If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[mark kennedy]

Ok Mark, I hope that you are up for it. And you will need more then a single out of context quote to support yourself.

According to Dr. M. Hewlett, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona there is no no opposition between Mendel and Darwin (read the whole webpage too).

It's been a while since I read that but I have it in my documents. I know this is a widely held belief but it is rather curious, if they are in such harmony then why would their be the need for a synthesis in the first place?

No conflict there, and this guy makes a living studying biology.

Of course there's a conflict, that has become increasingly obvious while watching them explain the genetic basis for major transitions.

Mendel was one of the first scientists to truely come up with a sound experimental design. He set limits. He studied only existing variation in terms of hereditiy. He deliberatly excluded anything that would have been the result of a mutation, or anything novel. He did not do this to "oppose evolutionary ideas" as many creationists claim. His work studied only heredity and variation and therefore cannot be used to remark on mutation anymore then a study on baby formulae vs breast milk can be used to remark on nutrition in dog food.

Your quote is not complete by the way (shall we say out of context)

I am well aware of the context and one point Darwin made is verified here. Immutablity of plants and animals is impossible to reconcile to the findings of scientific research. There are limits, that is what Mendel is saying but nature sometimes throws us a curve ball. My favorite example is the platapus, this little guy has really pushed the limits don't you think? They aren't supposed to be laying eggs, how did that happen?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Actually, I have a list of ideas how Darwinism and Mendelian genetics can be reconcilled. It would stop the Creation science movement as well as Intelligent Design in their tracts. Just eliminate the single common ancestor model that is being superimposed on real science and the problem is solved. So what do you think of my proposed solution?

That would be interesting.

What is your objection to a single common ancestor. Is it the image of a single solitary cell that somehow popped into existance as the first life form that you object to?
DO you think that plants and animals have a common ancestor?
How about macaques and humans?
Do fungi and yeats have a common ancestor?
How far back do you see evolution happening?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I am well aware of the context and one point Darwin made is verified here. Immutablity of plants and animals is impossible to reconcile to the findings of scientific research. There are limits, that is what Mendel is saying but nature sometimes throws us a curve ball. My favorite example is the platapus, this little guy has really pushed the limits don't you think? They aren't supposed to be laying eggs, how did that happen?

They ley eggs because their ancestors laid eggs. All mammals are believed to have evolved from egg laying proto-mammals (cynodonts). That the monotremes have preserved this ancient form of reproduction is no more of a suprise then the fact that some Amazonian tribes still hunt and gather with spears and arrows in a day and age of guns.

f they are in such harmony then why would their be the need for a synthesis in the first place?

Because neither theory was a complete descrtion of reality . Each told a part of the same story. It's like having chapters 1 through 5 from one source and chapters 6 though 12.through another Put them together and you have a whole story.

That's how science works.


I once participated in a study of how the plume from a pulp mill's waste disperses in a river. THe study looked at dispersion only (using dye). WHen I explained to my dad what we were doing he commented to somehting of the effect of "why the heck aren't you guys looking for dioxins and furans comming form the pulp mill, I read about them in the paper. Who cares about plume dispersion.". I simply could not get him to understand that not every study can research absolutly everything. Each experiment, and each researcher, only looks at one piece fo the puzzle at a time.

 

[shernren]

He refused to accept radiation no so much because of it's consequences to the age of the earth, but to Kelvin's assertion that everything about physics had been discovered already (except for what he refered to as "two clouds on the horizon" - being the speed of light and blackbody radiation). Of course as we all know insight into these phenomenon led to quantum mechanics and relativity.

Just a minor minor minor quibble. Wasn't the "two clouds" quote by Arthur Eddington and wasn't one of the clouds something to do with the subsequent discovery of the neutron? Or am I getting my science history wrong at this unearthly hour? (1:30 am here)

 

[random_guy]

Humanistic evolution taught in colleges...wow who would have thought. Just because the majority believe it to be true doesn't mean it is...

The 'science' of evolution is nothing short of a great delusion to lead people from the faith and belief in the one true G-d.

While you riducule the wisdom of men being foolish, I somehow doubt that when confronted with the true majesty and glory of our G-d and His Son, you will have the courage to tell Him to His face, "Your creation in six days days was allegorical leaving us with evolution as a truthful and legitimate science...more true that your word"

Again, see my reply to Jig. I think Creationists do more damage by stating that science and religion are incompatible. So, does the biology professor at Baylor lead people away from God by teaching evolution and creating a Christian study group that helps create more Christian scientists?

 

[Dannager]

Humanistic evolution taught in colleges...wow who would have thought. Just because the majority believe it to be true doesn't mean it is...

You're right, Gwenyfur. In matters of science it isn't the majority that's important. It's the people who are knowledgeable in that particular area of study that are important. In this case, it is the evolutionary biologists who are important - the ones heading up these departments. An argument from authority isn't a fallacy if the authority is relevant and used to support the evidence.

The vast majority of knowledgeable scientists studying biology support evolutionary theory as the most valid explanation for the currently observed level of biodiversity.

 

[Jig]

We were created in the image of God. Right? (Don't tell me you think Genesis is wrong about this too) How could we be in His image if we evolved from soul-less ape-like creatures? God does not change. His image does not change. If we evolved and are still evolving our image has changed and is changing still. This does not fit into what Genesis states.

 

[Dannager]

We were created in the image of God. Right? (Don't tell me you think Genesis is wrong about this too) How could we be in His image if we evolved from soul-less ape-like creatures? God does not change. His image does not change. If we evolved our image changed. This does not fit into what Genesis states.

Perhaps God had intended for us to reach this evolutionary state when the Bible was written, a state that bears a resemblance to God. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for God to do - the act of creating us to this point just took a few hundred million years is all.

 

[Jig]

Perhaps God had intended for us to reach this evolutionary state when the Bible was written, a state that bears a resemblance to God. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for God to do - the act of creating us to this point just took a few hundred million years is all.

Would a few hundred million years be nessacary to create humans for an all-powerful God? The same God who just merely spoke the universe into existence.

 

[random_guy]

We were created in the image of God. Right? (Don't tell me you think Genesis is wrong about this too) How could we be in His image if we evolved from soul-less ape-like creatures? God does not change. His image does not change. If we evolved and are still evolving our image has changed and is changing still. This does not fit into what Genesis states.

So does God have a belly button, sexually reproductive organs, facial hair,etc...? Or perhaps when it talks about his image, it doesn't mean his physical image, but his spiritual image?

Also, how about those atheistic professors at Baylor? I'm sure all those professors (including the undercover atheist professor who holds the Christian study groups to promote Christian scientists) are all happy about undermining Christianity by teaching science.

 

[The Lady Kate]

We were created in the image of God. Right? (Don't tell me you think Genesis is wrong about this too) How could we be in His image if we evolved from soul-less ape-like creatures?

What's the difference?

God does not change. His image does not change.

And we change... we change constantly. So your theory is blown even without human evolution.

If we evolved and are still evolving our image has changed and is changing still. This does not fit into what Genesis states.

Even without evolution, we change from embryo to fetus to baby to toddler to child to adolescent to adult to senior citizen to corpse... and while we are usually recognizable at every point along the way, we do change.

So... obviously the "Image of God" must be something less superficial than a face or a human form.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Would a few hundred million years be nessacary to create humans for an all-powerful God? The same God who just merely spoke the universe into existence.

Necessary? No... On the other hand, it wasn't even necessary for God to "speak" the universe into existence... or to spend six entire days fashioning one single paltry planet. He could have just poofed everything into being with less than an idle thought.

God, for His reasons, doesn't always act in the way you might think is "necessary," so what's the problem?

 

[shernren]

We were created in the image of God. Right? (Don't tell me you think Genesis is wrong about this too) How could we be in His image if we evolved from soul-less ape-like creatures? God does not change. His image does not change. If we evolved and are still evolving our image has changed and is changing still. This does not fit into what Genesis states.

Here's a question: are all humans created in God's image? Even the physically disabled, the mentally "special", the limbless and the chronically diseased? Is a human still God's image if he loses an arm or a leg? If he has a hole in the heart or if his spinal cord is broken?

And if yes, what exactly causes all these humans, physically so different, to still have the image of God?

Would a few hundred million years be nessacary to create humans for an all-powerful God? The same God who just merely spoke the universe into existence.

Would a few thousand years of letting humans walk in darkness be necessary to come down as Emmanuel for an all-powerful God? Would thirty years of waiting be necessary for a three-year ministry for an all-powerful God? Would two thousand years (or more) of conflict, persecution, strife and schisms in the church be necessary for God to return bodily?

God has shown a lot of patience before, what makes you think He could get tired of waiting just this once?

 

[Jig]

I have another question.

Lets read Gen. 2:4-6 in slices. I want to know what it represents to T.E.'s and how it works 'symbolicly' with fallable modern scientific theory.

Gen 2:
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.


5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

In verse 5 here, we see that God is saying there was no plants on Earth yet. He gives two reasons....

(1)He had not let rain fall yet and (2)there was no man to cultivate them.

Evolution states, plants came way before anything even close to a ape, let alone a human, was waling the world.

What was the propose of this symbolic example, if it wasn't true?

Also, secular history (that says people lived over 10,000 years ago) states that ALL the first humans started as hunter gatherers and not farmers. This again goes against what Genesis says.

Again I ask the same question from above, what was the propose of this verse? In fact, it could have been left out of Genesis and it still would have read fine.
6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Now, in verse 7 we say God forming humans from dust. I remember the aurgument you T.E.s said about the word "form" and how you believed it meant a process that could include evolution.

But doesn't science state we started in water and not the ground? In fact our bodies are mostly liquid and water. What was the propose of this verse if it was symbolic and not true? Couldn't God have said, He made us from the water? If He said that, I'd be more inclinded to believe your assumptions.

Also, it says God breath into are noses and we became living beings.

Evolution says we were living beings (ape-like creatures) before we were humans. What propose again does this verse hold if it is merely symbolic? Why was its reason to be added in Genesis if it wasn't an actual happening?

Rememeber God can do anything....including making us in one second....fully human.

 

[chaoschristian]

You post only makes sense if one is insisting that the Genesis accounts have as their primary objective the telling 'the How' of Creation.

Yet, because of what this part of scriptures 'reveals' about the how of Creation conflicts with what Creation itself has revealed to us, I am led to the conclusion that the primary objectives of the Genesis accounts it not the telling of 'the How' but the telling of something else - what I look at as 'the Why' or the 'how do we fit into all of this?'

It seems to me that Genesis 2:4-6 serve as an introduction to the story of the Garden, a set up if you will.

Here God's is said to have created man from the dust and breathed life into his form, thereby establishing that man is of the earth, yet filled with the spirit of God. That man is both worldly and spiritual simultaneously.

And this was done in the midst of desolation - that earth was not yet yielding fertility, even though it was covered by water - the water was of the wrong source, God had not yet sent His life sustaining rain.

Very important, I think, is the very next verse:

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

The story of Eden begins in earnest. God places the man into the Garden - a pre-made sanctuary ready to receive God's new creation, because the earth was not yet ready.

The most important word in verse 8 is 'now', because if spoken in context of telling a story, the 'now' isn't a literal time-marking (meaning God created man, now (as in after this) God planted the Garden) but more long the lines of "Now, while all this had been going on, God planted this garden.

That's my take on it at least: the beginnings of a beautiful story that helps to establish man's relationship to God (created to Creator) and how God views His creation as a special creation.

I have another question.

Lets read Gen. 2:4-6 in slices. I want to know what it represents to T.E.'s and how it works 'symbolicly' with fallable modern scientific theory.

Gen 2:
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.


5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

In verse 5 here, we see that God is saying there was no plants on Earth yet. He gives two reasons....

(1)He had not let rain fall yet and (2)there was no man to cultivate them.

Evolution states, plants came way before anything even close to a ape, let alone a human, was waling the world.

What was the propose of this symbolic example, if it wasn't true?

Also, secular history (that says people lived over 10,000 years ago) states that ALL the first humans started as hunter gatherers and not farmers. This again goes against what Genesis says.

Again I ask the same question from above, what was the propose of this verse? In fact, it could have been left out of Genesis and it still would have read fine.
6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Now, in verse 7 we say God forming humans from dust. I remember the aurgument you T.E.s said about the word "form" and how you believed it meant a process that could include evolution.

But doesn't science state we started in water and not the ground? In fact our bodies are mostly liquid and water. What was the propose of this verse if it was symbolic and not true? Couldn't God have said, He made us from the water? If He said that, I'd be more inclinded to believe your assumptions.

Also, it says God breath into are noses and we became living beings.

Evolution says we were living beings (ape-like creatures) before we were humans. What propose again does this verse hold if it is merely symbolic? Why was its reason to be added in Genesis if it wasn't an actual happening?

Rememeber God can do anything....including making us in one second....fully human.

 

[Jig]

What a huge assumption.

 

[shernren]

Nevertheless assumed true until proven false, which you have failed to do so far.

I have another question.

Lets read Gen. 2:4-6 in slices. I want to know what it represents to T.E.'s and how it works 'symbolicly' with fallable modern scientific theory.

Gen 2:
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.


5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

In verse 5 here, we see that God is saying there was no plants on Earth yet. He gives two reasons....

(1)He had not let rain fall yet and (2)there was no man to cultivate them.

Evolution states, plants came way before anything even close to a ape, let alone a human, was waling the world.

What was the propose of this symbolic example, if it wasn't true?

Also, secular history (that says people lived over 10,000 years ago) states that ALL the first humans started as hunter gatherers and not farmers. This again goes against what Genesis says.

Again I ask the same question from above, what was the propose of this verse? In fact, it could have been left out of Genesis and it still would have read fine.
6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Now, in verse 7 we say God forming humans from dust. I remember the aurgument you T.E.s said about the word "form" and how you believed it meant a process that could include evolution.

But doesn't science state we started in water and not the ground? In fact our bodies are mostly liquid and water. What was the propose of this verse if it was symbolic and not true? Couldn't God have said, He made us from the water? If He said that, I'd be more inclinded to believe your assumptions.

Also, it says God breath into are noses and we became living beings.

Evolution says we were living beings (ape-like creatures) before we were humans. What propose again does this verse hold if it is merely symbolic? Why was its reason to be added in Genesis if it wasn't an actual happening?

Rememeber God can do anything....including making us in one second....fully human.

And of course, in verse 9, Genesis says God made the trees grow out of the ground after He created Adam - whereas in Genesis 1 it happened two days before. Which is which, now? (I know the answer - waiting to see if you do.)

 

[Jig]

And of course, in verse 9, Genesis says God made the trees grow out of the ground after He created Adam - whereas in Genesis 1 it happened two days before. Which is which, now? (I know the answer - waiting to see if you do.)

Verse 9 is not talking about ALL the trees of the world. It is ONLY talking about the trees in Eden. Verse 9 just adds a bit of detail to what and how God created the Garden.

 

[Dannager]

You know, I honestly like this forum a lot. There are actually people to educate here, a select few of whom are actually willing to listen. But the whole scripture-quoting thing ultimately gets people nowhere. Scripture can't argue against the evidence, and the evidence is the first hurdle any creationist movement is going to have to overcome.

 

[Jig]

You know, I honestly like this forum a lot. There are actually people to educate here, a select few of whom are actually willing to listen.

I might be taking this out of context, but it appears that your saying I'm in need of your teaching.

But the whole scripture-quoting thing ultimately gets people nowhere. Scripture can't argue against the evidence, and the evidence is the first hurdle any creationist movement is going to have to overcome.

The evidence? You mean the evidence whose meaning could convert and change when 'new' discoveries are found. In some cases, what the majority of scientists believed prior to 'newer' evidence makes what they last claimed true to be false. With origin science, one can expect it to continually change with the times.

Anyhow, am I hearing you right? You want me to put my Bible down and go to a lab? I'm not going to conform to wordly ideas and evolutional science, just because it is the commonly accepted 'world' view. The scriptures tell us not to give in to the worlds man-made ideas on it's workings.

Col. 2:8
8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ [the Word].

-------------------------------------
How can you guarantee that what you believe now will not change with a future 'discovery'? You have to remember what you believe in is a theory, not a fact. How can you say I'm 100 percent wrong, when you can't even say your 100 percent right?

The Bible has not changed, it seems the only thing evolving is science.