Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

And here are twenty-five examples of where the bible contradicts itself, and not in terms of interpretation, or arguable history that we were not there to see, but objectively, simply in terms of numerical values:

1. The flood lasted 150 days in Gen 7:24, 40 days in Gen 7:17, ten months in Gen 8:5.
2. Terah: how old was he when he died? He was 70 when his son Abraham was born (Gen 11:16) and he died at age 205, 135 years later (Gen 11:32). But Abraham was only 75 when he left Haran, and Terah was already dead (Gen 12:4, Acts 7:4).
3. How many of Jacob's family went to Egypt? Gen 46:27, Ex 1:5 and Deut 10:22 all say 70. Acts 7:14 (and the Septuagint) says 75.
4. How long was the sojourn in Egypt? 400 years (Gen 15:13, Acts 7:6). 430 years (Ex 12:40). Four generations of Levi (Ex 6:16-20; Levi > Kohath > Amram > Moses; actually three: Levi > Jochebed > Moses; Num 26:59, Ex 6:20). Kohath was born before going to Egypt (Gen 46:8-11) and died at age 133 (Ex 6:18). Amram died at age 137 (Ex 6:20). Moses was 80 at start of the exodus (Ex 7:7). Even if Kohath were born in the first year of the sojourn and each father sired the next generation in the year of his death, the sojourn could not have been over 350 years: Kohath 133 + Amram 137 + Moses 80. And Jochebed must have been much older than her husband; to the extent she was not, the sojourn must have been even shorter.
5. How many tribes were there in Israel? Usually twelve tribes are mentioned, but the identification of the tribes varies: in one Dinah is listed in place of Benjamin (Gen 29-30), and in Chronicles both halves of the tribe of Manasseh are counted (1 Chron 2-3; 6:54-80). Some lists mention only ten tribes (Deut 33:6 ff; 2 Sam 19:43); one gives eleven tribes (1 Kings 11:31); and in Gen 46:48 ff there are thirteen.
6. How many Israelites? Over 600,000, counting just men of fighting age, in Moses' day (Ex 12:37, Num 1:45-46). 22,273 firstborn males (Num 3:43), making average family to include 27 fighting-age males. By Ahab's day, only 7000 total (1 Kings 20:15).
7. Joshua 15:21-32 contradicts itself: it says there are 29 cities on the list, which actually contains 36.
8. Jesse's sons: how many? 1 Sam 16:10-11, 17:12, says eight. 1 Chron 2:13-15 says seven.
9. Price of David's threshing-floor? 50 shekels of silver, says 2 Sam 24:24. 600 shekels of gold, says 1 Chron 21:22-25.
10. Result of numbering by David: 1,300,000 (2 Sam 24:9)? Or 1,570,000 (1 Chron 21:5-6)?
11. Number of Solomon's stalls: 40,000 (1 Kings 4:26)? Or 4000 (2 Chron 9:25)?
12. Number of Solomon's supervisors: 3300 (1 Kings 5:16)? Or 3600 (2 Chron 2:2)?
13. Number of Solomon's officers: 1 Kings 9:23 says 550; 2 Chron 8:10 says 250.
14. Number of charioteers slain by David among the Ammonites and Syrians: 700 (2 Sam 10:18)? Or 7000 (1 Chron 19:18)? 40,000 horsemen (Sam) or 40,000 footmen (Chron)?
15. Height of pillars in temple: 18 cubits (1 Kings 7:15, 2 Kings 25:17, Jer 52:23)? Or 35 cubits (2 Chron 3:15)?
16. Size of the molten sea in the Temple: 1 Kings 7:26 says 2000 baths. 2 Chron 4:5 says 3000.
17. Gold brought back from Ophir? 420 talents (1 Kings 9:28)? Or 450 talents (2 Chron 6:18)?
18. Ahaziah was 42 when he succeeded his father Jehoram (2 Chr 22:2), who died when he was 40 (2 Chr 21:20). (But see also 2 Kings 8:26, which says he was 22).
19. Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's reign (1 Kings 16:6-8). He built a city ten years later (2 Chron 16:1).
20. How long was Omri's reign? 1 Kings 16:23 says twelve years, beginning in the 31st year of Asa's reign. 1 Kings 16:28-29 says Omri died in the 38th year of Asa's reign.
21. Jehoiakim: how old was he when he began to reign? 2 Kings 24:8 says eighteen. 2 Chron 36:9 says eight.
22. Nebuzaradan's arrival in Jerusalem: 2 Kings 25:8 says on the seventh day, Jer 52:12 says on the tenth day.
23. How large was Judah's army? 2 Sam 24:9 says 500,000. 1 Chr 21:5 says 470,000.
24. Lists in Ezra 2 and Neh 7 are different (even though purportedly of the same thing) and the totals in both are incorrect.
25. Offering for the new month? Num 28:11 says two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs; Ezek 46:6 says one bullock, one ram, six lambs

 

[Soggy]

I think this is a good list. All things that would hold a lot of weight if proven. It seems that one tenant of the scientific acceptance of the tof is not so much that the observed data covers and supports the scope of the theory so well but rather because science lacks a better explaination.

Not really, but if we did have a better explanation, it would be one that fits the observed data better than the current theory. The theory stands on its own merits, not because "it had to have happened that way" but because we have observed it to happen the way it did.

It's assumed that the mechanics of the small scale evolution that we can observe holds for for the entire scope of the theory because "it must". Scientifically, I suppose that's completely reasonable.

It is reasonable, but we've also shown you examples of macro evolution.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Not really, but if we did have a better explanation, it would be one that fits the observed data better than the current theory. The theory stands on its own merits, not because "it had to have happened that way" but because we have observed it to happen the way it did.

Actually, the lack of another explanaintion is one of the reasons stated for exceptance of the theory listed in one of the links that Thal provided.

It is reasonable, but we've also shown you examples of macro evolution.

Which examples are you talking about...the virus stuff?

In either case, my only point here is that there is a HUGE amount of extrapolation involved over the total scope of the theory. I'm not saying that extrapolation isn't valid but I am saying that so much extrapolation leaves lots of room for mistakes and surprises. It's not at all unusual for a trend, theorem, law or whatever to only be valid within a specific range or set of limits.

 

[Thalassamania]

Science raises any number of questions that fundamentalist types must either consider thoughtfully or be dismissed as fools, luddites or both. If TDP, greenie and others of their persuasion want their ideas to be taken seriously, they need consider the evidence that science presents seriously. They shoot themselves in foot every time they ignore science or, even worse, willfully and transparently misrepresent it. It would be better to admit ignorance of a particular scientific topic than continue, ad infinitum, to parrot the claims of other zealots, who know no more than they do, rather investigate the issues firsthand. As regards evolution in particular, I find the following facts apropos:

1. The earth and the universe are billions of years old.
2. The fossil record, though not complete, is immense and supported by numerous independent methodolgies.
3. Strange creatures that used to be alive are alive no longer.
4. Older strata of rock contain fossils of animals that are, in general, more primitive than later strata.
5. Studies of DNA show that animals that share common characteristics also share much DNA.
6. These same studies show that humans share between 97% and 99% of their genome with chimpanzees.

Those are the claims of science, go ahead ... prove one or more wrong and win a Nobel Prize.

In my two previous posts I dealt with the question of biblical infallibility, and I suspect put it to rest, let’s summerize the support for the points I listed above.

Examples demonstrating the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years:

1. red-shift of light from distant galaxies (13 and 15 billion years).
2. radioisotope dating: (rocks more than 4.4 billion years).
3. plate tectonics: (earth 1 billion years minimum).
4. optically stimulated luminescence: (materials based more than 300,000 years).
5. thermoluminescence: (items more than 80,000 years).
6. archaeomagnetism: (rocks more than 100 million years).
7. electronic spin resonance: (items more than tens of thousands of years).
8. pollen analysis: (at least 400 million years)
9. ice core dating: (at least 650,000 years)
10. linguistic diffusion: (at least 10,000 years)
11. soil creation by earthworms: (several tens of thousands of years for current soil levels, assuming no erosion)
12. erosion rates: (at least n age of several million years)
13. molecular clock, closely related species: (tens of thousands of years)
14. molecular clock, distantly related species: (hundreds of millions of years)

So I feel rather safe rejecting the hypothosis that the universe was created 6,000 years ago.

Independent lines of evidence that support evolution:

1. vestigial organs & structures: nonfunctional parts of the body that no longer play an active role but nevertheless indicate evolutionary history, such as hind limbs of snakes and whales.
2. homologous morphological similarities: structural similarities between both closely and distantly related organisms.
3. evidence of ancestry in embryological development, such as gill slits in mammals and tails in humans.
4. genomic similarities: similarities in the chromosomes and DNA of both closely and distantly related organisms.
5. observable evolution of viruses & bacteria: rapid reproduction makes evolution observable (e.g., the variants of the flu or AIDS viruses)
6. fossil record: provides evidence of both evolutionary relationships among species and relative age (based on strata)
7. imuno-distance studies that mirror the fossil record.

Evolution is the only explanation fits all the available data. It was not just the religionists that had problems with Darwinism in the beginning:

... I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the 'plan of creation,' 'unity of design,' &c., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory. A few naturalists, endowed with much flexibility of mind, and who have already begun to doubt on the immutability of species, may be influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality. Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859

Yes, I had trouble sleeping last night.

 

[Soggy]

Actually, the lack of another explanaintion is one of the reasons stated for exceptance of the theory listed in one of the links that Thal provided.

It is *a* reason, but certainly not the primary reason or *the* reason.

Which examples are you talking about...the virus stuff?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

In either case, my only point here is that there is a HUGE amount of extrapolation involved over the total scope of the theory. I'm not saying that extrapolation isn't valid but I am saying that so much extrapolation leaves lots of room for mistakes and surprises. It's not at all unusual for a trend, theorem, law or whatever to only be valid within a specific range or set of limits.

Certain fields related to evolution do require lots of extrapolation, such as genetics studies, but examination of the fossil record requires far less. With some species there is a very clear and definitive progression. You can't just look at one piece in isolation, the proof of the theory comes from many different fields which all have different testing methods and all of them come to the same conclusion.

 

[Warthaug]

It seems that one tenant of the scientific acceptance of the tof is not so much that the observed data covers and supports the scope of the theory so well but rather because science lacks a better explaination.

Not exactly. Evolutionary theory is the only proposed theory
which explains all of the observations and experimental results science has recorded about life. This is why we subscribe to it - it explains all of our observations. That is the key - all of our observations.

No other theory has been proposed which comes even close to explaining this data. The simple fact that this data comes from multiple fields (genetics, paleontology, geology, biochemistry, physiology, ecology, etc), and is self-agreeing (in the context of evolution), lends a lot of weight to the likelihood of this theory being correct.

If you apply this same criteria to creationism you find the exact opposite - it disagrees with pretty much every scientific observation made to date - be it the age of the earth/sun/universe, the order in which life was "created", etc.

It's assumed that it's statistically possible because "it must be".

You misunderstand the statistics. The formation of life is highly statistically probable, when you take the whole world into account. Most creationists assume that life originated through a series of linear steps. And, based on this assumption, they are correct that life is improbable. However, the original assumption is incorrect and therefore, so is the conclusion. Rather, the chemical reactions which lead to life occurred in parallel - millions of times every second all over the globe. When you take this into account the probability of life forming becomes much greater.
This page covers it far better then I can:

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

Specifically, this section:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Search

And, I would point out yet again, abiogenesis (i.e. the formation of life) IS NOT a part of evolutionary theory. So claiming that a lack of good evidence of how abiogenesis occurred somehow disproves evolution is simply wrong. They are two separate theories, with different sets of supporting data. More importantly, evolution strictly deals with how life changes, not how life came about.

It's assumed that the mechanics of the small scale evolution that we can observe holds for for the entire scope of the theory because "it must". Scientifically, I suppose that's completely reasonable.

Basic logic. You gather more and more small changes and you get <insert drum-roll here> big changes. Not exactly a surprising conclusion. And we've directly observed some big changes - from the formation of new species, to large morphological changes, to the evolution of new biochemical pathways.

Each and every one a product of multiple small changes.

I don't know if we need to rely on statistics to answer the question of life from soup though. Just go in a lab, mix up some soup and breath life into it.

Experiments to that end are in progress. Problem is that the likelihood of these experiments generating life de novo are pretty slim - it takes too long (millions of years) and requires too big of a "test tube" (the worlds oceans) to make the probability of life evolving high enough.

However, we have already achieved, via abiogenic processes:

1) Self-replicating molecules.
2) Enzymatic molecules (ligases, polymerases, RNases, etc)
3) We're producing synthetic genomes - 100% artificial organisms who's genome was constructed from the pieces made in 1&2 above - exactly how we think that primitive life formed.

1 and 2 are sufficient to create simple life (i.e. life that can reproduce, assuming an environment where everything it needs is present). 3 is simply manually accelerating the linking of the products of of 1&2 into a complete organism.

Bryan

 

[MikeFerrara]

And here are twenty-five examples of where the bible contradicts itself, and not in terms of interpretation, or arguable history that we were not there to see, but objectively, simply in terms of numerical values:

1. The flood lasted 150 days in Gen 7:24, 40 days in Gen 7:17, ten months in Gen 8:5.

1. 
   
   
   Just from a straight forward reading...In Gen 7:16 Noah and his family had just entered the ark...no flood yet.
   
   Gen 7:17 At 40 days the waters are still rising and the ark has been lifted.
   
   Gen 7:24 The flood had been in progress for 150 days and Gen 8:1 God made a wind and the waters began to subside.
   
   The waters are now subsiding Gen 8:4 tealls us that in the 7th month the ark rested on the mountain.
   
   Gen 8:5 tells us that waters decreased continually and in the tenth month the tops of the mountains were seen.
   
   Reading on...
   Gen 8:13 tells us that in the 1st month of the 601st year Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked and the surface of the ground was dry.
   
   8:14 In the 2nd month the earth was dry and God gave the command to leave the ark.
   
   Total duration...From Gen 7:11 in the 2nd month of Noahs 600th year the windows of heaven were opened and the fountains of the deep were broken up... to Gen 8:14 where in the 2nd month of Noahs 601st year the earth was dry and God told them to leave the ark. About a year.
   
   So, objectively speaking and based on a simple reading of a pretty straight forward section of text, I don't see any contradiction there at all.
   
   I'm not going to take the time to go through each in your list but most of the supposed "contradictions" that skeptics claim (and the net is full of websites that list about a million of them) are about as straight forward as this one. Some take a little more study to figure out but if you look you'll find the answer.

 

[Soggy]

Where did all of Noah's water go (and where did it come from)? Mt. Everest is over 6 miles high. There is not enough water in all the polar ice caps to cover that high.

How did he get every land dwelling species that currently lives on board?

How did the population replenish itself with only two of each animal (incest is best, put your sister to the test)?

If, as I suspect, it was impossible to collect all these animals and he only collected two of each "kind" how do you account for the plethora of species on the earth today?

How old did Noah live? Scientists, devoting their lives to zoological pursuits, discover new species of animals every day. How did Noah know where to find them all and how did he have enough time to collect them?

Why is there no evidence of a flood of this magnitude? Surely, a flood of that magnitude (that covered all of the land on earth) and occurred a mere 5400 years ago would readily discernible from a geological perspective.

Here's my hypothesis...it didn't happen. It's a story, designed to manipulate humans into behaving "morally" by telling them all the horrors that will occur if they do not.

 

[Thalassamania]

... So, objectively speaking and based on a simple reading of a pretty straight forward section of text, I don't see any contradiction there at all.

Without your interpretation, or reading a bunch of other verses, here&#8217;s what the bible says in the verses referenced. Let each judge for themselves.

• GEN 7:24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.
• GEN 17:17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.
• GEN 8:5 The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

Maybe you're right, but do you really think that can make the same case for the almost 90 items listed above (and consider that they were culled from a list that was much, much longer). How about bats bring birds? Do we have a verse that accounts for that? That's infalibility for you.

 

[Hemlon]

There's nothing like fear to make people behave like you want them to behave. Children encounter this daily.

But so do adults. Can you say WMD???