The Origin of Man

[firstpusk 10]

"A scientist, sir, you are not."

 

Never said I was. A student of science with an interest in psuedo-science (creationism) I am, indeed.

 

Evolution would predict the resistance I gave as examples. The population responds to the environmental pressure that favors certain individuals. Certainly, such resistance comes at a cost to the individual and when the pressure is removed the resistant individuals may not be favored. The peppered moth example showed exactly that. The history of the earth has shown a number of longterm changes in the environment that have irreversibly shifted these populations.

 

"punctuated equalibrium? sir, that one was thought up when the creationists called the hand of the evolutionists..."

 

Please don't flatter the creationists. This theory was developed in response to the fossil record not the unsupported claims of creationists. Real scientists don't take such arguments seriously except in the political or legal arenas, which has been where creationists have chosen to fight their battles.

 

"Here is one I like. show me ONE example of any specie changing the number of Chromosomes"

 

Actually, one of the links I gave ScoutParent lists several such examples.

 

"take hydrogen and oxygen. they are difficult to break apart. it takes more energy to break them apart than they gave up when they combined. thus, water is water in our universe"

 

I suspected that you from an alternative universe. In mine we were able to break water into the constiuent components in my HS chem class.

 

 

"Darwin did not say that life came from mud, it was his followers some time later."

 

So you admit that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, glad you cleared that up. Oops, I guess you changed your mind...

 

"Sir, it is indeed the modern evolutionary theory that says that life came from the primordal ooze..."

 

The theory of evolution? I think, no, I know you are mistaken. Yes, there are scientists doing work on abiogenesis, but that is a different area of science. One that does not directly address the evolution. Let's keep our arguments to one theory at a time...

 

It is clear that you have some trouble with the scientific definition of theory. Nothing is proven in science. If you want proofs, do your geometry homework. Science is tentative. The theory of evolution could possibly be overturned by observation tomorrow at noon. Is that likely, no. Will our understanding of how it works in detail change over the next few years? That I would bet on.

 

[firstpusk 10]

"by the way.....

 

who came up with Science, and who came up with the Bible? If God wrote one and man the other, who do you think is right? if man wrote them both,then how can we possibly know what God has to say?"

 

I think there is a profound difference between our traditions. My tradition says man wrote but the word was inspired. I think your tradition would have more of a copyist view, i.e., the books were dictated or something like that. The

understanding of the people responsible for recording these words must be taken into account. I will agree that such an understanding is frought with difficulty. This is especially true for Genesis because it appears there is much that comes to us through a long oral tradition that was not written down until much later. These concepts are avoided like the plague in your tradition, or so I suppose. And your approach meets with reproach in mine.

[littlebillie 10]

"Louis Pasteur did that. he proved that the idea of spontaneous generation was false. he took all the elements of life, put them in a closed container, and (with them dead) showed that they could not come to life on their own."

 

Please restate this to say that Pasteur proved that life would not spontaneously arrive in a container full of the materials he himself deemed necessary under conditions that did not in anywise reflect early earth as understood either Biblically OR scientifically. Basically, he eliminated one set of materials under one set of conditions... this does not prove any universal thing. If I spend a month just looking a block of granite in the rain - summer time, say, and no microscope - I might just miss erosion...

 

just a perspective...

[Rooster7 11]

Firstpusk,

 

I enjoy debating with you. I hope this does not make you too upset with me, but I am compelled to say the following. Any time someone refers to their faith as a "tradition", I see red flags. It seems as if you're talking about your faith as if it's some sort of quaint aspect of your heritage. Maybe you don't feel that way, but how exactly does one equate religion or faith with "tradition"? Tradition does not inspire me. The truth inspires me. Your word choice implies that you're not very confident about defending your faith as truth. Just an observation.

 

[firstpusk 10]

Rooster7,

 

I am not offended in the least. Tradition to me is something I do take seriously and is kind short hand for faith tradition. Something passed down through the ages from one teacher to the next in an unbroken line to Christ. Yeah, I think I take it seriously. Scouting is my ministry and I do that instead of being more involved in my church. My troop meets there, so I feel I am making a contribution to the youth of my faith community. I didn't mean to wave any red flags, although it is clear I generally wave them more than the white ones ;^)

 

I enjoy mixing it up with you. And yes, you are in my prayers.

[littlebillie 10]

"Now, how about a theory why the equilibrium WAS punctuated?"

 

We have modern and ancient evidence of large bodies striking the earth - BOOM! punctuation!

 

Don't like that? Biblical and folk stories involving a deluge find agreement with each other and in science. Once original populations were wiped out, it became a race for the 2x2's to repopulate and maybe take over this niche or even wipe out that species! Those hungry birds, once they flew off the ark, may very well have eaten those missing 4-legged crickets! :-) Boom, one species gone, and a chance for evolution.

 

There's been plenty of punctuation, even by the human hand. I think this is one of the smaller hurdles you've set the evolutionist.

 

 

a TIME to every purpose under Heaven... even if beyond the grasp of man

 

 

[firstpusk 10]

littlebillie,

 

I finally figured out why you are the only one promoting 4-legged crickets and where they went. You consider them a delicacy and you ate them all.

 

This just in, NCAA men's ice hockey final score from Durham, NH

(3) University of New Hampshire 5

(1) University of Minnesota 5 ot

 

It was a great game. I was so nervous I probably ate one of your crickets, too.

[DeMann 10]

I suspected that you from an alternative universe. In mine we were able to break water into the constiuent components in my HS chem class.

 

Yes, you did. But you did it with the addition of more energy than was generated in the formation of the water molecule. Do you remember heat of fusion calculations in your chem.II class? Again, you need to find the real definition of the second law.

 

So you admit that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, glad you cleared that up. Oops, I guess you changed your mind...

 

Sir, it is a fact that the modern evolutionary theory includes the former as well as the latter. Grab a textbook from your local college and see for yourself.

 

I think there is a profound difference between our traditions. My tradition says man wrote but the word was inspired. I think your tradition would have more of a copyist view, i.e., the books were dictated or something like that. The

understanding of the people responsible for recording these words must be taken into account. I will agree that such an understanding is frought with difficulty. This is especially true for Genesis because it appears there is much that comes to us through a long oral tradition that was not written down until much later. These concepts are avoided like the plague in your tradition, or so I suppose. And your approach meets with reproach in mine.

 

Mine is not tradition. It is my faith. understanding of the people responsible for recording these words must be taken into account seems to infer that you cannot take any of the Bible as literal, or at least have no way of knowing what is and what is not. And in that case, you have now way of knowing what God intends to tell you. There is no difficulty with Genesis- an early habit of restating events in a text is used there, and thus it does not have contradictions in it. Sir, I do not avoid any part of the Bible like the plague. I am sorry you see this with reproach. Your ignoring my questions, though simple and yet so deep, makes me wonder what your faith is based upon.

 

"Now, how about a theory why the equilibrium WAS punctuated?"

We have modern and ancient evidence of large bodies striking the earth - BOOM! punctuation!

 

So let me see if I understand this one. All you have to have for evolution to start up again is a meteor striking the earth? So, why cant you reproduce that in the lab?

 

a TIME to every purpose under Heaven... even if beyond the grasp of man

 

 

well, this one is certainly taken out of context. You should read the chapter in full to understand it.

 

 

[firstpusk 10]

DeMann,

First things first. I am not responsible for all that you are responding to in your last post.

 

You stated water was water. I said it is pretty simple to get them to separate. It takes a little energy. We get it every day from the sun. The attempt to use the second law as an argument against evolution is a threadbare old argument. That dog don't hunt.

 

"Again, you need to find the real definition of the second law."

 

Actually, I was waiting for you to articulate the law and explain how it precludes evolution. It is the accepted theory now, the burden is yours. I have explained why your argument does not apply.

 

"Sir, it is a fact that the modern evolutionary theory includes the former as well as the latter. Grab a textbook from your local college and see for yourself."

 

In what context do they mention abiogenesis? Generally they may have a sidebar that mentions the Miller-Urey experiments. You conflate that with the theory of evolution and boldly proclaim it as fact. I seen more than a few college texts but I have never seen one that misdefines evolution as you do.

 

Read this link. It gives a pretty good outline of the modern synthesis. This is a pretty good place to start. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

 

This link explains why many common definitions cause misunderstanding of the scientific definition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

 

"understanding of the people responsible for recording these words must be taken into account seems to infer that you cannot take any of the Bible as literal, or at least have no way of knowing what is and what is not."

 

Classic fundamentalist false dilemma. I didn't say none of the Bible could be taken literally. However, I do believe it is a mistake to take the first chapters of Genesis as a history or science text.

 

"Sir, I do not avoid any part of the Bible like the plague. I am sorry you see this with reproach."

 

Read it carefully. I was talking about interpretation of the Bible. Your approach wants to read it like a text book of history and science. Mine says that is not the way you should read it. Yours says it is always consistent. Mine allows you to read and realize the textual difficulties and try to understand what was going on. Yours accepts Genesis 1 and 2 and sees no difficulty. Mine says you have different stories from different traditions emphasizing different things. That is what your faith avoids like the plague. The realization that reading the Bible is not so simple and understanding the message may not be so clear cut. My mention of reproach may have been strong, but I do feel such a reading of Genesis that is overly simplistic and prone to error. I am pretty certain my approach is not one favored by you.

 

"Your ignoring my questions, though simple and yet so deep, makes me wonder what your faith is based upon."

 

I think I do a better job of answering your questions than you do mine. There are a couple of things I want you to consider. First, I don't care a whit about whether you question my faith. Your opinion about my belief is not important to me. Second, you are not reading my answers carefully. Finally your questions may be simple but I really don't think they are all that deep. The rest is littlebillie. I learned the hard way with him. A word of advice about him, you have to read him more carefully than you do me. He is much more circumspect than me. He got me eating crickets.

[littlebillie 10]

firstpusk - rotflmao... try them them with horseradish (white not red). it's as helpful with crickets as gefilte fish, for which I have never known which is the gefilte fork.

 

DeMann - yes, it is out of context, but perfect words should be context-free, and maybe a new context can break down the wall between knowledge and faith.

 

why can't punctuation be created in a lab? well, time for one, and diversity for another. when you're talking eons, it is sheer hubris to think that humankind can yet match the works of God on that canvas... I wouldn't think the faithful would suggest such a thing. as far as diversity goes, when God sees fit to flood or otherwise flummox the current list of species, He's doing it to EVERYTHING in His Creation, not just one or two or even dozens in an artificially contrived lab.

 

Remeber, evolution and all its components are tools of GOD, not of man, and the theory is something that helps us understand His workings. Your objections are in fact what one would expect for a tool of the Divine Clockmaker that man can at this time only appreciate, and not wield...

[firstpusk 10]

littlebillie,

 

How do you get those cricket legs from between your molars? I've got one...

[DeMann 10]

This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases.

 

Now, doesnt this sound contradictory? Man, this site is full of it. You know, stated concepts without factual basis. No wonder you can take this stuff as truth. All he has to do is make a statement, and you will swallow it right up.

 

 

It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

 

Now, I have not seen any evidence (as you stated) of an organism with a different number of chromosomes from its parents and it being a viable, living organism. You know, a few thousand years ago some guys tried that very thing. They crossed a donkey and a horse. Yes, they have VERY similar chromosomes, and yet their progeny (mules) are almost always sterile. Now, I did see a picture of a pair of mules in Kansas in the late 40s and into 1961 who did indeed crank out a few live births. But, alas, none of their progeny ever produced offspring. Somehow, it seems to my finite mind, that if any of this changed-gene-thing could possibly work, it would have here. But then, I also think that if in the course of time it had ever actually worked, 1) there would be a huge amount of screwed-up-gene-stuff going on (so that we can g et the thousands of different creatures we now have), and 2) somehow ever now and then one of them would pan out. And, we all know that there is no evidence of that ever happening.

 

Come on, man. Why cant you just let God be big enough to speak into existence all that exists? If He can start life, why cant he make it varied? And lots of it?

 

[firstpusk 10]

DeMann,

 

There is a reason I gave you the link on the modern synthesis, you needed to understand what you were arguing about. You want to define evolution in any way that is convenient. I asked you to start your education there. I wanted you to understand that abiogenesis is not part of Darwin's theory nor the modern synthesis.

 

"Now, I have not seen any evidence (as you stated) of an organism with a different number of chromosomes from its parents and it being a viable, living organism."

 

You need to read carefully and for comprehension. Look, this is what I said about your chromosome question, "Actually, one of the links I gave ScoutParent lists several such examples." The key phrase is, "the links I gave ScoutParent". I apologize that I made an assumption that you had the ability to comprehend the phrase and perform a simple search on the thread to find the links. I won't make that mistake again. Here are the links I gave ScoutParent.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

 

"Come on, man. Why cant you just let God be big enough to speak into existence all that exists? If He can start life, why cant he make it varied? And lots of it?"

 

Why can't you look at the evidence that is all around you? Is it because you are trying to protect God from the theory of evolution? Why must you make God have to create in six days a few thousand years ago? I am not the one limiting the power of God. It is you who do that by insisting that the first chapters of Genesis must be true regardless of what the evidence shows. God doesn't need the kind of help you are offering. God needs us to use the big wonderful brains we were given.

[packsaddle 753]

"Apropos of the origin of man I see no ground at present for pinning my faith to one theory or another. My purpose in mentioning the matter was simply that I might have an occasion

of claiming my right to follow withersoever Science should lead and over and through whatever dares to stand in the way. After all it is as respectable to be modified monkey as

modified dirt." T.H. Huxley, January 30, 1859

 

This argument has been argued in other forums, obviously for a long time. I want to reassure DeMann that any conflict between faith and science is needless. Faith clearly does not rely on science for its existence or its development. It merely requires ideas and persons who believe them. They need not articulate their reasons although when I recite the Apostle's Creed, for example, I understand fully those reasons. Science on the other hand simply does not address faith at all. It is incapable of addressing faith because it lacks intellectual tools to do that. This is not to say that science is in conflict with faith or religion although such seems to be a popular misconception...on both sides.

 

ScoutParent said that "Science is a man made construct to attempt to explain things." OK, no conflict. In this manner, a large number of empirical observations have been subjected to critical examination, sometimes experimental. Evolution is the only theory that can organize those observations so that they make sense in the view of the scientist. Any honest scientist will be glad to critically examine alternative theories that are based on the same observations. Magic need not apply. And a person will see if they really examine the development of the various fields of science, alternatives have been subjected to this examination and rejected as inconsistent with observations.

 

The problem with 'science versus religion', in my view is that science accepts uncertainty. Clearly contained in previous posts is evidence that persons of faith are usually uncomfortable with uncertainty (Amazingly some individuals think their ideas are absolutely right). Science is one way to organize our uncertain world and make useful predictions (for that matter to invent the wonderful technologies that ALL of us cannot live without). However, scientific knowledge, to one degree or another, remains uncertain and always open to criticism or disproof. Constantly subjecting scientific ideas to critical examination makes them stronger if they survive. This ruthlessly critical approach eventually leads to general acceptance of certain ideas among scientists (not all scientists, though, because healthy skepticism lives on). Can you imagine a similar process in religion? Evolution is one example of a theory that has been subjected to such critical examination in as much as the component observations have been critically examined. It remains a work in progress.

 

The comprehensive nature of Evolutionary theory makes it difficult to articulate a simple single hypothesis for test. Instead such has been performed for numerous component hypotheses. Those that have not been tested remain just as they started, and scientists argue about some of them with great vigor. A similar evaluation could be applied, say, to Cell Theory. Obviously, cell theory is less likely to be viewed in conflict with religion but it has been constructed under identical conditions as evolutionary theory.

Incidentally, in the last 20 years, the advances of cell biology, molecular biology and genetics, and biochemistry/biotechnology ought to have received similar objections by persons of faith, but for some reason they didn't. Folks, the genie is out of the bottle there for better or worse, and I, for one, find it exciting.

 

On the other hand, faith-based ideas are completely unavailable to such critical examination, as they should be. Miracles cannot be repeated experimentally, and creeds are just that. This is not a weakness, simply the way it is. However, as such, faith-based ideas cannot be erected as rational alternatives to scientific theory...because they cannot be subjected to logical, critical examination. If a person believes that a scientific theory (whether it be Galileo's, or Evolution) is in conflict with their belief, then I suppose in their mind the conflict is real. But to be fair, they should make a sincere effort to understand the development and REAL meaning of the theory to honestly conclude there is a conflict. DeMann has this opportunity and the great thing about our country and time is that such examination will not lead to the fate that befell Galileo and Vavilov. firstpusk listed some good URLs and I hope these and other sources are viewed with a desire to learn and understand, without a sense of conflict.

 

 

[ScoutParent 10]

The theory of evolution is not an explanation that can claim to have been subjected to empirical testing or critical observation. The evidence is seen through the eyes of those faithful to Darwin and the absense of God in the creation of the world and all within it. In the zeal to continue the idiocy of macroevolution, evidence for previous forms of man include a pig tooth, a dig that held parts of chimps and man, living aboriginals killed and displayed, etc. For one to compare it to other fields of science is absurd; evolution is much closer to a religion because the only basis one can accept it on is faith. There is not now nor has there been any empirical data available because it does not happen. Because the evolutionists tell you that man evolved from one celled organisms does not make it data, does not show critical evaluation. Ask yourself where are the intermediary fossils, the laboratory simulations, the experimentation that proves these statements of their faith in evolution. How many of us understand the concepts of quantum physics easily? Read a little about quantum physics and tell me that the dimensions we understand easily are the only ones that exist. Evolutionists claim that those that follow God and Jesus can believe in evolution without conflict. That statement alone should alert a Christian to stand up and take note. If the bells don't go off with that one look at the fruits of evolutionary theory: legalized abortion, infantcide, genocide, gene enhancement, cloning, etc. Check out the ideas of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood,eugenicist, and evolutionist or Peter Singer, bioethicist and evolutionist. The list is long and results have been devastating to entire groups of people thought by some to have inferior genes. FirstPusk debates by claiming a lack of understanding of the ideas for people that disagree with the theories he espouses but when challenged to a biology test to set that idea to rest, he runs. Evolution is not science and to disbelieve evolution does not put any valid advances in jeopardy. It is simply using the big brains God gave you to see the false religion that is being perpetrated on the world at large.