Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 61 of 114 (212010)
05-27-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
05-27-2005 6:08 PM


You know, you guys are all down to splitting hairs at this point.
"micro ev. - yes", "macro ev. - no". Give me a break.
Individual genotypes are destroyed every generation only to recombine as new gentoypes in the next (in sexual populations) so novel individual genotypes are inevitably formed (your 'microevolution').
On the larger scale, populations diverge and separate so that new species eventually separate and subsequently diverge even further.
All this you guys seem to accept, and yet the idea that higher level taxa could diverge even further apart - completely unacceptable !?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 6:08 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 62 of 114 (212051)
05-28-2005 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by JonF
05-27-2005 9:09 PM


Personally, I am not interested in hijacking this thread to debate evolution and go over the same old tired ground. I've heard all the arguments, and perhaps you have heard all of them from the other side. My experience is that talking with evolutionists about their belief system is generally somewhat of a waste of time. It's like pulling teeth to go over even the smallest of points, even if you are making a point that they acknowledge elsewhere (but you are using the fact or data differently) and then they tend to jump off the topic and go on and on into bashing creationism, attacking "you guys", etc,...and basically never go over the original point long enough to settle that and move on the next one.
It's like trying to tell a liberal democrat that hates the neocons that Bush is a good guy, or talking with a JW about why his new Bible may not be the right one.
Waste of time, imo, so don't even try to get me to go there. I am sorry if that offends some and to lump all evolutionists together, but my experience of many, many hours is total unreasonableness from you guy's camp.
Take this small point. We had to go over pages to even get an acknowledgement that no one considers normal changes via reproduction, etc,...sufficient to explain how all life evolved without mutations, and then heck, after that, you guys are back at it again trying to deny that simple and basic point.
Sorry, but play honestly, or play with someone else.
But as to the subject of this thread, I am interested in talking about that.
"But if common descent were proven beyond a creationist's unreasonable shadow of a doubt, any "science" based on a literal interpretation of Genesis would be falsified. "
That's where you are wrong. Prove that. The simple truth is that despite what some may believe proving common descent, such as if we had a time machine and eons to watch and observe all life evolving, that would still not disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis.
That was the point, btw, I wanted to make in posting this thread, and what I presumed this thread was about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by JonF, posted 05-27-2005 9:09 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 05-28-2005 9:08 AM randman has replied
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:18 AM randman has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 63 of 114 (212083)
05-28-2005 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
05-28-2005 1:17 AM


"But if common descent were proven beyond a creationist's unreasonable shadow of a doubt, any "science" based on a literal interpretation of Genesis would be falsified. "
That's where you are wrong. Prove that. The simple truth is that despite what some may believe proving common descent, such as if we had a time machine and eons to watch and observe all life evolving, that would still not disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis.
You've missed a subtle point. I said "any 'science' based on a literal interpretation of Genesis would be falsified". You said "that would still not disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis." Those are not the same thing.
Science takes the most plausible and parsimonius explanation that fits all the data as tentative truth, always subject to future falsification. If common descent were proven beyond a creationist's unreasonable shadow of a doubt, or even if common descent were proven only to the point that it is now, a literal reading of Genesis would not (and does not now) fit all the data and would not be the most parsimonious explanation. That is one (not the only) reason that science will (and does) reject a literal reading of Genesis as tentative truth … because it just doesn't fit the data and it is not the most parsimonious explantion.
However, a literal reading of Genesis might be true. Science cannot disprove it. Given an omnipotent Being or Beings and sufficient miracles, anything is possible.
So I am definitely saying, again, that Science cannot disprove a literal reading of Genesis. But a literal reading of Genesis is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 1:17 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 05-28-2005 12:59 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 69 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:47 PM JonF has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 114 (212098)
05-28-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
05-28-2005 1:17 AM


My experience is that talking with evolutionists about their belief system is generally somewhat of a waste of time.
If you start from a position that equivocates acceptance of evolution with the loss of your mortal soul, then yes, I imagine it's going to be a waste of time - the evolutionist's time.
The simple truth is that despite what some may believe proving common descent, such as if we had a time machine and eons to watch and observe all life evolving, that would still not disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis.
What do you mean by "literal"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 1:17 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 114 (212121)
05-28-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by JonF
05-28-2005 9:08 AM


Since we're in the Faith and Belief area
I believe it would be on topic to point out that a Literal reading of Genesis disproves Genesis. If you are going to take Genesis literally, there is not one story but at least two mutually exclusive stories, two traditions and two cultures involved. The only way that Genesis does not falsify itself is if you interpret it, agree that it is not to be read literally.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 05-28-2005 9:08 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:46 PM jar has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 114 (212133)
05-28-2005 2:40 PM


general reply to all 3
This is the original thread topic question.
"Suppose things went the other way, however. What if irrefutable evidence was found that supported evolution? Say a mine was dug somewhere and they accidentally found a timeline of complete fossils, showing an unbroken sequential progression of creatures gradually changing from an original species ‘A’ to a distinct new species ‘B’. This is just a possible example, it doesn’t even really matter what the actual evidence may be. We just need to imagine it as proof beyond doubt of evolution.
It would be a "smoking gun" that would lay to rest all the usual creationist arguments against ToE--which even the most reasonable and intelligent ID proponent could not deny.
In such a situation, how would faith stand up to it?"
I am not here to quibble about what science is on this thread. The topic is not "creation science", but faith, and maybe some here do not realize it, but faith could stand up well, at least my faith, and there are several reasons.
First, the Bible is sufficiently vague, even if adopting a "literal" interpretation of Genesis, that common descent is not necessarily in disagreement with that. For example, there are some parts of Genesis that suggest evolution occurred. The langage of "Let the earth bring forth..." or "let the waters bring forth..." for example.
Genesis even appears to refer to the dinosaurs by speaking of prehistoric (pre-man) birds created on the 5th "day" that were created from the sea, and then later birds emerging that were "created from the earth." So contrary to what secularists claim, the Bible was way ahead of man until a couple hundred years ago in indicating the existence of dinusaur "flying creatures."
Genesis may disagree with the tenet of common descent from a single organism, the way it reads now, and it will be interesting to see if that is ever revised.
Note the word "day" to describe the 6 creation "days" is also used in the singular as one "day" to describe all 6 days. This is not a contradiction, but illustrates the proper meaning of the term "day", which is still used sometimes today in phrases like "back in the day" and in the Bible elsewhere as "the day of Lord" not always referring to one 24-hour period.
So a literal interpretation is not necessarily in disagreement with the idea that life evolved from the earth and sea.
But let's take this a step further, which I think is important and will be an area of criticial research in the next few hundred years at some point.
Most all of these discussions are based on the concept of an exlusive linear movement in time and a static past, but that is a big assumption. It seems logical, but much of what we discover about the universe's real properties, discoveries made in quantum physics, work on principles and logic different that what we expected.
Let me explain by what I mean by claiming the past is not static. Let's suppose we find a fossil that indicates something happened.
OK, we assume that means the fossil has been such and such time, and it has, but it could well be that, say, 10,000 years ago, the fossil was not there, and it did not happen. We assume that what we observe that indicates the past time-line means that this has always been that way, that the past is static, but I think more advanced perspective on what we are seeing in things like quantum entanglement, etc,...will show that this was an assumption that was false.
The multi-verse theorists, in a way, touch on this, by discussing the possibilities of many-worlds side-by-side, and things along those lines. I am not saying that's the case, but if it is, it could well be that there is some bleed-over.
Unfortunately, even though I am excited to see things in science confirming what might be termed spiritual and mystical beliefs about how the world really is, and I do think that is happening, my particular beleif here, as far as science, is still speculation.
But at the same time, the belief that the past is static is nevertheless an assumption that is not proven, and if I am right, it may one day be disproven. The reason we are slow to be aware of this is because the changes are small relatively, but over time, they add up, and add up quite a lot.
Personally, I believe the past does change and that we will discover that the present and future can have a causal effect back in time on the past, but the effect is much smaller than the fact linear effect of the progression of events.
How does this relate to the Bible, faith, and Genesis?
Imo, when mankind (Adam and Eve) fell as Genesis indicates, his consciousness fell and had an effect on the entire earth and perhaps universe such that everything from the beginning forward changes. The Bible depicts God as cursing the earth, and later says even parts of "the heavens" themselves were affected as well.
Does it make sense to think that God magically sort of went poof and changed everything from that point forward. The changes as a result of the curse were deep and profound, and entailed changing perhaps even physical principles. When you realize that the entire universe and time itself are a creation of God, it makes sense that He would change things from the beginning forward, essentially creating a new time-line, or altering the old one.
Think of it this way. Put yourself out of time, and imagine viewing the entire universe with time as one of it's dimensions so to speak, where maybe the whole thing is more like a movie. It's an entire package and all points are equally present to you, and scenes can be altered in the movie, or perhaps the movie is set up like a self-generating computer program, and if you change the program, it runs itself from the beginning again, but with different principles, and thus changes.
I think the consciousness-based interpretations of quantum physics holds a lot of water with some of the brightest men on the earth, and that it is likely if there is a connection between consciousness and the formation of matter, that a sudden and dramatic fall in consciousness would effect a sudden and dramatic change on the universe, just as the Bible depicts.
So God could have created Adam and Eve without using evolution, and yet after their fall, men could have evolved (maybe the people of theland of Nod?).
Who knows for sure since Genesis is not specific enough to rule out some of the possibilities, but then again, the purpose of the Book is a little deeper than quibbling with those that want to disbelieve it for whatever reason. It is the word of God, and as such, we should expect it to be a higher plane.
My own take on the Bible is never to think of it as behind the times and behind science, but rather that science has not caught up with the Bible. I am though glad to see the paradigm emerging from quantum physics replace the old paradigm of Newtonian and classical physics, as the discoveries of quantum physics have tended to confirm the biblical view of reality and also of many other spiritual traditions.It does not say much about some specifics such as Jesus' resurrection, of course, but the way faith, consciousness, and spirituality work, the identifying of information as the root of all things, etc,...have been encouraging.

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by robinrohan, posted 05-29-2005 9:43 AM randman has not replied
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 05-29-2005 12:15 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 114 (212134)
05-28-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jar
05-28-2005 12:59 PM


Re: Since we're in the Faith and Belief area
Jar, see my general reply above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 05-28-2005 12:59 PM jar has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 68 of 114 (212135)
05-28-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
05-28-2005 10:18 AM


Crashfrog, see my general reply above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2005 10:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 114 (212137)
05-28-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by JonF
05-28-2005 9:08 AM


Jon, see my general reply above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 05-28-2005 9:08 AM JonF has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 114 (212327)
05-29-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
05-28-2005 2:40 PM


Re: general reply to all 3
That was an interesting science fiction theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:40 PM randman has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 71 of 114 (212342)
05-29-2005 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
05-28-2005 2:40 PM


What you are liable to read in the Bible....
randman writes:
So contrary to what secularists claim, the Bible was way ahead of man until a couple hundred years ago in indicating the existence of dinusaur "flying creatures."
I take a much more literal approach to the Bible.
When it says "birds", I think it means, "birds". Reading dinosaurs into it is just silly.
...when mankind (Adam and Eve) fell as Genesis indicates, his consciousness fell...
How does "the knowledge of good and evil" relate to a decline in conciousness? It's pretty clearly an increase in conciousness.
My own take on the Bible is never to think of it as behind the times and behind science, but rather that science has not caught up with the Bible.
Why should the Bible be "behind" or "ahead of" science? It was written thousands of years ago, before science was even a concept.
What's your take on the telephone book? Is it "behind" or "ahead of" science?
No offense, but it doesn't look like you've thought any of this through very well.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:40 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:35 PM ringo has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 72 of 114 (212365)
05-29-2005 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ringo
05-29-2005 12:15 PM


Re: What you are liable to read in the Bible....
"take a much more literal approach to the Bible.
When it says "birds", I think it means, "birds". Reading dinosaurs into it is just silly."
It says flying creatures, and it clearly describes 2 different types of flying creatures, whether you wish to call them "birds" or not. It was not written in English, btw, so it literally does not state "birds." The simple fact is this was a so-called apparent contradiction until the discovery of prehistoric flying creatures, birds, or whatever you want to call them.
"...when mankind (Adam and Eve) fell as Genesis indicates, his consciousness fell...
How does "the knowledge of good and evil" relate to a decline in conciousness? It's pretty clearly an increase in conciousness."
Wrong. You clearly do not understand the basic question. The issue of "decline" is one of immorality, not knowledge. Mankind's consciousness "fell" morally. Perhaps and most likely this did include a decline in abilities as well, but the point is knowledge alone does not produce godliness. Man cannot save himself or acheive an equality with God on his own, but can acheive a state of union with God through God, not via self.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 05-29-2005 12:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 05-29-2005 2:43 PM randman has replied
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 05-29-2005 3:13 PM randman has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 114 (212369)
05-29-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
05-29-2005 2:35 PM


Re: What you are liable to read in the Bible....
You say
You clearly do not understand the basic question. The issue of "decline" is one of immorality, not knowledge. Mankind's consciousness "fell" morally.
Frankly, not only is that not what the Bible says, it makes no sense. Are you saying that not knowing good from evil is more moral than knowing good from evil?
Then you go on to say:
Perhaps and most likely this did include a decline in abilities as well, but the point is knowledge alone does not produce godliness.
Again, that's just a silly statement. How can you have godliness is you don't know good from evil?
Even the Bible disagrees with you. Read Genesis 3:22
22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 9:42 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 74 of 114 (212375)
05-29-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
05-29-2005 2:35 PM


randman writes:
It says flying creatures, and it clearly describes 2 different types of flying creatures, whether you wish to call them "birds" or not.
Okay, what am I missing here? I'm only aware of one Hebrew word that's translated "fowl" in Genesis and "fowl" = "bird" to a good-ole-boy like me. You'll have to be more specific about what the "apparent contradiction" is.
The issue of "decline" is one of immorality, not knowledge. Mankind's consciousness "fell" morally.
It was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Where does it say anything about immorality?
Adam and Eve increased in knowledge. That made them able to know the difference between moral and immoral. It didn't make them immoral.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 9:58 PM ringo has replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 75 of 114 (212416)
05-29-2005 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
05-27-2005 6:08 PM


How can evolution happen without mutation?
randman,
I think I understand what you are saying about microevolution not leading to macroevolution but I was wondering if you could clear up this statement for me. I think I must not be understanding reproduction.
randman writes:
And yet microevolution does occur without mutations. Heck, if you have a baby without the baby having a mutation, microevolution has occurred, OK?
I don't see how you can have children without a mutation. My son does not have the same nose as either my wife or myself. Is this not a mutation?
It was my understanding that almost every time DNA makes a copy of itself it is not a perfect copy. Is that not a mutation?
Thanks for clearing that up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 6:08 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 10:03 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024