Hi, I'm taking a Philosophy class.....

[Tomk80]

Hi, this forum is always kind of intimidating so I never came in before, but I have a couple of questions. I am taking a university level Philosophy class and we are going over arguments for and against God. Okay, here are my questions...

1. My teacher told us that the definition of Evolution is that every living thing has the same genetic code for building amino acids, therefore there is a common cause. Is this the right definition? She says that everyone agrees on evolution, and tis impossible to deny it, but that what people disagree on is natural selection. Is this true?

2. How is it possible to believe in Evolution and God?

3. How is it possible to believe in Evolution, Natural Selection and God?

I looked up evolution online and it doesn't sound like the same definition she gave us in class, I walked up to her before class started and quietly (no one heard me) told her this, and she freaked out and verbally attacked me in front of everyone. She didn't like me saying that her definition might be different form the ones I find from authoritative sources.

I'd appreciate anyone and everyone responding to this thread. I am just trying to understand things, and incorporate all of this into my beliefs somehow?

Thank you so much ,

Steffani

EDIT: Oh, and is it possible to still believe that the world was really created in 7 days?

Just to nitpick a little detail here. You ask whether it is possible to believe in evolution, natural selection and God. Apparently, you think natural selection is set apart from evolution. But natural selection is one of the mechanisms responsible for evolution. So your questions 2 and 3 are essentially the same.

 

[Project2501]

Here's one problem with evolution. If it takes a thousand microevolutions to transform an ape into a man, there should be a thousand “missing links” in the fossil record – and this would be true for each evolved species! The fossil record shows the opposite, namely many species but comparitively few candidates for transitional forms.

that isn't a problem at all. Fossilisation is known to be a rare process and only occurs in certain special circumstances such as in anoxic environments, or environments where there are large amounts of dissolved minerals. Once fossilised, to be found, the fossils have got to be in an area which has not undergone too much erosion, else the fossil is destroyed, not too much compression or other geological processes, else the fossil is destroyed, not to have been covered by a lake or the sea or a forest, else nobody will find it. THen it has to be brought near enough to the surface so that someone will dig it up without them having to dig through hundreds of feet of bedrock, and so on. so in many senses we are very lucky to have the fossils that we do. If you doubt the rarity of fossils, then I implore you to try and find a skeleton of a passenger pigeon somewhere in the US. These pigeons once numbered in the billions at any one time, and made up something like 1/4 of all flying birds in north America. They flew in swarms some one mile wide and thirty miles long, and were driven extinct only a century or so ago. there should be lots of fossils of these, right?

 

[reconciliation]

1. My teacher told us that the definition of Evolution is that every living thing has the same genetic code for building amino acids, therefore there is a common cause. Is this the right definition? She says that everyone agrees on evolution, and tis impossible to deny it, but that what people disagree on is natural selection. Is this true?

2. How is it possible to believe in Evolution and God?

3. How is it possible to believe in Evolution, Natural Selection and God?


EDIT: Oh, and is it possible to still believe that the world was really created in 7 days?

1. The definition your teacher told you isn't very good. I think it's a matter of fact that every living creature has the same genetic code for building those amino acids. In fact, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theories. Both evolutionists and creationists believe it. I believe this is evidence for Creator, not for evolution: similarities show rather a common Designer than a common ancestor.
Everyone doesn't agree on evolution. There is a growing group of scientists who reject that theory. Evolution has no good evidence for it but a lot of evidence against it. Lack of the "missing links" between species shows that evolutionary process has never taken place; it's only a assumption which doesn't fit those facts we know. Evolution would require a huge increase in genetic information, even transformation from nothing to present diversity. This is impossible because there is no natural factor which would increase information even as much as it decreases it (it should increase it exceedingly more). So things concerning natural selection aren't even one of the main problems with the theory.

2. Some people believe in theistic evolution. This is completely unnecessary compromise which undermines partly the authority of the Bible and the Gospel message. I think most active Christians don't do this.

3. Natural selection is easy to understand without evolution; it's a part of our natural system and protects nature against mutations and other informational decreases.

6 days? Yes, I believe the world was created by God during six creation days. We have no real reason to doubt it. Martin Luther believed it and so have almost all well-known Christians done through the centuries. Paul did it and Jesus as well. So could we know it better than our Lord?

Science is always imperfect but also many scientific facts tell us that the Earth isn't very old. If it was, there would be a lot more helium in the atmosphere, a lot more salt in the sea, the distance between the Earth and the moon would be tremendously longer and so on.

So the Bible is completely believable in everything it says!

 

[P4g4nite]

Why does it smell like PRATT in here?

 

[Tomk80]

1. The definition your teacher told you isn't very good. I think it's a matter of fact that every living creature has the same genetic code for building those amino acids. In fact, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theories. Both evolutionists and creationists believe it. I believe this is evidence for Creator, not for evolution: similarities show rather a common Designer than a common ancestor.

First off, I'm not sure whether every creature actually has the same genetic code for building amino acids. However, every living creature uses DNA as a carrier of it's information, and the coding is largely comparable. This might be a hint towards a common designer, but is a necessity for evolution to be a valid theory. Believing is not necessary, you can check the facts on this, and see whether they are right.

Everyone doesn't agree on evolution. There is a growing group of scientists who reject that theory. Evolution has no good evidence for it but a lot of evidence against it. Lack of the "missing links" between species shows that evolutionary process has never taken place; it's only a assumption which doesn't fit those facts we know. Evolution would require a huge increase in genetic information, even transformation from nothing to present diversity. This is impossible because there is no natural factor which would increase information even as much as it decreases it (it should increase it exceedingly more). So things concerning natural selection aren't even one of the main problems with the theory.

Without wanting to derail the thread too much. There is no growing group of scientists who reject the theory, at least not in the relevant scientific areas. There is no lack of missing links. Furthermore, I'd like you to define genetic information, before continuing a discussion on whether or not it can be increased or decreased naturally. And there is no transformation from 'nothing', since evolution only kicks in when life already exists, which means there is something.

2. Some people believe in theistic evolution. This is completely unnecessary compromise which undermines partly the authority of the Bible and the Gospel message. I think most active Christians don't do this.

If anything, not taking talking animals, giants and men with life spans of close to a thousand years literally increases the authority of the bible. I see no comprimise here, but recognizing texts for what they are.

3. Natural selection is easy to understand without evolution; it's a part of our natural system and protects nature against mutations and other informational decreases.

Before going into whether mutations are 'informational decreases', please define what 'informational decreases' are.

6 days? Yes, I believe the world was created by God during six creation days. We have no real reason to doubt it. Martin Luther believed it and so have almost all well-known Christians done through the centuries. Paul did it and Jesus as well. So could we know it better than our Lord?

Science is always imperfect but also many scientific facts tell us that the Earth isn't very old. If it was, there would be a lot more helium in the atmosphere, a lot more salt in the sea, the distance between the Earth and the moon would be tremendously longer and so on.

So the Bible is completely believable in everything it says!

In short, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the amount of salt in the sea and the distance to the moon (and so on) are in perfect accordance with an old earth. Your points are moot. We could discuss them if you want in a new thread.

 

[Project2501]

1. The definition your teacher told you isn't very good. I think it's a matter of fact that every living creature has the same genetic code for building those amino acids. In fact, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theories. Both evolutionists and creationists believe it. I believe this is evidence for Creator, not for evolution: similarities show rather a common Designer than a common ancestor.

why? what should a common ancestor show?

Everyone doesn't agree on evolution. There is a growing group of scientists who reject that theory.

creationist rhetoric. That sort of thing has been said for over a hundred years, along with prophecies of the death of evolution, and it has never surfaced yet. Creationism still is and will always be, a minor fringe of religious people who are adament that their interpretation of a book is correct, and will ignore anything to the contrary.

Evolution has no good evidence for it but a lot of evidence against it.

more baseless rhetoric, are you copying this from somewhere. I made a formal challenge to someone else, and I will make it again to you. I say that there is no evidence against evolution that a creationist can provide.

Lack of the "missing links" between species shows that evolutionary process has never taken place; it's only a assumption which doesn't fit those facts we know.

it does fit the facts, but probably not the facts you know since my guess is that you probably don't know many of the facts.

Evolution would require a huge increase in genetic information, even transformation from nothing to present diversity.

more rhetoric. Evolution does not include abiogenesis. now please define information, because this is something that no increase in info proponents have singularly failed to do.

This is impossible because there is no natural factor which would increase information even as much as it decreases it (it should increase it exceedingly more). So things concerning natural selection aren't even one of the main problems with the theory.

please define information and then we can go over the genetics.

2. Some people believe in theistic evolution. This is completely unnecessary compromise which undermines partly the authority of the Bible and the Gospel message. I think most active Christians don't do this.

most do actually. Literalism is a small fringe of christianity that is mostly confined to the United States.

3. Natural selection is easy to understand without evolution; it's a part of our natural system and protects nature against mutations and other informational decreases.

no, that is not what natural selection does.

6 days? Yes, I believe the world was created by God during six creation days. We have no real reason to doubt it. Martin Luther believed it and so have almost all well-known Christians done through the centuries. Paul did it and Jesus as well. So could we know it better than our Lord?

are you absolutely certain? then what of all the evidence that contradicts a young earth that was created in 6 days.

Science is always imperfect but also many scientific facts tell us that the Earth isn't very old. If it was, there would be a lot more helium in the atmosphere,

extracted on the solar wind from the poles. the influx/production and outflow rates are about equal.

a lot more salt in the sea,

false, salt is being deposited on land all the time, and if you perform the same calculations for different minerals then you get totally different dates. so which ones do you believe?

the distance between the Earth and the moon would be tremendously longer and so on.

this was based on erronous calculations performed back in the 1970s before modern computer power could accurately model tidal effects.

So the Bible is completely believable in everything it says!

perhaps, but it cannot all be taken literally.

 

[h2whoa]

Everyone doesn't agree on evolution. There is a growing group of scientists who reject that theory.

Yeah, only there isn't. This is a completely fallacious argument. I can assure that Evolution is not facing a crisis amongst the scientific community. Trust me, I think I'd know.

Some people believe in theistic evolution. This is completely unnecessary compromise which undermines partly the authority of the Bible and the Gospel message.

Hmmm, sounds like you're accusing Theistic Evolutionists of not being tru Chrsitians. Hmmm, sounds like a rule violation to me. Not to mention the fact that it is wrong. The weight of the evidence is that one would have to not interpret Genesis literally if you were still to accept it.

I think most active Christians don't do this.

And yet again you're incorrect. 3 for 3. Wow. The simple fact is that Creationism is a small, albeit vocal, subsect of Christianity. Most Christians choose not to bury their heads in the sand and actually accept the world that we live in. But you know, that's your choice. Your statement above is just false though.

it's a part of our natural system and protects nature against mutations and other informational decreases.

Well this borders on gibberish. Who says that mutations are informational decreases? And if they are, what other informational decreases are you referring to? True, deletion mutations are, I suppose informational decreases but what about duplication? What about de novo inserts? Natural selection is merely a name given to a process which occurs by logic. It's not an actual system, like reproduction or defecation. It just simply means that those organisms that are not best adapted to their environment will be reproductively differentiated from those that are. As a result, there will be a shift in the population away from these phenotypes. It's not a conscious decision. It's just logic. If an organism can't survive: it won't.

Yes, I believe the world was created by God during six creation days.

Good for you, you're entitled to your own belief.

We have no real reason to doubt it.

Yeah, only we do. It's called scientific evidence.

so have almost all well-known Christians done through the centuries.

So I assume that you still believe the Earth is flat and the Sun (and the whole universe in fact) rotate around this lowly planet?

Paul did it and Jesus as well.

Does it expressely state in the Bible that Jesus said we must take Genesis literally? Does it explicitly state that 6-day creation is literal?

So could we know it better than our Lord?

Now I'm a Christian, so of course I agree with the sentiment of that statement. However, you have applied your own spin on what the Lord had as knowledge. Also, if you want to prove, scientifically, to atheists that 6 day creation is true, you'll have to do better than "The Lord says so", because atheists don't buy that anyway.

Science is always imperfect but also many scientific facts tell us that the Earth isn't very old.

Only they don't. But other than that, good point.

So the Bible is completely believable in everything it says!

Except when taken 100% literally. Seen any corners to the Earth recently?

h2

 

[Blackmarch]

Here is a cool fact that I heard. In a lab somewhere, there are scientists that are shooting atoms at each other, seeing what smaller particles make up the atom. They have found that every atom is made up of Nuetrons, Protons and Electrons. Each of these are made up of a smaller particle (man, I forget what they are called). After that, the only thing they found was light, and we know that light is made up of sound. Nobody yet can say (I have yet to hear) what sound is made up of.

God spoke, and there was light, and then everything else. Sound is the power of creation.

Um... sound is simply the compression waves of motion traveling through a medium that interacts with your eardrum. And generally sound travels slower than light. Sound would be caused by anything that causes motion of particles of matter, and as long as they are allowed to interact with other particles.

 

[Randall McNally]

First off, I'm not sure whether every creature actually has the same genetic code for building amino acids.

I'm reasonably certain they do. At least, every table I've ever seen that shows the relationships between codons and amino acids has been the same one.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

1. You can't believe in evolution and God, for evolution does not acknowledge the existence of God.

That is irrelevant, carpentry and germ theory don’t acknowledge God either. the point is none of these things (including Evolution) deny his existence. There for it is possible to beleive in them and God.

3. They can't co-exist. Both God and evolution does not acknowledge each other.

Yes they can co-exist, because evolution doe snot deny God existing.

Ghost

 

[Ondoher]

I'm reasonably certain they do. At least, every table I've ever seen that shows the relationships between codons and amino acids has been the same one.

Actually, there are subtle differences in the genetic code within various higher taxa. The interesting thing is that analysis of these differences reveals that they indicate a common ancestral code from which the variant codes have descended, thus providing unexpected corroborating evidence for common ancestry:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6249_pr89_10182001__di_fails_aga_10_18_2001.asp

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Everyone doesn't agree on evolution. There is a growing group of scientists who reject that theory.

Name some.

Evolution has no good evidence for it but a lot of evidence against it.

That is simply not true.

Lack of the "missing links" between species shows that evolutionary process has never taken place; it's only a assumption which doesn't fit those facts we know. Evolution would require a huge increase in genetic information, even transformation from nothing to present diversity. This is impossible because there is no natural factor which would increase information even as much as it decreases it (it should increase it exceedingly more). So things concerning natural selection aren't even one of the main problems with the theory.

There are many threads dealing with this here.

2. Some people believe in theistic evolution. This is completely unnecessary compromise which undermines partly the authority of the Bible and the Gospel message. I think most active Christians don't do this.

Then you think wrong, not only do most Christians accept evolution, it is the official position of most the larger Christian denominations that evolution occurred.

Science is always imperfect but also many scientific facts tell us that the Earth isn't very old. If it was, there would be a lot more helium in the atmosphere, a lot more salt in the sea, the distance between the Earth and the moon would be tremendously longer and so on.

Again this simply is not true. Every scientific method we have for dating the Earth suggests it is very old.

Ghost

 

[HRE]

because evolution doe snot deny God existing.

doe snot? Is that a new tool for attracting deer during the hunting season?

 

[JAL]

Except when taken 100% literally. Seen any corners to the Earth recently? h2

You raised this objection to a literal reading of the Bible. That's a powerful objection, probably based on Rev 7:1. Perhaps we literalists should clarify our position at this point. You'll recall the distinction drawn by God between Moses and the other prophets. God said that ordinary prophets typically see visions encrypted in riddles whereas Moses heard God speak in plain language. The Book of Revelation is a series of visions. As such, it is more likely to contain riddles and metaphors than the narratives. You'll find the same thing in the book of Daniel for instance. I do not see this as a contradiction to literalism. When a passage is historical or theological rather than visionary, we literalists believe that God wants us to try to take it literally as much as possible. Our position is this. We would rather err on the side of being too literal than on the side of being too non-literal. On the other hand, your point is valid that we literalists, all too often, try to shove our literalism down the throats of other Christians. We definitely need to improve our manners.

 

[Randall McNally]

Actually, there are subtle differences in the genetic code within various higher taxa. The interesting thing is that analysis of these differences reveals that they indicate a common ancestral code from which the variant codes have descended, thus providing unexpected corroborating evidence for common ancestry:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6249_pr89_10182001__di_fails_aga_10_18_2001.asp

Brilliant, thank you. Nice to know this before I go telling my students something incorrect.

 

[Vance]

But JAL, not all Scripture so neatly falls into one category or the other. How do you (or your Church) read Song of Solomon? As two lovers sensually praising each other's bodies (ie, literally), or as an allegory for Christ and the Church (even though there are no indicators within the text that anything other than the literal reading is suggested)?

 

[JAL]

Fossilisation is known to be a rare process...we are very lucky to have the fossils that we do. If you doubt the rarity of fossils, then I implore you to try and find a skeleton of a passenger pigeon somewhere in the US. These pigeons once numbered in the billions at any one time, and made up something like 1/4 of all flying birds in north America. They flew in swarms some one mile wide and thirty miles long, and were driven extinct only a century or so ago. there should be lots of fossils of these, right?

You example is indeed an amazing illustration of fossil rarity. And I did not mean to imply that the paucity of transitional forms is an insurmountable problem. You say it is not a problem at all. Perhaps you're right, but I'm not entirely convinced that your response meets the force of my objection. Allow me to rephrase the arguents to show why:
- My argument: Regardless of the total number of fossils existing today, we should see the following RATIO: For each fossil of a species found, there should be a thousand times as many transitional fossils found.
- Your reply: There are many good reasons for the low numer of total fossils.
- In other words, your reply doesn't seem to address my argument. I was arguing about RATIOS, whereas you were arguing about TOTALS. My argument has nothing to do with the total number of fossils or their rarity.

Again, I'm not saying that my objection is insurmountable. But I'm not sure it can be trivially dismissed in a cavalier manner, either. So here is my stance. Evolution has enough supporting evidence that I currently accept it as a very good possibility, but only as a possibility.

 

[Ondoher]

You example is indeed an amazing illustration of fossil rarity. And I did not mean to imply that the paucity of transitional forms is an insurmountable problem. You say it is not a problem at all. Perhaps you're right, but I'm not entirely convinced that your response meets the force of my objection. Allow me to rephrase the arguents to show why:
- My argument: Regardless of the total number of fossils existing today, we should see the following RATIO: For each fossil of a species found, there should be a thousand times as many transitional fossils found.
- Your reply: There are many good reasons for the low numer of total fossils.
- In other words, your reply doesn't seem to address my argument. I was arguing about RATIOS, whereas you were arguing about TOTALS. My argument has nothing to do with the total number of fossils or their rarity.

Again, I'm not saying that my objection is insurmountable. But I'm not sure it can be trivially dismissed in a cavalier manner, either. So here is my stance. Evolution has enough supporting evidence that I currently accept it as a very good possibility, but only as a possibility.

Here is the point you are missing. Every fossil we find is a transitional of some kind. They all fit within the tree of life, near some junction of branches.

 

[funyun]

Here is a cool fact that I heard. In a lab somewhere, there are scientists that are shooting atoms at each other, seeing what smaller particles make up the atom. They have found that every atom is made up of Nuetrons, Protons and Electrons. Each of these are made up of a smaller particle (man, I forget what they are called). After that, the only thing they found was light, and we know that light is made up of sound. Nobody yet can say (I have yet to hear) what sound is made up of.

Ok, first, what does this have to do with anything? It doesn't have anything to do with evolution, or what the OP was asking about. At the risk of further derailing his thread, I'm going to address this ridiculous post. It's a risk I'm willing to take.

Yes, atoms are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons. These smaller partciles are quarks, and neutrons and protons are made of these, though electrons are not. Light (photons) is not, by a long shot, the "only other thing they found". There is an enormous bestiary of particles.

As for this "light made of sound" comment, I'm not sure what to say. Light isn't made of sound; light is made of photons, which are packets of energy. Sound isn't really made of anything, it's just pressure changes caused by displacement and that moves through a medium as waves.

Ah, but I can see this has all been addressed by other posters. Oh well, I think it's important enough for further emphasis that light is not made of sound.

 

[Vance]

Yes, JAL, you need to keep in mind that there were never any species that we would label as "transitional" as differientiated from "regular" species. Every species is in the process of transitioning, some more quickly than others, but no species ever existed just as a "transition" between to other species. The phrase "transitional" can only be used relationally between any two species on a spectrum, let's say D and I. Those creatures that fall in between those two on the continuum of development (E, F, G, and H) can be said to be "transitional" between the D and I, but then you can equally choose G and K and consider all those in between as "transitional" between those two.

So, EVERY species we see falls somewhere in the continuum of development, and thus all are transitional, yet none are "just" transitional.

The reason why we sometimes see long periods of stasis within a species, then a gap and then a new species without any fossil examples of species in the continuum between the two is very adequately explained by PE, but that is another discussion.