Adam and Eve or Evolution? (2 Viewers)

[pattii]

your local library

 

[BradCube]

That was my first thought, however after searching it's ISBN through wikipedia, it appears that neither the National Library of Australia nor my local university has a copy. This didn't leave me with much hope for my local library...

 

[Slidey]

Wow, angry or what dude?

"Or what". Swearing doesn't imply anger. Wasn't my intention to send that signal.

 

[Annalisee]

Once upon a time Annalise (being myself) had a biology teacher who did not believe in Evolution but was forced to teach it to her class. After suffering through several lessons consisting of
"Now this is the theory, it is full of holes and not as widely followed as Christianity BUT...."
I decided to actually research evolution using everything I could find, good lord. It just works doesn't it, I'm not saying that evolution is exactly and definitely what happened. It's something I believe it because I can understand it.
I'm not the sort of person who needs a 'god' in my life telling me what I can and can't do; I'm moral enough to know boundaries and the difference between right and wrong.
In the end religion is just a way of justifying yourself to yourself.
it’s not a theory on how the world began in the same way that evolution is, so I agree with an earlier poster who said that the two cannot be compared.

 

[HalcyonSky]

do any australian schools teach intelligent design?

 

[Stevo.]

More likely than you think.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

More likely than you think.

intelligent design, in my classroom?

 

[what971]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS FACT. GOD TOLD ME SO.

Mike Huckabee for President.

 

[HalcyonSky]

god never intended for people to take the bible literally; he wont pick people to enter heaven based upon anything other then their own heart and personal relationship with him.

orly?

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS FACT. GOD TOLD ME SO.

Mike Huckabee for President.

did huckabee actually say that? thats disgusting

 

[HalcyonSky]

just trying to see it from a christian perspective.

ur making a half assed attempt at criticising the general christian perspective and making a statement about how u think christians should interpet the bible and their religion, despite the fact you're a non-christian atheist / agnostic.

if you're going to pay them out, at least crucify them with ruthlessness, jew sympathiser.

and by the way, "junk" dna is just a label, its function (or apparent nonfunction) is still being investigated

 

[HalcyonSky]

some small fraction of "junk dna" may play important regulatory roles, but there are certain examples which severly strain the credulity of that explanation.
there are AREs (ancient repetitive elements) throughout the human and mouse genomes that were truncated when they landed, removing any possibility of their functioning. there are many instances where you can identify a decapitated and utterly defunct ARE in parallel positions in the human and mouse genome.

yeah, they can interpret however they want, none of it makes logical sense to me anyway.

francis collins says "this seems to be a disjointed reworking of an extrapolation from my book", and proceeds to ponder what the hell you're talking about, and what it has to do with junk dna. "Its all out of context, and rearranged.. its horrible. Im going to have to bring in my team of cryptographers for this one". "...And contact my lawyers to issue a copyright infringement notice."

 

[Slidey]

ur making a half assed attempt at criticising the general christian perspective and making a statement about how u think christians should interpet the bible and their religion, despite the fact you're a non-christian atheist / agnostic.

if you're going to pay them out, at least crucify them with ruthlessness, jew sympathiser.

and by the way, "junk" dna is just a label, its function (or apparent nonfunction) is still being investigated

And a lot if it IS just junk. Heck, about 10% of our DNA is made up purely of viruses like influenza (Which isn't to say that this is junk DNA - it may help in fighting viral infections in the present day) which were incorporated into our DNA thousands of years ago (about 50,000 years for influenza if memory serves).

Also, what do you think most atheists in Australia were before they became atheist? Catholics and Protestants. And I know that Catholics as a group (including the passives here) don't believe in literal interpretations of the Bible so much and that the Catholic Church supports evolution.

 

[BradCube]

The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is seen to be rather arbitrary; larger changes that result in new species are a result of a succession of smaller incremental steps.

Whilst I understand the theory behind this, what have not seen is the proof of this happening. Micro-evolution has been successfully proven in the lab and in location studies. As well as that, it doesn't seem to me that micro evolution is typically what people seem to have problems with. Indeed we see variations within our own species all the time.

the vast majority of organisms that have ever lived on earth left absolutely no trace of their existence, since fossils arise only in highly unusual circumstances. (for example, a creature has to be caught in a certain type of mud or rock, without being picked apart by predators. most bones rot and crumble, and most creatures simply decay.)

Maybe I am missing something here but if the majority if organisms that have ever lived on earth have left "absolutely no trace of their existence" how do we know that they existed?

the cambrian explosion simply reflects a change in conditions that allowed fossilisation of a large number of species that had actually been in existence for millions of years.

Not doubting this, but could you please educate me to what these changes in condition were and possibly provide links to research done in this area?

the study of genomes has led to extremely strong evidence for humans sharing a common ancestor with other living things. basically:
the human dna contains the same genes and gene sequences found in animals; comparable information, which in itself doesnt really prove much other then obviously showing why we have some functions in common.
however, humans have pseudogenes (nonfuctioning genes) as well as normal functioning genes in our dna. these pseudogenes can be found in other animals (such as chimpanzees for example), with the implication of basically raising the question as to why if god created living things separately, he would go to the trouble to incorporate a whole heap of "junk" in our dna which serves no purpose other then to support our common ancestry.

This is the area where I begin to become a little lost due wholly to my lack of knowledge in this area. Having said that the conclusion that you seem to be alluding to does not seem to follow. ie - if we have unnecessary "junk" in our DNA how can a God have created it if it fits with the theory of common ancestry? To do so, you would first have to prove that common ancestry and a God are incompatible theories. Secondly, if they were, you would have to show that this "junk" DNA cannot be attribute to common design - ie a single creator/designer would have common design elements - even if they seemed unnecessary. Of course, I do not feel like turning this into a creationist argument and I have no intention of doing so. I merely wanted to point out that I am currently not following your line of logic.

judging by your posts youre a christian? well if you are or to any other christians:
most christians im sure you know are against common ancestry, however this could simply come from a misrepresentation of the bible rather then being of against god. god never intended for people to take the bible literally; he wont pick people to enter heaven based upon anything other then their own heart and personal relationship with him, not however, at how well they can refute scientific facts.

As you may have guessed by now, yes, I am currently a Christian. However, I urge you to not let that be cause for dismissal in any of my questions of points I may raise. I am of the firm belief that if there is a God he would wholeheartedly expect that we think rationally for the decisions we make and conclusions we come to. It is for this very reason that I am asking for yours and everyone else's opinions in my search for truth and answers in life.

I would be interested in your theories for not taking the bible literally. Of course, there are situations that must be interpreted in relation to the culture of the day in which they were written. However this is far from saying that any man should interpret as he please. If the bible was written with such an intention, I would have a very hard time being anything but skeptical of everything it had to say.

if christianity makes you happy, then enjoy life being a christian.

Well I don't know that I could sum up Christianity in my life as happy. Far from it in fact. Christianity and the ridicule that goes with it coupled with the fact that Christianity requires you to live differently is what I would regard as some of the most difficult things in life. However - I must admit that the idea of having purpose in life is far more entertaining and gratifying than that of a life void of reason and any purpose whatsoever.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Whilst I understand the theory behind this, what have not seen is the proof of this happening.

Maybe I am missing something here but if the majority if organisms that have ever lived on earth have left "absolutely no trace of their existence" how do we know that they existed?

Not doubting this, but could you please educate me to what these changes in condition were and possibly provide links to research done in this area?

To do so, you would first have to prove that common ancestry and a God are incompatible theories. Secondly, if they were, you would have to show that this "junk" DNA cannot be attribute to common design - ie a single creator/designer would have common design elements

since ur such a big fan of proof, why is it that ur a christian?

 

[Stevo.]

Seriously, I'm beginning to become disheartened with this. Unless he renounces Christianity soon I going to stop bothering reading his posts.

 

[BlackDragon]

i think the idea of an omnipotent and omnipresent god that created the world is philosophically problematic.

 

[BradCube]

Thanks for that mate. I really do appreciate your time and energy spent in replying to my posts. I had actually read your post previously and been through the links you supplied. I hadn't replied because I had to go to work

I'll take a decent read through those updated links and provide another reply as soon as I can

 

[BradCube]

Just realized that a few of those links will take me longer to get through than I originally anticipated (they're quite in depth)

I thought I would at least reply to this as it is outside of our evolutionary discussion:

true, but personally i dont believe something just because it sounds good. however, hopefully you dont either and this is not what youre implying?

Just like yourself, I won't believe in something simply because it sounds good. I am in the position currently however that leans me more toward theory of an intelligent designer rather than that of atheism. This is for numerous reasons, however I choose to leave them out of this thread as they are more suited to something such as the "Does God exist" discussion.

I also have trouble taking an agnostic middle ground perspective that chooses to believe neither point of view. If anything I would describe myself as a Christian agnostic since I do not currently believe that there is a way to 100% prove or disprove Gods existence based on scientific data alone. Having said that, despite not being able to scientifically prove the existence of God - I still do believe that God exists. That may sound a little ridiculous at first but it is the rational decision I have come to based on current theories I have been presented with.

 

[Kwayera]

Whilst I understand the theory behind this, what have not seen is the proof of this happening. Micro-evolution has been successfully proven in the lab and in location studies. As well as that, it doesn't seem to me that micro evolution is typically what people seem to have problems with. Indeed we see variations within our own species all the time.


Maybe I am missing something here but if the majority if organisms that have ever lived on earth have left "absolutely no trace of their existence" how do we know that they existed?



Not doubting this, but could you please educate me to what these changes in condition were and possibly provide links to research done in this area?

- Well first of all, given that macro-evolution is essentially the conglomeration of micro-evolution (clumsy sentence but you get my meaning) - how is that not inference enough? And you say there is no evidence, however Stevo provided a decent example of macro-evolution in charismatic megafauna (as I much doubt that the protracted evolution of the amphibia and osteichthyes interests you as much) in the development of the horse. We have consistent transitory fossils for a significant period of time, detailing almost the entire development of the horse, showing macro-evolution IN micro-evolution. So what's your problem? You also gave the example of Archaeopteryx, but it's important to remember that while Archaeopteryx was an important step between reptiles and birds, it wasn't the ACTUAL step. Rather, it was a result of parallel evolution; a specimen called Confuciusornis is a closer ancestor to the modern bird.

- As has been stated, phylogeny and taxonomy. All first year biology students would know this (or people who actually have a passing interest in science; I knew this when I was about 8).

- First of all, it is a mistake on the part of the geologists to refer to it as the Cambrian 'Explosion'. It was a rapid amount of time in the GEOLOGIC sense, but in a biological one, in 10 million years a lot can happen. It was a consequence of the geologic period at the time that, say, the Burgess Shale fossil beds came to be so rich in these fossils; that is, in the Burgess region of Canada three hundred-odd million years ago, there was a heck of a lot of mud. Again, do your own research.

 

[Kwayera]

Just like yourself, I won't believe in something simply because it sounds good. I am in the position currently however that leans me more toward theory of an intelligent designer rather than that of atheism. This is for numerous reasons, however I choose to leave them out of this thread as they are more suited to something such as the "Does God exist" discussion.

I also have trouble taking an agnostic middle ground perspective that chooses to believe neither point of view. If anything I would describe myself as a Christian agnostic since I do not currently believe that there is a way to 100% prove or disprove Gods existence based on scientific data alone. Having said that, despite not being able to scientifically prove the existence of God - I still do believe that God exists. That may sound a little ridiculous at first but it is the rational decision I have come to based on current theories I have been presented with.

That is actually entirely rational. You choose to believe something you have no proof in; well, fine, but you KNOW there is no proof. As long as you know that, believe away.

However, what worries me is that you lean towards an 'intelligent designer' - which goes against everything regarding evolution here stated. So which is it? Evolution, or intelligent design?