Religulous type Question

Online Users: 0 guest(s), 0 user(s). Replies: 330

Tsunami Posts : 17 Registered: 10/13/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 12:42 AM Go to message in response to: MrsRicecake

Oh you guys are sucking me back iiiiinnnnnnnn. I can't ignore this. >_<

1. I was the one who stated "I'm sure if I sat down today and wrote a paper writing a Bible would require inspiration from God and I do not claim to have that on how life on Earth began using today's scientific theories, some scientist a few thousand years from now with more advanced knowledge would read it and laugh his head off at my ignorance, just as some people laugh about the ignorance of the people who wrote the Bible." My point here was that is it easy for us to point out scientific flaws in the Bible because our scientific understanding is more advanced than it was then. MK, it is possible to write a perfectly clear non-ambiguous paper that contains scientific facts that is later found to be incorrect.

2. A circle is flat, a sphere is not. If Isaiah mentions a globe or sphere anywhere, then the point is true. But if all he says is "circle", then he very well may have still thought the Earth was flat. Your other points on the insight of Bible authors are well-taken. As I stated in #1, I did not mean to say that they were stupid or ignorant about absolutely everything.

3. Everyone keeps using analogies with inanimate objects. Its called "biology" for a reason--its about living things. Evolution occurs through the transmission of genetic information, not electricity. Now if your laptop has some DNA in it & you manage to have a baby with your laptop, then we can talk some more about computers as common ancestors of humans. ;)

4. Let's review the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium from high school biology class. One of the requirements of evolution is that natural selection occurs. Natural selection barely operates on modern humans. Think about it--people with mental retardation, premature babies who need life support to live--would not survive if we out living the tough life hunting & gathering. Science and modern society allows our species to escape the limitations of natural selection. Also, natural selection does not occur if there is immigration or emigration out of a population.

5. For the last time--evolution does not say life arose from chemicals or particles or whatever. Evolution does not say where life arose from, period. That's a whole other area of biology (or chemistry) altogether. Evolution proposes there was a living organism (where it came from is unknown, and if you think it came from God then that's not evolution's business) and that living thing reproduced and its descendants became different over the generations, until eventually some were no longer the same species as their ancestor.

If you fully understand evolution and still choose not to believe it, then fine. However, time and time again I see that people do not properly understand it, hence I feel the need to speak out as above. I personally believe it is possible to believe in both evolution & God, although it requires a non-literal interpretation of the Bible to do so. For all those who have a literal interpretation or don't believe in evolution--fine, but please don't make incorrect statements about evolution because of it.

Reply

ciscokid Posts : 119 Registered: 8/8/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 1:22 AM Go to message in response to: Tsunami

Tsunami, most of my last post was in response to MisterKelley's comments. And I was referring to the transmission of information by nerve impulses, not the transfer of genetic information from parent to offspring. Just clarifying :-)

I also wasn't referring to your paper comment. I was referring to MK's comment that scientists 1000 years from now would be laughing their _ off at us if we wrote a Bible based on what we know today. And the comments on the insight of Biblical authors were also in reference to that comment. I did not say that you said they were ignorant. However, there aren't any "scientific flaws" in the Bible. The only arguable point is the origin of the world - hence the current conversation.  

Okay, you said if I was able to have a baby with my laptop, we'd talk about computers being a common ancestor. But I can't have babies with chimps (nor would I want to if I could lol), so how does that help us in saying we have a common ancestry? I know we share a high percentage of DNA with chimps. I don't know the exact number, but the percentage of DNA we share with chimps is less than 1% different than the amount of DNA we share with cockroaches and chickens - that's not enough of a difference to quibble over. And yet evolution says that our relationship to cockroaches and chickens is far greater removed than that of chimps.  

I've said earlier that I'm not arguing natural selection. To say that it doesn't occur at all because we don't see it on the part of humans would be just as much of an extrapolation as saying that because we see it on a small scale, then it must happen on a large scale. That logic contradicts itself. Hence, why I haven't stated that as a point supporting intelligent design.

And I know that evolution deals only with the transformation of living organisms. I was arguing a different point at that time. But, if you believe in evolution (on a grand scale), then you have to believe that the organisms that have evolved came from somewhere. If you choose to believe that God "started it all in motion," why not just take Him at His word when He says that He made it? 

Even if you choose to interpret the Bible in a non-literal fashion, there are two ways to look at it (in the context of what we are talking about here): Either God made it all like He said He did, or He put the starting materials on Earth and let everything evolve from there. Now, I wouldn't have a problem with it if that is what He had done. He's God. That's His prerogative. But that's not what He said. He claims He is responsible for it ALL. So either He is, or He isn't.

If we choose to believe that He is God, and yet do not take Him at His word (and you say He inspired the Bible, so we don't have to argue that point) when He says that He created everything (and He lists the different kinds created), then we say He is a liar. So why say He was responsible for any of it?

And I do understand evolution. However, when most people talk about evolution, they tie it in with the "Big Bang" theory or whatever else origin-of-the-world theory you want to insert there. At least three-fourths of the college-level biology courses I have taken treat them as one and the same. So when I say that I disagree with evolution, to most people that also refers to the origin of the world. You understand the distinction, but many do not, hence I include both points in my argument.

 



Reply

Tsunami Posts : 17 Registered: 10/13/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 2:18 AM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

Ciscokid--I wasn't replying to just you, but also MK (who misquoted & misunderstood me on the scientific paper thing) and to FMR2008. Not all my points were directed towards you, although several were.

Even if the Bible was inspired by God (which we both seem to believe), that doesn't mean the authors wrote things correctly. However God communicated to the authors, I don't think it was clear enough for the authors to fully understand (I kinda talked about this in some posts way back, but if you didn't read them I don't blame you, this is an incredibly long thread). I can imagine a lot getting lost in translation between a divine being & humans. Just because I don't believe in a direct interpretation of the Bible means I think God lied--I think the authors just didn't get it quite right. I acknowledge this is my personal belief and neither you nor others are held to follow it.

I don't doubt we share a lot of DNA with chickens and such. After all, we share a lot of the same organs, and all our cells are fairly similar. Consider though, that a single wrong base in a DNA strand--one wrong base in the hundreds of millions found in a single strand--is what causes the crescent-shaped cells of sickle cell anemia. A small difference in DNA goes a long way.

We cannot successfully mate with chimps because we are different species from chimps, separated by many thousands of years of evolution. Both our species and the chimp species arose, somewhere back on the phylogeny, from a common ancestor. The earliest Homo sapiens very likely were able to mate with that ancestor, before further evolution away from that ancestor occurred & behavioral or physiological isolation set in. This is demonstrated in ring species (A quick summary for anyone who doesn't know what I mean: Ring species have a population living in a ring around a barrier, such as a desert or ocean, that they cannot cross. The 2 groups of individuals where the population rejoins on the other side of the barrier cannot mate because they have become separate species, but each can still mate with the transitional individuals closer to the population's origin). Also, sometimes species that are closely related enough (usually more recently diverged from each other) can breed, although not always successfully. Examples are the black ducks & mallards (closely related enough to successfully produce viable offspring), and horses & mules (which are related enough to breed, but different enough that their offspring are sterile).

I am sorry to hear your bio classes treated origin-of-life and origin-of-species as one and the same. I guess I am lucky to say I have not had that experience, in neither high school nor college. With that, I am going to sleep! XD

Reply


SocalGal Posts : 456 Registered: 6/3/06
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 3:56 AM Go to message in response to: Tsunami

note: this post is not in response to any particular person, or groups of people, but simply another view of Creationsim...it's also rather lengthy, as I find it difficult to exlain these types of theories in a short post

Not all Christians who tend to believe in Creationsim theories over Evolutionary theories are fundamentalists.  I, for one, think alot of the science that supports Creationism makes more sense.  That's right, there is, in fact, scientific evidence that supports Creationism.  I'm going to talk about dinosaurs, since it was one of the original questions MK posed.  Personally, I think they were enormous lizards, bugs, fish, etc.  I agree with a previous poster who posted a picture of a desert lizard and said it looked like a dinosaur to her...I think the same thing about crocodiles, and a lot of the weird creatures that can be found in the deepest parts of the ocean.  The reason that they have dwarfed in size is a nod to adaptation.

One of the main sub-theories oc Creationism is that the atmosphere used to be topped by a layer of water that surrounded the entire globe.  If this were the case, than the early world's air content would have been close to 100% oxygen, as opposed to the mix we have today.  Those high levels of oxygen would have turned the world into an enormous hyperbaric chamber.  Plants and animals could have grown to mind-boggling proportions...think about the sizes of fossilized bugs that have been recovered.  If you look at dinosaur skeletons, you'll usually find that the area shown for the lungs is relatively small, in comparison to the rest of the body...so small in fact, that if the oxygen levels of the prehistoric Earth were the same as they are today, that dinosaur would not have been able to properly oxygenate it's blood, and would not have survived. 

At some point in time that watery layer dissapated.  Either it evaporated, or it broke through the other layers of the atmosphere.  My own theory is that it broke through, and provided the massive quantities of water it would have taken to flood the Fertile Crescent (the entire world, to those living in the times of Noah).  I mean, there's evidence that the entire area was flooded at once, all the way up over the mountains.  That's a ton of water...we're just talking a monsoon here, or even a monsoon heavy rainy season.

Anyway, back to the dinosaurs...as this watery layer disappeared, the conditions on Earth would change, and the largest of the dinosaurs would have started dying off.  Over a period of time, they would have adapted...either lung capacity would need to expand exponentially, or the animal itself would need to get smaller.  I think the second option happened, except maybe in the case of dinosaurs who lived underwater.

To me, that explanation makes more sense than evolution.  Farmer can grow produce under hyperbaric conditions to much larger proportions than otherwise, or scientists can keep a fruit fly alive and growing for 6 months, as opposed to a day.  The science of it is plausible.

Oh, and not so plausible perhaps, but still an idea...think about all the mythology about dragons.  Maybe there was a species of lizards who increased their lung-capacity......and learned how to breathe fire to protect itself from those annoying little knights and their quests for damsels in distress ;)

 


True love never has a happy ending; true love never ends.

Reply


kelleyiskelley Posts : 11,590 Registered: 7/2/06
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 10:21 AM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

I would just like to say for the record that 85% of this is WAY above my head LOL. Now you all know how I feel when MisterKelley spends hours watching random documentaries on the History Channel or Discovery Channel - and meanwhile; three minutes of that stuff and my brain feels like its going to explode.

Im quite enjoying the discussion though.:)


Check out the Wedding Planner Buzz and My Blog @ www.myaislerunner.com

WATCH OUT "Bleight-ers".TEAM KICK-ASS (LittleRoo,Cyclist,MrsFord,OldAmy and Kelley) are going to KICK. YOUR. ASS!!!

"When you're born, you get a free ticket to the Freak Show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat." - R.I.P. George Carlin

 

 

 

 

Reply


MsDenuninani Posts : 3,962 Registered: 3/16/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 10:35 AM Go to message in response to: MrsRicecake

If we evolved from monkies why arent we still evolving? Its a theory, and a stupid one at that. Hello all you scientists answer my question (without a freaking theory) and maybe Ill believe in your far fetched dream.

I'll bite, although how you expect me to explain something without theorizing is beyond me.

Evolution explains why we are different -- it doesn't tell us that we are currrently differentiating.  The reason we are not "evolving" as you put it is because nothing is happening that requires us to evolve. 

Look at it this way:  The world is getting warmer.  Skin cancer should, theoretically, go up, thus allowing those of us with darker skins an evolutionary advantage.  But, to the extent that science has been able to provide advances in skin cancer treatment, those who have lighter skin are able to survive without the extra pigment. 

How can you look at a baby and not believe? Or the ocean or a mountain? When I look at nature I SEE God all around me. When I hear the rain I HEAR God. When I touch anything I FEEL God. Thats how you believe in something that many people over look.

That's great for you!  I simply don't experience the world in the same way.  I do experience happiness, and love -- and some would say that love itself is evidence of God.  I'm sympathetic to that argument, but I've never been completely convinced, hence my continued agnosticism.


__________________________________________
My new favorite website: www.poptimal.com

"I'd hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson

Reply


MsDenuninani Posts : 3,962 Registered: 3/16/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 10:43 AM Go to message in response to: kelleyiskelley

"I subscribe to the Religion of I dont Know."

Me too, Kelley.  Now, where's our church?:-)


__________________________________________
My new favorite website: www.poptimal.com

"I'd hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 10:54 AM Go to message in response to: MsDenuninani

Me too, Kelley.  Now, where's our church?:-)

I don't know!


Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply


We2Heart Posts : 452 Registered: 10/11/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 11:00 AM Go to message in response to: SocalGal

Maybe there was a species of lizards who increased their lung-capacity......and learned how to breathe fire to protect itself from those annoying little knights and their quests for damsels in distress

LOL I hate reading this at work when I come across statements like these and I have to suppress laughter because I'm suppose to be working!


Photo's from the wedding:

http://www.photoshop.com/user/thetessaspace/?galleryid=64b8a77a78884dbca0fa0e7c30e8077c&trackingid=BTAGC&wf=share



 

Reply


kelleyiskelley Posts : 11,590 Registered: 7/2/06
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 11:07 AM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

HeHe. The Church of Saint "I Dont Know." Now that would get me in the door! Maybe we should start our own religion thats based on the idea of being against religion in general. The Non-religion religion. We Dont know and we dont claim to know. Believe what you want, its all fine with us. Now - I was told there would be snacks at this meeting. Where are the snacks?

Check out the Wedding Planner Buzz and My Blog @ www.myaislerunner.com

WATCH OUT "Bleight-ers".TEAM KICK-ASS (LittleRoo,Cyclist,MrsFord,OldAmy and Kelley) are going to KICK. YOUR. ASS!!!

"When you're born, you get a free ticket to the Freak Show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat." - R.I.P. George Carlin

 

 

 

 

Reply


MsDenuninani Posts : 3,962 Registered: 3/16/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 11:25 AM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

cisco, the thing is, you keep resting on this idea that evolution has not, cannot, and will not be observed.

This is just not true.

The theory of evolution is supported by observations. You use the phrase "macroevolution" to get out of this - the idea that we haven't observed it over tens of thousands of years.  But, the things is, gravity as a theory has not been observed on the planet Mars, but scientists are pretty sure that gravity works the same way there.  So, under your logic, gravity as well shouldn't be accepted because we haven't observed it on other planets like Saturn. 

You call "generalizations" a logical phallacy.  But that's how we apply sciencific findings -- through these "generalizations".  The observations that have been made that support evolution theory have been extrapolated over time, in much the same way that the theory of gravity we have seen on earth have been extrapolated -- or generalized, as you put it -- to cover how we're pretty sure it works on other planet, or other objects in the sky.  This "generalization" has allowed us to go to the moon.

If the scientific community applied your theory of science -- or what it takes for "faith" to become actual "knowledge" -- it would pretty much halt scientific progress as we know it. 

So we'll just disagree - I believe that the enough observations have been made to extrapolate to the world at large to support evolutionary theory.  You don't. 


__________________________________________
My new favorite website: www.poptimal.com

"I'd hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 12:24 PM Go to message in response to: kelleyiskelley

My FH used to consider the donuts the only thing worth going to church for.   And he knew how good the service was based on who was responsible for donuts that week.  (Apparently, he and his brothers had also worked out the way to be the FIRST in line for the donuts -- otherwise, they were just left with cake donuts and all the eclairs were gone)

Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply


BirdLover Posts : 2,834 Registered: 3/30/06
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 12:51 PM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

"If we evolved from monkies why arent we still evolving"

We are still evolving.  Maybe not in the way you are thinking (so I'm not trying to argue if you in fact meant something else).

Compare how we, as humans, look today compared to a few centuries ago.  We are much taller.  Our brains are larger.  Our eyes are largre, and farther apart.  Our noses are getting smaller, and our jaws are shrinking in size.  Humans used to have enough room in their mouths for wisdom teeth, for example.  Now, most of us do not.

This is evolution.  We ARE evolving.

Lilypie Expecting a baby Ticker

Reply

ciscokid Posts : 119 Registered: 8/8/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 2:06 PM Go to message in response to: MsDenuninani

Tsunami: If God could communicate scientific ideas that were unimaginable to the writers of the Bible (like the earth hangs on nothing, the blood is necessary for life, etc. etc.), then why would there be any difficulty in clearly communicating His ideas and intentions for any other purpose? Especially something as clear as "I made this on the first day, I made this on the second day, etc." That just doesn't add up.  

Ms. D:I didn't say that gravity should be accepted because we haven't observed it on other planets. You either didn't follow my logic or we had a misunderstanding somewhere. Based on the way I explained things, we simply cannot assume that because we see gravity here on earth that gravity on every other planet occurs in the same way we see it here (which is actually supported by observations - we see it in some places, but not others. Therefore uniformity isn't proven).

And my  "theory of science" would not halt scientific progress at all. I simply stated that if you cannot observe evidence for an extrapolation, then it cannot be accepted. There are no evidences for these transformation of species. As I stated above, it's like scientists who thought not very long ago that the world was flat. They had evidence on a small scale (my backyard is flat, buildings have to be built square, etc.), and assumed it applied on a grand scale. It was not, however, true. We just can't make extrapolations and assume they are true if we don't have evidence for them. That theory would also halt scientific progress, because we wouldn't know what to believe and why to believe it.

PP: We are changing. I don't deny that. But we're still humans. We haven't turned into ducks yet. ;-).



Reply


MsDenuninani Posts : 3,962 Registered: 3/16/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 3:17 PM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

Regarding your conflict with Tsunami -- let me say this:

why would there be any difficulty in clearly communicating His ideas and intentions for any other purpose?

As I understood Tsunami's (very well-written) post, the issue is not God's clarity in communication in one area but not in another - but how the person received the message.   People can say - or write - many, many things -- and not all of it can be accurate.  Thus, the problem may not be in how clearly God communicated -- but basic human error in how the message was translated. 

We just can't make extrapolations and assume they are true if we don't have evidence for them.

But we do. . .all the time.  If I administer a medication to Ana, and it works to cure her disease, I'm going to extrapolate to Beth.  And if I do it on Anna and Beth and Chris, I'm going to extrapolate that it will also help Amy and Ben and Carla. 

All experimentation is done on a sample first, and then extrapolated to the whole.  We can never really observe all of anything, really.  We take our best guess -- in other words, we observe, then logically apply to others.  Thus, we observe natural selection within a species, and then extrapolate outside of it.

Again, look at the theory of gravity (gravity also being, like evolution, a theory only).  Gravity, although we generally accept it as fact, is really just a theory.  We can say that because we have not observed it on the planet Mars that it has not been proven.  Yet the fact that it has not been proven does not mean that it is not a useful theory to understand the universe.  And if we did not act on that understanding, we could not have gone to the moon.  Yet we did.  We went to the moon. 

But if scientists had treated the theory of gravity the same way you treat the theory of evolution, then the moon landing would never have happened.  This is what I believe, and why your understanding of science halts scientific progress. 

Because the understanding of evolution affects genetics, and the understanding of genetics affects how we treat sickness and disease. 

We haven't turned into ducks yet. ;-)

Key word there -- yet.


__________________________________________
My new favorite website: www.poptimal.com

"I'd hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson

Reply
RSS

Thank You
for Signing Up!

Check your e-mail inbox for the latest updates from brides.com

Give a Subscription to Brides Magazine as a Gift
Subscribe to Brides magazine