How has darwinism contributed to the world?

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Do you see what I mean? Denying any part can lead down a slippery slope to denying it all.

If that is where an honest appraisal leads, then what exactly is wrong with that?

 

[Morat]

  Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

 

[Lanakila]

If you are giving it an honest appraisal then I suppose there is nothing wrong, but there is a danger because most of us don't really do an honest appraisal. Most just accept what we are told, and don't study for ourselves. After much study Lewis my faith in Christ and the creation story in Genesis being literal is strengthened. I know the opposite happens sometimes, but it is possible that those who lose their faith weren't sincere in the first place. Or that they need to do more research, not less. In other words, don't settle, keep studying. 

 

[LewisWildermuth]

That depends on if you believe in the literal interpretation of scripture or allegorize certain passages you don't like or agree with, Lewis. Which becomes a problem, because if the whole Bible isn't literally true and we can pick and chose the parts we like, then the liberals may be right in denying Jesus literal resurrection. Do you see what I mean? Denying any part can lead down a slippery slope to denying it all.

No more dangeroud than taking it too literaly... If one takes it too literaly other problems pop up.

like...

At times the Earth rests on a foundation then pillars then nothing then pilliars agan...

Rabits chew cud...

Bats are birds...

There is a mountian somewhere that from the top one can see all nations on the Earth at once...

Slavery is okay as long as the slaves are not family or Christians...

 

[npetreley]

Where exactly does it state that it is without error?

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

And although this is a different topic, it seemed appropriate in this context.

Hebrews 4:12

12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 

[npetreley]

That depends on if you believe in the literal interpretation of scripture or allegorize certain passages you don't like or agree with, Lewis. Which becomes a problem, because if the whole Bible isn't literally true and we can pick and chose the parts we like, then the liberals may be right in denying Jesus literal resurrection. Do you see what I mean? Denying any part can lead down a slippery slope to denying it all.

I agree with you that this is possible, but IMO that's not the correct motivation or method for translating any portion of the Bible literally, figuratively, symbolically, or spiritually. IMO it is almost always incredibly easy to tell when the Bible is speaking literally, figuratively, etc.

Here's the approach I take. Unless there's a good reason to read it otherwise, then what it says is pretty much what it means. If that method of interpretation leads to a conflict or contradiction, then look at all the potential conflicts and see which ones you may have incorrectly decided was literal, figurative, etc. With a little study and reference to Greek/Hebrew, it's usually pretty easy to resolve these problems.

So the question is this: Is there any reason IN THE TEXT ITSELF that would indicate that we should interpret Genesis as allegory? No. Would interpreting it as allegory cause conflicts with other parts of the Bible? Yes, many. Would it resolve the problem to interpret all the other parts as allegory? No. So Genesis is not allegory.

 

[A Sheep]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous


Here are a few vestigial organs in humans; the vomeronasal organ, the appendix, the tail bone, the muscles that move your ears (they don't work for all people).

You also have hipbones in whales, wings in kiwis, eyespots in blind cave dwelling salamanders, toenails in manatees, etc. etc.


THere are HUNDREDS of examples of vestigial organs in nature.

First of all that list was much longer only a couple of decades ago, but we have found many vestigial organs serve a purpose that we just didn't know about so they are no longer vestigial.  (tonsils, appendix, whale 'hip' bone, tail bone, fish with no eyes, etc.)

Appendix:


As a specific anatomic structure, the appendix has been described in only a few species. In humans and apes, it is a thin, tubular structure (hence the name vermiform, or "worm-like," appendix) located at the apex of the cecum, a blind pouch near the beginning of the large intestine. Scientists have also identified appendix-like structures in other species of primates, but these structures have not been well characterized. Rabbits and some rodents have appendices, and it is research on these species that has begun to shed some light on the mystery of the organ’s function. Previously it was thought that the sack-like rabbit appendix served primarily as a reservoir for the bacteria involved in hindgut fermentation. That explanation, however, did not account for the absence of an appendix in other animals with similar digestive systems or for its presence in humans. When researchers examined the appendix microscopically, they found that it contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue. Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal and are known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues (GALT). The functions of GALT are poorly understood, but it is clear that they are involved in the body’s ability to recognize foreign antigens in ingested material. Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its greatest development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually coming to resemble such other regions of GALT as the Peyer’s patches in the small intestine. The immune response mediated by the appendix may also relate to such inflammatory conditions as ulcerative colitis.

Hip bones in whales

These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help erection in the males and contraction in the females.

Tail Bone:


What about the "tail"? Some of you have heard that man has a "tail bone" (also called a coccyx), and that the only reason we have it is to remind us that our ancestors had tails. You can test this idea yourself, although I don't recommend it. If you think the coccyx is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that-unintentionally, I'm sure!) What happens? You can't stand up; you can't sit down; you can't lie down; you can't roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the coccyx is one of the most important bones in the whole body. It's an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I'll say no more about that.)


Fish Eyes Spots:

Imagine a situation in which a group of such ‘normal’ fish swim into a stream which enters an underground cave, and become trapped in this pitch-dark environment. Their eyes are completely useless here. But eyes do not ‘disappear’ just because they are no longer needed. The fish’s DNA would have programmed into it the instructions on constructing eyes, and the code on the DNA does not ‘know’ that the eye is no longer needed, so it will keep on manufacturing eyes, generation after generation. Genetic copying errors (mutations) arise in all living things. In fact, in a moderate-sized population, many of these errors occur in each generation. It is not hard to see how one of these could result in a gene that usually ‘switches on’ eye development being corrupted, or somehow ‘switched off’, via mutation. In a normal above-ground situation, such eyeless fish would probably never survive much past early infancy, because they would be so handicapped both in locating food and escaping predators. So for all practical purposes, we never see eyeless fish in the wild where there is sunlight. However, in the cave, it is a different matter. The eyeless type no longer suffers this disadvantage compared to its compatriots. Not only that, the eyeless ones even have an advantage over the others. This is because, as fish bumped into rocks and cave walls in the darkness, the eyed ones would be likely to injure their eyes. The delicate tissue of eyes is prone to injury, which would allow harmful bacteria to enter, leading to infection and often death. The eyed fish would thus have a lesser chance of surviving to produce offspring. Those fish carrying the ‘eyeless’ genetic defect would have a greater chance of passing it on to the next generation, so it would not take many generations under such circumstances for all the fish to be of the ‘eyeless’ type.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by A Sheep


First of all that list was much longer only a couple of decades ago, but we have found many vestigial organs serve a purpose that we just didn't know about so they are no longer vestigial.  (tonsils, appendix, whale 'hip' bone, tail bone, fish with no eyes, etc.)

Vestigal does not mean functionless.  It never did never will.  Thus your objections are moot.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Sheep. YOu are playing games here. Did you actually read the definition for vestigial from the dictionary? It very clearly states that vestige = remnant or trace. It clearly does not say that vestigial organs have no function or purpose. Infact many of them do. What makes them vestigial is the fact that they are greatly reduced in size or importance.

BTW, since I had my appendix removed last september (it ruptured and nearly killed me) my digestion has actually been better!

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Speaking of eyelessness. There is a particular species of cave dwelling salamander (I can't remember the species name) that is totally without eyes. However, if you cut away some of the mesodermal tissue at a certain time duing devolopment of the embryo, eyes (which are ectodermal in origin) will grow! THe eyes are not well formed nor do they function well since the genes controlling these traits have not been maintained. This is a very compelling piece of evidence for evolution.

 

[Lanakila]

Does the salamander grow another type of eyes than salamander eyes? If not, then it is just as good of evidence for creation.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Does the salamander grow another type of eyes than salamander eyes? If not, then it is just as good of evidence for creation.

 

Whoa??? Evidence for creation? How about evidence compatible with creation. Big difference!

 

[Lanakila]

This is a very compelling piece of evidence for evolution.

 

This was the last sentence on Late's post. I was just responding to his evidence for evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Maybe I was nit-picking, but I was just clarifying that by no stretch could it be considered evidence FOR creation Perhaps it is evidence that might also be seen as compatible with creation.

This in reference to your statement that it is also evidence "for" creation. I assume you meant that it could be evidence for evolution, but could also be compatible with creation. In which case, I would tend to have to agree: it is evidence that one of the following occurred:

1) An ancient population of seeing salamanders moved to caves where after time their eyes became vestigal.

2) God created eyeless salamanders with genes that code for eyes, but with regulatory genes that skipped "turning on" the code for the development of eyes.

If the first is true, then it is evidence for evolution that is also compatible with both common descent and with creation, so long as creation allows for subsequent evolution.

I don't think anyone thinks the second is true, so I won't comment on the possible implications.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
"USA were governed by a creationist, Christan government"

Oh really? Isn't there something called the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND GOVERNMENT in the USA. In fact, I was under the impression that the USA invented that concept.

"Separation of Church and State" is nothing more than a popular myth. There's nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Right where this phrase is used. The first time it appeared was in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist friend of his. He said something like, "The First Amendment creates a wall separating Church from state. This one-dimensional wall prevents the government from interfering with matters of religion, but assures that Christian principals will always stay in power. "

England was a country where most Christians couldn't practice their faith. The Pilgrims and most of the settlers in New England after them came to have a place to worship God freely. All of the founding fathers were Christians. Don't think that America was founded an atheist country.

I hope that answers your objection.

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Don't think that America was founded an atheist country. 

It wasn't. It was founded as a country with a secular government. That's the point. 

 

[npetreley]

Speaking of eyelessness. There is a particular species of cave dwelling salamander (I can't remember the species name) that is totally without eyes. However, if you cut away some of the mesodermal tissue at a certain time duing devolopment of the embryo, eyes (which are ectodermal in origin) will grow! THe eyes are not well formed nor do they function well since the genes controlling these traits have not been maintained. This is a very compelling piece of evidence for evolution.

Woohoo! A mutant salamander loses the use of his eyes but survives because it's dark anyway. First of all, you still have to extrapolate that change to get evolution out of it. Second of all, the kind of evolution it predicts is that, if true, in a few billion years we'll have devolved into cyanobacteria.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
"God just given people and dogs similar hip joints when He created them on the sixth day? "

Well, according to one of the two creation myths in genesis. According to the other creation myth in genesis, man was created first, then the animals as helpers - but they didn't work out (oops God made a mistake), then woman.

No offense, man, but this is another example of how atheists who know little about the Bible try to attack it. Had you at least read the first chapter of the Bible, you'd see your folly.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth after his kind..." GENESIS 1:24

Two verses later...

"And God said, Let Us make man in Our own Image, after Our likeness..." GENESIS 1:26

So what are you babbling about, sir? And you call Creationists ignorant.

 

[npetreley]

"Separation of Church and State" is nothing more than a popular myth.

It's worse than that. It's a hilarious joke. Did you know that the same exact folks who wrote that amendment also enacted a bill that made teaching the Bible in school a requirement before a state could qualify for federal funding for that school? It's hard to imagine how these same folks could have written the amendment to PREVENT schools from teaching the Bible.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by alexgb00

You've never heard of politics? I'll tell you, historically whenever communists came into any area, the first thing they taught the local people was not marxism or communism or socialism -- it was evolution. Evolution benefits communists, nazis, Ku Klux Klan, envilonmentalists, racists.

Hmm.  Well, I have heard of politics.  In fact I have a degree in it.  And I can tell you that you are 100%, totally, no-doubt-about-it, WRONG.

Of course, you're free to disagree.  But if you want to convince me that you're correct, you'll need to provide specific examples of "communists teaching evolution".

And while you're at it, show how evolution benefits communists, nazis, KKK, environmentalists, and racists.  My bet is that you have literally never investigated any of this, and you are just mindlessly repeating what you heard in church, or read from some tract.