On Evolution & Creation

[Astrophile]

The evidence that would verify (for me) the theory of evolution would be the actual change-by-change in the organisms. I know this cannot be done and so scientists go by the theory using fossils, but at this point in my questioning of those here I see no cogent evidence surmising the transformation from, for instance, fish to apes. By that I mean more than looking at organisms and saying, "See? These water dwellers have four appendages, therefore that means they are in the line that evolved to apes..."

Is this what you were taught about evolution at school and college? If so, you ought to ask for your money back.

There is a great deal more to palaeontology and the fossil evidence for evolution than this, much more than can be covered in a contribution to an internet forum. If you were British, I should advise you to study the '10-mile' geological maps of Britain and to read the regional guides of the British Geological Survey and the three books entitled respectively British Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic Fossils; they would teach you a lot about the principles of stratigraphy, the succession of rocks and fossils, and the duration of geological time. (I may add that I have not merely accepted the authority of these regional guides; I have travelled around Britain to look at rock outcrops for myself.)

As it is, I can only suggest that you should read geological guides for your own district, Stratigraphy - Wikipedia , Geologic time scale - Wikipedia and Prothero's book 'Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters'. They will do more for your geological education than I can do.

 

[Pogo]

Is this what you were taught about evolution at school and college? If so, you ought to ask for your money back.

There is a great deal more to palaeontology and the fossil evidence for evolution than this, much more than can be covered in a contribution to an internet forum. If you were British, I should advise you to read the regional guides of the British Geological Survey; they would teach you a lot about the principles of stratigraphy, the succession of rocks and fossils, and the duration of geological time. (I may add that I have not merely accepted the authority of these regional guides; I have travelled around Britain to look at rock outcrops for myself.)

As it is, I can only suggest that you should read geological guides for your own district, Stratigraphy - Wikipedia , Geologic time scale - Wikipedia and Prothero's book 'Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters'. They will do more for your geological education than I can do.

It is just the troll's tiny little doubt argument, so long as I can ask a question whether it is rational or not, then maybe my fantastical alternative is plausible and I can maintain my defence of my cognitive dissonance.

It is just sad in the long run.

 

[metis]

Plants evolved to survive the existing situation of the sun rising, warmth, rain, etc.?

Ah, you used the word "evolved"!!! There's hope for you yet!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What are you talking about? The form and capabilities of the plants are products of evolution. The plants evolved to survive the existing situation of Sun and warmth rain, &c.
Resurrection day? Where's the evidence of that? Till you find objective evidence all you have os folklore and tradition. It's all mythology, at this point.
Finally, what sort of correlation are you trying to illustrate?

Yes, plants survive, and the correlation is that both the dead and winter's plants are dormant
Neither the plants nor the dead are conscious of anything. Both are in a sleep-like state ( Psalms 6:5; 13:3; 115:17; Ecclesiastes 9:5 )
Thus, what is called as death is but a sleep in the winter of the year
Just as surely as the spring brings life to tree and flower those who sleep in death will know and see the Resurrection's Power
Sure, people believe the Bible is mythology, but just because Resurrection Day is Not yet here does Not mean it won't happen
In the Bible ALL the resurrections Jesus performed were physical resurrections, and I suppose since we have Not yet seen that happen lots of people think they are still alive when they die, that is where the myth enters into the picture

 

[Valjean]

everything does to you, every answer is the same higher power, now how about showing us what this higher power is and how it does any of these things that are to complicated for any other solution?

Solution? She's not even positing a solution; just an agent. There's no claim or explanation of mechanism, rendering it a claim of magic.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...............................................................
staggering ignorance of our religious friends.

I can agree about staggering ignorance of our religious friends because many are ignorant of what the Bible really teaches
Many clergy teach church tradition or church customs as religious truth instead of what the Bible really teaches
Jesus' words even exposed staggering ignorance because MANY call him Lord but prove false - Matt. 7:21-23

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ah, you used the word "evolved"!!! There's hope for you yet!

Look ! sure evolution could be involved in lower forms of life but that does Not mean including human life
Adam was formed or fashioned from the existing dust of the already existing ground - Gen. 2:7
So, where human life is concerned evolution is Not part of it

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Or more like breaking dormancy (evolution needed).

Or, more like breaking dormancy ( resurrection needed )
Where human life is concerned the dead will awaken from dormancy via resurrection - Rev. 1:18

 

[Valjean]

Yes, plants survive, and the correlation is that both the dead and winter's plants are dormant
Neither the plants nor the dead are conscious of anything. Both are in a sleep-like state ( Psalms 6:5; 13:3; 115:17; Ecclesiastes 9:5 )
Thus, what is called as death is but a sleep in the winter of the year

Non sequitur.
"Dormant" and "sleep" are temporary states. Death appears permanent. What actual evidence can you adduce supporting your belief that resurrection from death is possible?

Just as surely as the spring brings life to tree and flower those who sleep in death will know and see the Resurrection's Power
Sure, people believe the Bible is mythology, but just because Resurrection Day is Not yet here does Not mean it won't happen

And until it does happen, and is observed, it remains fantastical, unevidenced speculation, and belief in it irrational.

In the Bible ALL the resurrections Jesus performed were physical resurrections, and I suppose since we have Not yet seen that happen lots of people think they are still alive when they die, that is where the myth enters into the picture

Huh?
The Bible is a cherry-picked anthology of ancient stories and folklore. Its claims are largely unsupported, apocryphal hearsay. Why do you take it seriously?

 

[Valjean]

Look ! sure evolution could be involved in lower forms of life but that does Not mean including human life
Adam was formed or fashioned from the existing dust of the already existing ground - Gen. 2:7
So, where human life is concerned evolution is Not part of it

You have no evidence supporting this, and you ignore well-evidenced alternative claims. Your religion is a fixed belief unaffected by contrary evidence, ie: a delusion.

 

[Valjean]

I can agree about staggering ignorance of our religious friends because many are ignorant of what the Bible really teaches
Many clergy teach church tradition or church customs as religious truth instead of what the Bible really teaches
Jesus' words even exposed staggering ignorance because MANY call him Lord but prove false - Matt. 7:21-23

The bible is not a textbook or a scientific work. It's unevidenced folklore. Deferring belief in its claims, pending actual evidence, is not 'staggering ignorance. It's the rational default.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

As others above have pointed out, dormancy is an adaptive strategy used by some plant species to survive periods of cold. As with any selectively advantageous strategy, this is the result of natural selection.
Not sure about the relevance of your biblical quotes to explaining plant dormancy, though.

Your post brought to mind 1st Corinthians 15:42-44 about sowing seeds
The seeds sown are Not made alive unless the seed dies first
In other words, death comes first before God's gift of life
Of course, verse 44 is not speaking about literal seeds
When a literal seed is planted in the ground it germinates and it becomes a plant
The resulting plant is quite different from the seed
A future resurrected body will be a healthy body different from the starting-out seed/body

 

[Valjean]

Your post brought to mind 1st Corinthians 15:42-44 about sowing seeds
The seeds sown are Not made alive unless the seed dies first

Huh?
Dead seeds won't germinate.

In other words, death comes first before God's gift of life
Of course, verse 44 is not speaking about literal seeds
When a literal seed is planted in the ground it germinates and it becomes a plant
The resulting plant is quite different from the seed
A future resurrected body will be a healthy body different from the starting-out seed/body

You're preaching.
What objective evidence do you have supporting these claims? You seem to be simply reïterating Biblical folklore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While at uni in the USA, I was in a dorm
room of a girl who had two goldfish.

Both of the fat body / huge fin sort,
that have to struggle so hard to swim.

I commented on the ethics of breeding
such fish, but she insisted they were from
the wild just as God made them.

Irrelevant to your post but in line with the elsewhere demonstrated
staggering ignorance of our religious friends.

They are becoming "natural" now:

Nearly 30 Football-Sized Goldfish Caught in Minnesota Lake

When tiny fish are released in large bodies of water, they can grow to prodigious sizes, officials warn

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Look ! sure evolution could be involved in lower forms of life but that does Not mean including human life
Adam was formed or fashioned from the existing dust of the already existing ground - Gen. 2:7
So, where human life is concerned evolution is Not part of it

I asked a question and that was thought to mean because I used the word in the question evolved must mean I'm learning.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is this what you were taught about evolution at school and college? If so, you ought to ask for your money back.

There is a great deal more to palaeontology and the fossil evidence for evolution than this, much more than can be covered in a contribution to an internet forum. If you were British, I should advise you to read the regional guides of the British Geological Survey; they would teach you a lot about the principles of stratigraphy, the succession of rocks and fossils, and the duration of geological time. (I may add that I have not merely accepted the authority of these regional guides; I have travelled around Britain to look at rock outcrops for myself.)

As it is, I can only suggest that you should read geological guides for your own district, Stratigraphy - Wikipedia , Geologic time scale - Wikipedia and Prothero's book 'Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters'. They will do more for your geological education than I can do.

I didn't study evolution in college, but I did take biology. As I said, I was an honor student, so learned whatever I was supposed to learn well and had no real questions about what I was learning. I was not a science major and before I accepted a Bible study I believed everything I was taught in school, never questioning the validity of the theory. In fact, I became an atheist once I went to college and was away from my family. But then things changed. Time passed. And yes, things changed.

 

[Valjean]

I didn't study evolution in college, but I did take biology. As I said, I was an honor student, so learned whatever I was supposed to learn well and had no real questions about what I was learning. I was not a science major and before I accepted a Bible study I believed everything I was taught in school, never questioning the validity of the theory. In fact, I became an atheist once I went to college and was away from my family. But then things changed. Time passed. And yes, things changed.

Color me skeptical...

 

[Hooded_Crow]

I didn't study evolution in college, but I did take biology. As I said, I was an honor student, so learned whatever I was supposed to learn well and had no real questions about what I was learning. I was not a science major and before I accepted a Bible study I believed everything I was taught in school, never questioning the validity of the theory. In fact, I became an atheist once I went to college and was away from my family. But then things changed. Time passed. And yes, things changed.

Given that the theory of evolution is a fundamental part of most Biology courses (at high school level, at least), and the course content is backed by evidence from a variety of disciplines (genetics, ecology, behaviour, biochemistry, molecular biology, geology...), can you tell me - in your view- what should be taught instead? Straightforward biblical creationism? Intelligent design? If so, what evidence would teachers have to back up what they are teaching? Would the textbooks just be full of Genesis quotes?

The development of new vaccines and antibiotics depends on an understanding of the evolution of resistance in micro-organisms. I would much rather medical researchers are schooled in evidence-based evolutionary biology than relying on bible passages to inform their work. Wouldn't you?

 

[Hooded_Crow]

Or, more like breaking dormancy ( resurrection needed )
Where human life is concerned the dead will awaken from dormancy via resurrection - Rev. 1:18

Eh? What?? After death, decomposition begins. Cellular structure breaks down. Molecules leak into the soil. What possible physical evidence do you have that this process has ever been (or ever will be) reversed? And what about bodies that have been cremated?

 

[Astrophile]

I didn't study evolution in college, but I did take biology. As I said, I was an honor student, so learned whatever I was supposed to learn well and had no real questions about what I was learning. I was not a science major and before I accepted a Bible study I believed everything I was taught in school, never questioning the validity of the theory. In fact, I became an atheist once I went to college and was away from my family. But then things changed. Time passed. And yes, things changed.

One of the things that puzzle me is that so many atheists, when converted, go to the opposite extreme and become Biblical literalists and creationists. I should have thought that in a Christian country a detailed study and a considered rejection of the Bible would be necessary for a person to reject Christianity and become an atheist.

This was what happened to me. I read the Bible and concluded that it is full of false history and false science, that it contains no knowledge that was not common at the time that it was written, that it shares the superstitions of its time, that its legal and moral precepts are those of barbarians, and that its claims to supernatural knowledge are disproved by the many prophecies that have been falsified by the passage of time. Having come to this conclusion, I am not likely to change my mind as a result of Christians quoting Bible verses to me.

Can you, therefore, explain to me how you became an atheist and a disbeliever in the Bible, and what evidence convinced you that you were wrong and that the Bible is true and should be taken literally?