Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[Subduction Zone]

I don't care what you call natural processes such as reproduction, adaptation, etc. It does not change the fact that these have been ongoing for centuries, Scientist are only studying nature and learning from it. It has nothing to do with ToE.
If I opened the hood of a vehicle, and did not understand the workings of the engine, I would be shooting in the dark. The engine functions the way it does, because it was designed to do so. Similar to nature.
Your inability to understand these facts, are due to your willingness to be ignorant. However, willful ignorance does not excuse accountability.

Of course reproduction has been occurring for billions of years. Your question only showed that you have no understanding of evolution at all. I tried to politely explain your errors to you. That you do not understand how evolution is applied does not mean that it is not done.

 

[metis]

The flue virus adapts, like everything else, including your immune system. This has nothing to do with ToE.

It absolutely does as "adaptation" is very much intrinsically involved in the ToE. Ask any geneticist.

@metis By the way, we see in reality life forms adapting - you call it evolution, but apparently there is a magic fairy that does what we see not one shred of evidence for - morphing into different organisms.

"Magic" is intrinsic to religion, not science. Also, google "speciation", and even the Wikipedia article includes links to studies that observed new species being created.

That to me, shows how some are so willing to accept magic, when it supports their view.

See above.

Also, the literalistic interpretation of the Creation accounts defies what we know know about the evolution of our universe, Planet Earth, and life forms on Earth. Since there are other possible interpretations of these accounts that would make much more logical and scientific sense, why would one go with the one that doesn't make sense? I can elaborate on this if you wish. Let me just say that the fossil record alone simply cannot be explained through a literalistic interpretation of the Creation accounts.

As you may recall, I left the fundamentalist church that I grew up in that taught against the ToE, as I became aware that it was basically anti-science as my background was and is in science (graduate degree in anthropology). I now belong to a church that doesn't just pooh-pooh away what the objectively-derived research is telling us like my former denomination did.

The issue between us isn't whether God exists but is exactly what was the process that God created all with. The unfortunate reality is that some groups use the ToE as a "wedge issue", thus implying that one is somehow less of a Christian if they accept the ToE.

Also, contrary to the belief of some, the ToE is not in any way anti-God, especially since abiogenesis is only a hypothesis. And even if it were to be true, it still doesn't explain how the inorganic matter got here in the first place.

Take care.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The flue virus adapts, like everything else, including your immune system. This has nothing to do with ToE.

Adaptation is any modification that makes something more suitable to a particular situation. When a biological population adapts to its environment over generations, that adaptation is called biological evolution.

There are forms of adaptation that are not evolution. When a dog grows an undercoat for the winter, or a sun bather tans, individuals are adapting, but not genetically.

There are also forms of adaptation that are not biological. When you visit a foreign country, you might exchange your currency, speak the local language if you know it, or drive on the opposite side of the road than you are used to. You are adapting to a new environment, but culturally, not biologically.

So now you know that calling evolution adaptation, which is correct, but limited to the biological adaptation of populations through genetic variation over a generation or more, is not a rebuttal to the idea that a given adaptation can be due to biological evolution.

academics, or having degrees, does not put one above a person who has a basic education

Yes, the word education can be used to describe virtually any learning process, including learning to tie one's shoes, or how to make a pie. Not all education is academic.

But your argument is a deflection from the evidenced claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses discourage their members from getting a college education. @Subduction Zone made a compelling argument, and rather that address the claim made, you went into a semantic deflection, discussing other forms of education that were never part of the claim or supporting argument. There is no claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses oppose all forms of education, such as learning a trade. The claim is that they are opposed to their members getting an advanced formal education for fear that it will contradicts their teachings and lead to apostasy.

I don't care what you call natural processes such as reproduction, adaptation, etc. It does not change the fact that these have been ongoing for centuries, Scientist are only studying nature and learning from it. It has nothing to do with ToE.

Scientists developed the theory of evolution like all other scientific theories by studying nature and learning from it. The theory of evolution comprises several natural processes such as genetic variation in biological populations across generations, and natural selection. Each of these subsumes multiple processes. Genetic variation can be due to mutation, meiotic reshuffling, the founder effect, and genetic drift. Natural selection involves natural processes such as predation and mate selection. The theory of evolution has everything to do with the study of natural processes

Of course evolution has been going on for centuries. Eons, even. Was that meant to be a rebuttal to something?

And you calling biological evolution adaptation does not make it no longer biological evolution, just as calling an apple a kind of fruit doesn't make it no longer an apple. Your present argument sounds like,

Others: This is an apple (this is evolution)
You: No it's not. It's fruit (no, this is adaptation).

The engine functions the way it does, because it was designed to do so. Similar to nature.

There is no evidence that nature was designed. In fact, on the basis of the evidence available, it appears that it was not. Nature appears to have no purpose - no way that it is intended to function. There is no evidence of intention or purpose existing in the universe before sentient life evolved in it.

Also, compare an engine to nature and you won't find much in common there. The engine is not an apt analog of nature. Nature seems to have the capacity to assemble irregular clusters of galaxies of gas, dust, stars, planets, moons, asteroids and comets in motion about one another in accordance with mindless physical laws, but not engines, which parts are machined in regular geometric patterns such as gears and pistons with a specific purpose in mind, generating power from fuel - nothing like irregularly shaped rocks moving to no apparent purpose..

It's a clear indication that anyone who stands on the side of right, will be attacked and criticized by you. It's expected.

I was just in contact with a group of high school friends by email, all secular humanists, discussing religion. One of the items mentioned that most people disliked was the assumption by Christians that they hold the moral high ground as you are doing here assuming that you stand on the side of right. Hopefully, you are aware that there are many who disagree with you.

I think that you have made a big mistake choosing to believe something by faith. What reason is there to believe that you have chosen the side of right? The odds are long that you've guessed correctly.

Faith is not a path to truth. It can't be. Consider two mutually exclusive propositions such that at the least, one of them is wrong. Both can be believed equally strongly by faith, whereas if one turns to evidence for confirmation or disconfirmation, only one of those will occur.

Faith allows one to believe anything, however wrong. Evidence supports a single position - whatever is actually the case.

 

[nPeace]

Adaptation is any modification that makes something more suitable to a particular situation. When a biological population adapts to its environment over generations, that adaptation is called biological evolution.

There are forms of adaptation that are not evolution. When a dog grows an undercoat for the winter, or a sun bather tans, individuals are adapting, but not genetically.

There are also forms of adaptation that are not biological. When you visit a foreign country, you might exchange your currency, speak the local language if you know it, or drive on the opposite side of the road than you are used to. You are adapting to a new environment, but culturally, not biologically.

So now you know that calling evolution adaptation, which is correct, but limited to the biological adaptation of populations through genetic variation over a generation or more, is not a rebuttal to the idea that a given adaptation can be due to biological evolution.

Thanks for the... education.

Yes, the word education can be used to describe virtually any learning process, including learning to tie one's shoes, or how to make a pie. Not all education is academic.

But your argument is a deflection from the evidenced claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses discourage their members from getting a college education. @Subduction Zone made a compelling argument, and rather that address the claim made, you went into a semantic deflection, discussing other forms of education that were never part of the claim or supporting argument. There is no claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses oppose all forms of education, such as learning a trade. The claim is that they are opposed to their members getting an advanced formal education for fear that it will contradicts their teachings and lead to apostasy.

What was the compelling argument?
I understand the difference quite well. You are the one that does not understand how your cult opposes education.

You made it even worst, by adding this:
The claim is that they are opposed to their members getting an advanced formal education for fear that it will contradicts their teachings and lead to apostasy.

It's a claim. So what?
I f these words were published, as a fact though, you would really experience the results of higher education , when they sue the pants off you, for malicious slander.

Scientists developed the theory of evolution like all other scientific theories by studying nature and learning from it. The theory of evolution comprises several natural processes such as genetic variation in biological populations across generations, and natural selection. Each of these subsumes multiple processes. Genetic variation can be due to mutation, meiotic reshuffling, the founder effect, and genetic drift. Natural selection involves natural processes such as predation and mate selection. The theory of evolution has everything to do with the study of natural processes

So? The study of natural processes has everything to do with the advancement of all sciences
The study of natural processes is not ToE.

Of course evolution has been going on for centuries. Eons, even. Was that meant to be a rebuttal to something?

And you calling biological evolution adaptation does not make it no longer biological evolution, just as calling an apple a kind of fruit doesn't make it no longer an apple. Your present argument sounds like,

Others: This is an apple (this is evolution)
You: No it's not. It's fruit (no, this is adaptation).

I did not call biological evolution adaptation. Please read carefully... and try to understand.

An organism cannot pass on something, unless it multiples. In order to pass on anything, the organism must first have it. In order for the organism to be immune to something, it must adapt a resistance.
So, it's adaptation.
The organism adapted, and then passed on it genes.
So what do you call the evolution, the adaptation of the organism, or the reproduction resulting in resistant offspring?

There is no evidence that nature was designed. In fact, on the basis of the evidence available, it appears that it was not. Nature appears to have no purpose - no way that it is intended to function. There is no evidence of intention or purpose existing in the universe before sentient life evolved in it.

Also, compare an engine to nature and you won't find much in common there. The engine is not an apt analog of nature. Nature seems to have the capacity to assemble irregular clusters of galaxies of gas, dust, stars, planets, moons, asteroids and comets in motion about one another in accordance with mindless physical laws, but not engines, which parts are machined in regular geometric patterns such as gears and pistons with a specific purpose in mind, generating power from fuel - nothing like irregularly shaped rocks moving to no apparent purpose..

That's your opinion.

Your argument also presents illusions. You accept those. Fine.

I was just in contact with a group of high school friends by email, all secular humanists, discussing religion. One of the items mentioned that most people disliked was the assumption by Christians that they hold the moral high ground as you are doing here assuming that you stand on the side of right. Hopefully, you are aware that there are many who disagree with you.

I think that you have made a big mistake choosing to believe something by faith. What reason is there to believe that you have chosen the side of right? The odds are long that you've guessed correctly.

Faith is not a path to truth. It can't be. Consider two mutually exclusive propositions such that at the least, one of them is wrong. Both can be believed equally strongly by faith, whereas if one turns to evidence for confirmation or disconfirmation, only one of those will occur.

Faith allows one to believe anything, however wrong. Evidence supports a single position - whatever is actually the case.

We have been here before, many times apparently. No repeats on this. It's a useless cycle.

 

[nPeace]

It absolutely does as "adaptation" is very much intrinsically involved in the ToE. Ask any geneticist.

"Magic" is intrinsic to religion, not science. Also, google "speciation", and even the Wikipedia article includes links to studies that observed new species being created.

See above.

Also, the literalistic interpretation of the Creation accounts defies what we know know about the evolution of our universe, Planet Earth, and life forms on Earth. Since there are other possible interpretations of these accounts that would make much more logical and scientific sense, why would one go with the one that doesn't make sense? I can elaborate on this if you wish. Let me just say that the fossil record alone simply cannot be explained through a literalistic interpretation of the Creation accounts.

As you may recall, I left the fundamentalist church that I grew up in that taught against the ToE, as I became aware that it was basically anti-science as my background was and is in science (graduate degree in anthropology). I now belong to a church that doesn't just pooh-pooh away what the objectively-derived research is telling us like my former denomination did.

The issue between us isn't whether God exists but is exactly what was the process that God created all with. The unfortunate reality is that some groups use the ToE as a "wedge issue", thus implying that one is somehow less of a Christian if they accept the ToE.

Also, contrary to the belief of some, the ToE is not in any way anti-God, especially since abiogenesis is only a hypothesis. And even if it were to be true, it still doesn't explain how the inorganic matter got here in the first place.

Take care.

Sounds like you belong on this thread. You seemed to have missed a lot though, and I think I would like to hear more from you on this.
What do we know about the evolution of our universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the compelling argument?
I understand the difference quite well. You are the one that does not understand how your cult opposes education.

None was needed. You tend to Gish. When you do that you cannot demand a compelling argument. Learn how to debate properly if you want more detail We already went over this once, that was merely a reminder of that fact.

If you want specific questions asked you need to stop the Gish Gallop. One clear topic per post Don't desperately throw everything against the wall and hope that one strand of spaghetti will stick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have been here before, many times apparently. No repeats on this. It's a useless cycle.

Oh the irony! You are as much as admitting that you refuse to learn. This is why I we need to go over the basics so that you can learn how and why you are wrong.

 

[metis]

You seemed to have missed a lot though

Since I'm an anthropologist who taught the subject for 30 years, and since I've read quite a few books on cosmology written by researchers, I have enough of a background to generally know what I'm talking about.

What do we know about the evolution of our universe?

That's like asking "Can you tell me everything about your life in the next several minutes?". Maybe google "evolution of the universe" yourself. I'm quite certain that even the Wikipedia article on the universe will tell ya plenty.

 

[nPeace]

Since I'm an anthropologist who taught the subject for 30 years, and since I've read quite a few books on cosmology written by researchers, I have enough of a background to generally know what I'm talking about.

That's like asking "Can you tell me everything about your life in the next several minutes?". Maybe google "evolution of the universe" yourself. I'm quite certain that even the Wikipedia article on the universe will tell ya plenty.

LOL. Okay, let me make it easier for you.
Just give me two things we know about the evolution of our universe, which conflicts with the Genesis account.
That's the purpose of the thread.
Surely, you are not going to deny me that, are you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL. Okay, let me make it easier for you.
Just give me two things we know about the evolution of our universe, which conflicts with the Genesis account.
That's the purpose of the thread.
Surely, you are not going to deny me that, are you?

Quite a bit depends upon one's interpretation of Genesis. For example if one interprets it as a morality tale that has nothing to do with reality then nothing really conflicts with it. But if one makes the error of interpreting it literally at all one quickly runs into problems. The Earth before the Sun and other stars is a clear problem.

So why not tell us your version of Genesis and then others can tell you if it has been shown to be wrong?

 

[metis]

LOL. Okay, let me make it easier for you.

Is sarcasm your m.o.?

Just give me two things we know about the evolution of our universe, which conflicts with the Genesis account.

Genesis 1[1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

There's roughly 9 billion years separating the two, plus there's no objective evidence to know exactly what caused our universe to expand.

Genesis 1[2] The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

Earth was a molten mass at first, whereas water only came about after Earth cooled.

Genesis 1[3] And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Light existed before Earth came into being.

Genesis 1[5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The word for "day" is "yom", and "yom" always means day-- not era, nor epoch, unless it's used symbolically such as "A thousand years is but a day in the eyes of God".

The understanding that "yom" only means "day" becomes evidenced at the end of Creation whereas it says in Genesis 2[2] And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
[3] So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.

The day of rest, "Shabbat" in Hebrew, is a day of the week-- not an epoch nor an era, unless specified otherwise.

Genesis 1[6]And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

The word "firmament" in Hebrew indicates solidness, and the ancient belief was that a firm dome was above the Earth with the Moon and the stars on the inside. Obviously, there is no such "firmament".

I'll stop at this point, but if all you're going to do is to be sarcastic, then this may be my last response back in return. IMO, it is unethical under Jesus' teachings based on the "law of love" to try and demean another. If you don't agree, then I'm done.

 

[metis]

Quite a bit depends upon one's interpretation of Genesis. For example if one interprets it as a morality tale that has nothing to do with reality then nothing really conflicts with it.

And that's the point I hope we can get @nPeace to as there's more than one way to interpret the Creation accounts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The flue virus adapts, like everything else, including your immune system. This has nothing to do with ToE.
Every surgeon knew this centuries before about the body - it's ability to adapt to it's surroundings, and other circumstances.
Your teeth, your brain, you name it. It's a natural occurrence.
Is that not so?

@metis By the way, we see in reality life forms adapting - you call it evolution, but apparently there is a magic fairy that does what we see not one shred of evidence for - morphing into different organisms.
That to me, shows how some are so willing to accept magic, when it supports their view.

Clearly you do not understand the different meanings of adaptation and how they apply. You are like the person that confuses weather and climate and incorrectly uses those terms interchangeably.

Evolutionary adaptations are genetic changes that take place in populations and are the result of new variation that has entered the population and is selected by the environment. What you seem to think adaptation means is really physiological versatility. A person adapting to exposure to a change in temperature or atmospheric pressure responds physiologically, but that change is not a change in a population and the response state is not a trait that is passed on to offspring.

What about teeth and brains? There is no evidence that teeth and brains are not the result of natural processes, so they would be natural occurrences. The way you write is very cryptic and not easy to comprehend.

What is being called evolution are genetic adaptations that are heritable. What you have been describing is adaptation that is best described and physiological versatility.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's easy to rattle off words.
Let's see how reasonable you are.

#1
Using the statements here:
Accumulating change
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

Please, explain how it is different to this:
When humans train by using heavier weights, they build strength.
When this strength builds up by the use of continuous training, over millions of years, humans become superhuman - gods.

Please explain by way of examples, how the above extrapolations, are in keeping with the scientific method. In other words, what experiments are conducted, and repeated, as well as the observations acquired.

The second red block of text does not propose something that follows the scientific method. It is poor and fantastical analogy that has no value in reflecting what science does. As near as I can interpret you are either claiming that humans live millions of years by bodybuilding or that acquired traits are passed on. Outside of epigenetic changes in DNA packaging, acquired traits like larger muscles from body building are not passed on. The offspring of a bodybuilder are not going to leave the womb looking like Schwarzenegger.

Please note that the science "text book" does not say, "Based on XYZ evidence, blah blah blah..." Rather, it says, "When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale."

#2
Where is the logic...
Because someone discourages A, they are against B.
So, because someone discourages unwholesome entertainment, they are against entertainment. Because they discourage bad association, they are against association. Because they discourage material pursuits, or materialism, they are against anything material, and thus encourage a life of poverty. Because they discourage higher education (giving reasons that are not anti-educational), they discourage education.

How is this reasonable?

I agree with SZ. You need to steer clear of the "green ink". Your overuse of color and altered fonts does not lend credibility to your words and gives them an entirely different sense.

Textbooks do supply references to the evidence for evolution. Your statement that they do not is false. Have you ever looked at a science textbook?

Your church does not promote education and makes an effort to discourage it. That is the bottom line. Your versions of wholesome and unwholesome seem parallel to your definitions of good and bad science. Whatever reinforces your belief is wholesome and good science and whatever conflicts or contradicts your belief is unwholesome or bad science. Your church considers education to be unwholesome.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Self righteous, because you say so? I don't mind that, coming from one who attacks God and the Bible. It's a clear indication that anyone who stands on the side of right, will be attacked and criticized by you. It's expected.

More false statements. I have never seen a post by sooda that attacks God or the Bible.

I see that you have just given up any pretense at civil debate and are just attacking and ridiculing others now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I get that you are self righteous are you also a mechanical engineer?

I doubt that he has a technical education. I have not seen anything that indicates it to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term "green ink" arose in England where loonies (I do believe that is the proper British terms) would frequently write letters to the editor in Green Ink:

Green ink - RationalWiki

"Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green. It is not known just how many such letters actually existed, or if this is just urban legend, though there are occasional reports of physical manifestations.[4] Common comorbid characteristics include irrelevant capitalisation, religious mania, overuse of exclamation marks and veiled threats or warnings directed at the recipient. An article in The Observer about letters to the editor suggests avoidance of green ink.[5]

The term remains a useful metaphor for similar frothing in the electronic age, even though the pages are likely to include every colour rejected from the rainbow,[6] in a tasteful variety of fonts. Though the truly exquisite green ink often appears in carefully-formatted black and white PDFs."

Best read on the site where one can see all of the "green ink" used.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you are pursuing those, then you are required to follow the system. If you are not, is it a requirement? Do you want to be an electrician, an appliance repair man, a construction worker? What do you do? You learn the trade. Where?

Learning a trade does not preclude a person from learning beyond those trades. Those trades do not discourage education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I doubt that he has a technical education. I have not seen anything that indicates it to me.

Though I do believe that an engineering degree may be one that is deemed "education" by the JW's. As long as one does not learn too much of the dreaded sciences. That an art, history, ethics. I suppose that one could learn some of the more mundane application only fields, such as business school classes. But anything that encourages one to think appears to be off limits.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't care what you call natural processes such as reproduction, adaptation, etc. It does not change the fact that these have been ongoing for centuries, Scientist are only studying nature and learning from it. It has nothing to do with ToE.
If I opened the hood of a vehicle, and did not understand the workings of the engine, I would be shooting in the dark. The engine functions the way it does, because it was designed to do so. Similar to nature.
Your inability to understand these facts, are due to your willingness to be ignorant. However, willful ignorance does not excuse accountability.

Then present a case that natural biological processes have nothing to do with the theory of evolution and that evolution is not a natural process. Continually repeating that is not an argument.

Show us the evidence and provide an argument that nature is designed. Your claims are not established facts. That you fail to understand that is at the cutting edge of your ignorance here. You are accountable for providing valid arguments to support your claims. You continue to fail to do that.