"Creation"

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've never understood the battle between evolution and creationism. Just another unnecessary war really. One is the scientific study on the changing of life, the other a religious belief dealing with the creation of life. Neither contradicts the other, yet the war carries on. And the biggest problem is this is being fought on the political battlefield, which should be empty of both side's soldiers.

Well that's because you are oversimplifying the issue. If you take the bible as metaphorical as many Americans do you are correct, there is no conflict. If you take the bible literally as many Americans also do, there is absolutely a conflict. Literal interpretations of Genesis and evolution are mutually exclusive. Lots of people believe both sides, and that's why the war carries on.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Lemon law
LunarRay says, " When Darwin was bobbing about on Beagle I think we in the US were almost universal in the Creation doctrine. Today, I think we're moving toward accepting evolution except for human creation. They'll need the 'Missing Link' to alter that to any extent, I think."

We may not be there at every steps of the missing links in human ancestry from the fossil record, but enough is already there to make it almost scientifically certain. And the work is still ongoing with new finds filling more and more gaps, its already long past deniable.

But the question still unanswered is, exactly how and when did humans made that huge leap in "intelligence" while other similar species did not.
As it is, we can trace the mitochondrial dna of all humans to one common mother some 74,000 years in the past.

My guess would be that is all humans except Africans.

??

I am making some assumptions I do not know for sure are true.

1. Modern humans evolved in Africa and migrated out of Africa perhaps around 74 thousand years ago.

2. A small group left is all subsequent humans are evolved from a single eve at around that time.

3. Modern non-Africa humans, therefore would have this single common ancestor or family as progenitors, but modern humans that stayed in Africa would not have.

Africans have greater genotype diversity than whites and Asians because they didn't go through the bottleneck. A small population of modern humans are at the root of non-Arri can man.

I believe these studies are done on mytochondrial DNA that is inherited via the mother as she provides the germ cell with that DNA. Only a restricted portion of the variability in African mytochondrial diversity left Africa.

 

[JSt0rm]

I was talking to my roommate about early man (he is a genetics medical researcher) He was talking about how at one point in our history we were down to around 60 specimens. Thats insane. We were almost extinct.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've never understood the battle between evolution and creationism. Just another unnecessary war really. One is the scientific study on the changing of life, the other a religious belief dealing with the creation of life. Neither contradicts the other, yet the war carries on. And the biggest problem is this is being fought on the political battlefield, which should be empty of both side's soldiers.

Well that's because you are oversimplifying the issue. If you take the bible as metaphorical as many Americans do you are correct, there is no conflict. If you take the bible literally as many Americans also do, there is absolutely a conflict. Literal interpretations of Genesis and evolution are mutually exclusive. Lots of people believe both sides, and that's why the war carries on.

What is a 'literal interpretation?' Is that something where you have to be fluent in the original ancient Hebrew in order to understand?

You're half right though. This isn't about belief, but it is about sides.

Choose not to take a side, step back for some perspective, and you see that the Creationists belittle their own God for the sake of their own egos, while the evolutionists willfully ignore the unbelievably fantastic grandeur that it is the universe which science has uncovered, and which the ancients predicted.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've never understood the battle between evolution and creationism. Just another unnecessary war really. One is the scientific study on the changing of life, the other a religious belief dealing with the creation of life. Neither contradicts the other, yet the war carries on. And the biggest problem is this is being fought on the political battlefield, which should be empty of both side's soldiers.

Well that's because you are oversimplifying the issue. If you take the bible as metaphorical as many Americans do you are correct, there is no conflict. If you take the bible literally as many Americans also do, there is absolutely a conflict. Literal interpretations of Genesis and evolution are mutually exclusive. Lots of people believe both sides, and that's why the war carries on.

What is a 'literal interpretation?' Is that something where you have to be fluent in the original ancient Hebrew in order to understand?

You're half right though. This isn't about belief, but it is about sides.

Choose not to take a side, step back for some perspective, and you see that the Creationists belittle their own God for the sake of their own egos, while the evolutionists willfully ignore the unbelievably fantastic grandeur that it is the universe which science has uncovered, and which the ancients predicted.

I fully agree that there is a problem with what translation you would consider 'literal'. What I can say is that the form of the bible that is considered the bible 'of record' in the US (as much as there can be), when read literally precludes the possibility of evolution. I don't agree with it, but I certainly see that if someone thought it was literal that they would find evolution to be in conflict with their faith.

I would also disagree that evolutionists ignore the grandeur of the universe. I think the more we understand about how the universe works, the more amazing it becomes.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Lemon law
LunarRay says, " When Darwin was bobbing about on Beagle I think we in the US were almost universal in the Creation doctrine. Today, I think we're moving toward accepting evolution except for human creation. They'll need the 'Missing Link' to alter that to any extent, I think."

We may not be there at every steps of the missing links in human ancestry from the fossil record, but enough is already there to make it almost scientifically certain. And the work is still ongoing with new finds filling more and more gaps, its already long past deniable.

But the question still unanswered is, exactly how and when did humans made that huge leap in "intelligence" while other similar species did not.
As it is, we can trace the mitochondrial dna of all humans to one common mother some 74,000 years in the past.

My guess would be that is all humans except Africans.

??

I am making some assumptions I do not know for sure are true.

1. Modern humans evolved in Africa and migrated out of Africa perhaps around 74 thousand years ago.

2. A small group left is all subsequent humans are evolved from a single eve at around that time.

3. Modern non-Africa humans, therefore would have this single common ancestor or family as progenitors, but modern humans that stayed in Africa would not have.

Africans have greater genotype diversity than whites and Asians because they didn't go through the bottleneck. A small population of modern humans are at the root of non-Arri can man.

I believe these studies are done on mytochondrial DNA that is inherited via the mother as she provides the germ cell with that DNA. Only a restricted portion of the variability in African mytochondrial diversity left Africa.

Could you do me a favor and link those studies?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've never understood the battle between evolution and creationism. Just another unnecessary war really. One is the scientific study on the changing of life, the other a religious belief dealing with the creation of life. Neither contradicts the other, yet the war carries on. And the biggest problem is this is being fought on the political battlefield, which should be empty of both side's soldiers.

Well that's because you are oversimplifying the issue. If you take the bible as metaphorical as many Americans do you are correct, there is no conflict. If you take the bible literally as many Americans also do, there is absolutely a conflict. Literal interpretations of Genesis and evolution are mutually exclusive. Lots of people believe both sides, and that's why the war carries on.

What is a 'literal interpretation?' Is that something where you have to be fluent in the original ancient Hebrew in order to understand?

You're half right though. This isn't about belief, but it is about sides.

Choose not to take a side, step back for some perspective, and you see that the Creationists belittle their own God for the sake of their own egos, while the evolutionists willfully ignore the unbelievably fantastic grandeur that it is the universe which science has uncovered, and which the ancients predicted.

I would like to hear more about what you refer to with that 'ancients predicted' thingi. It seems to me that the opposite side of religious literalness is a secular deadness resulting from the assumption that everything has been explained or will be. Wonder seems rare and precious to me.

 

[OrByte]

"Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated. "

Well damn....since you put it that way....this film comes straight to theatres from the BOWELS OF HELL!!!

ain't no chance this will see american silverscreens.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think the more we understand about how the universe works, the more amazing it becomes.

I agree with this completely.

I don't know what you mean by 'bible of record in the US.' If you mean that the KJV's sold in the US traditionally included the Ussher Chronology as an addendum of some form, I can see your meaning.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've never understood the battle between evolution and creationism. Just another unnecessary war really. One is the scientific study on the changing of life, the other a religious belief dealing with the creation of life. Neither contradicts the other, yet the war carries on. And the biggest problem is this is being fought on the political battlefield, which should be empty of both side's soldiers.

Well that's because you are oversimplifying the issue. If you take the bible as metaphorical as many Americans do you are correct, there is no conflict. If you take the bible literally as many Americans also do, there is absolutely a conflict. Literal interpretations of Genesis and evolution are mutually exclusive. Lots of people believe both sides, and that's why the war carries on.

What is a 'literal interpretation?' Is that something where you have to be fluent in the original ancient Hebrew in order to understand?

You're half right though. This isn't about belief, but it is about sides.

Choose not to take a side, step back for some perspective, and you see that the Creationists belittle their own God for the sake of their own egos, while the evolutionists willfully ignore the unbelievably fantastic grandeur that it is the universe which science has uncovered, and which the ancients predicted.

I was going to write a rebuttal to what you reduce "evolutionists" to believe but then i realised that you were right, i don't see it that way, i don't see the beauty in any of it what so ever. I see it as it is, a set of laws and it's not wonderful nor is it ugly, it just is.

The ancients? Predicted what?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've never understood the battle between evolution and creationism. Just another unnecessary war really. One is the scientific study on the changing of life, the other a religious belief dealing with the creation of life. Neither contradicts the other, yet the war carries on. And the biggest problem is this is being fought on the political battlefield, which should be empty of both side's soldiers.

Well that's because you are oversimplifying the issue. If you take the bible as metaphorical as many Americans do you are correct, there is no conflict. If you take the bible literally as many Americans also do, there is absolutely a conflict. Literal interpretations of Genesis and evolution are mutually exclusive. Lots of people believe both sides, and that's why the war carries on.

What is a 'literal interpretation?' Is that something where you have to be fluent in the original ancient Hebrew in order to understand?

You're half right though. This isn't about belief, but it is about sides.

Choose not to take a side, step back for some perspective, and you see that the Creationists belittle their own God for the sake of their own egos, while the evolutionists willfully ignore the unbelievably fantastic grandeur that it is the universe which science has uncovered, and which the ancients predicted.

I would like to hear more about what you refer to with that 'ancients predicted' thingi. It seems to me that the opposite side of religious literalness is a secular deadness resulting from the assumption that everything has been explained or will be. Wonder seems rare and precious to me.

It's entirely possible that no one will ever figure out everything, i doubt you'll find many thinking human beings who would argue otherwise.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think the more we understand about how the universe works, the more amazing it becomes.

I agree with this completely.

I don't know what you mean by 'bible of record in the US.' If you mean that the KJV's sold in the US traditionally included the Ussher Chronology as an addendum of some form, I can see your meaning.

All I mean is that when you ask the average American Christian what bible they consider to be the one they look to, it's the KJV. So when we're talking about evolution and creationism being mutually exclusive, the KJV is where the majority of creationists are taking their cues. Maybe I could be clearer: I believe that in the opinion of American creationists, the vast majority of them would find the two mutually exclusive for the reasons I mentioned.

I totally get what you mean about the fact that the bible has been translated to hell and back again (har), and so to be 'literal' could mean quite a few things. I very much agree with you, but I think that opinion is unfortunately a minority one.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The Butler Act, a Tennessee law made it illegal to teach anything but divine creation in any state funded educational facility. That Act set up the Scopes trial in '25 (I think) - W.J. Bryan versus Spencer Tracy... er... C. Darrow.

There is some mis-understanding about evolution and what is accepted or rejected at least by the Catholic Church which today seems to be in concert with science. I don't think they, however, accept: God created Ape and Ape begot Moonbeam who Begot human or like that.

When Darwin was bobbing about on Beagle I think we in the US were almost universal in the Creation doctrine. Today, I think we're moving toward accepting evolution except for human creation. They'll need the 'Missing Link' to alter that to any extent, I think.

LunarRay, you ARE an ape, just like every other human, it's the first part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it means ape.

And there is no "missing link" there never has been, it's just a made up term for a transitional that was expected but has never been found, the predictions derived from the ToE aren't always so precise that you can rely on every notion of them.

That said, evolution is a fact, it can be proven even to the most staunch opposer of it and it can be done in any biological laboratory near you.

If it wasn't true, well don't worry about HIV or the Swine flu, those viruses do not exist, they cannot exist without evolution.

I suppose I don't know if there is a precursor to the biped, good looking, INTELLIGENT, homo whatever we are. It is, however, in that situation that folks find creationism. We can't seem to find how we came to be in a logical evolutionary smooth transition. I would agree that DNA 'error' could account for an evolution kind of event but not sure the support exists for that.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

LunarRay, you ARE an ape, just like every other human, it's the first part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it means ape.

Actually
Homo = man
Sapiens = wise/knowing

The term you're thinking of is Hominidae of the Hominoid family tree.

Wikipedia Ref


edit:

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
That said, evolution is a fact, it can be proven even to the most staunch opposer of it and it can be done in any biological laboratory near you.

Actually evolution is a theory that is supported by facts. A common misconception.

I know I'm nit-picking ya, but those are the facts and proofs only exist in maths

(bold s for the UK)

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Faith is the belief in something one can't prove but I guess a lot of religions aren't happy just to rely on that. They want, also, to pretend they have proof of their truth and for some that means the truth of the Bible. They are right because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God. Unfortunately, the Bible is not literally factual so these folk are screwed when they deal with folk who know scientific facts. They look like idiots and they kind of are, because they don't believe out of simple faith even though they are supposed to.

We have minds That is the problem with having faith in a Supreme Being and what humanity has over time attributed to that God. It is much simpler to accept If God Is God the logic we use in our environment can't be used to examine God. We ought to assume that if we knew what God knows we'd be God or a close cousin.

I can imagine some guy sitting on an island and poof he's in some place viewing what might occur some thousands of years ahead. Revelations has lots of interesting stuff in there described by a guy who had no idea what he saw. He had no real analogy to draw on. Now here we come and interpret what he meant. We do that using English when it was written in another language that often don't have a one to one translation. Grrrrr!

A simple faith void of all the bells and whistles, personal and direct seems to be what Jesus was said to have uttered. KISS... "Keep it simple stupid". I like that cuz it don't get challenged by my mind. But then I'm simple.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would like to hear more about what you refer to with that 'ancients predicted' thingi. It seems to me that the opposite side of religious literalness is a secular deadness resulting from the assumption that everything has been explained or will be. Wonder seems rare and precious to me.

Most profound scientific discoveries came from deeply religious men who used the Bible as the means of interpreting their discoveries. As a consequence (or perhaps not), most of the profound scientific discoveries, big bang, evolution, etc, appear much as they were depicted in the Bible.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The Butler Act, a Tennessee law made it illegal to teach anything but divine creation in any state funded educational facility. That Act set up the Scopes trial in '25 (I think) - W.J. Bryan versus Spencer Tracy... er... C. Darrow.

There is some mis-understanding about evolution and what is accepted or rejected at least by the Catholic Church which today seems to be in concert with science. I don't think they, however, accept: God created Ape and Ape begot Moonbeam who Begot human or like that.

When Darwin was bobbing about on Beagle I think we in the US were almost universal in the Creation doctrine. Today, I think we're moving toward accepting evolution except for human creation. They'll need the 'Missing Link' to alter that to any extent, I think.

LunarRay, you ARE an ape, just like every other human, it's the first part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it means ape.

And there is no "missing link" there never has been, it's just a made up term for a transitional that was expected but has never been found, the predictions derived from the ToE aren't always so precise that you can rely on every notion of them.

That said, evolution is a fact, it can be proven even to the most staunch opposer of it and it can be done in any biological laboratory near you.

If it wasn't true, well don't worry about HIV or the Swine flu, those viruses do not exist, they cannot exist without evolution.

I suppose I don't know if there is a precursor to the biped, good looking, INTELLIGENT, homo whatever we are. It is, however, in that situation that folks find creationism. We can't seem to find how we came to be in a logical evolutionary smooth transition. I would agree that DNA 'error' could account for an evolution kind of event but not sure the support exists for that.

Well, there is nothing smooth about evolution what so ever, so that might be your problem, www.talkorigins.org has a lot of information on the matter, if you'd like.

The truth is that by the time most people breed we already have around 200 genetic mutations that we carry on, in fact, you and me are more alike genetically today than either are with our ancestors just a few hundred years ago.

Now this hasn't always been the case, back when there were very few of us humans, walking around hitting each other with sticks and dragging random women back to our caves (that last part hasn't really changed that much) evolution worked a lot faster because of natural disasters in some areas and migration to other areas so the chances for a forking because of isolation was much better back then.

So, you see, you can't reasonably say that there needs to be a closer relative to humans than the Homo Sapiens Idaltu (oldest form of modern Homo Sapiens we know of) or the Homo neanderthalensis.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

LunarRay, you ARE an ape, just like every other human, it's the first part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it means ape.

Actually
Homo = man
Sapiens = wise/knowing

The term you're thinking of is Hominidae of the Hominoid family tree.

Wikipedia Ref

I didn't mean the literal word meant ape, i mean that as far as taxonomy goes every creature of the family homonidea (Homo) is in fact an ape.

It's fairly useless as a term but it's still what we are.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I was going to write a rebuttal to what you reduce "evolutionists" to believe but then i realised that you were right, i don't see it that way, i don't see the beauty in any of it what so ever. I see it as it is, a set of laws and it's not wonderful nor is it ugly, it just is.

There is IMO nothing more beautiful than logic. What 'just is,' to me, is the most beautiful and wondrous thing possible. I marvel at its infinite yet consistent complexity. If there is a God, He is those laws, He is that logic.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I was going to write a rebuttal to what you reduce "evolutionists" to believe but then i realised that you were right, i don't see it that way, i don't see the beauty in any of it what so ever. I see it as it is, a set of laws and it's not wonderful nor is it ugly, it just is.

There is IMO nothing more beautiful than logic. What 'just is,' to me, is the most beautiful and wondrous thing possible. I marvel at its infinite yet consistent complexity. If there is a God, He is those laws, He is that logic.

It's is? Out of the trillions of trillions of possible universes this is the most beautiful and wonderous thing possible?

I disagree.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've never understood the battle between evolution and creationism. Just another unnecessary war really. One is the scientific study on the changing of life, the other a religious belief dealing with the creation of life. Neither contradicts the other, yet the war carries on. And the biggest problem is this is being fought on the political battlefield, which should be empty of both side's soldiers.

:thumbsup:

No, he's wrong about one thing: "which should be empty of both side's soldiers.." On the political battlefield, we would be best served by decisions based on concrete evidence, rather than beliefs. "I believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" - look where that got us.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The Butler Act, a Tennessee law made it illegal to teach anything but divine creation in any state funded educational facility. That Act set up the Scopes trial in '25 (I think) - W.J. Bryan versus Spencer Tracy... er... C. Darrow.

There is some mis-understanding about evolution and what is accepted or rejected at least by the Catholic Church which today seems to be in concert with science. I don't think they, however, accept: God created Ape and Ape begot Moonbeam who Begot human or like that.

When Darwin was bobbing about on Beagle I think we in the US were almost universal in the Creation doctrine. Today, I think we're moving toward accepting evolution except for human creation. They'll need the 'Missing Link' to alter that to any extent, I think.

:laugh::laugh:

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I was going to write a rebuttal to what you reduce "evolutionists" to believe but then i realised that you were right, i don't see it that way, i don't see the beauty in any of it what so ever. I see it as it is, a set of laws and it's not wonderful nor is it ugly, it just is.

There is IMO nothing more beautiful than logic. What 'just is,' to me, is the most beautiful and wondrous thing possible. I marvel at its infinite yet consistent complexity. If there is a God, He is those laws, He is that logic.

It's is? Out of the trillions of trillions of possible universes this is the most beautiful and wonderous thing possible?

I disagree.

universes

Dude - you can't have more than one. It's kind of like everythings

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I was going to write a rebuttal to what you reduce "evolutionists" to believe but then i realised that you were right, i don't see it that way, i don't see the beauty in any of it what so ever. I see it as it is, a set of laws and it's not wonderful nor is it ugly, it just is.

There is IMO nothing more beautiful than logic. What 'just is,' to me, is the most beautiful and wondrous thing possible. I marvel at its infinite yet consistent complexity. If there is a God, He is those laws, He is that logic.

It's is? Out of the trillions of trillions of possible universes this is the most beautiful and wonderous thing possible?

I disagree.

universes

Dude - you can't have more than one. It's kind of like everythings

Really, you should talk to Lawrence Krauss about that. (Physics Professor who argues for the simultaneous existance of millions of universes)

However, i was speaking of "possible universes" as in that this universe that we got today is not the only possible outcome there could be and it is far from the most perfect one any of us could imagine, isn't it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I was going to write a rebuttal to what you reduce "evolutionists" to believe but then i realised that you were right, i don't see it that way, i don't see the beauty in any of it what so ever. I see it as it is, a set of laws and it's not wonderful nor is it ugly, it just is.

There is IMO nothing more beautiful than logic. What 'just is,' to me, is the most beautiful and wondrous thing possible. I marvel at its infinite yet consistent complexity. If there is a God, He is those laws, He is that logic.

It's is? Out of the trillions of trillions of possible universes this is the most beautiful and wonderous thing possible?

I disagree.

You confused what I said.