Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism (Page 9 of 13)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Do you know where Cain's wife came from?

---

From the land of Nod

But seriously, wasn't incest inevitable regardless? People who are more knowledgeable about biology help me out here. How exactly does a new species begin? Wouldn't there have to be procreation between the first two modern humans to get more? And wouldn't that mean that incest at that stage of development would be no more problematic than expelling lunch?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/landofnod.html

Suits.

I am no biologist, however I suspect the first modern humans sprang from the loins of the older version and would have been co-fertile for awhile. Gradually, as more and more of the more decisive genes proliferated, perhaps the less comptetive and intelligent older species would no longer be desirable as breeding partners.

There is a suggestion early on mankind understood the dangers of breeding sons and moms and sisters and dads and brothers and sisters. Probably after a number of still births and deformed offspring. They raided or traded other tribes for women.

Hmm, perhaps we re-institute the practice in Arkansas, Georgia and parts of Alberta?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

In this case, anyone who claims something which patently does not exist,
does in
fact exist, must provide the irrefutable proof of their contention.

---

Do you believe in ghosts Ehtheist? I sure hope not.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

what makes you think she would want to?

---

She did. It is not a matter of wanting to or not. Noah's line did not come through Able, but one of Adam and Eve's other children.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Then the DNA factor enters.

---

I did touch on copying mistakes. But if Adam and Eve were nearly perfect, then there would have been very few mistakes. The copying mistakes add up over time. That is why marring a close relation now would be a bad idea. Back then, it wasn't as bad an idea because there was less time for the copying mistakes.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Besides, if the earth is only 6000 years old, what was Lucy doing in Olduvai
Gorge a million or so years ago? Waiting for Able?

---

Bad question. If the Earth is only 6000 years old, Lucy could be no older than the Earth.

Briggl, incest has been with the human race for a long time. It was with Lot and his daughters. It was in the Greek and Roman myths (do you know how many time Zeus had sex with his daughter, granddaughter, great-granddaughter, etc.?). It was around in England during the 1500s (ever read Wuthering Heights?). And is around in some parts of the world today even. But it was not really bad until Moses' time when the copying mistakes had added up.

One thing I have been curious about. Does the mainstream evolution stand point still think that people developed at different times in different places around the world, or all came from one place? Wouldn't the former give plausibility to racial discrimination since technically some races could be more evolved than others? Wouldn't the latter give stretched evidence that we are all decended from a small group of people (like Noah's family)?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Something else I just remembered.

Hey Webshaman, how old did you think I was before I revealed to you my real age? I am really curious, since I have gotten anywhere from my real age up to 40 years old. It is quite interesting to see what people think. Please post what you really thought, too. Not something mean.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I think you are about 16 going on 6.

This latest post is the worst drivil you have ever written and makes no sense whatsoever.

There are no ghosts to believe in holy or otherwise.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Gideon: Regarding your misunderstanding of basic biology, geology and physic I also thought you were around 16.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

There are no ghosts to believe in holy or otherwise.

---

Well, I am glad that you do not contradict yourself that easily. What about those ghost hunters? Paranormal? I think we had a thread about this a little while ago... I liked it. It was quite interesting. Could ghosts just be something that we don't have the scientific instruments yet to quantitativly measure? Perhaps...

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

This latest post is the worst drivil you have ever written and makes no sense
whatsoever.

---

Thanks, at least I am not making negative sense now.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Don't kid yourself.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I haven't given any thought to your age - I must personally say, that first impressions were that you were...mentally handicapped. Especially after you stated that you have memory problems. Later, as you gave your age, I was not all that surprised. It then made a lot of sense - not mentally handicapped, but a young man just beginning to experience the world and learn about reality.

Now I know you are just another fanatic, not interested in real dialog, but in diatribes (of which I have no interest in). Now quit attempting to communicate with me - I have already said I am not in the least bit interested in your dribble. There is nothing that you can teach me (other than the futility of any further communication with you, and I have already learned that). There is no basis upon which I can logically communicate with you - you lack any and all ability to reason on a logical basis, and you have a severe deficit and grasp of Scientific Principles and Methods. For the Religious side of things (and other topics) there are other members on this board that present their views of such in a much more reasonable and logical fashion. from them, I have learned much, and continue to do so. I also enjoy the exchange of information with them, and the discussing of views, beliefs, etc.

Maybe in the future, you might have accumulated enough life experiences and schooling to be worth communicating with again.

hey what's going on here all this troublemaking, insulting and badmouthing stuff here? that's my job!, the nerve of some people!

BMF

You have been rendered redundant.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all. - Herbert Spencer over a century ago.

We know evolution happened because of the convergence of evidence
from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography,
comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology,
genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of
these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal
that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process. - Michael Shermer

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Misconceptions about the Big Bang

This is a good place to start for those who have trouble with both the Big Bang, and Evolution.

quote:

---

Without evolution and expansion, modern biology and cosmology make little sense. The expansion of the universe is like Darwinian evolution in another curious way: most scientists think they understand it, but few agree on what it really means. A century and a half after On the Origin of Species, biologists still debate the mechanisms and implications (though not the reality) of Darwinism, while much of the public still flounders in pre-Darwinian cluelessness. Similarly, 75 years after its initial discovery, the expansion of the universe is still widely misunderstood.

---

The blocks are mine, to better express the point here.

Another question for those who have a need to take the Bible literally. In some places in the Bible, it says that the Earth stands still. There have been people who were tortured and killed for saying otherwise. Galileo had to recant things he knew as true because the church said so.
So, if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, do you believe that the Earth stands still and is the center of the universe? If you do not believe this, then why the big need to believe in the literal interpretation of the creation story?

quote:

---

Joshua 10
The Sun Stands Still
1 Now Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem heard that Joshua had taken Ai and totally destroyed [a] it, doing to Ai and its king as he had done to Jericho and its king, and that the people of Gibeon had made a treaty of peace with Israel and were living near them. 2 He and his people were very much alarmed at this, because Gibeon was an important city, like one of the royal cities; it was larger than Ai, and all its men were good fighters. 3 So Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem appealed to Hoham king of Hebron, Piram king of Jarmuth, Japhia king of Lachish and Debir king of Eglon. 4 "Come up and help me attack Gibeon," he said, "because it has made peace with Joshua and the Israelites."

5 Then the five kings of the Amorites-the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon-joined forces. They moved up with all their troops and took up positions against Gibeon and attacked it.

6 The Gibeonites then sent word to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal: "Do not abandon your servants. Come up to us quickly and save us! Help us, because all the Amorite kings from the hill country have joined forces against us."

7 So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his entire army, including all the best fighting men. 8 The LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid of them; I have given them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you."

9 After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. 10 The LORD threw them into confusion before Israel, who defeated them in a great victory at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the LORD hurled large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.

12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:

"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [b] its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

15 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.

---

The question was not directed to me but I thought a ref might help.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I keep telling you Bug, references to the bible in support of the bible are unacceptable. It is called circular reasoning.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

when they're in regards to questions about what the bible says i'd say they're rather relevant

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Bugimus: Sorry, but I see nothing in that extract of the Bible saying that the earth is revolving around the sun. All it says is that "The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day".

It may be my own ( and altered by the fact tha english is not my mother language ) perception of the style of that phrase, but in fact to me it rather suggest that it is the sun that is moving not the earth.



(Edited by poi on 03-08-2005 18:20)

Yeah...it's kinda hard to answer questions about the bible says without referring to what the bible actually says...

Using the bible to prove the bible is, of course, not something you can do. But you also can't discuss what the bible says without knowing what the bible says...

Bugs - not knowing what other references there may be, I am unsure if this addresses the question.

The question (and my curiosity) are directly in regard to the earth revolving around the sun, as opposed to the sun revolving around the earth. Now, obivously in that story is the suggestion that the sun revolves around the earth, otherwise it could not stop in the manner stated. Is this as explicit as it gets? Or are there more direct references?

I would also be very interested in whether Gideon believes the sun revolves around the earth.





(Edited by DL-44 on 03-08-2005 18:37)

i don't believe there are any other references to the sun revolving around the earth in the bible. i'd always taken that and the position that opposed galileo as one adopted by the church not necessarily supported by scripture but more one that had been more inferred and adopted as canon.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

thanks chris, was never clear on the issue...

Here's what I've come up with so far with a little background on the whole geocentric thingy as it relates to the Bible and medieval cosmology.

Fig, DL, there are a few other references that could be used to support a geocentric view of the universe:

quote:

---

1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Psalm 93:1
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.

Psalm 19:5-6
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.

Psalm 104:5
5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.

Genesis 1:16-17
16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth,

---

We've talked before about how the people of the ancient middle east viewed the universe and this summarizes it pretty well:

quote:

---

Historically, there have been three main Western beliefs about the layout, shape, size, movements, etc. of the earth, moon, sun and the rest of the universe:

Pre-scientific view: Ancient Pagan religions in the Mediterranean area and throughout the Middle East taught that the universe was quite tiny. These included the religions of ancient Egypt, Babylonia, Canaan, etc. The Earth was more or less flat, like a dinner plate. Mountains around the edges held up a rigid metallic dome which formed the sky. Angels pushed the sun, moon, planets and stars across the underside of the dome of the sky on a daily basis. God sits on his throne in Heaven, which lies above the canopy. Doors or windows in the dome could be opened through which water (and in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah) fire and brimstone could be poured. This is the view of the universe that the writers of the Bible appear to have adopted from these other Pagan religions, if you interpret their writing literally.

Earth centered view: The ancient Greeks introduced the concept that the Earth is a sphere at the center of the universe. The moon, sun and stars are all imbedded in transparent spheres which rotated around the earth. Heaven and God were viewed as existing at an extremely great distance from earth. They were even beyond the outermost sphere, which contains the stars.

Modern view: The Earth is roughly spherical in shape. Actually it is closest to an oblate spheroid - a pear-shaped body. It rotates on its own axis once a day and revolves once around the sun each year. To be precise, the Earth and Sun revolve around their mutual center of gravity. Our Sun is a somewhat average-sized star in a fairly typical, slowly rotating galaxy. The dimension of our galaxy are so great that they are measured in hundreds of thousands of light years. A light-year is the distance that light travels in a year.

The number of stars in the universe is approximately equal to the number of grains of sand on all the world's beaches.
Ref: http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl.htm

---

Blame it on the Greeks! ...and the medieval church for making it church dogma

quote:

---

The persistence of the Earth-centred theory from the time of the ancient Greeks down to the 16th and 17th centuries can be attributed to the tremendous influence of Plato and Aristotle on Greek, Arabic and European philosophy.
...
Aristotle took Eudoxus' scheme literally as a working model of the universe and set about improving it in the light of contemporary physics. He attempted to explain retrograde motion with a system of 'working' and 'neutralising' spheres. While this idea never really caught on, it led eventually to the development of the elaborate theory of planetary epicycles or wheels-within-wheels, a theory first proposed by Appolonius of Perga (fl. 200 BC), developed by Hipparchus and perfected by Ptolemy (c. 100-178 AD). The Earth-centred 'Ptolemaic' universe, founded upon the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, remained the last word in astronomical theory for 1500 years.
Ref: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/copernicus.html

---

More on Aristotle's astronomy here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Tom/AristotleAstro.html

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-09-2005 00:42)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:
I keep telling you Bug, references to the bible in support of the bible are unacceptable. It is called circular reasoning.

---

I merely posted the reference to aid in the answering of briggl's question which specifically asked about what the bible says about an earth-centered cosmology. Since I don't read every passge in the bible in a strict literal sense, I didn't even think I was involved in the question. Are you just looking for a fight?

quote:

---

poi said:
Sorry, but I see nothing in that extract of the Bible saying that the earth is revolving around the sun. All it says is that "The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day".

---

I agree with you, poi. I think that view came about as a result of Greek influence on the medieval church and its view that the bible told "how the heavens go" as opposed to "how to get to heaven".

As I hope the references above demonstrate, the writers of the OT probably didn't hold to the Greek cosmological view either.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

nope Bug, just writing faster than I was thinking.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

I merely posted the reference to aid in the answering of briggl's question which specifically asked about what the bible says about an earth-centered cosmology.

---

No, that wasn't my question. I know what the Bible says about it. My question was directed to those who want to hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

People in this thread have tried to say that the creation story in the Bible is true, exactly as written. They seem to want a literal interpretation of the Bible. But I doubt that these people believe that the Earth stands still and is the center of the universe with the sun, moon and stars revolving around it.

So, if they do not hold this aspect of the Bible to be taken literally, why do they need to have the creation story taken literally???

quote:

---

So, if they do not hold this aspect of the Bible to be taken literally, why do they need to have the creation story taken literally???

---

Well, Science proved that the Earth was round, and that it revolved around the sun. And those who proposed the thoery at the time did so at great risk to personal safety, not to mention social status because of the Church.

I think that those who take a literal interpretation of the Bible to be true, either don't really understand Evolution, Geography, Physics, etc or they have (and support) the hidden agenda of getting the Bible Creation into public schools and accepted as an alternative to Evolution - or maybe both.

Eventually evolution will become widely accepted, and the literal interpretation of the Bible and Bible (or Religious) Creation will be viewed differently by the religious masses.

After all, the acceptance of a universe where the Earth revolves around the Sun, and where that is not the center of the Universe, took a long time to become mainstream despite Scienntific evidence for it.

quote:

---

After all, the acceptance of a universe where the Earth revolves around the Sun, and where that is not the center of the Universe, took a long time to become mainstream despite Scienntific evidence for it.

---

Go figure why it took so much time

Btw, Eratosthenes has elaborated an experience to calculte the earth's circumference circa 240 BC, thus proving the round earth. He also calculated some distances ( earth-sun, earth-moon, ... ) with an incredible accuracy for the time.

quote:

---

or they have (and support) the hidden agenda of getting the Bible Creation into public schools

---

I feel that this is the real answer but I would like to hear what someone like Gideon has to say about it.

quote:

---

briggl said:

So, if they do not hold this aspect of the Bible to be taken literally, why do
they need to have the creation story taken literally???

---

Since none have come in to answer you yet, briggl, I will speculate. Since these verses cited don't actually say the earth is the center of the universe, I would probably say that is why I wouldn't be held to believe that from a literal read of them. Keep in mind that it was Greek scientists who really came up with that idea which then influenced Europe and therefore the church to hold that view and interpret those verses as support of it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Never the less, the Bible says the Earth cannot be moved, so someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible would have to believe that. You can't have it both ways. Either it is ALL true exactly as written, or some of it is myth and legend and ancient stories, etc. I would find it very hard to believe that many educated people today believe that the earth doesn't move. So why the need to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, was created in seven days and all of the things that appear to be millions of years old were put there to look like they were old but really aren't?

This doesn't mean that you should disregard everything in the Bible. Just realize the small amount of knowledge that the original writers had about the origin of the Earth and everything on it. They had to make up stories to try to answer the questions about where we came from.

I am fairly confident evolution is pretty much widely accepted among educated peoples around the world.

Obviously in remote areas of the world where modern education is either not readily available or not encouraged, Papua New Guinea, small ocean Islands, the Vatican, Georgia, Arkansas and parts of Texas and Alberta, other views of reality will prevail.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

I am fairly confident evolution is pretty much widely accepted among educated peoples around the world.

---

If only that were true!

Sadly, it seems not to be.

I don't know which thread it was in, but I posted the results of a fairly significant survey by National Geographic of adult Americans, on the issue of evolution.

The percentage of people who di not "beleive" in evolution was truly frightening...

I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

{{edit - I also need to add that this seems to be a big trend among people who are otherwise intelligent and educated people.



(Edited by DL-44 on 03-10-2005 18:45)

DL, also realize that a lot of people in general just really don't think. i forget the number but i read a statistic on the percentage of people who are able to critically reason and it's scary.

any time spent working retail will confirm this fact

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

any time spent working retail will confirm this fact

---

That is definately true.

I worked in several grocery stores when I was a teenage, and several restaraunts when I was a little older.

Those experiences are definately part of what affirmed my lack of faith in humanity...

(I recall the stunning revelation a customer lavished upon me while working in the dairy section: when she puts her cream away in the refigerator after breakfast, it lasts longer than when she leaves it out on the table....)

Only 35% of the American populus believe in evolution.

Dan @ Code Town

DL-44:

quote:

---

(I recall the stunning revelation a customer lavished upon me while working in the dairy section: when she puts her cream away in the refigerator after breakfast, it lasts longer than when she leaves it out on the table....)

---

Doh! I've had to read your phrase twice to make sure I understood it correctly. I thought I had a problem in english ... but no, it's the girl who had a problem with her brain.

WarMage: What !? that's unbelievable. What is the source of this percentage ?



(Edited by poi on 03-10-2005 22:38)

quote:

---

Most people would rather die than think, in fact they do.
--Bertrand Russell

---

Sad, but true.

poi, I read an article the other day that said in Europe the trend is away from it too. The article was saying that a return to paganism/spirituality was on the rise and atheism was on the decline. I'll see if I can find the link later.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

I am fairly confident evolution is pretty much widely accepted among educated peoples around the world.

---

Ehtheist, take a look at the subject of this thread, then go back and read the first few posts. Obviously, many people do not accept evolution.

A Poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107

Dan @ Code Town