Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Edgar]

You mean like roaches that become resistant to roach spray, does not necessarily mean rats can morph into whales?

Not in my book, at least. But evolutionists contend that since microevolution is a fact (such as a roach becoming resistant to roach spray), these can accumulate over vast periods of time to produce profound macroevolutions. So according to their (simplistic and hopelessly inadequate) theory of evolution, a whale could have evolved form a rat.

 

[Edgar]

You don’t need to calculate the probability of something that’s already happened. It’s 1.

I understand your reasoning here: Who cares how insanely improbable it is for a heart and brain to evolve separately and to end up perfectly attuned to each other? All that matters is, IT HAPPENED! - since there is no God and no creation miracles. So problematic scenarios such as heart-brain evolution can be swept under the carpet and forgotten about. Who needs to wrestle with real science when one can pull out the “IT HAPPENDED!” card?

 

[Bradskii]

All that matters is, IT HAPPENED! - since there is no God…

Straw man. Evolution does not deny God.

Who cares how insanely improbable it is for a heart and brain to evolve separately and to end up perfectly attuned to each other?

Your lack of understanding of evolution is compounded by your lack of understanding of biology.

‘The heart has its own pacemaker independent of the brain . As long as it has oxygen, it continues to beat. The heart could actually be removed from the body, placed in saline solution, given oxygen, and still continue to beat. This is why although the brain is dead, the heart continues to beat.’ DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery Miller School of Medicine

But allow me to predict a possible answer to this:

‘But that in itself seems so improbable to me, therefore…’

Please fill in the blanks with your opinion as you see fit

 

[Edgar]

I do not believe Adam & Eve were real-life individuals as I drift in the direction that the creation accounts are allegorical. I suspect that what the author(s) of these accounts did was to take the polytheistic Babylonian account and shred it by putting in their own belief in the One God. Archaeologists know that at least some who lived in eretz Israel knew of the Babylonian epic since it predates the writing of Genesis by an estimated 1000 years, plus it it’s quite common for different societies to take ideas from other much larger societies and then modify these narratives to fit their own norms and mores.

… and here I was thinking that the Scriptures were “the word of God” - how dumb and gullible was I?
And how about those Old and New Testament writers who obviously believed Adam and Eve were real people? Those poor ignorant fools. Why would anyone trust what those dunces wrote?!
Yep, the Bible is riddled with nonsense, so let’s get rid of it and put our faith in science instead.

 

[Edgar]

Your lack of understanding of evolution is compounded by your lack of understanding of biology. ‘The heart has its own pacemaker independent of the brain . As long as it has oxygen, it continues to beat. The heart could actually be removed from the body, placed in saline solution, given oxygen, and still continue to beat. This is why although the brain is dead, the heart continues to beat.’ DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery Miller School of Medicine

Okay, you may have a point; but the heart-beat is not constant and must respond to the various degrees of activity of the body. I imagine it’s the brain that detects what the body is doing and it is the brain that tells the heart to increase or decrease its beat accordingly.

Every organ of the body relies on the brain for its proper function - cut off a chook’s head and it will run around for a few seconds, but it isn’t behaving like a chook anymore.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Your lack of understanding of evolution is compounded by your lack of understanding of biology. ‘The heart has its own pacemaker independent of the brain . As long as it has oxygen, it continues to beat. The heart could actually be removed from the body, placed in saline solution, given oxygen, and still continue to beat. This is why although the brain is dead, the heart continues to beat.’ DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery Miller School of Medicine

Okay, you may have a point; but the heart-beat is not constant and must respond to the various degrees of activity of the body. I imagine it’s the brain that detects what the body is doing and it is the brain that tells the heart to increase or decrease its beat accordingly.

You imagine? Is that how you discuss matters such as biology and evolution? If you keep being corrected then I guess that the odds dictate that you will stumble on a correct response eventually. Personally speaking, I would hope that the people with whom I am discussing matters would actually investigate that which they claim before actually claiming it. Bit late now, but you could read this info on the matter: Electrical System of the Heart

The problem with giving you all this information is that you are going to realise that it’s all a lot more complex that you could possibly ‘imagine’. Consequently, your incredulity meter is going to go into the red, only reinforcing your belief that all this is waaaay to complex to have evolved.

Ah well…

 

[Bradskii]

Every organ of the body relies on the brain for its proper function - cut off a chook’s head and it will run around for a few seconds, but it isn’t behaving like a chook anymore.

And you are not even right on this matter. You need to remove a chickens brain stem (which controls the heart rate - not the brain) as well as its head (and brain). Otherwise it will live as long as you keep feeding food down its neck. Look it up.

 

[Aloysium]

Since we’re being picky here, let’s push that limit.

The cardiovascular centre, located in the medulla oblongata, is responsible for the regulation of the heart rate. It is influenced by the nervous and endocrine systems. While the heart beats normally without its (name removed by moderator)ut, under stress, physical or psychological, the cardiovascular centre affects the rate at which the heart beats.Through the vagus nerve, it causes the rate to increase when we breathe in and decrease when we exhale. When we exercise, we build up lactic acid and the consequent change in pH is detected by central chemoreceptors and also peripheral chemoreceptors in the aortic and carotid arteries, where changes in blood pressure are also detected. Some of the nerves that connect the cardiovascular centre the cardiac pacemaker, are part of the sympathetic nervous system, and cause the heart to beat faster and with a greater stroke volume. The vagus nerve, part of the parasympathetic system, causes it to beat slower and less strong. The hormones, epinephrine and norepinephrine, produced in the adrenal glands and various neurons, act throughout the body, including the cardiovascular centre, causing it to increase the rate of its messages resulting in a faster rate and higher blood pressure.The cardiovascular centre ensures that bodily tissues receive a sufficient amount of blood.

 

[Aloysium]

So you don’t have to look things up.

Kind of gross, but by the way:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Bradskii]

Since we’re being picky here, let’s push that limit.

The cardiovascular centre, located in the medulla oblongata, is responsible for the regulation of the heart rate. It is influenced by the nervous and endocrine systems. While the heart beats normally without its (name removed by moderator)ut, under stress, physical or psychological, the cardiovascular centre affects the rate at which the heart beats.Through the vagus nerve, it causes the rate to increase when we breathe in and decrease when we exhale. When we exercise, we build up lactic acid and the consequent change in pH is detected by central chemoreceptors and also peripheral chemoreceptors in the aortic and carotid arteries, where changes in blood pressure are also detected. Some of the nerves that connect the cardiovascular centre the cardiac pacemaker, are part of the sympathetic nervous system, and cause the heart to beat faster and with a greater stroke volume. The vagus nerve, part of the parasympathetic system, causes it to beat slower and less strong. The hormones, epinephrine and norepinephrine, produced in the adrenal glands and various neurons, act throughout the body, including the cardiovascular centre, causing it to increase the rate of its messages resulting in a faster rate and higher blood pressure.The cardiovascular centre ensures that bodily tissues receive a sufficient amount of blood.

There you go, Ed. That’s the way to do it.

 

[rinnie]

The problem here is the obvious problem with any person whom takes it upon himself to define scripture without the power of the holy Spirit to do such.
But people continue to state that they have the same power to teach and preach the word of God. These are who Christ called false prophets and he said to avoid them their purpose is to confuse.

Bottom line read the scripture. Then go to the church and read what their definition of that teaching and what truth God is trying to convey to you. Case closed. What is the reason to Even read scripture to line it up with science? To prove God exists? To prove God does not exist???

No none of the above. It is there as a lesson to all of us to learn how God expects us to live our life and what he demands of is. Ask yourself why would a person who believes in God go to his word and try to use his word against him. He would not do this. Here is the best part the person who does do this always comes out wrong. But the most ironic thing is they use his word to prove he is wrong. And yet all along accuses the person who they claim does not exist as being wrong. Funny is it not. Bottom line if any one here takes this teaching within the context of what it was written there would be no disagreements.

 

[Bradskii]

But the most ironic thing is they use his word to prove he is wrong. And yet all along accuses the person who they claim does not exist as being wrong. Funny is it not. Bottom line if any one here takes this teaching within the context of what it was written there would be no disagreements.

This is confusing as you are mixing uppper and lower case when referring to God in the third person and it’s difficult to parse.

 

[rinnie]

No not at all even science agrees everything has to be created. and for something to be created it has to have a creator. That is why people always run into a problem by claiming the creator does not exist. Everything in this world the trees!water etc are proof of the creator our one and only God. How can people deny the creator but accept the creation. It’s like saying a car was created by a car. They will add go to extremes to explain how a car is created. And all goes back to the same thing. we did not create ourself the same as the car. But the argument will go on. They will accept that the car did not create itself and will not deny the creator. But then will turn around as deny their creator. Will go to the. Ends of the Earth and continue to fail because even the cells in our body have a creator.

 

[Bradskii]

But then will turn around as deny their creator.

Perhaps you could point out where in this amazingly long thread anyone has suggested that evolution denies that there is a creator?

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps you could point out where in this amazingly long thread anyone has suggested that evolution denies that there is a creator?

Why are you not a believer?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Perhaps you could point out where in this amazingly long thread anyone has suggested that evolution denies that there is a creator?

Why are you not a believer?

It started off when people I knew well kept insisting that almost all of what’s in the bible is actually true. They had a fundamental view of scripture even though it wasn’t required in the Anglican church. They accepted it without thinking. They didn’t have the benefit of a decent education and I did.

So it started off as an either/or view of God. You either believed scripture was true and God existed or you didn’t and He didn’t either. Which I later decided was not the case. But a realisation that what they told me was not true led me to question more and more. Eventually…

 

[buffalo]

More of a philosophical problem then…

 

[Bradskii]

More of a philosophical problem then…

The Reverend Newbury: ‘This actually happened’.
Bradskii: ‘If everything I am being taught (chemistry, geology, physics etc) is true, then what you are telling me is plainly and demonstrably false’.

Perhaps you consider that to be ‘a philosophical problem’.

 

[William_Scott]

started off when people I knew well kept insisting that almost all of what’s in the bible is actually true. They had a fundamental view of scripture even though it wasn’t required in the Anglican church. They accepted it without thinking. They didn’t have the benefit of a decent education and I did.

So it started off as an either/or view of God. You either believed scripture was true and God existed or you didn’t and He didn’t either. Which I later decided was not the case. But a realisation that what they told me was not true led me to question more and more. Eventually…

Hello Bradskii, you imply that your decent education helped you to see past the folly of less educated blokes that believe (like Jesus did) that every jot and tittle of Sacred Scripture is true. I’m thankful for the decent eduction I had. My education in science and law hasn’t negatively impacted my belief that everything written in the original manuscripts* of the Scripture is true. Despite having to (figuratively) roll my eyes at the unfounded pontifications of some of my Marxist-loving, Christ-hating professors, I’ve found that my education (and the mentally demanding work that I do every day as a result of my education) has only strengthened my faith in God and His Word.

*[Aside: The original contents of Scripture are preserved excellently in thousands of manuscripts, Church Father quotes, etc.–far beyond the evidence that we have for the original contents of virtually any other ancient text].

The ultimate nature of things (including origins) is a matter of faith. Consequently, the question of origins itself is not ultimately one of faith vs. science (although science attests far better to the supernatural origins of the universe)–it is a faith vs. faith question. In other words, we’re all tin-foil hat wingnuts–and it appears that the Neo-Darwinian tin-foil hat is particularly useful for deflecting electromagnetic radiation.

I say this knowing that I might be hounded as a result of such statements by the true believers in “science”*. These true believers know there are really big mountains of evidence that support “science” and prove the Bible is a pack of lies written by lying liars/ignorant goat herders.

*[“science”–aka that wondrous make-believe, flying sphaggeti monster, pseudo-scientific mythology that sea sponges or comb jellies can turn into people if you wait long enough].

Well, I’ll have to leave my continued teasing of my evo brethren for a (much) later time–this is an anniversary weekend and work is crazy right now. Have a good weekend (and month) everyone.

 

[William_Scott]

p.s.

It started off when people I knew well kept insisting that almost all of what’s in the bible is actually true.

Well no wonder you ran into issues–they only believed that “almost all” of what’s in the bible is true. Sounds like you were hanging out with some liberals/modernists. 'Round here, we call that heterodoxy

I prefer the “every jot or tittle” approach of Christ