Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
curious_cath said:
Most of the narratives in Genesis serve pedagogical purposes in the development of a concept of faith in a God. There were very pagan and polytheistic people around who had to be socialized into a regular faith structure with priestly authority, rule, obedience and submission. These myths serve this purpose in an excellent manner.
Click to expand...
The first seventeen books of the Old Testament - from Genesis to Esther - are clearly accounts of real, literal history. To claim they are “myths” is ridiculous. With the possible exception of the first two or three chapters of Genesis, the text is presented in a style that is nothing like myth or even allegory.
 
Looking at biological things as machines for a moment, how do you swap out one type of organ for another? Gradually? I don’t think so. In order to survive in a new environment that required, for example, a different type of lung, would mean a suitable modification of the chest cavity, an optimal shape and volume, and rewiring of the nervous system.
 
The more you think about it, the more ludicrous it gets. And each of these supposd modifications has to enhance the creature’s chance of survival … somehow. Evolution science - the land of fantasy and make-believe.
 
edwest211 said:
Looking at biological things as machines for a moment, how do you swap out one type of organ for another? Gradually? I don’t think so. In order to survive in a new environment that required, for example, a different type of lung, would mean a suitable modification of the chest cavity, an optimal shape and volume, and rewiring of the nervous system.
Click to expand...
If I’m traveling on a paved road with my bike, and encounter rough terrain up ahead, I need suitable tires now… not a million years from now.
 
Last edited:
I respect the authoritative interpretations of the Bible by the Catholic Church. I never go beyond that line. However, you may speculate about the interpretation of the interpretation which has never been banned.
 
Glark said:
The more you think about it, the more ludicrous it gets. And each of these supposd modifications has to enhance the creature’s chance of survival … somehow. Evolution science - the land of fantasy and make-believe.
Click to expand...
How does evolution know what modifications a creature needs…can evolution see into the future ,and have it ready when the creature needs it ?
 
Last edited:
Richca said:
We find in each of the six days of creation that it is either prefaced by (days 2-6) or said ‘And God said’ let there be this or let there be that.
Click to expand...
The “heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) were created before the first “And God said …” (v.3). The earth was initially in “darkness” (v.1) and then God created “light” (v.3).

So it seems there was more to creation than just the “six days”.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
How does evolution know what modifications a creature needs…can evolution see into the future ,and have it ready when the creature needs it ?
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn’t know anything. It is just a description of a theoretical process. But I am more interested to know where did this information to make all these things came from in the first place. The information to code DNA/RNA for example. The information to build a single living reproducing cell is massive. Even more so for complex creatures with functional parts. Does a biological factory to create/reproduce a creature came from small mutations? How is that possible? Do we have enough time to do it? How was that information supplied to the cell so that the cell has that information to reproduce, know how to do it , with what resources to do it, manage the process flow properly and a list of other processes that defines a living thing. If it is science, it must be capable of being testable, provable, explainable etc
 
Richca said:
In case you haven’t heard, there has also been produced a work (within the last few years I believe) supplementary to Haldane’s Dilemma which is called Haldane’s Rachet. I don’t have the link presently, but you can google for it.
Click to expand...
Heard of that but I am waiting for “proper” studies to refute Haldane’s original work. I don’t see anyone daring enough to touch it with a 10 ft pole. If a newer study reconfirm’s Haldane’s Dilemma and they are forced to publish and acknowledge it, Darwinism will die a very rapid death. I suspect it is better to leave sleeping dogs alone.
 
Techno2000 said:
Well… apparently there was a convenient and timely “environmental change” for all the complex lifeforms, and all the transitional stages that went with it, for all the organisms on the planet.
Click to expand...
What is observed gets reported. But since it didn’t fit popular theory, it doesn’t matter anyway? Hardly science as we know it.
 
No, you are not missing anything. You are just fine as a creationist. If you like it, it is for you. Good luck!
 
Oh really? Then how is it that people talk to God and God talks to people? How do people know it is God? God cannot be restricted to time or space. Jesus also says “nobody has seen the Father, only the Son”. Where do you see any piece of real, literal history?

Analysing the style of the narrative is a good starting point. Then you probably recognize the 4 distinctive literary styles and sources of the Pentateuch: J, E, D, P (Jahvist, Elohvist, Deutoronomic, Priestly). Etc.
 
Glark, this kind of response really does creationism a disservice, and is the reason why most biologists avoid any kind of engagement with them. I, and my fellow evolutionists on this post, are really trying to help here. I find it very easy to envision the process by which avian lungs could have evolved, and there are examples of both living birds and fossils which suggest some of the phases through which intermediate stages could have travelled. A quick Google will give you plenty of opportunity to researchgthis for yourself.

But that’s not really the point. I want to emphasis that a) starting with an incorrect summary of what “must have” occurred, followed by b) describing either your own, or any other evolutionary scenario as “ludicrous” and “fairy tales” is so terribly counter-productive as to be the most self-destructive attitude to creationism, and the real reason that it is not taken seriously by scientists.

Just go back over the last few days comments here, and look at the general tone of the creationist and evolutionary posts. Try to do it as dispassionately as you can. Now why not try to put your case - for something rather than against something - for serious consideration. Will I call you “ludicrous” for believing in a talking snake? No. Will I invent details about Noah’s flood and then tell you the Bible denotes them? No.
 
At last, after all this time, you have at least put forth some idea of your actual belief, so perhaps you won’t mind if I ask for a bit more clarification. Here we go:
Glark said:
The first seventeen books of the Old Testament - from Genesis to Esther - are clearly accounts of real, literal history. To claim they are “myths” is ridiculous. With the possible exception of the first two or three chapters of Genesis, the text is presented in a style that is nothing like myth or even allegory.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I don’t know what your criteria for “real, literal, history” are, but I fear they are different from mine. Much of the first few chapters of Exodus, for example, consists of verbatim conversation. The story of the conversations between God, Moses and Pharaoh, and the plagues which were successively used to weaken Pharoah’s power, do not read like “real, literal, history”; they read to me like an interpretation.

So when you say the first seventeen books of the Old Testament are “clearly” literal history, I can only say that this is not so for me, and ask what makes you think they are.

“To claim they are myths is ridiculous”. This I think depends on what you think a myth, or a legend, or a fable, or any other of these words which describe a story, should be defined. But then, I would never claim that, say, Exodus was a myth without clearly explaining why, so that it would not appear ridiculous.

“The text is presented in a style that is nothing like myth or even allegory.” I’m afraid I disagree with you here. The text is remarkably similar to the way myths are often presented. The description of major meteorological events as the outcome of conversations between human and divine personalities is entirely typical of mythological presentation.

Note that I do not, here, say that any of the first seventeen book of the Old Testament are untrue. What I do say is that they are not “clearly accounts of real, literal history”, and that it is not true to say that “the text is presented in a style that is nothing like myth or even allegory.” Would you care to respond, without merely asserting that its all obvious or that I’m ludicrous?
 
Hi ericc,

Haldane’s dilemma was not an unresolvable obstacle to evolution even when JBS Haldane proposed it in 1957, particularly as it only applies in quite specific circumstances. However, he concluded his paper with the words: “I am quite aware that my conclusions will need drastic revision”, and indeed, they have been drastically revised, particularly as regards some of the basic assumptions he had to make in order to carry out his calculations.

I can’t help being slightly amused by your “waiting for proper studies to refute Haldane’s original work”. Were you expecting them just to drop through the letter box? Anyway, try: Nunney, Leonard, ‘The Cost of Natural Selection Revisited’, Annales Zoologici Fennici 40, April 2003, for just what you were waiting for. Sadly, the death of Darwinism is not due any time soon.
 
Last edited:
Considering science itself is disproving the pagan creation story there is no need to abandon our long held Scriptural understanding.
 
[Sadly, the death of Darwinism is not due any time soon.}

It is pretty much done as we speak.
 
You’ve asked all the right questions. This sort of thing has to be testable and repeatable. As far as I know, it cannot be. Time X All the “right” mutations = Beneficial change does not seem to be possible, at least according to the theory. A single cell is filled with biological machinery. What is happening is scientists are finding greater and greater complexity as they take apart the genome. This drops the possibility of chance by orders of magnitude.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top