Creation vs. Evolution

[SeaYoda]

Sorry, if we're to have a conversation that's not open for debate. If you can't accept that as reality the we lack sufficient common ground to even attempt to communicate.

I already knew that, but I still like you .

 

[Thalassamania]

Doesn't mean that there are not things what we have sufficient frame of reference to communicate, just that this one would be a waste of time. Mike and I agree on almost all things diving, but here we don't see eye to eye either. No biggie utill you try and stuff that view into my son's classroom, then we have a problem.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Doesn't mean that there are not things what we have sufficient frame of reference to communicate, just that this one would be a waste of time. Mike and I agree on almost all things diving, but here we don't see eye to eye either. No biggie utill you try and stuff that view into my son's classroom, then we have a problem.

We might not see eye to eye on how the world began but I haven't really argued one way or the other about what should be in the schools.

A university can set up and run any course title they want and apply those credits to any degree program they want within certain guidlines and there are plenty of private universities out there.

It was a long time ago but I don't remember much time being spent on evolution in my highschool science courses.

I can't see an arguement at all outside of the public school system and as I said there are things that concern me far more than whether or not they present creation. My kids are grown and gone but I consider having put them through the public school system as one of my major mistakes as a parent. If I had it to do over again, they'd never step foot in a public school.

Beyond that, what's the arguement? If science ever claims to have the whole thing figured out, they'll print it in a few science magazines and maybe produce a discovery show and I doubt I'll even notice.

The overall attitude of societey toward God may have wider social implications. It seems reasonable to belive that people might conduct themselves differently knowing that they are accountable to something higher than man, though, I don't know if that's actually demonstrable. The few numbers that I've seen seem to suggest that things like divorce rates, infidelity, pornography or whatever are as common among those who attend church as among those who don't. Based on that I tend to think that the church has their work cut out for them right inside their own walls. I have my own ideas on why that is but that just doesn't fit this thread at all. I could sort of relate it to diving though by saying that I think many churches teach scripture every bit as poorly as the dive agencies teach diving.

 

[Hank49]

I could sort of relate it to diving though by saying that I think many churches teach scripture every bit as poorly as the dive agencies teach diving.

:lol: Brilliant Mike. That's the best one yet.

 

[Thalassamania]

The overall attitude of societey toward God may have wider social implications. It seems reasonable to belive that people might conduct themselves differently knowing that they are accountable to something higher than man, though, I don't know if that's actually demonstrable. The few numbers that I've seen seem to suggest that things like divorce rates, infidelity, pornography or whatever are as common among those who attend church as among those who don't. Based on that I tend to think that the church has their work cut out for them right inside their own walls. I have my own ideas on why that is but that just doesn't fit this thread at all. I could sort of relate it to diving though by saying that I think many churches teach scripture every bit as poorly as the dive agencies teach diving.

Knowledge of evolution, or a lack of belief in the Judeo/Christian mythos, no more makes one "unaccountable" than, as you observe, the opposite makes one behave well. For me, balance in the world, and a sense of "karma," makes the social control aspects of my spirituality real and immediate, rather than some abstraction of an afterlife which may or may not exist.

 

[grazie42]

Personally I dislike the idea of walking around trying to "earn points" for the afterlife rather than considering the morality of decisions/actions/choices and acting from your (perhaps godgiven) sense of right and wrong...I think karma too is a bit too "selfish". I think you should do "the right thing" because it´s right not for some "future reward" or to avoid punishment...

It´s like diving:
For the first few years you need strong guidance but as you gain experience you get to a point where you decide that some things are a bit silly like a snorcle or MOF and start ignoring those things...some people are content to play in the religious equivalent to OW, others like to go deep, into wrecks or caves...some even go on to dive CCRs....

...no offence...

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Whether dinosaurs were ever alive or if they were created as fossils is up for debate. The Bible does mention two beasts that may qualify as dinosaurs. Remember that words used, when the following was written, are not our words. The description is graphic, not scientific. I'm in neither camp as far as whether dinosaurs were alive and if they were on earth at the same time as man. Good arguments and evidence exist on both sides and it really doesn't change what I said earlier - we will never have the answer in our hands.

Job 40:15-41:34
15 "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;He eats grass like an ox. 16 See now, his strength is in his hips,And his power is in his stomach muscles. 17 He moves his tail like a cedar;The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. 18 His bones are like beams of bronze,His ribs like bars of iron. 19 He is the first of the ways of God;Only He who made him can bring near His sword. 20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,And all the beasts of the field play there. 21 He lies under the lotus trees,In a covert of reeds and marsh. 22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows by the brook surround him. 23 Indeed the river may rage,Yet he is not disturbed;He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth, 24 Though he takes it in his eyes,Or one pierces his nose with a snare.


41:1 "Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower? 2 Can you put a reed through his nose,Or pierce his jaw with a hook? 3 Will he make many supplications to you?Will he speak softly to you? 4 Will he make a covenant with you?Will you take him as a servant forever? 5 Will you play with him as with a bird,Or will you leash him for your maidens? 6 Will your companions make a banquet of him?Will they apportion him among the merchants? 7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons,Or his head with fishing spears? 8 Lay your hand on him;Remember the battle — Never do it again! 9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false;Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him? 10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.Who then is able to stand against Me? 11 Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him?Everything under heaven is Mine.
12 "I will not conceal his limbs,His mighty power, or his graceful proportions. 13 Who can remove his outer coat?Who can approach him with a double bridle? 14 Who can open the doors of his face,With his terrible teeth all around? 15 His rows of scales are his pride,Shut up tightly as with a seal; 16 One is so near anotherThat no air can come between them; 17 They are joined one to another,They stick together and cannot be parted. 18 His sneezings flash forth light,And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 Out of his mouth go burning lights;Sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils,As from a boiling pot and burning rushes. 21 His breath kindles coals,And a flame goes out of his mouth. 22 Strength dwells in his neck,And sorrow dances before him. 23 The folds of his flesh are joined together;They are firm on him and cannot be moved. 24 His heart is as hard as stone,Even as hard as the lower millstone. 25 When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid;Because of his crashings they are beside themselves. 26 Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail;Nor does spear, dart, or javelin. 27 He regards iron as straw,And bronze as rotten wood. 28 The arrow cannot make him flee;Slingstones become like stubble to him. 29 Darts are regarded as straw;He laughs at the threat of javelins. 30 His undersides are like sharp potsherds;He spreads pointed marks in the mire. 31 He makes the deep boil like a pot;He makes the sea like a pot of ointment. 32 He leaves a shining wake behind him;One would think the deep had white hair. 33 On earth there is nothing like him,Which is made without fear. 34 He beholds every high thing;He is king over all the children of pride."
NKJV

If you apply that logic, the fossil of any lifeform that is not currently living would be suspect as a false trail. God is not the author of confusion. The dinos existed. They died out, or perhaps were driven to extinction, "soon" after the flood due to a drastically changed world and that animals were fair game for food.

 

[wreckchick]

Silly man, everybody knows GOD would drink Moosehead or Labats.

God's Canadian? Who knew?


The real post:

I need to say this just because it puts a framework on the debate. Evolution is not a hard concept but it's often mis-interpreted or presented incorrectly.

First of all, individuals do not evolve; populations do. A population is a group of geographically isolated individuals of a given species. The effect of a geographically isolated population having traits specific to that group within a species is called a founders' effect. If there is no allele for a certain trait present in the founders of a population then that trait will not exist unless there is mutation in the DNA which is then passed around.

DNA mutations are normal and it has been estimated that 10 mutations occur in each and every person on the planet. They are basically a screw-up in the replication process. The vast majority are neutral, they cause nothing good nor bad to happen to the individual possessing them. In fact, most of them are genotypic only, not phenotypic. This means they exist in the DNA but do not cause anything to happen to the appearance or behavior of the critter/person. Of those that are phenotypic, some are bad and cause the death/illness/<insert other bad thing> to the individual. On the rare occasion that a new phenotype is created it is most likely to be neutral. Brown or blue eyes, it doesn't really matter, both of them see just fine. In some cases the new phenotype makes the individual better suited for its environment. If this is the case AND that individual passes that trait on to offspring (this is a key point) it allows the offspring to also be better adapted for the environment and an evolutionary process has occured. All those individuals that possess the new trait will be more likely to survive longer and produce more offspring hence to population shifts to a greater percentage of individuals with the new trait while those that do not have it will be selected against.

An example would be giraffes. Giraffes have long necks, I know this is obvious, but what the long necks do is allow giraffes to eat things that are higher up in the trees. They are not competing with other animals that utilize the same resources and allow the giraffe to continue to survive within the existing environment. Now, imagine a disease that decimates the tall trees that giraffes eat leaving only low-lying shrubs as a food source. A couple things would happen, the giraffes would have more competition for food sources and they would be very inefficient at procuring this resource because they aren't designed for it. The environment would now be more amenable to shorter giraffes and other critters that are designed to eat low-lying shrubs. A trait that formerly had been an advantage to the giraffe would now lead to their demise or an evolutionary shift would have to take place for the survival of the species. A giraffe population could not force themselves shorter, the shorter individuals would already have to exist for this shift to occur. If there are no short giraffes then they are pretty much doomed.

New traits are not created or forced to allow individuals to become better suited for their environments, the trait makes the individual better suited for the existing environment or allows it to succeed better than others of the species in a changing environment.

What I have just described is Natural Selection and it is the founding premise for evolutionary change over time. Lots of time. Lots and lots of time. Many generations. The reason we don't see evolution in humans is because it takes way longer than we've been paying attention to see it in action. We do see evolutionary change in critters with shorter lifespans because we can, as humans, witness lots of generations and can mark the shift in traits over LOTS of time in the scope of those critters.

Clear as mud? Good.

Rachel

 

[SeaYoda]

If you apply that logic, the fossil of any lifeform that is not currently living would be suspect as a false trail. God is not the author of confusion. The dinos existed. They died out, or perhaps were driven to extinction, "soon" after the flood due to a drastically changed world and that animals were fair game for food.

The dinos are special in the fact that from the point of science they lived long before the <10,000 year true age of the Earth. The dating of rocks dictates that either they were put there by God to make a complete functioning universe or the dating is false or the dating is "apparent age" with new fossils in old looking rocks. If Behemoth and Leviathan were dinos, they were alive at the time of man - something unthinkable to many scientists. I believe many things went extinct and became fossils in the flood. I also believe that the flood would alter the "steady state" we base a lot of our scientific "facts" on.

 

[wreckchick]

Wasn't there something about two of everything on the ark?

R