Is Evolution really all there is????

[rusra02]

when was the last time you created a universe?

Meaning?

 

[McBell]

Meaning?

meaning when was the last time you created a universe?
I had thought it a simple question to answer.
Am I wrong?

 

[Valjean]

If, as you say, life developed in "a series of small, understandable steps, it should be relatively easy for brilliant scientists to recreate that process. How many times has this been done so far?

Not many, starting from scratch, I'll admit -- and the results were pretty basic.
Creating the various components of life, though, has been done quite a lot.

DNA is a simple polymer? Should be easy then to whip up a batch to create a new life form, aye? Anyone who has made even a passing study of DNA knows that calling DNA simple is akin to calling the Encyclopedia Britannica a simple arrangement of alphabetical characters. No big deal, what?

I think you're a bit overawed by either the molecular size or it's admittedly remarkable function. The molecule's long; true, but it's not complex.
DNA is like a chain, with four different colored links. Each link in a chain is just a simple metal ring. You can link them together from here to the moon, but you'd still just have a big collection of rings.

The fact is scientists have been unable to answer the big questions. How we came to be and why we are here. I believe the Bible's answers reflect what true science has discovered. As to who created God, the Bible's answer is clear. Jehovah is the Source of all life, and has always existed.(Psalm 36:9, 90:2)

I think science does have a pretty good handle on how we came to be, and our understanding is expanding every day. "Why we are here?" That sort of question is the terrain of religion, not science.

Can you give us any examples of science in the Bible? Aren't many of the Bible's observations simply absurd, by modern understanding?

 

[rusra02]

As I said. Agenticity. And as far as "laws require a lawgiver", remember that "laws" as used in "science" are descriptive; not prescriptive.



No one ever claimed that "natural selection" is responsible for DNA. It is apparent why you find evolution "unconvincing"; you don't understand it.



Except no one claims that "with enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible". It's a strawman argument.

If not

meaning when was the last time you created a universe?
I had thought it a simple question to answer.
Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. What is the point of the question?

 

[rusra02]

Not many, starting from scratch, I'll admit -- and the results were pretty basic.
Creating the various components of life, though, has been done quite a lot.
I think you're a bit overawed by either the molecular size or it's admittedly remarkable function. The molecule's long; true, but it's not complex.
DNA is like a chain, with four different colored links. Each link in a chain is just a simple metal ring. You can link them together from here to the moon, but you'd still just have a big collection of rings.
I think science does have a pretty good handle on how we came to be, and our understanding is expanding every day. "Why we are here?" That sort of question is the terrain of religion, not science.

Can you give us any examples of science in the Bible? Aren't many of the Bible's observations simply absurd, by modern understanding?

Not many, starting from scratch, I'll admit -- and the results were pretty basic.
Creating the various components of life, though, has been done quite a lot.
I think you're a bit overawed by either the molecular size or it's admittedly remarkable function. The molecule's long; true, but it's not complex.
DNA is like a chain, with four different colored links. Each link in a chain is just a simple metal ring. You can link them together from here to the moon, but you'd still just have a big collection of rings.
I think science does have a pretty good handle on how we came to be, and our understanding is expanding every day. "Why we are here?" That sort of question is the terrain of religion, not science.

Can you give us any examples of science in the Bible? Aren't many of the Bible's observations simply absurd, by modern understanding?

Here is one example: at a time when many believed a giant supported the earth on his shoulders or the earth was supported on elephants standing on a giant turtle, the Bible stated the simple truth: "He [God] stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing;" (Job 26:7) As late as the 17th century, 3,000 years after
Job 26:7 was written, prevailing scientific theory held that the universe was filled with a kind of fluid. How did Job know the truth that there is no visible support for the earth? I believe the answer is that "All Scripture is inspired of God", the One who suspended the earth upon nothing. (2 Timothy 3:16)

 

[McBell]

Yes, you are wrong. What is the point of the question?

What is the answer to the question?

 

[Valjean]

Here is one example: at a time when many believed a giant supported the earth on his shoulders or the earth was supported on elephants standing on a giant turtle, the Bible stated the simple truth: "He [God] stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing;" (Job 26:7) As late as the 17th century, 3,000 years after

No-one's saying there are no passages in the Bible incompatable with reality. Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.
I will say that Bible stories aren't based on scientific observations, and that similar "accurate" accounts can be found in folklore from cultures all over the world.

Job 26:7 was written, prevailing scientific theory held that the universe was filled with a kind of fluid. How did Job know the truth that there is no visible support for the earth? I believe the answer is that "All Scripture is inspired of God", the One who suspended the earth upon nothing. (2 Timothy 3:16)

There was no "prevailing scientific theory" at that time. Real science is a new phenomenon.

What do you make of this recipe for animal husbandry:
37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.
Genisis 30:37-39.

 

[rusra02]

No-one's saying there are no passages in the Bible incompatable with reality. Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.
I will say that Bible stories aren't based on scientific observations, and that similar "accurate" accounts can be found in folklore from cultures all over the world.
There was no "prevailing scientific theory" at that time. Real science is a new phenomenon.

What do you make of this recipe for animal husbandry:
37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.
Genisis 30:37-39.

The Bible simply accurately reports on Jacob's attempt to produce the desired colored flocks; not vouch for the efficacy of Jacob's efforts. Later, Jacob admitted that it was not his animal husbandry skills that resulted in the flocks producing the desired colors. At Genesis 31:7-9, Jacob said; "And your father has tried to cheat me and has changed my wages ten times; but God has not allowed him to do me harm. If on the one hand he would say, ‘The speckled ones will be your wages,’ then the whole flock produced speckled ones; but if on the other hand he would say, ‘The striped ones will be your wages,’ then the whole flock produced striped ones. So God kept taking your father’s livestock away from him and giving it to me."

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

"He [God] stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing;" (Job 26:7)

And what of the southern sky?

Now then, if the passage in Job had read something along the lines of "He makes the Earth orbit in empty space around the sun at a distance of roughly 92 million miles; and the Moon orbits around the earth at about 235,000 miles; and the planets follow their orbits around the sun (with Mercury and Venus being closer to the Sun, and Mars, Jupiter and Saturn being farther from the Sun; in addition, there are two other unknown planets and numerous other bodies orbiting the Sun that you won't know about for about another 3,500 years or so); and the Sun is one of many billions of stars orbiting the center of the Milky Way..."

...Well, now, that would have been impressive...

 

[psychoslice]

Yes evolution is all there is for now, unless you can come up with a better theory.

 

[McBell]

Yes evolution is all there is for now, unless you can come up with a better theory.

OH yeah?!
Then explain how the stork evolved to deliver babies?

 

[psychoslice]

OH yeah?!
Then explain how the stork evolved to deliver babies?

Ha, now that's where god comes in.

 

[rusra02]

And what of the southern sky?

Now then, if the passage in Job had read something along the lines of "He makes the Earth orbit in empty space around the sun at a distance of roughly 92 million miles; and the Moon orbits around the earth at about 235,000 miles; and the planets follow their orbits around the sun (with Mercury and Venus being closer to the Sun, and Mars, Jupiter and Saturn being farther from the Sun; in addition, there are two other unknown planets and numerous other bodies orbiting the Sun that you won't know about for about another 3,500 years or so); and the Sun is one of many billions of stars orbiting the center of the Milky Way..."

...Well, now, that would have been impressive...

The Bible is not a science textbook, of course. But what the Bible says does not reflect the ignorance and wrong ideas people of that time and long after entertained. For example, Deuteronomy 23:12,13 states: "A private place should be designated for use outside the camp, and there is where you should go. A peg should be part of your equipment. When you squat outside, you should dig a hole with it and then cover your excrement." That health advice was many centuries ahead of medical discoveries.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Perhaps it is not a science textbook...but instead of a few vague statements that can be taken to support modern ideas about the world as it is, hidden among many other statements that cannot be taken as accurate, it could have been chock-full of what at the time would have been unbelievable statements. A few dozen well selected words here and there could have imparted knowledge of the relatively unimportant physical nature of the universe (size of the earth, distance to the moon and sun, etc.) that would clearly have shown to later people who were able to verify it that the information contained had to have come from a superior source.

 

[viole]

As we look around us we see there is a process of unfolding going on. People are created from a few cells to grow into a person. Animals go through this same process. Plants and trees unfold from tiny seeds into massive complex structures.



If you were God with limitless intelligence, how would you create it all? Choice 1. With a Poof, it's all here. Choice 2 With an automated, unfolding, expanding universe that grows into complex structures, systems, and life forms all coming from a single point.



Which choice is more intelligent? Poof leaves one wonder of the how and why while choice 2 has life forms in the expansion able to watch and study the processes.



Evolution fits well into choice 2 unfolding. Some say everything is evolution and that the universe is nothing but evolution. Is that really true?



I'm sure in the early days, survival of the fittest played an important role in the development of people and animals. This leads to the question: Is evolution really all there is? After all with mankind's humanity, the fittest are not the only ones surviving today. All those couch potatoes are making it too. There must be other factors involved.

What do you think????

Let's check in a million years whether people look like couch potatoes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Here is one example: at a time when many believed a giant supported the earth on his shoulders or the earth was supported on elephants standing on a giant turtle, the Bible stated the simple truth: "He [God] stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing;" (Job 26:7) As late as the 17th century, 3,000 years after
Job 26:7 was written, prevailing scientific theory held that the universe was filled with a kind of fluid. How did Job know the truth that there is no visible support for the earth? I believe the answer is that "All Scripture is inspired of God", the One who suspended the earth upon nothing. (2 Timothy 3:16)

It is no secret that the Bible often contradicts itself. In this case, the notion that the earth hangs on nothing is contradicted by other verses. For example, 1 Chron. 16:30 �...the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.� Psa. 93:1 �...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.� Psa. 96:10 �...the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved:� Psa. 104:5 �[Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.� Job. 26:11 "The pillars of heaven tremble..." 2 Sam. 22:8 "...the foundations of heaven moved..." Rather than hanging on nothing, these verses depict the earth and heavens as being firmly fixed on some kind of solid foundation or pillars.


Of course, we now know the author of Job was wrong when he said the earth hangs on nothing. It �hangs� on the gravitational fieldsof the sun, moon, and other planets in its vicinity. It is, of course, this attraction that keeps the earth in orbit around the sun. Not only didthe author of Job not know that the earth revolved around the sun (or rotated on its axis for that matter), he did not know anything aboutgravitation fields because they are invisible and God apparently neglected to tell him about them. He surmised the earth hung on nothingbecause, when he looked at the "dome of heaven" there appeared to be nothing that attached the earth to it.

.....

Above is quoted for simplicity from: http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item65.htm

If I told you today, "Yes, I believe in God", then told you tomorrow, "No, I don't believe in God", then by what criteria do you use to determine what it is that I actually hold to be true?

I find it fallacious to find one point that "may appear" the Bible was right; and then conveniently dismiss everything else.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If, as you say, life developed in "a series of small, understandable steps, it should be relatively easy for brilliant scientists to recreate that process. How many times has this been done so far?
DNA is a simple polymer? Should be easy then to whip up a batch to create a new life form, aye? Anyone who has made even a passing study of DNA knows that calling DNA simple is akin to calling the Encyclopedia Britannica a simple arrangement of alphabetical characters. No big deal, what?

While snowflakes are themselves have ornate shapes they are made of simple materials and the process they arise is also simple. However no scientist can study a snowflake and create an exact replica because the original conditions necessary for that specific pattern are so numerous and nuanced that we can understand the process, materials and structure of them and still not be able to recreate it. Such is the case with replicating abiogenesis.

Saying that because scientists can't recreate it then they can't know it is disingenuous and further saying that an invisible spirit workshop in the clouds is where snowflakes are manufactured end mass for snow is comparable in any way to the natural process we understand but can't replicate is a non-answer. It doesn't explain anything and leaves more questions than answers, and requires far more assumptions than the natural process sans 'spiritual' interference.

 

[Bird123]

Let's check in a million years whether people look like couch potatoes.

Ciao

- viole

Yes, it would be interesting to see. On the other hand, with great advances in technology and having robots do all the work, one might not even make it to the couch. We won't even get out of bed.

Still, I have to believe there will be those fit as a fiddle, hungry to explore and discover new things. Yes, that would be worth getting out of bed for.

 

[rusra02]

It is no secret that the Bible often contradicts itself. In this case, the notion that the earth hangs on nothing is contradicted by other verses. For example, 1 Chron. 16:30 �...the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.� Psa. 93:1 �...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.� Psa. 96:10 �...the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved:� Psa. 104:5 �[Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.� Job. 26:11 "The pillars of heaven tremble..." 2 Sam. 22:8 "...the foundations of heaven moved..." Rather than hanging on nothing, these verses depict the earth and heavens as being firmly fixed on some kind of solid foundation or pillars.


Of course, we now know the author of Job was wrong when he said the earth hangs on nothing. It �hangs� on the gravitational fieldsof the sun, moon, and other planets in its vicinity. It is, of course, this attraction that keeps the earth in orbit around the sun. Not only didthe author of Job not know that the earth revolved around the sun (or rotated on its axis for that matter), he did not know anything aboutgravitation fields because they are invisible and God apparently neglected to tell him about them. He surmised the earth hung on nothingbecause, when he looked at the "dome of heaven" there appeared to be nothing that attached the earth to it.

.....

Above is quoted for simplicity from: http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item65.htm

If I told you today, "Yes, I believe in God", then told you tomorrow, "No, I don't believe in God", then by what criteria do you use to determine what it is that I actually hold to be true?

I find it fallacious to find one point that "may appear" the Bible was right; and then conveniently dismiss everything else.

1 Chronicles 16:30 states; "Tremble before him, all the earth! The earth is firmly established; it cannot be moved." What is discussed here is the permanence of the earth. Same with Psalm 93:1. Same with Psalm 104:5. I believe the other references are symbolic. "At 2 Samuel 22:8-15, David apparently uses the figure of a tremendous storm to represent the effect of God’s intervention on David’s behalf, freeing him from his enemies. The fierceness of this symbolic storm agitates the foundation of the heavens, and they ‘bend down’ with dark low-lying clouds. Compare the literal storm conditions described at Exodus 19:16-18; also the poetic expressions at Isaiah 64:1, 2." (Insight Vol 1 p. 1064)
I do not believe Job was wrong when he said the earth hangs on nothing. Such expressions as 'the earth hangs in space' or 'is suspended in space' are common and accurate. How did Job know this? To me, the answer is obvious.

 

[McBell]

The Bible is not a science textbook, of course. But what the Bible says does not reflect the ignorance and wrong ideas people of that time and long after entertained. For example, Deuteronomy 23:12,13 states: "A private place should be designated for use outside the camp, and there is where you should go. A peg should be part of your equipment. When you squat outside, you should dig a hole with it and then cover your excrement." That health advice was many centuries ahead of medical discoveries.

Except it was not "health" advice.
It was to reduce the "yuck" factor of camp.