Creation vs. Evolution

[Year.Zero]

What's not scientific about the dating methods used to determine the age of the Earth? And who said electricity was "the main advance" in science? I'd think maybe "fire" or "the wheel" would have something to say about that.

Nevermind the fact that electricity has been around since—forever?—one of the building blocks of Life.

 

[Famine]

There were five thousand, three hundred and five posts in this thread prior to that last gem. I suspect your post will go just as unread as all of the preceding ones.

 

[Danoff]

There were five thousand, three hundred and five posts in this thread prior to that last gem. I suspect your post will go just as unread as all of the preceding ones.

No doubt. One can only hope that Reckless wasn't drive-by posting.

 

[Touring Mars]

Sounds like you don't know much about the first book of the bible. it says exactly why. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but it quite clearly explains it.

It does? Where? This is what Genesis has to say about the origins of humankind...

(Genesis 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

(Genesis 2:21) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

(Genesis 2:22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

(Genesis 2:23)And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

I just tried posting that on it's own, and got this:-

The message you have entered is too short

I couldn't have said it better myself...

Correct me (and VBulletin) if I'm wrong, but that really is all the Bible has to say about how mankind came to be. Pardon me, but if that is your definition of 'clearly explains', I'd hate to see what you think vague is.

 

[Alfaholic]

No doubt. One can only hope that Reckless wasn't drive-by posting.

Incorrect. The poster was RecklesAbandon2. That's reckles (which I assume is the plural for reckle), not Reckless.

I don't know what a reckle is but this person clearly abandons them - leading me to speculate that a reckle is a unit of reason.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

What's not scientific about the dating methods used to determine the age of the Earth? And who said electricity was "the main advance" in science? I'd think maybe "fire" or "the wheel" would have something to say about that.

"the main advance" You realize your "" means your quoting me? you can't quote what I said, even with it in print above you. Very clever.

Ok this makes no sense. You're taking the ratio of the amount of the last 150 years (for some reason) to the age of the earth and calling that the odds of getting the age of the Earth right? What does that 150 years have to do with anything? Now I want to hit you with a ratio.

Again, Where in my post does it say that is the margin of error?

Incorrect. The poster was RecklesAbandon2. That's reckles (which I assume is the plural for reckle), not Reckless.

I don't know what a reckle is but this person clearly abandons them - leading me to speculate that a reckle is a unit of reason.

Oh I'm sorry. Allow me to explain. Gtplanet only allows a certain amount of letters/numbers for a screen name, less than typical e-mail's and other sites, so sometimes, crazy people use abbreviations, like I did, and I am truely sorry I had to explain that to anybody that was in the process of an attempted insult.

 

[Famine]

"the main advance" You realize your "" means your quoting me? you can't quote what I said, even with it in print above you. Very clever.

Again, Where in my post does it say that is the margin of error?

Incorrect. The poster was RecklesAbandon2. That's reckles (which I assume is the plural for reckle), not Reckless.

Oh I'm sorry. Allow me to explain. Gtplanet only allows a certain amount of letters/numbers for a screen name, less than typical e-mail's and other sites, so sometimes, crazy people use abbreviations, like I did, and I am truely sorry I had to explain that to anybody that was in the process of an attempted insult.

Oh boy. Danoff's going to have fun with you. If you actually respond to any of his points of course. Or Touring Mars's.

So can you enlighten us as to the point of saying that electricity has only been around for 150 years compared to the lifetime of the planet of 4.5 billion? I'm intrigued.


With regard to your username, I note you have a "2" at the end of your name which could easily be substituted for an "s" in the correct place, allowing you to spell the name correctly and have the same number of characters in your name. There is no current existing member with the name "RecklessAbandon"

 

[Touring Mars]

With regard to your username, I note you have a "2" at the end of your name which could easily be substituted for an "s" in the correct place, allowing you to spell the name correctly and have the same number of characters in your name. There is no current existing member with the name "RecklessAbandon"

This sounds like a job for... Premium Boy!

 

[Alfaholic]

Oh I'm sorry. Allow me to explain. Gtplanet only allows a certain amount of letters/numbers for a screen name, less than typical e-mail's and other sites, so sometimes, crazy people use abbreviations, like I did, and I am truely sorry I had to explain that to anybody that was in the process of an attempted insult.

That's "truly", not "truely", "mails", not "mail's". You spell like that and expect me to believe that the typo in your username is intentional....

Anyway, if you are so sorry about having to explain it, why did you bother? I certainly didn't force you to explain it and don't know why you felt you had to, and besides, I'm perfectly happy to make fun your misspelled username regardless of what caused it.

Did you not think of simply calling yourself something different when your original name wouldn't fit? You could, for example, have instead used "ReasonAbandon2", which would have a) given us a better clue what to expect from you, and b) given you an extra character to play with.

 

[Pako]

And what does this "username" discussion have to do with this current thread?

 

[Stevisiov]

Sounds like you don't know much about the first book of the bible. itsays exactly why. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but it quite clearly explains it.
You have trouble believing there could be a God that always existed, without being created, I have trouble believing scientists that continually correct themselves and change their standpoint. (see, brontosaurous, sun revolving around earth, earth being center of universe, flat earth, etc, etc, etc, etc.)
Electricity, being the main component in the advance of science, has been around, oh say, 150 years? And in those years, scientists have "proven" (not scientifically of course), that the earth is approx 4.5 billion years old.
Fun fact of the day: in 4.5 billion years, 150 years is 1 out of 3,000,000. Yes, 3 million.
No margin for error there.

I don't really understand quite what your getting at here. Are you saying that over 4.5 billion years it is conicidental that "electricity has been around" we just happen to be around at this time too? A 1 in 3 000 000 chance. Crazy odds I know, god knows why people play the lottery. There are more insane odds out there to pick if you want that line of thought.

Just to clarify a few things though. Electricity isn't an invention, it is not something we manufactured and has been around for over 150 years, electricity is just a form of energy just as heat, gravitational potential etc. Even if we take the earth to be 6000 years old, did lightning not exist at the time of the Romans? What we now have the ability to do is harness electrical energy and over the last century we have become increasingly efficient at it, that has nothing to do the ratio you speak of.

About the mention of scientists changing their thoeries, would you be more convinced if they were to stick to their guns regardless? The ancient egyptians believed that a giant dungbeetle rolled the sun across the sky, if we stuck to that theory without any thought then that is how we would believe the process today, yet thoeries changed, we realised that didn't make any sense at all. We looked at the sun in more detail and formed a new idea. The thing is nowadays we have the technology to check if our theories are correct. If a previously accepted theory gets new evidence that is contrary to it, the old theory is reviewed. The theory will be updated to account for the new evidence, this doesn't make the previous one wrong, rather it shows that what was known previously wasn't the complete picture. Evolution is a great example of this, as more gets discovered the more we look at what this may mean. Its not the theory of evolution that changes with each new discovery, but occasional tweaks are made if new evidence conflicts with our original ideas. Our theory of how evolution works is not finished but with each new discovery we get closer and closer to the truth.

 

[Joey D]

As I've always said, if you are a firm believer in Christianity and God why can't you just say God is the reason behind evolution and the story in the Bible was just people explain it in simpler terms in ancient times? I have a professor who is devoutly Mormon and he will tell you all day long that humans evolved from "ape-like" creatures but it was all done through God.

 

[Sage]

I’m not religious (hahaha), but I would assume because if one accepts that, then one must completely reject Genesis, and obviously quite a bit of the Bible is based on what happens in Genesis.

 

[Joey D]

You don't have to reject Genesis, the seven days are probably not 24 hour periods (isn't that a Roman invention?) so seven days in the Bible could refer to billions of years. I don't know I think it's rather silly to reject science and say some old book of fables is right, but what do I know?

 

[Danoff]

You don't have to reject Genesis, the seven days are probably not 24 hour periods (isn't that a Roman invention?)

No, Romans didn't invent the concept of the day. To properly parse that phrase you'd have to go back to the original Hebrew and determine what the term meant in Hebrew at the time of its writing - something that theoretically has already been done by the translator. The translator decided that the English term "day" as it was understood at the time of the translation, was the most appropriate. That leads me to believe that the original Hebrew was in fact referring to the amount of time that transpired in one complete sun cycle.

 

[Sage]

You don't have to reject Genesis, the seven days are probably not 24 hour periods (isn't that a Roman invention?) so seven days in the Bible could refer to billions of years.

I actually didn’t have that in mind – if one believes in macroevolution, then one cannot believe in the story of Adam and Eve, which happens to (effectively) lead to just about everything else in the Bible. Macroevolution is compatible with a “personal god”, but not with a Christian God.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

Oh boy. Danoff's going to have fun with you. If you actually respond to any of his points of course. Or Touring Mars's.

So can you enlighten us as to the point of saying that electricity has only been around for 150 years compared to the lifetime of the planet of 4.5 billion? I'm intrigued.


With regard to your username, I note you have a "2" at the end of your name which could easily be substituted for an "s" in the correct place, allowing you to spell the name correctly and have the same number of characters in your name. There is no current existing member with the name "RecklessAbandon"

The point of 4.5 billion years, is that 4.5 billion is a number typically thrown around, and is far larger than most humans can comprehend. Even if mankind has been around for 10 million years, (and studying the earth's age with reasonable accuracy) that's still 1 out of 450. My point is simple, if I take a dead body, (human), and watch it's decomposition for 1 day, that will not tell me how a 450 day old body looks. End of story, Let alone 3 million.
And as for my username, I wanted a 2, and spelling it RecklessAbandon, would still not be spelling it proper. WrecklessAbandon2, would be proper. Besides, it's not confusing, the person who stated that was clearly attempting to be clever, and failed if I do say so myself. (and I do)

It's a scientific theory. You can agree or disagree with it.

From your first post in this thread Famine, and very well put I might say too. It just so happens I am on the disagree end of it.

Frankly, you guys have been explaining your points of view on this matter off and on for the past 4+ years. Why a few certain names pop up over, and over, and over, repeating themselves everytime someone states an opinion other than pro-evolution, I don't know, but clearly this matter is far more important to you guys than I'll ever know. Maybe you want to enlighten people, maybe your afraid your wrong, maybe you want to be wrong. I can only guess. Why is persecution from christians in the past relevant to a pro-evolution argument to some people in this thread? I don't know.
Fact is, scientists today abuse the words "scientific proof" constantly, they can't seem to find cures for half of the problems that plague the human body, and yet everyone expects me to just assume when it comes to dating and aging, they are perfect, despite the multiple changes in assumed earth age in my own 24 years on this planet. 10 million? 1 billion? billions? 4.5 billion?
I'm sorry, it's just another number to be changed at a later date to me, and nothing more.
I believe in God, and I believe you will one day as well.

And for Stevisio, I have no idea why your explaining electricity to me, or why you decided that I think it's a coincidence mankind discovered it, but please, if your not sure, ask before spending all that time on a post that has, ahem, nothing to do with what I said.

End of discussion for me.

 

[Touring Mars]

if one believes in macroevolution, then one cannot believe in the story of Adam and Eve, which happens to (effectively) lead to just about everything else in the Bible.

I largely agree with this - I'd say that it was still possible to believe in macroevolution and Genesis - but on the proviso that (macro)evolution occured after the creation event. One cannot believe in the Adam and Eve story and the fact that humankind are a result of macroevolution, however - but that isn't to say that alot of Christians do accept that macroevolution is possible/happens. Whichever way you look at evolution, it had to have a starting point, and although a scientist will tell you (correctly) that that starting point occured way before man existed, it is not necessarily unreasonable to expect that some people who support evolution in principle believe that mankind was already there at the starting point... although there are so many holes in that interpretation, it is surprisingly common and not completely wrong.

Macroevolution is compatible with a “personal god”, but not with a Christian God.

I disagree with this because you are confusing Christian with Creationist - a terrible insult to Christians everywhere!! Not all Christians are Creationists (far from it), and not even all Creationists are Young Earth creationists/Biblical literalists. Certainly, Biblical literalists are common in the US, but are still outnumbered by moderate Christians who (would) readily accept evolution and believe that Genesis is not literally true. Indeed, one of evolution theory's staunchest and most eloquent defenders is a Christian scientist called Ken Miller - a key figure in the legal battle to keep Creationism out of biology classrooms in the US.

 

[Famine]

The point of 4.5 billion years, is that 4.5 billion is a number typically thrown around, and is far larger than most humans can comprehend.

It's quite a small number as far as science goes. And I don't even mean just cosmology.

The universe is around 13.5 billion years old. It takes light 6.6 trillion minutes to get from Proxima Centauri - the nearest star beyond our system - to us. A hydrogen atom is one 10 billionth of a metre across.

Even if mankind has been around for 10 million years, (and studying the earth's age with reasonable accuracy) that's still 1 out of 450. My point is simple, if I take a dead body, (human), and watch it's decomposition for 1 day, that will not tell me how a 450 day old body looks. End of story, Let alone 3 million.

You're switching a couple of data points. If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, we're 10 million years old and we've been looking at it all that time, then the analogy is to have someone aged 37 and a half (450 months) and be around them for a month then guessing their age.

I say "guessing", I mean "using every scientific method at your disposal to determine".

And as for my username, I wanted a 2, and spelling it RecklessAbandon, would still not be spelling it proper. WrecklessAbandon2, would be proper. Besides, it's not confusing, the person who stated that was clearly attempting to be clever, and failed if I do say so myself. (and I do)

"Wreckless" isn't a word though (but I'll grant you that Proper Nouns don't have to be real words).

From your first post in this thread Famine, and very well put I might say too. It just so happens I am on the disagree end of it.

Well... second post, but you'd do well to read the rest of that line...

It's a scientific theory. You can agree or disagree with it. However, the current theories on the evolutionary process have been worked out over the last 130 years and have themselves evolved to include new evidence and observations. Every piece of evidence uncovered leads further away from the dogma of Creationism and towards the concepts of evolutionary mechanisms.

Frankly, you guys have been explaining your points of view on this matter off and on for the past 4+ years. Why a few certain names pop up over, and over, and over, repeating themselves everytime someone states an opinion other than pro-evolution, I don't know, but clearly this matter is far more important to you guys than I'll ever know. Maybe you want to enlighten people, maybe your afraid your wrong, maybe you want to be wrong. I can only guess. Why is persecution from christians in the past relevant to a pro-evolution argument to some people in this thread? I don't know.

It generally starts with an anti-evolutionist turning up and posting, without having read any of the thread to that point. That's one of the reasons I opted not to bother this time round.

Fact is, scientists today abuse the words "scientific proof" constantly, they can't seem to find cures for half of the problems that plague the human body, and yet everyone expects me to just assume when it comes to dating and aging, they are perfect, despite the multiple changes in assumed earth age in my own 24 years on this planet. 10 million? 1 billion? billions? 4.5 billion?

I've been around for 30 (and a bit) years. I can recall being taught the Earth's age as 4.4 billion years back when I was 5. So as far as I'm concerned, the age of the Earth hasn't changed much in the last 25 years...

I'm not sure what medical science has to do with evolutionary science though.

I'm sorry, it's just another number to be changed at a later date to me, and nothing more.
I believe in God, and I believe you will one day as well.

Why is that?

End of discussion for me.

And why is that?

In fact, if I may quote you directly at this point, I think I know why:

Maybe you want to enlighten people, maybe your afraid your wrong, maybe you want to be wrong.

The whole point of science is proving that you're wrong. A good scientist starts out with the position that an observed effect is random, or independant of the postulated mechanism. They then develop tests to try to prove that the effect is not dependant on the cause - the whole experiment is geared towards trying to prove that the mechanism you've come up with is incorrect.

One thing scientists aren't afraid of is being wrong. Another is ignorance - science starts with the sentence "I do not know". A third is discussion and discourse - there's never an "End of discussion" in science.

 

[Joey D]

I largely agree with this - I'd say that it was still possible to believe in macroevolution and Genesis - but on the proviso that (macro)evolution occured after the creation event. One cannot believe in the Adam and Eve story and the fact that humankind are a result of macroevolution, however - but that isn't to say that alot of Christians do accept that macroevolution is possible/happens. Whichever way you look at evolution, it had to have a starting point, and although a scientist will tell you (correctly) that that starting point occured way before man existed, it is not necessarily unreasonable to expect that some people who support evolution in principle believe that mankind was already there at the starting point... although there are so many holes in that interpretation, it is surprisingly common and not completely wrong.

I don't really think you have to disregard Adam and Eve in order to accept evolution. What if they represent the first Homo Sapiens? While I am not religious I do see a way to accept both the Bible and science at the same time. I have a hard time trying to get a reasonable discussion going with some of the Christians I know because they feel Anthropology is the "devil's science" because we say they came from monkeys .

 

[Sureboss]

Their problem Joey, is that they don't understand the theory of evolution. Some people think that evolution involves a monkey giving birth to a human. We did Evolution in Science the other day and something which cropped up for Natural selection was the Peppermoth.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

Evolution is a very long and very slow process.

 

[Joey D]

Ya I'm yet to take my other class in human evolution, I've had Anthropology 101 which is the origins of man but hopefully it's a little clearer in the more advanced stuff.

 

[Duke]

Their problem Joey, is that they don't understand the theory of evolution. Some people think that evolution involves a monkey giving birth to a human.

Evolution is a very long and very slow process.

It's funny - people who have no problem swallowing the concept of an immortal soul that lives for eternity just can't seem to get their heads around "changing a little bit for a very long time".

 

[Touring Mars]

I have a hard time trying to get a reasonable discussion going with some of the Christians I know because they feel Anthropology is the "devil's science" because we say they came from monkeys .

This is an all-too-common reason why many people really think evolution is wicked. Forget bashing the Old Testament, forget arguments about singularities and quantum mechanics. Alot of the time it boils down to plain old racism (well, species-ism, to be more precise). Tell your average white Creationist that the origins of mankind can be traced back to Africa and you'll get pretty much the same reaction... they simply are not related to black people... period! Similarly, alot of people find the idea that their distant relatives looked like modern day chimps to be totally repulsive. (I personally don't find that repulsive at all...)

Ask someone to name their grandparents, and they will be able to do it - they will probably even be able to tell you their Grandmother's favourite soap opera too. Ask someone to name any one of their great great great great great grandfathers, however, and you'll get far fewer (if any) replies - I don't know anything about my family as far back as that myself! Ask someone to tell you where their ancestors lived 5000 years ago, and you won't get a single reply that was anywhere near accurate or truthful - if it were about a specific individual anyway! (Ironically, since every human on Earth today has countless direct ancestors from that long ago, the chances are you could correctly guess where any non-specified ancestor may have lived!).

My point is, most people don't really know or care where they actually came from beyond the last handful of generations - hence why I find it so strange that people can actually get defensive (and downright indignant) when you even suggest that a distant relative might have been nothing like us at all. Once people get their heads round this fact, or are comfortable with the notion, you can extend the same logic/argument back as far as you like...

 

[TheCracker]

...hence why I find it so strange that people can actually get defensive (and downright indignant) when you even suggest that a distant relative might have been nothing like us at all.

I have friends who get indignant about their family originating from Southend-on-Sea!!!

 

[Joey D]

This is an all-too-common reason why many people really think evolution is wicked. Forget bashing the Old Testament, forget arguments about singularities and quantum mechanics. Alot of the time it boils down to plain old racism (well, species-ism, to be more precise). Tell your average white Creationist that the origins of mankind can be traced back to Africa and you'll get pretty much the same reaction... they simply are not related to black people... period! Similarly, alot of people find the idea that their distant relatives looked like modern day chimps to be totally repulsive. (I personally don't find that repulsive at all...)

Ask someone to name their grandparents, and they will be able to do it - they will probably even be able to tell you their Grandmother's favourite soap opera too. Ask someone to name any one of their great great great great great grandfathers, however, and you'll get far fewer (if any) replies - I don't know anything about my family as far back as that myself! Ask someone to tell you where their ancestors lived 5000 years ago, and you won't get a single reply that was anywhere near accurate or truthful - if it were about a specific individual anyway! (Ironically, since every human on Earth today has countless direct ancestors from that long ago, the chances are you could correctly guess where any non-specified ancestor may have lived!).

My point is, most people don't really know or care where they actually came from beyond the last handful of generations - hence why I find it so strange that people can actually get defensive (and downright indignant) when you even suggest that a distant relative might have been nothing like us at all. Once people get their heads round this fact, or are comfortable with the notion, you can extend the same logic/argument back as far as you like...

Good point. I guess since I live up here in the northern part of the states I don't see as much racism as say someone in the south. I realise that Detroit is the most segregated city in the United States, however there are many issues from the 60's that play into that.

And you are right most people can not trace their ancestors back, I think I can go back to my great great great grandfather but that is only because my great grandmother is still alive and she has told me about him.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Nice...one guy makes a comment and eight wolves come out of the den to eat some fresh meat. It's like the first time I dropped in to take a look. Good times...Good times...

 

[Touring Mars]

Good point. I guess since I live up here in the northern part of the states I don't see as much racism as say someone in the south. I realise that Detroit is the most segregated city in the United States, however there are many issues from the 60's that play into that.

And you are right most people can not trace their ancestors back, I think I can go back to my great great great grandfather but that is only because my great grandmother is still alive and she has told me about him.

Of course, modern techniques such as genomic analysis can show roughly where your genes have come from (and of course this can be extended to show how different species are related as well)..., good news for anyone who might have lost touch with the Egyptian branch of the family!

Although I understand why some people find the idea of being 'related' to a different animal species (by descent) to be repugnant, I do think that the argument I've highlighted above is a good way of putting it in perspective and to 'reassure' these people that we are talking about vast tracts of time. To say that humans and chimps are 'closest relatives' is true from an 'animal kingdom'-wide perspective - but is meaningless on a scale of human interactions... I can safely say that I don't know a single chimp even remotely as well as I know Tom Cruise - even though I'd prefer to.

I have friends who get indignant about their family originating from Southend-on-Sea!!!

Nice...one guy makes a comment and eight wolves come out of the den to eat some fresh meat. It's like the first time I dropped in to take a look. Good times...Good times...

Sorry, I missed your post as I was writing mine... I do sympathise to an extent - he did kind of get it with both barrels... but on the other hand, I don't think anyone is being particularly unfair...

 

[Danoff]

Nice...one guy makes a comment and eight wolves come out of the den to eat some fresh meat. It's like the first time I dropped in to take a look. Good times...Good times...

To be fair, it was my fault. Famine wanted to just shake his head and leave it be. I just couldn't resist when I saw the ball there sitting so perfectly on the tee and I had a perfectly good 3-wood in my hand.

It's quite a small number as far as science goes. And I don't even mean just cosmology.

The universe is around 13.5 billion years old. It takes light 6.6 trillion minutes to get from Proxima Centauri - the nearest star beyond our system - to us. A hydrogen atom is one 10 billionth of a metre across.

WreckelesselAbandonss2, if you read one response, read this one. If god created the universe 6000 years ago, did he put light in-transit only 6000 light years away headed for earth just to trick us into thinking that the universe is older???

Honestly it makes no sense at all.

 

[Famine]

I just couldn't resist when I saw the ball there sitting so perfectly on the tee and I had a perfectly good 3-wood in my hand.

And praise Zeus it was just a 3 wood, knowing you.