# They want to forget Darwin ... [help]



## Giaguara (Apr 27, 2004)

http://www.repubblica.it/speciale/2004/appelli/scuola2/index_eng.html :



> New school programme detrimental to scientific culture
> 
> The new teaching programs developed for secondary schools do not include Darwin's "Theory of Evolution".
> This means that subjects such as "The Evolution of the Earth", "The Evidence of Life on Earth" "Structure, Function and Evolution of Living Organisms" and "The Biological and Cultural Evolution of Mankind" aren't taught any more to boys and girls aged 13-14.
> ...



You can sign in that link. I think it is amazing they thought about removing the theory of evolution in the Italian schools.   
La Repubblica is (as I've probalby said too many times) the biggest newspaper in Italy, and so far this thing has nearly 40,000 signatures. Would you like to sign? The move people sign, the more likely the politicians are to figure out that it was not a smart move.


----------



## brianleahy (Apr 27, 2004)

I'd sign -- but will signatures of Americans and other non-Italians impress anyone?


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 27, 2004)

Yea. As you are American you are International and Important Person as you care about what they teach in Italy.


----------



## brianleahy (Apr 27, 2004)

Ok, I signed.

I think.  (I entered my name etc., but the links were, naturally, in Italian.  I hope I clicked 'submit' and not 'cancel'.)


----------



## Trillian (Apr 27, 2004)

I've never understood the reasoning for not teaching eveultion. If they aren't teaching it because the don't belive in eveultion, then why are they teaching the current atomic structor? (I'm asumming that they teach them the same things in Italy that they do over here.)

I mean, get down to the sub atomic level, and those therorys fall apart, but the teach it anyways because it is the easyest way for people to even start to grasp it. I find it interesting that they pick and choose what 'flawed' theorys they teach.

(I signed, incase you can't tell.  )


----------



## markceltic (Apr 27, 2004)

I find this idea rather perplexing.I was under the impression Europeans were more forward thinking than this.Yes this is in Italy I know with a different set of sensibilities than other members of the EU.With that said isn't it likely to assume that educational standards across all the members of the Union will eventually lead to a cirriculum handed down from the headquarters of the EU.How else can you have a hegemony?


----------



## Easter (Apr 28, 2004)

The Italian Ministry of Education thinks that teaching Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" in secondary schools is too hard to students aged 13-14 ...

Now I think: now it's too hard!, but when I was 13-14 it was not???  

Byez


----------



## brianleahy (Apr 28, 2004)

From 'Dictionary.com':



> This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.'' --Sir W. Hamilton.



Evolution is, in fact, a theory in this sense:



> A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.



So next time you hear someone deride evolution as a "mere theory" point out that:

A) they don't know what "theory" actually means and 
B) creationism does not even rise to the standard of a "theory".


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 28, 2004)

Even most of the explanations or .. well, theories in Physics and every otehr science are theories as well. The atom is composed so and so - and one day they will find a new particle in the atom that untill know has been unknown. It may or may not change the theory.

I think the evolution theory is pretty simple. And does not go to so many details either.

Today's Repubblica had a news about this topic (here) in Italian, but basically the minister (Moratti) of schools and universities is saying that they will continue to study the evolution theory again "back from the elementary school". In a few days the online appeal has / had got over 44,000 votes.


----------



## MDLarson (May 8, 2004)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> I think the evolution theory is pretty simple. And does not go to so many details either.


I think the evolution theory is pretty simple too:  mathematically impossible.


----------



## Cat (May 8, 2004)

> I think the evolution theory is pretty simple too: mathematically impossible.


 That's a pretty interesting statement coming from someone who believes god is one and three at the same time ...


----------



## brianleahy (May 8, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> I think the evolution theory is pretty simple too:  mathematically impossible.



I'll be impressed by this argument the day I see an atheist make it.  

By contrast, I can name plenty of people who regard themselves as Christian but  believe in evolution.  ::evil:: 

My bare-knuckled blog on this general topic


----------



## MDLarson (May 8, 2004)

> "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate....It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ...higher intelligences...even to the limit of God...such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." (Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist)


Well, Sir Fred Hoyle _was_ an athiest.

If you believe in evolution, you *do not* have to believe in the Bible or supernatural things.  There is a scientific way to explain everything.  So do the math.

A (Bible-believing) Christian's beliefs are in stark contrast to the athiest who does not believe in silly things angels or demons, or God or a soul.  I believe nature to be the "normal" way God intended the universe to run.  However, since I can rationally conclude that God exists, I have no problem believing that God might use supernatural things to get his point across.

I think I can make a pretty good case that the Bible is incompatible with evolution, but I'd be wasting my breath on anybody who categorically dismisses the Bible as myths and legends.


----------



## MDLarson (May 8, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> My bare-knuckled blog on this general topic


I just read your blog, and I think it's pretty well thought out.  However, I think I can turn the tables on you a little bit:

Take Bible prophecy:  Prophecy is one of the Bible's greatest testimonies to its truth.  By nature, prophecy is supernatural.  When one is stumbled across in the scripture today, the scientific method becomes unsuitable, and other explanations must be given.  How many times do liberal theologians change the traditional date of a book based on the seeming impossibilty of what is read?

I don't have specific examples, but no doubt you would have no problem adjusting the dates of a prophecy to *after* the foretold event occurred, because *of course* a man could not have predicted it.  He must have made it up!

Well, I logically believe in supernatural things so I don't have a problem with supernatural ideas.  This is the core of my belief system.  The core of your belief system does not include supernatural things.


----------



## dlloyd (May 8, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> If you believe in evolution, you *do not* have to believe in the Bible or supernatural things.  There is a scientific way to explain everything. So do the math.



I don't think this is true. You can believe the Bible without taking it literally word for word. Just because you don't agree with everything Genesis says doesn't mean that you don't take the rest of the Bible seriously.
And even if you take a Creationist's stand, that doesn't mean you don't take the idea of evolution too. After all, the theory (or not, now) of evolution has been all but 'mathematically proven' D)



> A (Bible-believing) Christian's beliefs are in stark contrast to the athiest who does not believe in silly things angels or demons, or God or a soul.  I believe nature to be the "normal" way God intended the universe to run.  However, since I can rationally conclude that God exists, I have no problem believing that God might use supernatural things to get his point across.
> 
> I think I can make a pretty good case that the Bible is incompatible with evolution, but I'd be wasting my breath on anybody who categorically dismisses the Bible as myths and legends.



I think the Bible is more of a set of guidelines (to paraphrase Jack Sparrow) than actual fact.
If 'nature', then, is the 'normal' way, why cannot 'nature' contain evolution? It seems 'natural' to me.
And I would very much like to hear your case against evolution, using the Bible as a base.


----------



## markceltic (May 8, 2004)

I was wondering MDLarson do you take the Bible literally? I mean for example an actual hand of God literally comes out of the sky to smite someone.A manifestation that all people can see with their physical eyes.


----------



## brianleahy (May 8, 2004)

Well, I agree the Bible is incompatible with evolution.  There's no need to argue that.  You _would_ be wasting your breath, though not for the reasons you give.

The thrust of my argument is that when science and the bible butt heads, science _must_ win, and that not even the very pious can make a cogent rebuttal of this idea.  Science stands as a direct and ongoing inquiry of the universe (which tradition holds is God's direct handiwork) and no ancient book, however cherished, can hope to compete as an accurate representation of truth.

I do not categorically dismiss the entirety of the Bible; there are things in the Bible that are clearly true, are that are supported by other sources, and even do well under scientific scrutiny.  The reason that (unless you are a devoted bible scholar) you don't hear about these parts more often is that nobody argues about them!  There's no controversy there, so they don't make the news.

Being partly true proves little, though.  The film "Amadeus" is partly true, but contains large doses of exaggeration, speculation and outright fabrication.  Even so, the movie contains some valid, worthwhile messages (in this case, the dangers of envy and obsession.)  My opinion is that all of this can also be said of the Bible.  That is, of course, only my opinion, but I can't imagine - (unless you further suppose that God personally oversaw every word in every edition in every version of the Bible from first to latest) how you can call that anything but inevitable.

You are correct though, Hoyle was an athiest, thanks for catching my error.  I am familiar with Hoyle's challenge, and welcome it.  His arguments don't impress me because most of them are what author Richard Dawkins termed "The Argument from Personal Incredulity".  Hoyle finds the likelihood of life arising by chance to be "absurd" and refers time and again about his own difficulty in accepting the various tenets of evolutionary theory.   

This frankly says as much about Hoyle's knowledge, vision and imagination as it does about the subject he is discussing.  It is incredibly difficult (and for Hoyle it seems, impossible) for the human mind to grasp the scope of the time over which evolution operates, and to appreciate the scale of the parallelism (to borrow a computer term) at which it functions.  Consider also how only a single success is  required, amongst the (billions of years * millions of chemical reactions per year * quadrillions of parallel instances at once) that took place in the primordial oceans.

Speaking personally, I have no trouble believing in those odds at all.  You clearly feel differently, as is your right.


----------



## brianleahy (May 8, 2004)

As for Bible prophecy?  Well not to be too argumentative, but if you can't produce examples **I** sure as heck can't help you there.

As I have said, I tend to think of the Bible as myth, but the actual CASE I have made is that it when the Bible contradicts the testimony of the universe itself, it can't win.  While I don't put personal stock in Bible prophecies, I have not (at this point) tried to argue against them.   

And if some of them have come true, (by whatever means, be it luck or divine inspiration) I would again cite the "Amadeus" example of my earlier post -- partially true does not preclude also being partially fiction.


----------



## dlloyd (May 8, 2004)

Amen brian!


----------



## markceltic (May 8, 2004)

You don't suppose this is the same Brian they refer to in The Life of Brian hey dlloyd!


----------



## brianleahy (May 8, 2004)

I'm not a messiah, just a very naughty boy.

I do, however, always try to look on the bright side of life.


----------



## dlloyd (May 8, 2004)

Naw, I don't think so either. He has some pretty well formulated ideas though!

And markceltic, what's the 'hey dlloyd!' for?


----------



## g/re/p (May 9, 2004)

Revisionism Street

Words and Music by Bob Seger, Craig Frost, Tim Mitchell 

I saw them standing on a corner 
Bathed in ordinary light 
They turned away and started walkin' 
And faded off into the night 
Some years ago they were in fashion 
Tonight they couldn't get a seat 
They've got themselves a brand new history 
From Revisionism Street 
Written on Revisionism Street 

The years of sacrifice and struggle 
The arc of stardom's natural course 
The inevitable decline 
The wolves waiting at the door 
";Let's dig up something really nasty"; 
";Let's get some clay around their feet"; 
";No ones memory is sacred 'round here 
On Revisionism Street"; 

";We'll never be in the arena"; 
";Hey, we'll never have to compete"; 
";We'll never write a classic novel"; 
";And we'll never have to be discreet!"; 

Alfred Hitchcock, Isaac Newton 
Elvis Presley, Captain Bligh 
They're heroic or pathetic 
Depending on which book you buy 
Charles Dickens, Jackie Gleason 
Burn 'em all, turn up the heat 
If there's no truth, use innuendo 
this is Revisionism Street 

";Let's find ourselves some old acquaintance"; 
";Let's see what they have to say"; 
";Some disgruntled ex-employee"; 
";Presto! Payday!"; 

A tree falls in the forest 
A million copies go to print 
Some parasitic little feeder 
Sits back and makes a mint 
Somewhere a baby's softly sleeping 
lt's innocence complete 
Unaware they're workin' late tonight 
On Revisionism Street


----------



## MDLarson (May 9, 2004)

I seem to have missed my email notifications, and ugh, I dread getting into long discussions... But, I'll do my best to defend what I believe.

I don't necessarilly know how to begin this, but maybe you can bear with me...

The issue of creation is vitally important to the Christian.  The entire basis of Christianity lies in the truth of the Creation.



> Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy  Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.
> _G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979._



Now, I happen to believe that science actually *confirms* the Biblical record.  If you have trouble with that statement, I'll rephrase:  I believe that evidence we find on earth and the universe at large can be interpreted nicely in a Biblical worldview.

There's no doubt about itChristians *cannot* accept evolution and still be Bible-believing Christians.  (If you are a Christian and disagree with me, let's do private messages please.)

Perhaps you can supply me with some questions I can attempt to answer regarding science vs. the Bible.  That way I'm not shooting in the dark hoping to strike a chord with anybody.

Also, let me clarify my stance on things.  My goal is not to convince you that you are *wrong*.  My goal is to convince you that it is _reasonable_ to believe in God or Jesus or the validity of the Bible.

By the way, my primary reference for creation issues is http://www.answersingenesis.org/.


----------



## RacerX (May 9, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Perhaps you can supply me with some questions I can attempt to answer regarding science vs. the Bible.  That way I'm not shooting in the dark hoping to strike a chord with anybody.



Are you _sure_ you want to go down this road again? The last two times we did this you took it all very personally.

If you are now ready to treat your beliefs being targeted as different from _you_ being targeted, and are not going to take a critical review of your answers personally, I'm all for this.

Just remember that we stopped before at your request. That is why I am asking if you are really ready for this again.


----------



## MDLarson (May 9, 2004)

I came across this great audio track (Real format).  "Ken Ham: Can we really trust the Bible? Defending the Christian faith in a scientific age"



			
				markceltic said:
			
		

> I was wondering MDLarson do you take the Bible literally? I mean for example an actual hand of God literally comes out of the sky to smite someone.A manifestation that all people can see with their physical eyes.


I appreciate your question:  the things that the Bible says happened (especially in the Old Testament) seem to show up today in the supermarket aisles (you know, those quirky magazines that have the world's largest babies, etc.).

There is a reasonable gap between passing the Bible off as myth and believing every sentence and word for its literal meaning.  There is room for poetry, and allegory.  Take for example the one you provided.  What does the hand of God actually look like?  I don't know, and I'm willing to bet it's not a flesh-and-blood hand attached to a 500 foot giant that is God.  The example you cited is probably the best way the authors could write it down.  Not saying that God could not have made it appear like an actual hand, either.  Do you have a verse reference?


----------



## brianleahy (May 9, 2004)

Well, first, let's acknowledge that there are at least two different ideas here.

First, there is the process of evolution.  

Then there is proposition that humans and modern apes have a common ancestry.

The process of evolution itself has three components: reproduction, mutation, and natural selection.   Each of these components can be shown beyond any reasonable doubt to exist.   Evolution as a process DOES occur, and this can easily be demonstrated in a controlled setting, and (at least at the microbial level) on a time scale of just days.  

The other issue is the propositon that humans and modern apes had a common ancestry.  (As you may already be aware, nobody has ever seriously proposed that humans are descended from modern apes.)  This, I think you'll agree, is the issue that is important in this context?

One thing that puzzles me is: if you believe that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, how do you account for the degree of genetic variation that we observe?   Mutation introduces some variation, but most staunch creationists profess a disbelief that mutation can ever be anything but harmful.  So, how to account for a species with individuals as widely varying as Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer and Shaquille "Shaq" O'Neal?

But now let me propose a few broader thoughts:  

You feel that belief divine creation is vital for Christian faith.   What about the rest of the bible?   Must it all be _literally_ true, not just metaphorically?  Would the slightest flaw undermine the whole ball of wax?  

Notice, I am NOT asking if you think that the Bible IS flawed.   What I am asking you is, would it undermine your faith if it was proved to you that it WAS?

And lastly: while again, you may think that the Bible is perfect, can you imagine ANY circumstances, where ANY evidence could be presented that would make you doubt any part of it?

If your answer is no, then really, we are wasting our breath.   Unconditional blind faith can be a powerful thing, but it is wholly incompatible with the very concept of a debate.


----------



## MDLarson (May 9, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> Are you _sure_ you want to go down this road again? The last two times we did this you took it all very personally.
> 
> If you are now ready to treat your beliefs being targeted as different from _you_ being targeted, and are not going to take a critical review of your answers personally, I'm all for this.
> 
> Just remember that we stopped before at your request. That is why I am asking if you are really ready for this again.


I don't know man.  You in particular offer up a tough debate, and I have felt unfairly attacked by you in the past, and that's why you might say I took it personally.  I admit freely that I'm not a very good debater, but my debating skills mean nothing to my beliefs.  That's why I keep coming back in these debates.

I do not want to go down that road again where people just get frustrated.  I *do* want to express my beliefs and test them against yours.  If it's gonna work, you guys gotta be patient with me.  Is what I'm saying making sense, or am I just being immature?


----------



## RacerX (May 9, 2004)

Well, we all have beliefs. I have my beliefs, you have yours, and we are all free to express them.

When you ask others to put your beliefs to the test... that takes it out side of "to each their own" and puts it on the table to be examined in the harshest light in the most critical detail.

My question is, why do you want to do this again? No one is questioning your beliefs. Most of us know what your beliefs are and have no problem with them. But when tested, you have had a tendency to get very frustrated.

If you recall, I ask very much the same question I am asking now the last time... and it ended up the same way as before that.

There isn't any reason to prove your faith here. You aren't losing face if you don't confront other people's beliefs.

You say you felt _unfairly attacked_, I'm letting you know that if you felt that way before, you'll most likely feel that way again (unless you have come to the point of differentiating between what you are holding out for examination and yourself).

There is a BIG difference between expressing your beliefs and having to test them against someone else's. Beliefs are not a sport or contest, they are personal. You take this personally because your beliefs are personal. For me, mathematics and science are best practiced without personal attachment, so I don't take this stuff personally.

Maybe we could start this out by finding out why you feel the need to test your beliefs against those of others. Is faith not enough? Why do you need or care about scientific proof?


----------



## dlloyd (May 10, 2004)

brian: I noticed you used the two from the Apple ad 
But in that case, why the difference between African natives and Eurasians, for example?


----------



## Giaguara (May 10, 2004)

Interesting that ... 99 % of the people in Italy are (statistically, not in practise) Catholic - and the evelution theory is taught as one part of the general knowledge, education, as it is one of the theories that is considered essential to know. If christianity and evolution theory would not coexist, .. only one of them, that is EITHER christianity, or evolution theory, was taught in Europe. I think in ALL European countries they do teach both.

Being taught both, I do think evlution theory is so vague that it's hard to take points of it to tell they are wrong - thus it seems mainly correct. But I've never found any sense in the christian way of thinking, I remember when I was 4 and my grandma died how people were telling me how she got to heaven etc.. it didn't appeal me. It seemed all rituals, all fake. And that not as a reaction to evolution etc theories - I read somethign about the evolution stuff when I was in school, at my teens, and the religion was something my mum (unsuccessfully) tried to brainwash me with. 

In Europe when they teach you evolution theory in school, they also comment it that there are some states in USA where the evolution theory is not taught because of the (christian) conservatives. I thought at that time that it was weird, in a country where in so many other things they are forward, to make such reaction to such a simple theory. :-/


----------



## g/re/p (May 10, 2004)

I have always thought that evolution existed
- i also believe it is one of gods greatest gifts.


----------



## brianleahy (May 10, 2004)

dlloyd said:
			
		

> brian: I noticed you used the two from the Apple ad
> But in that case, why the difference between African natives and Eurasians, for example?



I know Verne Troyer was in an Apple advertisement, but was Shaq?  The Powerbook ad on the airplane featured a very tall Asian athlete, not Shaq.

(Before I go on, let me interject that, although it is certain that some of what I was taught in public school in the 70s may now be either out-of-date or decidedly un-PC, this IS what I was told).   

I was once taught that there are some (modest) survival values for some of the racial differences we see amongst humans.  

For instance: the distinctive eyelid shape in of people of asian descent is the result of an extra fold of skin, which is believed to offer some extra protection for the eyes in cold climates.  The hypothesis here is that this phenotype originated in the frigid climates of Tibet and the Himalayas.  

I will admit that I have not heard this particular theory repeated often, but I don't know if that's because it's been discredited (which happens frequently via the scientific method) or because drawing ANY attention to racial differences (even when that attention is purely clinical and scientific) can result in cries of racism.

It is also clear that darker skin offers greater protection from UV solar radiation, as this quote (http://my.webmd.com/hw/cancer/aa32173.asp?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}) from webmd.com establishes:



> Fair-skinned people with blond or red hair and blue or light-colored eyes have a greater risk of developing skin cancer than dark-skinned people.



Hence, before humans had invented sunscreen and when they spent more of their time outdoors than indoors, populations living under intense sunlight almost year-round were more likely to survive long enough to reproduce if they had greater natural protection from skin cancer.   Hence, the dark-skin genes had a better chance of being passed along.  This can be seen as an example of human evolution (although not, in this case, to the extent of producing a different species.)


----------



## dlloyd (May 10, 2004)

I knew about the 'natural' sunscreen part. So this is a form of 'evolution', correct? (I think so)


----------



## brianleahy (May 10, 2004)

dlloyd said:
			
		

> I knew about the 'natural' sunscreen part. So this is a form of 'evolution', correct? (I think so)



Yes, _human_ evolution, even.

In the name of full disclosure, let me say this:

Paleontologists and evolutionary scientists believe Africa is the cradle of humanity, that the first true humans lived there.  Hence it stands to reason that he first humans had this environmentally-crucial trait (dark skin) which their pre-human ancestors had evolved.  

Humans spread out of Africa and eventually into Europe, Asia, etc. where the sun is not as intense and cloudy days are more common.  At the same time, the cooler climates encouraged them to wear more clothing and stay indoors more.  Thus the environmental and 'lifestyle' pressures to maintain a high degree of natural UV protection were eased.  Paler skin colors could then emege.

This is an example of what might be called 'evolution by omission' -- a trait faded as the evolutionary pressure to maintain it was eased.


----------



## dlloyd (May 10, 2004)

Yeah I knew that. So if you believe in evolution, that makes sense


----------



## MDLarson (May 10, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> One thing that puzzles me is: if you believe that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, how do you account for the degree of genetic variation that we observe?   Mutation introduces some variation, but most staunch creationists profess a disbelief that mutation can ever be anything but harmful.  So, how to account for a species with individuals as widely varying as Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer and Shaquille "Shaq" O'Neal?


I would be one of those creationists who don't believe in a helpful [long-term / pass-me-down] mutation.  Somebody on this forum once provided a case for a positive mutation, but I didn't follow up on it.

As far as the variation in the human species goes, I think it is analogous to the different breeds we see in dogs.  I'm 95% sure "canine" consists of one "species," yet we have a huge variety of breeds that can (usually) inter-breed successfully.  Given enough generations and selective breeding, one can eventually come out with purebreds or mutts.  The genetic code is all there.

Similarly, Adam and Eve would have been created with all the genetic code for all the variation we see today in humans.  I remember reading about one case in New Zealand or Australia where a black and white man and woman (I forget who was what) had two twins and one of the twins appeared completely black and the other completely white.  The point is, we did not mutate our different features.  These features are simply genetic traits.

Please let me know if this doesn't make sense or the point is missed.


			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> You feel that belief divine creation is vital for Christian faith.   What about the rest of the bible?   Must it all be _literally_ true, not just metaphorically?  Would the slightest flaw undermine the whole ball of wax?
> 
> Notice, I am NOT asking if you think that the Bible IS flawed.   What I am asking you is, would it undermine your faith if it was proved to you that it WAS?
> 
> ...


Good point, and worth asking of me.  To clarify, I do make room for errors in interpretations / versions (King James, NIV, etc.) from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.  In addition, meanings change over the years, which have been responsible for some confusion when it comes to what the Bible actually says.

However, you are asking more than that.  You are asking me if my faith will be shaken if *any* part of the Bible is proven, beyond a doubt, for real, wrong.  Yes, my faith would be shaken because so much of my faith rests on what I know from the validity of the Bible.

I feel like I am inviting a hailstorm of critizisms about the Bible upon my head, and that if I fail to answer any of them satisfactorily, I would be labeled a blind sheep and lose respect.  I _fear this_ because I don't know enough about the Bible's heritage, or Greek or Hebrew, or other things that a scientific person would appreciate.  More than anything, I want to talk about WHAT _I_ KNOW.



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> My question is, why do you want to do this again? No one is questioning your beliefs. Most of us know what your beliefs are and have no problem with them. But when tested, you have had a tendency to get very frustrated.


RacerX, thank you for your last post; it made sense to me.  I now think the source of my frustration is when people challenge me with questions I cannot answer, and don't let me talk about what *I* want to talk about.  I get like, 5 people asking critical questions directed at me, and I feel like nobody's even listening to my good points.



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> There is a BIG difference between expressing your beliefs and having to test them against someone else's. Beliefs are not a sport or contest, they are personal. You take this personally because your beliefs are personal. For me, mathematics and science are best practiced without personal attachment, so I don't take this stuff personally.
> 
> Maybe we could start this out by finding out why you feel the need to test your beliefs against those of others. Is faith not enough? Why do you need or care about scientific proof?


 If you can truly divorce yourself from any emotional attachment to the origins argument, I envy you to a degree.  But because so much of my faith rests in the truth of the Bible, I can't help but take it personally when others make fun of it or dismiss it as pure myth out of hand.  I feel as though I have thought out my faith well enough, and when people dismiss my position so lightly, it is insulting to me.

Simple faith is certainly NOT enough for me.  I believe that if God dod not create the universe in six days, he is a liar.  If I put my faith in a liar, *I am a fool*.

I hope I'm making sense, and would very much like to talk about things we can all grapple with.  I'll try not to feel personally attacked.


----------



## dlloyd (May 10, 2004)

> As far as the variation in the human species goes, I think it is analogous to the different breeds we see in dogs. I'm 95% sure "canine" consists of one "species," yet we have a huge variety of breeds that can (usually) inter-breed successfully. Given enough generations and selective breeding, one can eventually come out with purebreds or mutts. The genetic code is all there.



Let's take this as an example: couldn't the change from a wolf to a Chihuahua be considered 'evolution'? They're certainly descended from a common origin, that has been proven, but there is obviously a great number of differences between one and the other. Differences created of selection (by man) and time.
Change that to Natural Selection and time, and I think you have what's usually referred to as 'evolution'. Is that correct?
I'm not attacking you, I'm genuinely interested to hear what you think.


----------



## brianleahy (May 10, 2004)

The various breeds of domestic dogs are indeed all the same species -- you could easily cross a Great Dane with a Chihuahua (though I'd recommend the Dane be the mother).  All domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and the extreme variation we see is the product of ARTIFICIAL selection - man manipulating the interbreeding of individuals to produce desired traits.  This is analogous in some ways to evolution, except that the desires & whims of human masters are the controlling factor, rather than the requirements of survival.

It is worth noting that purebred dogs - especially the larger breeds - often suffer from certain health problems rarely seen on wolves -- such as arthritis, epilepsy and heart problems.  This is caused by inbreeding.


On a somewhat different subject:

One of the biggest obstacles to a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve is what is called "Mitochondrial DNA" - or mtDNA as it is often abbreviated.

A great summary of mtDNA can be read here:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/dnatext.htm#Mitochondrial DNA Background

...but I will summarize here:

Mitochondria are 'organelles' - a component of living animal cells, which assist the cell in the extraction of energy from food.  Mitochondria have their own DNA, which is separate from the DNA (called 'nuclear' DNA) of the cell as a whole.  

This fact has led to a theory that the distant ancestors of modern mitochondria were free-floating organisms, which at some point in time formed a symbiotic relationship with animals that persists even to this day.  The animal's cells feed and protect the mitochondria, and the mitochondria help the cell metabolize food.

Mitochondria behave like single-celled organisms in many ways, including that they reproduce by mitosis - asexually.  When your cells divide, your mitochondria also divide, and half of them go with each copy of the cell.

And here's where it gets interesting:  Although your 'nuclear' DNA is a mixture of your mother's and your father's, when sperm and egg unite the _egg_ provides 100% of the Mitochondria -- and thus, 100% of your mtDNA.

Hence, mtDNA is inherited in a direct, unbroken maternal line, that is never mixed together with a father's mtDNA.  Any human being, male or female, has the same mtDNA as his or her mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc.

This presents an obvious problem for the tale of Adam and Eve:  if Genesis was literally true, then every single human being who has ever lived should have the exact same mtDNA (Eve's) but they don't.  Even allowing for rare mutations, the differences should be very, very small  (especially if you subscribe to the proposition that the earth is a mere 6000 years old, which would make the total number of human generations relatively small.)

And yet this universal commonality is not seen, as evidenced by the fact that the FBI (see the website I mentioned) uses mtDNA for forensic tests on a regular basis.  Persons with no known maternal ancestors in common virtually always have completely different mtDNA.

On an entirely different subject:
I do not envy your position as you have stated it.  Your faith is important to you, but you fear that you will one day learn something that irreparably undermines it.  Furthermore, you expect this would be profoundly upsetting to you.  It must be very unsettling.

I applaud your enthusiasm for seeking the truth, but (believing as **I** do) I suspect you will one day either have to curtail your search, accept a more metaphorical view of Christian beliefs, or else face that terrible disillusionment you fear.


----------



## dlloyd (May 10, 2004)

brian: is the 6000 year number from the Bible? If so, how can that possibly be true, seeing as certain artifacts are dated, via unquestionable scientific methods, to be at the very least, several million years old. I can explain the dating methods if you like, I just took a class on it, but I assume most of you have heard of Carbon 14 dating though, which is one form of it.

And even if the mtDNA came from Eve and was mutated, that would be a form of 'positive mutation', which to quote MDLarson: "I would be one of those creationists who don't believe in a helpful [long-term / pass-me-down] mutation."
Either way, it would be against his belief system.


Well, this thread is very interesting, I've never had opinions like this before


----------



## brianleahy (May 10, 2004)

Speaking personally (and as my earlier posts reveal) I accept the geologic age of the earth, of about 4.5 billion years.  The figure of 6000 years is not in the Bible, per-se, but it is a figure adopted by some Christian sects (such as Mormons, I believe).

A Google search reveals that this figure is credited to "James Ussher, Anglican Archibishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland."  (I cannot help but grin at the fact that this priest, who would surely have denounced evolution if he had lived to see it proposed, bore the title of "Primate".)

A description of his method is here:  http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm


----------



## dlloyd (May 10, 2004)

Hmm, well I don't agree with that link 

I feel that the creationist story is more of a metaphor than actual fact.


----------



## MDLarson (May 10, 2004)

I haven't heard that mtDNA stuff before Brian, I'd like to follow up on that.

As far as the evolution between species like dogs or plants or humans etc., the correct term for that is _microevolution_.  Creationists have no problem with that, as it does not and cannot create new species over time.  _Macroevolution_ is what evolution is generally regarded as, or one species coming out of another.

I was taught that peppered moths of the industrial revolution were a prime example of evolution in progress, but when I tried to tell my teacher that no new species was created in the phenomenon, she still insisted it was "the real deal".

Anyway, gotta run, it's late.


----------



## brianleahy (May 11, 2004)

> Hmm, well I don't agree with that link



Lest there be any confusion, neither do I.  

Or to be more specific, although the _link_ may be an accurate account of a 17th century Archbishop's teaching, I do not agree with the Archbishop.


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Hmmmm, MD. Sounds like a stupid teacher .
However, don't you agree that eventually, if left apart long enough, Chihuahuas and Great Danes could become separated as a species? Yes, at the beginning of the evolution process for humans we were probably able to mate with some form of large ape too, but obviously we can't do that anymore.


----------



## brianleahy (May 11, 2004)

> we were probably able to mate with some form of large ape too, but obviously we can't do that anymore.



It's funny you should bring that up, I was thinking of mentioning this anyway:  As repulsive as it sounds, some scientists believe that it might be possible to breed humans with chimps.  

There is some precedent for different, but related, species to be able to breed.  In captivity, Lions and Tigers sometimes mate, to produce Tigons or Ligers (by convention, the father cat provides the first syllable).   Read about & see pix of these hybrid cats here:  http://www.shambala.org/images/02_Animals/patrick.htm

Also, horses and donkeys can mate to produce a Mule - a live, viable hybrid, though usually sterile. 

Comparisons of human vs. chimp DNA reveals greater similarity than a comparison of horse & donkey DNA, so it seems reasonable that if horses & donkeys can breed, humans & chimps might also be able.

So far as I know, nobody has yet dared try it - in vitro or otherwise.  And if you think human cloning has stirred up controversy and outrage, just imagine the furor over an actual chimp-man...

But my question (especially for MD) is: if it happened, if some unscrupulous researcher successfully bred a chimp/human hybrid, proving that it could really be done, would this seem to you persuasive evidence that modern chimps and humans are, literally, related?


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

To me, yes I think so. And aren't Mules _always_ sterile?


----------



## brianleahy (May 11, 2004)

dlloyd said:
			
		

> To me, yes I think so. And aren't Mules _always_ sterile?



I think that most biological texts you might consult would say yes.  However, having several farmers in my extended family, I have heard anecdotal evidence that now and then female mules have become pregnant.  Nothing you could publish in _Nature_, but...


----------



## markceltic (May 11, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> It's funny you should bring that up, I was thinking of mentioning this anyway:  As repulsive as it sounds, some scientists believe that it might be possible to breed humans with chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, nobody has yet dared try it - in vitro or otherwise.  And if you think human cloning has stirred up controversy and outrage, just imagine the furor over an actual chimp-man...


       I say if this was to happen the creature should be immediately destroyed.We have no business mucking about in the DNA that fundamentally makes us who we are.I suppose next someone wants to create a "super soldier".


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

"Genetically Modified Humans". Hmmm, wonder if they'd taste good, lol

Honestly, sounds like something from a science fiction book


----------



## brianleahy (May 11, 2004)

I would not condone the creation of such a hybrid either.  Even setting aside religious objections (bestiality is explicitly forbidden in the Bible, though it's an open question whether this proscription applies only to sexual acts or if it would extend to in-vitro fertilization) there are serious ethical and legal issues.  

Such a hybrid might - indeed, probably would - suffer numerous health problems.  The creature might be nearly as intelligent as a human, but it would have absolutely no prospect of living anything resembling a normal life, as either a chimp or a man.  And what legal rights would it have?  A human donor would have contributed half of the DNA - would that donor be obliged to support and care for the hybrid?

With the current pace of both computer technology and DNA/biological research, I think it's likely that within a few decades it will become possible to enter any hypothetical genome into a computer program and simulate its development (or failure to develop) from fertilized egg into living creature.   At that point, perhaps we can safely and ethically examine the result of a chimp/human cross.


----------



## MDLarson (May 11, 2004)

dlloyd said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, MD. Sounds like a stupid teacher .
> However, don't you agree that eventually, if left apart long enough, Chihuahuas and Great Danes could become separated as a species? Yes, at the beginning of the evolution process for humans we were probably able to mate with some form of large ape too, but obviously we can't do that anymore.


I've been typing and erasing my response to this question for 5 minutes now... lol!  Having a hard time articulating.

I am not an expert, but I think they will still be 'dogs'.  No new genetic information has happened in your example; they simply 'stayed the same'.  If anything, genetic information would be *lost* due to the maintenance of the pure-bred, and in the end be an argument _against_ evolution not for it.

This talk about ligers, tigons and mules is interesting, but unless these animals produce fertile offspring capable of passing on the genetic information, it's not evolution.  Even if the offspring _were_ fertile, I'm not sure it would be evolution in action.

Question for the evolutionist mathemetician:  You say that _sexual_ animals evolved from _asexual_ animals.  Asexual animals require no male or female for reproduction-it's all handled by the single animal.

Now, keeping in mind that mutated genetic traits *must* be passed down to successful offspring for evolution to work, think about how both male and female sets of sex organs had to evolve *simultaneously* for sexual reproduction to work.  If a fledgling "female" (we're talking transitional forms here) had something just a little bit wrong with her sex organs, the male (we'll just assume his parts are working fine) would not be any help at all to the evolutionary process.

I'm with Sir Fred Hoyle on this one, so please, try to explain how this process would work to me, as I view this process as truly, practically *impossible*.  I don't care if you give it billions or even trillions of years, I still think the probability of this happening is pretty much ZERO.  If you don't see the problem I see, let me know and I can try to articulate a little better.


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Now what about things like snails which are capable of both?
And if, as you say, "genetic information would be lost due to the maintenance of the pure-bred" wouldn't that be evolution? The genetics are still _different_


----------



## MDLarson (May 11, 2004)

dlloyd said:
			
		

> Now what about things like snails which are capable of both?


Ah, I was not aware of that - good point.  I think you're suggesting that a species would maintain both methods of reproduction until one emerged as the advantagous trait and the other was eventually dropped.  But you must now explain to me why an animal capable of such a feat would even bother to use the sexual method if it is clearly more of an advantage as a species to use the asexual method?  The organism would have to find a mate whose own sex organs functioned well enough.  The odds are still staggering, in my opinion.


			
				dlloyd said:
			
		

> And if, as you say, "genetic information would be lost due to the maintenance of the pure-bred" wouldn't that be evolution? The genetics are still _different_


Yes, the genetics are still different, but information is LOST, not GAINED.  You could label it "evolution", strictly speaking because it is "change", but it does NOT solve the evolutionist stance of simple > complex in the species.


----------



## brianleahy (May 11, 2004)

Well first, I did not mean to imply that the creation of 'mules' and other sterile hybrids was an _example_ of evolution. 

Rather, I meant that the fact that creatures that are irrefutably different species can sometimes produce even a _living_ offspring suggests that the two species have a fundamental biochemical commonality, consistent with their having a common primordial ancestry.  

If instead, each species was created in a seperate act of creation (and God did not INTEND them to interbreed) then why would their DNA be compatible at all?  It is, clearly, _possible_ to create genetically incompatible creatures - you can combine owl sperm with trout eggs as many times as you want and get zilch - so why didn't God make every species mutually incompatible?   

As for how sex evolved -- first, with regards the compatibility of sex organs, realize that it is misleading to think of sexual organs as developing independently and thus raising the risk of incompatibility.   (And obviously, any mutation which suddenly produced incompatible sex organs would immediately go extinct, since its owner could not reproduce.)  The entire function of the sex organs is to facilitate a successful mating, and so male and female sex organs evolve _as a set_, not independently.   Men and women are not different species which somehow discovered they could miraculously team up and make babies - they are two different expressions of the same genome.

Furthermore, sexual reproduction can and does exist WITHOUT interlocking sex organs.   Dlloyd gives a great example: snails.   Strictly speaking, snails reproduce sexually, yet are sexless.   That is, there are no male or female snails -- any two snails can mate, and both may become pregnant as a result.  

Then there are fish.   Most fish species do not, technically, mate.   They pair up, and the female lays her unfertilized eggs on the floor of the ocean/lake/river -- and then the male applies his sperm to the eggs.   Clearly in this arrangement, there is no requirement for any kind of mechanical compatibility between the sexual organs.

You may or may not know that there _are_ creatures which can reproduce _either_ sexually or asexually.   The Paramecium (often studied by high school bio students) can reproduce by simple fission, producing two genetically identical offspring -- or it can exchange genetic material with another paramecium.   The microbe has what is called an "oral groove", and during what is called 'conjugation', two paramecia align their oral grooves and exchange nuclear material.   This process is *always* followed by the fission of both paramecia.   This represents an intermediate step between purely asexual and purely sexual reproduction.  It also shows that sexual reproduction began very humbly, at the single-celled level. 

There are also plants - dandelions for instance - in which each individual produces  pollen (sperm) and 'hopes' to attract the pollen of another dandelion via either an insect or the wind.   If, however, no pollen is forthcoming, the flower will eventually bend its pistils all the way around until it can harvest its OWN pollen, and it produces seeds asexually.

I have to grant you though, at a common sense level sex seems like a particularly difficult thing for evolution to have produced.  It has been the subject of countless books, articles, and doctoral theses.   What I have seen and read has persuaded me that it can and did happen.


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Ah, I was not aware of that - good point.  I think you're suggesting that a species would maintain both methods of reproduction until one emerged as the advantagous trait and the other was eventually dropped.  But you must now explain to me why an animal capable of such a feat would even bother to use the sexual method if it is clearly more of an advantage as a species to use the asexual method?  The organism would have to find a mate whose own sex organs functioned well enough.  The odds are still staggering, in my opinion.


Staggering, yes, as are many things (the size of the universe, the length of pi, and life itself), but still not impossible, or even improbable.
I would think (personal opinion, I've not actually got any fact to back this up) that beings would want to move away from asexual reproduction for the simple reason that inbreeding is bad. I would say this is instinct, which, if you like, could have been placed there by God. Doesn't the Bible have strong words regarding incest? Why should the rule be specifically different for humans than for other animals, or even plants for that matter? Of course, asexual reproduction is a good backup for when another 'specimen'  of the opposite sex isn't available. Much like you would probably 'reproduce' with your sister/mother if you were the last two humans on the planet; it is a survival mechanism.



			
				MDLarson said:
			
		

> Yes, the genetics are still different, but information is LOST, not GAINED.  You could label it "evolution", strictly speaking because it is "change", but it does NOT solve the evolutionist stance of simple > complex in the species.


So you look at genetics like Bill Gates looks at Windows? ie, it's only better if it's bigger?  (yes, that was a cheap shot)


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Hmm Brian, you have certainly 'outread' me on this subject . I hadn't remembered that snails are actually sexless, though I do remember remembering this at one point. However, I was going to cite the example of plants later on, and I did somewhat touch on it in the post immediately previous to this one.

Oh, and looking at some girls, I would say they're a separate species. Not all, of course (my best friend is a prime example), but some...


----------



## lurk (May 11, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Humans spread out of Africa and eventually into Europe, Asia, etc. where the sun is not as intense and cloudy days are more common.  At the same time, the cooler climates encouraged them to wear more clothing and stay indoors more.  Thus the environmental and 'lifestyle' pressures to maintain a high degree of natural UV protection were eased.  Paler skin colors could then emege.
> 
> This is an example of what might be called 'evolution by omission' -- a trait faded as the evolutionary pressure to maintain it was eased.



This is a bit late but...

Just to add a little bit here lighter skin has distinct advantages in cold or low light areas or the world.  The problem is not with cancer but rather Vitamin D, which is naturally generated in your skin through exposure to sunlight.  Fair skin can produce more Vitamin D with less light and so was beneficial to people who lived in colder climates where their skin was covered for the most part.




			
				MDLarson said:
			
		

> I would be one of those creationists who don't believe in a helpful [long-term / pass-me-down] mutation. Somebody on this forum once provided a case for a positive mutation, but I didn't follow up on it.



One quick one that comes to mind would be the gene for sickle cell anemia which is quite bad is you get two copies of it.  While if you have one sickle cell gene and one normal gene you will be immune to the effects of malaria.  So in regions where malaria is endemic you find lots of sickle cell anemia since if you are lucky enough to get only one 'bad' mutation you live in the presence of a nasty disease.  Where there is no malaria pressures on the population this mutation is only bad and is almost nonexistent.



			
				MDLarson said:
			
		

> As far as the variation in the human species goes, I think it is analogous to the different breeds we see in dogs. I'm 95% sure "canine" consists of one "species," yet we have a huge variety of breeds that can (usually) inter-breed successfully. Given enough generations and selective breeding, one can eventually come out with purebreds or mutts. The genetic code is all there.
> 
> Similarly, Adam and Eve would have been created with all the genetic code for all the variation we see today in humans. I remember reading about one case in New Zealand or Australia where a black and white man and woman (I forget who was what) had two twins and one of the twins appeared completely black and the other completely white. The point is, we did not mutate our different features. These features are simply genetic traits.



Finally, the idea that Adam and Eve carried all of the genetic diversity we see today is impossible when you consider that they were only two individuals.  This is actually an information theoretic issue if you think about it if you only allow for recombination for genetic change rather than mutation then that means that for each point in the human genetic code had to be present in these two individuals.  There are four bases you can have so technically if each is present in the population then whatever pair Adam had Eve necessarily had the other.  The problem is that the resulting gene that Eve has to carry would have no chance of being viable.  In effect you are trying to compress too much information into too small of a space and as a result the compression is too lossy to be of value.

-Eric


----------



## brianleahy (May 12, 2004)

The vitamin D angle -- excellent!  I hadn't thought of that.  

And I had not thought about the information issue, that's very good too...  

Even if you didn't take it quite to the base-pair level, still Adam or Eve would have to have -- between the two of them -- every single recessive genetic  trait we see today, including the many crippling genetic illnesses we see.  The first generation of offspring would be fine, but a large fraction of the 2nd generation would be ravaged by horrible diseases, due to the unavoidable inbreeding.   Nasty...



> beings would want to move away from asexual reproduction for the simple reason that inbreeding is bad.



Many studies have shown that the genetic shuffling afforded by sexual reproduction is very advantageous, and produces an overall healthier and more robust species.   Inbreeding is bad because you're just mixing two copies of the same genes, and running a high risk of getting two copies of a harmful recessive gene.

Anyway, it is believed an ancient organism which, like paramecium, could reproduce either sexually or asexually, found that the generations which conjugated more often usually did better, and more of its offspring lived to divide further.   Any genetic components which encouraged more frequent conjugation would thrive, with ever more copies present.  

Over time, it became an organism that would virtually ALWAYS mate before splitting, and finally, one that could not split without first mating.

Sex organs may have arisen as an expedient to conjugation; any mechanical advantage that might simplify the alignment of two paramecia's oral grooves would improve the odds of successful conjugation.


----------



## dlloyd (May 12, 2004)

Here is a pretty  good picture of a paramecium: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/techniques/phasegallery/paramecium.html
And a diagram: http://science.kennesaw.edu/biophys/biodiversity/protista/protpix.htm#paramecium



			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Over time, it became an organism that would virtually ALWAYS mate before splitting, and finally, one that could not split without first mating.


Except for those which, like the snail, retained the ability to do it either way 

I think the theory of evolution itself is probably accepted by everyone (it has to be). For example, if there is a litter of pigs born in the wild, and one is born with a genetical defect which means it has no eyes, this runt will almost certainly not live, because it isn't as 'well developed' as it's brothers and sisters, and will not be able to avoid danger properly. Now, if it did live, its offspring would quite possibly have the same defect as its parent. Since the runt won't live, you have an example of natural selection.
On the other hand, if this same litter of pigs was born with one member that possessed four eyes, two in the back of the head, this member would have a marked advantage to its siblings. It would (we're assuming it's otherwise healthy) almost certainly live, because of its greater ability to avoid danger. When it reproduces, you'll have a change of some of its offspring also having four eyes, and, with time, you might have a new species. This is also an example of natural selection.
I believe this is an example of the beginnings of evolution.
The only problem I can see with this is some people might say "well, what proof is there that it will turn out a new species?" To go back to the canine example, 'dogs' are actually quite young; only a few thousand years old. A very short time period in the process of evolution. They haven't had enough _time_ to develop into a new species, but I think that with time a Chihuahua could very easily lose the ability to mate with a wolf. Obviously at the beginning of the split of two species, they will remain 'inter-mate-able,' at least for a while.
Which brings up another question. To my knowledge, a wolf and a fox cannot mate and produce offspring. How do you then account for the fact that the wolf and the fox look similar, have similar genetics, and in general, seem to share many things? Do you believe that all these were created separately?
Anyway, to go back to my previous statement, I think almost everyone has to believe in evolution to some point (how can you possibly dismiss proven evidence, unless you are totally mad?), but it appears that at least one group of people chose to believe that there can be no 'long term' evolution.

And I think we need to get some fresh blood in here to help MDLarson . Three against one isn't exactly a fair debate.


----------



## brianleahy (May 12, 2004)

> Except for those which, like the snail, retained the ability to do it either way



Yes, true.  But most animals must mate to reproduce; they clearly diverged long ago from the line that yielded snails.  The 'sexual only' line probably branched off in a fashion similar to what I described.

Natural selection (aka 'survival of the fittest') - a primary component of evolution - is indeed pretty self-evident.   I don't think that MD has said he disbelieves in that; his issue seems to be with mutation, and the chance creation of life from complex (but lifeless) molecules.

A theory that has received some serious attention in the scientific community (though it is far from universally accepted) is 'panspermia' -- or "world seeding".   It is the proposition that the most complex building-blocks of life, or perhaps even the first organisms themselves, literally fell from space aboard a comet or meteor.   There is some evidence that this could actually happen; spectral analysis of reflected light from comets has shown some complex hydrocarbons in them.

Of course, to some degree this only begs the question (now we are left to wonder: how did those substances or organisms get onto the comet/whatever in the first place?) but it also opens the exciting prospect of life being widespread in the solar system, perhaps in the entire universe.


----------



## lurk (May 12, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Even if you didn't take it quite to the base-pair level, still Adam or Eve would have to have -- between the two of them -- every single recessive genetic  trait we see today, including the many crippling genetic illnesses we see.  The first generation of offspring would be fine, but a large fraction of the 2nd generation would be ravaged by horrible diseases, due to the unavoidable inbreeding.   Nasty...



An interesting explanation as to why inbreeding is bad and why it hits in later generations I came across recently is this.  On average every person on the planet carries two genetic illnesses (I don't know if that number was pulled out of the air so don't get hung up on it) but they are different and recessive so we are OK.  In addition there are so many different kinds of diseases that if you take two random people the chance that they are both carriers for the same one is really small, say 1 in 10,000.  Now take a random man and woman the first of which carries disease  A and B and the second that carries C and D now they have 2 children there are three possible results:


%25 chance the kids carry the same diseases.
%50 chance the kids have one disease in common.
%25 chance they got lucky and carry no common diseases.

Now this is where things start to get bad for the next generation when this brother and sister mate.  In the first case there is a %50 chance the offspring will actually have a genetic disease, in the second case it is %25 and in the third everything is ok.  On the whole when you look at all the probabilities in this model when a brother and sister mate there is a 25% chance something will go wrong.  

Now 25% is not actually that scary is it?  Well if you think about it that is a 1 in 4 chance compared to the original 1 in 10,000 chance for unrelated couplings. It is 2500 times more likely for the children of siblings to express some genetic disease!  (I also have ignored recursive applications of inbreeding as well as the effects of more distant relations like cousins getting hitched.)


----------



## dlloyd (May 12, 2004)

That's quite interesting, I'll remember it for future reference .
However, I'm a little confused about why Adam and Eve would have had to carry every single genetic 'mistake' from the very beginning. Why couldn't these have been introduced over the thousands of years since then? Radiation is supposed to mess with DNA, so I would have thought it possible that the genetic diseases could have been introduced that way, for example. I don't know, maybe I missed something


----------



## brianleahy (May 12, 2004)

> Why couldn't these have been introduced over the thousands of years since then?



Well *I* believe that they could; but I'm assuming MD would not, given his position on the non-persistence of mutations.  Granted, he only ACTUALLY said that he doubted the heritability of BENEFICIAL mutations, but I was assuming he intended it to apply to any mutation.

I suppose to be more clear, I ought to have said: 

If we assume that:
(1) all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, and 
(2) all observed genetic traits are the result of a remixing of Adam's genes and Eve's and that 
(3) mutations, when they occur, do not persist for multiple generations

THEN 

(4) we must conclude that between the two of them, Adam and Eve posessed every known recessive trait.


----------



## dlloyd (May 12, 2004)

Ah, I see. I guess we need to find out if MD is only talking about beneficial mutations in that case. If he is, I'd say that's a little inconsistent


----------



## MDLarson (May 12, 2004)

Boy, I wish I knew more about genetics...  I think I've caught about 80% of the last couple of pages.  But here's what I think:

Disease was *not* a problem for Adam and Eve at first.  Their genetic code was 'perfect'.  Disease (and death) was a part of the curse that God cast on humankind for their disobedience.

I could attempt to give the Creationist's answer to the problem of inbreeding and the Bible, but you would do well to visit my wonderful little resource website:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp
The meat of the argument show up about half way down the page.

I think I am changing my view on mutations, albeit only slightly.  Before, I said that no mutation is good or beneficial.  I now believe that a mutation _can_ be beneficial to a species, but there is still a catch; mutations can only _lose_ information, not add to it.  As usual, here's my source!

Hopefully through these discussions one can understand why I believe the things I do.


----------



## Giaguara (May 12, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Disease was *not* a problem for Adam and Eve at first.  Their genetic code was 'perfect'.  Disease (and death) was a part of the curse that God cast on humankind for their disobedience.



Interesting. Death is a curse? Christians (and most Western people) seem to think so. The Bible talks about eternal life, doesn't it? So why is it that people talk about eternal life, and are scared of the death (and the life) on the same time?

Most people having 'seen' the death are not afraid of it, and don't think it is a curse. It is as inevitable part of life as the birth - that is, everyone and everything that is once born, has to die. Simple as that. Some religions take that more natural.

I don't believe the "human code" would have been perfect ever.


----------



## dlloyd (May 12, 2004)

Well, if you've ever read the history behind LOTR, eternal life isn't 'perfect' either.


----------



## Cat (May 13, 2004)

What I always found strange ... Adam and Eve, yes, they had ... how many children? I know of Cain and Abel, which are both male ... and the rest? Any sisters? So where did the rest of humanity come from? Weren't there other humans? Didn't Cain leave after the murder to live somewhere else with some other folk? And the children of Adam and Eve, wouldn't they have to commit incest? Wouldn't that be immoral and genetically nasty? And what about "and God created them man and woman" and then a few pages later we have another creation of Eve from a rib of Adam ... so where there more women? Or was Adam bisexual first and then separated in two sexually reproducing creatures?

What about the other animals: did they sin too? Were they perfect at creation and then condemned together with us humans for crimes they did not commit? Can an animal sin? Why do they die if they didn't sin? Why were they cast out from paradise? Or weren't they in paradise in the first place?

What about the universal flood when all evil humans were killed: was that genetic/ethnic cleansing? How about all the incest going on in between the children of Noach? Why didn't god intervene earlier or why did he not intervene again later? Why did he first punish Adam and Eve and all their offspring with bad genes and then kill off with the flood the evil resulting from his own punishment?

If Adam and Eve sinned, how can you say they were perfect, genetically or otherwise? How can you say that they sinned if before eating the forbidden fruit of good and evil they did not know evil at all? Can I sin if I do not know evil?

Take your time.


----------



## Giaguara (May 13, 2004)

I think that in some sense the "inherited sin" "original sin" (whatever you want to call it) would make more sense if they had not cleaned away chapters from the bible around 300 AD. They removed everything regarding lives (such as reincarnation). So take a case - someone is born blind, and Jesus saves him from "his sins". How can he have done sin to become blind, if he was blind since he was born? Did his parents commit such sins that god would revenge their child with blindness? You would not want that kind of god, would you? 
If you'd add (As a consideration) that there was something about more lives - maybe it could be more justified. So if _you_ sin ("live out of the harmony of the nature" or something like that) you bring yourself bad karma. If your karma is bad enough, you are born with 'limitations' such as limited mobility, any kind of 'genetical diseases' .. as a system, it would sound a bit more fair.


----------



## brianleahy (May 13, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> What I always found strange ... Adam and Eve, yes, they had ... how many children? I know of Cain and Abel, which are both male ... and the rest? Any sisters?



While I do not share to MD's beliefs, he does talk about this exact topic at his website, at the link provided in his prior post.  Bottom line: Cain & Abel did indeed marry their sisters.



			
				Cat said:
			
		

> And what about "and God created them man and woman" and then a few pages later we have another creation of Eve from a rib of Adam ...



In Hebrew legend, Adam had a wife _before_ Eve, named Lilith.   There are some sources on the web about her story.  

The little bit that I know about this myth is unreliable (even as an accounting of a myth) because I got it from a peculiar source:  comic books.  (Specifically, Neil Gaiman's _Sandman_ series.)  Modern comic books borrow heavily from every religious mythology, including Christian and Jewish, but also ancient Greek, Norse, Egyptian and Native American.

Anyway, some people believe these seemingly two different 'first women' in Genesis were Lilith and Eve, respectively.  In the comic book version I read, Lilith rejected Adam and left, thus necessitating the creation of Eve.


----------



## Cat (May 13, 2004)

I read Adam refused Lilith because she was equal to him (both created directly by god) and later accepted Eve because she was made explicitly to serve him. We're still recovering from that role model ... 

There's a lot of incest going on in the bible isn't there? I mean, the children of Adam and Eve, the children of Noach, the good guy who escaped from Sodom & Gomorra and his daughters ... this certainly hasn't done much good to our species.


----------



## brianleahy (May 13, 2004)

Noach?  I never saw that spelling before, but since you've used it twice, I assume it's intentional.   

Did he build an Arch?   ::angel::


----------



## Cat (May 13, 2004)

LOL  yes he did ... you can transliterate hebrew in various ways, I thought Noach was the more correct one.


----------



## Giaguara (May 13, 2004)

So wait, that happened to Lilith? If she was so perfect, what did she do then? Did she choose a less perfect man than Adam then? Or why would god have created the perfect man and woman, and then a less perfect woman as he got tired of Adam ranting ..? Or maybe Adam had them both? Was the jewish culture polygamic at its early days, by any chance?


----------



## brianleahy (May 13, 2004)

> So wait, that happened to Lilith?



Good question.  Christian tradition holds that there WAS no Lilith, so no help there.

According to this site: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/950206_Lilith.html

...the tale of Lilith is from a very disreputable source, and is not even really a Hebrew legend. 

According to the comic books ;-) she never ate the apple, and so never fell from grace, and thus never died.  She is still around, and plotting some obscure revenge against the children of Adam and Eve (i.e. everybody).


----------



## cfleck (May 13, 2004)

just to sort of point to a good source on this topic.  the book "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search For Common Ground Between God and Evolution" by Kenneth Miller goes through many many arguments for creationists and basically dispells of them in one way or another while trying to come up with that link that allows god & evolution to co-exist.  its really a great read.  not all that heavy, but thorough at the same time.

highly recommended.  i promise it will clear up a lot of this debate for you while still letting you make up your own mind.


----------



## Giaguara (May 13, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> ...the tale of Lilith is from a very disreputable source, and is not even really a Hebrew legend.
> 
> According to the comic books ;-) she never ate the apple, and so never fell from grace, and thus never died.  She is still around, and plotting some obscure revenge against the children of Adam and Eve (i.e. everybody).



then shouldn't they add that to the prays ..? "His only son.." .. hey wait, what about the perfect woman? (and the billions, thousands of billions of people that have lived in all these .. hundreds of (thousands of ) years? )


----------



## brianleahy (May 13, 2004)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> then shouldn't they add that to the prays ..? "His only son.." .. hey wait, what about the perfect woman? (and the billions, thousands of billions of people that have lived in all these .. hundreds of (thousands of ) years? )



If either Christianity of Judaism officially accepted the existence of Lilith, then yeah, she'd probably warrant a mention in their prayers. 

I've been Googling around, and apparently some translations of Isaiah 34:14 mention Lilith, others do not.   Also, there seem to have been some groups throughout history who HAVE considered Lilith both 'real' and of religious importance.

But I'd bet a buck that MD puts no stock in the tale of Lilith.


----------



## brianleahy (May 13, 2004)

A great online source for Bible reference is www.biblegateway.com.  

I will interject that while I do not personally believe in the literal truth of a good portion of the Bible, it is nonetheless a fascinating work, all the more amazing considering the huge impact it has had on human history.  These days when religious ideals, both Christian and otherwise are becoming political flash-points, it is useful to read for oneself what is actually written, rather than rely on sound-bites.  This website is a great resource for that.

Anyway:  To see something really interesting, go to the site, look up Isaiah 34:14, and flip through the different translations.   Only 'The Message (MSG)' and 'Darby' mention Lilith by name.  Some omit any reference to her at all, others call her a 'night creature', 'night monster', or 'the night bird'.


----------



## Cat (May 13, 2004)

In the jewish tradition, AFAIK, she has become a sort of demon, mother of demons and also associated in some strange way with masturbation ...

As primitive hebrew culture was very paternalistic, it was not acceptable that the woman, Lilith, was equal in status to the man, so she was "eliminated". She has since been exploited in horror and fantasy literature, IIRC Anne Rice also referred to her somewhere in her vampire books ...


----------



## brianleahy (May 13, 2004)

An interesting random tidbit here:  in Genesis 6:3, God declares that men's lives be limited to 120 years.   Yet Genesis 11 lists  many generations of men living more than 200 years.   Change of heart?  You'd think that'd be documented. 

An inconsistancy?!?!?

EDIT: after posting this, I thought it came off somewhat more flippant than it needed to be.   Mockery is not helpful here.

Just the same; I can see only three explanations for this:

1 - Either Genesis 6:3  or Genesis 11 (or both) is false.
2 - God changed his mind or made a large number of exceptions (things He is not normally reputed to do) and this fact was not noted or included in Genesis.
3 - The sequence of 6:3 and 11 is wrong; they actually happened in the opposite order.


----------



## chevy (May 13, 2004)

Religion is funny.


----------



## dlloyd (May 13, 2004)

Very interesting, I never knew about Lilith. I must look up more about that.


----------



## MDLarson (May 13, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> An interesting random tidbit here:  in Genesis 6:3, God declares that men's lives be limited to 120 years.   Yet Genesis 11 lists  many generations of men living more than 200 years.   Change of heart?  You'd think that'd be documented.
> 
> An inconsistancy?!?!?
> 
> ...


That's a good observation.  I think an adequate explanation is that God was referring to the number of years humanity had left before the Great Flood.  Here's a more thorough explanation:
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20030615.htm

I've actually never heard of Lilith, except from the concert.  You don't suppose there's any connection?  



			
				Cat said:
			
		

> There's a lot of incest going on in the bible isn't there? I mean, the children of Adam and Eve, the children of Noach, the good guy who escaped from Sodom & Gomorra and his daughters ... this certainly hasn't done much good to our species.


As explained in the link I posted earlier, strangely, incest was not a sin in early humanity.  It only became a sin at the time of Moses.  Why do you infer that this incest "hasn't done much good to our species"?  Speaking from a strictly evolutionist (and somewhat nihilistic) point of view, who cares?  Since there was no apparent birth-defects, it seemed to work out for them.  Genesis 19 even goes on to credit the birth of two nations to incestuous encounters.

By the way, I stumbled on this somewhat humourous look at this situation.  

Brian (and dlloyd), I want to thank both you for a very thoughtful debate thus far.  Your respect and patience for my position has been appreciated.


----------



## mdnky (May 14, 2004)

And people wonder why Neo-Pagan religions are becoming so popular now a days. <G>


----------



## brianleahy (May 14, 2004)

I had a feeling that this apparent glitch (so easily noticed by me with such brief research) would have been addressed by someone by now.  Numbers are tricky; you can't debate  their value - it's what they MEAN that can sometimes be vague.

It's a little surprising that your link is titled "Answering the atheist" -- surely, this question has been raised by more than a few believers over the years as well. Upon reading Genesis, the question leaps quickly to mind: how is it that long ago, people (well, first-born sons anyway) sometimes lived nearly a thousand years (!!!) and now they seldom live to reach 100?   With this question in mind, it is not surprising that 6:3 strikes many as the much-awaited answer.  Is there another passage that addresses this mystery?

Interesting; by my math, Methuselah died the same year as the flood.  Did he drown??

In any case, returning belatedly to the issue of genetics and disease:

There are many diseases whose entire cause is a flaw in the victim's chromosomes.  Briefly: when a child is conceived, he receives pairs of each 'gene' (a section of chromsome which defines a specific trait).  Those genes were delivered by sperm and egg, and they were selected from each parent's genes by the process of meiosis.  Meiosis (happening within each parent's body) selects separately and at random either the maternal or paternal copy of each gene to be included in each sperm or egg cell.

Each gene has a function (such as eye color) and a value (blue, green, brown etc.) called an allele.   An allele can be either dominant or recessive.  A dominant allele will be expressed if the individual has even one copy of it.  A recessive allele will only be expressed if the individual has two copies of it.  If the individual receives two different dominant, or two different recessive alleles, then 'comparative dominance' comes into play.  While each trait is either dominant or recessive, some are actually 'more dominant' or 'more recessive' than others.

Anyway, some diseases are caused by recessive alleles.   Individuals receiving two copies of a disease allele will become ill.   In many cases, the illness is sufficiently debilitating that the individual cannot conceive a child, and thus does not pass along the disease.   However, individuals with just one copy of the allele do not become ill, and can still pass it along for many generations.   This is why, despite their occasional devastating effects, the disease alleles do not go entirely extinct.

Now, science holds that some, if not most, of these disease alleles are the result of mutations.   I took your position to be that you doubted the heritability of mutations.  If that is the case, then the only other conclusion is that these recessive disease genes have been with us since the beginning.   If that were so, then between Adam and Eve, all of those recessive traits had to be there in their genomes.


----------



## Satcomer (May 14, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> I've actually never heard of Lilith, except from the concert.  You don't suppose there's any connection?



Well I found this page. I actually first heard of her from a Jewish friend.


----------



## frizbone (May 15, 2004)

MDLARSON:  What about Islam, Jews, Buhdda, Pagans, and so on and so on.  There have been many religions created by man including Christianity and many of them before Christianity.  So how do you justify their Bibles.  Is there a different God for the other side of the planet?

Please think about one thing.  You don't have faith in God, you have faith in the stories you've been told by human beings.  So you have faith in their word.  I would love to be a street hustler trying to sell you something, because you could have faith in me too.  Everything you know about God and your's or any religion was told to you by a person.  All of your faith lies in the truthfullness of people.  Please think about that seriously.  In the old day's religion was very powerfull, it was the political system.  That would be like people today beleiving in everything our politicians tell us.  Religion started as a way to govern people.  And through torture and murder and brainwashing, all of the world's religions have created a pretty good following.  I am just utterly supprised that in today's world of educated people there is still that following.


----------



## brianleahy (May 15, 2004)

frizbone said:
			
		

> Everything you know about God and your's or any religion was told to you by a person.  All of your faith lies in the truthfullness of people.  Please think about that seriously.



I made much the same case in my blog  - link also provided earlier in this thread.  Thus far we are on the same page.  



> In the old day's religion was very powerfull, it was the political system.  That would be like people today beleiving in everything our politicians tell us.  Religion started as a way to govern people.  And through torture and murder and brainwashing, all of the world's religions have created a pretty good following.  I am just utterly supprised that in today's world of educated people there is still that following.



While I would not normally plead the case of religion, I this case I'm going to interject a thing or two, playing the 'devil's advocate' (how ironic is that?)

Religion's role in history as a mechanism of control and governance is indisputable.  How do you make people stay in line, even when there is almost no chance of their disobedience being detected?   Tell them there is an all-seeing God, who will punish then after they die!  The utility of this idea, and the near-impossibility of _proving_ it false, are impossible to ignore.

In particular, in medieval times the Roman Catholic Church became a brutal and corrupt entity on par with George Lucas' Empire, holding Europe in an iron fist for a thousand years.  The New Testament was long withheld from the general public; only the  clergy had access to it.  Hence, they could (and did) tell Christian followers that Jesus said _anything_ they wanted, whatever suited their purpose at the time, and no commoner could prove them wrong.  It even seems clear that this reign of terror, and its supression of new ideas of any kind, halted any sort of technological or scientific advancement.  If not for this period, men might have landed on the moon around the year 1050 AD...

But by the same token, believers can and do point out that Jesus never advocated such a tyrannical, abusive system. They'll tell you the message remains valid and true, even though the church's mortal agents lost their way...    for many centuries...

To reiterate, I am not a religious person, and in many cases I have an abiding distrust of large and powerful religious organizations.   Yet I try not to ignore the value that religious beliefs can have for individuals.   Indeed, I wonder sometimes if I might not be happier if I believed in a God who thought of human lives as important.  I just don't, and can't.

The biggest issue that I have with the pious is that, on one hand, many (and I hasten to add that I am not alluding to MD nor anyone else here specifically) become indignant if I disrespect them or their beliefs, yet they seem to feel no obligation to respect me or my beliefs.   There are legions who want to make everything illegal that is considered "sinful" by Christian lights, and don't hesitate to introduce scripture and dogma as if it constituted a basis for a new law.  I find this incredibly offensive, but if I (or people who feel as I do) object, let alone question the validity of the Bible as a basis for new secular laws, I am denounced as insensitive or impolitic.  It is not enough for these people to personally refrain from having abortions, using contraception, having sex any way besides with the opposite gender, and in the missionary position -- they want to make it illegal for ANYBODY to do so, regardless of their personal beliefs.   

Why aren't the pious content to let the sinners burn in hell?  Why require them to rot in jail too?  Doesn't the Bible say "revenge is mine, saith the lord"? (Well, close.  Romans 12:19)   

It is an abuse of faith; using it as a blunt instrument to remake the world so that everything can fit into their personal comfort zones.


----------



## cfleck (May 15, 2004)

> Why aren't the pious content to let the sinners burn in hell? Why require them to rot in jail too?



you are entitled to believe what you will, but this question is easily answered.  

it is within the teachings of most religions that you should do what you can to help people live a life in 'god's image'.  you are supposed to care for ALL of mankind, not just the 'good' ones.  its that simple.


----------



## brianleahy (May 15, 2004)

cfleck said:
			
		

> you are entitled to believe what you will, but this question is easily answered.
> 
> it is within the teachings of most religions that you should do what you can to help people live a life in 'god's image'.  you are supposed to care for ALL of mankind, not just the 'good' ones.  its that simple.



Yes, easily answered, but not well answered.  This is precisely where acceptance and tolerance reach their logical limits.  

From here forward, I use the words "you" and "I" on opposite sides of this matter.  This is an expedient, no more - your post implies you may feel this way, but in fairness you did say "the teachings of most religions" - not "I think that..."  -- so I am not pointing my finger at you, cfleck, specifically.

You believe that helping me should extend to locking me up if I sin.  Let's turn that around.  Let's suppose that as an agnostic, I believe that Christian dogma is pernicious and ruins peoples' lives, saddling them with needless guilt and clouding their judgement.  Let's say I don't believe in an afterlife, so rather than worry about saving souls, I am concerned with people making the most of their lives, and I see religion as an obstacle to this.  

Thus I feel it is my duty, even my _moral obligation_, to help them.  I try to persuade them with reason and with evidence, but the efficacy of this is limited.   So I haul out the big guns, and try to lobby congress to lock people up for teaching this stuff to their children.

Of course, the religious will cry that I am persecuting them, repressing them, curtailing their freedom.  But I am unfazed; this is my _moral duty_, if I truly feel this way, I must believe that I really DARE not allow myself to be swayed into backing off.   I sleep well at night knowing that I am _doing the right thing_, and those who cry "intolerance" are simply victims of their own delusions.  It is "just that simple."

The demand for tolerance cuts both ways; each side (religious and non) must either leave the other to its own devices, or gird itself for all-out conflict.  Do not ask for tolerance if you aren't prepared to practice it.  If your religion precludes tolerance for other beliefs, then don't pretend that you're actually in favor of tolerance; you just aren't -- indeed, you're morally bound to INtolerance.   

The 9/11 hijackers quite literally believed they had a moral obligation to do what they did; should we just roll with that blow in the name of tolerance?


----------



## MDLarson (May 15, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> I had a feeling that this apparent glitch (so easily noticed by me with such brief research) would have been addressed by someone by now.  Numbers are tricky; you can't debate  their value - it's what they MEAN that can sometimes be vague.


I would agree; quite often meanings change, rapidly, even when it makes no sense at all.  Kind of like how "bad" means "good" in some slang contexts.  Just to reiterate, the thrust of Genesis 6:3 is a pronouncement of complete destruction of the human race, in 120 years time.  It is not talking about the average lifespan of a human.


			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> It's a little surprising that your link is titled "Answering the atheist" -- surely, this question has been raised by more than a few believers over the years as well. Upon reading Genesis, the question leaps quickly to mind: how is it that long ago, people (well, first-born sons anyway) sometimes lived nearly a thousand years (!!!) and now they seldom live to reach 100?   With this question in mind, it is not surprising that 6:3 strikes many as the much-awaited answer.  Is there another passage that addresses this mystery?
> 
> Interesting; by my math, Methuselah died the same year as the flood.  Did he drown??


I agree with your sentiment; the page should have been entitled "Answering the Skeptic".

Here's a page describing the Creationist stance on the issue.  The main reason is probably the huge change in environmental conditions after the global flood.

Good observation about Methuselah!  His name means "when he dies, judgement" or "his death shall bring" (depending on translation).  My guess would be that he didn't drown, but rather he died, then it started raining.  This would be a good example of subliminal prophecy.    As a sidenote, one could conclude that God had made up His mind to destroy mankind at least as early as when his parents named him, and yet God apparently "decided" to destroy mankind 120 years prior to the flood.  There is some argument even within Christianity about God not knowing the future / changing His mind, etc., but I believe such passages are intended to put the events into the readers' language and understanding, and not as completely literal to the letter.  Hope that makes sense.


			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Some good stuff about genetics, desease and alleles...


Yes, as I had stated earlier, I changed my position slightly on that issue.  I once believed (wrongly) that mutations *do not pass* down to offspring.  This is just me not paying attention in class, I guess.  I also didn't believe any mutation was beneficial.  I now believe that mutations can _appear to be beneficial_, but that the key issue for mutations is if they ever _add genetic information_ to the mix, as is required to achieve true evolution from simple species to complex.  This doesn't happen.

If you could answer this question for me (I'm just ignorant on this issue):  Is it even *possible* for any one person to contain multiple dominant and recessive alleles in their genome?  I thought that a person would have a maximum of two alleles for any one trait.

Anyways, I _think_ I understand your question as to whether Adam and Eve could have held all the recessive traits you talked about, and my position would be that, when God cursed mankind with death and other diseases, He also allowed these recessive-allele causing diseases to originate.  I can think of no scientific explanation at this time to account for your question.

Also, the bottle-neck in human history would have been Noah's family.  "Diseases on the Ark" talks about some possible explanations about how diseases might have survived the flood.  I also found an article about how Sickle Cell Anemia does not prove evolution.


----------



## MDLarson (May 15, 2004)

frizbone said:
			
		

> MDLARSON:  What about Islam, Jews, Buhdda, Pagans, and so on and so on.  There have been many religions created by man including Christianity and many of them before Christianity.  So how do you justify their Bibles.  Is there a different God for the other side of the planet?
> 
> Please think about one thing.  You don't have faith in God, you have faith in the stories you've been told by human beings.  So you have faith in their word.  I would love to be a street hustler trying to sell you something, because you could have faith in me too.  Everything you know about God and your's or any religion was told to you by a person.  All of your faith lies in the truthfullness of people.  Please think about that seriously.  In the old day's religion was very powerfull, it was the political system.  That would be like people today beleiving in everything our politicians tell us.  Religion started as a way to govern people.  And through torture and murder and brainwashing, all of the world's religions have created a pretty good following.  I am just utterly supprised that in today's world of educated people there is still that following.


Before you so quickly judge me for having blind faith in legends, I would invite you to take an objective look at how often *you* are guilty of believing the experts, who are from time to time proven wrong later.  Actually, I am a very skeptical person and am a hard sell to the casual salesperson.

Looking at the big picture with history in mind, it is not uncommon for the general beliefs of the day to be completely laughable a few generations later.  A good example of this is Galileo's round earth discovery in the otherwise flat-earth beleiving culture.  A more recent example is with Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis.  He is credited with discovering that not washing your hands is actually a very dirty and dangerous thing in a maternity hospital (or any hospital), and yet he was ridiculed to no end after his discovery by other respectible doctors who thought that washing their hands was "undignified".  Source.

How can we be so certain in our scientific beliefs today?  Last I checked, we still don't know a *whole lot* about ourselves or the universe, for that matter.  So let's all take this thing with humility and admit first to ourselves that we really don't know a whole lot.


----------



## chevy (May 15, 2004)

Reality doesn't change. Tales change, our perception of reality changes. Therefore reality always wins globally, even if we sometimes need a long time to recognize it, even if some forces want to change or hide it.

Example: the greek thought the earth is a sphere 2000 years ago. The same is true for the egyptians at the end of their reign. But some forces thought they needed a flat world to impose their idea in europe. Reality came back in 1400-1500.

Yes, there is a lot we don't know. It's not a reason to give any kind of answer for all question we cannot solve today. I prefer a good question to a bad answer. Questions open the mind.


----------



## dlloyd (May 15, 2004)

MD, how can you believe in mutations, but not those that don't 'stick'?


----------



## chevy (May 15, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I now believe that mutations can _appear to be beneficial_, but that the key issue for mutations is if they ever _add genetic information_ to the mix, as is required to achieve true evolution from simple species to complex.  This doesn't happen.
> 
> ...



Nothing proves evolution. Science is not proofs. But most (if not all) information we get from scientific study drive us toward some kind of evolution.

"beneficial" is difficult to define in scientific sense.

There is not scientific impossibility to increase complexity through mutation. There is another concept related to "complexity" in science which is named "emergence". Maybe you can read "The Quark and the Jaguar" by Murray Gell-Mann http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/mgmquark.html if you like reading. Some complex features emerge from simple rules defining matter's interaction in space. Think about the weather. It's made of simple materials and simple rules, add a little bit of solar power... and you end up with a complex and completely chaotic system with locally predictable behavior.


----------



## MDLarson (May 15, 2004)

dlloyd said:
			
		

> MD, how can you believe in mutations, but not those that don't 'stick'?


I *do* believe in mutations, and I *do* believe they stick.  I see a further distinction however, which you're not picking up on; whether the mutation is a loss of genetic information or a gain.

Here's a quote from this page: (same link as posted earlier)

"Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them."


----------



## chevy (May 15, 2004)

Darwin is dead for a very long time now. He wrote what he wrote long time ago, and our knowledge significantly improve since that time. Don't take it by the word. He had brilliant ideas and paved a good theory... and his theory was improved by others.

Never take to the letter old writings. Mankind evolves too.


----------



## Giaguara (May 15, 2004)

chevy said:
			
		

> Reality doesn't change. Tales change, our perception of reality changes. Therefore reality always wins globally, even if we sometimes need a long time to recognize it, even if some forces want to change or hide it.



The only thing that does not change, is that everything changes.

What is now, is gone in a moment. Reality, realities change, only a few principles bigger than humanity, may remain unchanged under ..


----------



## chevy (May 15, 2004)

We didn't use the same word for the same concept, but I can agree with your sentence.

Now if evolution did happen, this is a reality that will not change (it's part of the past), so I should have been more precise in my own sentence.


----------



## Giaguara (May 15, 2004)

chevy said:
			
		

> We didn't use the same word for the same concept, but I can agree with your sentence.
> 
> Now if evolution did happen, this is a reality that will not change (it's part of the past), so I should have been more precise in my own sentence.



Everything changes, only the change is permanent (non-changing) (one principle in most Eastern religions). Applying this to the evolution .. which would simply be, change in a really long time, there isn't a point where the change quits happening. There is change, everything changes constantly. Thus evolution happens all the time.

"Evolution" could be like the world species seen as one. When you were born, you were not like you are today. When you were a kid, you were so and so, when you will be 80, you will be so and so. It is unfair, TERRIBLE, to ask people "you can't ever change". If I hear that I run away. The fact in the people is that you are NOW something. You are not now the person you was 5 years ago, or when you were born, and you are not the person that you will be in the year 2040 either. Can you ask someone to NOT change in 40 years? What ever happens, we do, or think etc, changes us, slowly, making us "what we were meant to be". 

And the same can be applied to your dogs or cats, to your children, to the flowers, to the nations and ideologies.


----------



## brianleahy (May 15, 2004)

> If you could answer this question for me (I'm just ignorant on this issue): Is it even possible for any one person to contain multiple dominant and recessive alleles in their genome? I thought that a person would have a maximum of two alleles for any one trait.



My understanding is that humans (and indeed, all animals) have just two copies of each gene, barring some chromosomal mishap.  (For instance, the genetic disease Down Syndrome is usually caused by having a third copy of a certain chromosome).  Each copy of each gene has just one allele.  So I guess the most direct answer to your question is: no, people cannot carry more than two alleles for the same gene.

However there are a couple of wrinkles when you get to actual _traits_.  Some traits are affected by several genes.   A person's physical strength, for instance will be influenced by not only his ability to grow muscle tissue, but also the ability of his nervous system to control the muscles effectively, the ability of his cells to metabolize food, the ability of his blood to deliver oxygen, etc.

And here's another intersting tidbit: our studies of the human genome have revealed that some genes seem to be fully or partially duplicated, sometimes 2, 3 or more times.  This is thought to happen when a human cell is about to divide.  Prior to fission, the cell's nuclear DNA is duplicated, and each copy is delivered to one of the 'daughter' cells.   The process is not perfect, and it is believed that in certain circumstances, a given gene (or part of a gene) which was previously 'singular' can be copied twice.  Scientists believe that this accounts for the peculiar production mechanism of hemoglobin, the protein-polymer in blood which carries oxygen.

Human hemoglobin consists of four different compounds, called 'globins', which assemble together with an iron-bearing heme molecule to create a single unique molecule.  The genes responsible for the production of each component globin are VERY similar (many hundreds of DNA base-pairs are identical across the 4 different genes) and it is believed that these became part of the human genome via a DNA replication accident.

The interesting thing is that each globin can absorb oxygen on it's own, and some are found alone (i.e. without the others) in other species' blood.   However, the four together (plus their heme molecule) absorb and deliver oxygen more effectively than the four separate globins combined.

This is known as a 'duplication mutation'.   Here are a couple of links if you want to read more:

http://www.grammatical-evolution.org/papers/eurogp98/node7.html

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/duplication.html


----------



## markceltic (May 15, 2004)

Sheesh Brian where did you go to school?Hemoglobins & replications ,molecules I don't see a doctor in your signature


----------



## brianleahy (May 15, 2004)

markceltic said:
			
		

> Sheesh Brian where did you go to school?Hemoglobins & replications ,molecules I don't see a doctor in your signature



Between a few relevant books, magazine articles and the Discovery channel, I remember just enough about this stuff to do a decent Google search and refresh my memory when the need arises.   

Edit: I suppose I should add I did take two biology electives in college.


----------



## markceltic (May 15, 2004)

The good ol' Discovery channel yes indeed I watch that quite often myself. Speaking of when the need arises,are you & MDlarson each others best sparring partners when it comes to debating Darwin?Seems you two put alot of effort into your arguements.


----------



## brianleahy (May 15, 2004)

markceltic said:
			
		

> Seems you two put alot of effort into your arguements.



It does seem to be a topic that we both care about a good deal, and to which each of us has given a lot of thought.  We seem to be having a productive discussion here.

MD is well-spoken, knows his subject matter, respects facts and logic, and listens to reason.  Though he clearly feels strongly about his faith, he does not digress into "fire n' brimstone" if he isn't sure how to respond to something.   I respect that a lot; in my experience that's pretty rare, at least on the internet.  

If you want to see some real online pie-fights, go to news.yahoo.com.  They have a web-based discussion-board thread attached to each news story, and I venture there sometimes under the screen name 'beady-el'.  Any time a story comes out about things like school prayer, evolution vs. creation etc. the folks posting there on both sides go straight for the jugular.  Most of the time if I manage to undermine anyone's pro-religious posts, they retaliate with something blustery like "you'll be laughing out of the other side of your mouth when you're BURNING IN HELL!!"  

I always try to admit it when I discover I'm wrong about something, or when I don't know the answer to something.  I know I always respect people who are prepared to do this, and I think that people respect me for it as well.

There is a famous saying (I believe by Socrates) which is one of my favorites:  "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."    The biggest fools you will ever meet are the ones who are sure they know it all.


----------



## markceltic (May 16, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> There is a famous saying (I believe by Socrates) which is one of my favorites:  "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."    The biggest fools you will ever meet are the ones who are sure they know it all.


         These words bring to mind the author they had on Now the other night, Peter Singer.A very well spoken man, if only more like him were in politics,I'm sure the debates wouldn't be so caustic.This leads me to the point why I'm enjoying yourself &MDLarson.It's so unlike Crossfire!


----------



## dlloyd (May 16, 2004)

Brian, that quote is a little harsh I think. You seem to know plenty, so unless you're inferring that you are 'unknowledgeable', I'd say it's a little 'off' 

MD: I see what you mean, but I don't agree with it. Basically you're saying that you think evolution is possible, but only in a 'downward spiral', correct?
I think there are some mutations on, for example, the Galapagos Islands that I would say have added genetic material, not just lost it.
How do you explain (to go back to an earlier example) the fact that the great apes and humans share over 99% of their DNA? I would say that either means that we are descended from a common ancestor, and both of us are 'inferior mutations', or that humans are the forbears of the great apes.

What do you say to the fact that there are no fossils of humans? Do you think that we suddenly appeared after the dinosaurs were wiped out? Or don't you even think that such things as dinosaurs existed?

I think the creation story is a great metaphor, and I can see how it would tie in with some of the more 'scientific' theories on the big bang, and such, but I think there are too many holes for it to be taken word for word.


----------



## brianleahy (May 17, 2004)

Socrates was not known for his diplomacy; he taught people by making them look foolish.

A more precise way to say it might be: The more you learn, the more you realize how much MORE there is to learn.  People on the bleeding edge of science will always tell you that what we know now is pathetic compared to what there STILL IS to know.  

Hence one of the most important things to know is that there is a great deal you still _don't_ know.  Learning is somewhat like climbing up a tower; the higher you get, the further you can see - and the more you realize that what you've seen so far is just a tiny fraction of what remains to be seen.

Socrates was also very big on teaching people NOT to simply accept popular ideas and theories without critical scrutiny.  This made him many enemies among the government and religious authorites of the time, and he was ultimately sentenced to death for "corrupting the youth and interfering with the religion of the city".  

http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm


----------



## MDLarson (May 17, 2004)

dlloyd said:
			
		

> MD: I see what you mean, but I don't agree with it. Basically you're saying that you think evolution is possible, but only in a 'downward spiral', correct?


Yes, you could say that I guess.


			
				dlloyd said:
			
		

> I think there are some mutations on, for example, the Galapagos Islands that I would say have added genetic material, not just lost it.


Again, I reserve the right to link to my favorite creationist website!  The finch example is largely change within a species; natural selection at work.  Do you actually have examples of mutating finches on the Galpagos islands?  Here's an interesting story of a possible 'good' mutation that still does not add anything new to the genetic mix.


			
				dlloyd said:
			
		

> How do you explain (to go back to an earlier example) the fact that the great apes and humans share over 99% of their DNA? I would say that either means that we are descended from a common ancestor, and both of us are 'inferior mutations', or that humans are the forbears of the great apes.


Due to my ignorance on genetics, I can only fall back on my usual source.


			
				dlloyd said:
			
		

> What do you say to the fact that there are no fossils of humans? Do you think that we suddenly appeared after the dinosaurs were wiped out? Or don't you even think that such things as dinosaurs existed?


Umm... I don't want to sound rude, but you don't need to suggest that I would deny the existence of dinosaurs... lol

There was a thread on this board earlier where I tried to show that there is Biblical evidence that man actually cooexisted with the dinosaur.  Legends such as dragons and sea monsters, which certainly are not immune to criticism, support this idea of cooexistence.

There ARE fossils of humans.  Perhaps your real question is 'why don't human fossils show up with dinosaur fossils?'  This gets into a bigger issue of stratospheric rock representing eons of time vs. the creationist deluge (the flood) more than anything.  Here's another link to digest.

If I may, I'd like to ask why there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.  If evolution is true, we should be seeing oodles and oodles of transitional forms of animals evolving.  Is that not evidence _against_ evolution?


			
				dlloyd said:
			
		

> I think the creation story is a great metaphor, and I can see how it would tie in with some of the more 'scientific' theories on the big bang, and such, but I think there are too many holes for it to be taken word for word.


Show me the holes then.  I can demonstrate that the creation story is _logically incompatible_ with evolution.

I feel guilty posting links to AIG all the time, but I haven't seen any rebutals, so I'm taking that as a good sign.


----------



## brianleahy (May 17, 2004)

In the spirit of "one good link deserves another", there _are_ transitional fossils, and you can read about some of them here:

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

Some examples on this site include transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, and reptiles mammals.  I will readily confess that I discovered this site only today, and I have not read all of it -- partly because the author seems to have been in part striving specifically for volume, giving large numbers of examples.

Indeed, this site is quite a find; it links to a virtual encyclopedia of rebuttals to many creationist arguments ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html ) including the question of mutations adding information:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

...and even _both_ sides of an argument I had never heard before regarding Mitochondrial DNA:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621.html

I'm going to try to find the time over the next few days to do a lot of reading on both this site and the ones MD has posted. 

On a slightly different angle:  Each creationist - and "evolutionist" if you will - usually has an argument or premise which is his or her personal favorite, not necessarily because there is no response to it, but because for whatever reason it feels most satisfying or most "right" personally.

A favorite of many creationists I have known - and which MD has mentioned - is the notion that life arising from lifelessness seems incredibly unlikely.

For me, the argument that I find most personally satisfying is that, despite all the effort that creationists have put into finding scientific support for their beliefs, they nonetheless _started_ with a desired conclusion in mind and _then_ searched for evidence to support it, carefully rejecting evidence to the contrary.  This methodology alone would be (and historically has been) enough to severely undermine the credibility of any other sort of scientific proposal.


----------



## MDLarson (May 17, 2004)

Brian, that's a good summarization of the clashing worldviews.  But let me get theological / psychological for a minute; if we truly evolved from animals, how could we have possibly aquired the ability to reason (the thing that is supposed to separate us from the animals)?  Why do we love?  Why do we have senses of humor?  Why is there a perceived need for so many to believe in God?

The way I see it, you define your position based on your stance on supernatural happenings.  The second you start to question miracles, you deny all supernaturality and drift towards atheism.  Likewise, the second you realize that science cannot explain a particular phenomena you either: 1) wait for science to eventually explain it or 2) become religious.

So, we both have our preconceptions, either way I think.

I've been to that sight briefly before, but got lost in the technical jargon.  I'll try to read up on your links too.


----------



## lurk (May 17, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Yes, you could say that I guess.
> Again, I reserve the right to link to my favorite creationist website!  The finch example is largely change within a species; natural selection at work.  Do you actually have examples of mutating finches on the Galpagos islands?  Here's an interesting story of a possible 'good' mutation that still does not add anything new to the genetic mix.



That is interesting but I am confused as to how it was possible for a mutation in a single cell to have effect on the existing cells of the boy.  A mutation does not spread to its sibling cells only its descendants so it does not make sense for a sick child to become healthy from a mutation. It cannot be propagated to the exiting cells, there must be something else going on here.



			
				MDLarson said:
			
		

> Due to my ignorance on genetics, I can only fall back on my usual source.



It is interesting that you cite this particular article on the genetic similarity of humans and chimps.  The whole point of the article is that depending on how you "score" genetic similarity we are between 95% to 98% similar.  How is that an argument for creationism?  Did I miss something?

One thing that confuses me is that in that article genetic differences that can occur in a mutation (substitutions, insertions and deletions) are spelled out.  But then the assertion that now "new" genetic information can be introduced is made.  These transformations are 100% invertible, if you don't know the pedigree of the DNA you are looking at it would be perfectly OK to look at the same mutation as either an insertion or a deletion, or a substitution from p->q or q->p.  You can't say that one direction or the other creates or destroys anything.



			
				MDLarson said:
			
		

> Umm... I don't want to sound rude, but you don't need to suggest that I would deny the existence of dinosaurs... lol
> 
> There was a thread on this board earlier where I tried to show that there is Biblical evidence that man actually cooexisted with the dinosaur.  Legends such as dragons and sea monsters, which certainly are not immune to criticism, support this idea of cooexistence.



But there is absolutely no tangible evidence for coexistence and lots of tangible evidence for them being separated by millions of years.  I really do not know where to start on this one.  Just for example the grand canyon example mentions that _The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days._ which is totally incorrect.  Fast flowing water does not evenly sort sediments like is necessary for the stratified sandstones of the grand canyon.  Today similar sedimentation patters occur at the bottoms of seas and large lakes in slow water.  Why would the same processes we observe today work differently then?



			
				MDLarson said:
			
		

> There ARE fossils of humans.  Perhaps your real question is 'why don't human fossils show up with dinosaur fossils?'  This gets into a bigger issue of stratospheric rock representing eons of time vs. the creationist deluge (the flood) more than anything.  Here's another link to digest.
> 
> If I may, I'd like to ask why there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.  If evolution is true, we should be seeing oodles and oodles of transitional forms of animals evolving.  Is that not evidence _against_ evolution?



Do you know how may T-Rex skeletons have been found?  Thousands?  Hundreds?  A better guess would be 10 and most of those are not very complete.  When you are looking at processes that can take thousands and millions of years which are recorded in just few fossils there are going to be huge gaps.  There is one of the big logical fallacies of the "Missing Link" attack used by creationists in that it makes demands which cannot be satisfied.  As more "transitional" forms are discovered all that happens is that those become the point of reference is just shifted.  Either you now need to find two intermediate transitional forms to fill the new gaps or the new one is defined to be "similar enough" to one of the other forms and you have to find a new "Missing link".   



			
				MDLarson said:
			
		

> Show me the holes then.  I can demonstrate that the creation story is _logically incompatible_ with evolution.
> 
> I feel guilty posting links to AIG all the time, but I haven't seen any rebutals, so I'm taking that as a good sign.



Well I never said that literal new earth creationism is compatible with evolution.  It is not compatible with geology, chemistry, physics, biology or almost any other scientific discipline 

I am sorry I have been slacking off in my rebuttal duties  but alas I have other responsibilities in meat-space.

Have fun!
-Eric


----------



## Cat (May 18, 2004)

> A favorite of many creationists I have known - and which MD has mentioned - is the notion that life arising from lifelessness seems incredibly unlikely.


That's not an argument at all.

First: that something seems unlikely to someone is not an argument, but simply a matter of psychology. Things that I do not understand tend to seem unlikely to me, however my opinion of them does not make them true or untrue. 

Second: If creationist would actually use this as if it were some kind of argument, it can very easily be turned against them, as the notion that everything was created by a god is not more or less likely in principle than the notion of "life arising from lifelessness".

Third: life arising from lifelessness is not unlikely at all. The basic presupposition for life is the presence of a self-replicating structure. Given such a structure, which can easily arise by chance, enough basic materials and a few million years will show a net increase of the number and complexity of such structure. A miracle? No at all. Introducing and ordered self-replicating structure in a chaotic environment will lead to a net increase of order over time, as the chaotic mix of matter is not self-replicating. A self-replicating system, such as DNA, simply uses the chaotic mix of matter to prosper, while the big mix cannot propagate itself.

A simple experiment at home: drop some oil or fat in water and you will get rings. Why? Fat in water tends to order itself this way, because of its internal chemical structure (which consists of a water attracting and a water repelling side). Cell membranes are nothing but fatty spheres (with some extra features developed over time). This is one of the hypotheses about the origin of life. Fatty structures served as container for self-replicating systems.

In a famous experiment Miller showed that simply mixing together some common chemical elements that abounded in the primeval seas of the earth he could obtain the basic building blocks of life. You CAN do this at home (god not included). Occam's razor tells us what to do with superfluous hypotheses ...


----------



## dlloyd (May 18, 2004)

Hmmm, I think I am severely 'out-knowledged' here! 

Anyway, I was afraid you'd ask what the 'holes' were, but unfortunately I'm usually unable to remember them . Often though, when I'm reading something, I'll think "hmmm, that makes sense, I can see how it would work with evolution, but it doesn't seem to go with creationism." The number of times which that has happened in reverse is so few that I can't seem to remember it ever having taken place, or else the arguments didn't make sense, so I didn't bother to remember them .


----------



## Cat (May 18, 2004)

Hole 1:

In Genesis God tells Adam and Eve that if they eat from the tree of knowledge they will surely die (Gen2:17). The devil tells them that they will not die, but that their eyes will be opened and they will know the difference between good and evil(Gen 3:5).

Also see: here and here.


----------



## lurk (May 18, 2004)

I don't know that that is necessarily a contradiction (and I did not look at the exact passages so get you salt ready) because before they ate the fruit they did not know death.  That is to say they were immortal so by becoming mortal they did eventually die.  It never said that they would die quickly 

-Eric


----------



## pds (May 18, 2004)

or....

the death that the fall (eating the forbidden fruit) caused was spiritual. That is to say that when they abandoned the word of God, they abandoned life. Genesis says "on the day that you eat of it you will surely die," not "I will surely torch you." 

Which is why Jesus is the resurrection and the life "he who believes in [him] shall never die" and that the apostle told the members of the church at (?) Philippi they have "the name of being alive, but ... are dead."

Since then every person who believed has died (except those who are yet to do so) physically, so either he's a liar or the death and life he talks about are not physical.


----------



## MDLarson (May 18, 2004)

Just wanted to drop in real quick and let you all know I'm trying to keep up with the thread, but it might be a day or two before I spend too much time back here.

Thanks for the great discussion so far everybody!


----------



## Cat (May 19, 2004)

lurk & pds: to check the possible interpretations, we would need to know ancient hebrew, and see if those associations (menace of imminent death or spiritual death) could have been intended. However, just to stay controversial, it sounds like clutching at straws.  If someone tells you "if you touch the wiring you will surely die" do you really think "maybe I'll die in a hundred years"? Or are you telling me the bible uses deceptive, obfuscating and deliberately obscure language? Isn't the bible the direct word of god which is truth? So that if god says "you'll die" you'll die? When god said "let there be light", there was light. Light didn't creep out of some hole reluctantly to obey gods command against its own wishes, it promptly sprang to attention and ran to him with a spring in its step!  When god says "clean up your room", you're not going to linger around saying "yeah,right, I'll clean up later maybe ...", do you?  While there sure is poetical language in the bible which isn't to be taken literally, god saying "you'll die" isn't really very poetic ... it's not like he said "when your finger will bring the forbidden fruit of knowledge to your lips, know that with your first bite a dark future will shape in you very body and soul". We could debate that, but "you'll die" doesn't really leave room for anything else that clutching at straws. Theologists, however, are black belt straw clutchers... 

EDIT: actually the King James version says: 





> but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die


. we can debate "day" of course, for isn't man's life only like a brief day in the face of eternity?  ... and we know from Genesis that the world was created in 6 days, so "day" should be interesting to debate. 

EDIT: in truth I say to you, most versions include "in the day", "the very day", "the moment", "when" (i.e. "as soon as", not "if"), "If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!", "and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die" (quoted from "Young's Literal Translation").


----------



## pds (May 19, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> When god says "clean up your room", you're not going to linger around saying "yeah,right, I'll clean up later maybe ...", do you?  While there sure is poetical language in the bible which isn't to be taken literally, god saying "you'll die" isn't really very poetic ... it's not like he said "when your finger will bring the forbidden fruit of knowledge to your lips, know that with your first bite a dark future will shape in you very body and soul". We could debate that, but "you'll die" doesn't really leave room for anything else tha[n] clutching at straws. Theologists, however, are black belt straw clutchers...



 

Yes, "in that (very)day..., thou shalt surely die" means that if they ate, in that moment they did die. Since they did not immediately expire, then their death must be non-physical.

Yes, a little ancient Hebrew would be helpful to find context, but the context can also be found in the wholeness of the story. Remember, it is not a contemporary story, not Adam's first person account, but an alegorical myth. There was no "tree of life" in the middle of the garden, it is a biblical symbol. There was no "tree of knowledge of good and evil" either. It too is a biblical symbol. Only problem is the latter is only mentioned in connection to the Eden story. But the former is mentioned several times. In Proverbs desire fulfilled is a tree of life. In Revelation it is the birthright of the faithful. In Christian tradition it is Jesus himself.

Jesus is the completed tree of life, Adam (whom Jesus replaces) was longing to become that tree (to be a good son of god) but something about the companion tree tripped him up.

Now Gia, don't get bent out of shape... It was Adam's fault, not his companion's - or at least they are equally at fault...


----------



## Giaguara (May 19, 2004)

Maybe the tree was something .. what Socrates talked about. That cave. When you get out of there, you can see the light, you can see .. everything. The people in the cave keep talking about the shadows, as that is all they know.
Considering religion mainly as an early governing system, that would make sense. The tree of knowledge - for a governor etc it is harder when the people know too much. So it'll be a sin ..


----------



## brianleahy (May 19, 2004)

The "Contemporary English Version" is most emphatic of all:



> except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"



As allegory, myth or metaphor Genesis works fine, though that is a slippery slope that many creationists fear.  If the tree isn't real metaphorical, what about the garden?  What about Adam and Eve themselves?  

If the purpose of the story is simply to illustrate humans' tendency to succumb to temptation despite of the certainty of repercussions, and it's not an actual description of the origins of the human race, then why bother searching for scientific support for the story?  Why worry when the geologic record shows that humans are latecomers, and that a vast array of other life forms lived and died before the first humans appeared?  There's no logical conflict when history (or pre-history) disagrees with a metphor.

Even so, the story conflicts with itself; God says, in effect, that the fruit is poisonous, yet Adam and Eve do not die upon eating it.  So in response, some argue in effect that "it depends on what you mean by 'die'"?   Isn't this exactly the sort of semantic spin-doctoring that Bill Clinton was accused of?

We could say that God _lied_ to Adam, in an effort to scare him into steering clear of that fruit.  But that opens a big messy can of worms.  If God _ever_ lies to mankind about things, then the whole notion of "the gospel truth" goes out the window.  Besides, it seems a little beneath Him.  If He wants to prevent humans from doing something, He has many more effective - and more dignified - ways of doing so.


----------



## Cat (May 19, 2004)

Ok, if you take the bible as metaforical account, then I completely agree that it is an important book, ethically very valuable etc. western tradition and all that. But as to its literal truth, on which so much depends for the faithful, it is like the story of Little Red Riding Hood. It teaches us somthing, it amuses us, entertains us thrills us, but it is not a factual account. Otherwise we might as well believe Odin to ride around on an eight legged horse and Zeus changing shapes to lie with our wives and all that. IIRC Thomas Hobbes already said "of the three great monotheistical religions _at least_ two are wrong". I'm taking bets ...


----------



## pds (May 19, 2004)

With caveat of more to come and a short window of time, I think the Bible is many things. Some of it is metaphor, some literature, some history and some politics. And behind it is truth. I said once before that things are not true because they are in the Bible but in the Bible because they are true. Little Red Riding Hood is not in the Bible, but many stories and lessons from Literature are and many stories that are'nt have roots there. 

In the Eden story it is clearly the first, and whether or not they find the place seems to me to be a waste of time. (In the UAE they have a tree in the middle of the desert that they call Adam's tree of life...)

Cat, I am looking forward to getting the Golden Bough when I visit the states this summer. There is something to be said though for the survival of the fittest and seems that Zeus, Apollo and Odin were'nt the fittest....

Can I place a bet that all three are right until they get to the "there are no other" parts, then all three are wrong. Events can be described by different people from different viewing points differently without being _wrong_. The trick is to get beyond viewing points to take a broad point of view...


----------



## Cat (May 20, 2004)

> Cat, I am looking forward to getting the Golden Bough when I visit the states this summer.


 I think you will like it. It can give many insights into religions an their development over time. 


> There is something to be said though for the survival of the fittest and seems that Zeus, Apollo and Odin were'nt the fittest....


 Evolutionary theology? 



> Can I place a bet that all three are right until they get to the "there are no other" parts, then all three are wrong.


 That would be a very good bet.


----------



## pds (May 20, 2004)

umm... evolutionary theology

What's that buzzword... intelligent design. The end point of evolution was contained at the beginning, all part of the plan. I think of religion in that way, the path to the realization of man's potential. So, no wonder that there is *development over time*.

The how and the why, both objects of study and discovery...


----------



## MDLarson (May 24, 2004)

Well, I'm back from my short hiatus!


			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Indeed, this site is quite a find; it links to a virtual encyclopedia of rebuttals to many creationist arguments ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html ) including the question of mutations adding information:
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html


I submitted the following question to AIG, as I am at a loss to this one...

"I am a literal 6-day Creationist and rely on AIG for my scientific defense.  I have been involved in a Creation / evolution discussion (http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43209) and have talked at length about genetic mutations.  One person posted, in response to my "no-new-information mutation" argument the following link: (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html).

I don't have the knowledge or resources to tackle the problem posed myself, that is why I am submitting the apparent problem to the capable AIG scientists.  Please help!"

All I have at this point are a few references to scientific studies that I don't really have access to.



			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> A favorite of many creationists I have known - and which MD has mentioned - is the notion that life arising from lifelessness seems incredibly unlikely.





			
				Cat said:
			
		

> That's not an argument at all.
> 
> First: that something seems unlikely to someone is not an argument, but simply a matter of psychology. Things that I do not understand tend to seem unlikely to me, however my opinion of them does not make them true or untrue.


Are not even scientists prone to this way of thinking, or is the scientist 100% objective?  (Answer is NO!)


			
				Cat said:
			
		

> Second: If creationist would actually use this as if it were some kind of argument, it can very easily be turned against them, as the notion that everything was created by a god is not more or less likely in principle than the notion of "life arising from lifelessness".


The Creationist has a distinct advantage; life (as we know it) had a catalyst.  God *caused* life to originate.  The sidenote that God created the universe from 'nothingness' is irrelevant when you have an all-powerful creator God.  The evolutionist can at best shrug the shoulders and guess, hoping that somehow aliens will tell us how it happened or we'll figure it out (lets give ourselves a million years or so and hope we stumble over the solution).  This is the Creationist Cop-out (can I coin that phrase?) of supernaturability.  Your stance on supernaturality immediately and definitively puts you on the evolutionist or Creationist side of things.  Case closed.


			
				Cat said:
			
		

> Third: life arising from lifelessness is not unlikely at all. The basic presupposition for life is the presence of a self-replicating structure. Given such a structure, which can easily arise by chance, enough basic materials and a few million years will show a net increase of the number and complexity of such structure.
> ...


What are the chances?  C'mon, give me some numbers.  Sir Fred Hoyle actually did the math, but what does he know?  It's just his personal opinion...


			
				Cat said:
			
		

> In a famous experiment Miller showed that simply mixing together some common chemical elements that abounded in the primeval seas of the earth he could obtain the basic building blocks of life. You CAN do this at home (god not included). Occam's razor tells us what to do with superfluous hypotheses ...


"While no _ribozyme in nature has yet been found that can replicate itself_, ribozymes have been synthesized in the laboratory that can catalyze the assembly of short oligonucleotides into exact complements of themselves." (italics are mine)

"In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried. Virtually all the small molecules that are _associated with life_ have been formed" (again, italics are mine)

Let me get this right... Basically Miller, a "graduate student in biochemistry", who had a _guess_ of what the early atmosphere was like, could only replicate molecules "associated with life"?  This is a guy (let's call him an intelligent designer for fun) after all his years of advanced study, after trying to get the conditions _just right_, couldn't even produce simple life?!?!  And you have the gall to dismiss my questions regarding life arising from lifenesses as "not even an argument?"  I think it is the evolutionist grasping at straws when every instance of scientific evidence suggests things are *winding down*, not *gearing up*.  You can certainly be reasonable enough to see why I am skeptical.

Miller's experiment proves that it takes a lot of smarts to fake evolution.

(Folks, I do not intend to sound irrational, I am just irritated when some people simply dismiss my skepticism out-of-hand, as Cat has done.)


----------



## brianleahy (May 24, 2004)

At some point, we all must shrug our shoulders.  While science is coming ever closer to describing the conditions that existed in the micro-seconds after the Big Bang, few believe we can ever hope to fully understand WHY the Big Bang occurred, apart from pure speculation.

Yet I feel that in a fundamental way, creationism is no different in this regard.  As I alluded to in my Blog, inserting God as a creative force might account for the existence of the universe, but _what accounts for the existence of God?_   Surely, the creator of the universe is himself an entity far too complex and purposeful to have arisen by accident.

This is where the _religious_ sometimes shrug their shoulders.  Some will counter with the suggestion that God "has always existed," but this makes the entire equation somewhat self defeating: if the universe came from God, and God always existed, then what explanatory value does the story have?   Why not simply say that _the universe_ has always existed, and save ourselves a step?

True, the Bible says that God created the universe, but that's contrary to our purpose here: we're looking for evidence in the universe that supports the Bible, not vice versa.

And it's true; evolutionists have never reproduced the evolution of life from lifeless chemicals.  Similarly, creationists have never conjured life from the clay (nor pursuaded God to repeat this feat for a TV crew.)  The day anyone succeeds in either endavor, it'll surely make headlines....


----------



## Cat (May 25, 2004)

> Are not even scientists prone to this way of thinking, or is the scientist 100% objective?


Scientist are extremely prone to this kind of thing. Their great advantege over followers of blind faith is that they are aware of their cognitive flaws and biases and try to compensate for them through systematical doubt and methodological skepticism. You do not make assumptions until you are forced to. The faithfull assume a god to exists and stop looking for explanations.

The esistance of a god is no more no less unlikely than the existence of an eternal universe capable of generating life without any supernatural intervenience. 



> What are the chances? C'mon, give me some numbers.


 Well, let's assume that the odds of life being generated on a certain planet are very low, say 1/googol (googol is 10^100 IIRC). To the best of our knowledge the universe has existed now for billions of years and there is a LOT of matter flying around in it. There are billions of stars and billions of planets just in our very own galaxy, which is one of billions. Even if the odds are extremely low, nevertheless there is the possibility that life arises from lifelessness in all that time and space. The results obtaned by Miller are a very simple and very crude and primitive proof of concept. IF we are capable of roughly obtaining the basic building blocks of life in a guided experiment, nature, which has had the time and space to make billions of experiments is very likely to have obtained the same. 

You can say that it is unlikely, but if there is even the slightest chanche, sooner or later it will arise. Shuffle a deck of cards. What are the oods that the first four cards that you draw are the four aces? very very low, but the possibility exists. Now let all  people on earth shuffle their decks and try a hundred times a day. What are the odds of getting that draw in a year? Suddenly al lot higher. Given enough trials any combination will arise. Each single trial has the same low odds, but given anough trials, statistics tells us to expect that a certain combination will show up.


----------



## MDLarson (May 25, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Scientist are extremely prone to this kind of thing. Their great advantege over followers of blind faith is that they are aware of their cognitive flaws and biases and try to compensate for them through systematical doubt and methodological skepticism. You do not make assumptions until you are forced to. The faithfull assume a god to exists and stop looking for explanations.


So what am I doing?  I am attempting to reconcile science with my faith, and have done at least an OK job of it.  I don't have answers to a couple of issues, and I admit it, but I don't think *I* quite fit into your blind faith stereotype.


			
				Cat said:
			
		

> Well, let's assume that the odds of life being generated on a certain planet are very low, say 1/googol (googol is 10^100 IIRC). To the best of our knowledge the universe has existed now for billions of years and there is a LOT of matter flying around in it.


Wait a second, I thought people believed in billions of years because the insane odds dictated it, not the other way around...


			
				Cat said:
			
		

> There are billions of stars and billions of planets just in our very own galaxy, which is one of billions. Even if the odds are extremely low, nevertheless there is the possibility that life arises from lifelessness in all that time and space. The results obtaned by Miller are a very simple and very crude and primitive proof of concept. IF we are capable of roughly obtaining the basic building blocks of life in a guided experiment, nature, which has had the time and space to make billions of experiments is very likely to have obtained the same.


Actually, the more we look around our big beautiful universe, the more unique Earth looks.  Just keep looking though...


			
				Cat said:
			
		

> You can say that it is unlikely, but if there is even the slightest chanche, sooner or later it will arise. Shuffle a deck of cards. What are the oods that the first four cards that you draw are the four aces? very very low, but the possibility exists. Now let all  people on earth shuffle their decks and try a hundred times a day. What are the odds of getting that draw in a year? Suddenly al lot higher. Given enough trials any combination will arise. Each single trial has the same low odds, but given anough trials, statistics tells us to expect that a certain combination will show up.


You have great faith.


----------



## Giaguara (May 25, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> The Creationist has a distinct advantage; life (as we know it) had a catalyst.  God *caused* life to originate.  The sidenote that God created the universe from 'nothingness' is irrelevant when you have an all-powerful creator God.  The evolutionist can at best shrug the shoulders and guess, hoping that somehow aliens will tell us how it happened or we'll figure it out (lets give ourselves a million years or so and hope we stumble over the solution).  This is the Creationist Cop-out (can I coin that phrase?) of supernaturability.  Your stance on supernaturality immediately and definitively puts you on the evolutionist or Creationist side of things.  Case closed.
> What are the chances?  C'mon, give me some numbers.  Sir Fred Hoyle actually did the math, but what does he know?  It's just his personal opinion...
> "While no _ribozyme in nature has yet been found that can replicate itself_, ribozymes have been synthesized in the laboratory that can catalyze the assembly of short oligonucleotides into exact complements of themselves." (italics are mine)
> 
> "In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried. Virtually all the small molecules that are _associated with life_ have been formed" (again, italics are mine)



The classical religious explanation "god created everything" for some reason has never really appealed to me. I remember my mum being overly religious, bringing me to the sunday schools etc when I was small, and I remember thinking that it all sounded just like a fairytale that the adults wanted us to believe in. It didn't make much sense to me when I was 3, and it hasn't changed much since.

God created .. talking about the possibility, which is the possibility there is a god / gods? (Or taking of say 10 major religions, the change that what you believe is right? It should be about 1/10, assuming one of them is right.) I find it interesting that most religions that existed before jewism and christianity gave their god female attributes. So their god _created_ the world (in their stories). The change in the "gods" seems to happen on the same time the main cultures switches from matriarchal to patriarchal. Men wanted to create something, seen the possibility of creating more humans was limited to women, so they wanted their god(s)? 

Millers work .. it takes time, right? Rome wasn't built in a day, and most people don't interpret the god creating the world story litterally, it _really_ having happened in 6 man days. If it took years, or thousands of years, how could it be possible to repeat what Miller is trying, in a few years, and with every possible single variant? He'll need thousands of years.


----------



## pds (May 25, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> And it's true; evolutionists have never reproduced the evolution of life from lifeless chemicals.  Similarly, creationists have never conjured life from the clay (nor pursuaded God to repeat this feat for a TV crew.)  The day anyone succeeds in either endavor, it'll surely make headlines....



Well, isn't this just what Miller did? Isn't life like an interconnected force-field ("use the force Luke") and Miller's folding created a "radio" that was capable of receiving the "signal of life." No wonder then that use of other chemical compounds don't work, they can't tune in to the "life frequency."

That is to say Miller's experiment did include God, since there is no place that he doesn't "exist."

BTW, not all faith is blind, many of us believe due to direct personal encounter with the subject of our faith. Cat once said that he does not "require God," but that does not exclude the circumstance where God "requires" Cat. God is not the object of faith (I have faith _in_ God), but the  subject of it.


----------



## brianleahy (May 26, 2004)

> Well, isn't this just what Miller did?



That's an interesting perspective; trying to recreate molecular evolution IS equivalent to inviting God to repeat his miracle?   I'd have to conclude you're not a bible-literalist?



> Isn't life like an interconnected force-field...



Life is definitely interconnected, though I'm not sure I'd call it a 'force-field'.


----------



## pds (May 26, 2004)




----------



## Cat (May 26, 2004)

> So what am I doing? I am attempting to reconcile science with my faith, and have done at least an OK job of it. I don't have answers to a couple of issues, and I admit it, but I don't think I quite fit into your blind faith stereotype.


As you only contradict what I said without giving any arguments at all why I would be wrong or why my arguments would not be more valid that your supposed and implicit ones, I do in fact think that you do belong in the category of blind faith. For you the bible is true, maybe not literally, but mostly it is true. In your opinion god created the universe and everything in it, he is the ultimate explanation for everything. You keep pointing to your own ignorance in matters of evolutionary biology and to arguments of others, such as creationist websites and the bible itself. However, this is not a valid mode of discussion. Socrates has been quoted as the wisest of men as he admitted his own ignorance: he did so in order to be open for the truth which for others was hidden by their pompous arrogance. Well, in this discussion you, MD, have not been very open. For you the matter is already settled in advance: the bible is true, god is the reason. Then you try to concile it with science, to rationalise this basic, blind belief into something pseudoscientific. This is no bettern thatn astrology. Astrology tries hopelessly to use astronomical data to support its own claims. This is constantly failing, as the basic, blind belief that stars influence our daily life is already assumed to be true from the very beginning. Socrates ignorance was his starting point, he admitted not to know and went in search for the truth, but blind believers assumes one truth from the outset and then try to reconclie other knowledge with it. This leads increasingly to ridiculous additional hpotheses and ultimately to the use of force to defend ones faith, ass has been seen repeatedly in history. You could not publicly declare the earth NOT to be the center of the universe, man NOT to be the pinnacle of creation, the universe NOT to be finite and ordered in seven celestial spheres. One by one the church, despite war and torture, had to relent its claims in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of its dogmas. Scientist have been killed, tortured and ridiculed for upholding their research which contradicted the church. Like the church of old, you do not seem ready to let go you dogmas, you are not capable of arguing to the contrary as you belief-system is based on faith, not on research. You assume thing to be true, the words of the bible and of preachers, you do not question them, you do not seek truth, you seek rethoric: an empty meaningless way to reconcile faith and science. There is no way to do that. Natural science does not tell us whether there is a god or a soul or not, but it provides an explanation of reality that does not need a god to be true. Why would the bible be true? Because it is the word of god. If god would not exist, the the bible would not be necessarily true. Science con do without gods, souls, karma, phlogiston, life-force etc. and still explain why the thigns work the way that they work. We may never reach the ulitmate reality and fatih will always have the room to claim that that is the place where god resides. This place, however, has been shrinking for ceturies. You cannot use god as an argument: it is an assumption.


----------



## dlloyd (May 26, 2004)

Hmmm, Cat: that was getting too close to a personal attack, try to keep things amiable here, ok? 
Anyway, the difference between MD and the ancient church is that MD is not chopping off the heads of anyone who doesn't agree with him. He, so far, has not tried to proselytize or anything like that; in fact, he's been very open to others' ideas. Unlike that last post of yours, he has not tried to put down anyone else's beliefs.
I think that the Bible is not word for word literally true, but there is a lot in there that a lot of people could learn a lot from.


----------



## pds (May 26, 2004)

An interesting link concerning the science vs religion cliché

It has always bothered me when people claim that religion is at war with science. They are not, but particular practioners on both sides have made political decisons for political reasons .... The article makes the argument.

Perhaps it is a difference of definitions as religion is the content of a political institution or "the church."

Interesting site to browse around in...


----------



## brianleahy (May 26, 2004)

I hope we can keep things civil here.  
But hey!   New vocabulary word everybody:  "phlogiston"

phlo&#8226;gis&#8226;ton

Pronunciation: (flO-jis'ton, -tun), [key] 
&#8212;n. 
a nonexistent chemical that, prior to the discovery of oxygen, was thought to be released during combustion.

I thought it was a typo until I looked it up...   great word!


----------



## dlloyd (May 26, 2004)

So that's a fairly old word?


----------



## pds (May 26, 2004)

Well, civil...

Let's not worry too much about civility if it means that we don't talk about the issue. 

With sympathy for MD's position that God is at the root, I have to say that Cat has a point that you can't have it both ways, literal "young universe" and scientific proof.

As far as personal, how can you fault Cat for making it personal when MD says "I", "I","I". Let some of the chips fall.

But Cat, a paragraph or two would have made it easier to read...


----------



## MDLarson (May 26, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> You cannot use god as an argument: it is an assumption.


I agree.  How exactly did I "use God as an argument" though?  Do you understand that there is, by definition, more elbow room for the believer in God and supernatural things than a strict naturalist?  I have already alluded to this idea as the "Creationist Cop-out".

I was thinking about this whole thing today at work, and I can maybe sum up my belief system in a few paragraphs:

Why I *don't* believe in evolution:
Based on what I know from science, I have decided that evolution could not have happened on its own.  There had to have been an intelligent designer, at least to get the first few "building blocks of life" together (even then, I'm not convinced yet that mutations add genetic 'information' to the mix, notwithstanding Brian's brief mention of some studies that say mutation _does_ contribute to evolution).

Why I *do* believe in Christianity
Based on my last paragraph, I already believe in supernaturality (I don't have to be a Christian at this point).  I was raised Christian, but I've seen enough people "leave the fold" and enough more to join Christianity later in life to put much stock in that fact.  (I had to make my faith my own, and not my parents, basically.)

So now, what's left?  Which God to choose?  I am most familiar with Christianity, of course, but from what I know (and yes, what I've been taught), I believe the Bible truly does withstand criticism, especially when it comes to archeology.  I do _not_ know a lot about other religions, but based on what I _do_ know, it either a) doesn't make sense or b) is not encouraging.

Ultimately, I am a Christian because everything in my soul (speaking metaphorically) _yearns_ for a purpose in life.  The people in the church I go to are genuine, and the love is real.  I even consider my own life as testimony to the Truth of the Bible.  In contrast, evolution tells me that I have _no purpose in life_.

Following this line of reasoning, I believe evolutionists should not care about things like self-esteem classes in junior high, protecting endangered species, or putting crazy religious people in their place, because after all, what does it matter?

In the end, I would rather make myself look like a crazy religous fool and enjoy infinity with a loving Creator-God than to accept an atheistic worldview like evolution (even if it's true, which I don't believe) and simply live 80 years then die.

My honest opinion on those who challenge the Bible:  The Bible is very much authoritarian in nature, and we don't like being bossed around.  Even as a Bible-believing Christian, it is tough to read sometimes, as it commands us to do things that are contrary to our human nature and things we just don't want to do.  I also think that some pre-conceived notions hinder an objective look at the Bible ("Why can't God be female?").

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that religion / science / evolution / creation is all very debatable, *including my skepticism of life arising from lifelessness*.  But my primary aim (although it should be, if I'm honest with myself) is *not to convert the masses of MacOSX.com*.  My primary aim is to offer up my defense when appropriate.  This both strengthens my faith and challenges it at the same time.

Done for tonight...

-Matt


----------



## MDLarson (May 26, 2004)

OK, I guess I'm not _quite_ done yet... 


			
				pds said:
			
		

> An interesting link concerning the science vs religion cliché


That's a good read, pds.  However, I still have logical incompatibilities between the Christianity I know and evolution.

A) God proclaims the creation including Adam and Eve as "very good" before the Curse
B) The Curse includes death as one of the punishments
C) God used evolution, whose primary catalyst _is_ death, to eventually get to Adam and Eve

A + B does not equal C

In addition, if there is no original sin of Adam and Eve (specifically rebellion), then the definition of sin is greatly generalized and opinionized and therefore rendered meaningless.  Jesus died on the cross for nothing, and the very thing that makes a Christian is eliminated.


----------



## pds (May 26, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> OK, I guess I'm not _quite_ done yet...
> That's a good read, pds.  However, I still have logical incompatibilities between the Christianity I know and evolution.
> 
> A) God proclaims the creation including Adam and Eve as "very good" before the Curse
> ...



Exactly! I wonder if you understand what you just wrote.

That argument is why a literal understanding of the Bible leads one to a conundrum, one that has to deny the phenomenology of our life today, one that disqualifies the holder of the idea to the methods of science. "All swans are black, this is a swan, so inspite of the appearance of being white, it is in fact black...." When the discussion stays in the realm of ideas and not the reality of the world, the sophists may win. But when the reality of this world is held and appreciated as the writtten word of God (Romans 1:20), and then explored without the ideological constraints of an assumption of a particular age or of a certain time period, we will get further.

BTW Can you supply the rationale for believing in the Bible word for word literally? Not as a challenge, but as a "need to know." What is it in the book that _requires us_ to believe that every word is literal? Would it undermine the validity of the book if part of it were to be read like a children's bedtime story of a loving father to his frightened children.?

There were a few posts in the thread about the meaning of life and death, but you were away... How can *edit add physical* death, part of the life cycle both in macro and in micro (doesn't the fetus "die" when the child is born?) be the result of a curse? The assertion *edit add that physical death is a result of a curse* is not factual or held up by even anecdotal evidence of really old guys waltzing around the world. (BTW concentrate in prayer on Paul's take on the resurrection of Christ. The sewn in flesh raised in spirit bits of Romans 7)

Jesus died on the cross because a people who were prepared for 2,000 years for the sole purpose of receiving the Messiah "did not know the hour of [their] visitation." Or as Paul put it in Cor. 2:8 "none of the rulers of this age knew [that Jesus was the one they were waiting for] for if the had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory."

There is no root of anti-semitism here, but no political correctness either. The value of Jesus (along with the salvific position of being a "new Adam" Cor. 15:45 IIRC which I personally take seriously) is the example to "love your enemy!" So the persecution of Jews throughout history is a tragic mistake made by politicians who saw more motivating power in the urge to hate than the in religious requirement  to love.

*edit hmm maybe I better not post just before leaving for work . This one needs some looking into past posts to sew it all together. Sorry*


----------



## Cat (May 27, 2004)

> Based on what I know from science, I have decided that evolution could not have happened on its own.


This sounds to me like "gravity could not happen on its own". What exactly do you mean? Regardless of positive or negative mutations organisms are born, live and die as individuals. They breed and over time we can see changes from individual to individual. We group individuals together to classify them as a species (which is a commodity definition and not absolutely established), we have a criterion that says that two individuals which cannot produce fertile offspring ar enot members of the same species. Animals drift around on the continents and separate branches of species emerge until they are no longer biologically compatible with one another. Evolution is not an active force that drives the individuals, it is an abstract description of a phenomenon. When you drop an apple it falls. The falling doesn't happen by itself, gravity causes the falling. WRONG: gravity _describes_ the falling. Evolution doesn't CAUSE species to change, evolution describes how species change. The CAUSE is genetic mutation and inheritance. Genetic mutation doesn't happen on its own, teleologically for a purpose, it happens mostly by accident. DNA was not designed, but came about by processes such as the order/chaos I described earlier. So again, why do you need a CAUSE for evolution? 



> I already believe in supernaturality


That is exactly the reproach (not a personal attack or insult) I made earlier. You have already ruled out natural causes and are not really prepared to take them into account again, not even against overwhelming evidence. I'm sorry if I sounded offensive before, that was not my intent.



> evolution tells me that I have no purpose in life.


That is not true. This is maybe the conclusion that you personally draw from certain facts, but it is not evolutionary biology that tells you whether you do or do not have a purpose in life. Science in general should not and normally does not concern itself with this kind of judgement. Natural science describes the way things work, and does not give or take meaningfullness from one's life. Asking for the purpose of one's life is not a question of natural science. 



> if there is no original sin of Adam and Eve (specifically rebellion), then the definition of sin is greatly generalized and opinionized and therefore rendered meaningless. Jesus died on the cross for nothing, and the very thing that makes a Christian is eliminated.


According to the bible, Satan in the form of a serpent convinced Eve to disobey. There are two possibilities: 1) Eve was already prone to sin, _created_ prone to sin, how else could Satan so easily sway the virtuous wench? 2) Satan instilled the sin in her while she was completely virtuous. 
Bot lead to appalling consequences: either god already created mankind sinful, or Satan made mankind sinful. In both cases: how could we hold Adam and Eve responsible for their actions? How could we accept god's punishment as just?


----------



## Giaguara (May 27, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Why I *don't* believe in evolution:
> Based on what I know from science, I have decided that evolution could not have happened on its own.  There had to have been an intelligent designer, at least to get the first few "building blocks of life" together (even then, I'm not convinced yet that mutations add genetic 'information' to the mix, notwithstanding Brian's brief mention of some studies that say mutation _does_ contribute to evolution).
> 
> Why I *do* believe in Christianity
> ...



Interesting.

Where does evolution say that everthing has happened "randomly"? Many chrstians interpret that simply so that the evolution theory is religion neutral, but it would not be a controversy to bible. So they think that mybe the 6 days god created the world, probably were not 6 days of the lenth that we have here, but something a lot longer period. Interpreting the six days as a metaphor (would the ancient jews have understood e.g. a half light year, if that was closer to that time timewise? i doubt it). 

Evolution theory does not say that you are random and meaningless. Not even the biology theories should leave you that impression. You exist because an egg cell and some sperm ... or was it god, did something? Sciences (maybe even theology) should be religion neutral, because it is not justified to think that everyone is christian (or any other particular religion). It has to be something that a hindu, buddhist, muslim, orthodox etc will understand (without reading that what they believe is wrong). Wouldn't biology make you feel worthless, if you think that you were at some point just a lump of cells, a parassite in your mum's stomach? 

Self esteem and LOVE are important. But they don't have to be, and are not, limited to a religion. People of any (and without any) religion can LOVE, have a healthy self-esteem, and find their live meaningful.


----------



## brianleahy (May 27, 2004)

(Note: this post composed purely as a reply to MD's recent post, not specifically to any subsequent post.)

Well done, MD.  You have hit upon the undeniable benefits of belonging to an organized religion; feelings of purpose and fellowship and kinship, plus the belief that death...  has its upside.  This last is major - it gives courage to the dying, and comfort to the survivors.  The human drive to form close emotional bonds with others, carries with it a terrible vulnerability.  We face emotional devastation when we lose people close to us; the need for comfort in the face of such a loss is enormous.

Humans all have these needs, and in your post, you acknowledge the role these needs play in faith.  This alone puts you ahead of many people I have heard and read over the years.  That may sound condescending; it's not meant to be.  Before it is possible to effectively defend one's opinions, it is vital to truly understand _why_ you hold those opinions, and how they are important to you.  

EDIT (meant to mention this):  Because of this undeniable value religion can add, despite what I feel are serious problems in the Bible's ability to explain many observed properties of the universe, I personally think that science and religion ought properly not be imagined to compete.  Neither "team" can defeat the other, because they are playing different games, on different fields, with different rules, different equipment and a different definition of 'winning'.

My own faith, as I have said, is in the scientific process.  Indeed, without realizing it, I long ago adopted something similar to it as my personal philosophy.  

As a boy, I can remember great curiosity about how things worked - toasters and TVs, planets and stars, plants and animals, governments and wars.  I would first try to ponder things out myself based on my observations.  Many times I would think that I&#8217;d figured out on my own how something worked, but then later I&#8217;d ask an adult about it, and I&#8217;d usually learn that there was more to it than I&#8217;d realized, and that a lot of my ideas were just wrong.  

The lesson I learned was not to put too much trust in answers that seem too easy, too pat.  To develop a real understanding of something is an ongoing process of refinement, revision, and filling in of gaps&#8230; and occasionally, of starting over from scratch in the face of new information.   

This is the essence of the scientific process.  So long as this process is hard at work, I have no problem in provisionally accepting new discoveries and new ideas &#8211; with the caveat that nothing is ever cast in stone.  The ongoing, objective search for the truth: that is where my faith is, that is what I believe in.    THAT, in my estimation, is the meaning and purpose of life.

The Bible rejects virtually all of that.  The Bible enthrones itself as the last word on every subject it addresses (and I know there are some who will tell you that there is NO subject the Bible _doesn&#8217;t_ address) and rules out entirely any reexamination of ideas in the face of new discoveries.  

And &#8211; to me at least &#8211; the Bible&#8217;s 'answers' (to such questions as "where do we come from?"  and "how should we treat each other?")  seem, frankly, too pat, too easy.   Thus, I put little trust in them.

And as for treating one another with respect and compassion, despite non-belief in God &#8211; the benefits of this are self-evident.  Indeed, I think it can be argued that religious faith can, in a sense, sort of 'cheapen' any act of compassion.   Isn&#8217;t it better to act charitably and kindly because you WANT to, or because it makes you FEEL good, than because you think it&#8217;ll score you points with God, or will earn you a nicer spot in heaven?


----------



## pds (May 27, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> According to the bible, Satan in the form of a serpent convinced Eve to disobey. There are two possibilities: 1) Eve was already prone to sin, _created_ prone to sin, how else could Satan so easily sway the virtuous wench? 2) Satan instilled the sin in her while she was completely virtuous.
> Bot lead to appalling consequences: either god already created mankind sinful, or Satan made mankind sinful. In both cases: how could we hold Adam and Eve responsible for their actions? How could we accept god's punishment as just?



Now now, there is at least one more possibility. 

That God created all things to grow. What came first, the chicken or the egg. The egg! Regardless of whether God effected or nature effected the development, it happened at a cellular (even sub-cellular) level to establish this new being (delicious chicken) as distinct from anything that came before. 

So why would man be any different? He also started out as a child and had a task to accomplish. The Bible expresses this task in two ways. Do this (Genesis 1:28) and don't do that (Gen 2:7). Having been given the command to "be fruitful" (i.e. to acheive the purpose of his existence Be fruitful means be perfect, complete your purpose - an apple tree is perfect not when it bears watermelon, but when it bears apples, the genetic programming of the seed becomes the reality of the fruit.) - Adam and Eve were certainly capable of doing so (God gives not tests that we cannot withstand or however that is poetically expressed). Their purpose is clear. Jesus said it, Mat:5:48 "you must, therefore, be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect."

Adam and Eve were neither _prone_ to sin, nor completely virtuous. They were simply immature. They were responsible to grow. That was the amazing gift that was given them, the chance to be co-creators of their own natures. The omnipotent God gave Adam and Eve His omnipotence, making them completely responsible for their own growth. And the reason for it is simple. He loved them.

As to the consequences; were they a curse, as Matt has stated, or was it a simple fact that through following Satan's explanation of their task, rather than God's man became dead, i.e. no longer within the realm of God's word and love? 

Since he was responsible to grow, was Adam not also responsible for the consequences of not growing? (God didn't say "Lucifer, don't tempt them" he said "Adam, resist the temptation.")

(Shaky example coming)
If a crackhead becomes a parent, the suffering of her child is consequence, not punishment.

Now, Hows that for going off-topic!


----------



## Cat (May 27, 2004)

Well, if Adam and Eve didn't fully know the consequence of their actions, how could they make a truly informed choice? Can we even see it as a choice to disobey and rebel? They knew they were disobeying, but had they fully realised what would happen to them afterwards probably they would not have disobeyed. Moreover, god lied to them when he told "as soon as you take one bite of the apple you will instantly and straightforwardly die". I still don't really believe the spiritual-death story. So where is gods infinite forgiveness? Where is his infinite love and compassion for his children? Doesn't Jesus himself say "forgive them because they do not know what they are doing"? Did Adam and Eve truly realise what they were doing? I don't think so ... 

Take Satan: now that is a rebel! Truly great in his defiance: "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven!" (Milton, "Paradise lost"). Strange though: angels did not have free will, so how could they even conceive of rebelling ...


----------



## pds (May 27, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> The Bible rejects virtually all of that.  The Bible enthrones itself as the last word on every subject it addresses (and I know there are some who will tell you that there is NO subject the Bible _doesnt_ address) and rules out entirely any reexamination of ideas in the face of new discoveries.



Now Now Now...

The Bible is an inanimate object and as such does no such thing as enthrone  itself nor does it do any other activity except age...

I asked what part of the book is used to lay siege to the idea of literal infallibilty, and in the absence of an answer I will put one forward - though I might be wrong and welcome fuller answer. 

AFAIK It comes from Revelation 22:18, the penultimate verse in the book. Now I believe we all know that Bible comes from biblio meaning (approx) library. It is a collection of books. (The book of Job, the book of Numbers etc.) Rev. 22:18 rightly belongs to the nightmare that is the book of Revelation. Needless to say there was quite a fight about putting Revelation into the Christian Canon. It was included because it made a nice balance, from alpha to omega so to speak. Two of John's letters were written after Revelation was written, after 22:18 was written.

Point?

Politicians have enthroned it. 



> And as for treating one another with respect and compassion, despite non-belief in God  the benefits of this are self-evident.  Indeed, I think it can be argued that religious faith can, in a sense, sort of 'cheapen' any act of compassion.   Isnt it better to act charitably and kindly because you WANT to, or because it makes you FEEL good, than because you think itll score you points with God, or will earn you a nicer spot in heaven?





"Faith without works is death."

Interesting book is "Life in the World Unseen" by Anthony Borgia. Bit strange as Borgia is a medium and claims to write the book at the direction of a spirit person. But I love the explanation of the guy sitting at the border of paradise, unable to go in because his selfish motivation in faith and charity never prepared him to "breathe the atmosphere of paradise." He could see it, but he couldn't partake in it.


----------



## brianleahy (May 27, 2004)

> The Bible is an inanimate object and as such does no such thing as enthrone itself...



A fair point; a person or thing is 'enthroned' by its followers.  I could walk around calling myself a king, but unless I have people obeying me, it's just blabber.



> AFAIK It comes from Revelation 22:18,



"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."  ????   You lost me.



> Politicians have enthroned it.



If "politicians" includes priests and evangelists, then I agree.



> "Faith without works is death."



In this context does "works" mean 'deeds'  -- specifically 'good deeds'?
Or do you mean 'trappings' - prayers, religious services, traditions etc?


----------



## pds (May 27, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Well, if Adam and Eve didn't fully know the consequence of their actions, how could they make a truly informed choice? Can we even see it as a choice to disobey and rebel?


You are so clever. It is not a case of rebellion or even disobedience. Toss into the story the idea that Lucifer (who becomes satan, the enemy) was there in the garden as a nanny. He was the one feeding them their information.



> They knew they were disobeying, but had they fully realised what would happen to them afterwards probably they would not have disobeyed.


Yes, so the pleasure of the deviation of their behavior (to stay away from the term disobedience) was so stimulating that they became focused on the moment, forsaking the future. Hmm, what could that have been?



> Moreover, god lied to them when he told "as soon as you take one bite of the apple you will instantly and straightforwardly die". I still don't really believe the spiritual-death story.


Unless they did in fact do so. There is certainly textual hinting to the idea of physical life and spiritual death in the Bible. "you have the name of being alive, but you are dead." "Though he may die yet shall he live." "Those who hear my words and believes....has passed from death to life." 

Even in everyday living, aren't there times when your thinking is cloudy, confused, ambivalent, and other times things shine through in more clarity certainty. Sometimes we feel God's presence and sometimes not. In my experience we kind of wander between the the realms of life and death a lot. (no I am not forgeting my medication )



> So where is gods infinite forgiveness? Where is his infinite love and compassion for his children? Doesn't Jesus himself say "forgive them because they do not know what they are doing"? Did Adam and Eve truly realise what they were doing? I don't think so ...


When did God forgive Adam and Eve? Some would say that all forgiveness comes from Jesus, but I would say that the forgiveness starts immediately with Adam and Eve. Now, is there forgiveness without a level of acceptance of responsibility for the problem? When Jesus says "... they know not what they do", isn't he saying "it's my fault that I couldn't convince them what they should do."?

It is my understanding that forgiveness is a precondition for God to work with mankind and love is a precondition to that forgiveness. He has to forgive man in order to save him (how can he waste time saving that which is worthless in his eye?) and he started the work of salvation immediately in Adam's own family, again because he loved them. He tells Cain "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" (Its a JudeoChristian paradigm, but born it's born out in Muslim tradition. There is an amazingly similar story in ancient Korean mythology too.)

God's forgiveness is infinite, but since man is in this "omnipotent" position due to his purpose, he cannot be saved by God's effort alone, but by his own effort within the principles and the purposes of God. (not saved by faith alone.) It takes a long time for us to get it.

That "man's omnipotence" thing is going to get me in trouble, I know. Please note the quotation marks around it. 



> Take Satan: now that is a rebel! Truly great in his defiance: "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven!" (Milton, "Paradise lost"). Strange though: angels did not have free will, so how could they even conceive of rebelling ...



Angels ... free will ... free action ... hmmm another tangent?

Is it free will that is at the root of man's (or the angel's) fall, or is it responsibility? I see free will and free action as components of responsibility so anything that has a job to do has some level of responsibility and therefore some level of free will to be able to act freely. Rule in hell - act independently - rather than serve in heaven, so he had a purpose to do something which again requires the ability to act independently.


----------



## pds (May 27, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> *snip*"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."  ????   You lost me.*snip*
> If "politicians" includes priests and evangelists, then I agree.*snip*
> this context does "works" mean 'deeds'  -- specifically 'good deeds'?
> Or do you mean 'trappings' - prayers, religious services, traditions etc?


Rev.22:18,19 "...should anyone take away from the words in this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life an the Holy City described in this book." It has been told to me as applying to the entire 66 book library we call the Bible, but erroneously so as far as I know. It applies strictly to the book of Revelation, a nightmare as I said. (a vision seen in dreams)

Re politicians - Some priests and evangelists may fit that description, some may not. There is definitely a proper path, a high road to improvement and salvation, and there is definitely a need for leadership on that road. The one who decides to stay on the road and carve out his feast is the politician.

Re faith and works - perhaps too glib a quote, the former for sure. If you can find the Borgia book it is an easy read. DLloyd, you'll like the bits about the castles of music.

******
I'd post a smiley  to the brian's post below, but it would end up on the next page.


----------



## brianleahy (May 27, 2004)

Ah blast, somehow I clicked Exodus when I should have clicked Revelations.  Whoops!  

That's how I got the wrong passage.

EDIT (more):

In any case, Faith without works is death, okay...

But what about works without faith?


----------



## pds (May 27, 2004)

Well, first off, what should we have faith in? But leave that till later...

The way I see it, every act has a couple of components that determine it's value. One is motivation and the other is direction. Since we stand in a position that is between life and death, heaven and hell, God and satan, our actions will have a direction, to accomplish goodness or to accomplish evil, the will of God or the will of Satan. This was Adam and Eve's dilemma too. So there's a whole matrix of possibilities in looking at any deed. The motivation could be pure and good and the act itself in the direction of either good or evil. Also the motivation may be evil (selfish or destructive) but the deed good. Lastly there could be the completely selfish evil deed.  I consider that God can (and will) bless three out of the four possibilities, some more than others.

What should we have faith in? God want's love, not faith. He doesn't want people to believe in him, but to strive to know him and be like him. So what should we believe in? A typical response might be that faith is the belief in things not seen, the hope for fulfilled promises. Maybe, but for me, faith is more like belief that what happened before will happen again. It is more like recognition that there are principles of life that can be seen and discovered in the real words that God wrote, forever, in the the things that he has made. "Let there be light." He created with the word and that word is written on every thing of creation, in it's consistency and it's complexity. It is therefore belief in what is seen.

When we give to someone who we see needs help, is it not faith that moves us? Faith, not in an unseen God, but in the unseen law that I will not lose by giving something of myself to this one who needs it.

So are there works without faith? I might say that it's impossible.


----------



## brianleahy (May 27, 2004)

Interesting, and nicely thought out.  

You seem to have distilled the essence of what is sometimes called 'Christian Charity' ('charity' as a quality, not as something to which you donate money) to a philosophy that can stand with or without the Bible or its trappings.  

It is a common practice in science, in logic, in law and so forth to illustrate a concept by imagining an idealized situation.  For example, there is a riddle that illustrates a concept of geography:

Question:"A man walks 10 miles south, 20 miles east, then 10 miles north, and arrives back where he started.   Where is he?"

Answer: "The north pole".

This story is useful to illustrate how the compass directions work - north and south have 'poles', while east and west are merely relative.  This overall lesson is true, but it does NOT imply that the STORY is literally true (i.e. perhaps nobody has ever ACTUALLY walked 10 miles south, 20 miles east, then 10 miles north, to arrive back at the north pole).  

This is how I believe significant parts of the Bible must be interpreted -- that is, they carry a message that is 'true' in its way, but the story used to deliver that message is like a fable; illustrative though not literally true.   (Not to say that the entire thing is made up, there is some historical truth in the Bible, parts that can be independently confirmed by other sources.)


----------



## MDLarson (May 31, 2004)

Hey all... I'm just dropping in again, and I am officially exhausted from this thread.  I crave closure, and I had naïvely envisioned my last post to be a conclusion to at least my end of the discussion. 

Angels obviously had free-will at one time, that is, the time period between their creation and the Curse on Adam (Mankind), Eve (Womankind) and the serpent (Lucifer / Satan / the rest of the angels and fallen angels / demons).  Satan was the 'mutineer' and 1/3 of the angels chose to follow him in his rebellion.  It appears as if angels are sort of "locked-in" to their fate according to the Bible, but I don't know if I could say that they have "no free will" (I could simply be ignorant of a verse that brings this issue up).

As far as God lying to Adam and Eve about the consequence of sin, that don't work for me at all.  Somebody had mentioned several Bible translations that appear to take liberties in the meaning of 'die', and I suspect the apparent problem would be satisfied if we understood the Hebrew (is Hebrew capitalized?).  Clearly, there _was_ a metaphysical change in the structure of the human body, as people began to die (literally).  In that sense you could get away with saying "Adam and Eve immediately began to die".  This is mostly my opinion, and certainly not to be held as scripture. (That's a joke, folks  )

Oh, I also wanted to mention that I DO believe there are appropriate times to treat Bible passages as allegorical and poetic; sometimes entire books are poetry!  However, as I have described earlier in my A+B does not equal C example, there are some things that are absolutely critical to a faith.  Human origins is one of those things, and scientific evidence can, in my estimation, be explained in a Biblical worldview without automatically defaulting to poetry or allegory.

But anyway, those are a couple thoughts; just to let you know that I'm sort of still here...   I plan on keeping up with the thread, but I don't know how involved I'm gonna be (just getting worn out mostly).


----------



## Giaguara (Jun 1, 2004)

So, the humans were immortal before? And they had a steady amount of people on the earth, as if they were immortal it would have made absolutely no sense to anyone ever make any kids?


----------



## pds (Jun 1, 2004)

Bingo 

But consistency was never a big part of theology, to its detriment...

It seems to me that the cycle of life indicates that life, child-bearing/rearing and even death are part of the growing process, part of the learning process. To therefore exclude death in the creative process, to say that evolution is not possible because it involves the life/death cycle, is a limited approach. 

BTW the "curse" mentioned was a curse upon man and the angel, not upon the animals of the world, who do die. I believe that man, being the image of God, is immortal, just not in a physical sense. It is our spirit that never dies, that is eternal. Our life determines whether that eternity is pleasant or unpleasant. (Which goes to the idea of spiritual life or spiritual death. "He who does not love abides in death.")

But the original theme of the thread was that Darwin was being shoved aside. I think the question becomes "How can we as a society provide the intellectual climate to embrace the questions of science and religion in a spirit of tolerance and understanding, avoiding the confrontation of either/or, and looking at each as a search for how and why?"


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 1, 2004)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> So, the humans were immortal before? And they had a steady amount of people on the earth, as if they were immortal it would have made absolutely no sense to anyone ever make any kids?


Yeah, that's a good point, and admitedly one that I had not given much thought to.  I'm curious now.  My *guess* is that people simply would not reproduce after the world 'filled up', like you mentioned.

Actually, such a phenomenon is taking place in some European countries now.  The population is projected to decline as people are growing older and NOT having kids--there's no perceived need or desire.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 4, 2004)

I saw an outstanding episode of Nova ("World In the Balance") that talked about population trends in different parts of the world.  The very general yardstick seems to be, oddly enough, that the better living conditions are, the lower the birth rate. 

Raking the creation/evolution muck, a T-Shirt design:

http://www.northernsun.com/cgi-bin/nsm/19402.html

Disclaimer: Let the record show that I acknowledge this tongue-in-cheek slogan adds little of substance to the debate at hand.   I offer it more as humor than as an actual argument.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 4, 2004)

I received an email back from AIG regarding our earlier issue of 'additive' mutations.  The person replying did not directly deal with Talk.Origins' claims, which is somewhat dissatisfying.

But, AIG said "Talk Origins is not a site with peer reviewed material.  It is actually a lay site disguised as scientific."  AIG also called into question the integrity of the Talk.Origins folks, following this logic:  "the people involved in the Talk Origins website do not believe in God. Therefore, they have no reason to believe in good or bad.  If they did, then they are admitting that there is a God who sets what is good and bad. ... Since they believe in concepts such as no right and no wrong, they have no reason to speak the truth.  So be wary of their claims and check every fact all the way back to a single source document and their logic."

Finally, they provided a link to this article that attempts to show how the Talk.Origins site is fallable, and at worst deceitful.  I have not read the article in full yet.

***

If you have been a part of this debate, you are probably at least a little mad right now, because perhaps you believe that AIG is calling into question *your* integrity.  You do not 'lie', after all; you are searching for 'the truth'.

Personally I am not willing to call anyone here a liar, but I believe AIG makes a good point; what makes right or wrong?  Who says lying is bad or wrong?  To borrow an illustration from nature, the snapping turtle sits perfectly still, submerged in the water with his mouth open.  The turtle moves his tongue to make it look like a worm coming out of the dirt in the water.  A trusting fish swims by, sees the 'worm', and tries to make it a meal.  Instead, the fish becomes the snapper's meal, all because of deception.  The worm was a lie.

If we evolved, why should I not extend this logic to my everyday life?  I can cheat on my taxes; lie to people about my circumstances to get money out of them; etc.  After all, it's only natural, right?  (People do, in fact, exercise their right to justify anything they want to do in this way.)

In contrast, Christianity (and other religions that teach a divine moral code) have a source and reason for integrity.  It is a command, not a self-imposed belief that waxes and wanes with culture.

***

I'm have to sum up where I stand on the original issue of the Talk.Origins references in regards to mutations.  Right now I have 4 unsubstantiated studies that claim to refute AIG's stance of "no mutation can add information".  Everything else I know in nature (be it genetics or inorganic assemblies, etc.) *winds down and falls apart* without outside help.  EVERYTHING.  It takes great effort by smart people to create something that will last... for a while.

My stance remains the same:  "No mutation adds information to the mix."

If anyone wants to see the original email I received from AIG, PM me.  I will gladly PM or email it to you.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 4, 2004)

Oh MD, here you need to distance yourself from these folks.

They have "defined" atheists as untrustworthy - a slur about as offensive as my "defining" the faithful as deluded fools, and the Bible as a fairy tale.  This 'retort' is equivalent to "Why should I believe anything a stupid <racial epithet> says?"  Comebacks of this type are what you pull out when your actual arguments have dried up, but you're unwilling to concede any ground to your opponent.  

You're better and smarter than this.  If you actually felt that way, then this entire discussion has been a waste of time.  Why would you bother to defend your faith to a bunch of lying atheists?  This reply is no victory; it's a sign of AIG's desperation.  

They blinked first.


----------



## Cat (Jun 5, 2004)

> the people involved in the Talk Origins website do not believe in God. Therefore, they have no reason to believe in good or bad.


 That's nonsensical. The second claim does not follow from the first. I do not believe in a god who establishes what is right or wrong or good or evil. I define for myself what is good etc. Hence I have no god, but I do have good. Tasty food is good, helping grannies cross the street is good, doing my job is good etc. I do not need a god to have a concept of what is good. I refrain from cheating my wife-to-be or the taxes because I can envision the consequences and it would damage my principles. I give trust because I need trust. No god required. Hence the argument is fallacious. Atheists do have a concept of good and wrong, without god.

Morover, you seem to confuse thermodynamics and biology. We know that entropy increases all the time, but this does not mean there are no transient but stable intermediate stages. Until there is enough hydrogen, our sun will keep shining. When the hydrogen is used up, it will explode and dissipate and go into a lower level of energy. So do we. However, we do procreate, we do change over time, but as a species we are fairly stable. In the brief window of e few million years which have been conceded to the human genus, we have evolved. From more primitive organisms we have evolved a lot of usefull features at the expense of others. We do not have a prensile tail anymore, we cannot smell as well, but we have acquired complex language and detailed finger manipulation. These require subtly different genes, of which we still share 99.9% with chimps. So we do not require enormous revolutionary new information in our genes to make evolution possible. Small changes can account for a lot. The 0.1% that differs seems to be enough. It is different, not better. We survive in our niche just as others survive in theirs. The whole "new/better information" is nonsense I think. A square peg fits well in a square hole and less well in a round one. Should we say the square peg is superior to the round one? That is contains better "information"?


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 5, 2004)

I thought it might get a reaction like this, sorry.  The only thing that I came away with in the AIG reply was that the Talk.Origins examples of additive mutation are not authoritative.  To categorically characterize any one group of people as dishonest is *not* an argument, I know that.  That's why I said I was a little disappointed when their response did not actually dive into the issue at hand.  My assumption is that AIG does not have the time or resources to investigate claims made by a lay-person site (which they claim Talk.Origins is).

I can't talk for long right now, I just want to make it clear that I do not agree with everything in the AIG reply; I was only posting it for "posterity".

Cat, I understood entropy to be _decreasing_.  I took a quick look at dictionary.com's definition of it and I can't quite get a grasp of what it means.  I remember learning about it before, but what you're telling me about "entropy increasing all the time" seems to clash with what I thought it meant.  

Anyway, again, sorry for any misunderstandings!


----------



## Cat (Jun 6, 2004)

> The second law of thermodynamics is sometimes stated as this result: the total entropy of a thermally isolated system can never decrease.


From Wikipedia.


----------



## eddiejoepopcorn (Oct 9, 2010)

Just out of curiosity, what's this post doing in Mac technical forums?


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 9, 2010)

The "Bob's Place" section is reserved for any subject at all, regardless how off-topic.

Also, yours is the first post to this thread in several years.


----------

