Creation Versus Evolution

[OneWingedBird]

What he says is not at odds with that of other scientists or indeed with science in general.

I never said it was, or that i disagree with what he believes, just that i object him to getting on his soapbox and acting like a tosspot... Really i don't care much for evangelists (or tosspots) of any flavour, and that goes for the atheistic variety as much as the religious...


The peppered moth issue we've been over already on Page 23 of The Teaching of Creationism thread, and Gould's comment on it (from your link) that:

First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.)

is somewhat open to interpretation, as it's not clear whether he's referring to the correlation between pollution levels and moth colouration, in which case it's accurate, or the experiment to show that this is due to natural selection, in which case he's off base, as it proved inconclusive/unverified.

Without knowing which experiment concerning fruit flies he's referring to, it's rather difficult to comment either way on that - do you have a link that might enlighten me?

“”Fossil species. Fossils are the mineralised remnants or impressions of once-living organisms. Many fossils, such as trilobites and dinosaurs, belong to groups that no longer exist on the face of the Earth. [Conversely, many modern species appear similar to other fossils, yet fossils of the modern species are absent from rocks of corresponding ages]. “”
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
This is totally untrue and seems to add weight to the observation that without adding myths to the “facts” the THEORY is a bit sad.

I can't work out in what way you consider this totally untrue - could you perhaps explain?

 

[almond13]

I come from a Baptist family.
My parents and sister both belong to Baptist churches that have close ties with the evangelical churches - I guess you'd call them 'Evangelical Baptists'. I don't know what you mean by 'strongly opposing ideas' - they all seem to want the same thing.

Hi Mythopoeika
No insult intended to you or your family, just lack of data on my part. Do they have a conspiracy anti-evolution and science? That’s what I was after.
The last thing that I read on the subject was Billy Graham saying that he doesn’t give a dam either way.

 

[almond13]

Hi rynner, Most humble apologies, while searching for an answer I was reminded of your most magnanimous reply, I really meant to answer this one and forgot, when we have finished with the present, most interesting exchange, we must go back to your post. Please give me a reminder as age has played havoc with my memory.

Well, this is a Fortean Message Board, and many people here might agree with you there.

However, this is a thread about evolution.

Now if evolution is a science, scientists are perfectly entitled to give their opinions on it.

And if evolution is not a science, scientists still have just as much right as any other people to have an opinion on it.

AFAIK, evolution hasn't yet been shunted into the 'paranormal' category!

""Perhaps because jelly babies do not reproduce by methods involving the selection and perpetuation of genetic information...?""
Waiting for Heaven... Heaven can wait until I’m banned from the FTMB.

"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, from all let this be heard.
Some does it with a bitter look, some with a flattering word.
The coward does it with a kiss the brave man with the sword." --
Oscar Wilde[/quote]

 

[Anonymous]

Have any of you seen this? Oh, and if anybody happens to have the full article...

Article Preview
Can E. O. Wilson really save the world?
30 September 2006
Ivan Semeniuk
Magazine issue 2571

Often cited as Darwin's true heir, E. O. Wilson has an audacious planet-saving strategy: to unite evangelical Christians and scientific secularists
Podcast: Listen to the our exclusive feature-length interview with E. O. Wilson, part 1 and part 2 (mp3 format).

Often cited as Darwin's true heir, E. O. Wilson has an audacious strategy for saving the planet: encourage evangelical Christians and scientific secularists to unite in caring for the ecosystems and biodiversity that he calls the Creation in his latest book. Ivan Semeniuk asked him if he has a prayer of succeeding when religious fundamentalism extends to the White House

After siding so strongly with science, you are now trying to reach across the science-religion divide. Why?

I offer the hand of friendship and I am presumptuous enough to do so on behalf of scientists - secular scientists. I feel that the time has come to put aside the culture wars, declare a truce and see if we can't meet on common ground where both sides can ...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opi ... 125711.300

 

[Mythopoeika]

I come from a Baptist family.
My parents and sister both belong to Baptist churches that have close ties with the evangelical churches - I guess you'd call them 'Evangelical Baptists'. I don't know what you mean by 'strongly opposing ideas' - they all seem to want the same thing.

Hi Mythopoeika
No insult intended to you or your family, just lack of data on my part. Do they have a conspiracy anti-evolution and science? That’s what I was after.
The last thing that I read on the subject was Billy Graham saying that he doesn’t give a dam either way.

I'm an atheist, so I've just learned to steer clear of discussing certain topics with the family.
Most of the Baptists I've met refuse to countenance evolution.
The problem is that it's very difficult to have an adult, intelligent discussion of the subject with them - they just clam up and refuse to talk about it, and totally refute scientific facts and data presented to them.
As for Billy Graham, he may have said that in order to avoid an argument.
I don't know if he represents the thinking of all evangelicals.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Do they have a conspiracy anti-evolution and science? That’s what I was after.

Well that's impossible to prove, as if they do, they're not on the whole likely to come out and say it, but as far as my earlier point goes about evangelical christian 'unity' and evangelical beliefs in denomenations not ordinarily associated with such, i'd point to the Alpha Course's own website. You've probably seen the adverts for this outside churches, even on busses and the large advertising boards by major roads. It's certainly evangelical, and some (including myself) would go as far as to say charismatic/fundamentalist inclined.

Running a search for churches running the course in my city, Leeds, brings up 42 entries covering methodist, pentecostal, Vineyard, student chaplaincy, housegroups/christian fellowships, and a number of baptist and anglican churches. Manchester comes out with 28 and Birmingham 55.

There's certainly no shortage of these people around, and considering that these are all churches are all actively involved in evangelising, particularly via alpha, it's clear that these are people who are a lot more serious in their beliefs than just reading the newsletters...

 

[almond13]

There's certainly no shortage of these people around, and considering that these are all churches are all actively involved in evangelising, particularly via alpha, it's clear that these are people who are a lot more serious in their beliefs than just reading the newsletters...

OK. I’ve read about alpha – I don’t really see were all this is going and the point that you’re making? Is it about conspiracy or what?

 

[rynner2]

The 'purpose' of a gene is (generally) to assemble proteins and other organic compounds from the bits and bobs of chemicals floating around in the gene's environment. Other genes may have 'supervisory' roles, co-ordinating the many different protein-producing genes to provide useful 'applets' (to use a computing term), and these applets in their turn will be combined into a 'program' that produces something much more complex, like a red blood cell, for example.

I'm glad I picked on that point - just to emphasise its importance, Prof. Roger Kornberg has just been awarded the Nobel Prize for his research on this process:

His studies on transcription described how information is taken from genes and converted to molecules called messenger RNA. These molecules shuttle the information to the cells' protein-making machinery.

Proteins in turn serve as building blocks and workhorses of the cell, vital to its structure and functions.

More detail here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5405638.stm

His father, Arthur Kornberg, shared the 1959 Nobel medicine prize with Spaniard Severo Ochoa for studies of how genetic information is transferred from one DNA molecule to another.

Nobel Prizes are obviously in their genes!

 

[almond13]

coldelephant
Article Preview
Can E. O. Wilson really save the world?

"The moment has come to stress that there is a dangerous trap in sociobiology, one which can be avoided only by constant vigilance. The trap is the naturalistic fallacy of ethics which uncritically concludes that what is, should be. The ‘what is’ in human nature is to a large extent the heritage of a Pleistocene hunter-gatherer existence. When any genetic bias is demonstrated, it cannot be used to justify a continuing practice in present and future societies." (New York Times Magazine)

This guy is amazing, he wants to bin the collective wisdom of thousands of years of mankind and replace it with his own ideas - that even his collegues disagree with. Another from the DR. DEATH school?

 

[Anonymous]

coldelephant
Article Preview
Can E. O. Wilson really save the world?

"The moment has come to stress that there is a dangerous trap in sociobiology, one which can be avoided only by constant vigilance. The trap is the naturalistic fallacy of ethics which uncritically concludes that what is, should be. The ‘what is’ in human nature is to a large extent the heritage of a Pleistocene hunter-gatherer existence. When any genetic bias is demonstrated, it cannot be used to justify a continuing practice in present and future societies." (New York Times Magazine)

This guy is amazing, he wants to bin the collective wisdom of thousands of years of mankind and replace it with his own ideas - that even his collegues disagree with. Another from the DR. DEATH school?

What did all that stuff mean? First he seems to be making sense, in that he says that humans say 'What is this?' - 'This is' - 'Is it? Ok, then that is obviously how it should be'.

I mean seeing is believing right? To an extent.

There again, when he sees a load of dinosaur bones does he think dragons flew around like people used to think? Or is he ultra modern and does he think Adam and Eve rode around on the back of a vegetarian T-Rex?

The bones don't lie man. Must've been a vege dragon man, yeah.

Then he is going on about genes. What is all that about?

 

[almond13]

“”The trap is the naturalistic fallacy of ethics which uncritically concludes that what is, should be.””

What I think he is saying here is that all established ethics should be abandoned in favour of his own humanistic beliefs.

The ‘what is’ in human nature is to a large extent the heritage of a Pleistocene hunter-gatherer existence.

Again, he seems to be saying that all the wisdom of the ancients and the not so ancient is outmoded and should be replaced. The problem with this is that the ethics have been examined by the greatest brains of all ages and remain intact. He seems to be saying that the ethics are at the root of all problems and that their removal and replacement by his own system would solve the problem. He, it seems, has the answers that all the others have missed and if he had his way the Wiki entry below would need to be deleted in favour of a biology paper on genetics.

“”Ethics (from the Ancient Greek "ethikos", meaning "arising from habit") is a major branch of philosophy. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right, wrong, good, evil, and responsibility. It is divided into three primary areas: meta-ethics (the study of what ethicality is), normative ethics (the study of what ethical truths there are and how they are known), and applied ethics (the study of the use of ethical knowledge). Wiki.””

""When any genetic bias is demonstrated, it cannot be used to justify a continuing practice in present and future societies." (New York Times Magazine)""

Humanism, like Skepticism is, at heart, a quasi-scientific religion and as such can only be a contradiction in terms. At the heart of science is deconstruction and this presupposes that the - electrical, mechanical, gravitational etc. - laws of science are all that exist and this leads us to the assumption of the accidental, meaningless and random universe. What humanism is trying to do is to give meaning to the meaningless, which is a logical impossibility.

“”I had been struck for some time by certain remarkable prophetic and metaphysical passages that appeared suddenly in scientific books about evolution, often in their last chapters. Though these passages were detached from the official reasoning of the books, they seemed still to be presented as science. But they made startling suggestions about vast themes such as immortality, human destiny and the meaning of life. These are difficult topics with which philosophical and religious thinkers have long wrestled. But the scientific writers did not usually refer to any earlier discussions. They simply and confidently laid down their own surprising views about them. Their pronouncements seemed to be seriously intended. But it was far from clear on what level they were meant to be taken. http://www.routledge.com/classics/featu ... ution.html””

 

[OneWingedBird]

I don’t really see were all this is going and the point that you’re making? Is it about conspiracy or what? Smile

You were disputing/questioning the presence/foothold that evangelical christians have in the UK... and i was making the point that they're a lot closer and a lot stronger than most people might assume...

 

[almond13]

You were disputing/questioning the presence/foothold that evangelical christians have in the UK... and i was making the point that they're a lot closer and a lot stronger than most people might assume...

Ok.
What my original statement was about was that the major religious powers in UK are the Anglican (C of E) and the Catholic churches and both have taken on evolution. The Alpha evangelising that you refer to takes place (I assume) within these two and also together with other minorities and converts along the way. This being the case, there is little or no reason for Alpha to broach the subject of evolution except on a personal level and even this would cause friction between them and the major authorities, which, again, I assume is the last thing that they want.
You need to come up with some evidence about this, as I don’t know of any.

Again, to return to my original statement, I still think that they have made up their own minds about, what to them, is a belief and not a fact.

Which brings me to rynner’s quote:
“AFAIK, evolution hasn't yet been shunted into the 'paranormal' category! ”

There have been millions of words written about evolution, but there is scant evidence, or it would have turned up on this thread. What has been proffered has been shown to be erroneous or evidence of something else dressed up to look like evidence of evolution. The gene theory and passing traits to future generations says nothing about changing into another new species. And the system falls down when applied to the primordial cells. It is an assumption.

Now, the amazing thing is that the nearest subject to this that I can think of in terms of evidence is that of UFO’s, but in this case there is additional evidence, namely witness testimony. If you take away the witnesses then you have a close analogy. The question is, how to accept one thing and deny the other, when the latter has more going for it? Or have we all been shunted? 8)

 

[Anonymous]

And the system falls down when applied to the primordial cells. It is an assumption.

Why?

 

[sunsplash1]

...assumption...8)

The Assumption business works both ways.

 

[rynner2]

There have been millions of words written about evolution, but there is scant evidence, or it would have turned up on this thread.

There is plenty of evidence, but you continually dismiss it:

What has been proffered has been shown to be erroneous or evidence of something else dressed up to look like evidence of evolution. The gene theory and passing traits to future generations says nothing about changing into another new species. And the system falls down when applied to the primordial cells. It is an assumption.

I for one can no longer be bothered to offer you evidence, since your misunderstanding and automatic dismissal of such 'evidence' is too predictable.

Never mind! I'm sure you can lead a long and fulfilled life while not believing in evolution!

BTW, what do you believe in? Did you ever get round to telling us that?
If not Evolution, do you then believe in Creationism? After all, that is the dichotomy this thread is supposed to be discussing.

 

[OneWingedBird]

I'm out too if he mentions that bloody dead moth again... it's giving me terrible visions of a certain monty python sketch :shock:

 

[almond13]

Hi rynner

“”There is plenty of evidence, but you continually dismiss it:””

A statement like that is usually followed by a summation of the evidence offered and how mistaken I am to have rejected it. But no, most of the evidence was both supplied by myself and rejected by same. You have made no rebuttal apart from some Nobel Prize for biology.

“”I for one can no longer be bothered to offer you evidence, since your misunderstanding and automatic dismissal of such 'evidence' is too predictable.””

This looks a lot like sour grapes and the “predictable” is ad hominem.
But if you want to make this MB into a mutual admiration society with everyone agreeing with everyone else then that’s fine. We learn nothing and suck on our collective security blankets.

 

[rynner2]

Hi rynner

“”There is plenty of evidence, but you continually dismiss it:””

A statement like that is usually followed by a summation of the evidence offered and how mistaken I am to have rejected it. But no, most of the evidence was both supplied by myself and rejected by same. You have made no rebuttal apart from some Nobel Prize for biology.

“”I for one can no longer be bothered to offer you evidence, since your misunderstanding and automatic dismissal of such 'evidence' is too predictable.””

This looks a lot like sour grapes and the “predictable” is ad hominem.

OK, I give up. As I said a while ago, you're slipperier than a bucket of eels in the way you loosely phrase your queries, avoid questions from others, and ignore their explanations.

I'll just have to live with the knowledge that you'll probably drift on elsewhere eventuallly, and tell all your new friends there how no-one at FTMB was able to refute your ideas.....

I can't quite decide if you're a wind-up merchant, or just plain...
(well, perhaps that would be getting a little 'ad hominem'! 8) )

 

[hedgewizard1]

Almond, I refer you to the writings of Stephen Gould. In turn, references in his works will take you to other evidence supporting the theory.

When you've read all of Gould, and the numerous resources you find beyond him, then come back and tell us of the lack of evidence.

 

[almond13]

Among scientists, the phenomenon is called psychological neoteny.
"People such as academics, teachers, scientists and many other professionals are often strikingly immature outside of their strictly specialist competence in the sense of being unpredictable, unbalanced in priorities, and tending to overreact.” http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/06/2 ... 0623110030

“”I can't quite decide if you're a wind-up merchant, or just plain...
(well, perhaps that would be getting a little 'ad hominem')””

Ok rynner,
I am starting to realise that you want it all your own way and that your science is the way that you thought that you would get it. What I am doing (as you obviously hadn’t noticed) is exactly what science does to anything it wants to exclude. It’s not difficult to debunk anything including science as I’ve shown.
And calling me “just plain” is the last resort of a scoundrel and here’s me thinking that you were just an “old git”.
Your outrage against my objections to evolution are probably the result of a deep seated insecurity. In the meantime, lets talk about something that doesn’t scare you.

“”I'll just have to live with the knowledge that you'll probably drift on elsewhere eventuallly, and tell all your new friends there how no-one at FTMB was able to refute your ideas.....””

There you go again, wanting it all to yourself. This is a very immature trait.

I’ve just about every FT ever printed and that calls for staying power.

BTW,
“”you're slipperier than a bucket of eels in the way you loosely phrase your queries, avoid questions from others, and ignore their explanations.””

Give me a list and I’ll answer anything you come up with. :grouphug: [/quote]

 

[almond13]

Almond, I refer you to the writings of Stephen Gould. In turn, references in his works will take you to other evidence supporting the theory.

I’ll tell you what I will do: I’ll let you pick some indisputable evidence from Gould and I promise not to debunk it too much. This is what I’ve been asking for since I started posting on this thread – the crux of the matter, something that will make me say, yes that’s good.
I realise that there is a problem, in that we had to come from somewhere and I have not given my views on that. There is a good reason for this and that’s because any alternatives are laughed to scorn on the grounds that they are unscientific. There is no room for alternatives and that is exactly the problem.
The reason that I admire Fort is for his ability in original thought, something that is not encouraged by any form of education or science. Hence, anything we do, has to follow in the footsteps of everything we have done. This has the effect of stifling innovation and original thought. Science today is only interested in telling us what we can’t do – the laws of thermodynamics, the speed of light… If gravity travels at the speed of light then the delay would cause the Earth to spiral into a bigger and bigger orbit until we left the solar system altogether.
I was told by my friend rynner that the atomic bomb works and that this proves that Tesla was wrong. In fact there have been numerous theories that have worked but were wrong. The geocentric theory worked but was wrong. The phlogiston theory worked but was wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
To state that something or someone is wrong because the textbook says so and to ignore any evidence/proof to the contrary is fuzzy thinking based on erroneous teaching.

 

[hedgewizard1]

You can do your own homework, Almond.

Now, I'm stepped into the middle of this, and so I must ask, what theory of the origins of life on Earth do you support?

 

[Anonymous]

Almond - why does the theory of evolution fail when it comes to primordial cells?

Scientists are working on the evolution of the entire universe and everything in it.

Do you know why?

They want to find God and understand His work to the finest detail.

Surely you can see that?

 

[Heckler]

So what if god created evolution? Eh eh?

 

[jefflovestone]

So what if god created evolution? Eh eh?

I often think about that. What happens if evolution is the mechanics of it, the 'how of it' and God - or some form of Creationism at any rate - was the 'why of it'. The sad thing is, if this was true, I doubt everyone would feel happy about it.

 

[Dingo667]

Strangely enough, you can actually believe in both. However to do thid you have to forget about god and especially anything in the bible.
Sounds like an oxymoron?
No way. First of all, evolution is real, it works, it can be proven. There is hard evidence and noone should be forced to provide anybody with any evidence as evolution is here to stay. Evolution doesn't just happen within genes, it happens with language, with opinions, everything is always evolving. So it is not difficult to see that not "believeing" in evolution is not an option, evolution is well past this stage.
However how did evolution start [as has been mentioned before] is another matter. There are some basic DNA structures, that can be found in every single living thing. From amoeba to elephants. An interesting theory is that somewhere an intelligence which was able to manipulate DNA has figured that if you just chuck the basics out into space, not only will they withstand time and conditions but they might someday end up on a planet that will sustain these little "program carriers" and THEN evolution will unwittingly kick in.

There is vague evidence that the unreadable parts of our DNA [so called junk DNA] are not so junky at all. I don't want to go into it too much but it seems that this formerly thought "useless" DNA has the pattern of language [Zapf's law - please read up yourself]. Which might have an effect or even a message for us or [and this is highly important] any other creature that reaches a certain understanding.

However [and I have to make this clear] I do not think that if the above was proven that it would be a god [as in x-tian or whoever else believe]. Yes it might have been other living creatures, especially if they had understanding of DNA, which as far as we know still resides in the realm of this here reality.

Last but not least, even if there was a god who created us or whatever, can someone explain where that being is from?
What is it made out of, what does it use to "think" with, what did it base our looks on and where was before our universe was born?
Because of the lack of sensible answers to this I am inclined to rather believe in a versatility of beings even if they come from other dimensions, rather than a "one" which created all universes, all living creatures etc.
For if something like this existed [which could be, I'm not disputing it], I can honestly say that it would NOT be aware of every single human, only earth, only in this dimension. That is just totally illogical Capitain, totally and utterly ridiculous, especially if you consider that this here so called human race is not gonna be around forever. Think about it, its absurd.

 

[Anonymous]

Unless every possibility was planned from the beginning and then God pushes the big bang button to see what happens.

Will all the engineering work or not?

Very slim chance...but it happens...and it is good.

 

[wembley8]

What I am doing (as you obviously hadn’t noticed) is exactly what science does to anything it wants to exclude. It’s not difficult to debunk anything including science as I’ve shown.

There are just so many things wrong with these two statements. But, to keep it simple, 'science' is not something that 'wants' to exclude things; it's a very effective process for dealing with information abiout the world.

And you can only debunk something if it is bunk in thr first place.

Science today is only interested in telling us what we can’t do – the laws of thermodynamics, the speed of light.

You really should find out a bit about science before you go making sweeping statements.
It's mind-boggling that youy can actually type a sentence like that on a computer without realising the contradictions...

 

[OneWingedBird]

I realise that there is a problem, in that we had to come from somewhere and I have not given my views on that. There is a good reason for this and that’s because any alternatives are laughed to scorn on the grounds that they are unscientific.

So how come you're happy to pour scorn on the theory of evolution and it's supportors, while declining to be specific about your own ideas to avoid the perceived risk of us doing the same in return?

You mention here that your theories are 'ala Sitchin':

As for my theory: Looking at the facts as they stand I think that life was genetically seeded at regular intervals, maybe by virus and that we were genetically engineered from the “ape-men” ala Sitchin.

The wiki entry for Zecharia Sitchin is rather lengthy (though imo well worth a read for those unfamiliar with him), but to quote the intro/summary:

Zecharia Sitchin (born 1920?) is a best-selling author promoting the ancient astronaut theory of mankind's origins. He attributes the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Nephilim from Nibiru. He also argues that the asteroid belt was once a planet which the Sumerians called Tiamat. Although his 'planetary collision' theory superficially resembles a theory which is seriously entertained by modern astronomers —the giant impact theory of the Moon's formation about 4.5 billion years ago by a body impacting with the newly-formed Earth, Sitchin's proposed series of rogue planetary collisions post-dating the early formation of the solar system finds little or no support within the scientific arena. As with Immanuel Velikovsky's earlier Worlds in Collision trilogy, Sitchin claims to find evidence of ancient human knowledge of rogue celestial motions in a variety of mythological accounts. In Velilovsky's case, these interplanetary collisions were supposed to have taken place within the span of human existence, whereas for Sitchin these occurred much earlier, but entered the mythological account passed down via the purported alien survivors of these encounters. In neither case are their respective interpretations of mythology held to be reliable by the great majority of scholars in the field.

Zecharia Sitchin was born in Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, and raised in Palestine, where he acquired a knowledge of modern and ancient Hebrew, other Semitic and European languages, the Old Testament, and the history and archaeology of the Near East. Sitchin graduated from the University of London, majoring in economic history.

A journalist and editor in Israel for many years, he now lives and writes in New York. His books have been widely translated, converted to Braille for the blind, and featured on radio and television.

Sitchin claims that his research coincides with many biblical texts and that the biblical texts come originally from the Sumerian writings of their history.

So is this actually what you believe? Or just bits of it?