat if creatures gradually changed over time, then I'm not gonna be the one to tell him that it's not allowed. [/B]

And knowing that you are genetically related to every living creature on the planet gives a deeper meaning to the concept of being your "brother's keeper"

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Ray K


And knowing that you are genetically related to every living creature on the planet gives a deeper meaning to the concept of being your "brother's keeper"

Not really. I'm carbon-based, and they're carbon-based, but that doesn't make them "people". Even the substantial similarity between us and other mammals doesn't make them "people".; it just makes them similar.

I don't expect a Ford mechanic to be able to service a Honda, even though they're *VERY* similar devices.

Anyway, if knowing that God made them, and that God made me, doesn't make me related to them, what does?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
"Render to Caesar what is Caesar's" has nothing to do with using the right tool for the right job. It is a statement about authority and the nature of it, and whose authority lies where.

I'd have to disagree. The point is that Ceasar's government is a good government, and should be respected as such.

In ThienAn's post, She seems to imply that her faith is in the Bible more than in people, and that she believes in creation because that is in the Bible, and she doesn't believe in evolution because it is not in the Bible. The story that is in the Bible contradicts the concept of evolution. This is the conflict. It has nothing to do with using this or that tool.

The story in the Bible, taken literally, contradicts all sorts of things. I have always assumed that much of it is allegory and metaphor, which can't contradict much of anything.

None of the tools you use go back in time and prove anything. This is why you cannot show the theory well enough to convince folk in the same sense that people believe in things like the properties of gravity.

It's a matter of which source people trust.

You can show that things exactly like those described by the theory happen now, and that all of the evidence is consistent with them having happened in the past. If we're still here in another thousand years, we'll know (I suspect) that it's still happening. That's as good as we have for gravity.

We'll never know that the past was really like that; after all, God could have created the world with old things in it, carefully designed to look as though they had evolved. However, I see two problems:

1. It's not like Him to lie to us, or give us reasons to believe false things.

2. He could also have created the world five minutes ago, and me with all these memories. Once again, it's not like Him.

So, I believe the world is just as it appears to be, and that He made it that way.

 

[ThienAn]

Originally posted by seebs
You're going at this backwards;

You're the one who is putting your faith in evolution

"God created a system that produces results like us", or "God created a system, and nudges it occasionally."

Which is the model that you believe in? Show me the scriptures

Ahh. So, since I can't find any scriptures referring to 19" monitors, there can't be any? God created everything.

Then God must have created evolution as well. In that case, show me the scriptures.

I don't look at the Bible when I want to know the specific gravity of mercury. I don't look at the Bible when I want to know how many bones a cat has.

Of course not, why would you look into the bible when it's right there in front of you?

I look at the Bible when I want to know how I should feel about my fellow humans.

say what??? what is this about? Oh, nevermind. You also mean other fellow apes, chimpanzee, gorillas, etc?

There is nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of that says that, if you focus a narrow sunbeam onto a triangular piece of glass, it makes a rainbow, or that this is the same result that makes rainbows in the sky.

Why would you need faith to understand this when you can see this with your own eyes?

If one of his plans is that it would be really neat if creatures gradually changed over time, then I'm not gonna be the one to tell him that it's not allowed.

If this is His plans, show me the scriptures.

With these same tools, I have seen things that make me believe that evolution really happens, and that this is the way in which God chooses to create creatures. It is not my place to tell him that he's not allowed to do things on a time scale that I would think of as slow; He has all of eternity to watch his creation fulfill His plans.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1

I don't need faith to see how many bones in a cat, I can see that. I need faith in evolution because I can't see that. Notice that your statement said the same thing, "believe".

If you're going to be certain of something that you don't see, if you're going to put faith in something that you don't know, make sure it came from the bible & from God.

So, since you do put faith in evolution, show me the scriptures!

 

[ThienAn]

I'm a he, btw!

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by seebs


I'd have to disagree. The point is that Ceasar's government is a good government, and should be respected as such.

Far from it. CAesar claimed to be god, and claimed worship. The pharisees thought paying tribute was tantamount to worship, as a political point against the Romans, but Christ made the distinction between Caesar's authority over things of this world, and God's authority over all things.

Originally posted by seebs
The story in the Bible, taken literally, contradicts all sorts of things. I have always assumed that much of it is allegory and metaphor, which can't contradict much of anything.

That's a little broad. Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by seebs
You can show that things exactly like those described by the theory happen now,

Not very clearly, no. But still you go on...

Originally posted by seebs
and that all of the evidence is consistent with them having happened in the past. If we're still here in another thousand years, we'll know (I suspect) that it's still happening. That's as good as we have for gravity.

We'll never know that the past was really like that; after all, God could have created the world with old things in it, carefully designed to look as though they had evolved. However, I see two problems:

1. It's not like Him to lie to us, or give us reasons to believe false things.

2. He could also have created the world five minutes ago, and me with all these memories. Once again, it's not like Him.

So, I believe the world is just as it appears to be, and that He made it that way.

Here you make assumptions about God's intentions in making the earth. Perhaps the very concept that looking at the world leads one to the absurd belief that the universe popped into existence from nothing and that all of life evolved from bacteria was meant as a subtle sign that looking at the creation for answers instead of the creator is not a good policy. This is only one of many different ways of looking at it that do not imply insincerity or duplicity to God but which still allow for you to be wrong.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by ThienAn
I'm a he, btw!

EEEEks! (sowwies)

(so THAT'S what those little gender indicators are for....)

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by ThienAn
Which is the model that you believe in? Show me the scriptures

What size shoe do you wear? How do you know it fits? Is there a scripture that tells you what size to wear? Is there a scripture that tells you when you should prefer a 15-year mortgage over a 30-year?

Scripture is about morality, salvation, and God. It's not about the boring day-to-day stuff.

[QUOTE
say what??? what is this about?
[/QUOTE]
You're demanding scriptural citations for things which are simply never discussed in the Bible. There aren't citations for these things, because they're not relevant. The Bible isn't the complete guide to every single true statement anyone could ever make; it's just the truth about *God*.

The Bible doesn't tell me that I can't plug a 120V fan into a 240V outlet, nor does it tell me that my cat will be unhealthy if I feed him tuna all the time. It's not *about* worldly matters, and it really doesn't address them except in passing.

I don't need faith to see how many bones in a cat, I can see that. I need faith in evolution because I can't see that. Notice that your statement said the same thing, "believe".

Ahh. I see what you're getting at. The difference is, I *can* see evolution, the same as I can see any other part of science. I have spent a number of years learning the ropes, and I understand the method well enough to check the work and say "yes, this is reasonable".

It's like mathematics. After several years of study, I can tell you that any subgroup of a group of order N will have an order which is a factor of N. You can't "see" that, if you don't have the training, but once you've studied and observed, you can "see" that.

If you're going to be certain of something that you don't see, if you're going to put faith in something that you don't know, make sure it came from the bible & from God.

But I'm not certain! Why would I be *certain* of such a thing? Things I have personally experienced are sometimes wrong. I used to wear size 34 pants, and one day, *knowing* that I wear size 34's, I bought some, and they didn't fit.

I believe in God, but everything else is just a working hypothesis.

So, since you do put faith in evolution, show me the scriptures!

This isn't about faith, this is about what counts as "what I can see". I don't understand plumbing very well, so I simply have to trust the plumber. I don't look in scripture to see if he's right; I check his results. I don't have the background to do much particle physics, so I have to trust the physicists. I have enough biology to be able to confirm that the obvious complaints about evolution are silly, and that the process is consistent with the way the world appears to work... So I believe it, the same way I believe that there will be road construction because I saw a sign saying there will. I know it might be wrong, but it's not a question of faith for me; it's a question of mundane worldly matters, which are not really addressed, in general, by scripture.

 

[Corey]

A different take:

Your statement already showed that your foundation is shaky. Either God created neutrons or He didn't. How "actively involved"? What were you expecting, a percentage?

If God didn't create neutrons, they DON'T exist. If He did, show me the scriptures.

As it stands, God hasn't revealed to me that He has created neutrons. So, as far as my faith is concern, neutrons don't exist. But if God has revealed to you, enlighten me - show me the scriptures.

Also for those damned subatomic particlists, have YOU ever seen a neutron?