Login

Join for Free!
112120 members


Origins of life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Linn » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:24 pm

Because they are both theories.
:wink: (evolution vs creation) not contradictory.

is because of the repeated statements by some that
creationist are not scientific.
Energy is needed for biological processes.

the point was one among others I made
about the bible being scientific
at an unscientific time. Giving authority as
a credable source.

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?inv ... nd+biology
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby Khaiy » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:40 pm

That's fine logically (about the bible being scientific when it was). But just because one thing may be correct (the bible describing the water cycle) doesn't necessarily mean that every single word of it would literally be true, and it's that inference that stops it from being conclusive proof.

I'm sorry, I have some trouble following message board discussions sometimes, when you say that energy is needed for biological processes, why are you bringing that up? Is it in relation to the link you gave in your last post? Because the second law of thermodynamics doesn't really affect that either way (or is there another physics concept being discussed that I missed?)
User avatar
Khaiy
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:37 am

Postby AstusAleator » Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:57 pm

*repeats himself*

I've never denied the possibility of creation. The question is, is it testable and/or is there observable proof?

canonical religious texts contain much science and pseudoscience. Linn you mention parts of the bible where sound scientific principles are mentioned. Other parts of the bible can be found that do not make any scientific sense. Every species of microorganism, insect, animal, reptile, and bird was put on Noah's ark in pairs or greater, when the ark wasn't even as big as some modern-day tankers. God made the SUN stand still. There are contradicting creation stories (yes there are two).

The point of all of these scientific and pseudoscientific allegories was not science though, but the moral story or philosophy to be learned therein.

I would suggest taking a new look at what may have in the past been literalist interpretations, held by faith, and exploring what the Bible ACTUALLY has to say. I'm not, by any means, saying it's wrong, or it's lying. I'm just saying that, perhaps by taking literal meanings, one can lose sight of the message.

Anyhow, I feel I've said what I need to say on this subject.
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA


Postby Linn » Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:59 pm

I dont know things get brought up some how :? .
I think because I mentioned the big bang theory. :)
I get confused (I am not a biologist)
But I remember one of the first lecture of biology
& botany class started a lecture on energy and
"energy is the ability to do work. "etc..
then you know you start taling about cells and stuff :lol:

I agree that many religious people act like fanatics
and thus the views about the bible . And some things I
n the bible are literal and other things were not meant for
the people of those times but for today.
When you read "dwelling above the circle of the earth"
what else could that mean, that is obviously literal.
Some even speculate it is writen in code.
But why was the bible right on the mark about some of the things I mentioned? How did they know those things? before telescopes, microscopes etc.. How did they know?
Just wondering where that info came from. It was even before
Pythagorus of ancient greece and others who could tell it was round because of shadows.

That is why I say to keep an open mind
Was life created or did it create itself?

I like this quote from a biologist. its old but I think still holds true:
"Many scientists succumb to be dogmatic,...over
and over again the question o the origen of the
species has been presented as if it were finally settled.
Nothing could be further from the truth....But the tendency
to be dogmatic persists and it does no service to the
cause of science". From the Gaurdian
John R. Durant, London
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby mith » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:15 pm

Khaiy wrote:Think of Newton's three laws of motion, for example. But much later on, Einstein showed up and mathematically showed that Newton's equations only described a portion of the universe. They weren't wrong, but they weren't the whole picture either.


Exactly, Newton's was a special case of General Relativity. Just because we think the earth is round doesn't mean, it's only a theory and one day we'll go back to thinking it's flat. We might just get more specific and say it's an oblique sphere that bulges out more at the equator.

@linn
No idea what your energy link was about. And I already agreed that scientific theories shouldn't be dogmatic...evolution isn't. What does have to be dogmatic though is the basic principles/guidelines of science i.e. what makes stuff scientific. If it doesn't play by the rules it's not scientific and creationists should stop trying to pretend it is. Let religion do what it does best and let science be science.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Linn » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:31 pm

Astus
I've never denied the possibility of creation.
The question is, is it testable and/or is
there observable proof?

I have said basicaly the same things a few time
and could not agree with you more.
I wish people would read everything I say
you would see how many things I do agree with. :)

Of course all the life forms were not put on the ark.
Only "kinds" from that area inhabited.
This was early in history of mankind
not a heck of alot of people. one point here is the
bible says there was a flood and we have actual
evidence of it. (provided upon request) :lol:

Also to the people who saw it it appeared
as though the sun had stood still.
Whatever phenomenon went on something
strange happened.
ie: reflected light

There is more science in the bible....

Have you ever read and studied the entire bible?
I see you do have some knowledge and that is good.
I want to learn all about evolution, and who knows I can
still take more bio classes and then come back here
and say the same things :lol:
Got to excercise the brain

My problem is I hate bending over a scope for hours. :(
Last edited by Linn on Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby Linn » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:39 pm

linn
No idea what your energy link was about. And I already agreed that scientific theories shouldn't be dogmatic...evolution isn't. What does have to be dogmatic though is the basic principles/guidelines of science i.e. what makes stuff scientific. If it doesn't play by the rules it's not scientific and creationists should stop trying to pretend it is. Let religion do what it does best and let science be science.


I have no Idea why you brought up thermodynamics :?

Can you be more specific
about rules
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:32 am

David wrote:

Let us take religion from the point it started.The early man had a lot of curisity and could not come to conclusions why some things happened.Ex he could not reason why the rain occurs or the rainbow come or fire burns things.So he gave his own reasons or made them into God.Agni is one such God in the hindu religion.And the reason give in the bible for the rainbow formation is an indication that God will not destroy earth one more time with water.These facts can be dissaproved by science.


Agreed . . . with one amendment. Either man just made up the idea of God to explain nature or God revealed Himself to man once man had evolved enough intelligence to understand Him, just like He did to Abraham.

Looks like the blood pressure of Alex and Astus shooted up when they read the last line of my last post.


I always get irritable when someone insults my faith. I try to be as scientific, objective, and non-religious as possible on this forum but sometimes the Catholic in me comes out to play; please forgive me while I try to make him come home for dinner, haha.

No religion really preaches about the TRUE GOD.For the true God all animals including humans are the same and he does not have love or kindness nor is he a tyrant.He is God not Jesus not Bramha Not Buddha nor anything that humans preach.We need not praise him and waste our time he has given our job as to survive.


It's statements like these that cause me to take offense and, no offense intended, I honestly wonder if you know what you're talking about. The true God, for those of us who have experienced Him first hand (come on, my fellow religous people, back me up here!) is all about love. As a Catholic, I have experienced many things that cannot be explained scientifically and I know from first-hand experience that God exists and is all about love. How can you be so judgmental?

Miracles of curing are not true if you say that God cured it even the true God I am speaking about.Disease are there to kill us it has its job to do that does not mean we can just let it grow we have a immune system to defend us.The world is a War Field all organisms are given specific weapons to fight there weapons get updated by Evolution and The True God does not support any organism.


Absolute bull. I have seen for myself and faith healing is a very real phenomenon. I have seen the crippled walk, the blind given sight, and people cured from near-death, and none of these can be explained by medicine or science. Doctors have tried and have concluded that there really is something we don't understand going on here. For those of us who read the Bible, we've understood it all along.

David, I sense you have a hostility towards any religious belief, but I also sense that you either don't know much about it or have never personally experienced it. Countless studies have shown that there's more to religion, much more, than mere superstition. For those of us who have experienced it first hand, God is as real as the ground under my feet or the air I breathe. Why do you hate religion so much?

I'm sorry if I'm getting too religious for this forum but I do have a right to defend myself, and I get very defensive when my faith is so blatantly insulted.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby AstusAleator » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:56 am

Can't... stop... posting...

Alex, i think if there was to be a thread for waxing religious, this would be it.

Linn: I think part of our problem here is that we both say so much, and our discussions cover so many variations on topic that we can't keep track of everything the other has said :).

Now, I want to clarify something. When we're talking about Noah's flood, are you defending it as a literal truth, or as a general truth? If it is literal, then we can look at the data provided in the book and run logistics. If it is general... it might get a little harder.
Regarding "types" *sigh* the flood couldn't have been more than 6-10 thousand years ago if it happened, meaning that evidence of it should be globally evident in all geologic strata of that age, yet that is not so.
Name a "type" that could have evolved all of the evident diversity of it's class within the last 10,000 years. I'm sorry but you don't get the myriad forms of the perciform "type" fish in that amount of time. Nor do you get the amazing variety of chondrichthyes (sharks), all variations on a "type".

As far as dogma is concerned, I couldn't agree more with that quote you posted. I don't understand how you can agree with it, though, and still assert that religion is science, or that evolution is pure dogma.
I'm getting back to your statement that evolution is "as religious as creation" here.

When I entered college, I still believed in a literal translation of the creation story in the Bible (i was raised very religious and yes I have studied a lot of the bible). Studying biology and evolution has not "replaced one religion with another" but given me a better understanding of the physical world and the method of science. I still believe that there is a God, and that that God had a hand in making the world what it is. That's my belief though. It doesn't conflict with my knowledge of science and evolution.
Has what I've learned had an impact on how I percieve God? Yes. Is that bad? No! Why shouldn't I want to learn more about the laws and processes of the physical world, if this will better help me understand my relationship to it and to God.

PS: The sun always looks like it's standing still to me...
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby alextemplet » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:46 am

Astus wrote:

Now, I want to clarify something. When we're talking about Noah's flood, are you defending it as a literal truth, or as a general truth? If it is literal, then we can look at the data provided in the book and run logistics. If it is general... it might get a little harder.


I meant general. As I said before, I believe there may have been a flood in the Black Sea and this may account for the story recorded in Genesis. It would've been local, but for the people that lived there it would've destroyed everything they ever knew. Thus it would've been reported as catastrophic, and exagerated over time, and finally written down as global. As for everything else you say about the flood, I agree.

Studying biology and evolution has not "replaced one religion with another" but given me a better understanding of the physical world and the method of science. I still believe that there is a God, and that that God had a hand in making the world what it is. That's my belief though. It doesn't conflict with my knowledge of science and evolution.


YES!!! I couldn't agree more!!! This is exactly what both sides of the argument need to realize. Any claims about evolution being pseudo-science or, even worse, religion are complete baloney; similarly, any claims the religious belief is somehow outdated or obsolete are complete and total bull****. Sorry for the asterisks but that's pretty much how I feel.

Science helped me out considerably in my spiritual journey; in fact, at one point a book by the biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller literally saved my faith. Science, to me, is endless fascination and that's why I want to make it a career. But it shall always take a back seat to what I believe is my true purpose in life, which can only be found through religious faith.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby alextemplet » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:18 am

Please allow me to set the record straight as to the Genesis creation story. I've read it several times in the past few days and I've noticed a number of interesting facts that are probably missed by most people. Those facts can be broadly categorized as two points. First, Genesis agrees with science if it's interpreted correctly; secondly, a literal interpretation contradicts itself and therefore cannot be trusted.

Starting from the beginning, Gen 1 describes both evolution and the big bang. With regards to the big bang, God says "Let there by light: (Gen 1:3), and *bang* there's light, just as if you were observing the big bang. There's other parallels in subsequent verses but for the sake of space I won't go into it here. As for evolution, God creates life first in the ocean (Gen 1:20), just like evolution, and then life on land (Gen 1: 24), and man comes last (Gen 1:26-27).

Here's the first contradiction. Gen 1:27 describes man and woman being created simultaneously, not seperately as is so often believed. That brings us to chapter 2. This is the second creation story, and it differs in two important details from the first. In the first chapter, God creates animals first, then man; in the second chapter, man comes first, then animals (Gen 2:18-19). Secondly, this is where man and woman are described as being created seperately (Eve from Adam's rib, Gen 2:21-23), and this contradicts the account from the first chapter.

It gets worse. Cain, Adam's eldest son, is described as the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe (Gen 4:21). This is obviously not true because David played the lyre and was descended from Adam's third son Seth, not from Cain; also, Cain's lineage supposedly died out in the flood, so how can it still be around to play the lyre?

Genesis 5 described some preposterously long lifespans that completely contradict Gen 6:3, where God states that man's maximum lifespan is 120.

Numerous errors are obvious in the flood story, not the least of which is how did all those animals and plants fit in that small a boat? How did they all get on the ark in just one day? How did only eight people care for all those lifeforms for a whole year? Why did Noah release a dove and it came back with an olive branch? Shouldn't the tree have died in the flood?

I could go on, but it'd take days for me to say everything I have to say about this. The point of the first chapters of Genesis is not to read like a science textbook. The stories contradict themselves and thus obviously aren't meant to be taken literally. Any claim that these accounts are scientific completely ignores the nature of the book itself, to be a spiritual guide rather than a scientific one.

The real message in these first chapters of the Bible is rather clear to those who read it. First, the message of the creation story is that God created a world that was good and intended it to stay that way, but mankind has a habit of destroying himself and his environment. So God casts judgment on those who disobey Him but shows infinite mercy and support to those who follow His Word. This is the message of Noah, that God will rescue the faithful from anything. This is what the book is meant to say, and this meaning is very true.

Any attempts to say that creationism is science cannot be substantiated by either science or religion. Genesis could easily rank as the most misinterpreted book of the Old Testament, and for Bible loves like me it's very irksome that God's Word is so distorted and mistreated.

If anyone is interested, I've written a few essays about this topic. Anyone who wishes to read what I have written may contact me via e-mail; I will be happy to oblige any such requests.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby David George » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:51 am

I am sorry but I am quite tired after my Exams may be I will reply tommorow.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron