Evolutionary debate

[SkyWriting]

Sorry, I keep confusing natural selection with survival of the fittest.

Disregard, please.

Darwins "survival of the fittest" has been discarded by evolution researchers.
It turns out that "diversity" is critical and "fittest" is meaningless and Darwin was wrong again.
(I'm the only one allowed to say that out loud.)

 

[sandwiches]

Having trouble with context?

And Hannah prayed and said, “My heart exults in the Lord;
my strengtha is exalted in the Lord.
<edit>

8 He raises up the poor from the dust;
he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
and inherit a seat of honor.
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s,
and on them he has set the world.


I don't think that God Literally

- raises up the poor from the dust
- lifts the needy from the ash heap

or

- make(s) them sit with princes


At least not in our time and this present world.
When in context, the intended meanings are clearer.
Still, alternate translations do help when attempting to argue out of context.

Good. I'm glad we agree that not everything in the Bible can be taken literally and that the language, culture, and knowledge of the time is relevant when examining and interpreting any verse in the Bible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, scientists are preferentially naturalistic because that's just what works. Show us the supernatural, and we'll accommodate it. Ghosts may indeed exist, and there's nothing inherent about science that forbids it from investigating them. Depending on how you look at it, this either means the supernatural is not exempt from scientific scrutiny, or that ghosts aren't actually supernatural.

We believe that's not the case [snip]

The offer is there: show us the supernatural. Fulfil it at your own discretion.

Darwins "survival of the fittest" has been discarded by evolution researchers.

He didn't coin this phrase, so it's a bit disingenuous to say it's Darwin's.

It turns out that "diversity" is critical and "fittest" is meaningless and Darwin was wrong again.

Err... what? Both those terms are colloquialisms for the layman. Modern biology has very precise terms for these very precise phenomena. What words people use over 150 years ago is quite irrelevant.

(I'm the only one allowed to say that out loud.)

 

[BarryDesborough]

Darwins "survival of the fittest" has been discarded by evolution researchers.
It turns out that "diversity" is critical and "fittest" is meaningless and Darwin was wrong again.
(I'm the only one allowed to say that out loud.)

"Fitness", in the context of evolutionary biology, can mean two things.

1) How well an organism or an aspect of an organism fits its environmental niche (the organism's way of making a living).

2) How effective an organism, gene complex or gene is at getting itself reproduced. There are many ways of being effective, other than just being the biggest and meanest.

The second meaning is the most commonly used one.

 

[plindboe]

Darwins "survival of the fittest" has been discarded by evolution researchers.

Not Darwin's phrase. Read his books instead of making stuff up.

It turns out that "diversity" is critical

Of course it is, as discussed in length by Darwin. Read his books instead of making stuff up.

and "fittest" is meaningless and

Fitness is a term used by anyone studying evolution. It has a precise meaning and use.

Darwin was wrong again.

There are things Darwin was wrong about. You haven't mentioned any of them.

(I'm the only one allowed to say that out loud.)

lol, wut?

Peter

 

[Hespera]

Not Darwin's phrase. Read his books instead of making stuff up.




Of course it is, as discussed in length by Darwin. Read his books instead of making stuff up.




Fitness is a term used by anyone studying evolution. It has a precise meaning and use.




There are things Darwin was wrong about. You haven't mentioned any of them.




lol, wut?

Peter

now dont tell some poor creo he cant say things that are just made up.

What else do they have?

 

[Doveaman]

Yes. This article is a nice collation of the evidence.

Oh, look, a page from the science bible, a quote from sacred scriptures verifying a claim in matters of faith!

 

[Doveaman]

Good. I'm glad we agree that not everything in the Bible can be taken literally and that the language, culture, and knowledge of the time is relevant when examining and interpreting any verse in the Bible.

It's very refreshing to see a Christian and an Atheist agreeing on the Bible.

 

[sandwiches]

Oh, look, a page from the science bible, a quote from sacred scriptures verifying a claim in matters of faith!

Empirical evidence requires faith, now? Isn't that contradictory to what the Bible says faith is?

 

[sandwiches]

It's very refreshing to see a Christian and an Atheist agreeing on the Bible.

Now try explaining your fellow Christians (Lie AV, for instance) that not everything in it can be taken literally.

 

[Doveaman]

Now try explaining your fellow Christians (Lie AV, for instance) that not everything in it can be taken literally.

Depends on what you mean by "literally".

For instance, a metaphor is a literal metaphor, an allegory is a literal allegory, and history is literal history. So everything in the Bible can be taken literally.

 

[sandwiches]

Depends on what you mean by "literally".

For instance, a metaphor is a literal metaphor, an allegory is a literal allegory, and history is literal history. So everything in the Bible can be taken literally.

ROFL

I guess with your definition, EVERYTHING can be taken literally! If say I am Superman, I am LITERALLY lying. If say I am strong as an ox, I am literally exaggerating. So, everything I say can also be taken literally just like the Bible! Woot!

LOL

Seriously, dove, along with adding 'biblical' in front of words to change their meanings, this is one of your more Poe-like arguments ever. I'm guessing we might as well say the earth having pillars is a 'Biblically literal' statement.

 

[SkyWriting]

Good. I'm glad we agree that not everything in the Bible can be taken literally and that the language, culture, and knowledge of the time is relevant when examining and interpreting any verse in the Bible.

We can gain Additional insights through
"the language, culture, and knowledge of the time"
but keeping a phrase in the context of
the sentance, then
the page, then
the book
is really all that's needed for a proper understanding.

The rest
"the language, culture, and knowledge of the time"
is usually just for students and pastors additional insights.

"relevant when examining and interpreting any verse in the Bible."?
Yes, relevant. But not important or required.

Judging by your example you can't even keep a phrase in context on a page.
I'd start there.

 

[Split Rock]

We can gain Additional insights through
"the language, culture, and knowledge of the time"
but keeping a phrase in the context of
the sentance, then
the page, then
the book
is really all that's needed for a proper understanding.

The rest
"the language, culture, and knowledge of the time"
is usually just for students and pastors additional insights.

"relevant when examining and interpreting any verse in the Bible."?
Yes, relevant. But not important or required.

Judging by your example you can't even keep a phrase in context on a page.
I'd start there.

"Relevant, but not important or required?" Really? Let's try to apply your assertion. How about Dr. Seuss' "How the Grinch Stole Christmas." Let's look at the following lines:

And what happened then? Well, in Whoville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day. And then - the true meaning of Christmas came through, and the Grinch found the strength of *ten* Grinches, plus two!

Now, by itself it is open to many interpretations. However, if we look at it in the context of the paragraph, page and entire book, we see that the Grinch's heart grew because he found redemption and needed desperately to stop the gift-ladden sled from falling off the cliff. According to you, that's all we need to know to understand the writer's intent. If we assume it is a literal history, we might then try searching for the location of Whoville, the identification of The Grinch, what Roast Beast is, etc. Not too different from looking for Noah's Ark, Eden, or deciding the earth was created 6,000 years ago, based on faulty assumptions about scripture.

On the other hand, if we understand about who the authors of scripture were, who they wrote for, what other writings they were influenced by, what their objectives were, and about the type of writing style they used, we might come to a different conclusion about scripture. We would not only add some insight, but we might correct a complete misinterpretation of scripture, or a misapplication of scripture toward subjects it was never intended for. But.... we can't have that, now can we?

 

[SkyWriting]

Not Darwin's phrase. Read his books instead of making stuff up.

It was not his phrase, but he wrote in letters his support for the idea...[/quote]

 

[SkyWriting]

Christian faith is a logical conclusion based on physical evidence: historical evidence, archeological evidence, and the evidence of present day human behavior. ...

Normally, christian faith is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. I would like to corner Josh McDowell and ask him point blank on this. The scriptures state that God's intervention is responsible for our "conversion". Spiritually speaking, God is in charge.

From our viewpoint, it may seem that we've come to know God by our own efforts. But most likely, this is not the case.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually it does, right in the beginning of the article: "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen."

I'd appreciate it if YOU would add that clear info to the EVOLUTION entry, because it is much more smushy on the difference. Just hit the EDIT link and you will become the expert.

Evolutionary history of life

Main article: Evolutionary history of life
See also: Timeline of evolution and Timeline of human evolution
[edit] Origin of life

Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.....

 

[SkyWriting]

"Fitness", in the context of evolutionary biology, can mean two things.

1) How well an organism or an aspect of an organism fits its environmental niche (the organism's way of making a living).

2) How effective an organism, gene complex or gene is at getting itself reproduced. There are many ways of being effective, other than just being the biggest and meanest.

The second meaning is the most commonly used one.

It turns out that a mixture of aspects are the most important. Not an organisms aspects, but a given populations aspects must be mixed.

 

[SkyWriting]

Accepting (the theory of) evolution is not a matter of belief. ...

Mostly, yes it is.