Greetings and peace be with you RedGuard; and welcome to the forum;
I would like creationists to answer one question - if all creatres were designed just perfectly by a perfect being, how come they have flaws in their design? Human spine for example is no different from a spine of e.g. a horse but it withstands completely different kind of force - it is "squeezed", not twisted as in other animals. Engineering structures designed to withstand such forces are designed in a completely different way
This raises a few thoughts for me, if we were perfectly created, we would not die, death has to be the greatest imperfection. We were created by God, with the freedom to do good deeds, our freedom of choice takes us down the path of selfishness, putting our own needs first, so I can understand why God would not want us to live forever in our current state.
If you are claiming a human spine and a horse spine, are the same kind of design, it just shows how versatile this design is. Human engineers cannot come close to making such a versatile model.
Evolution has no real meaning for me either way, it does not inspire me to do anything, faith in God does inspire me to try and change myself, hopefully for the better.
I believe evolution cannot happen without God to guide it, I just don’t believe that God created life through evolution.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Yet we can now say as a matter of fact that we have a proven ancestral relationship to Neanderthals, Denisovans and a third species (perhaps homo erectus). How would you explain this?
I might be a bit out, but I seem to remember reading that human DNA, is around 98 percent the same as most species, I am not sure how your reply might prove there is no God?
In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Human spine may fulfil its role well enough but it's not the best that could be achieved. As the spine evolved to withstand bending forces not compressing ones, the incidence of various diseases and deformations is greater in humans than in animals that walk on four legs.
Another example of flawed deign is human childbirth - human head is larger than in most animals and the birth canal passes through the pelvis so childbirth is more difficult. If the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
Yet another example si the inability of human body to produce vitamin C - because of a faulty gene. Almost all animals are able to produce it, with the s exception off guinea pigs and... other primates.
observer;
Hi Eric - I think you're perhaps looking at this slightly askew. 500 muscles appearing suddenly, yes, that would be a surprise. But the evolution of muscle over vast timescales is very different.
The timescale I am interested in, is from the time the first bone, muscle tendon and ligament appeared in a species, in my previous post I suggested this could have been a billion years ago. I thought I was being generous, as the fossil records seem to indicate a period of less than six hundred million years ago.
What would be your timescale for the first bone appearing in a species, going from the fossil evidence so far?
In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
I might be a bit out, but I seem to remember reading that human DNA, is around 98 percent the same as most species,
A stretch of dna may be mostly identical but contain one or two changes which are afterwards carried forward. By comparing such differences and matches across populations, they can see that modern man first split from Neanderthals about 350,000 years ago, then developed separately for awhile, then interbred again. So yes, our dna is similar to chimpanzees, but that's consistent with this new information. There is no dna information or discovery that contradicts TOE - really hard to see how that could be, unless it's broadly correct.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
I am not sure how your reply might prove there is no God?
Well, I keep stressing that it doesn't prove this. TOE is entirely compatible with faith in God. But it may conflict with some Creation narratives. The question I think you should ask yourself is: if TOE were indeed to be proven in every detail, would this make you abandon your faith? I'm guessing the answer is 'no'. Therefore, TOE is not a faith/no faith deal breaker.
Evolution is a fantastically exciting and interesting addition to our understanding. Personallly, it makes me feel better about the world.
Last edited by Independent; 12-23-2013 at 01:08 PM.
Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution as true, same is true for Eastern Orthodox and more mainstream Protestant churches. Most Hindus and Buddhists don't have any problems with accepting it either, I don't know what about Jews.
Well, I keep stressing that it doesn't prove this. TOE is entirely compatible with faith in God. But it may conflict with some Creation narratives.
Ah right, but it also seems to be a greater conflict with a large number of atheists; who use TOE, to prove there is no God. Either a God created the universe and life, or there is no God at all, no middle ground, no sitting on fences. irrespective of what any of us believe, it cannot change the history of creation, there is a truth.
Evolution is a fantastically exciting and interesting addition to our understanding. Personallly, it makes me feel better about the world
I am happy that you are at peace with the world.
In the spirit of searching for God
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Note that Christians and Jews do not need to interpret their scriptures literally. The Bible was written by humans who were inspired by God but still prone to making normal, human errors. So Jews/Christians may reject the biblical story of creation as either a metaphor or an error of the scribes. There is even a whole system of philosophy created by Thomas Aquinas and expanded by his successors saying that there can never be a conflict between science and revelation. If some revelation contradicts science, then it's a false revelation
Ok, Pope Benedict has his own personal opinions about evolution, that does not constitute church doctrine, he is a man with the freedom to be a free thinker, I am a Catholic who is not influenced by the Pope's thoughts. Having said that, the pope is very clear to say that God is in control of creation.
Pope Benedict has aired his views on evolution for the first time - and says he partially believes Darwin's theories.
Ah right, but it also seems to be a greater conflict with a large number of atheists; who use TOE, to prove there is no God.
It's such a pity that TOE has become so politicised. Of course, some evolutionists like Dawkins are vociferously anti religion. But this is a two way war and it was not the evolutionists who threw the first stone.
I don't know if you know much about the real history of Charles Darwin? i hope you might come to agree that he was fundamentally a good man who was very concerned how TOE might worry some people. In fact he delayed publication for many years, partly because of concerns for his devout wife's views. No one could have been a more devoted family man than him. He was most certainly not on an anti Christian agenda. However, this was Victorian England, and he knew it would be a controversial issue.
If you can, pay a visit to Down House, Darwin's family residence, now a museum. I hope you will see him as a genuine, sincere and considerate man.
Note that Christians and Jews do not need to interpret their scriptures literally. The Bible was written by humans who were inspired by God but still prone to making normal, human errors
This puts humans in control, and not God, so I would suggest your reasoning starts from a wrong premise.
If God can create the universe and life, he has the power to edit a book, exactly as he wants. If an all powerful Roman emperor tried to corrupt the Bible he would fail, his power is nothing compared to God. I trust that the Bible I read today, is exactly as God intends me to read, I also believe that the Koran Muslims read today, is exactly the scripture that Allah intends them to be inspired by.
In the spirit of searching for God.
Eric.
I might just lurk on this thread for a while, too many responses.
Last edited by Eric H; 12-23-2013 at 02:47 PM.
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
So tThe Church does not reject evolution, nor does it believe it is true, as there is not enough evidence This opinion certainly is more balanced and progressive than that of many protestant churches which openly reject evolution and instead believe in young earth creationism.
Usually when there is a thread about evolution there's always atheists and agnostics pushing it forward. Furthermore the thread always becomes a science vs religion thread. One of the reasons why religious people are skeptical of the entire evolution movement.
Why do people bring up the creationism vs evolution debate when evolution doesn't even answer the origin of the universe question - whilst creationism at best is a philosophical point of view?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
amongst other threads. Why is it that the ignorant always see themselves most fit to gauge topics well beyond their sphere of expertise?
We've already told you 'independent' fellow that we have all the mutations listed and do not know them to cause anything but death or disease or nothing in case of silent mutations. we've already also discussed that even DNA breaks cause nothing but cancer.. and we've also discussed that trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders speak against 'natural selection' and that you share fifty percent of your genes with a banana and that putting a banana at the beginning of the case and ending up with human is a load of laughs and here you're again repeating the same crap the minute people are busy with their lives to expose your BS
It's such a pity that TOE has become so politicised. Of course, some evolutionists like Dawkins are vociferously anti religion. But this is a two way war and it was not the evolutionists who threw the first stone.
Only a righteous man without sin, can cast the first stone
I don't know if you know much about the real history of Charles Darwin? i hope you might come to agree that he was fundamentally a good man who was very concerned how TOE might worry some people. In fact he delayed publication for many years, partly because of concerns for his devout wife's views. No one could have been a more devoted family man than him. He was most certainly not on an anti Christian agenda. However, this was Victorian England, and he knew it would be a controversial issue.
If you can, pay a visit to Down House, Darwin's family residence, now a museum. I hope you will see him as a genuine, sincere and considerate man.
I agree, I think Darwin was a good and sincere man, as well as a dedicated researcher, struggling to come to terms with the evidence he saw. I believe he was right to publish the evidence as he saw it, he opened up a lot of controversial questions about life, in a similar way to Galileo and the universe. Sadly, the church was not very kind to Galileo, possibly some unrighteous stone throwing went on.
A stretch of dna may be mostly identical but contain one or two changes which are afterwards carried forward. By comparing such differences and matches across populations, they can see that modern man first split from Neanderthals about 350,000 years ago, then developed separately for awhile, then interbred again. So yes, our dna is similar to chimpanzees, but that's consistent with this new information. There is no dna information or discovery that contradicts TOE - really hard to see how that could be, unless it's broadly correct.
Darwin noticed differences in finches' beaks, he noticed different plants on an island, that would be better suited to different shapes of beaks. We know birds can fly thousands of miles, some birds might choose to settle on an Island with abundant food. Access to this food is better suited to a different shaped beak, over a period of generations, the birds with the better shaped beaks become the dominant species, fine so far, I can agree with this.
In a similar way, a white man might go and live in Africa, if he has children with an African woman, over many generations, the skin colour and features will change and adapt to African living.
You take a finch, or a human, change their environment, interbreed with the locals and over many generations, nature has the tools to make minor changes happen. So far I am fairly happy with the thoughts of Darwin and adaption, the problem comes when we extrapolate back, to see if this same force of nature is powerful enough to make major changes.
I keep going back six hundred million years, when fossil records suggest there were no species with bones. How the first bone came into existence is not the problem for evolution. within four hundred million years, there are species with around 200 bones of different shapes and sizes, complete with all the ligaments, tendons, muscles, nerves, sensors, and brain to guide them.
Supposedly all this happened in the sea, but what tools did nature have to make this happen? there are currents to move chemicals around, areas of intense heat, and cold, light and dark, lightning. These tools of nature seem very crude to make working skeletons.
Sadly, the church was not very kind to Galileo, possibly some unrighteous stone throwing went on.
Have a read of "The Sleepwalkerss' by Arthur Koestler. It's a fascinating story of why Galileo may not be the hero of science he is cracked up to be and why the Pope was not so bad after all.
I keep going back six hundred million years, when fossil records suggest there were no species with bones. How the first bone came into existence is not the problem for evolution. within four hundred million years, there are species with around 200 bones of different shapes and sizes, complete with all the ligaments, tendons, muscles, nerves, sensors, and brain to guide them.
A long reply for Christmas Eve:
1.
Evolution is not a teleological, single direction journey toward 'higher' creatures. It is about filling every possible environmental niche. Which is why more 'primitive' organisms are not necessarily displaced by higher organisms. The higher organism occupies a different niche.
For this reason, I can see why certain key evolutionary steps would have a radical effect. For instance the eye. Even in its most primitive, early state, the eye is a game-changing breakthrough that confers huge competitive advantage. (In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king!) Creatures with sight are strongly advantaged to fill all available niches and you would expect to see a sudden apparent acceleration in evolution. This is exactly what we do see.
Similarly with bones. Once the ability to form bones has evolved, it's a far smaller step to multiply it.
There are many factors that could radically change the statistics on TOE. For instance, they are researching into dna 'switches'. It seems that along the string of genes there are some genes that act as triggers or switches for large groups of other genes. What's more, it seems that the timing of the switch is of massive importance. For example, if the switch activates early, the group may form fins. If it activates later, you may get legs and arms. In other words, the actual number of genetic changes or mutations required are vastly less than would be the case if each element had to mutate separately. it may be that fins and arms/legs are not two separate evolutions, they are one.
Another interesting area is the extent to which a limited number of forms and structures are predetermined in nature for underlying reasons of physics and chemistry. This can have astonishing consequences. Look at snowflakes - despite their diversity there are a few simple physical laws that restrict the number of possible forms.
At first glance Nature is overwhelmingly diverse and this is how men originally reacted to it. Gradually we have become aware that it's not correct that each species is an island. They have many things in common. We can categorise them into all kinds of biological sets and relationships. More fundamentally, certain structures such as locomotion systems are repeated again and again. The wheel is not being reinvented every time. It is being repurposed.
This is not what you would expect to find in a continuously created world. It is what you would expect with TOE.
There is research going on in all kinds of areas. But the point is, are there lines of enquiry that would drastically change the maths on TOE? The answer is 'yes'. The statistical objection to TOE is not a fundamental obstacle. It's highly unlikely those odds are going to stay the same.
2.
Although we don't understand the mechanism sufficiently, TOE fits all the evidence we have about the development of life and is not contradicted by any fact. other theories, including all Creationist theories, do not satisfactorily account for a wide range of observable evidence including:
a) The broad trend of simple organisms to more complex organisms over a long period of time.
b) The correct order of that trend - eg we never find homo sapiens in the Jurassic era.
c) The correct geographical and geological distribution of that evidence
c) The way Nature is structured into a huge network of related species, as opposed to individual unrelated creations
d) The evidence of adaptive structures which are not as good as specifically created structures (eg the human skull including its delayed fontanelle closure, altered jaw structure and elaborate birth canal gyrations that formerly led to 1in 5 death rate for mothers)
e) A host of detailed examples such as the Neanderthal/Denisovan evidence I quoted earlier
f) The extinction of approx 90% of creatures before human-like creatures ever set foot on the world and the immense period of time before there was any life at all.
g) The gradual discovery of possible mechanisms (eg Darwin knew nothing about dna)
That's just a list off the top of my head, there are plenty of other evidences. TOE gives a simple, logical and consistent explanation for all of these, whereas continuous divine creation does not.
It is not logical that God would set up mechanisms and laws for everything in the universe except this one area.
TOE is no more invalidated by the problems in its suggested mechanism that astrophysics is by the lack of agreed proof for dark matter.
Last edited by Independent; 12-24-2013 at 11:32 AM.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
A Question which Atheists could not answer (OP)
.
Eric H liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks