Evolution: Religion or Science?

[Hawkens]

The site I am referencing, http://www.talkorigins.org/, is a neutral site. It is not the fault of the web site if the creationist arguments are few and futile.

HA! Neutral site indeed. No wonder you think Creationist arguments are few and futile. Try going past that website for information about Creation.

 

Now for the Ark......Noah took different "kinds" of animals. Most of the animal variations we see today are only since the flood. As far as the fish, well you are first assuming the fish are exactly the same now as they were then (which is hard to believe from an evolutionist) and you have no clue as to how much salt content there was in the water during the flood.

 

The Bible even warns us not to forget the flood and predicts that there will be a day when men use the knowledge they think they know as truth to disprove many things.

(ESV) 2Pe 3:1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,

2Pe 3:2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,

2Pe 3:3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.

2Pe 3:4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation."

2Pe 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

2Pe 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

2Pe 3:7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Pro 28:26 Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

[Biochemist]

..Now realize that the theory itself is extremely strong....

Which theory? Please do not say "evolution". It looks to me (although I am not sure) that Skippy is picking on selected elements (abiogenesis, and perhaps gradualism) and you are responding with general responses about"evolution". It looks like you two are talking past each other.

 

If you want to talk about the credibility (or lack thereof) of transitional fossils, do that. If you want to talk about the probability/credibility of abiogenesis, do that. But please stop discussing "evolution" as you defined earlier. You two are on different topics.

 

Everyone believes that red haired children can be born to brown haired parents, and that red haired children are more likely than their parients to have red haried children. This example would support "evolution" by your definition, but has nothing to do with the intrinisic conflict between you two.

[Skippy]

OK! One more!).

Welcome Back! :shrug:

There are many other problems including:

Quote:

Gathering all these animals would be a problem. Genesis 7:11-15 makes it clear that the gathering of all the animals took only one twenty-four hour day. Thus each pair of animals have less than 1/10th of a second to get into the the ark.

Really, you should be more skeptical of what you read and check it before you post. Genesis 7:2-4 - "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." See, your source is flawed, verses 11-15 make no mention of the gathering up of the animals, just that Noah and his sons herded them into the ark.

 

Some organisms don’t survive or reproduce in pairs (eg. insects such as bees and flies).

How much Zoology have you studied? A single male bee will inseminate a single (special) female bee. Many more bees are involved in nourishing and raising the larvae, but it is a single pair that provides the fertilized eggs for a hive.

[skuinders]

Now for the Ark......Noah took different "kinds" of animals. Most of the animal variations we see today are only since the flood.

AH!!! Macroevolution???????????? :shrug:

 

As far as the fish, well you are first assuming the fish are exactly the same now as they were then (which is hard to believe from an evolutionist) and you have no clue as to how much salt content there was in the water during the flood.

Forget the fish. There is enough other evidence to make the story outrageous. Also, when you want to refute and argument, you assume the place of the arguer and prove their argument wrong with objective fact.

[Biochemist]

From Chris Colby:

... Biologists know little about the genetic mechanisms of speciation. Some think a series of small changes in each subdivision gradually lead to speciation. The founder effect could set the stage for relatively rapid speciation, a genetic revolution in Ernst Mayr's terms. Alan Templeton hypothesized that a few key genes could change and confer reproductive isolation. He called this a genetic transilience. Lynn Margulis thinks most speciation events are caused by changes in internal symbionts. Populations of organisms are very complicated. It is likely that there are many ways speciation can occur. Thus, all of the above ideas may be correct, each in different circumstances. Darwin's book was titled "The Origin of Species" despite the fact that he did not really address this question; over one hundred and fifty years later, how species originate is still largely a mystery.

Please note the above paragraph (emphasis added). The monograph you posted confirmed that we do not know how speciation occurs. This excerpt is a reasonable synopsis of the current state of the science.

 

One should ask the question: If the speciation mechanism is still a mystery, go back and read the entire monograph. Note how often a speciation mechanism is presumed as a part of other more sophisticated arguments.

 

If you can't demonstrate a speciation mechanism, what can you demonstrate?

[skuinders]

Genesis 7:2-4 - "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

And I guess YOU can show precisely how "kind" differs from "species?" Aside from the details of how they got into the ark, they simply could not have fit.

And don't criticize my use of sources when you take incorrect calculations and post them. 1 cubit = 1.5 feet and the vessel is not a cube, therefore your method for calculating the volume is an overshot.

 

How much Zoology have you studied? A single male bee will inseminate a single (special) female bee. Many more bees are involved in nourishing and raising the larvae, but it is a single pair that provides the fertilized eggs for a hive.

None. I'll take your word for it, for now.

[Skippy]

AH!!! Macroevolution???????????? :shrug:.

NOOOOOOO. MICRO-evolution. Interbreeding NEVER creates a new animal species. Kinds are dogs. Breeds are schnauzers, poodles, dobermans, mastifs, etc. In Genesis, Jacob bred his father-in-law's sheep and goats to get speckled or spotted hides - that is done by inter-breeding... he still got sheep from sheep and goats from goats. Macro-evolution is a joke being played on the unthinking.

[skuinders]

If you can't demonstrate a speciation mechanism, what can you demonstrate?

Evidence that one may exist. That was my only point and it was in response to someone saying there is NO evidence whatsoever for these claims.

[skuinders]

NOOOOOOO. MICRO-evolution. Interbreeding NEVER creates a new animal species. Kinds are dogs. Breeds are schnauzers, poodles, dobermans, mastifs, etc. In Genesis, Jacob bred his father-in-law's sheep and goats to get speckled or spotted hides - that is done by inter-breeding... he still got sheep from sheep and goats from goats. Macro-evolution is a joke being played on the unthinking.

Ah, I suppose I was supposed to understand this nebulous use of the word "kind."

 

EDIT: if "kind" means "species," then what's wrong with the numbers in my original (ark) argument?

[Biochemist]

Evidence that one may exist. That was my only point and it was in response to someone saying there is NO evidence whatsoever for these claims.

This is a good answer, Sku. But I really wish we could stay on topic, rather than wander on to flood geology diversions.

 

The question is whether those that hold generally to the elements of evolutionary theory are relying on faith for some elements.

 

I suggested above that your own monograph acknowledges that the mechanism for speciation is unknown. It is a fair question to ask how good the source evidence might be, when the synopsis of the evidence is that "we don't know". Have you looked at the source evidence for speciation?

 

I would really prefer that we not wander into a Biblical proof text discussion in this forum. Feel free to take that into the religion forum. (Sorry, Skippy)

[Skippy]

And I guess YOU can show precisely how "kind" differs from "species?" Aside from the details of how they got into the ark, they simply could not have fit.

And don't criticize my use of sources when you take incorrect calculations and post them. 1 cubit = 1.5 feet and the vessel is not a cube, therefore your method for calculating the volume is an overshot.

As described in the Bible, the ark had a massive interior volume.

 

Volume is a measurement of length-width-height for square sided and rectangle sided cubes. Volume is also the measurement of the internal capacity of a sphere or cylinder. In any case, a volume is stated in inches, feet, meters, etc. - CUBED, even in the round vessels such as a cylinder or sphere. You're losing your battle with your lack of scientific background... you admit to a lack of the study of Zoology, you now show a lack of a study of mathematical equations (i.e.- volume).

[skuinders]

As described in the Bible, the ark had a massive interior volume.

Volume is a measurement of length-width-height for square sided and rectangle sided cubes. Volume is also the measurement of the internal capacity of a sphere or cylinder. In any case, a volume is stated in inches, feet, meters, etc. - CUBED, even in the round vessels such as a cylinder or sphere. You're losing your battle with your lack of scientific background... you admit to a lack of the study of Zoology, you now show a lack of a study of mathematical equations (i.e.- volume).

LOL!!! You think I don't know that??? I wasn't talking about the units! The equation you used to calculate the volume of the vessel is used to calculate the volume of a CUBE, you know? the 3D shape?? A vessel is not cube-shaped. You must calculate the length times width times AVERAGE depth.:shrug:

 

YOU don't know volume equations my friend.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist:

If you can't demonstrate a speciation mechanism, what can you demonstrate?Skuinder' Reply: Evidence that one may exist. That was my only point and it was in response to someone saying there is NO evidence whatsoever for these claims.

Bio is right, you cannot give hard scientific experimental evidence, only hypotheses which seem to make sense because in the mind of the evolutionist it must be so - there is no other god than the god of evolution.

 

Your answer betrays your lack of solid evidence. You say it may exist. That is less than nothing.

[skuinders]

I would really prefer that we not wander into a Biblical proof text discussion in this forum. Feel free to take that into the religion forum. (Sorry, Skippy)

Not a problem, I'm about done here anyways. (for the third time :shrug:)

[Biochemist]

... there is no other god than the god of evolution...

Please stay on speciation. "Evolution" (as defined above by Sku) has little to do with this discussion, since it did not require speciation.

[skuinders]

Your answer betrays your lack of solid evidence. You say it may exist. That is less than nothing.

Both of us must say "may." I just believe there is more evidence on my side - that says nothing about how good the evidence is.

[Biochemist]

Both of us must say "may." I just believe there is more evidence on my side - that says nothing about how good the evidence is.

Good answer. If there is evidence on both sides, but neither camp is definitive, doesn't taking either position require faith?