What's wrong with evolution?

[EnemyPartyII]

Micro evolution = 1.
Micro evolution * 10 = Microish evolution.
Micro evolution * 100000000000 = Macro evolution.

I've been thinking about this today...

Telling a joke. I heard last night, and today I changed it slightly when I retold it. I imagine the next perosn to tell it might change it again, and so on, and so on. Whatch "The Aristocrats" to get a really good idea of just how different the same joke can be. Each re-telling equates to micro evolution maybe... but no matter how many changes you work in, its still the same joke. So maybe after 1000s of changes, micro evolution within the same species... is still the same species. I mean look at the amazing array of dogs, right? all the same species though.

Just thought I'd share my insight

 

[DailyBlessings]

Maybe I'll just wait and let Daily Blessings answer it, since he's the one that gave the the DOH smiley.

I apologize profusely for that rather infantile expression of incredulity.

To clarify: please explain to me how wrangling a very complicated timeline and explanation to make it possible for a man to be in two places at once, and etcetera, is different from any other kind of non-literal interpretation? The meaning of the verses is quite clear as is. Either the story given is scientifically flawed, or it is incomplete.

Personally, I do not think contradictions are important. Enlightenment is reached through questions, not answers. Is the Bible less true just because it records some details through different and therefore contradictory viewpoints? No. I do not accept that a thing must be scientifically true to have meaning for a Christian.

By the way, is your answer to the problem that the latest sequential gospel uses the Roman system of time rather than Hebrew?

 

[h2whoa]

I've been thinking about this today...

Telling a joke. I heard last night, and today I changed it slightly when I retold it. I imagine the next perosn to tell it might change it again, and so on, and so on. Whatch "The Aristocrats" to get a really good idea of just how different the same joke can be. Each re-telling equates to micro evolution maybe... but no matter how many changes you work in, its still the same joke. So maybe after 1000s of changes, micro evolution within the same species... is still the same species.

There is a fatal flaw in your logic. The "selection" that is working on the variables within the joke is that the joke must still work as a joke and it must make sense within the context of the punchline. That is the variable that is critical in the successful "reproduction" of the joke. If you remove the ability of the joke to "reproduce" (be retold) it will die out. If the joke loses its humour it becomes a sentence or statement or possibly even a boring story and is not passed on.

However, consider a situation where what you have told someone doesn't have to remain funny and make sense in context to a punchline in order to be passed on. Consider Chinese Whispers. Or how a rumour gets started.

I mean look at the amazing array of dogs, right? all the same species though.

It always kind of amazes me when people cite dogs. Most modern breeds of dogs have only been about for the last 200 years. Even within this time the majority have developed over the last 150-100 years. And yet already we see huge morphological differences that are essentially acting as barriers to cross-breeding. Give it time and certain breeds will not be able to breed.

But even more interesting than the phenotypic changes that are occurring in dogs are the genotypic changes. Already in genetic studies where dogs are used as a model we have to consider each breed seperately (trust me, I work with canine genetics). This is because they are becoming genetically distinct sub-species already, in what is really a very short space of time. An amazingly short space of time, contextually speaking. If I try and perform statistical analysis on a cohort of dogs but I don't divide them into breed groups first the results will be next to meaningless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is EXACTLY my point. You have to interpret the bible, not take it litarally.

Taking its literal parts literally is interpreting the Bible. You interpret the literal parts literally, and the figurative parts figuratively.

See? You use the context. I agree. Thats what you are supposed to do. When I use the context of genesis, it tells me not to take it litarally. When YOU look at the context of genesis, it tells you the oppisite.

Once again, the Bible almost always alerts the reader when a figurative passage is coming up:

And he took up his parable, and said...

Then sang Moses and the the children of Israel this song unto the LORD...

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

Now there are exceptions to this, such as Judges 9:7-21; but the explanation is given immediately after the parable is spoken.

Genesis 1 neither alerts the reader to its style of content, nor immediately interprets itself - and this signifies a literal interpretation.

Basically, your whole 'context' mechanism for deciding when to take something litarally, boils down to every individual's opinion.

So taking the phone book literally is just an opinion? Reading Alice in Wonderland as a fairy tale is just an opinion?

Yes, you can also rely on the opinion of others.

That's true.

Because there's a real devil out there using divide-and-conquer tactics to ruin the New Testament church. Also, other denominations exist depending on what parts of Scripture they place their emphases.

Depending on which parts the context told them they should take literally, and which parts not to perhaps?

Here are examples of what I meant:

• Charismatic churches emphasize Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12.
• Snake churches emphasize Mark 16:17-18.
• Full-gospel ministries emphasize Romans 15:29.
• etc.

That is why I asked you to describe the process. You call them checks and balances, thats fine. Describe them.

I gave you a list (Bible dictionaries, etc.). These are called "helps".

Ok... you can beleive that, I dont have a problem. Just as long as you agree that natural selection exists.

If you're really 24 years old, as your profile says, then, believe me, I've been talking about natural selection a lot longer than you have.

For the record though, I'll repeat one of my four axioms against Evolution:

• Evolution cannot occur, as natural selection violates God's principles of love and harmony.

And yes, God [implicitly] created natural selection.

This paradox is easily explained by Isaiah 45:7.

[bible]Isaiah 45:7[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

I apologize profusely for that rather infantile expression of incredulity.

Daily,

Absolutely no apology necessary, sir. I "took it on the chin" --- LOL.

By the way, is your answer to the problem that the latest sequential gospel uses the Roman system of time rather than Hebrew?

Correct --- Matthew, Mark, and Luke reckoned the time from the Jewish perspective --- whilst John reckoned the time from the Roman perspective.

Thus, the "sixth hour" to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, was noon; while the "sixth hour" to John is 0600 (6 a.m.).

Very good!

 

[AV1611VET]

It always kind of amazes me when people cite dogs.

Why? The dogs are a good example --- especially when explaining this to someone who hasn't heard it before (like me --- the first time I heard it at a seminar).

Noah only had to take a pair of coyotes aboard the Ark --- not Spaniels, and Retrievers, and wolves, etc.

Later, coyotes > domestic dogs > wolves > dingos.

This was perfectly illustrated by her joke/telephone game scenario --- IMO.

The joke degenerated until it reached a boundary that it couldn't cross, and still remain a joke.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

(trust me, I work with canine genetics).

So genetically speaking, what domestic breed is closest to a wolf?

(my husky insists its him, even though I try to tell him REAL wolves don't run into trees)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why? The dogs are a good example --- especially when explaining this to someone who hasn't heard it before (like me --- the first time I heard it at a seminar).

Noah only had to take a pair of coyotes aboard the Ark --- not Spaniels, and Retrievers, and wolves, etc.

Later, coyotes > domestic dogs > wolves > dingos.

This was perfectly illustrated by her joke/telephone game scenario --- IMO.

The joke degenerated until it reached a boundary that it couldn't cross, and still remain a joke.

how about foxes, jackals, they are canids and can produce fertile offspring with dogs?

now. we have written records of dogs, we have mummies of Egyptian dogs, going back pretty close to 5Kya. YECists required hyperevolution of kinds from Noah's ark to repopulate the world. however from written, paintings, and mummy evidence there has not being anywhere near the change in "dog kind" that this "theory" requires. Not only is there no evidence of a "kind boundary" but there is good evidence that there has not been hyperevolution in dogs since the proposed time of Noah's flood either. to quote a sage from YECism: "dogs is dogs is dogs". no time for coyotes to become wolves or dingos or dogs or whatever. Breeds of very specific types of dogs existed 5Kya. oops.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dingos are pretty firmly dogs though

 

[shadowmage36]

And AV has still not attempted to contradict my saying that we do in fact have enough energy on earth to power evolution.

I really do wonder why he hasn't even tried.

And why he did all that handwaving.

Which was completely useless.

 

[AV1611VET]

And AV has still not attempted to contradict my saying that we do in fact have enough energy on earth to power evolution.

I really do wonder why he hasn't even tried.

And why he did all that handwaving.

Which was completely useless.

I don't believe in evolution --- it's that simple.

You can have all the power you want, but if you've got nothing to power, more power to you.

Look at it this way:

If Hal Jordan never had a power ring, what good would his power battery do him?

In brightest day, in blackest night, let those who worship evil's might, beware my power, Green Lantern's light!

I memorized that as a kid.

 

[USincognito]

Dingos are pretty firmly dogs though

But platipi aren't so firmly reptiles, nor birds so firmly dinosaurs.

 

[BVZ]

Taking its literal parts literally is interpreting the Bible. You interpret the literal parts literally, and the figurative parts figuratively.

Once again, the Bible almost always alerts the reader when a figurative passage is coming up:

Now there are exceptions to this, such as Judges 9:7-21; but the explanation is given immediately after the parable is spoken.

Genesis 1 neither alerts the reader to its style of content, nor immediately interprets itself - and this signifies a literal interpretation.

So.. basicaly what you are saying is this: It's obvious that some things should be taken literally while other things should not?

I happen to agree. It is obvious to me that genesis cannot be taken literally. A long time ago, before we humans has all the knowledge about the earth we have now, it might not have been obvious to them.
But we know the history of the earth. We know how old the earth is. This cantradicts a literal interpetation of genesis.

Look at it this way: Geneses describes the creation. But when you look at the creation, we can see it was not created EXACTLY like geneses describes.

The world was created in a specific way. We can tell it was not created the way geneses describes. Which implies that genesis cannot be interpreted as literal.

So taking the phone book literally is just an opinion? Reading Alice in Wonderland as a fairy tale is just an opinion?

Well... technically yes. It is my oinion that the phone book should be taken literally. It is also my opinion that Alice in Wonderland should not be taken literally. We use a combination of common sense and logic to build these opinions.

Now, when I use this combination of common sense and logic to figure out if I should take genesis literally or not, I reach the conclusion that I should not take it literally.

Here are examples of what I meant:

• Charismatic churches emphasize Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12.
• Snake churches emphasize Mark 16:17-18.
• Full-gospel ministries emphasize Romans 15:29.
• etc.

OK. I understand now. But that isn't really what we are talking about. These examples show that some people attach more value to certain parts of the bible that other parts.

What we are discussing here is how people decide what to take literally, and what not to.

I gave you a list (Bible dictionaries, etc.). These are called "helps".

I know these 'helps' exist, however, it does not really solve the problem. These 'helps' were written by humans. All you are doing is shifting the problem onto the shoulders of other humans.

The people who write these 'helps' face the same difficulties you and I face when trying to decide what to take as literal and what not to. They are usually a lot more informed concerning the literature and religion, and because of thier knowledge better equipped, but in the end you only relying on thier opinion, which is based on how they THINK the bible should be interpreted.

If you're really 24 years old, as your profile says, then, believe me, I've been talking about natural selection a lot longer than you have.

Ok. Thats great. I was just a little confused there for a while, since it seemed that you couldn't figure out if natural selection exists or not.

For the record though, I'll repeat one of my four axioms against Evolution:

• Evolution cannot occur, as natural selection violates God's principles of love and harmony.

And yes, God [implicitly] created natural selection.

This paradox is easily explained by Isaiah 45:7.

[bible]Isaiah 45:7[/bible]

Ok.

So we agree on the following:
1) Natural selection exists.
2) Natural selection isn't always merciful, or fair.

Maybe a quick explanation of science will help you.

Lets look at tornados. Tornadoes are powerful and destructive. They end lives, and I am pretty sure that they have caused a lot of pain and sadness in this world. They do, however exist. And according to Isaiah 45:7 God created all things evil and good.

Now, tornadoes, in the eyes of most people, can be considered evil, (even though this is subjective). Yet they exist. They are studies by scientists, who then create theories to explain them.

Evolution is not always fair, it is not always pretty. Yet, according to Isaiah 45:7 it was created either way. (If you see it as evil, fine, if you see it as good, great. It doesnt matter.) Now, scientists study evolution as it happens in nature (and it DOES happen), and formulate theories that explain how it happens. (The theory of evolution.)

Now I am not saying evolution is evil. You might as well think gravity is evil as a force of nature, because it causes plane crashes. But evolution does exist (it has been observed).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But platipi aren't so firmly reptiles, nor birds so firmly dinosaurs.

Who ever suggested that playpi are anything like reptiles? Montremes are firmly mamals... just the last vestigal reminder of the class crossing event... as are echidnas. But they themselves have evolved considerably from that early stage animal.

And lots of people now say that birds are therapods... it is only our classical expectation that birds will have feathers and dinosaurs scales that makes clouds our perception in this.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I don't believe in evolution --- it's that simple.

Hey AV...

I'm worried about statements like this, although I may well be imbuing it with meaning not really there. But does this mean you REFUSE to believe in evolution?

Or let me ask another way... can you think of specific evidence that could shift your conviction? Or is it a pure tennet of faith with you, like God is Trinity...

Cos if its the second (and its great to meet people with strength to their conviction), I mean, based on faith and conviction rather than evidence, why are you still debating it?

 

[theFijian]

Now I am not saying evolution is evil. You might as well think gravity is evil as a force of nature, because it causes plane crashes.

Anything in nature can violate these "principles of love and harmony" including gravity. I can drop a typewriter out of a window and kill someone which would clearly violate this love-and-harmony principle, thus disproving gravity. This neatly shows that AV1611VET is talking nonsense.

 

[tocis]

It's much easier to just call something a contradiction, than it is to do the research, isn't it?

I've read the whole book (just like I read some others no one likes to touch), and for the sake of fairness I examined a number of contradictions in the book in more detail. What I found, I've elaborated in my above posting.
If I'm wrong then you will be able to point out where I made my mistake. If you fail to do so, obviously I'm right.
Hic Rhodos. Hic salta.

"Contradictions" = lazy mens' interpretations.

Ignoring arguments you don't like = fundamentalist standard tactic.

Again, if I'm wrong (which is of course possible), show me my error. If you can't, you better be careful with what you write. Thank you.

 

[tocis]

In my personal opinion, a lot of the times that contradictions are 'resolved', it seems to me this resolution is just extremely far-fetched. Which means the contradictions are just that, contradictions, and the resolutions are actually just far-fetched attempts to make the text say something it doesn't.

Exactly.
*sigh*
At least one poster understood me!

But maybe you can convince me otherwise by resolving the contradiction you gave above?

Somehow I'm not convinced that he'll even try... but then, maybe there's a pleasant surprise ahead?

 

[Tomk80]

If two people do independent research, and one concludes it's a contradiction, and the other proves it otherwise, I'd say the other is correct, and the one is wrong.

Here's one --- a wee bit harder --- yet easy --- just for you:

Reconcile this "glaring contradiction", using CONTEXT as your method of exegesis:

[bible]Daniel 1:1[/bible][bible]Jeremiah 25:1[/bible]

I don't see this as a contradiction persé. For example, if was reigning two and a half years (ie, he is in his third year of reign) when Nebukadnezzar came into power, and he besieged immediately, Josiah entered his fourth year when Nebukadnezzar was still in his first (reigning for half a year now). Sieges last long.

I never said that no contradictions can be resolved. I do say that quite a few of them cannot be resolved, other then through some mind-boggling mental gymnastics.

 

[shadowmage36]

I don't believe in evolution --- it's that simple.

And, quite obviously, there's no way to change that.

In that case, I'm not even going to bother arguing this point anymore. You're free to shove your head in the sand as far as you like (I am from America, we have that law), but please do remember: Evolution and the Bible really aren't mutually exclusive.

At all.

In any way, shape, or form.

Just so you know.