Creation vs. Evolution

[ClevelandDiver]

.......I don't yet see where he has done anything to take "infallibility" of the Bible off the table or that he even moved it closer to the edge............

A very special fish prepared by God for a very special purpose. The Bible does not tell us that Noah had to go three days without breathing. God can do stuff like that. While I wouldn't go out of my way to get swallowed by a fish to prove it can be done, I wouldn't run the other way when God told me to do something either because I might get swallowed by a fish and have to spend three days in that fish. LOL

Mike,

The arguement you use is that God made a special fish for this purpose. No further proof is needed for you to believe the story. Oddly, nothing that you have actually observed in the real world would lend you to believe this is possible.

In fact the opposite is quite true. You know CO2 build up would kill a man inside a submarine if the air was not scrubbed and the O2 replenished. You know that even if an air space existed in a monstrous fish, it would certainly compress when it submerged.

But because it falls in the pages of the Bible it must be true. No amount of proof will change your beliefs.

If someone where to tell you they dove the Titanic in a 2 mil wetsuit using a spair air you'd call them a liar. Place an equally implausible tale between the covers of the Bible and it becomes true.

Therefore your definition of reality is based on what is in the Bible. That is fine, but when you start asking for proof that the Bible is wrong and then deny the proof with answers like "God can do stuff like that", there is no point in continuing any discussion.

That logic makes the Arc problem simple. God created an extra dimensional space inside the hull and teleported all the animals into from across the globe. He put all the creatures into a suspended state so they would not need food water or movement.

The answer you are giving people each time can be boiled down to: Bible = Truth anything that contradicts it = false.

 

[Warthaug]

Now for the last hundreds of years, man has cultured pigs,

Actually, its more like 9,000-11,000 years (pigs were domesticated around 7,000-9,000BC). Regardless,

which when raised by man in pens, survive under very different conditions than wild pigs. Granted, it's only been a few hundred years or so, but to my knowledge, wild and domestic pigs can still interbreed.

You are correct.

From an evolutionary point of view, at what point does species differentiation happen?

Depends on which definition of "species" you're using. There is more then one definition, so it gets complex.

The "classical" definition of species is when two organisms cannot produce viable offspring (i.e. they either cannot have babies, or their babies are sterile). Under this definition, wild and domestic pigs are still the same species. However, this definition has a lot of problems with it.

The cladistic (genetic) definition of species is when an organism shows enough genetic difference from another to form a distinct branch on a cladistic tree. Under this definition, domestic pigs may be a unique species.

Another definition of species has to do with whether they interbreed, regardless if they are capable of interbreeding. In this case domestic and wild pigs would be separate species, as they do not normally interbreed (as we keep them separate). This is quite common among song bird species - often bird are capable of interbreeding, but due to changes in things like their courtship songs and rituals, they wont interbreed.

Confused yet?

Will, at some point, half the offspring of one sow, not be able to breed anymore with wild pigs?

Potentially. But it'll probably take several thousand or tens of thousands of years before this will happen. Keep in mind that speciation usually takes tens of thousands of generations, so for something like a pig (which takes 1-2 years per generation) this translates to many tens of thousands of years. We do see new species forming in organisms with shorter life-spans - bacteria, worms, insects, rodents, etc.

I would think that at some point we will see this. In my case we breed shrimp for specific traits and this has been going on for 20 years or so. With shrimp, that's over 20 generations. Yet they still look the same and can breed with wild caught shrimp. Yet, at some point, we should see (maybe not in my lifetime) a point where a given isolated breeding population of pigs....or shrimp...can't breed anymore with the original parent stocks. Am I missing something here?

You've pretty much got it straight. The only caveat that I would put on your statement is that evolution does not always result in speciation. Speciation is only one of several potential outcomes. You can have a fair bit of genetic change (i.e. evolution) without loosing the ability to interbreed - the chiwawa and wolf being an example of that (yes, you can cross those two). So while your shrimp are evolving differently relative to the wild population, there is no guarantee that this differential evolution will make a new species - it may, or it may not. Basically, it depends on just how far you drive your shrimps characteristics away from the wild population.

And, of course, what definition of "species" you choose to use :doctor:

Bryan

 

[Uncle Pug]

Wasn't it Jesus who was brought back, not Jonah?

Man... you are fast.

Matthew 12:40 And even as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

 

[Hemlon]

If someone where to tell you they dove the Titanic in a 2 mil wetsuit using a spair air you'd call them a liar. Place an equally implausible tale between the covers of the Bible and it becomes true.

Therefore your definition of reality is based on what is in the Bible. That is fine, but when you start asking for proof that the Bible is wrong and then deny the proof with answers like "God can do stuff like that", there is no point in continuing any discussion.

This is one the THE best posts in this thread, IMHO.

 

[MikeFerrara]

How's this grab you: (Lev 11:13,19, Deut 14:11, 18): You are to detest these birds. They must not be eaten because they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the various kinds of falcon, every kind of raven, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the gull, the various kinds of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the long-eared owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, the various kinds of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat.

Here's how it grabs me...

With a quick look I found that the word translated as birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The Hebrew word ( atalleph' ) "flying in the dark." was translated as bat but a bat is a "owner of a wing". So...the word for birds pretty much refers to "flying things" and the bat is a flying thing. Isn't it?

God was simply telling them what "flying things"..."owners of wings" they couldn't eat using commonly accepted terminology of the time. It seems completely correct and appropriate given the language and context.

 

[Soggy]

How's this grab you: (Lev 11:13,19, Deut 14:11, 18): You are to detest these birds. They must not be eaten because they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the various kinds of falcon, every kind of raven, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the gull, the various kinds of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the long-eared owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, the various kinds of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat.

Anyone up for a turkey sandwich?

Sounds like the Bible predicted avian flu.

 

[Thalassamania]

Here's how it grabs me...

With a quick look I found that the word translated as birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The Hebrew word ( atalleph' ) "flying in the dark." was translated as bat but a bat is a "owner of a wing". So...the word for birds pretty much refers to "flying things" and the bat is a flying thing. Isn't it?

God was simply telling them what "flying things"..."owners of wings" they couldn't eat using commonly accepted terminology of the time. It seems completely correct and appropriate given the language and context.

Sure, its a list of flying things that just happens to be all birds ... except for one entry for bat. No flying fish, no flying squirrels, no flying insects.

 

[lamont]

I have a question regarding evolution. Many things can happen which will cause genetic "direction" which will help insure the survival of a given species, correct? Warming climate, cooling, available food change (causing long neck in giraffes etc).
Now for the last hundreds of years, man has cultured pigs, which when raised by man in pens, survive under very different conditions than wild pigs. Granted, it's only been a few hundred years or so, but to my knowledge, wild and domestic pigs can still interbreed. From an evolutionary point of view, at what point does species differentiation happen? Will, at some point, half the offspring of one sow, not be able to breed anymore with wild pigs? I would think that at some point we will see this. In my case we breed shrimp for specific traits and this has been going on for 20 years or so. With shrimp, that's over 20 generations. Yet they still look the same and can breed with wild caught shrimp. Yet, at some point, we should see (maybe not in my lifetime) a point where a given isolated breeding population of pigs....or shrimp...can't breed anymore with the original parent stocks. Am I missing something here?

Nope, you're not missing anything. It'll just take a long time. Dogs and wolfs can still interbreed, and that's a few thousand years of evolution at work. Once we hit the point where we start to see domesticated animals that can no longer interbreed with the wild stock they came from it'll be extremely difficult to fall back on the argument that evolution can't create new species.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Mike,

The arguement you use is that God made a special fish for this purpose. No further proof is needed for you to believe the story. Oddly, nothing that you have actually observed in the real world would lend you to believe this is possible.

It's not my argument. the Bible plainly says that God prepared a fish to swallow Jonah.

In fact the opposite is quite true. You know CO2 build up would kill a man inside a submarine if the air was not scrubbed and the O2 replenished. You know that even if an air space existed in a monstrous fish, it would certainly compress when it submerged.

It was a miracle not very unlike the many others in Biblical accounts.

But because it falls in the pages of the Bible it must be true. No amount of proof will change your beliefs.

If someone where to tell you they dove the Titanic in a 2 mil wetsuit using a spair air you'd call them a liar. Place an equally implausible tale between the covers of the Bible and it becomes true.

I wouldn't call God a liar if He told me. LOL

Therefore your definition of reality is based on what is in the Bible. That is fine, but when you start asking for proof that the Bible is wrong and then deny the proof with answers like "God can do stuff like that", there is no point in continuing any discussion.

No. My definition of reality isn't based on the Bible but my definition of reality includes Gods word.

The list claimed that the Bible called a whale a fish. It doesn't. That's not proof that the Bible is wrong. It's just a lie. The list claims that Noah couldn't spend 3 days in a fish discounting that God does miracles. Now if the guy wanted to argue that the Bible is a lie because God doesn't exist then ok, but he didn't do that.

The answer you are giving people each time can be boiled down to: Bible = Truth anything that contradicts it = false.

That's not the answer I gave as a review of my entire post will demonstrate.

 

[lamont]

The story is too long for a fast paced medium such as this. So, I'll serve up an abridged version in several installments.

I didn't reject evolution (or even atheism) initially... I just set it aside.

Actually I was quite comfortable in my belief system. Plenty of unknowns but nothing unknowable. Evolution was just one piece of the puzzle. No need for a god. Not necessary. Everything fit. It could all be described by neat equations, at least in theory. If there was no god then of course the mechanistic explanation had to be true.

But... there was something else... something that lay just outside of my perception. Like the illustration that I shared a while back concerning the buck in my field there was something there but I just couldn't quite pick up on it.

So I set my unbelief system aside to investigate. I wanted to find the missing piece. Perhaps there was a spiritual dimension that was as foreign to me as... well as my world would be to an inhabitant of Flatland.

...skipping ahead...

I found that believing in God and experiencing His presence in my life filled a void I hadn't acknowledge before but that had always existed. With Faith came Peace... and Joy too! Not a transient happiness but JOY.

I also found that I began to look at the world in a whole new light. Science isn't a threat to belief. As it describes and attempts to unravel the inscrutable it brings more wonders to behold. I was amazed. What I had learned before turned me away from believing in a god... but now what I saw displayed all around me was the Glory of God.

Now it may seem silly and unreal to you... I expect that. You may mock... and I understand that... I used to mock as well.

But stop for a moment and ask yourself:
Is this really all that there is? Is this really all that I am?

there's really nothing silly or anything to mock in any of that.

faith, spirituality and religion can be entirely orthogonal to science and coexist happily.