Riknaht
03-12-2006, 08:20
The Bible doesn't disprove evolution nor does evolution disprove the Bible.
Here's my full argument (from the "Evolution is a myth" thread):
POST 1
People who have any faith-based anti-evolutionary argument please do me a favor.
If you don't have a fact based argument including 1)the Bible and 2)actual scientific studies, please, just please, do not make any more posts. You just make anyone with a valid argument from that point of view look very stupid.
Let people who have something to say that's meaningful and based in biblical, rational fact speak for you.
POST 2
I didn't qualify the Bible. I believe it is factual. I also believe in evolution.
People who claim christianity and like/dislike evolution (note that i do not say "agree") do either school of thought a disservice by presenting a poorly developed argument.
POST 3
The fact that all animals HAVE DNA is not proof, but result of common derived ancestry, which must date all the way back to THE first single-cell organism.
POST 4
The Bible agrees with what science says. Genesis is simply misinterpreted by biased closeminded people that do not believe in the one thing that could justify any theory religiously: God is omnipotent.
First, created existence and matter (Gen 1:1-2)
The two necessary things for any creational theory.
Second, God made light and night/day (Gen 1:3-5)
Makes sense with big bang. Here, anyway, matter must have existed before energy but there isn't any energy without matter to begin with. As far as night and day, it doesn't seem like it means anything more than that there can be light, there can be absence of light.
Third, made earth's atmosphere (Gen 1:6-8)
Heat from the sun and chemical reactions taking place created the ozone and all of the levels of the atmosphere. Hence, the separation of waters of the sky and surface.
Fourth, made land (Gen 1:9-10)
The earth is mainly aqueous and probably covered with mostly water. The tectonic plate theory explains that shifting plates and magma would eventually rise in some places and displace water there thusly making land masses.
Fifth, made vegetation (Gen 1:11-13)
Plants would have been more suited to a primarily water bound environment, and also, these are all starting off as simple organisms. Plants are easy like that.
Sixth, made the sun. (Gen 1:14-18)
Made the sun after light? Not necessarily. The earth just wasn't in orbit around the sun. The colossal force that must have been the big bang would definitely have not ended the inertia of the planets and stars. What resistance is void in space going to present for a heavenly body of mass? None.
Seventh, you get your non-human animals. (Gen 1:19-25)
These are just the ones that predate humanity, though. This is just THE creation, not continued adaptation. "Creation" here means the time between nothingness and the creation of man. Most animals probably evolved to whatever they were before himans came around. It's just what God defined as human. So that... (continued in next thing)
Eighth, made man (Gen 1:26)
...all of the semi-human and apelooking humans we've found thus far are not necessarily human, except whichever one's God called Adam and Eve. The ones that are spread around the continents, however, seem to be justifiable. They are descendants of Adam and Eve, but realize that the entire human polpulation narrows down in the flood (down to Noah and his family).
The operative belief here is that God is omnipotent. He is not constrained by time here, so the signs and markings of a millenia could have been produced in one day.
If the extremely long lives seem absurd, remember this: God created man in his likeness. God is eternal and humans were supposed to be eternal. The reason people die of "old age" is called apoptosis. Cells of organisms will only reproduce so many times. Apoptosis nowadays tends to kick in anywhere from 100 to 120 years of age, thousands of years after creation, but right after the fall apoptosis had only just been in place.
Once again, all back to the idea that God is omnipotent.
Post 5
yeah, that sort of threw me off the first time i read that, but it makes sense with context, as many things do.
it still all goes into theory and the belief that God is omnipotent, but i'm getting tired of saying that.
Post 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajark
Isn't Inbreeding both considered morally and counter-productive to evolution?
That minor point aside, I do agree that the Bible is not mutually exlusive to evolution.
not yet, it isn't yet abominable in God's eyes (incest that is). This is in Genesis, before the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Besides, Noah's family technically included the non-related wives of his sons. There are enough people to recreate that many effects of incest are avoided.
Now, this close family reproduction is not yet abominable to God because many of the codes and laws established in Deuteronomy and Leviticus were for health related interest. Reducing sexual activity reduces many communicable diseases (not just the sexual ones, there weren't many back then). Not eating certain things could keep bad bacteria out of the systems of people. Things that may seem like dogma and doctrine were really just hygeine.
As far as the Bible being mutually exclusive to evolutionary theory, I strongly believe that it perfectly agrees with evolutionary theory.
POST 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
What is existence?
Pretty complex word to be throwing around so lightly.
If it didn't exist prior to God creating it, are we lead to believe that God didn't exist before its existence?
Simply enough, it's a progression of logic. I do throw existence around, but so do people who claim there is no God.
Existence is just existence: it can't be further simplified. No amount of circular philosophy can bring any more conlusion than that.
We define God by what He has done, but God has no boundary. God is always and God was always and God will be always, so God is not linearly defined. In essence, we feel compelled to put a timeline to God. There isn't an exact date to count to, He had no conception since He was the original.
POST 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
To call that an argument would be overly generous.
The bit you left out which would make it all hang together: a particular reason why apoptosis should onset earlier and earlier as generations go by.
(Leaving aside this whole notion of people dying of 'old age' rather than any identifiable individual cause).
Apoptosis has to do with a certain limit on how many times the cells can reproduce until they can no longer reproduce. This is in one individual organism. When a cell reaches this limit, it will simply cease functioning and it has yet to be explained by science. It is a type of PCD (programmed cell death). Their are other types of apoptosis that are necessary for development, such as for the spaces between human fingers. The fingers are separated by apoptosis occuring with the cells in between the fingers.
Apoptosis that causes death I called old age to save myself the time for explanation. The death (or lack of controlled cell death, as is inherent in cancer) of cells manifests itself as a disease, something which has been attributed to "old age," which is attributable to apoptosis.
I didn't articulate all of that in my previous post.
POST 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Lifes
This is a common misbelief. Actually the food laws were to teach the people how they were to live. They were to live like the example of the things they eat. So each meal was a reminder of how they were to live. For example: They could eat chickens because they lived on seeds, but not eagles because they lived on the suffering of others. They could eat fish with scales because they lived a clean life in the upper water, clams and fish without scales lived an unclean life in the mud. Sheep and cows lived in herds and protected each other, pigs naturally live a loner life and worry only about themselves and their children.
Where did you assume this symbolism? Is it from Biblical text or from original Jewish philosophy and study? Philosophy is that which is inspired and breathed by man, but holy writ is what is God breathed.
POST 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
To call that an argument would be overly generous.
The bit you left out which would make it all hang together: a particular reason why apoptosis should onset earlier and earlier as generations go by.
(Leaving aside this whole notion of people dying of 'old age' rather than any identifiable individual cause).
I forgot to address why apoptosis occurred gradually earlier and earlier in humans. Evolution justifies this one. Natural selection must have favored those who could reproduce quickly, which meant that people must have reproduced earlier in life and increased competition. Beyond that, it's probably just population drift.
POST 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
Apoptosis isn't responsible for death by old age, though. Loss of telomeres is.
Fatality linked to apoptosis is, though. It generally occurs in old age, which is how I reference it.
POST 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
The state of existing didn't exist prior to God creating it.
Thus, prior to God creating the state of existence nothing possessed the state of existence.
Thus, God either came into being simultaneously with His creation of the state of existence, or God did not possess the state of existence prior to His act of creating it.
God has always existed. That was poor wording on my part.
POST 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
And the connection between earlier reproduction and earlier onset of apoptosis is?
Earlier reproduction means more people will be around to reproduce quicker. Since many people weren't dying for quite some time, population would grow.
Larger population and a development of separate social communties. These communities are formed by some social semblance, typically ancestry in the Bible, and would be likely candidates for the effects of population drift.
Any way, so long as the population grows, social development is a logical progression.
POST 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesis
thread is total bs but fun fact, as an agnostic who goes to a catholic school i was greatly surprised to be taught eveolution in bio....(im the only agnostic in my family if ur wondring why i go to a catholic school)
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that you could discover anything from your own introspection? The Greek root of agnosticism means unknowable, though the more literal without knowledge is a little more practical for an inexperienced introspect, which all seems somewhat contradictory to the science based argument you're about to present.
POST 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
So He didn't create existence then?
His own existence always was, but he created physical existence if that is what you're getting at. But the matter of existence isn't pertinent to the concept of evolution (not on the "when was God?" level).
POST 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
You're still avoiding the question: why should apoptosis onset earlier and earlier over generations? You mention population drift, but why should it cause earlier onset, rather than later?
I answered the question. Population drift describes not the physical drifting but the genetic drifting inherent to an independent gene pool. I cite Darwin's observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands.
POST 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Lifes
I came across it in a study of Jewish beliefs. But if you think about it the whole purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to live in love. This is why Jesus was able to attack those who obeyed the law but forgot why they were doing what they were doing. The actions became more important than the lesson. Jesus said to remember the lesson rather than the action. What lesson could he have been talking about to these people that had detailed their actions.
Okay, cabbala or something? Jewish philosophical studies. They applied whatever symbolic license they felt would honor God, but they aren't the reason for the laws, just a meaningful little analogous application to another characteristic of life.
POST 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
Nope: I'm trying to understand your logic. See the edit at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=272 for further clarification.
Ahhh, okay. I see your point. It's philosophical to that extent. The Bible says that God always was, always is, and always will be, so that seems to clarify existence. Physical existence didn't happen until creation, but God's non-physical existance did. I did say that existence cannot be simplified further. For us, it can't be. For God, it really can't be explained further (even with what I've said in this post).
This speculation of existance is that of mine from an applied extension of the biblical linear description of God and there is neither biblical nor historical reference for further explanation.
POST 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
So through attaining the lifespan of Methusalah would just be a matter of genetics?
It seems so to me, but the genetic characteristics and the environment would have to permit such a case.
There's another environmental condition in Genesis that would have contributed to long life spans. It's called the "vapor canopy" which was basically very thick layer of atmosphere that had tremendous amounts of water vapor in it. This is also what probably caused the flood of creation.
It may have extended lifespans because of reduced ultra violet radiation.
POST 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
It also would have raised global temperatures by several hundred degrees.
That depends on how much thermal energy can get through the barrier in the first place. Thermodynamics would dictate that most of the heat would be trapped within that layer.
POST 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
Now, kindly explain how Methusalah could reach over 900 years of age without dying for the massive cancers caused by severe genetic damage after the loss of his telomeres.
What determines how long a telomere is? That is something that can be affected by genetic heredity and mutation. Once again, God is omnipotent.
If you can refute anything in this or if you have any comment please post them. I'm interested in resolving an unintelligent, biased conflict.
Here's my full argument (from the "Evolution is a myth" thread):
POST 1
People who have any faith-based anti-evolutionary argument please do me a favor.
If you don't have a fact based argument including 1)the Bible and 2)actual scientific studies, please, just please, do not make any more posts. You just make anyone with a valid argument from that point of view look very stupid.
Let people who have something to say that's meaningful and based in biblical, rational fact speak for you.
POST 2
I didn't qualify the Bible. I believe it is factual. I also believe in evolution.
People who claim christianity and like/dislike evolution (note that i do not say "agree") do either school of thought a disservice by presenting a poorly developed argument.
POST 3
The fact that all animals HAVE DNA is not proof, but result of common derived ancestry, which must date all the way back to THE first single-cell organism.
POST 4
The Bible agrees with what science says. Genesis is simply misinterpreted by biased closeminded people that do not believe in the one thing that could justify any theory religiously: God is omnipotent.
First, created existence and matter (Gen 1:1-2)
The two necessary things for any creational theory.
Second, God made light and night/day (Gen 1:3-5)
Makes sense with big bang. Here, anyway, matter must have existed before energy but there isn't any energy without matter to begin with. As far as night and day, it doesn't seem like it means anything more than that there can be light, there can be absence of light.
Third, made earth's atmosphere (Gen 1:6-8)
Heat from the sun and chemical reactions taking place created the ozone and all of the levels of the atmosphere. Hence, the separation of waters of the sky and surface.
Fourth, made land (Gen 1:9-10)
The earth is mainly aqueous and probably covered with mostly water. The tectonic plate theory explains that shifting plates and magma would eventually rise in some places and displace water there thusly making land masses.
Fifth, made vegetation (Gen 1:11-13)
Plants would have been more suited to a primarily water bound environment, and also, these are all starting off as simple organisms. Plants are easy like that.
Sixth, made the sun. (Gen 1:14-18)
Made the sun after light? Not necessarily. The earth just wasn't in orbit around the sun. The colossal force that must have been the big bang would definitely have not ended the inertia of the planets and stars. What resistance is void in space going to present for a heavenly body of mass? None.
Seventh, you get your non-human animals. (Gen 1:19-25)
These are just the ones that predate humanity, though. This is just THE creation, not continued adaptation. "Creation" here means the time between nothingness and the creation of man. Most animals probably evolved to whatever they were before himans came around. It's just what God defined as human. So that... (continued in next thing)
Eighth, made man (Gen 1:26)
...all of the semi-human and apelooking humans we've found thus far are not necessarily human, except whichever one's God called Adam and Eve. The ones that are spread around the continents, however, seem to be justifiable. They are descendants of Adam and Eve, but realize that the entire human polpulation narrows down in the flood (down to Noah and his family).
The operative belief here is that God is omnipotent. He is not constrained by time here, so the signs and markings of a millenia could have been produced in one day.
If the extremely long lives seem absurd, remember this: God created man in his likeness. God is eternal and humans were supposed to be eternal. The reason people die of "old age" is called apoptosis. Cells of organisms will only reproduce so many times. Apoptosis nowadays tends to kick in anywhere from 100 to 120 years of age, thousands of years after creation, but right after the fall apoptosis had only just been in place.
Once again, all back to the idea that God is omnipotent.
Post 5
yeah, that sort of threw me off the first time i read that, but it makes sense with context, as many things do.
it still all goes into theory and the belief that God is omnipotent, but i'm getting tired of saying that.
Post 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajark
Isn't Inbreeding both considered morally and counter-productive to evolution?
That minor point aside, I do agree that the Bible is not mutually exlusive to evolution.
not yet, it isn't yet abominable in God's eyes (incest that is). This is in Genesis, before the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Besides, Noah's family technically included the non-related wives of his sons. There are enough people to recreate that many effects of incest are avoided.
Now, this close family reproduction is not yet abominable to God because many of the codes and laws established in Deuteronomy and Leviticus were for health related interest. Reducing sexual activity reduces many communicable diseases (not just the sexual ones, there weren't many back then). Not eating certain things could keep bad bacteria out of the systems of people. Things that may seem like dogma and doctrine were really just hygeine.
As far as the Bible being mutually exclusive to evolutionary theory, I strongly believe that it perfectly agrees with evolutionary theory.
POST 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
What is existence?
Pretty complex word to be throwing around so lightly.
If it didn't exist prior to God creating it, are we lead to believe that God didn't exist before its existence?
Simply enough, it's a progression of logic. I do throw existence around, but so do people who claim there is no God.
Existence is just existence: it can't be further simplified. No amount of circular philosophy can bring any more conlusion than that.
We define God by what He has done, but God has no boundary. God is always and God was always and God will be always, so God is not linearly defined. In essence, we feel compelled to put a timeline to God. There isn't an exact date to count to, He had no conception since He was the original.
POST 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
To call that an argument would be overly generous.
The bit you left out which would make it all hang together: a particular reason why apoptosis should onset earlier and earlier as generations go by.
(Leaving aside this whole notion of people dying of 'old age' rather than any identifiable individual cause).
Apoptosis has to do with a certain limit on how many times the cells can reproduce until they can no longer reproduce. This is in one individual organism. When a cell reaches this limit, it will simply cease functioning and it has yet to be explained by science. It is a type of PCD (programmed cell death). Their are other types of apoptosis that are necessary for development, such as for the spaces between human fingers. The fingers are separated by apoptosis occuring with the cells in between the fingers.
Apoptosis that causes death I called old age to save myself the time for explanation. The death (or lack of controlled cell death, as is inherent in cancer) of cells manifests itself as a disease, something which has been attributed to "old age," which is attributable to apoptosis.
I didn't articulate all of that in my previous post.
POST 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Lifes
This is a common misbelief. Actually the food laws were to teach the people how they were to live. They were to live like the example of the things they eat. So each meal was a reminder of how they were to live. For example: They could eat chickens because they lived on seeds, but not eagles because they lived on the suffering of others. They could eat fish with scales because they lived a clean life in the upper water, clams and fish without scales lived an unclean life in the mud. Sheep and cows lived in herds and protected each other, pigs naturally live a loner life and worry only about themselves and their children.
Where did you assume this symbolism? Is it from Biblical text or from original Jewish philosophy and study? Philosophy is that which is inspired and breathed by man, but holy writ is what is God breathed.
POST 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
To call that an argument would be overly generous.
The bit you left out which would make it all hang together: a particular reason why apoptosis should onset earlier and earlier as generations go by.
(Leaving aside this whole notion of people dying of 'old age' rather than any identifiable individual cause).
I forgot to address why apoptosis occurred gradually earlier and earlier in humans. Evolution justifies this one. Natural selection must have favored those who could reproduce quickly, which meant that people must have reproduced earlier in life and increased competition. Beyond that, it's probably just population drift.
POST 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
Apoptosis isn't responsible for death by old age, though. Loss of telomeres is.
Fatality linked to apoptosis is, though. It generally occurs in old age, which is how I reference it.
POST 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
The state of existing didn't exist prior to God creating it.
Thus, prior to God creating the state of existence nothing possessed the state of existence.
Thus, God either came into being simultaneously with His creation of the state of existence, or God did not possess the state of existence prior to His act of creating it.
God has always existed. That was poor wording on my part.
POST 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
And the connection between earlier reproduction and earlier onset of apoptosis is?
Earlier reproduction means more people will be around to reproduce quicker. Since many people weren't dying for quite some time, population would grow.
Larger population and a development of separate social communties. These communities are formed by some social semblance, typically ancestry in the Bible, and would be likely candidates for the effects of population drift.
Any way, so long as the population grows, social development is a logical progression.
POST 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesis
thread is total bs but fun fact, as an agnostic who goes to a catholic school i was greatly surprised to be taught eveolution in bio....(im the only agnostic in my family if ur wondring why i go to a catholic school)
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that you could discover anything from your own introspection? The Greek root of agnosticism means unknowable, though the more literal without knowledge is a little more practical for an inexperienced introspect, which all seems somewhat contradictory to the science based argument you're about to present.
POST 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
So He didn't create existence then?
His own existence always was, but he created physical existence if that is what you're getting at. But the matter of existence isn't pertinent to the concept of evolution (not on the "when was God?" level).
POST 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
You're still avoiding the question: why should apoptosis onset earlier and earlier over generations? You mention population drift, but why should it cause earlier onset, rather than later?
I answered the question. Population drift describes not the physical drifting but the genetic drifting inherent to an independent gene pool. I cite Darwin's observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands.
POST 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Lifes
I came across it in a study of Jewish beliefs. But if you think about it the whole purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to live in love. This is why Jesus was able to attack those who obeyed the law but forgot why they were doing what they were doing. The actions became more important than the lesson. Jesus said to remember the lesson rather than the action. What lesson could he have been talking about to these people that had detailed their actions.
Okay, cabbala or something? Jewish philosophical studies. They applied whatever symbolic license they felt would honor God, but they aren't the reason for the laws, just a meaningful little analogous application to another characteristic of life.
POST 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
Nope: I'm trying to understand your logic. See the edit at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=272 for further clarification.
Ahhh, okay. I see your point. It's philosophical to that extent. The Bible says that God always was, always is, and always will be, so that seems to clarify existence. Physical existence didn't happen until creation, but God's non-physical existance did. I did say that existence cannot be simplified further. For us, it can't be. For God, it really can't be explained further (even with what I've said in this post).
This speculation of existance is that of mine from an applied extension of the biblical linear description of God and there is neither biblical nor historical reference for further explanation.
POST 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
So through attaining the lifespan of Methusalah would just be a matter of genetics?
It seems so to me, but the genetic characteristics and the environment would have to permit such a case.
There's another environmental condition in Genesis that would have contributed to long life spans. It's called the "vapor canopy" which was basically very thick layer of atmosphere that had tremendous amounts of water vapor in it. This is also what probably caused the flood of creation.
It may have extended lifespans because of reduced ultra violet radiation.
POST 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
It also would have raised global temperatures by several hundred degrees.
That depends on how much thermal energy can get through the barrier in the first place. Thermodynamics would dictate that most of the heat would be trapped within that layer.
POST 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
Now, kindly explain how Methusalah could reach over 900 years of age without dying for the massive cancers caused by severe genetic damage after the loss of his telomeres.
What determines how long a telomere is? That is something that can be affected by genetic heredity and mutation. Once again, God is omnipotent.
If you can refute anything in this or if you have any comment please post them. I'm interested in resolving an unintelligent, biased conflict.