Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

Evolution is too random to be believable. How something so significant and complex can come from nothing...

There's 5,100 posts in this thread. A good starting point would be reading through them to find out.

Some of you might find this a more interesting read than others.

James White, on p. 40 of his book The King James Only Controversy states: "The reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally altar the message of the Scriptures! I make this statement (1) fully aware of the wide range of textual variants in the New Testament, and (2) painfully aware of the strong attacks upon those who have made similar statements in the past."

I helped my uncle jack off a horse.

Oh, the difference two upper case letters makes to just one sentence.

A misconception is that there have been broad translations where those that were translating just put the different story's and biblical passages into their own words. Fortunately, they took a scientific approach to translating the scriptures by only allowing each translator to work on a fraction of a passage at a time. No one person was able to come to their own conclusions, thus altering the true nature of the original writings.

380 A.D. The Latin Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome. He translated into Latin the Old Testament from the Hebrew and the New Testament from Greek.

1380 A.D. The first English translation of the Bible was by John Wycliffe. He translated the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was a translation from a translation and not a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek. Wycliffe was forced to translate from the Latin Vulgate because he did not know Hebrew or Greek.

Looks like two gross translations each done by one man - and the latter wholly based on the former...

 

[Touring Mars]

There is no point in debating it really, you either believe or you don't.

And thus the issue arises between those that go off a gut feeling, instinct or guidance from a greater being, and those that want spread sheets of data and observations to support something.

Except I'd rather that gut feelings and instincts and 'guidance from a greater being' were left outside and not brought into biology class, precisely what this whole argument is really about.

we don't have all the pieces for macro evolution by any measure

Can you explain to me what's missing exactly? My convo with a creationist guy in the US a few weeks ago was revealing - and he employed a very common argument. He claimed that there is no fossil record of an intermediate species, and that no intermediate species exist. "Where is the intermediate between a dog and a duck?" was his example. He claimed that there isn't any - but I begged to differ, since there are fossil remains of species that are common ancestors to both modern day ducks and modern day dogs, but they don't bear any resemblance to either.

After ignoring that factual remark, I tried to explain that the mechanism by which common descent works leads to a branching of every domain of life and hence why so-called 'intermediate' species simply do not exist between certain current species (like dogs and ducks), but the fossil record suggests (and genetic evidence proves on a biochemical level) that species do have intermediate properties - to a greater of lesser extent - with other species, and are biochemically related. (For an overview of these relationships, check out The Tree Of Life Project... I've linked to the point in the tree where 'dogs' and 'ducks' diverge, to illustrate the point I made earlier - click the blue links to go forward, arrowhead on the left to go back...)

As has been said many, many times already, "macroevolution" is fundamentally no different to "microevolution", but for the length of time required perhaps, and I've yet to meet someone who can explain why one happens while the other doesn't.

This thread does provide a great deal of insight and information, but people shouldn't try to prove the other wrong, it just ends up offending people.

I disagree. Why should you be offended when someone proves you wrong? Would you rather stay wrong?? In the pursuit of facts, you are proved wrong all the time, and it is never a bad thing.

For me, the reason is this: you cannot be right or wrong about an 'opinion', or about questions of faith and personal belief - so yes, trying to 'prove' someone's faith is wrong is pointless. But the opposite is true for (scientific) fact. You can either be right or wrong, and if someone says something that is clearly wrong, you can either mock them for it (which is stupid) or you can attempt to explain why they are wrong by providing evidence and/or a clear explanation. Such is the case with evolution. One can hold any opinions about it that one wants but it doesn't change the facts.

Evolution is too random to be believable.

Evolution is the polar opposite of random. As Perfect Balance hinted at, evolution is perhaps better understood by the phrase originally coined by Darwin himself, "Natural Selection". The life of an organism (or anything for that matter) is dictated by it's capability to survive and reproduce, by the environment, and the organism's ability to adapt on the population level. In any given population, random mutations happen that will give some an advantage over the others. The environment (nature, if you like) selects which of these random mutations is beneficial i.e. if a random mutation results in greater heat resistance, then they will be more likely to survive if the environment becomes hotter etc. So the mutation that confers the advantage may have been random, as might be the change in the environment itself. But the combination of the two is not random. Changes in the environment cause certain mutations to be advantageous, and hence that mutation (genetic sequence) is now more likely to survive because it 'fits' the new environment better...

How something so significant and complex can come from nothing...

It is a millions of times harder to accept that something as significant and complex as a human body could be fashioned from a random pile of 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms than it is to accept that
current life forms formed in a concerted process over billions of years in the process of evolution. As PB says, all living humans start off as a single fertilized egg, yet here we are... the egg doesn't literally morph into a fully grown adult in an instant - it develops gradually and takes years to reach it's final state before it stops growing. The key point is that an adult human doesn't come from nothing but from a single fertilized egg. Similarly, evolution doesn't say that life 'came from nothing' either, but from the vast abundance of suitable material already present on this planet before life took a foothold.

 

[Sureboss]

That would be a gross analogy. A misconception is that there have been broad translations where those that were translating just put the different story's and biblical passages into their own words. Fortunately, they took a scientific approach to translating the scriptures by only allowing each translator to work on a fraction of a passage at a time. No one person was able to come to their own conclusions, thus altering the true nature of the original writings.

Some of you might find this a more interesting read than others.

I was very tongue in cheek with that comment btw

This thread does provide a great deal of insight and information, but people shouldn't try to prove the other wrong, it just ends up offending people.

The title of this thread is Creation vs Evolution, if you get offended by people trying to prove you wrong, then I think you clicked the wrong button (not implying you, just anyone who might be offended, should know what they are going into when entering the thread).

Creation vs Evolution is a very interesting topic, one that'll live for ever, becuase you can never prove or disprove Faith, because faith is, well, it's faith (if that makes sense).

 

[FoolKiller]

Just a few things:

1.) If the Christian God is the real God does that make every other religion wrong? Don't they think the same thing of the Christian religion?

What other religions? Like Jews and Muslims? Crazy thing: They believe in the same God, just disagree on the prophets. Muslims branch of from Jews when Abraham's concubine went off to have his child separate from his wife and so they became part of a non-Israel civilization which eventually had Muhammad. At least that is what my Islamic Civilization courses in college tell me. And Christians branch off from Jews with Jesus.

2.) There are 1000's of creation myths, how can you be sure the Christian one is correct and the other ones are incorrect?

Well, I can easily go with the bodily excrements of God if you want, but that doesn't mesh nearly as well as the Judeo-Christian story of a God creating a physical realm to bring about intelligent life.

Plus, if you consider that the writing of Genesis is approximately 4,000 years old and actually makes a decent attempt to tell the most plausible scientific explanation you can see how someone who barely understands how to make fire, much less physics, could write the story down in the way it is told.

Also one thing I've always wondered is how creationist deal with Australopithecus (Lucy), Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthal, etc.? I mean we have evidence they existed at one time.

Not all creationists deny that evolution could have happened. In fact, I think it is very likely that it did. Likely enough that I accept it as fact.

And we have no historical evidence for an Adam or an Eve... and the Bible never tells us where Cain got his wife (ripped out his own rib, perhaps?).

Actually, it does, but you really have to look hard. I have a feeling I will even upset some Christians with this, but here goes:

13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." 15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

The Bible itself makes reference to other people outside of Adam and Eve's family. This is why I have no issue accepting evolution as a result of creation. If you look at Genesis in this way and look at what things can be a metaphor you can see it. I see it as Adam and Eve being the first self-aware creatures.

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness suddenly. They became self-aware. They suddenly knew wrong and right, had a sense of morality, the first sense of inalienable human rights began.

Adam and Eve were probably Ug and Thug, especially considering that Adam (A Dam) and Eve translates to mean The Man and The Woman, which is how they are referred to in Genesis until they eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge and become aware. Then and only then does the author actually give them names, something that only a self-aware creature, capable of language, needs.

My point is: just because some parts of the Bible are possibly true, does not mean every single word is.

But the Churches don't want to admit that... and much blood has been spilled in arguments over the finer points.

Technically, It is the people that are hanging on to this old way of thinking. That isn't to say that some churches haven't been formed around the idea of 6,000 years old planet literal belief, but anyone who actually studies finds that just isn't true. The Catholic church has tried to get away from this literal way of thinking since Vatican 2, but as they have very little focus on personal Bible study most of them did not notice. Currently my wife and I are in a Bible study at her church (she's Catholic) and she and I are the only ones not constantly going, "WHAT!?!?!"

 

[Joey D]

What other religions? Like Jews and Muslims? Crazy thing: They believe in the same God, just disagree on the prophets. Muslims branch of from Jews when Abraham's concubine went off to have his child separate from his wife and so they became part of a non-Israel civilization which eventually had Muhammad. At least that is what my Islamic Civilization courses in college tell me. And Christians branch off from Jews with Jesus.

Hindu, Buddhism, tribal religions, Greek and Roman paganism, etc. Christianity is not the only religion in the world as you know. All I want to know is what makes Christian, or anyone, sure that their religion is the correct one.

Plus, if you consider that the writing of Genesis is approximately 4,000 years old and actually makes a decent attempt to tell the most plausible scientific explanation you can see how someone who barely understands how to make fire, much less physics, could write the story down in the way it is told.

What about civilizations older then that that believe in Mother Earth and everything came from her? Worship of the Mother Goddess is far older then the worship of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God.

Not all creationists deny that evolution could have happened. In fact, I think it is very likely that it did. Likely enough that I accept it as fact.

That's not creation though, that is "intelligent design" which makes more sense then a mythical being snapping their fingers and life appears.

Look I fully respect your right to believe however you wish but one thing that really turns me off from religion is that they all think they are right with little or no proof. I know this is were faith and whatnot comes in.

There are older religions then Judeo-Christian, I'm not really up from going through 700 page text books to give you the exact societies though. If you believe that the Judeo-Christian religion is the world's first and only true religion then I have no problem with that, that's your opinion and I can respect that.

 

[Touring Mars]

Another interesting post, FK 👍

Not all creationists deny that evolution could have happened. In fact, I think it is very likely that it did. Likely enough that I accept it as fact.

This is why I think the term "creationist" is misleading and should be used with a great deal of caution, because in my book Creationism is more than just a subscription to a religious aspect when it comes to absolute origins, but is the complete rejection of evolution. However, I may be wrong, and indeed many people who call themselves creationists do not reject evolution totally. I'd like to think that I am not anti-creationist if that was the definition of creationist - but I am totally anti-"anti-Evolutionist", which plenty of 'real' creationists are. For that reason, I don't think anybody who accepts evolution should refer to themselves as Creationist, because real Creationism is about alot more than one's religious faith. It is totally understandable to be of a strongly religious persuasion and accept evolution as fact. I've never fully understood the rationale behind why one's religious faith should impel one to also be anti-evolutionist...

 

[Danoff]

Interesting post FK. You've got some unique takes on the bible, but it seems like you're grasping at straws here - trying to force your religious convictions to fit with your understanding of science.

What other religions? Like Jews and Muslims? Crazy thing: They believe in the same God, just disagree on the prophets. Muslims branch of from Jews when Abraham's concubine went off to have his child separate from his wife and so they became part of a non-Israel civilization which eventually had Muhammad. At least that is what my Islamic Civilization courses in college tell me. And Christians branch off from Jews with Jesus.

Joey D has the right response to this - which is that there are many many other religions that have a completely different take on God. MOST religions don't even come close to the Christian notion of God.

Plus, if you consider that the writing of Genesis is approximately 4,000 years old and actually makes a decent attempt to tell the most plausible scientific explanation you can see how someone who barely understands how to make fire, much less physics, could write the story down in the way it is told.

It's almost like you haven't read Genesis. It wasn't long before Genesis was written that maps of the world actually had a point marked on them that indicated if you traveled further south you'd melt because you'd be too close to the sun. That's the level of knowledge we're talking about here. And when you read Genesis, it really sounds like it. Everything created is out of order for about a bazillion chemical and physics-related reasons.

The Bible itself makes reference to other people outside of Adam and Eve's family. This is why I have no issue accepting evolution as a result of creation. If you look at Genesis in this way and look at what things can be a metaphor you can see it. I see it as Adam and Eve being the first self-aware creatures.


Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness suddenly. They became self-aware. They suddenly knew wrong and right, had a sense of morality, the first sense of inalienable human rights began.

Adam and Eve were probably Ug and Thug, especially considering that Adam (A Dam) and Eve translates to mean The Man and The Woman, which is how they are referred to in Genesis until they eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge and become aware. Then and only then does the author actually give them names, something that only a self-aware creature, capable of language, needs.

Grasping at straws. I commend your attempts to rectify the inconsistencies in the bible with current scientific understanding. You've really done a much better job than I'm used to hearing - but it's like you're trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle with the wrong pieces. Everything fits so much better if you toss out creation altogether.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm taking these out of order to sort by relevance.

Hindu, Buddhism, tribal religions, Greek and Roman paganism, etc. Christianity is not the only religion in the world as you know. All I want to know is what makes Christian, or anyone, sure that their religion is the correct one.

What about civilizations older then that that believe in Mother Earth and everything came from her? Worship of the Mother Goddess is far older then the worship of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God.

Perhaps they are correct and I am practicing my religion in futility, but my personal beliefs and understanding of the world around me makes the Judeo-Christian system seem real to me. It is of course hard to explain why they do to people who haven't lived my life, especially while sitting at my work desk.

Interesting post FK. You've got some unique takes on the bible, but it seems like you're grasping at straws here - trying to force your religious convictions to fit with your understanding of science.

Joey D has the right response to this - which is that there are many many other religions that have a completely different take on God. MOST religions don't even come close to the Christian notion of God.

Funny, I always thought that grasping at straws was taking the Bible literally and then refusing to accept anything related to science. I am not so blind that I can't look at science and then take the Bible contextually and realize why something that doesn't make sense to tribal slaves with no concept of science would come out as a seven day blip.

That's not creation though, that is "intelligent design" which makes more sense then a mythical being snapping their fingers and life appears.

I completely agree that there is a difference and I do not subscribe to the idea of God making things happen with a snap of the fingers and the Earth only being 6,000 years old.

Look I fully respect your right to believe however you wish but one thing that really turns me off from religion is that they all think they are right with little or no proof. I know this is were faith and whatnot comes in.

There are older religions then Judeo-Christian, I'm not really up from going through 700 page text books to give you the exact societies though. If you believe that the Judeo-Christian religion is the world's first and only true religion then I have no problem with that, that's your opinion and I can respect that.

No need, I was required to take the pre-western civilization course in college. Many of these other religions had spirituality based beliefs and thought of the sun and moon as gods and whatnot. Things that I can see with my own eyes are not true. Just as I can see that humans and the Earth have an obvious historical, scientific progression to this point. But nothing in my belief is thrown out by science.

And while it is convenient that I and other monotheistic religions believe in a non-physical entity, which cannot be explained or explained away by our physically bound science, it is something that makes sense to me as a driving force behind a universe that sprang from nothing.

It's almost like you haven't read Genesis. It wasn't long before Genesis was written that maps of the world actually had a point marked on them that indicated if you traveled further south you'd melt because you'd be too close to the sun. That's the level of knowledge we're talking about here. And when you read Genesis, it really sounds like it. Everything created is out of order for about a bazillion chemical and physics-related reasons.

And in the time that Genesis was written they believed that the universe was created of water and the sky was a giant dome holding it back with gates to allow in rain. In fact, some over the top literalists still believe that. Of course things are out of order from a chemical and physical perspective, but the author of Genesis didn't know what a chemical was so it didn't include any of that. They didn't know any of the stuff that could have made much more sense so how can you expect them to explain it? If science is wrong because there is incomplete data then we simply write it off as learning as you go because that is how science works.

Grasping at straws. I commend your attempts to rectify the inconsistencies in the bible with current scientific understanding. You've really done a much better job than I'm used to hearing - but it's like you're trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle with the wrong pieces. Everything fits so much better if you toss out creation altogether.

Everything fits except for how something came from nothing. Basically it seems that for our universe to exist, based on current scientific understanding, it had to break its own physical laws.

Another interesting post, FK 👍


This is why I think the term "creationist" is misleading and should be used with a great deal of caution, because in my book Creationism is more than just a subscription to a religious aspect when it comes to absolute origins, but is the complete rejection of evolution. However, I may be wrong, and indeed many people who call themselves creationists do not reject evolution totally. I'd like to think that I am not anti-creationist if that was the definition of creationist - but I am totally anti-"anti-Evolutionist", which plenty of 'real' creationists are. For that reason, I don't think anybody who accepts evolution should refer to themselves as Creationist, because real Creationism is about alot more than one's religious faith. It is totally understandable to be of a strongly religious persuasion and accept evolution as fact. I've never fully understood the rationale behind why one's religious faith should impel one to also be anti-evolutionist...

Mainly because they are uninformed or have been misled to believe that if you believe in evolution you are going straight to Hell. There is nothing that challenges Christianity itself in believing in science but some people are so stubborn that they even believe pictures of Earth from space have been faked (I have met them). I personally have a curiosity to know the whys, hows and whats so I research my faith and I try to learn as much science as my mind can take. Looking at things contextually I find I have no problems understanding science and having my faith.

But it works both ways. Just as some religious people refuse to believe science some scientists refuse to even admit it is possible there exists something bigger beyond our own physical universe that would not even apply to science as we know it.


The best I can do is to keep researching and looking into things to try to understand them better. One day I may find something that solidifies my religious beliefs or find something that makes me realize I have been wrong this whole time. Until then I just try to keep a fairly open mind and not impose my beliefs on others.

 

[Sureboss]

But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

I can't understand that, isn't it impossible to hide from God?

but I am totally anti-"anti-Evolutionist"

Chris, you've confused me with that double negative, in simplemans terms....

Do you believe in Evolution or not?

 

[Stevisiov]

Its, really simple, he is against people who are 'anti-evolutionist' bit of a double negative but then again so is antidisestablishmentarianism, and the english language excepts that one. funnily enough the definition links directly to the church; opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established church, esp. the Anglican Church in 19th-century England.

but I know you where joking anyway...

 

[Azuremen]

TM and Sureshot, I am not offended by anything in here What I was saying is that most people tend to get very personal when it comes to trying to prove their beliefs wrong, even under the guise of educating them. I think everyone knows how that goes, well, anyone that isn't an engineer or such.

On the macroevolution bit, we have not directly observed it. And we don't have a complete fossil for every change. Its not hard to develop a good theory based on microevolution and current fossils, I'm just pointing out that macroevolution is still just a theory. Thats all.

You could in fact say both sides, Creation and Evolution are theories. Just far too many people argue them as fact. No one in here is right or wrong We are just trying to educate and understand each other. And I just like to point that out sometimes, as some people in here get a bit carried away.

And FK, some neat views and points. Sounds a bit like me, and those that keep an open mind.

 

[Joey D]

Perhaps they are correct and I am practicing my religion in futility, but my personal beliefs and understanding of the world around me makes the Judeo-Christian system seem real to me. It is of course hard to explain why they do to people who haven't lived my life, especially while sitting at my work desk.

And this is what it comes down to. While I think organized religion is more or less all confused and just plain wrong there must be something that entices people because there are many people in the world that hold some religious beliefs. While I might not believe in any one religion I will fight for you to have the right to practice it.

No need, I was required to take the pre-western civilization course in college. Many of these other religions had spirituality based beliefs and thought of the sun and moon as gods and whatnot. Things that I can see with my own eyes are not true. Just as I can see that humans and the Earth have an obvious historical, scientific progression to this point. But nothing in my belief is thrown out by science.

Well I'm majoring in Anthropology (no that doesn't make me anywhere near an expert on the subject) so I do take quite a few Pre-historic civ classes, which are all fascinating. Currently I'm in a class about the anthropology of religion, which is pretty deep if I must say so my self, it's really swaying my Agnostic beliefs towards Atheism.

One thing I've always said was religion was "invented" to explain things and that's a widely accepted theory by many predominate Anthropologist and Sociologist. Is that right? I believe so but like I said many do not.

As I've said I'm pretty Agnostic with an Atheist leaning, it's kind of what Anthropology does to one's thinking. But I see nothing wrong with being religious.

 

[Grand Prix]

I agree that it is a bit stupid arguing about this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. There are going to be discussions like this with every single science discovery for centuries to come. It's discussions like this that make common people able to understand science topics, even if it did result in witch burnings and inquisitions in the past. I wonder what sort of arguments took place among peasants, when Columbus set out to prove that the World DIDN'T end at a waterfall? Or what what kind of bickering was going on when Newton, or Copernicus, or Gallieo proposed their ideas? Some were probably saying something like: "Of course the world isn't flat! There is indisputable evidence supporting that the Earth is round." Naysayers were probably saying: "Okay, so Columbus reached a piece of land that may or may not have been India. That doesn't mean the Earth is round."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

The point is, even if Evolution isn't proved to be the origin of life on Earth, we can observe it happening in single celled organisms, and perhaps insects if we study them long enough. The fact that Darwin's observations have sparked such a debate must indicate that we're onto something here. Whether hardcore Creationists want to agree that evolution occurs, now or in 100 years, is up to them. Like every new discovery, it may take a while to get used to the knowledge. There are still some people who have difficulty grasping relativity, they still think in terms of Newtonian mechanics.

Frankly, if I was taught all my life that animals are ranked by class and cannot mutate or change form, I wouldn't have agreed with evolution either, at first. I don't blame the creationists at all. In fact, some of them have been even more open-minded than I anticipated.

 

[ERacer]

Creation is an attempt by man to explain nature.

Evolution is an attempt by nature to explain man.

There exists a large gap between our advances in theology when compared to our advances in science.

Just want to add that this has been one of the most interesting discussions on this forum.

ok....... i'm done

 

[Small_Fryz]

I think ive read all 51xx posts and have been following post by post this thread for at least the past 2 - 3 yrs.

I must say i have learnt more in this thread about evolution and religion than any school lesson. Im not able to put into words what ive learnt and im not the best at explaining my views to others as i find it hard to remember every point as to why i feel as i do. But basicailly this thread covers just about every point as to my beliefs.

I came into this thread as a blind person "following" a religion i was told about by religion class at school and a few years at a "youth" camp that i attended during holidays.

Ive given out so much rep to danoff, TM and Famine in this thread it isnt funny. Maybe its a little scary but im very grateful to have been able to read such well worded posts and read so many peoples opinions and ideas on the matter.

So many people say that its impossible to "convert" people across but i really find it hard to read Famines / Danoffs / TM (to name a few) posts and blatantly refuse or ignore the valid points they bring up. This then led me to accpet what i was thinking was incorrect and thus change.

I still think its entirely possible that their could be a "lifeforce" beyond us that may or may not indirectly "meddle" with our life, much like how we indirectly mess with so many wild animals habitats / life without them even knowing we exist. I still like to think their is more to life than the 80 odd years we spend here, but then who doesnt? At the end of the day on creation vs evolution im definetly part of the evolution side at least until an option with more fact and evidence is presented.

 

[Touring Mars]

On the macroevolution bit, we have not directly observed it. And we don't have a complete fossil for every change. Its not hard to develop a good theory based on microevolution and current fossils, I'm just pointing out that macroevolution is still just a theory. Thats all.

You could in fact say both sides, Creation and Evolution are theories. Just far too many people argue them as fact. No one in here is right or wrong .

That's not entirely true. Saying that macroevolution is 'still just a theory' is wrong. Implying that macroevolution has not been observed is also wrong, but depending on what you mean by 'directly observed', you may be literally correct (for what it's worth).

Before one can say that macroevolution hasn't been observed (directly or otherwise), we should define exactly what macroevolution means. It's generally taken to mean the generation of entirely new, separate species. 'Microevolution', on the other hand, might mean an adaptation within an existing species, like longer beaks on birds, or tougher skin on reptiles...

But maybe more importantly, we also need to define exactly what we mean by 'directly observed' in this context, and the value of something being directly observed/observable... If when you say that macroevolution has never been directly observed you mean that a completely new species has never been witnessed by the human eye appearing from an existing species, then you are almost certainly correct, but given the very nature of evolution, it's hardly surprising either. Speciation occurs incrementally and over vast periods of time, therefore you'd be hard pushed to say that you'd seen this happen, even if you were to spend your entire life watching the same bunch of creatures in the wild. The problem arises when you start talking about things which are (at the most literal level) not 'directly observable' in this way. There are also events such as molecular vibrations, electron transfer reactions etc. that happen so fast that we cannot 'directly observe' them either, but we know they happen because we can measure them indirectly (i.e. by witnessing the results or their interactions with their surroundings etc.). For this reason, there is no real difference qualitatively between 'indirect' and 'direct' observation - i.e. one is as good as the other. In both cases - events that are too fast or too slow to be perceived by the human brain - we have no choice but to rely upon the chain of evidence which demonstrates that they have happened.

Given these basic definitions, you may forgive me for saying that it is slightly disingenuous to say that macroevolution 'has never been directly observed', since the timescales we are talking about make 'direct observation' impossible. But you'd be completely wrong to say that if macroevolution cannot be directly observed, then it cannot happen. The genetic relationships observed across all three kingdoms of life would beg to differ... with that said, I'd love to see an explanation for the sequence similarity seen in the protein cytochrome c (shown below) across many species that doesn't involve the common descent model of speciation (i.e. macroevolution)...

Click to enlarge (and click again once opened)​

Ive given out so much rep to danoff, TM and Famine in this thread it isnt funny. Maybe its a little scary but im very grateful to have been able to read such well worded posts and read so many peoples opinions and ideas on the matter.

I have to hold my hands up and say that my opinion hasn't been swayed one bit in this thread, and hence I'm probably one of the main culprits of not being 'open-minded' . But that said, I am careful to avoid expressing 'opinions' in support of evolution, since I strongly feel that opinions count for very little in the face of hard facts. I've always felt that facts can change opinions, but opinions themselves can only serve to embolden opinions, not change them. Hence why I try not to challenge 'opinions', but will always challenge misleading or incorrect statements that are being touted as facts.

 

[Sureboss]

TM and Sureshot, I am not offended by anything in here What I was saying is that most people tend to get very personal when it comes to trying to prove their beliefs wrong, even under the guise of educating them. I think everyone knows how that goes, well, anyone that isn't an engineer or such.

I'm getting personal am I?

As Small_Fryz said, this thread has taught me many things, being able to meet the likes of Famine and Touring Mars (goes around planets or eats chocolate in quick cars?) you learn a lot too. Infact all over the board we learn loads from here, like Scaff in the F1 (and other stuff), this community has some clever people. We've just done some Physics in Science (GCSE level), always enjoyed Physics.

 

[FoolKiller]

I can't understand that, isn't it impossible to hide from God?

Obviously, as God's immediate reaction to the fruit being eaten was to show up. It is a symbolic gesture pointing out Adam's shame even in front of God. It's like when your parent walks in on you as a child while doing something you shouldn't and she says, "What are you doing?" She can see what you're doing, the question is rhetorical, but at the same time it causes you to realize you are caught and in trouble. Man suddenly tries to hide from God, who gave man everything, and instead of God saying, "I see you," he makes man realize his own shame and futility and present his disobedience.

Think of it as the first instance of guilt, a very important aspect of learning right and wrong. God makes man face his guilt on his own instead of thrusting it upon him.

And this is what it comes down to. While I think organized religion is more or less all confused and just plain wrong there must be something that entices people because there are many people in the world that hold some religious beliefs.

I have many issues with organized religion as well. Too much political wrangling happens within the individual churches and organizations. I have many issues with the Vatican structure and I grew up Southern Baptist and saw too much Catholic-like dealings when the convention met to vote on what the official stance Souther Baptists took on issues. Since when was how my faith made me feel about issues subject to a vote or, in the case of Catholicism, one man's thoughts? This disgust with the hierarchy of organized denominations and churches is why since I got married I haven't really claimed anywhere as my "home church." I just tag along with my wife and then find my own way through study and discussion.

While I might not believe in any one religion I will fight for you to have the right to practice it.

Just as I will oppose any laws forcing religious motives upon people. I believe my stances in many debates on this site show this.

One thing I've always said was religion was "invented" to explain things and that's a widely accepted theory by many predominate Anthropologist and Sociologist. Is that right? I believe so but like I said many do not.

Putting invented in quotes is a good thing as it isn't quite right as no one person ever just made up stuff to trick everyone around them, rather they began to form their beliefs over time.

I think the more open-minded Christians though have no need to use religion to explain what science can't (and sometimes does) because only holier-than-thou types would think someone is going to Hell for believing in evolution. There has never been anything within Christianity to say that you have to believe a certain way when it comes to creation. Living a good life and accepting Christ are all it ever required, and even then it allows for mistakes. Yet, some people begin to push their own ideas into their beliefs and then TM gets called a Nazi for believing in evolution. This mindset truly scares me as it echoes inquisitions and crusades, both very unchristian acts done in the name of Christianity.

As I've said I'm pretty Agnostic with an Atheist leaning, it's kind of what Anthropology does to one's thinking. But I see nothing wrong with being religious.

And I have no problem with Agnostic/Atheists. In fact, I'd like to think I get along fairly well with quite a few of them on here. I figure if you are a good person, whether you are religious or not, you do not affect me. The true test of differences will come when we die and either you will have to answer for your lack of faith (and I don't pretend to know what judgments, if any, may come of it) or I will realize......nothing, because I will just be dead.

 

[Swift]

As I've said I'm pretty Agnostic with an Atheist leaning, it's kind of what Anthropology does to one's thinking. But I see nothing wrong with being religious.

I've been pretty much sitting this last surge out just because there are others that are doing an excellent job.

But this statement I do have a problem with. Joey, which is it? Do you believe in God or not. I'm not talking about Jesus I'm just talking about a higher power. How can you be an agnostic(There might be a god) with a leaning towards atheist(There is no God). I respect anyone's view if they don't believe there is a god. But at the same time, this is not something that any of us can be in the middle of the road on. It's like science. It either works or it doesn't. So, Joey D, how would you define your stance?

 

[Joey D]

I've been pretty much sitting this last surge out just because there are others that are doing an excellent job.

But this statement I do have a problem with. Joey, which is it? Do you believe in God or not. I'm not talking about Jesus I'm just talking about a higher power. How can you be an agnostic(There might be a god) with a leaning towards atheist(There is no God). I respect anyone's view if they don't believe there is a god. But at the same time, this is not something that any of us can be in the middle of the road on. It's like science. It either works or it doesn't. So, Joey D, how would you define your stance?

I don't know if there is a higher power but I tend to think there isn't one. However, I do not shun the idea completely. There are two types of agnostics, one's who don't know and say there probably is a higher power and some that say they don't know but there probably isn't a higher power.

My stance? I'm agnostic but there is more doubt in my mind of a higher power than the acceptance of one. I'm not a flat out atheist and I wouldn't label myself as one...although plenty of crazy evangelicals will tell me I'll burn for what I am.

I think you can be very middle of the road when it comes to religion because we are dealing with a realm with little or no scientific proof.

 

[ERacer]

But what is religion without a firm belief, or faith?

 

[Sureboss]

I don't think anyone can be Atheistic can they? You can't prove he doesn't exist, can you?

FK - I completely forgot about rhetorical questions.

 

[Joey D]

Some would argue you can be purely Atheistic while other argue you can only be Agnostic with Atheist leanings. It's a debated topic.

 

[Swift]

I don't know if there is a higher power but I tend to think there isn't one. However, I do not shun the idea completely. There are two types of agnostics, one's who don't know and say there probably is a higher power and some that say they don't know but there probably isn't a higher power.

My stance? I'm agnostic but there is more doubt in my mind of a higher power than the acceptance of one. I'm not a flat out atheist and I wouldn't label myself as one...although plenty of crazy evangelicals will tell me I'll burn for what I am.

I think you can be very middle of the road when it comes to religion because we are dealing with a realm with little or no scientific proof.

No, you can't. I'll accept that you're not a 100% atheist as if you have "proof" of God you would accept it.

Eracer made a good point. Faith isn't based on science. Unless you believe humans are the main culprit in global warming.

Anyway, to be an atheist you HAVE to be an agnostic because if presented with scientific evidence you'd have to accept it. But that's not really what you said.

So again, which is it Joey?

 

[Stevisiov]

I've been pretty much sitting this last surge out just because there are others that are doing an excellent job.

But this statement I do have a problem with. Joey, which is it? Do you believe in God or not. I'm not talking about Jesus I'm just talking about a higher power. How can you be an agnostic(There might be a god) with a leaning towards atheist(There is no God). I respect anyone's view if they don't believe there is a god. But at the same time, this is not something that any of us can be in the middle of the road on. It's like science. It either works or it doesn't. So, Joey D, how would you define your stance?

I not so sure swift, some people can not simply decide. I cannot say I am 100% atheist since I do not know all the facts, I don't know enough about the world, science, religion etc. for me to say for definete that there is , or is not God, I simply cannot. But I can say that is my instinct or belief if you like, that there is no god. So for me I guess you could say I am 99% atheist, does that make me agnostic.

The reason I say 99%, is because as of now, that is what I belive, but beleifs change, ways of thinking change, I am only 17, therefore I (providing I don't die soon) have plenty more things to experience in my life. People talk of life changing experience, what if I where to have a life changing experience that changed my view, that would make my 100% certainty fairly incorrect. So in that respect I can only say 99% since there may just be an event which changes my perspective. I would still refere myself to being atheist rather than agnostic, because as I do beleive that there is no god.

Now back to the point of one or the other. In the example of myself I showed that cannot be 100% because I don't know all the facts, so in the case of an Agnostic person, perhaps they cannot decide if there is or isn't a god, perhaps they don't know enough to make an informed or even gut decision, perhaps they have had conflicting experiences, and are not sure which one they believe to be the most relavent. So i think you can be in the middle ground. I don't believe its as black and white as there is/isn't a god in terms of what people believe. In terms of; is there or isn't there a god however, it is either yes or no.

 

[Danoff]

People talk of life changing experience...

Those are almost always based on unlikely temporally associated events. The human brain is simply not wired to handle coincidence or luck. We're wired to see cause and effect, because cause and effect generally keeps us alive.

Ironic that those people are actually bolstering the claims of atheists by displaying a fundamentally instinctual trait born from evolution.

 

[Touring Mars]

I've always been of the notion that there is no evidence that proves or disproves God's existence, therefore a belief in no God (atheism) is as equally valid as someone who has a staunch belief that there is one. In terms of evolution, however, it doesn't take much study to realise that evolution simply does not require there to be a God for it to work. That's not to say that accepting evolution as fact makes you an atheist. The diagram in my last post should demonstrate fairly clearly that humankind is related to everything else on a biomolecular level - to a greater (top) to a lesser (bottom) extent. For me, one's personal religious beliefs do not have any bearing over this simple and powerful fact of the natural world.

 

[Stevisiov]

The reason I said this Danoff, is because I have not experienced one so I don't feel qualified to comment, for that reason I could not discount, the possability.

I do believe in evolution, certain aspects do not add up for me, but I am aware that is because I do not fully understand every aspect if evolution rather than it being wrong. Many things in highschool physics/chemistry simply didn't add up, because they are simplified aren't really the case. As I go through college, more things start to make sense and add up. It is likely that if I where to do a degree in that area my understanding would improve further.

As for this topic I would like to learn and develop my understanding, a few things still go over my head but I am getting there 👍

 

[Swift]

I not so sure swift, some people can not simply decide. I cannot say I am 100% atheist since I do not know all the facts, I don't know enough about the world, science, religion etc. for me to say for definete that there is , or is not God, I simply cannot. But I can say that is my instinct or belief if you like, that there is no god. So for me I guess you could say I am 99% atheist, does that make me agnostic.

The reason I say 99%, is because as of now, that is what I belive, but beleifs change, ways of thinking change, I am only 17, therefore I (providing I don't die soon) have plenty more things to experience in my life. People talk of life changing experience, what if I where to have a life changing experience that changed my view, that would make my 100% certainty fairly incorrect. So in that respect I can only say 99% since there may just be an event which changes my perspective. I would still refere myself to being atheist rather than agnostic, because as I do beleive that there is no god.

Now back to the point of one or the other. In the example of myself I showed that cannot be 100% because I don't know all the facts, so in the case of an Agnostic person, perhaps they cannot decide if there is or isn't a god, perhaps they don't know enough to make an informed or even gut decision, perhaps they have had conflicting experiences, and are not sure which one they believe to be the most relavent. So i think you can be in the middle ground. I don't believe its as black and white as there is/isn't a god in terms of what people believe. In terms of; is there or isn't there a god however, it is either yes or no.

Thanks for making my point.

What kind of conflicting experiences are you talking about though?

 

[Joey D]

No, you can't. I'll accept that you're not a 100% atheist as if you have "proof" of God you would accept it.

Eracer made a good point. Faith isn't based on science. Unless you believe humans are the main culprit in global warming.

Anyway, to be an atheist you HAVE to be an agnostic because if presented with scientific evidence you'd have to accept it. But that's not really what you said.

So again, which is it Joey?

I stand by what I said, either accept it or do not, but it's how I view spirituality.