Evolution evidence?

[seebs]

Okay, let's try it again from the top.

Your argument was that the Bible does not provide any support for the theory of evolution. The same standards apply to the germ theory of disease.

If the germ theory of disease is not correct, we must have some alternative explanation for how antibiotics drive out disease. Since it's not Biblical, we know that it's not God doing it.

If we've ruled out science, and God, we have one option left. And, historically, attributing the driving out of disease to that third option has been frowned upon.

However, it's the only conclusion we can come to if we accept your premise that a scientific theory should stand or fall based on Biblical support.

Thus, your argument against evolution is logically equivalent to claiming that antibiotics drive out the evil spirits which cause disease, by using the power of Satan. That's the only option left which is consistent with your stated premises - and it's a bad enough option that I suggest you might want to consider an alternative.

You might consider the possibility that, just as Christ could cure diseases in a way that did not fit the way the Pharisees understood scriptures, God can create life in a way that does not fit the way you understand scriptures. I believe you'll find this to be much better than the alternatives, which require you to make blasphemous comments about people "worshipping" Darwin.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
Okay, let's try it again from the top.

Okie dokie.

Originally posted by seebs
Your argument was that the Bible does not provide any support for the theory of evolution. The same standards apply to the germ theory of disease.

The same standards as what?

Originally posted by seebs
If the germ theory of disease is not correct, we must have some alternative explanation for how antibiotics drive out disease. Since it's not Biblical, we know that it's not God doing it.

Why have we decided that germs cannot cause disease? Are you saying that because the Bible doesn't mention germs they can't exist? It doesn't mention you, either. Does that mean you don't exist? I don't recall any mention of GMC Suburban SUVs, either, which is a good thing because I hate those monstrosities and I wish they didn't exist.

Originally posted by seebs
If we've ruled out science, and God, we have one option left. And, historically, attributing the driving out of disease to that third option has been frowned upon.

However, it's the only conclusion we can come to if we accept your premise that a scientific theory should stand or fall based on Biblical support.

Who said anything like that? Surely not me. The Bible contradicts evolution. It doesn't contradict all scientific theories or the existence of diseases, germ-based or otherwise.

Originally posted by seebs
Thus, your argument against evolution is logically equivalent to claiming that antibiotics drive out the evil spirits which cause disease, by using the power of Satan.

It is? Gosh, that's a pretty ridiculous logical connection you've made. No wonder you'll fall for something as silly as evolution.

Originally posted by seebs
You might consider the possibility that, just as Christ could cure diseases in a way that did not fit the way the Pharisees understood scriptures, God can create life in a way that does not fit the way you understand scriptures. I believe you'll find this to be much better than the alternatives, which require you to make blasphemous comments about people "worshipping" Darwin.

Actually, IMO you've got it backwards. The fact that Christ could cure birth defects and infirmities like crippled limbs, blindness, hemophelia -- and do so instantly in cases where it is clearly impossible for the natural healing process to EVER work -- testifies to the supernatural. That supports the idea that G~d could easily have created life as we know it instantly. Any G~d Who can correct the results of genetic defects instantly doesn't have to evolve the problems out of the genes over a period of millions of years.

 

[seebs]

The Bible contradicts the germ theory of disease as much as it contradicts evolution. I think it's your turn to read it a bit more carefully; the Bible clearly describes disease as resulting from things other than "life forms too small for us to see without equipment". If that's not what disease came from, either the Bible is wrong, or we have to be a little looser in our interpretation.

If the Bible contradicts evolution, it contradicts the germ theory of disease. In both cases, it explains the observed phenomoneon (our existance, or disease) through purely supernatural means which contradict observed qualities of the world around us.

Yes, God could indeed have created life as we know it instantly; indeed, He could have created us last Tuesday. However, there is no particular reason to believe that He is some kind of weird joker who presents lots of evidence for things He didn't actually do, so the best available explanation of the evidence is that He made the world through a process that we would think of as "slow". He's got time.

If you're going to stick with a strict interpretation of Genesis, why not also a strict interpretation of the explanations of disease as caused by spirits? After all, God could certainly make the world such that disease was caused by evil spirits.

The difference between the cases is simple: One of them makes us confront *OUR* nature, not the nature of something else, and that's scary. That's the reason (singular) for which evolution is still denied so vehemently. In the years I've followed this debate, no other reason has ever been convincingly put forth, and certainly, the people who are so dogmatic about creation aren't dogmatic about the germ theory of disease... because they know full well that germs *DO* carry disease, and that the functioning of germs and antibiotics is an inescapable part of the way God made things.

The attempt to dodge the obvious evidence of our senses and reasoning when it comes to conclusions such as "the Earth may not be the physical center of the universe" or "humans may have evolved from other animals" is understandable, but in the end, it's insulting to God and man alike. Do you think He was proud of His children when they hurt and killed people who suggested that perhaps the Earth moves around the Sun? If not, why do you think He would be any more proud of the kinds of vicious attacks you launch on people who suggest that perhaps the same evolutionary process we see in everything else affects *our* bodies, too?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
The Bible contradicts the germ theory of disease as much as it contradicts evolution. I think it's your turn to read it a bit more carefully; the Bible clearly describes disease as resulting from things other than "life forms too small for us to see without equipment". If that's not what disease came from, either the Bible is wrong, or we have to be a little looser in our interpretation.

You're trying to create a straw man out of nowhere. (Heck, at least be consistent and evolve your straw men.)

I don't see a single text in the Bible that contradicts germs or disease, and I see verses that indicate that it talk about diseases without any reference whatsoever to demons, satan, or any supernatural direction. So you're making up a premise out of nowhere. If you honestly believe the Bible states that disease is always caused by supernatural forces, then give your profftexts or stop this ridiculous charade.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs

However, there is no particular reason to believe that He is some kind of weird joker who presents lots of evidence for things He didn't actually do

I'll have to agree with you there. This explains why the fossil record does not support evolution -- because it didn't occur, and G~d didn't leave evidence for things He didn't do. You have to "imagine" evolution into the fossil record to come to that conclusion at all.

 

[seebs]

Nick, did something change recently making you unwilling to use God's name to refer to Him?

The fossil record certainly does support some form of evolution. It does not show that *ONLY* evolution has ever happened - but it certainly suggests that evolutionary processes have happened, and have happened many millions of times, for hundreds of millions of years.

No one needs to "imagine" anything; you find a series of progressively newer hominids with progressively larger skulls, and there's really no reason to believe that God created a lot of fossils of creatures that never lived, but there's a lot of reason to suspect that these creatures were related to each other in some way.

The evidence for evolution isn't quite as polished as the evidence for the germ theory of disease, but then, it's less flagrant in its outright contradiction of the Bible's scientific claims.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
I'll have to agree with you there. This explains why the fossil record does not support evolution -- because it didn't occur, and G~d didn't leave evidence for things He didn't do. You have to "imagine" evolution into the fossil record to come to that conclusion at all.

Yes, yes. You can keep saying it over and over again, but that won't make your assertion any less false. The fossil record is full of beautiful transitions like this one:

In this chronologically ordered sequence of fossils, we can see the reptile jaw bones slowly transforming over time into the single jaw bone and middle ear typical of mammals.

 

[seebs]

Looks like a transition to me. It would look like a transition to anyone who didn't know that it was taken over a period of time, and was correctly sorted, or who didn't know that it was being used as evidence for evolution. People who know that may be suddenly unable to see the transition.

 

[seebs]

I like how, once a clear transition is shown, the "there's no transition" voices leave the thread.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I like how, once a clear transition is shown, the "there's no transition" voices leave the thread.

Only to pop up again in the next thread, along with a quote from Gould that supposedly proves that this transitional fossil doesn't exist...

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
Nick, did something change recently making you unwilling to use God's name to refer to Him?

Yes. Someone joined these discussions who treats the word that way, and I'm showing respect for his view. I also do this by default on my own site, since many people who visit the site are Messianic Jews who feel the same way.

Originally posted by seebs
The evidence for evolution isn't quite as polished as the evidence for the germ theory of disease, but then, it's less flagrant in its outright contradiction of the Bible's scientific claims.

Now you're saying the Bible has scientific claims? Is this RAA you're using? (Random Access Assertions?) Stick with a view, guy, and maybe someday I figure out what you're talking about.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Yes, yes. You can keep saying it over and over again, but that won't make your assertion any less false. The fossil record is full of beautiful transitions like this one:

Wow, what pretty drawings - you're right, it is beautiful. Nice use of color, too. You have just proven that you can evolve one drawing into another! I've seen this sort of thing in those "Learn how to draw cartoons" books, too. It's cool how you can go from a circle to a cartoon face, step by step. Now, if I erase some of these drawings, does that disprove evolution?

How about this, then...instead of providing us with drawings, can you provide us with pictures of REAL, COMPLETE FOSSILS for the entire transitional series, instead?

Now, I realize that vertebrates make up only a fraction of the fossil record, so that won't be easy for you -- in fact, it will be impossible.

So I'll let you off the hook and make this REALLY EASY. Using WHOLE FOSSILS, NOT DRAWINGS, provide the SAME NUMBER OF STEP BY STEP TRANSITIONS (I count 8 in your example) from one plant to a significantly different plant -- with the starting and ending points being as significantly different from each other as the starting and ending points of your drawings of jaw bones. All of the fossils of must not include polyploids, for reasons that would be obvious to anyone who knows anything about polyploids.

Piece of cake, right?

 

[Morat]

All of the fossils of must not include polyploids, for reasons that would be obvious to anyone who knows anything about polyploids.

Let's pretend I know nothing about polyploids, except for what the term means.

What reasons would these be, and how exactly could you determine if it's polyploid or not from a fossil?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley

How about this, then...instead of providing us with drawings, can you provide us with pictures of REAL, COMPLETE FOSSILS for the entire transitional series, instead?

What would be the purpose of such a silly exercise? Oh, I forgot -- the artist is probably a scientist and therefore a stupid liar (and maybe insane, too).

So I'll let you off the hook and make this REALLY EASY. Using WHOLE FOSSILS, NOT DRAWINGS, provide the SAME NUMBER OF STEP BY STEP TRANSITIONS (I count 8 in your example) from one plant to a significantly different plant -- with the starting and ending points being as significantly different from each other as the starting and ending points of your drawings of jaw bones. All of the fossils of must not include polyploids, for reasons that would be obvious to anyone who knows anything about polyploids.

What do I look like, a museum? If you've got some wacko theory about how plants evolved then why don't you do like real scientists do and GET OFF YOUR BUTT AND GATHER SOME EVIDENCE.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
All of the fossils of must not include polyploids, for reasons that would be obvious to anyone who knows anything about polyploids.

Why? You're going to do more than just assert this. There is an entire thread waiting for you.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

Now you're saying the Bible has scientific claims? Is this RAA you're using? (Random Access Assertions?) Stick with a view, guy, and maybe someday I figure out what you're talking about.

If the Bible contains an explanation of how humans came to exist, then it has scientific claims. Claims about matters we can study through science are, in the end, scientific claims, subject to verification and revision.

 

[randman]

Seebs, the point about not joking about driving out evil spirits is a serious one. Think about it a little.

 

[randman]

"Your argument was that the Bible does not provide any support for the theory of evolution. The same standards apply to the germ theory of disease."

Wrong, and laughable. If you can't see the aburdity of this comment seebs, then well, ...I don't want to say, but maybe we should all be kinder toward you.

Think about it. The demons versus germs is not an either/or situation. Both can simulataneously be true. They can both be true for some instances of disease, or some can be the result of one only, or the other.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman

Think about it. The demons versus germs is not an either/or situation. Both can simulataneously be true. They can both be true for some instances of disease, or some can be the result of one only, or the other.

Absolutely, which is why I don't understand why seebs is under the impression that the Bible teaches only one thing in this case. He says he knew of the reference to blasphemy, so he must read his Bible. So I'm stumped. But in case anyone is interested...

Although the issue in this section is actually about the Sabbath and legalism, here's an example where a woman is crippled by a spirit obviously under the influence or rule of satan.

Luke 10
10 On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, you are set free from your infirmity." 13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.
14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath."
15 The Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?"

Paul raised someone from the dead, so miracles are not strange to Paul. Yet Paul doesn't tell Timothy to seek to have evil spirits driven out from him because he's having stomach problems and frequent illnesses. Paul simply says to drink some wine, which should help.

1 Timothy 5
23 Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

Or take this example. Lazarus has been dead four days, and Martha warns Jesus that his body will stink. Surely one would be pretty silly to conclude the Bible implies satan is responsible for torturing this dead body with supernatural odor.

John 11
39 "Take away the stone," he said.
"But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days."

But I challenge anyone to find any record of evolution in the Bible that coexists with the record and repetitions of G~d creating all things.

 

[seebs]

I love the way you guys will run in circles reinterpreting the Bible, or deciding that it's okay for God to do some things in two totally different ways for no obvious reason, so that you can carefully dodge questions of what's so special about evolution that makes it unacceptable.

It's wacky. The real objection, and it's the *only* one that withstands scrutiny, is "I can't feel special to God if my distant ancestors weren't all humans all the way back forever".