Evolution And My Job

[Amppax]

*Edit: Nevermind, this is why i don't talk about science

Edited May 7, 2011 by Amppax

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304729304' post='2238179']
No problem, the standard textbook definition of Darwin's theory is, "the common decent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection". If you believe that, then it's as Richard Dawkins has made clear, incompatible with the belief in the G-d of the Bible. You might say, "G-d put this from of evolution into place to impliment his design", but you have no chance of saying that G-d guided the design because it is undirected by it's very nature. However even saying that G-d implimented his design through Darwin's Theory is a stretch that most Christians, nearly all Agnostics and all Atheists are not willing to take.

I, myself, think that the furthest a Christian that believes the Bible is G-d's Word, can go is to believe in intelligent design, which is defined as, "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence". This is quite different then the typical "creationist" story because it doesn't attempt to fit the Bible [or any other kind of G-d] into science, but rather allows science to tell us about life. Intelligent design is a minimal commitment, scientifically - to the possibility of detecting causation.

Do you see the distinction? Intelligent Design doesn't exclude all forms of evolution, it doesn't. Rather it allows the concept of G-d, where as Darwin's Theory does not. Darwin himself was an atheist and most people that accept his theory are Atheists for a particular reason. It leaves little to no room for the belief in G-d and certainly no room for the biblical account.
[/quote]

Okay, you explained why you don't accept theistic evolution, but I was wondering more about how you understand evolutionary theory.

3 points:

- You're right that the explanation based solely on natural selection is 'primitive'. Natural selection by itself does not explain all macro evolutionary process, though it is the process that "directs" evolution. There are other areas such as evo-devo which are being researched.

- Evolution is not at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Earth by itself is not a closed system. You've left out a vital element, the sun and solar energy, in your equations.

- Macroevolution is essentially microevolution which occurs during a long period of time. Using the dog example, suppose the chihuahua and great dane could no longer produce viable offspring. Both would continue to evolve through microevolution, but would be genetically isolated from eachother. Hypothetically, after a period of time in which microevolution occurs, it's quite possible that the chihuahua could resemble a canine rat whereas the great dane a canine bear, even though they both have the same ancestor.
If you're thinking that macroevolution means that a two dogs can give birth to a bird, you're mistaken.

As for ID, besides it not being science but merely an idea, the main problem is that it is at odds with evolution, by essentially saying that at some point a mechanism could not have evolved. Behe's irreducibly complexity has been shot down too.

I really can't speak for theists who accepted and incorporated evolution into their belief system, but I don't see how it can be at odds with the idea that a god directed it through natural selection as if god were a backstage directer. It does falsify the literal interpretation of genesis though, but other independent scientific domains such as geology and cosmology do that too.

Though I should tell you that evolutionary theory is possibly one of the most important theories in biology. It's where everything comes together and makes sense and has so far never been falsified due to it's predictive power even though there are many opportunities for it to be falsified if it was off course.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304730981' post='2238199']
great post. I've read about and seen the video on the silver foxes and actually worked it into my Creation commentary.

I agree to some extent that natural selection doesnt need an intellegent guider for the process. God does let new things spring forth from existing things with a certain spontaneity and independence. However the process does I think need an Intellegent Creator, and God does order, guide and provide for particular transformations and develepments within his plan for creation as a whole or his particular plan for the plant and animal kingdoms which include plans for groups and clades within the kingdoms. For example the first epoch of the animal kingdom. It literally begins in the oceans with the micro-organims and culminates in the appearance of the birds:

Genesis
{1:20} And then God said, “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures above the earth, under the firmament of the sky.”
{1:21} And God created the great sea creatures, and everything with a living soul and the ability to move that the waters produced, according to their species, and all the flying creatures, according to their kind. And God saw that it was good.
{1:22} And he blessed them, saying: “Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land.”

The way God's command is ordered in verse twenty, as well as the way the effect of God's command is ordered in verse twenty one together in a context of an eon across an ever changing planetary environment; it seems to me that God willed the bird group to come into being by means of the increase and multiplication of the animals produced in the waters.

God's Command: “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures. . . "

The flying creatures are linked to the animals produced by the waters (literally in the waters, figuratively the micro-organisms in the waters and the sea creatures). I will reword God's blessing for the sake of setting in relief what I think is implied:

Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land by means of the animals filling the waters.”

or

"Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, so that the birds may be multiplied above the land. . ."[/quote]

This is an incorrect interpretation of Genesis 1:20, it doesn't say that the waters produced the creatures of the sea, rather it says that let them be filled, or furtile with such animals. It never hints at the idea of evolution, period.

[quote]The birds sprung forth from the dinosaurs which sprung forth from the reptiles which ultimately sprung forth from the micro-organisms. With this simple command God effects one whole prodigious eon in the history of Earth. A whole eon of evolution is implied in the simple command and blessing of God. The birds are said by science to be the only species of dinosaurs to survive the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event which I think could be the distinct end of day five.
[/quote]

This is factually incorrect, many species of fish also survived and reptiles too, if I'm not mistaken.

[quote]So a theological way of looking at the dinosaurs could be that they were created by God for the sake of the birds. God particularily willed to transfer the gift of the birds to His children in day six, but He did not will to transfer the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs would not be of good use to human persons. So God wipes out the all their species expect for the birds in the extinction event. Birds of course are very useful to us, and we get to use the dinosaurs to study the history of Earth.
[/quote]

No offense, but I think that this is a bad biblical interpretation of dinosaurs. Dr. Gerald Schroder provides a much better explaination:

[quote]

What about dinosaurs? Why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs? It's a question posed by believers and skeptics alike. The former in an attempt to better understand the God's role in the world; The latter to challenge the Bible's authority. It is also the opening question I raise in The Science Of God. Extensive beds of fossils record the rise and demise of these amazing animals. There were swimming dinosaurs, running dinosaurs, even a form of flying dinosaur. According to scientific data, they first appeared some 250 million years ago. About the same time, mammals make their first appearance in the fossil record. And then till 65 million years ago, dinosaurs and mammals co-existed, but on anything other than equal footing.

Dinosaurs ruled the roost, getting bigger and tougher, reaching sizes that rival today's great blue whale. All the time mammals occupied much more modest ecological niches, never getting larger than a few kilograms. Then 65 million years ago, the rules of the game changed. What appears to have been a meteor some ten kilometers in diameter punched through our atmosphere, slamming into the earth's surface at 30 kilometers a second. The resulting massive explosion appears to have formed a crater 150 kilometers in diameter off of southern Central America. Dust and debris thrown into the atmosphere shrouded the earth in a cloud that blocked incoming sunlight for half a year. Temperatures plummeted; photosynthesis all but stopped and all animals larger than about five kilograms disappeared from the fossil record. Mammals survived the ecological disaster. The large dinosaurs did not.

From a secular view - what luck for us; not so lucky for the dinos. From a theological view, God has stepped into re-direct the development of animal life. Dinosaurs were getting bigger, but they were not getting smarter. A vessel was needed that could eventually embrace the neshama - the soul of humanity - and dinosaurs were not heading in that direction. Perhaps mammals would.

Dinosaurs raise two basic theological questions.

First, 250 million years?? 65 million years?? I thought the Biblical calendar reaches to less than 6000 years. So from whence arise the millions of years? In my book, The Science Of God, I discuss in detail the age of the universe and the universal perception of time adopted by Genesis for the first six days, a view that sees the flow of events from the beginning, looking forward from a time when the universe (and in parallel time) was highly compressed. In essence, the 15 billion years of cosmic history compress into six 24 hour days, even as the hours remain 24 hours as we know them and the billions of years remain years. I bring the scientifically accepted concepts for this transformation of time in The Science of God.

The second question about dinosaurs relates to their rise and fall. This quandary is far more significant than mere arguments over the ages of rocks. It deals fundamentally with our perception of the Rock Of Ages. If God is omnipotent, able to create heaven and earth, surely God could have devised a world without the need to destroy part of that creation, in this case the dinosaurs, to keep it on line with some divine plan. Simply stated, does God control nature?

The answer to this question lies in the Biblical concept of evolution, or better stated, the Biblical concept of the development of life. For simplicity, I'll focus on animal life but first let's look at the Bible's description of the inception of the first forms of life on earth. It holds a few surprises. Life appears first on day three ((Genesis 1:11), immediately after liquid water formed on earth (Gen. 1:10). This immediate conjunction of water and life had, for decades, evolutionary biologists rolling in the aisles with laughter. All life on earth is water based. No water, no life. Conventional wisdom was that billions of years passed in which random reactions changed rocks and water in living organisms. The laughter was swallowed when in the 1970's Prof. E. Barghoorn and Stanley Tyler discovered micro-fossils of bacteria and algae in chert rocks (a form of silicon dioxide once considered an unlikely source of fossils) 3.6 billion years old, just after the time when oceans and dry land formed on earth. Genesis was correct all along. Life appeared very rapidly, not after billions of years.

But note that on day three, the word "creation" does not appear. The first life was not specially created. The universe was equipped for life from its inception. It was organization that was needed, organization that could produce the phenomenally intricate functioning of life's genetic map: DNA, RNA, amino acids, the bio-chemical sources of energy ATP. How that organization occurred in a geological blink of an eye remains an enigma to the scientific community.

Day four passes (Gen. 1:14 - 19) with no further mention of life's flow. The fossil record mirrors this hiatus. Life remains microscopic for three billion years, and then in a burst of animal forms, known as the Cambrian explosion, every basic animal body plan (the 34 animal phyla) extant today appeared in the fossil record. Animals with jointed bodies, limbs, eyes (with lenses), swarmed in the seas. There was not a hint of this impending proliferation in the underlying fossils. See day five (Gen. 1:20) for a similar description, and please refer to The Science Of God for a Biblical match in the timing of this event as well.

Torah devotes a mere seven sentences to the evolution of animal life (Gen. 1:20 - 26) and one of those sentences only states there was evening and there was morning day five. So we have six bits of information describing the entire flow of animal life starting with aquatic creatures and culminating in the symphony of life we call humanity. Somewhere within that chain of events the dinosaurs rise and fall. [/quote]

You can read the full article at: [url="http://www.geraldschroeder.com/EvolutionBibleStyle.aspx"]http://www.geraldschroeder.com/EvolutionBibleStyle.aspx[/url]

[quote]From a Catholic point of view (my own personal one) some form of evolution exists because God is Eternal and Processional. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and from the Son. We call this the Trinity. The natural processes of creation imitate the Eternal Processions of God in some very limited way. God makes things just as He is. [/quote]

Please expound upon this concept of "G-d makes things just as he is", in regards to the Trinity, as you understand it.

[quote]But God is also Infinity, so He is not limited by the processes of evolution which He created. God is able to make things suddenly, miraculously, instantaneously out of nothing and/or out of something. God miraculously creates some things out of nothing and other things out something. Some things God makes out of existing things by means of natural processes designed, drawn and directed by Him; and other things he miraculously and suddenly creates out of existing things in an instant, e.g. the soul of a human person.
[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]xSilverPhinx. You are welcome here. Grace and peace to you. Heck I would even love if you would take a look at my creation commentary. No one else seems to be showing any interest. I seamlessly work science into everything. My interpretation for the creation of the firmament in day two is the formation of the solar system from an interstellar cloud. Scientific discoveries and even some scientific theories fit in perfectly with Sacred Scripture if interpreted correctly in my opinion. So if you want here:

[url="http://sevendaysofcreation.blogspot.com/"]http://sevendaysofcr...n.blogspot.com/[/url]
[/quote]

Well Darwin's Theory does not, unless you attempt to reconcile scriptures to science, rather then going on what they say.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304730981' post='2238199']
great post. I've read about and seen the video on the silver foxes and actually worked it into my Creation commentary.

I agree to some extent that natural selection doesnt need an intellegent guider for the process. God does let new things spring forth from existing things with a certain spontaneity and independence. However the process does I think need an Intellegent Creator, and God does order, guide and provide for particular transformations and develepments within his plan for creation as a whole or his particular plan for the plant and animal kingdoms which include plans for groups and clades within the kingdoms. For example the first epoch of the animal kingdom. It literally begins in the oceans with the micro-organims and culminates in the appearance of the birds:

Genesis
{1:20} And then God said, "Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures above the earth, under the firmament of the sky."
{1:21} And God created the great sea creatures, and everything with a living soul and the ability to move that the waters produced, according to their species, and all the flying creatures, according to their kind. And God saw that it was good.
{1:22} And he blessed them, saying: "Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land."

The way God's command is ordered in verse twenty, as well as the way the effect of God's command is ordered in verse twenty one together in a context of an eon across an ever changing planetary environment; it seems to me that God willed the bird group to come into being by means of the increase and multiplication of the animals produced in the waters.

God's Command: "Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures. . . "

The flying creatures are linked to the animals produced by the waters (literally in the waters, figuratively the micro-organisms in the waters and the sea creatures). I will reword God's blessing for the sake of setting in relief what I think is implied:

Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land by means of the animals filling the waters."

or

"Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, so that the birds may be multiplied above the land. . ."

The birds sprung forth from the dinosaurs which sprung forth from the reptiles which ultimately sprung forth from the micro-organisms. With this simple command God effects one whole prodigious eon in the history of Earth. A whole eon of evolution is implied in the simple command and blessing of God. The birds are said by science to be the only species of dinosaurs to survive the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event which I think could be the distinct end of day five.

So a theological way of looking at the dinosaurs could be that they were created by God for the sake of the birds. God particularily willed to transfer the gift of the birds to His children in day six, but He did not will to transfer the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs would not be of good use to human persons. So God wipes out the all their species expect for the birds in the extinction event. Birds of course are very useful to us, and we get to use the dinosaurs to study the history of Earth.

From a Catholic point of view (my own personal one) some form of evolution exists because God is Eternal and Processional. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and from the Son. We call this the Trinity. The natural processes of creation imitate the Eternal Processions of God in some very limited way. God makes things just as He is.

But God is also Infinity, so He is not limited by the processes of evolution which He created. God is able to make things suddenly, miraculously, instantaneously out of nothing and/or out of something. God miraculously creates some things out of nothing and other things out something. Some things God makes out of existing things by means of natural processes designed, drawn and directed by Him; and other things he miraculously and suddenly creates out of existing things in an instant, e.g. the soul of a human person.


xSilverPhinx. You are welcome here. Grace and peace to you. Heck I would even love if you would take a look at my creation commentary. No one else seems to be showing any interest. I seamlessly work science into everything. My interpretation for the creation of the firmament in day two is the formation of the solar system from an interstellar cloud. Scientific discoveries and even some scientific theories fit in perfectly with Sacred Scripture if interpreted correctly in my opinion. So if you want here:

[url="http://sevendaysofcreation.blogspot.com/"]http://sevendaysofcr...n.blogspot.com/ [/url]
[/quote]

I've read your creation commentary, though it's a subject I don't feel too comfortable giving any input on because, well I don't believe in the validity of the the entire scripture, and I don't have any good knowledge to back up a certain interpretational stance. I do think you have your work cut out for you though, and as strange as this may sound coming from a nonbeliver, I also think that if you interpret some things a certain way, some parts can resemble what science has uncovered.

One thought: there is one interpretation that I came across sometime ago which said that the name 'Adam' has something to do with Hebrew for 'mankind' or something like that, and so did not refer to one individual person but I won't delve any further than that because, I don't know heck about it.

Edited May 7, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304731765' post='2238208']
Okay, you explained why you don't accept theistic evolution, but I was wondering more about how you understand evolutionary theory.[/quote] I never said why I don't accept it, rather I just pointed out it's conflictions with the Biblical account.

[quote]3 points:

- You're right that the explanation based solely on natural selection is 'primitive'. Natural selection by itself does not explain all macro evolutionary process, though it is the process that "directs" evolution. There are other areas such as evo-devo which are being researched.[/quote] That's true but Darwin's Theory is the most widely researched and still, in my opinion and the opinion of many, is inadequate in that it's so primative that it's not even clear or precise.

[quote]- Evolution is not at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Earth by itself is not a closed system. You've left out a vital element, the sun and solar energy, in your equations.
[/quote]

I never said that Evolution was at odds with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. As a matter of fact, I pointed out that it has less to do with the evolutionary process as Creationists would like to suggest.

[quote]- Macroevolution is essentially microevolution which occurs during a long period of time. Using the dog example, suppose the chihuahua and great dane could no longer produce viable offspring. Both would continue to evolve through microevolution, but would be genetically isolated from eachother. Hypothetically, after a period of time in which microevolution occurs, it's quite possible that the chihuahua could resemble a canine rat whereas the great dane a canine bear, even though they both have the same ancestor.
If you're thinking that macroevolution means that a two dogs can give birth to a bird, you're mistaken.
[/quote]

This is common propaganda of those who support Darwin's Theory and is taught as part of the evolutionary theory, but I reject it. Micro-evolution and macro evolution are not the same but with longer periods of time. If a sting ray were to go from the salt water of the ocean and slowly adapt to fresh water through traveling up a river, very slowly. This is micro-evolution, as he still is a sting ray but his body has gone through small genetic changes. However there is no evidence that if he were to spend extended periods near the beach that he would slowly grow legs. There is no evidence that his body would slowly lose weight and he'd learn to fly. If we were to take a standard land roving animal and ask ourselves, "what changes would this animal need to become a sea going animal like a whale", we are not talking small changes, we are talking major changes, not just having to do with small external changes. We're talking about the brain evolving, the skin getting water resistant, it's means for breathing changing, it's brain patterns changing, etc.

Note: Scientists do not even have a clue as to how great white sharks reproduce. It's never been witnessed in the world whatsoever, so what makes you think they are even at the stage of making an informed decision as to the origins of that species, or any species for that matter?

[quote]As for ID, besides it not being science but merely an idea, the main problem is that it is at odds with evolution, by essentially saying that at some point a mechanism could not have evolved. Behe's irreducibly complexity has been shot down too.
[/quote]

Well it is just as scientific as darwin's theory. Surely it's at odds with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection Evolution, no doubt about it but many scientists agree that Darwin's Theory is severely inadequate. Just because most liberal college universities have done their best to exclude it, doesn't mean that the issue has been settled. A Scientific Decent of Darwin's Theory, made it clear that there are scientists with a different perspective, who reject darwin's theory of natural selection and all the other evolutionary processes that you mentioned.

Hypothetically, if we were to say that scientists studied the patterns of the brain and concluded that it was only possible through some sort of intelligent causation, is that not a scientific process? Surely it is, the problem is that this politically correct atmosphere will never allow for such to be acknowledged because it might open up the possibility to G-d being recognized and an absolute truth. You and I both know that if we could prove the G-d of Roman Catholicism scientifically, that would be rejected regardless of it's validity. Intelligent Design does not reject evolution, rather it rejects this radical interpretation of macro evolution to the point that Darwin's Theory takes it. The problem with darwin's theory is that the mathmatical possibility of such mutations is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion, essentially zero [as Dr. Gerald Schroder puts it]. If you talk to any mathmatician and ask them, without telling them that we're talking about evolution, about the possibility of such happening, they will tell you that it's impossible.

[quote]I really can't speak for theists who accepted and incorporated evolution into their belief system, but I don't see how it can be at odds with the idea that a god directed it through natural selection as if god were a backstage directer. It does falsify the literal interpretation of genesis though, but other independent scientific domains such as geology and cosmology do that too.
[/quote]

Because by it's very nature it's undirected mutation. To say that G-d's hand guided it, is unnecessary at best and unscientific at worst. Thou we don't agree on much, I'm glad that we do agree that it's incompatible with the literal [and I'd say figurative] interpretation of genesis. I mean, even if you believe Genesis to be figurative in the sense that the world was not created in 7, 24hr days, it still wouldn't fit with the evolutionary process as Darwin Understood it.

[quote]Though I should tell you that evolutionary theory is possibly one of the most important theories in biology. It's where everything comes together and makes sense and has so far never been falsified due to it's predictive power even though there are many opportunities for it to be falsified if it was off course.
[/quote]

I disagree, I think that it is widely accepted at most universities, but I won't say that it's possibily one of the most important theories in biology. Infact one brain surgeon [who's name I forget but i'll find it] once said that it was not necessary to read about Darwin's Theory and Evolution in order to understand the interworkings of the brain. He came under attack by supporters of Darwin's Theory but he wasn't religious, nor taking a side in the debate, just giving his opinion. There is so much within this idea of Evolution that is not understood. It is irrelevant to understanding human biology.

Anyways, I'd write much more indepth but my children are yelling, and it's time to put them to bed.

Reza

[kafka]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
This is an incorrect interpretation of Genesis 1:20, it doesn't say that the waters produced the creatures of the sea, rather it says that let them be filled, or furtile with such animals. It never hints at the idea of evolution, period.
[/quote]
did you mean incorrect translation?

Latin Vulgate
{1:20} Dixit etiam Deus: [b]Producant[/b] aquæ reptile animæ viventis, et volatile super terram sub firmamento cæli.

from the Latin and English Grammar Aid published by Notre Dame University:

produco -ducere -duxi -ductum [to bring forward , bring out, extend; [b]to produce[/b], bring up, advance, promote; to divulge, bring to light]; in pronunciation, [to lengthen out, make long]; in time, [to prolong, continue]; also [to put off, postpone]. Hence partic. productus -a -um, [extended, lengthened, prolonged]; of syllables, [pronounced long]; n. pl. as subst., [preferable things] (in the Stoic philosophy). Adv. producte, [long (of pronunciation)].

Read in light of faith and reason this verse in Genesis does not only hint toward the idea of evolution it reveals it. We do not read Sacred Scripture in a vacuum and we are not fideists. Some form of evolution is a reality and it does not contradict what God reveals.

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
This is factually incorrect, many species of fish also survived and reptiles too, if I'm not mistaken.
[/quote]
it is not factually incorrect. I was just focusing on that particular line of groups and clades. I basically cut and pasted a few of the sequences in my creation commentary to start a dialogue with xSilverPhinx, not you. I cover the rest on my blog.

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
No offense, but I think that this is a bad biblical interpretation of dinosaurs. Dr. Gerald Schroder provides a much better explaination:
You can read the full article at: [url="http://www.geraldschroeder.com/EvolutionBibleStyle.aspx"]http://www.geraldschroeder.com/EvolutionBibleStyle.aspx[/url]
[/quote]

you cant offend me. Its just a basic idea of speculative theology. In my view the dinosaurs are implied in that verse of Genesis, because the creation account is not static. It is a living and mystical word of God. The days are generally symbolic for eons of unfolding space and time, events, developments, junctures, etc.

And I'm not going to spend my time reading that article.

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
Please expound upon this concept of "G-d makes things just as he is", in regards to the Trinity, as you understand it.
[/quote]

It is a concept going back to Augustine and Aquinas. God is One. God is utterly and absolutely simple. In God being is doing and doing is being. God does things just as He is. So some process of evolution makes sense from a theological point of view since the One God is Procession. Procession means a springing forth. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son all in One Divine Eternal Act. Everything that God is/does is One. So it makes sense that distinct new things would spring forth from existing things as some limited reflection of what God Is in the colossal unfolding of God's creation.

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304734010' post='2238238']
Well Darwin's Theory does not, unless you attempt to reconcile scriptures to science, rather then going on what they say.
[/quote]
I dont follow any one particular evolutional theory. There is some truth in the ones which are accepted by the scientific community, but none of the theories are perfect. And none of them are absolute. Evolution in some form is a reality in the processes of Creation. And this includes some natural selection, gene-environment interaction, mutations (perhaps some providentially effected by God in DNA switches), genetic recombination, and gene flow.

Sacred Scripture and the valid discoveries of science made possible by human reason have the same source: God.

Edited May 7, 2011 by kafka

[Amppax]

AHHHH!!!! So much science

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304734158' post='2238240']
I've read your creation commentary, though it's a subject I don't feel too comfortable giving any input on because, well I don't believe in the validity of the the entire scripture, and I don't have any good knowledge to back up a certain interpretational stance. I do think you have your work cut out for you though, and as strange as this may sound coming from a nonbeliver, I also think that if you interpret some things a certain way, some parts can resemble what science has uncovered.

One thought: there is one interpretation that I came across sometime ago which said that the name 'Adam' has something to do with Hebrew for 'mankind' or something like that, and so did not refer to one individual person but I won't delve any further than that because, I don't know heck about it.
[/quote]
wow thanks. And already. You must be pretty bright. I realize the science might not be perfect, since I am not a scientist but I put a lot of work into learning the science I wanted to add to the commentary. If there are any scientific errors let me know.

I think Adam means the likeness, or red earth. In the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible the word Adam doesnt show up until chapter two, in the second creation account. The two different creation accounts focus on different things.

And I am glad you understood some things. Grace and peace to you. I hope you continue to dialogue.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304735677' post='2238256']
did you mean incorrect translation?[/quote]

And interpretation

[quote]Latin Vulgate
{1:20} Dixit etiam Deus: [b]Producant[/b] aquæ reptile animæ viventis, et volatile super terram sub firmamento cæli.
[/quote]

The Bible was written in Hebrew, you probably couldn't find a single hebrew scholar that agrees with such an interpretation. Dr. Schroder is a Hebrew Scholar and a Scientist and he doesn't agree with this interpretation.

[quote]from the Latin and English Grammar Aid published by Notre Dame University:

produco -ducere -duxi -ductum [to bring forward , bring out, extend; to produce, bring up, advance, promote; to divulge, bring to light]; in pronunciation, [to lengthen out, make long]; in time, [to prolong, continue]; also [to put off, postpone]. Hence partic. productus -a -um, [extended, lengthened, prolonged]; of syllables, [pronounced long]; n. pl. as subst., [preferable things] (in the Stoic philosophy). Adv. producte, [long (of pronunciation)].
[/quote]

Again, it's written in Hebrew and best understood from that language.

[quote]Read in light of faith and reason this verse in Genesis does not only hint toward the idea of evolution it reveals it. We do not read Sacred Scripture in a vacuum and we are not fideists. Some form of evolution is a reality and it does not contradict what God reveals.
[/quote]

It does not reveal it, not remotely. There is not a single verse in there that mentions the process of evolution and to say so is such a far stretch that there is no basis for it, even if you wanted to imply such.

[quote]it is not factually incorrect. I was just focusing on that particular line of groups and clades. I basically cut and pasted a few of the sequences in my creation commentary to start a dialogue with xSilverPhinx, not you. I cover the rest on my blog.
[/quote]

It is factually incorrect because the birds are not the only species to survive. That was the statement made, so yes it is false.

[quote]you cant offend me. Its just a basic idea of speculative theology. In my view the dinosaurs are implied in that verse of Genesis, because the creation account is not static. It is mystical and living. The days are generally symbolic for eons of unfolding space and time, events, developments, junctures, etc.
[/quote]

That's good because i wasn't trying to offend you. As for the comment that dinosaurs were "implied", you can think that and don't allow me to hinder you, but if you get down to the specifics of the passage, that isn't remotely mentioned, so to take it at it's orthodox interpretation is to reject your interpretation.

[quote]And I'm not going to spend my time reading that article.
[/quote]

I don't care if you do or not. I'm just saying that it's much more accurate and specific with the Hebrew interpretation of the Torah.

[quote]It is a concept going back to Augustine and Aquinas. God is One. God is utterly and absolutely simple. In God being is doing and doing is being. God does things just as He is. So some process of evolution makes sense from a theological point of view since the One God is Procession. Procession means a springing forth. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son all in One Divine Eternal Act. Everything that God is/does is One. So it makes sense that distinct new things would spring forth from existing things as some limited reflection of what God Is in the colossal unfolding of God's creation.
[/quote]

Agree that G-d is one, I don't deny that but to interject G-d into the evolutionary process is like trying to fit him into a theory for which he is not. The theory itself is an undirected mutation, to say "G-d helped it" is irrelevant and "wishing upon a star" because it didn't need him, if you believe the theory as it is intended.

[quote]I dont follow any one particular evolutional theory. There is some truth in the ones which are excepted by the scientific community, but none of the theories are perfect. And none of them are absolute. Evolution in some form is a reality in the processes of Creation. And this includes some natural selection, gene-environment interaction, mutations (perhaps some providentially effected by God in DNA switches), genetic recombination, and gene flow.
[/quote]

That's not that scientific is it? I guess Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers were right.

[quote]Scripture and the valid discoveries of science made possible by human reason have the same source: God.
[/quote]

There is no evidence for this claim. This is simply you trying to reconcile your religious faith with your understanding of science. It's like saying, "I believe in what the scientists tell me about evolution, but I also don't want to be an atheist, so I'm going to believe in both...like....this..." and then you try and reconcile the two of them.

[kafka]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304736769' post='2238263']
There is no evidence for this claim. This is simply you trying to reconcile your religious faith with your understanding of science. It's like saying, "I believe in what the scientists tell me about evolution, but I also don't want to be an atheist, so I'm going to believe in both...like....this..." and then you try and reconcile the two of them.
[/quote]
I'm done dialoguing with you. You are denying reality and your understanding of the nature of Sacred Scripture is at worst erroneous and at best very poor, simplistic, narrow, stagnant, unreasonable and even pharasaical.

Not to mention you are blowing my interpretations out of proportion, misreading them and showing absolutely no respect for a work I've put countless hours into.

Edited May 7, 2011 by kafka

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304737259' post='2238267']
I'm done dialoguing with you. You are denying reality and your understanding of the nature of Sacred Scripture is at worst erroneous and at best very poor, simplistic, narrow, stagnant, unreasonable and even pharasaical.[/quote]

I'm denying your interpretation of them, based upon a language other then what they were originally written in.

- I said that they were written in Hebrew not Latin, true or false? TRUE
- I said that your interpretation is clearly unorthodox, true or false? TRUE according to all the early church fathers, and the text itself.
- I said that your comment about the birds being the only species to survive, being false, is true or false? TRUE, as fish and reptiles also survived according to the fossil record.

You have repeatedly said "Genesis does not only hint toward the idea of evolution it reveals it", when in reality there is not a single hint at evolution in the text itself. It is the story of "creation" for a reason. Even scientists like Eugenie Scott and Keneith Miller [a roman catholic] do not accept your interpretation because it's unorthodox. Lastly, your comments about dinosaurs doesn't fit with the fossil record, as the article that I posted pointed out.

[quote]Not to mention you are blowing my interpretations out of proportion, misreading them and showing absolutely no respect for a work I've put countless hours into.
[/quote]

I'm sorry that I took an axe to your high horse, I'd give you a ladder but it is funnier watching you squirm as you fall to the concrete.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]
This is common propaganda of those who support Darwin's Theory and is taught as part of the evolutionary theory, but I reject it. Micro-evolution and macro evolution are not the same but with longer periods of time. If a sting ray were to go from the salt water of the ocean and slowly adapt to fresh water through traveling up a river, very slowly. This is micro-evolution, as he still is a sting ray but his body has gone through small genetic changes. However there is no evidence that if he were to spend extended periods near the beach that he would slowly grow legs. There is no evidence that his body would slowly lose weight and he'd learn to fly. If we were to take a standard land roving animal and ask ourselves, "what changes would this animal need to become a sea going animal like a whale", we are not talking small changes, we are talking major changes, not just having to do with small external changes. We're talking about the brain evolving, the skin getting water resistant, it's means for breathing changing, it's brain patterns changing, etc.

Note: Scientists do not even have a clue as to how great white sharks reproduce. It's never been witnessed in the world whatsoever, so what makes you think they are even at the stage of making an informed decision as to the origins of that species, or any species for that matter?[/quote]

Sorry, but I'm finding your descriptions to be a bit confusing. I don't know if I'm assuming too much based on a lot of my time spent on reading creationists distortions and transferring that to you or because of your use of language. Your stingray example looks a bit Lamarckist, which has already been proven to be false a long time ago. A stingray will not grow legs because it's near a beach, it will walk on the beach if it evolves some sort of limbs that can be used as legs which give it a competitive advantage open the way for better limbs to evolve because of natural selection.

As for the whale, transitional fossils have been found, their DNA has been traced back to their divergence from artiodactyla (hoofed mammals) which also gave rise to giraffes and hippos, using genetic markers and comparing the percentage of similarities are one would in a family tree, not to mention the vestigial organs which are still present in their DNA but have been deactivated such as whales with legs. They even move like mammals when they swim, flexing their spines up and down and not side to side like a fish. If I do recall...the bible placed them as the same "kind" as fish?

How does scientists not having observed a great white reproduce affect all the evidence supporting neodarwinism? I would say they they [i]are[/i] informed on the origin of some species, since new species coming into existence have actually been observed...

[quote]Well it is just as scientific as darwin's theory. Surely it's at odds with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection Evolution, no doubt about it but many scientists agree that Darwin's Theory is severely inadequate. Just because most liberal college universities have done their best to exclude it, doesn't mean that the issue has been settled. A Scientific Decent of Darwin's Theory, made it clear that there are scientists with a different perspective, who reject darwin's theory of natural selection and all the other evolutionary processes that you mentioned.

Hypothetically, if we were to say that scientists studied the patterns of the brain and concluded that it was only possible through some sort of intelligent causation, is that not a scientific process? Surely it is, the problem is that this politically correct atmosphere will never allow for such to be acknowledged because it might open up the possibility to G-d being recognized and an absolute truth. You and I both know that if we could prove the G-d of Roman Catholicism scientifically, that would be rejected regardless of it's validity. Intelligent Design does not reject evolution, rather it rejects this radical interpretation of macro evolution to the point that Darwin's Theory takes it. The problem with darwin's theory is that the mathmatical possibility of such mutations is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion, essentially zero [as Dr. Gerald Schroder puts it]. If you talk to any mathmatician and ask them, without telling them that we're talking about evolution, about the possibility of such happening, they will tell you that it's impossible.[/quote]

Darwin's common ancestor idea is an deduction based on DNA evidence much like the universe coming from the big bang is based on our observations of it's expansion. To add to the evidence for that, you have things such as the microwave background. Nobody observed the big bang, but if you were to put such limitations on what science can achieve then you won't get further than what a person can observe in their lifetime or since our species started recording their scientific observations.

ID does not answer any questions, is not falsifiable and is essentially an argument from ignorance. What Behe's point was with the flagellum was basically that a flagellum could not have existed without all it's parts, but it was refuted by Ken Miller who showed how it evolved from a bacteria's cellular "pore", which had a whole different function but evolution works like that: it adapts and evolves based on what it's got.

Dr. Gerald Schroder is a physicist, and when biologists who are studying macroevolution are saying that they don't know all the details yet, whatever he has to say would be just as good as the mathematician Dembski's assertions who in order to "disprove" evolution had to distort and misrepresent it so much that even a student in high school with the minimal understanding of the theory could point it out. Well, if you distort what a theory is about enough, it's obvious that it's going to look ridiculous. :eyeroll:
Genes and their interactions are complex, genetic inheritance has "memory" and increases in complexity which make probability estimates along the lines of Hoyle's plane in a junkyard analogy incredibly off the mark strawmen.

[quote]Because by it's very nature it's undirected mutation. To say that G-d's hand guided it, is unnecessary at best and unscientific at worst. Thou we don't agree on much, I'm glad that we do agree that it's incompatible with the literal [and I'd say figurative] interpretation of genesis. I mean, even if you believe Genesis to be figurative in the sense that the world was not created in 7, 24hr days, it still wouldn't fit with the evolutionary process as Darwin Understood it.[/quote]

I'm going to defend the theistic evolution here...

A [i]supernatural[/i] god, if he exists, is beyond the realm of science anyways, which only has access to the [i]natural world. [/i]That's why I don't see it as incompatible for a person who believes in the supernatural. What I've read on theistic evolution, god guides the process as if from behind the curtains through his omniscience. There are many different shades to this sort of belief though.

Science can't really make statements about what's beyond the natural world if there is a beyond the natural word. It shaves god out of the picture with Occam's razor, but hey, if people want to believe in that sort of a guidance, science it would be sort of like reading the mind of god I think (pantheistic inclinations speaking).

[quote]I disagree, I think that it is widely accepted at most universities, but I won't say that it's possibily one of the most important theories in biology. Infact one brain surgeon [who's name I forget but i'll find it] once said that it was not necessary to read about Darwin's Theory and Evolution in order to understand the interworkings of the brain. He came under attack by supporters of Darwin's Theory but he wasn't religious, nor taking a side in the debate, just giving his opinion. There is so much within this idea of Evolution that is not understood. It is irrelevant to understanding human biology.[/quote]

Yeah, a surgeon who focuses more on practical matters of the brain (very hands on job) would not need to consult what he learned about evolution as much as somebody studying viruses and drug resistant bacteria. If I were ever to undergo a brain surgery I would want a surgeon who knew what he was doing and how to fix the problem, and not one who knew more on how the brain composed of its fish, reptile and mammalian parts evolved.
I would not say that it's irrelavent to understanding the human body however, since it is the product of evolution, and that does shine light on it and aids in understanding from everything from genetic defects to inherited diseases to even why we don't produce our own vitamin C (we have the gene for that, but it's been "broken" - just a little trivia). Like the brain surgeon example, it just depends on what you want to get out of it.

It's the theory in which a lot of facts come together and make sense, not to mention it's predictive power is truly something.

Edited May 7, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[kafka]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304738234' post='2238274']
I'm denying your interpretation of them, based upon a language other then what they were originally written in.

- I said that they were written in Hebrew not Latin, true or false? TRUE
- I said that your interpretation is clearly unorthodox, true or false? TRUE according to all the early church fathers, and the text itself.
- I said that your comment about the birds being the only species to survive, being false, is true or false? TRUE, as fish and reptiles also survived according to the fossil record.

You have repeatedly said "Genesis does not only hint toward the idea of evolution it reveals it", when in reality there is not a single hint at evolution in the text itself. It is the story of "creation" for a reason. Even scientists like Eugenie Scott and Keneith Miller [a roman catholic] do not accept your interpretation because it's unorthodox. Lastly, your comments about dinosaurs doesn't fit with the fossil record, as the article that I posted pointed out.



I'm sorry that I took an axe to your high horse, I'd give you a ladder but it is funnier watching you squirm as you fall to the concrete.
[/quote]
it is your attitude.

1. the word of God assumes all languages, even if it originated in particular languages.

2. my interpretation is not unorthodox. The Church Fathers did not have the science we have today. They made erroneous interpretations on purely scientific matters:

"The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood." (theologian Ludwig Ott)

we live in the 21st Century.

3. I never said that the birds were the only species to survive period. I was focusing on them generally being the only clade of the dinosaur group to survive. You werent carefully reading what I was expressing, and I dont think you really care what I am trying to express because you are just here to provoke and harrass people with your limited, petty, fallen and sinful view of the Faith and all your big name people you love to quote.

4. I dont base my understanding of the fossil record on one or two people, I base it on the generally accepted opinion of the whole scientific community. And I dont agree that the creation account is a story it is rather a revealed word of God which is infallible and inerrant on all matters without exception as the Magisterium teaches. There are literally thousands of commentaries, and it will probably take until the end of time for us to unlock all its truth and depth, since it is clearly concerned in part with processes of creation and it has taken a long time for reason to figure out what happened in deep time.

5. Yes I believe that the account does figuratively reveal evolution in some of the verses.

Last, yes I am on a high horse. I ride high in God.

Get a better attitude. It is people like you why I sometimes hate participating at this phorum. You are provoking and harrassing me. Your spirit is not of the Church. The Magisterium does not have an infallible interpretation of the creation account at the present and neither do you.

If you disagree with me fine, but like I said, I was just posting a few cut and pastes of my commentary. You will have to read the whole thing to get the jist of what I am saying. I just wanted to get in a dialogue with that very nice and good person xSilverPhinx. I dont like having to defend myself on every single sentence I write. You are playing the pharisee. Get a better attitude and go take care of your children.

Edited May 7, 2011 by kafka

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304735911' post='2238257']
AHHHH!!!! So much science
[/quote]

What can I say, biology is a beautiful subject

If you want, I can point to some good youtube videos on it (done by atheists, but because creationists get it so wrong)

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304736242' post='2238260']
wow thanks. And already. You must be pretty bright. I realize the science might not be perfect, since I am not a scientist but I put a lot of work into learning the science I wanted to add to the commentary. If there are any scientific errors let me know.

I think Adam means the likeness, or red earth. In the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible the word Adam doesnt show up until chapter two, in the second creation account. The two different creation accounts focus on different things.

And I am glad you understood some things. Grace and peace to you. I hope you continue to dialogue.
[/quote]

Well I'm not a scientist and not bright (I just like biology) but like I said, the interpretation of the bible to fit scientific fact is not an area I feel comfortable because I lack the knowledge. If it were to debunk a literal interpretation that would be easy.

I'll read it again, and both the creation accounts of the bible when I have a little more time...

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304742072' post='2238297']
What can I say, biology is a beautiful subject

If you want, I can point to some good youtube videos on it (done by atheists, but because creationists get it so wrong)
[/quote]
yes very beautiful, profound and complex, and even in a sense messy like God who is Infinity. Life is Beautiful.

Physics is a little less messy.

[RezaMikhaeil]

SilverPhinx, I will respond to your arguments tomorrow. It's getting late and my wife wants to watch a movie. Very good points, nonetheless.

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304742039' post='2238296']
it is your attitude.[/quote]

My attitude huh?

[quote]1. the word of God assumes all languages, even if it originated in particular languages.[/quote] I'm sorry to tell you but this is not a legit argument from a translation perspective. Whenever a text is translated meaning is lost and added. If we want to get down to a reliable text, we have to go by the original, not a translation of a translation, which is highly inaccurate.

[quote]2. my interpretation is not unorthodox. The Church Fathers did not have the science we have today. They made erroneous interpretations on purely scientific matters:

"The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood." (theologian Ludwig Ott)

we live in the 21st Century.[/quote]

I agree that they didn't have science, that's the point. They were some of the most versed people on the Bible, yet they rejected this idea of evolution according to Genesis 1:20. Your interpretation is not based upon what the text says but rather what science says and you making despirate attempts to reconcile your faith with science.

[quote]3. I never said that the birds were the only species to survive period. I was focusing on them generally being the only clade of the dinosaur group to survive. You werent carefully reading what I was expressing, and I dont think you really care what I am trying to express because you are just here to provoke and harrass people with your limited, petty, fallen and sinful view of the Faith and all your big name people you love to quote.
[/quote]

Your original response did not make that distinction, it said specifically, "birds were the only spicies to have survived", would you like me to quote you because I can do that? My responses are not about "big name people who I love to quote", it's about the fact that credible scientists and scholars of the torah do not agree with you and have specific reasons as to why they do not, which you ignore because they destroy your arguments.

[quote]4. I dont base my understanding of the fossil record on one or two people, I base it on the generally accepted opinion of the whole scientific community. And I dont agree that the creation account is a story it is rather a revealed word of God which is infallible and inerrant on all matters without exception as the Magisterium teaches. There are literally thousands of commentaries, and it will probably take until the end of time for us to unlock all its truth and depth, since it is clearly concerned in part with processes of creation and it has taken a long time for reason to figure out what happened in deep time.
[/quote]

You act like the fossil record that I'm citing is "the fossil record according to richard dawkins", "the fossil record according to Gerald Schroder", "the fossil record according to Kenneth Miller", etc. as if they are independant gospels. That is not the case, when we talk about "the fossil record", it isn't according to any one scientist but rather the scientific community as a whole. You're right there are different commentaries on the Scriptures, but there is an orthodox interpretation that is accepted by all Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Christians. Go to anyone of them and ask them about your interpretation and it won't get any merit. Forget that, go to Richard Dawkins and ask him about that interpretation and he will disagree with you.

[quote]5. Yes I believe that the account does figuratively reveal evolution in some of the verses.
[/quote]

As i have pointed out, there is no evidence for this conclusion. Allow me to get out a Catholic Bible, rather then the other translations that I've been using to prove this point further. Quoting from the New Jerusalem Catholic Bible, which if i'm not mistaken is as close of a direct translation from the Hebrew as one could get, "G-d said, 'Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures, and let birds wing their way above the earth.'" This by no means mentions the evolutionary process, as you claim. If you read the supporting verses, they clearly go against the process science and evolutionary processes. I mean seriously. According to that account, if you see when vegetation was 'created', it was scientifically impossible for it to be sustained according to natural evolutionary processes, it would have to be supernatural, not scientific.

[quote]Last, yes I am on a high horse. I ride high in God.
[/quote]

You should chill out...if not through G-d then try the buddha [erb].

[quote]Get a better attitude. It is people like you why I sometimes hate participating at this phorum. You are provoking and harrassing me. Your spirit is not of the Church. The Magisterium does not have an infallible interpretation of the creation account at the present and neither do you.
[/quote]

I'm not doing anything of the kind, rather I'm sticking to the fact and pointing out where you are incorrect. As for "your spirit is...", I don't think that's for you to judge but you're right, I'm not Roman Catholic and at this rate, probably will never be.

[quote]If you disagree with me fine, but like I said, I was just posting a few cut and pastes of my commentary. You will have to read the whole thing to get the jist of what I am saying. I just wanted to get in a dialogue with that very nice and good person xSilverPhinx. I dont like having to defend myself on every single sentence I write. You are playing the pharisee. Get a better attitude and go take care of your children.
[/quote]

That may be, and I responded to those "cuts and pastes" of those portions of the commentary that you posted. If you're offended because I believe that your commentary is less then scentific and orthodox, don't get offended Mr. College professor, get used to criticism, that's also part of academics and science. If you got to know me, you'd see that I have a very posetive outlook on life and I do take care of my children. One suggestion that I make to you is that this is between you and me, not my children, so please leave them out of it. You don't know them, have never met them, don't know me, have never been to my house to know about weather or not I take care of my children.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]Physics is a little less messy.[/quote]

I like physics also, though it's way more difficult for me than biology when all the maths is involved.

[quote]SilverPhinx, I will respond to your arguments tomorrow. It's getting late and my wife wants to watch a movie. Very good points, nonetheless.[/quote]

Okay.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299724027' post='2219699']
So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts?
[/quote]


Do your guidance systems make new guidance systems all by themselves, or do you have to build new ones?

The reason I ask is because...the ability to reproduce is integral to both the definition of life and the process of evolution.

No reproduction...no natural selection...no evolution.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304741179' post='2238292']
Sorry, but I'm finding your descriptions to be a bit confusing. I don't know if I'm assuming too much based on a lot of my time spent on reading creationists distortions and transferring that to you or because of your use of language. Your stingray example looks a bit Lamarckist, which has already been proven to be false a long time ago. A stingray will not grow legs because it's near a beach, it will walk on the beach if it evolves some sort of limbs that can be used as legs which give it a competitive advantage open the way for better limbs to evolve because of natural selection.[/quote]

Well it's one of the most establish facts within Marine Biology that Sting Rays were once only found in salt water and that the adapted to fresh water. It's as firmly established as any other fact that we have to date. It's adaptations include:

[quote]River Stingrays have developed permanent modifications to adapt to the freshwater environment that they are confined to. One significant modification is the degeneration of the rectal gland that serves in the excretion of excess salt in marine elasmobranches. Salt water rays also have the ability to retain high levels of urea in their blood which counters the osmotic flow of fluids through their skin into the salt rich water. River Stingrays have lost this characteristic resulting in an inability to tolerate environments with a salinity greater than 3 ppt. The electroreceptive ampullae of Lorenzini among River Stingrays is also modified to operate in freshwater.
[/quote]

I would not say that it's Lamarckist because these changes do not simply happen with the offspring of Sting Rays as they procreate but rather in their lifetime. If I'm not mistaken his theory has more to do with offspring changing. As for it growing limbs, I agree that it's far fetched, but so do I think other mutation theories are far fetched. That's the point.

[quote]As for the whale, transitional fossils have been found, their DNA has been traced back to their divergence from artiodactyla (hoofed mammals) which also gave rise to giraffes and hippos, using genetic markers and comparing the percentage of similarities are one would in a family tree, not to mention the vestigial organs which are still present in their DNA but have been deactivated such as whales with legs. They even move like mammals when they swim, flexing their spines up and down and not side to side like a fish. If I do recall...the bible placed them as the same "kind" as fish?
[/quote]

I'm going to have to ask you to turn up evidence for this claim, I don't deny that whales are mammals and therefore move like mammals. That is without a doubt, unquestionable even for the most radical of skeptics. Therefore we don't need to go indepth on that because it's not a question. However, as for the fossil record being clear with whales, I will put that up for question. I do not believe that the science with that is as clear as people would like to believe it to be. I'd also extend that to Humans and Apes coming from a common ancestor. We might have similar biology, as many forms of life on this earth do share similar biology but that doesn't prove that we're linked. It might just be that we have much in common.

[quote]How does scientists not having observed a great white reproduce affect all the evidence supporting neodarwinism? I would say they they [i]are[/i] informed on the origin of some species, since new species coming into existence have actually been observed...
[/quote]

How does it affect scientists that support Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection? Well it affects modern scientists more so then Darwin's Theory as he knew it. He had no concept of a cell and his theory is quite primative. He did title his book, "the origins of species" but he truly wasn't dealing in the origins, as many modern scientists that believe in evolution have come to accept. However the modern scientists that make such predictions about the origins of life, I believe are like a kindergardner that is skipping to algebra without understanding the basics of add and subtract, or multiplecation and division. If you don't know about their means of breeding, it's highly unlikely that you're going to know about the origin of that species. The Great White is not a new species, rather it's a quite old species that dates back to some of the eldest living animals on the planet.

[quote]Darwin's common ancestor idea is an deduction based on DNA evidence much like the universe coming from the big bang is based on our observations of it's expansion. To add to the evidence for that, you have things such as the microwave background. Nobody observed the big bang, but if you were to put such limitations on what science can achieve then you won't get further than what a person can observe in their lifetime or since our species started recording their scientific observations.[/quote]

I'd have to disagree with this statement, when Darwin came up with his theories, there was no possible way of testing DNA evidence, nor did he have a simple concept of what a cell was, for that matter. We should not forget that the "Big Bang", also has it's critics, that interpret scientific data of red drifts and such differently then those that support this evolutionary concept. I agree that if you put limitations such as "nobody witnessed it so it must not be true", you won't progress and I disagree with putting such limitations, but at the same time, I think that just because you interpret the evidence in one direction and it appears to be clear, doesn't necessarily make it so.

[quote]ID does not answer any questions, is not falsifiable and is essentially an argument from ignorance. What Behe's point was with the flagellum was basically that a flagellum could not have existed without all it's parts, but it was refuted by Ken Miller who showed how it evolved from a bacteria's cellular "pore", which had a whole different function but evolution works like that: it adapts and evolves based on what it's got.
[/quote]

I disagree with this conclusion. Scientists that ascribe to intelligent design have made many scientific discoveries and pushed science further. The theory itself does not limit science, but rather rejects darwin's theory based upon it's inadequacies. We need to seperate the difference between creationism and intelligent design, they are distinctly different. Intelligent design does not require that one believe in G-d, let alone the G-d of the Bible. Nor does it attempt to put the scientific data into that bubble. Rather it allows the scientific data to speak for itself and if that data mentions some sort of intelligence in nature, then so be it. The problem is that people that accept Darwin's Theory say, "it doesn't go far enough", well maybe it doesn't go as far as they'd like it to go, they'd like it to say that we all started from a single cell organism, but that doesn't necesarily mean that it is inadequate or factually inaccurate.

[quote]Dr. Gerald Schroder is a physicist, and when biologists who are studying macroevolution are saying that they don't know all the details yet, whatever he has to say would be just as good as the mathematician Dembski's assertions who in order to "disprove" evolution had to distort and misrepresent it so much that even a student in high school with the minimal understanding of the theory could point it out. Well, if you distort what a theory is about enough, it's obvious that it's going to look ridiculous. :eyeroll:
[/quote]

Dr Schroder's arguments are much different then that of Dembskis. He does deal in physics but that doesn't limit his research nor understanding. However take him out of the equation if you like and put Dr. Robert Kaita in there. He is a Principal Research Physicist, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. He has a very impressive resume, and yet also believes that Darwin's Theory is inadequate. Dr. David Berlinski holds a degree in molecular biology, mathmatics, philosphy, etc. and he also agrees that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is inadequate and that the scientific research is out to lunch.

[quote]I'm going to defend the theistic evolution here...

A [i]supernatural[/i] god, if he exists, is beyond the realm of science anyways, which only has access to the [i]natural world. [/i]That's why I don't see it as incompatible for a person who believes in the supernatural. What I've read on theistic evolution, god guides the process as if from behind the curtains through his omniscience. There are many different shades to this sort of belief though.

Science can't really make statements about what's beyond the natural world if there is a beyond the natural word. It shaves god out of the picture with Occam's razor, but hey, if people want to believe in that sort of a guidance, science it would be sort of like reading the mind of god I think (pantheistic inclinations speaking).
[/quote]

Well if a supernatural, celestial dictator G-d does exist, it is not beyond the realm of science. It might deal in the supernatural realm but it also deals in the natural realm. As Richard Dawkins said, "Darwin's Theory deals in the origins of life and the G-d of the Bible deal in the origins of life, both cannot be right, one has to be wrong". If G-d truly did "guide" the evolutionary process, that is him going from the supernatural realm, into the physical/natural realm for which science would detect and could detect. Therefore science can say, "natural selection cannot be guided by G-d because it doesn't need G-d, and there is no evidence fo such".

[quote]Yeah, a surgeon who focuses more on practical matters of the brain (very hands on job) would not need to consult what he learned about evolution as much as somebody studying viruses and drug resistant bacteria. If I were ever to undergo a brain surgery I would want a surgeon who knew what he was doing and how to fix the problem, and not one who knew more on how the brain composed of its fish, reptile and mammalian parts evolved.
I would not say that it's irrelavent to understanding the human body however, since it is the product of evolution, and that does shine light on it and aids in understanding from everything from genetic defects to inherited diseases to even why we don't produce our own vitamin C (we have the gene for that, but it's been "broken" - just a little trivia). Like the brain surgeon example, it just depends on what you want to get out of it.

It's the theory in which a lot of facts come together and make sense, not to mention it's predictive power is truly something.
[/quote]

If one were studying viruses and bacteria, surely they would need to understand some sort of evolution, an evolution that all people, including those that accept intelligent design, would believe in. This is without a doubt but Darwin's Theory of Evolution, no. I would completely disagree that it's relevant whatso ever in terms of understanding the human body. It more has to do with understanding the origins of life, if that's the theory that you accept, explaining how it all happened, then that which is modern. However, I don't want to focus on this point more so because I don't think that we're going to come to an understanding and it's a minor point that will only drag out this further. Perhaps another thread would work for that.

So yes, we will agree that micro evolution is vitally important to understand biology, bacteria, cells, etc. You'd be pleasantly surprised that Creationists hate me more then those that accept Darwin's Theory [which they call DArwinists but I don't like using that term], so I get hit from both sides of the road.