creationism and evolution

[Steve_Andersen]

CreosMary:

Put simply the THEORY of evolution is a pack of ****. God is all powerful and He created, in 6 days.
You need more Faith to believe that intelligent life came about by billions of accidents than in a loving and Creative God. End of story

Sigh, hasn’t this tired old horse been beaten to death
The Vatican said it was ok to explore this topic in the 1870s for crying out loud!

Give me strength!

No, evolution is not a matter of faith
There is nothing there to believe
Just things you can measure

It is simple, elegant, robust, and confirmed independently by the fields of biology, paleontology, physics, geology, Astronomy, and molecular biology

Personally I find the simple, universal aspects of the theory perfectly in character with a loving transcendent eternal God.
What is a few billion years to Him?

Trying to scale down God to human terms just smacks of blasphemy to me
And not using the brains God gave us to know His creation seems almost sinful

BTW germ theory is “just a theory” so I wouldn’t worry too much about your Dentist washing her hands before she puts them in your mouth

 

[Orogeny]

CreosMary:

End of story

OK, moderator, you can lock this thread now. After all, CreosMary settled the debate once and for all!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

Hey, so Philvaz and Orogeny are still viewing this thread.

Yep, I’m still here.

Are you aware of any scientific arguments that would be posed perhaps by atheistic evolutionists, which would dispute wanerious’ suggested resolution to the conflict I see between Christianity and evolution regarding Adam and Eve (the idea that there were basically two kinds of humans roaming the earth and that the soulless ones merely died out for some reason)?

I’m not. I’m sure that athiests of all sorts, not just scientists, would disagree that there is a soul, so there would be an argument against that idea, but since science cannot account for souls, I know of no scientific argument one way or the other.

Is it reasonable to consider that possibility? What are the chances that Adam and Eve’s offspring survived and the offspring of the other 57 to 9998 humans died out? Within just a few generations, Adam and Eve’s offspring would have made up a very very small percentage of the overall population.

I generally think that something like that may have happened, but I’ll be honest, I don’t know the answer.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

4 marks:

Many biblical exegetical scholars and theologians reasonably posit that the characters and events as described in Genesis 1 through 11 are not historical. Much of the information was gleaned from oral mythologies, and the personages described more representative of tribes of people than of definitive individuals. In other words, it would be a mistake to consider these chapters as delivering to us certain historical, factual and scientific truth.

The scriptures present us with a story of the development of faith in the one true God of Israel which, for Christians, triunely culminates in the Incarnation, in the “Christ event,” and in the establishment of the Church.

Remember, theologians and bible scholars do not have teaching authority in the Church.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Is that a peer-reviewed publication?

Peace

Tim

I don’t believe so.

Has Speed Of Light Slowed Down?

**(REUTERS) ** A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics – Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney’s Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

“That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff,” Davies told Reuters.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

I don’t believe so.

Has Speed Of Light Slowed Down?

**(REUTERS) **A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics – Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney’s Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

“That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff,” Davies told Reuters.

Well, when he convinces physicists, I will listen. Until then, the speed of light is constant and hasn’t changed.

By the way, neither Reuters nor CBSNews.com are peer reviewed either.

Peace

Tim

 

[Bobby_Jim]

buffalo:

I don’t believe so.

Has Speed Of Light Slowed Down?

**(REUTERS) **A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics – Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney’s Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

“That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff,” Davies told Reuters.

From a little bit of cursory reading into this:

• this one study in 2001 claims that the “fine structure constant” may have changed by 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) over the course of 12 billion years.
• no previous study ever found this to be variable.
• a subsequent study in 2004 failed to reproduce this finding.
• the effect this would have on the speed of light is up for debate (it may also change slightly, or it may not).
• the idea that the constants could change is in itself interesting, and has profound implications to theories of physics. But changes of 0.001% in 12 billion years have next to zero practical importance in something like radioisotope dating, where the precision of the technique might be ± 10% or so.

 

[john_doran]

PhilVaz:

creosMary << Put simply the THEORY of evolution is a pack of ****. >>

Do you agree with the following also:

Put simply the THEORY of gravity is a pack of lies. (I’ll fill in your word).
Put simply the THEORY of germs is a pack of lies.
Put simply the THEORY of electromagnetism is a pack of lies.
Put simply the THEORY of atoms is a pack of lies.

well, to be fair, it just doesn’t follow that believing that the theory of evolution is false entails that one believe that all of these other theories are false.

i mean, it’s certainly not an inconsistent position to accept any of these other theories (with varying degrees of conviction) and, while accepting that it is at least possible, still reject the theory of evolution as unlikely.

Do I need to go on? This is the 21st century. You do know the computer you are using is based on the same scientific method as that used in biology, right?

i’m not sure it’s the use of the scientific method that is in dispute, but rather just how successful it’s been in yielding not only support for the conclusions of evolutionary biologists, but support for the degree of certainty those biologists claim for those conclusions: do you really believe that the evidence for evolution supports it as strongly as the evidence for, say quantum mechanics supports that theory?

God and is all powerful and he could create in 6 days. However, the problem you’re gonna have is that ALL the scientific evidence points to an earth around 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old, a universe around 13 billion years old

personally, i believe this is true.

, and an evolving creation, or a “gradual creation” to use Darel Falk’s term.

but not this.

anyway. before i get fried, let me be clear on this point: while i certainly believe that the theory of evolution is possibly true, i just don’t find it particularly convincing. that may change. it may not.

i definitely lose as little sleep thinking about it as i do the possibility that the “theory of electromagnetism”, as you put it, will be supplanted by another, more successful theory…

 

[john_doran]

Orogeny:

Well, when he convinces physicists, I will listen.

which physicists? ones like those that rejected huygens’ wave-theory of light as preposterous because, after all, how could newton be wrong?

ones like those that simply took it for granted that neumann’s so-called proof for the impossibility of hidden variables theories of quantum mechanics was correct, despite the clear demonstration that it wasn’t, offered originally by gerte hermann in 1935? those ones?

or maybe the ones that rejected zweig’s theory of the structure of the proton and neutron as the work of a charlatan - a theory which later won gell-mann the nobel prize - the theory we now know as the theory of quarks, which forms the basis of quantum chromodynamics. do you mean those ones?

i don’t mean to be facetious, but i find it interesting that so many people seem to think that the physicists of the world form some kind of monolithic body not only with shared beliefs, but also, apparently, with some kind of miraculous immunity to human failings like ego and the capacity for error.

the history of science is a labyrinth of blind alleys filled with the bodies of highly intelligent men and women who spent their lives utterly convinced that they had found the path that would lead them to the key to the secrets of the universe.

if it teaches us anything, i think, it teaches us to be muh more restrained and guarded in our credulity than we are initially inclined to be.

of course, the same goes for theology…

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

Here are eleven (11) possibilities reconciling a literal Adam/Eve or Adam(s)/Eve(s) with human evolution, suggested by Loren Haarsma of Calvin College, off a creation-evolution discussion list I found

Thanks for the info Phil. I am choosing to address your post instead of the ones that followed yours, because I would like this not to turn into an insult slinging thread where creationsists and evolutionists merely call each other rediculous (as seems to happen so frequently).

Of the possibilities you provided, 8 thru 11 do not coincide with the Catholic understanding of Original Sin (as you inferred). Original sin is not just a tendency toward sin. Original Sin is the lack of supernatural grace, and some praeternatural gifts, which God intended Adam and Eve to pass on by hereditary means. It is called Original Sin because the fact that Adam and Eve could no longer pass on these extraoridnary gifts, was contrary to the will of God. Therefore, Original Sin could not “spread” to others who were not direct descendants of Adam and Eve.

My problem with 1-6, which includes wanerious’ suggestion is this: Even if we read Genesis as allegorical or metaphorical or other, we must agree that it was at the very least intended to describe God’s purpose, wouldn’t we? Well the purpose provided for the creation of woman was to be Adam’s helper since there was none like himself. Now, you could argue that there was none like himself because he had a soul, but why then would Genesis describe the creation of Eve as an event of special creation, instead of God merely breathing life into one of the existing women who would have resulted from the formation of mankind described earlier in Genesis, which your possibilities would suggest was describing general evolution of mankind?

Also, even if we merely look to Genesis as describing God’s purpose or the idea behind creation, the fact is Genesis indicates the creation of woman *followed * the creation of the man into whom God breathed life. Therefore, even if there existed a group of other hominoids around, it appears there would not have been a woman in existance until after God breathed life into Adam. So my question remains: Where did all those other hominoids come from unless they were asexual?

 

[wanerious]

4 marks:

Many biblical exegetical scholars and theologians reasonably posit that the characters and events as described in Genesis 1 through 11 are not historical. Much of the information was gleaned from oral mythologies, and the personages described more representative of tribes of people than of definitive individuals. In other words, it would be a mistake to consider these chapters as delivering to us certain historical, factual and scientific truth.

The scriptures present us with a story of the development of faith in the one true God of Israel which, for Christians, triunely culminates in the Incarnation, in the “Christ event,” and in the establishment of the Church.

I could not be in more complete agreement.

 

[Orogeny]

john doran:

which physicists? ones that like those that rejected huygens’ wave-theory of light as preposterous because, after all, how could newton be wrong?

ones like those that simply took it for granted that neumann’s so-called proof for the impossibility of hidden variables theories of quantum mechanics was correct, despite the clear demonstration that it wasn’t, offered originally by gerte hermann in 1935? those ones?

or maybe the ones that rejected zweig’s theory of the structure of the proton and neutron as the work of a charlatan - a theory which later won gell-mann the nobel prize - the theory we now know as the theory of quarks, which forms the basis of quantum chromodynamics. do you mean those ones?

i don’t mean to be facetious, but i find it interesting that so many people seem to think that the physicists of the world form some kind of monolithic body not only with shared beliefs, but also, apparently, with some kind of miraculous immunity to human failings like ego and the capacity for error.

the history of science is a labyrinth of blind alleys filled with the bodies of highly intelligent men and women who spent their lives utterly convinced that they had found the path that would lead them to the key to the secrets of the universe.

if it teaches us anything, i think, it teaches us to be muh more restrained and guarded in our credulity than we are initially inclined to be.

of course, the same goes for theology…

Were those ideas ever accepted? If so, by whom? And why were they eventually accepted? Because they approached the scientific community through articles in Reuters or because they presented their ideas in a scientific forum and defended them against the criticism they received? And because they were able to develop a way to test or measure their observations that were repeatable by other investigators?

Or do we totally scap the science we accept now because of a hypothesis that some physicist has? Buffalo was insinuating that all radiometric dating is invalid because the speed of light has changed over time. He didn’t say that there is some guy in Australia that hypothesises that this has occurred, but that it is a fact.

I don’t mean to be facetious (well, actually I do ), but if this guy wants to change something as fundamental to science as the concept that the speed of light is a constant, then YES, he must convince those that doubted all those things you mentioned.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Bobby Jim:

From a little bit of cursory reading into this:

• this one study in 2001 claims that the “fine structure constant” may have changed by 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) over the course of 12 billion years.
• no previous study ever found this to be variable.
• a subsequent study in 2004 failed to reproduce this finding.
• the effect this would have on the speed of light is up for debate (it may also change slightly, or it may not).
• the idea that the constants could change is in itself interesting, and has profound implications to theories of physics. But changes of 0.001% in 12 billion years have next to zero practical importance in something like radioisotope dating, where the precision of the technique might be ± 10% or so.

Assuming the change is linear.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

Okay, wanerious. I have thought about this for two days now, prayed about it as well, and re-read Genesis a couple times. I have kept an open mind. You’re just gonna have to trust me when I tell you I approached your idea almost as ready to accept it, as I was ready to reject it (I would be lying if I said I was completely un-biased…none of us are ).

Agreed. I’m flattered that you would give it some thought.

I gotta tell ya, I just cannot see what you’re talking about as being supported in the least by the Word of God. Not even the slightest inference of the possibility of other humans. In fact quite the opposite:

(Gen2,8) “The Lord planted a garden in the east, and he put there the man He had formed.” Not only is the language using the singular form, but if your theory is correct, it should have read “the man into whom He breathed the breath of life” or something to that effect, to distinguish this man from the other men. But instead it reads “the man He had formed”,

I agree, but I don’t read it quite so literally. To me, the Garden is not a literal place, but a suggestion of the material Universe that we find ourselves embedded in. To be “formed” is a powerful spiritual truth telling me that our bodies are fully material, made of the same stuff as the rest of the Universe, yet we are selected to receive a further blessing of a supernatural soul. Adam then, of course, represents humanity.

The word “formed” would also indicate physical creation, not the creation of a soul, since earlier, in Gen 2,7 it says the man was formed out of the dust of the ground. It describes as a separate act that God breathed life into his nostrils. This breath of life, I suppose, could be interpreted to mean God gave him a soul.

Yes.

But I don’t think you could argue that the word “formed” in Gen 2,8 was referring to the instituion of the soul in that one man, because the verse immediately preceding it uses the verb “formed” for physical creation, and the verb “breathed” for the giving of life.

Right.

 

[buffalo]

john doran:

i don’t mean to be facetious, but i find it interesting that so many people seem to think that the physicists of the world form some kind of monolithic body not only with shared beliefs, but also, apparently, with some kind of miraculous immunity to human failings like ego and the capacity for error.

.

Maybe they too are protected by the Holy Spirit. :banghead: :banghead: Of course this cannot be so because truth cannot contradict itself.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

I could not be in more complete agreement.

Except scripture continuously refers to the first man and the first woman. Not second, not third, but first. Allegory? Myth? I don’t think so.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Were those ideas ever accepted? If so, by whom? And why were they eventually accepted? Because they approached the scientific community through articles in Reuters or because they presented their ideas in a scientific forum and defended them against the criticism they received? And because they were able to develop a way to test or measure their observations that were repeatable by other investigators?

Or do we totally scap the science we accept now because of a hypothesis that some physicist has? Buffalo was insinuating that all radiometric dating is invalid because the speed of light has changed over time. He didn’t say that there is some guy in Australia that hypothesises that this has occurred, but that it is a fact.

I don’t mean to be facetious (well, actually I do ), but if this guy wants to change something as fundamental to science as the concept that the speed of light is a constant, then YES, he must convince those that doubted all those things you mentioned.

Peace

Tim

Einstein made the speed of light a constant to fit his theory. His theory was invalid if the speed of light was a variable. He backed into it and we have held it ever since.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

…continued…

The point I would make here is this: The creation of the woman followed the creation of the man, right? We know this was the chronology, because the reason for woman is given (to help the man). So…if your theory is correct, and Adam was one of many men who lived at the time, how did they all (the 59 to 10,000 humans) come to be, without the existence of women yet?

Well, again, that is a somewhat more literal reading than I take. The chronology you point out is, to me, a nice dramatic or literary effect. It is a very powerful spiritual lesson couched as an entertaining dramatic play. The lessons we tend to learn best are those communicated through stories. Certainly God knows that.

Is there scientific evidence that would suggest prior to evolution arriving at a full fledged homo-sapien, that the preceding species were asexual? (I have been told that scientists have our predecessors preserved in some kind of fossil form or another, from a gazillion years ago, so that one should be easy to answer ).

No, that is ruled out, as far as I know.

Lastly (maybe…unless more comes to me later), I find it striking that as many times as the rest of creation is mentioned (birds of the air, beasts of the field, cattle, swimming creatures, etc) that never is mention made of the relationship that would be between Adam and the other poor brutes. It describes how God watched Adam name them all (including this new creation he called woman) but there isn’t the slightest inference of other men.

…but that’s one of the best parts. By singling out Adam to name the animals, we are given a somewhat higher dais to stand on. Naming objects was a singularly powerful action to primal peoples, so this stewardship was a great gift to be given. It is important that they felt prohibited from naming God, so there is a clear heirarchy established between God, Man, and His Creation. Naming women was perfectly appropriate back in the day, but perhaps in modern times we shouldn’t take so seriously that position.

It seems like a pretty significant detail to be left out, don’t you think? Elsewhere in the Bible, it describes how God chose certain men from among the others, and certain women from among the others, etc. It would’ve been quite logical to give some kind of indication that God chose Adam from among men.

As was well pointed out, often individual characters in the Old Testament are meant to represent regions and/or tribes. This is a common Jewish understanding, and they wrote the thing, after all. Also, we should be open to possible spiritual truths that emerge if we interpret the stories as not mere history, but as an important work of divinely inspired drama meant to illustrate our right relationship with God.

 

[gladtobe]

If the Pope finds nothing wrong with the theory of evolution, that is a very bad decision on his part.Evolution has no room for a personal creator or that we as human souls are made in his image. There is NO GOD in evolution at all. I really hope the Pope stands against evolution altogether.

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

Buffalo was insinuating that all radiometric dating is invalid because the speed of light has changed over time. He didn’t say that there is some guy in Australia that hypothesises that this has occurred, but that it is a fact.

I didn’t conclude that at all, Orogeny. In fact I think buffalo’s post was the result of my assertion that scientists cannot possibly know without the possibility of error, that decay rates have remained constant throughout time…which I still maintain.

You can argue against any theory produced that could threaten the theory of evolution, Orogeny, but in the end the best evolutionists can do is say the opposing arguments are not credible. You cannot rule out the possibility that scientists may overlook unknowns, as has happened throughout history.

If evolutionists would like to reduce the number of creationists’ opposing claims in these threads, my suggestion would be for evolutionists to present evolution as the* theory* that it is. But for some reason, evolutionists insist on proposing their theory as if it were unquestionably true, which invokes a like reaction from creationists.