Creation vs. Evolution

[niky]

Biblical Creation myths are around 3000-4000+ years old, and some of the stories in Genesis are based on older traditions, as Dotini says.

Some of these written traditions are quite similar... and many myths in the area are similar (myths of flood, etcetera)... but traditions in other parts of the world vary greatly. Oral traditions of isolated peoples with rich cultures... the Native Americans, Aborigines, Eskimos, etcetera... make for some fascinating reading.

That's what I mean. Like cities and cars, plants and creatures are invariably symbiotic.

Only because we allowed them to become so... let evolution take its course. (It's fun to discuss evolution in a non-Biological context)

Cities existed before automobilies. Villages existed before automobiles. Just like plants pollinated themselves in one way or another before insects and birds came along, they were totally self-sufficient.

But, like insects, automobiles allowed the idea... the expression of city and community to flower in lots of interesting ways. Instead of villages, you got suburbia. You had vast tracts of farmland far away from population centers, made possible by cheap fuel for the tractors (fewer workers) and cheap delivery. You get highways, malls, drive-ins (a species of movie theater now gone extinct), ultra-high density commercial centers with support populations spread out over wide areas.

Unlike insects, though, automobiles seem doomed to eventually go extinct (well, most of them) due to a lack of food. While we might be able to replace some with electrics or alternative fuel vehicles, a hundred years or so from now, we'll be seeing far fewer of them in the wild than before.

What happens to cities and communities then will depend on whether we allow nature to take its course, or whether we re-engineer them for a car-less (or almost car-less) tomorrow.

 

[orimarc]

♫ It's all the same, only the names will change ♫

That Bon Jovi lyrics pretty much sums up all creation myths, they are essentially the same thing with different names.

Strange, I thought that

♫ We're living on a prayer! ♫

described better the religionists mantra (or lifestyle or whatever-you-want-to-call-it)

 

[DK]

Biblical Creation myths are around 3000-4000+ years old, and some of the stories in Genesis are based on older traditions, as Dotini says.

Okay, so I was wrong about the age of the Biblical Creation myth. But I guess I can't be right all the time, in my recent Xmas exams I didn't get 100% in any of my tests.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Okay, so I was wrong about the age of the Biblical Creation myth. But I guess I can't be right all the time, in my recent Xmas exams I didn't get 100% in any of my tests.

If memory serves, the tribes of Israel emerged as an organized culture around 2200 BCE. I don't know if this will clear up anything useful or not, just thought I'd share. 👍

In response to another related line of recent discussion, monotheism and polytheism are in a chicken-and-egg situation with respect to chronology, at least when one looks at early Fertile Crescent and North African civilizations. They developed coincidentally, almost as a single system. It's true that Judaism was the first monotheistic society to reject the existence of other gods, but it certainly wasn't the first society to reject the validity of other gods.

What we have record of tells us that most Bronze Age tribes in these regions, while each was still developing in isolation, devised its own local god, or, in some cases, its own pantheon of gods. So on the tribal level at least, forms of monotheism and polytheism already existed independently of one another. The concept of god(s) in this age, though, painted the entity or entities in question as far "closer" to humanity than we think of them. Say Tribe A believes in God A. They then meet Tribe B who believes in God B. Tribe A sees God A as a real extant being, who will champion their cause against God B, who is an extant being acting on behalf of Tribe B. So as Tribe A continues to meet more and more tribes, they encounter more and more "local champion gods", adding to the pantheon of gods in which they believe, even though they may not worship all of them, or recognize their validity. We see this in the early stages of the Babylonian and Assyrian societies, just as we see it in Egypt, pre-unification. In both cases, the local god of the most powerful city at the time of unified inception of all these empires became the supreme god amongst a "club" formed of the gods of all the villages and cities in the empire.

It's a fairly semantic difference, but I thought it might be interesting to add.

 

[Touring Mars]

The thing which bewilders me the most is: if God is so great, why the 🤬 would he create the most useless and annoying animals, e.g. flies?

I would disagree that there's a purpose to the fly

Some of my very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very distant cousins are flies.

 

[Mark T]

I always thought flies were useful as they lay eggs which turn into maggot lavae which eat decaying material. Maggots have been used to heal bad infections and I think some hospitals still use maggots to eat the infection on the skin.

 

[DK]

Some of my very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very distant cousins are flies.

Well, between 300 and 400 million years ago Earth was dominated by insects, some of which may have been our great(x 10 billion) grandparents. So humans and flies have at one point been the same species, i.e. giant flies.

 

[Public'sTwin]

"Feathered" dinosaurs no longer "quite probable" and now "fact":

Melanosomes, containing melanin structures, which occurs within human hair and bird feathers and is responsible for its color, has been discovered in the feather-like protrusions (ie. feathers) occurring all over the body of a 125-million year old Sinosauropteryx dinosaur.

The study has also confirmed that the bristles on this "rather primitive flesh-eating dinosaur... really were feathers".

This gives more weight to a very well-supported theory that modern birds evolved from theropods, the group of small carnivorous dinosaurs to which Sinosauropteryx belonged.

"Critics have said that these visible spiny structures could be shredded connective tissue," Professor Benton explained. "But the discovery of melanosomes within the bristles finally proves that some early dinosaurs were indeed feathered."

Evidence also suggests raptors enjoyed breakdancing.
link

SuperCobraJet, will you please outline the "holes" and cracks within this story, just so we're clear?

 

[Duke]

I would also like to add that German researchers have been studying European black-capped chickadees. All of these birds used to migrate to Spain for the winter in the past. However, with the advent of people putting birdfeeders in their gardens, a significant portion now stay year-round in England rather than migrating south.

What's more, because they stay isolated into early spring, this sub-population tends to breed almost exclusively with itself, rather than mingling with the birds from continental Europe.

After 50 years or so, there are consistent and measurable differences in beak width, wing length, and feather coloration between the two sub-populations.

Coincidence? Divine intervention? I think not. Natural selection.

Of course, we'll probably hear that these birds are still chickadees, not half-chickadee-half-chackadoo, so this is still not evidence of evolution.

 

[TheCracker]

I would also like to add that German researchers have been studying European black-capped chickadees. All of these birds used to migrate to Spain for the winter in the past. However, with the advent of people putting birdfeeders in their gardens, a significant portion now stay year-round in England rather than migrating south.

What's more, because they stay isolated into early spring, this sub-population tends to breed almost exclusively with itself, rather than mingling with the birds from continental Europe.

After 50 years or so, there are consistent and measurable differences in beak width, wing length, and feather coloration between the two sub-populations.

Coincidence? Divine intervention? I think not. Natural selection.

Of course, we'll probably hear that these birds are still chickadees, not half-chickadee-half-chackadoo, so this is still not evidence of evolution.

They'll always just be a pair of Tits to me.

 

[Dotini]

"Feathered" dinosaurs no longer "quite probable" and now "fact":

Coincidence? Divine intervention? I think not. Natural selection.

I've always been fascinated by dinosaurs, particularly the sauropods and pterosaurs, as some of the fossils exhibit exhibit sizes (200 ft long sauropods) and weights (400 lb pterosaurs) which strain credulity in their ability to stand and fly under current conditions of gravity. But that is all beside the point.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-and-vertical-the-evolution-of-evolution.html

Here is an article which proposes "Darwin's ideas were only a part of the story of evolution; a process he never wrote about, and never even imagined, has been controlling the evolution of life throughout most of the Earth's history. It may sound preposterous, but this is exactly what microbiologist Carl Woese and physicist Nigel Goldenfeld, both at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, believe. Darwin's explanation of evolution, they argue, even in its sophisticated modern form, applies only to a recent phase of life on Earth.

At the root of this idea is overwhelming recent evidence for horizontal gene transfer - in which organisms acquire genetic material "horizontally" from other organisms around them, rather than vertically from their parents or ancestors. The donor organisms may not even be the same species. This mechanism is already known to play a huge role in the evolution of microbial genomes, but its consequences have hardly been explored. According to Woese and Goldenfeld, they are profound, and horizontal gene transfer alters the evolutionary process itself."

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Touring Mars]

Nice find, Dotini 👍 I reckon that such a paradigm shift is not all that unlikely or likely to meet much in the way of resistance. HGT has long been known to occur, and the idea that it played a much more significant role in the early evolution of life is quite intuitive and the recent evidence seems pretty compelling. Still, far from challenging the role of Darwinian evolution, it seems to complement it well, and if anything the concepts that Woese etc. are suggesting deliver a hammer blow to whatever remained of the already fragile edifice of the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis. The idea that there was no such thing as a distinguishable species in the early stages of life, and that the entire microbial world was effectively one giant gene pool upon which the blind forces of random mutations and natural selection could act, is really quite devastating to the creationist concept of the "immutability of species", and even less likely to find favour with those who balk at the idea that life on Earth had chaotic beginnings - considerably more chaotic than in a purely 'Darwinian' view! Furthermore, presumably experiments like Lenski's long-term evolution experiments on bacteria could provide experimental evidence of these processes happening in real time...

 

[Dotini]

Thanks hugely for that thumb's up, Touring Mars. I'm always very grateful when that happens. I'm also quite appreciative your "greater chaos" hint of the "antediluvian" world. My father was a uniformitarian geologist who evolved into something a catastrophist after reading Velikovsky.

Yours truly,
Dotini

 

[niky]

Velikovsky is fascinating reading.

Somewhat far-fetched in his claims... but fascinating reading... I've read accounts of his theories before, but it was only recently that I managed to get ahold of the original book. Haven't had the time to sit down with it, though.

 

[Dotini]

Velikovsky is fascinating reading.

Somewhat far-fetched in his claims... but fascinating reading... I've read accounts of his theories before, but it was only recently that I managed to get ahold of the original book. Haven't had the time to sit down with it, though.

Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, Earth in Upheaval. These are some of his titles. GTPlanet readers will find Velikovsky distasteful because he uses Biblical references to support some of his theories, as he believed some catastrophic events occurred in recent times and were memorialized in early human literature and mythology. Even so, these ideas of rapid, catastrophic changes came as a revelation to geologists steeped in the uniformitarianism of the almost universally famous Scottish geologist Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell rejected evolution until influenced by Darwin, and never did accept the concept of an Ice Age.

Respectfully
Dotini

 

[SuperCobraJet]

"Feathered" dinosaurs no longer "quite probable" and now "fact":

Evidence also suggests raptors enjoyed breakdancing.
link

SuperCobraJet, will you please outline the "holes" and cracks within this story, just so we're clear?

With regaurd to Evolution and the above statement, as well as others given that do not even begin to establish the theory as anything more than an "abstract possibility", why would I continue to repeat the obvious.

Any "belief" invested in "The Theory of Evolution" is done so strictly on faith. Thats not "my" term for it. Thats "the" term for it.

Thats also the obvious in which some here are in complete denial concerning.

 

[Sureboss]

But as many others have said, you have faith in something, because you trust it to be true as it has no evidence to base it's claims on. Evolution has plenty of evidence, ergo, faith doesn't come in to it. You don't need faith to point out facts to somebody.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But as many others have said, you have faith in something, because you trust it to be true as it has no evidence to base it's claims on. Evolution has plenty of evidence, ergo, faith doesn't come in to it. You don't need faith to point out facts to somebody.

There is no factual evidence to establish Evolution as anything more than an abstract possibility. The reality of factual evidence establishes the opposite. Therefore you are placing your belief in a possiblity, contrary to established fact. That is the employment of faith. and I might add blind faith at that.

 

[niky]

There is no factual evidence to establish Evolution as anything more than an abstract possibility. The reality of factual evidence establishes the opposite. Therefore you are placing your belief in a possiblity, contrary to established fact. That is the employment of faith. and I might add blind faith at that.

Again. Faith = belief in the absence of evidence.

Science = testing hypotheses against empirical evidence.

Fossil count = again, how many millions? And this isn't something you have to take people's words for. There are places where you can go and dig them up yourself.

Genetics = proven. reliable. repeatable in the laboratory (Do you know we actually have samples of Neanderthal DNA?). Applied.

Blind faith =/= Evolution, not in the slightest.

As long as you continue to misuse and abuse the language, you're never going to get it.

Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, Earth in Upheaval. These are some of his titles. GTPlanet readers will find Velikovsky distasteful because he uses Biblical references to support some of his theories, as he believed some catastrophic events occurred in recent times and were memorialized in early human literature and mythology. Even so, these ideas of rapid, catastrophic changes came as a revelation to geologists steeped in the uniformitarianism of the almost universally famous Scottish geologist Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell rejected evolution until influenced by Darwin, and never did accept the concept of an Ice Age.

Respectfully
Dotini

Actually... I have no issue with that. What's at issue is the way he plays with dating and events to fit his theories... some of which don't match up. Still... fascinating stuff. The one I have is "Worlds in Collision". I'm still hunting for the others. Thanks for the titles.

The attempt to try to link Biblical writings to actual events is something I can dig. Despite the fact that most of us assume the Creation Myth in the Bible is simply that... a myth... it's interesting to try to trace other events in the old testament to actual natural calamities, like floods, volcanic explosions and the like. (There's some fascinating reading around if you look up "Red Sea", "Reed Sea" and "Moses")

In fact, it's probable that Adam and Eve might have been real people or inspired by real people. Cast out from another ancient civilization... their names preserved through a long oral tradition listing down Hebraic geneaology over hundreds upon hundreds of years.

 

[Touring Mars]

some here are in complete denial

Atleast we can agree on this much...

 

[Famine]

Any "belief" invested in "The Theory of Evolution" is done so strictly on faith.

Quite so.

Luckily it's true whether you believe in it or not.

 

[Duke]

GTPlanet readers will find Velikovsky distasteful because he uses Biblical references to support some of his theories, as he believed some catastrophic events occurred in recent times and were memorialized in early human literature and mythology.

That in itself is not distasteful; that's using historical reference. It's only distasteful if he says God made it happen, rather than saying it's a folklore recounting of a natural event.

There is very solid geological evidence that a major earthquake about 2500-3000 years ago caused the north side of the Straits of Bosporus to subside about 10 feet, allowing a substantial portion of the Mediterranean Sea to suddenly empty into the Black Sea and flooding a huge area of latter-day Turkey.

Hrm, where have I heard that story before, in a slightly different form?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

There is no factual evidence to establish Evolution as anything more than an abstract possibility. The reality of factual evidence establishes the opposite. Therefore you are placing your belief in a possiblity, contrary to established fact. That is the employment of faith. and I might add blind faith at that.

Highlighted passage edited for factuality.

Therefore you are placing your belief knowledge in a possiblitypredictable inevitability, contrary to thoroughly supported by established fact. That is the employment of faith science. and I might add blind faith rigorously tested and retested science at that

We can go round and round about why creationism and science are based on different fundamentals, but I doubt any number of examples from the fossil record will convince you to take off the blinders.

Consider, instead, that both scientific theories and religious texts (which are the source of creationism, no matter what the ID advocates may say) make predictions.

Evolution by Natural Selection, for example, predicts and in fact demands a vehicle by which "data" can be transferred between generations to incite changes in species. Darwin had absolutely no idea what form this vehicle would take when he posited Evolution, but he knew it must exist based on evidence observable over two millenia of artificial animal husbandry. Fast forward to the 20th century. Man begins to investigate a mysterious nucleic acid. This substance is DNA, Darwin's vehicle of natural selection. Every scientific theory makes neccessary implied predictions like this, and this is the standard by which their veracity is constantly tested.

Religion makes predictions as well, but this is a totally different basket of cats. Let's take Christianity for example. It predicts that once God gets tired of this dusty old planet, he'll yank all his favorite people up into heaven and leave the rest of us to rape, murder, and sodomize each other for seven years. At this point a bunch of blood-drenched horse-mounted avengers will swoop from the clouds and lead an army of the righteous (wait, weren't they all taken up to heaven seven years ago?) against an army of the damned led by some dude named Kirk Camer... wait ... that's not right ... the Antichrist, and the carpet of corpses will be so thick that the stench will rise to heaven and then the world ends ... or something like that. Mmmhmm.

Let's just say that it's obvious that the predictions of religion are a fair bit more ... how shall I put this ... hyperbolic than those of science. This is neccessarily for religion to continue to exist because if it made concrete, testable predictions it would have gone the way of the dodo long ago.

I won't bother to waste my time asking if this helps you grasp the difference between relying on a scientific theory and practicing faith, because I'm fairly sure your flawed conception of the two ideas may be immutable. Instead, I'll ask if you can see why we who rely on science have trouble seeing any validity in a "theory" (creationism/ID) that's based on such an absurd framework?

And I'll say it for probably the third or fourth time; even if your arguments against the credibility of evolution held any water whatsoever, you still haven't offered a shred of support for creationism as a viable alternative.

 

[Duke]

There is no factual evidence to establish Evolution as anything more than an abstract possibility. The reality of factual evidence establishes the opposite.

In all truthful sincerity, it just DOESN'T. Not if you actually understand science and what science is.

 

[Sureboss]

There is no factual evidence to establish Evolution as anything more than an abstract possibility. The reality of factual evidence establishes the opposite. Therefore you are placing your belief in a possiblity, contrary to established fact. That is the employment of faith. and I might add blind faith at that.

Tell you what. You win, I'll never be able to beat your ignorance on the "lack of evidence" for evolution.

 

[Joey D]

There is no factual evidence to establish Evolution as anything more than an abstract possibility. The reality of factual evidence establishes the opposite. Therefore you are placing your belief in a possiblity, contrary to established fact. That is the employment of faith. and I might add blind faith at that.

Replace Evolution with Creation and you get the same thing.

 

[Joel]

with regaurd to evolution and the above statement, as well as others given that do not even begin to establish the theory as anything more than an "abstract possibility", why would i continue to repeat the obvious.

Any "belief" invested in "the theory of evolution" is done so strictly on faith. Thats not "my" term for it. Thats "the" term for it.

Thats also the obvious in which some here are in complete denial concerning.

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Quite so.

Luckily it's true whether you believe in it or not.

I must congratulate you on such a substantive stance.

Luckily its true ? That doesn't sound very scientific.

Ironically, thats about as much real basis of evidence for evolution that truly exsists.

In all truthful sincerity, it just DOESN'T. Not if you actually understand science and what science is.

There are several definitions of Science, which one would you like to apply?

Also do you regaurd the application of "assumptive speculation" to be "Scientific"?

"it just DOESN'T"? Another quite substantive position.

And I'll say it for probably the third or fourth time; even if your arguments against the credibility of evolution held any water whatsoever, you still haven't offered a shred of support for creationism as a viable alternative.

In reality, they hold plenty of water.

Each are in similar categories. However, one thing at a time.

Tell you what. You win, I'll never be able to beat your ignorance on the "lack of evidence" for evolution.

In reality, it is scrutiny of the claim and that which is submitted as evidence to support it. So far there is nothing near substantive enough to legitimately establish the scope of the claim and plenty of evidence to disprove the claim.
Thats just the true reality of the facts in evidence.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

 

[Public'sTwin]

With regaurd to Evolution and the above statement, as well as others given that do not even begin to establish the theory as anything more than an "abstract possibility", why would I continue to repeat the obvious.

Any "belief" invested in "The Theory of Evolution" is done so strictly on faith. Thats not "my" term for it. Thats "the" term for it.

Thats also the obvious in which some here are in complete denial concerning.

Your rote replies seem to be getting more convoluted and vague as time marches on.

Interesting.

 

[niky]

In reality, it is scrutiny of the claim and that which is submitted as evidence to support it. So far there is nothing near substantive enough to legitimately establish the scope of the claim and plenty of evidence to disprove the claim.
Thats just the true reality of the facts in evidence.

The facts in evidence that you choose not to scrutinize. You still haven't answered why you can cross breed a horse and a donkey to get a mule.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/faith

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \&#712;f&#257;th\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \&#712;f&#257;ths, sometimes &#712;f&#257;thz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

The last two are especially juicy. Since there is proof. And since "science" doesn't have "complete trust" in anything. Ever. The scientific method is based on questioning.

-

Maybe I should copy paste all my answers and repeat them every time you repeat the question? Since you choose to not acknowledge these answers or explain how "faith" has anything to do with "evolution", the net result will be the same.