The Bible

Although I am afraid I can probably add little to the debate in regards to what is written in the bible (as I've read very, very little of it :rolleyes: ) you have quite an interesting debate going here and I think I may be able to add some information regarding genetics and evolution which may be of interest.

Quote:

---

It is a fact that fossils have been found which proove that the creatures did in fact exist in that time. Period.
As from having just this part of the picture, why insist this proves evolution, when in fact non of the parts found show any signs of it what so ever. However, evolutionists assume that unfound fossils would proove evolution, whereas from the physical unassumed evidence, this fits in perfectly with creation.
Also, fossils found in different places are obviously from different times, but if evolution was a steady process over all these years, then how come fossils found from several years difference dont show this process? The older the fossil, the further back stages of evolution would be found, but they are all the same.

---

Despite its incompleteness, the fossil record shows many patterns which provide strong eveidence of evolution. Firstly, organisms of particular types are found in rocks of specific ages and new organisms appear sequentially in younger rocks. As we move from ancient periods of geological time towards the present fossil species increasingly resemble species living today. Many modern animals also possess relics of their previous evolution in both their physiology and genetics (for example the tiny remnants of hind legs on snakes and whales). The fossil record is not the only source of supporting evidence for evolution. The genetics in the mitochondria and the nuclei of cells in every animal show evidence of its evolutionary history, confirming the divergences in the family tree presented by paleantologists and the family tree of life on earth. Evidence also resides in the gradual changes in proteins and other macromolecules present in living organisms.

Quote:

---

The difference between fish and birds and mammals etc is far less than the difference between our brains. Yes, each animal is unique in its design and complexity (even though they should be similar if evolved from each other), but human intelligence, our memory, all our abilities are far greater, plus they are on top of our physical differences as in the fish can live in water we cant idea.

---

If you are inferring that mental and physical abilities are completely seperate classifications then you are wrong. The concept of dualism (also known as the 'Ghost in the Machine') which entails that the mind and the body are effectively seperate has been effectively disproven by modern science. Mental abilities are merely the product of our minds, and these are in turn properties of the physical structure of our brains. They can therefore be described in exactly the same way in regards to evolution and in general.
Each animal is unique in many key adaptations but there are a vast number of similarities, particularly if you look beyond the obvious features of organs and instead look at the cellular and molecular organisation of organisms (and this clearly supports evolution). Each of the divergences of species towards these adaptations and the similarities between organisms can be clearly followed through the family tree of life with evidence from genetics and physiology. The idea that mental abilities are the far greater and perhaps the ultimate adaptation is purely a matter of subjective opinion, and it is hardly suprising that humans would take this view considering that this is our greatest strength.

Quote:

---

I agree to a certain extent. However, with the incountable amount of perfectly acurate complex combinations of events and atoms etc etc, the chance of it all happening is like 1 in a number that wudn't fit on this page. Then whats the chance of it happening first time?
Isn't it more resonable to consider that some form of intelligent creator created all thses things?

---

A suprisingly small number of chance events would have to occur to set off the great momentum of evolution and the origin of what we would regard as life on earth. As soon as some form of molecule (most likely a simple molecule such as a segment of RNA on earth) came into being with the ability to replicate itself, but with slight errors that could occur during this process evolution could begin and natural selection could act upon the molecules formed. Considering the countless number of planets and other places upon which it would be possible for conditions to be created for the forming of the first replicator (as well as the vast timescales over which this would have a chance to occur) I think that far from it being a chance of 1 in a number that wouldn't fit on this page it would be nearly a certainty that this would occur at least once in the universe (for the exact chances and a more accurate idea of the chances we would have to call upon an expert chemist however).

Quote:

---

Humans were assigned by God to care for and cultivate the Earth, this is our likeness with God. We have the attributes of love, wisdom, power and justice and to have a desire to do purposeful work and feel achievment. This is the way in which we differ from animals and ponder ultimate questions that no other living creature on the earth does.

---

There are very reasonable (and in my view essentially certain) explanations about how similar attributes of behaviour could have come about by evolution, as well as all of what could subjectively be called the more negative attributes of humanity. Unfortunately it would be quite hard for me to explain it in the manner in which i read it, and it would require me to pretty much write a book to do so. :(

I would therefore advise you to read (and it would probably certainly interest you) The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for information regarding the evolution of behavioural traits as well as a different angle on evolution, The Blind Watchmaker by the same author for arguments against many of your claims against evolution and The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker for information regarding dualism,and a huge number of fascinating psychological revelations based around modern biology. All of these books are absolutely great, and I thought it fitting to include them as this is after all Bookworld.

Great debate everyone. Its particularly refreshing to see a discussion of matters some people might regard as sensitive not erupting into a flame war. Hope you found some of this interesting and the arguments compelling.:)

Let me say that I hope the modz do not edit or delete my posts. I will try not to offend anyone, (emphasis on try). I just know how rude, childish and arrogant the modz in here are so I’m sure some X-tian mod will edit or delete my post(s) as usual. Anyway on the topic of The Christian Bible as a book: ITS WORTHLESS (for anyone who can think critically) and full of blatant contradictions. Here are 9 undeniable contradictions that can be found in ANY current copy of the "the Buy-Bull” Also if you wish to check and see these errors are still present in the original Hebrew and Greek lexicons. You can whine all day about copyist errors but it still does not change the fact THESE UNDENIABLE CONTRIDICTIONS EXIST IN ALL THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE AS WELL AS THE ORGINAL GREEK AND HEBREW LEXICONS!
Here goes:
These are taken from booklet entitled "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible."

Contradiction #5
How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(B) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

Contradiction #6
How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8).
(B) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).

Contradiction #11
When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
(B) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

Contradiction #12
How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
(a) Forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26).
(B) Four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25).

Contradiction #13
In what year of King Asa’’s reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
(a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:8).
(B) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Contradiction #15
Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?
(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26).
(B) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5).

Contradiction #22
Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:
(a) 29,818 (Ezra).
(B) 31, 089 (Nehemiah).

Contradiction #23
How many singers accompanied the assembly?
(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65).
(B) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67).

Contradiction #94
Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(B) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).

Quote:

---

I would therefore advise you to read (and it would probably certainly interest you) The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for information regarding the evolution of behavioural traits as well as a different angle on evolution, The Blind Watchmaker by the same author for arguments against many of your claims against evolution

---

I second that, Richard Dawkins is a good writer and evolutionary biologist, if all you know of evolution is the little that Darwin first hypothesised then you'll learn a lot.


Just a quick post about your long one on evolution:

The 10 things that are supposedly in order, are lacking numerous other stages and the explanation of how light wasn't present because of the dust is really, reallly weak.

About the evolution thing, just a couple of things, one is that the human eye is very poorly designed (the connections between optic nerve and the rods and cones that detect light actually run across the front of our retina degrading vision and necessitating a blind spot. In fact eyes have evolved separately multiple times (a process called convergent evolution) and in terms of a good design for an eye an octopus' eye is better as all the rods and cones (or equivalent) are connected from behind.

You're comparing fish and amphibians (and reptiles and birds etc) that exist today and pointing out the differences, but each of these species have diverged for millions of years. If you go back the similarities far outway the differences and dna testing provides evidence of common ancestry in an analogous way to comparing dna from parent to child. How do you explain that? Comparing todays amphibians with fish is nonsensical. Birds and reptiles is the same story, originally flying reptiles didn't have feathers just like bats don't have feathers, the differences between the reptiles that flew and the ones that didn't naturally grew as time passed and each adapted. Looking at todays different species they look very different, and this will always be the case because they have each adapted to their environment over millions of years of divergent evolution.


Why is the bible right and buddhism, judaism, hinduism etc wrong? Why did you choose christianity? Was it because your parents were christian and if so doesn't that seem like an odd way to choose which is the correct religion? I don't know the exact quote or who said it but
"When you understand why you reject other religions, you'll understand why i reject yours".

Evolution is a fact. Yea you heard me right it is a fact. A lot of Christians seem to have no clue whatsoever what evolution is. Well first let me tell you what it is not.

1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It strictly deals with how pre-existing life changes. The theory that life came from non-living matter is called Abiogenesis (NOT EVOLUTION)

2. The theory of evolution does not say we came from apes. It says we shared a common ancestor. That is not the same as coming from apes.

3. Evolution is not purely theoretical. WE HAVE DIRECTLY OBSERVED IT HAPPEN. Having said that evolutionary theory (how evolution happened in the past) is theoretical because we do not no for certain how everything evolved exactly.


Let me reiterate that WE HAVE DIRECTLY OBSERVED EVOLUTION HAPPEN.
Here is the proof:

Microevolution is essentially the same thing as adaptation. The climate changes and the dogs with naturally thicker coats are better suited and eventually a few generations down the line you wind up with all dogs having thicker coats. I have never once met a Christian who denies that microevolution aka adaptation occurs. As a matter of fact most of them come to me and say well microevolution is a fact but macroevolution that’s a farce. So lets examine macroevolution.


Macroevolution: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (such as species formation) taken from Merriam Webster’s college dictionary.

The Christians I speak with claim no new species have ever been directly observed forming only discovered. THIS IS A CROCK. We most certainly have observed macroevolution/speciation occur.

Here is the proof:
Taken from (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)


"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
------------

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

------------


Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

------------


Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

------------


Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Another Argument I hate from Christians is how they explain how amazing and complex and intricate and perfect the known world and universe are. So therefore a creator who is even more perfect intricate and complex than his creation must exist because who else could have created a system this complex. HUH?

This whole argument is self-contradictory. At its core its saying everything is so complex it must have had a creator it couldn't just always exist. But yet this creator being inherently more complex and perfect and intricate than his creation CAN "just always exist" with no need for a creator.

So let’s break it down even further:
Complex things can't just always exist they need a creator more complex than they are to create them. YET things that are inherently more complex than the things they created can just always exist without need for a creator. HUH??? What a bunch of BS! LOL this Christian logic is so bass-ackwards it’s disgusting.

Obviously either every complex thing needs a creator or not every complex thing needs a creator. You cannot logically say: “Well every complex thing needs a creator except my complex thing.” I hate they way they use this logic and apply it to everything but when it’s applied to their God they make an exception. It’s ludicrous.

From a logical standpoint it makes more sense to say that all matter and all energy allways existed in some form or another. And that there was no creator. This is alot more logical than saying Oh well nothing (including matter-energy, the universe etc.) can just allways exist therefore my thing created it! Oh and by the way my thing CAN just allways exist because i said so! BLEH! NEENER NEENER NEENER... Its such a weak and childish explanation.

So do you agree with abiogenesis then? What about evolution from a single celled organism?

Another thing I hate about faith based religions (e.g. Christianity) is that they require you accept their CORE-BELIEFS (a creator and afterlife) on faith. Accepting ANYTHING I MEAN ANYTHING on faith is intellectual suicide. I can't think of a more intellectually dishonest and stupid thing to do than accept something as important as your core beliefs for being on FAITH.. Seriously ppl. If you did that for any other belief you would be labeled a Schizophrenic by a psychiatrist. As a matter of fact Faith is the basis of all con-games. If you don’t do your homework and have a good foundation based on objectively verifiable evidence to support your core beliefs then you are a fool and you are asking to be let down or deceived. CMON this is the 21st Century PPL! Get REAL!

@ ILW

I see abiogenesis as a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth. The probability that a self replicating molecule could form given enough time and a big enough conducive environment is NOT improbable. I am not claiming that is how it happened only that it is a strong possibility. Another possibility includes our world being seeded by extraterrestrial life (not necessarily intelligent). I don’t have definite answers as to life's origins. I can only speculate. Just as ANY intellectually honest person can. You can't just believe on faith that your god created everything and that the act of you believing it on faith will make it true. That is absurd.

The idea that life on earth was started by extraterrestrials (unintentionally or intentionally) suffers from the same problem as the idea of god creating life. It begs the question of how the entity that started life on earth came into being. The key difference between these two situations however is that extraterrestrial life can be potentially explained (probably starting once again from the differential success of slightly varying replicators) whereas god cannot be. I realise though that you are by no means advocating the view that extraterrestrials started life Maynoth.

I've also got to completely agree with the flaws of faith. Our beliefs have a dramatic impact on our outlook on life, from our laws to the way you view other peoples actions (often one and the same), as well as potential to do great good or great harm (though I realise these are merely subjective). It is important therefore for your beliefs to be based on an as objective view of life as possible and empirical evidence, allowing you to form your own judgements and ideas as accurately as possible. If you simply rely on faith you will often find yourself denying the truth with no evidence to support yourself. This, I think, is one of the key differences between Science and Religion. Religion says they have all the answers...and is endlessly resistant to the obviousness of logical argument on some of its views. Science says that if we keep asking the right questions we will find the answers, and these are the current models we have based on logical empirical evidence. Whereas Religion will not bow down to evidence and treats what it says as Gospel (sorry but I just had to say that :D ), Science is willing to offer up its discoveries to argument and review.

Admittedly everyone has to treat most things with something approaching faith. It would be impossible for each person to review all scientific findings of history to check for their accuracy in their lifetime and we are therefore forced to 'Stand on the Shoulders of Giants' (although that can also of course be a positive thing) and accept a certain amount on trust. After all, as Descartes said, perhaps the only certainty each of us has is 'I think therefore I am'. B)

@ Dark

It’s good to know there still are some rational ppl out there. In regards to extraterrestrials being the origin of life on earth it still does not explain the ultimate origin of life. But given a universe this vast the probability that self replicating molecules would form somewhere in the universe is almost certain. I personally refuse to accept ANYTHING as absolute truth without adequate objective evidence. I just don’t see how 90% of our population can be soooo ignorant.