• SDN Site Updates

    Hey everyone! The site will be down for approximately 2 hours on Thursday, August 5th for site updates.

  • How To ACE Your Medical School Interview

    In this webinar hosted by SDN with experts from BeMo Academic Consulting, you will learn a simple five-step process to help you translate your interview invitation into an acceptance.

Status
Not open for further replies.

jArsOfClay

Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 29, 2004
63
0
40
Tejas
www.howstuffworks.com
Status (Visible)
I've read a lot of books and articles lately that offer interesting evidence that Evolution is not necessarily as sound a theory as our biology professors would have us believe.

Being a medical student, I am of course compelled to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of the possibility of evolution. However being a Christian drives me even more powerfully to believe what the bible says.

Right now the most bothersome aspect of the evolutionary theory is the Neanderthals. Does anyone know of any information that proposes that the Neanderthals could have just been Homo Sapiens with a very common Genetic Defect of that pre-historic period.

Any other interesting thoughts?
 

stoic

"Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted"
15+ Year Member
Nov 4, 2000
7,635
356
sodom, south georgia
Not sure this post is in the right forum, but here goes nothing.

I'm not exactly sure how what exactly sure what type of "evolution" you are talking about. Evolution from one species to another over time due to slelective pressures is thought to be the summation of evolutionary processes such as genetic mutation.

From a scientific standpoint it is virtually impossible to argue against evolution due to genetic mutation. This has been observed in by many different means by many different researchers. The significance of these mutations is usually negligable or negative. Here evolutionary theory fits with clinical observation. Most mutations are silent, fewer mutations negatively impact organisms (such as with the p53 mutation that often leads to skin cancer), and a very small percent mutations are actually advantages... after all... someday somebody might grow a tumor that does something cool ;).

The picture become less clear when discussing whether or not these mutations lead to the formation of new species, separated by the inability to reproduce with the species from which they evolved. Because humans have been observing life on Earth with scientific scrutiny for such a relatively short period of time no one, to my knowledge, has observed and recorded the formation of a new species.

Speaky briefly about Neanderthals, it seems very unlikely that a species with a "defect" such as the one you elude to could populate an area equal to the range of the Neanderthals for the amount of time that Neanderthals survived. It is interesting that you would ask about genetic variation between Neanderthals and Homo sapians sapians (us) as the genetic relationship between Neaderthals and Humans is currently being hottly debated by physical and genetic anthropolgist. It is my understanding that the physical evidence supports the theory that Humans and Neanderthals were in fact different species. The genetic evidence, however, suggest that Neanderthals were actually a group of humans that left Africa and migrated to Europe before a second group of Humans left Africa and moved into the Middle East, then eventually into Europe where the Neanderthals were already populating the land. Now, because of selective pressure the Neanderthals who had been in Europe for long enough to adapt to the environment somewhat. These adaptations include increased muscle mass, thicker bones, and a stockier stature. However, it is important to note that Neanderthals had the same brain size and modern humans and that brain size has long been used as an important tool for tracking the evolution of humans. It is my understanding that the most cutting edge theories actually claim that there was some breeding between Neaderthals and the later arriving human groups, though I cannot site specific evidence or published research to support this claim.

I hope this is useful info.

PS - I didn't edit this post, so please excuse the typos. Also, I'm trying to remember this from an anthropology class I took a couple years ago... so hopefully the info is accurate.
 

BACMEDIC

Full Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2002
130
0
Pa
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Evolution, or more specifically, believing that ape and man came from the same ancestor is as much a religion as any other religion out there. What is religion based on? Faith ? faith in something unseen, faith that something is true that cannot be proved. There is a belief that there is a missing link in the fossil record, which will someday be found. The truth is that there are millions of missing links in the fossil record. Yet, there is this faith that those fossils exists.

For those that believe that the link between man and ape is proved by the closeness of the genetic map between the two species, or even how close the map is between many of the species ? well the other side of the coin, which is just as valid is this. If God made man from the dust of the ground (read that as the chemistry of the earth), and if he made the animals in like fashion, then we would expect the DNA to be similar, very similar indeed. In fact, if the DNA were not similar, then that would be a positive indicator that the Genesis account is false.
 
About the Ads

DORoe

BWAAA HAAA HAAA
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 24, 2003
893
0
39
Ohio
Status (Visible)
No you are wrong evolution is not the same thing as religion. Evolution is the currently most accepted theory regarding the production of new species. It does not necessarily equate to the ape to man argument, but that is one explanation among many proposed by the evolution camp. The difference between science and religion lies in the ability to falsify claims. Falsification is at the heart of science. For example if a scientist proposes an explanation for why something occurs there will immediately be about 10 other scientists trying to chip away at that explanation. Science is not a body of knowlege it can be compared the the Constitution, a living thing. It changes and rearranges as new information becomes available. Right now evolution is the most widely accepted version of how other species came about because the current theory has stood up to constant attempts to falsify it. Religion on the other hand is blind faith. It cannot be falsified because how can you argue with, "Because that's how God intended" or "It's that way because the (insert religious text here) says so" You can notice that BACMEDIC used this exact kind of reasoning in his attempt to discredit genetics analysis. We can either believe that the DNA is that way because God wanted it that way or we can believe that DNA similarities are a result of being very similar in the lineage of the species. The difference in the two arguments is that the God explanation is not able to be proven nor falsified so it lies in the realm of faith and religion. The DNA meaning that there is relatedness is supported by scientific data that one could attempt to falsify. I am not saying that the God explanation is not right, but that it cannot be proven so it is not scientific.

I cannot answer about the Neanderthals because I have not had the opportunity to take an anthropology course and know very little about the subject.

I also point you to the many inaccuracies that are in the Bible. I mean reread Genesis and you will find two different creation stories and many many more problems with the text. I believe in God and I believe that He was the Creator of everything, but I tend to fall in more of the watchmaker theory. He build it and let it go. I don't see any reason that God couldn't use the processes of evolution to create man and everything else. I believe the Bible, and other religious texts tell us stories to which we are to extrapolate meaning and ways to which the church elders thought we should live our lives. Much like the moral stories found in Aesops Fables or in countless other classic stories.

BTW if you are more interested in the evolution and creation debate I would recommend a book entitled "Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science" by Massimo Pigliuci. It discusses what evolution is and what it is not, what science is and what it is not, and outlines the creationist argument and points out its flaws. Obviously this book is written by an agnostic and a very active member in the sceptic society, but I think he argues his position well and presents the other side in a fair manner.
 

moo

1K Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 4, 2000
1,423
7
Status (Visible)
I am not wishing to start a debate on religion vs. science, but I feel I have to weigh in.

First, lemme say I am Catholic. Second, you don't need evolution to "disprove" what the bible says.

As a former physics and math major, you only need to look at something as simple as the speed of light and the fact that it has always been constant (something which was proven mathematically by Einstein).

If you believe the math (and to me mathematics represents the absolute truth), you'll believe this fact, and logical deduction implies that the bible must be false. I can see how evolution requires some sort of "faith" but the speed of light is there. It's a simple constant that was calculated.

One of my friends in undergrad who was a physics major with me was a devout Christian and even she did not try to discount this fact. She even said that the Christians who claimed that physicists had it wrong and that the speed of light hadn't always been constant are crazy.

However, as I said, I'm not going to start a debate here. Just wanted to point out some other things that people have used to try and dispel the bible.
 

BACMEDIC

Full Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2002
130
0
Pa
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
I did not even try to attempt to discredit genetic analysis. I simply pointed out that a religion is faith in something unseen, something unproven. By that definition, the theory of evolution is a religion. Many evolutionists disagree because the evidence that they do have, although unproven, is enough for them to believe ? that is, they have faith that it is true, or will be shown that it is true in the future. Many religions have their same exact argument. They have enough evidence (prophecies, whatever?), although unproven, is enough for them to believe ? they have faith that it is true, or will be shown to be true in the future.
The example I gave is a perfect example of how the same data is used to support two arguments. The DNA being nearly identical is what would be expected if God created all the animals from the same batch of goo, from the same material and even the same process of creation. Evolutionists take that same data and say that it proves we all came from the same ancestor. Both arguments are valid as arguments, but both are unproven, so both are based on faith. You can argue that evolution is correct till the cows come home, but you cannot prove it ? and by the way ? that is why they call it a theory. I think the problem many people have is that a lot of scientist want to teach the theory of evolution not as a theory, but as a fact. So much for blind faith.
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by moo
I am not wishing to start a debate on religion vs. science, but I feel I have to weigh in.

First, lemme say I am Catholic. Second, you don't need evolution to "disprove" what the bible says.

As a former physics and math major, you only need to look at something as simple as the speed of light and the fact that it has always been constant (something which was proven mathematically by Einstein).

If you believe the math (and to me mathematics represents the absolute truth), you'll believe this fact, and logical deduction implies that the bible must be false. I can see how evolution requires some sort of "faith" but the speed of light is there. It's a simple constant that was calculated.

One of my friends in undergrad who was a physics major with me was a devout Christian and even she did not try to discount this fact. She even said that the Christians who claimed that physicists had it wrong and that the speed of light hadn't always been constant are crazy.

However, as I said, I'm not going to start a debate here. Just wanted to point out some other things that people have used to try and dispel the bible.

ppl are always so sure that the 'known' laws are true... its when you think for a 'second' hmm maybe not... then you risk learning or discovering something....

http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by daveswafford
Not sure this post is in the right forum, but here goes nothing.

I'm not exactly sure how what exactly sure what type of "evolution" you are talking about. Evolution from one species to another over time due to slelective pressures is thought to be the summation of evolutionary processes such as genetic mutation.

From a scientific standpoint it is virtually impossible to argue against evolution due to genetic mutation. This has been observed in by many different means by many different researchers. The significance of these mutations is usually negligable or negative. Here evolutionary theory fits with clinical observation. Most mutations are silent, fewer mutations negatively impact organisms (such as with the p53 mutation that often leads to skin cancer), and a very small percent mutations are actually advantages... after all... someday somebody might grow a tumor that does something cool ;).

The picture become less clear when discussing whether or not these mutations lead to the formation of new species, separated by the inability to reproduce with the species from which they evolved. Because humans have been observing life on Earth with scientific scrutiny for such a relatively short period of time no one, to my knowledge, has observed and recorded the formation of a new species.

Speaky briefly about Neanderthals, it seems very unlikely that a species with a "defect" such as the one you elude to could populate an area equal to the range of the Neanderthals for the amount of time that Neanderthals survived. It is interesting that you would ask about genetic variation between Neanderthals and Homo sapians sapians (us) as the genetic relationship between Neaderthals and Humans is currently being hottly debated by physical and genetic anthropolgist. It is my understanding that the physical evidence supports the theory that Humans and Neanderthals were in fact different species. The genetic evidence, however, suggest that Neanderthals were actually a group of humans that left Africa and migrated to Europe before a second group of Humans left Africa and moved into the Middle East, then eventually into Europe where the Neanderthals were already populating the land. Now, because of selective pressure the Neanderthals who had been in Europe for long enough to adapt to the environment somewhat. These adaptations include increased muscle mass, thicker bones, and a stockier stature. However, it is important to note that Neanderthals had the same brain size and modern humans and that brain size has long been used as an important tool for tracking the evolution of humans. It is my understanding that the most cutting edge theories actually claim that there was some breeding between Neaderthals and the later arriving human groups, though I cannot site specific evidence or published research to support this claim.

I hope this is useful info.

PS - I didn't edit this post, so please excuse the typos. Also, I'm trying to remember this from an anthropology class I took a couple years ago... so hopefully the info is accurate.

when talking about evolution, remember that the ideas founder only proposed MICRO-evolution... not macro.... think 'bout that doood....
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by DORoe
No you are wrong evolution is not the same thing as religion. Evolution is the currently most accepted theory regarding the production of new species.

by whom?? not by me... not by any of my friends or family, not by many of my profs or organisations etc etc etc...
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by danwsu
This same thread is posted like 8 times.

ur jus jealous that you didnt post in it sooner :p hehehe
 

Runtita

Goddess on the Move
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Apr 28, 2003
608
0
50
Don't call me Mrs. Cheney
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Science is not faith-based; it is based on logic and reason. The argument that science is a religion because you can't directly prove a scientific theory (which is entirely different than the layperson's conception of "theory") is bogus.

Religion is faith-based; science is reason-based. Both ways of thinking are subject to the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the human mind. Science is not perfect; neither is religion.

This entire issue is moot. You can't argue with faith. There is no compromise possible.
 

DORoe

BWAAA HAAA HAAA
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 24, 2003
893
0
39
Ohio
Status (Visible)
by whom?? not by me... not by any of my friends or family, not by many of my profs or organisations etc etc etc...

Your telling me that the majority of scientists do not believe in evolution???? I find that extremely hard to believe. What organisations are you refering to? I would like to explore this a little further. What do they currently think is the best explanation for the origin of new species? BTW I just want to say that I'm not trying to discredit faith or religion I just simply wanted to say that evolution is scientific while religion is not. I agree that with all theories there involves a certain amount of faith and belief, but you kinda have to believe a little bit that there is a thing called gravity don't you? What I mean is that science if backed up by data and research. Evolutionary theory has been supported by a number of experiments throughout the years. Religion does not give the empirical results that can be reproduced so it is therefore discounted in the realm of science. I'm not saying that evolution is fact. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong after some new breakthrough and discover that is why I refered to science as an ever changing body of knowledge. What I am saying is that it has been supported over the years.

Note: I think perhaps you are thinking that I am supporting the theory that man came from apes. I am not because I have no experience or knowledge about that subject. I am refering to basic principles of evolution. I agree with things like natural selection causing gradual change over time, but do not have enough information about the ape to man hypothesis to formulate an opinion.
 
About the Ads

Runtita

Goddess on the Move
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Apr 28, 2003
608
0
50
Don't call me Mrs. Cheney
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Oh- about the Neanderthals...

I'm a proponent of the idea that Neanderthals were a subspecies which was eventually assimilated into the larger human gene pool, as evidenced by my husband's astoundingly thick skull and enormous brow ridge. And he grunts a lot.
 

DORoe

BWAAA HAAA HAAA
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 24, 2003
893
0
39
Ohio
Status (Visible)
I'm a proponent of the idea that Neanderthals were a subspecies which was eventually assimilated into the larger human gene pool, as evidenced by my husband's astoundingly thick skull and enormous brow ridge. And he grunts a lot.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

coldsteel

Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Oct 23, 2003
38
0
Status (Visible)
Cooldreams is insane. Just do a search of his/her previous posts and that should rest the case.

Otherwise, the current view in the field brought about largely by molecular studies done by Carl Woese and others supports the idea that there was a common universal unicellular ancestor. Several branches from this ancestor have resulted in the three domains of life: eukarya, prokarya, and archea (yes, it is widely accepted that the traditional five kingdom system is defunct). According to this view the neanderthals were a twig from the branch that eventually led to the evolution of homo sapiens. Each branch on the tree leads to several twigs which may develop into another branch, or (most of the time) become a dead end.

Most reasonable people accept that creationism and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive. As is always the case, there are of course extremists at both ends of the spectrum. The truth always lies in the middle, so I guess we do need extremists like cooldreams to define the middle. So, cooldreams, even though you are nuts, thanks for bringing your part to the progress of the human endeavour.
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by coldsteel
Cooldreams is insane. Just do a search of his/her previous posts and that should rest the case.

Otherwise, the current view in the field brought about largely by molecular studies done by Carl Woese and others supports the idea that there was a common universal unicellular ancestor. Several branches from this ancestor have resulted in the three domains of life: eukarya, prokarya, and archea (yes, it is widely accepted that the traditional five kingdom system is defunct). According to this view the neanderthals were a twig from the branch that eventually led to the evolution of homo sapiens. Each branch on the tree leads to several twigs which may develop into another branch, or (most of the time) become a dead end.

Most reasonable people accept that creationism and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive. As is always the case, there are of course extremists at both ends of the spectrum. The truth always lies in the middle, so I guess we do need extremists like cooldreams to define the middle. So, cooldreams, even though you are nuts, thanks for bringing your part to the progress of the human endeavour.

:laugh:

crazy insane or insane crazy?? lol

uhh... seriously though, has anything ive said been incorrect? you just call me nuts, but do not discount the facts i have presented.

in your studies and thoughts about God and religion, what is your control sample?
 

jArsOfClay

Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 29, 2004
63
0
40
Tejas
www.howstuffworks.com
Status (Visible)
Let me just clarify a few things,

I never said I don't believe in Evolution. It's quite ostensible that evolution has occured. But from Ape to man, that is another very highly divided area of evolution.

Now second, I don't recall saying anything extremist. If I did, please point it out to me.

Third, I support your right to believe whatever you want. After all when it comes to the ultimate creation of the universe any view you accept will be a matter of faith---even the big bang. Why the big bang too you say? Isn't it supported by a mountain of data?

Maybe the idea that the universe is expanding is, but an infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity (redundant I know) didn't come from out of nowhere. Besides the big bang violates laws of thermodynamics and we all know from science class that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed right (aside from the fact that they can be created from one another), but we have to admit that it was created at some point by something?

Now notice how quickly this thread strayed into something entirely unlike what I intended it to be. I simply asked does anyone know how far along we are with the Neanderthal genome?

If you don't know, don't bother posting your rants. If you don't believe in God. GREAT FOR YOU!!! You're betting nothing against everything!

Oh and this thread is not posted 8 times, just 4 times. It's like fishing, I wanted to see where I got the most bites.
 

flighterdoc

Rocket Scientist
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 1, 2003
10,373
10
65
Slipping the Surly Bonds of Earth
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by jArsOfClay


Maybe the idea that the universe is expanding is, but an infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity (redundant I know) didn't come from out of nowhere. Besides the big bang violates laws of thermodynamics and we all know from science class that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed right (aside from the fact that they can be created from one another), but we have to admit that it was created at some point by something?


The "universe" @ the time of the big bang was not a closed system, a condition of the rules of thermodynamics.
 

jArsOfClay

Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 29, 2004
63
0
40
Tejas
www.howstuffworks.com
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by flighterdoc
The "universe" @ the time of the big bang was not a closed system, a condition of the rules of thermodynamics.


This is speculation and cannot be proven (as you must know).

The scientific community is torn between whether or not the singularity was open or closed.

Besides that the big bang also violates the law of conservation of Angular momentum due to the fact that not all planets spin are clockwise.

:p
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
the entire universe as a singularity point. complete system.

if that is not the complete system, then thas news to me.

according to hawkings idea, the universe came from that brief point and expanded, then will reach its limit and contract on itself to a singularity again and repeat... what exists outside of that system??

hmm... *crickets in the background*
 

bgreet

Dopefish Lives!
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 14, 2003
799
0
36
NY, NY
Status (Visible)
I really don't want to start a flame war here, but just as an idea to bring to light; how many religions have there been in the world that have been proposed, followed to death, and then later discredited? Our history is littered with them, along with religious text that supposedly bolsters these claims, all too similar to today. What makes everyone so sure that in say, 300 years or so our modern day religions will be discredited and something new will surface? I'm just curious as to what makes the present so much different than the past in terms of religion. The way I view such is that science has a longer longevity (today's ideas can be used to answer yesterday's problems, etc. etc.), and give way to much more meaning for both present and past. Now if you were to also ask me do I believe we could go without religion, and I would say no. Although the context of such may be untrue, its a tool that society uses for binding people together (and unfortunately also tearing them apart). I get annoyed when anyone takes anything to heart, including both science and religion. The bible is a good reference for moral values, its not meant to be read analytically with every occurence having to be correct, there are numerous inconsistencies; it has been passed down through hundreds of years through translation and its biggest flaw is that it was orignally written by man. Take what I have said as you will, I'm sure many will disagree and thats fine, but I just think people need to start becoming more open minded.
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
bgreet , hi thx for your post. i must ask though, please, name just one inconsistancy (besides my flawed spelling).

the bible is the inerant truth. it has yet to be disproven and never will be disproven. you cannot disprove the truth. try... i dare ya...
 
About the Ads

bgreet

Dopefish Lives!
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 14, 2003
799
0
36
NY, NY
Status (Visible)
In the same context, one can not disprove ancient Greek or Roman mythology, Norse mythology, etc. etc. The point being, myth can not be disproved, as it has no basis in reality. Might I add, all have a similar origin, inspiration from a divine entity, including the bible. Anything written by man is flawed, as error is his nature.

**Edit: And in similar fashion to how you attempted to prove that the speed of light is not constant, I present this list of inconsistencies in the bible. :) List of Bible inconsistencies 700 Bible Inconsistencies
 

jArsOfClay

Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 29, 2004
63
0
40
Tejas
www.howstuffworks.com
Status (Visible)
Okay Okay,


There are plenty of things in the bible that cannot possibly be true I'll give you that.

Noah's flood is probably a rip off of Gilgamesh, the tower of babel must be a metaphor because I don't see God tearing down the Sears Tower.

It's like you said it's faith. That's all. Geeze people I just asked a simple question.
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
oh im sorry, i thought you said "The bible is a good reference for moral values, its not meant to be read analytically with every occurence having to be correct, there are numerous inconsistencies; it has been passed down through hundreds of years through translation and its biggest flaw is that it was orignally written by man. "

but now you say "In the same context, one can not disprove ancient Greek or Roman mythology, Norse mythology, etc. etc. The point being, myth can not be disproved, as it has no basis in reality. Might I add, all have a similar origin, inspiration from a divine entity, including the bible. Anything written by man is flawed, as error is his nature. "

man i guess im just not following you... how can it have "numerous inconsistencies" but yet cannot be disproven. You state "it has no basis in reality" but i would like to point out that all of the bible was based here on earth with constant geography, cultural, and iconic references that have all been shown to be consistent from secular sources and has its entire basis in reality and on earth.

?????
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by jArsOfClay
Okay Okay,


There are plenty of things in the bible that cannot possibly be true I'll give you that.

Noah's flood is probably a rip off of Gilgamesh, the tower of babel must be a metaphor because I don't see God tearing down the Sears Tower.

It's like you said it's faith. That's all. Geeze people I just asked a simple question.

i disagree. there is evidence of both.

flood
http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/wh_noah.htm

babel
http://www.jcsm.org/misc/TowerofBabel.htm


truth is stranger than fiction....
 

cooldreams

American Mensa Member :)
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 11, 2003
2,063
4
43
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by jArsOfClay

It's like you said it's faith. That's all. Geeze people I just asked a simple question.

furthermore... the bible instructs us to believe through proof. that is just the begining to your journey with God. after a while of discovering all of these amazing truths... you begin to see the real picture, to see what God is really doing and how He works. you would never believe it or understand it without taking your first few steps....

dont trip and fall man... literally or symbolically....
 

bgreet

Dopefish Lives!
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 14, 2003
799
0
36
NY, NY
Status (Visible)
LoL Look I'm really not looking for a flame war but I will respond. The point is the bible in a general sense is a work of fiction, yet it has many ideal moral values that I believe our society should maintain. Analytically speaking however, it is riddled with numerous logical flaws. The book itself can not be disproven in a moral sense, or theological sense, yet it can be falsified analytically, or as a series of historical events by conflicting factual information. The point is, the entire geography, cultural and "iconic" references could take place on an entirelly different planet, yet the moral references and theological references would remain unchanged. The bible has no basis in reality, similar to how a we do not have huge titans or giants walking around in our time as the Ancient Greek and Roman mythological stories do, we do not have people that can come back from the dead, or be healed by a simple touch. My overall point being reading the bible as a historical reference is silly, as it is historical fiction, its meant to be read for what lies beneath the lines.
 

jArsOfClay

Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 29, 2004
63
0
40
Tejas
www.howstuffworks.com
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by bgreet
LoL Look I'm really not looking for a flame war but I will respond. The point is the bible in a general sense is a work of fiction, yet it has many ideal moral values that I believe our society should maintain. Analytically speaking however, it is riddled with numerous logical flaws. The book itself can not be disproven in a moral sense, or theological sense, yet it can be falsified analytically, or as a series of historical events by conflicting factual information. The point is, the entire geography, cultural and "iconic" references could take place on an entirelly different planet, yet the moral references and theological references would remain unchanged. The bible has no basis in reality, similar to how a we do not have huge titans or giants walking around in our time as the Ancient Greek and Roman mythological stories do, we do not have people that can come back from the dead, or be healed by a simple touch. My overall point being reading the bible as a historical reference is silly, as it is historical fiction, its meant to be read for what lies beneath the lines.


A lot of what you said is very very true. However, the bible can be used as a very accurate historical source at times. The famous Jewish historian Josephus known to be very credible by modern scholars agrees with many accounts in the bible e.g. temples, places, names, etc.

Also, several recent excavations have proven accounts in the bible to be accurate. Specifically places in Jerusalem mentioned in the bible and long thought to disprove its accuaracy have now been uncovered.
 

bgreet

Dopefish Lives!
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 14, 2003
799
0
36
NY, NY
Status (Visible)
Jars: I don't refute this, however there is reason behind this. Just as if a present day author were to write a historical fiction epic, they would use actual places that exist now adays, and if such were to be lost and then resurface a few hundred years later the information, besides the actual fictional story, would be historically accurate. I really do compare the story of Jesus in the bible to homer's the odyssey, except that Jesus did not find his way home until after dying.
 

mfred

Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Oct 16, 2002
40
2
Ft. Worth
Status (Visible)
Clearly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evoution, if you are looking at it a certain way. In order to believe that all the evidence points to evolution you must assume that God can not or would not create the world with any sort of hierarchal order. You see the scientific bias is that all things fit into this grand physical theory, regardless of how unlikely it is that it would ever occur. In terms of statistics, the time needed for the extremely unlikely occurence of evolution to become likely is many times longer than the age of Earth as determined by geophysics (which by the way any scientifically accepted age of the Earth is usually on the high side of the range that geophysics dictates). The reason evolution is such a popular theory is that in some instances it fits very well, because species can over time adapt. However, just because species adapt does not in anyway validate the idea that new structures can evolve, especially new structures which are advantageous for species survival. As pointed out earlier, evolution is a theory, not a law (gravity by the way is a law). From a very broad scale biological perspective it appears to make sense, clearly you see a propensity in nature to increasing complexity. However, if you really look at the logistics of the whole system, it is mind boggling. Just look at the renin/AgII system to use a medical example. Which part of that evolved 1st? The system is reliant on so many enzymes and receptors that only work in an integrated fashion, what evolutionary advantage does only part of the system give? How does having random amounts of ACE floating around without the rest of the system make a paticular organism (with an astoundingly bizarre and improbble mutation which somehow works its way into the gametes to pass this mutation onto its offspring which will also in a very bizarre fashion make this mutation more advantageous) more fit for reproduction? It truly boggles the mind. To me, it is much easier to look around the gross anatomy lab, the physiology book, the neuroscience book, or the universe (astrophysics major in former life) and see God then to see a world/universe which won the lottery 100 billion times in a row. Could a similar post be written about the liklihood that there is a benevolent God who will someday judge the world? Yes, of course, that is why they call it faith. However, I would point out that faith belongs in the realm of the metaphysical, not in the realm of science.
 

jArsOfClay

Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 29, 2004
63
0
40
Tejas
www.howstuffworks.com
Status (Visible)
Originally posted by mfred
Clearly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evoution, if you are looking at it a certain way. In order to believe that all the evidence points to evolution you must assume that God can not or would not create the world with any sort of hierarchal order. You see the scientific bias is that all things fit into this grand physical theory, regardless of how unlikely it is that it would ever occur. In terms of statistics, the time needed for the extremely unlikely occurence of evolution to become likely is many times longer than the age of Earth as determined by geophysics (which by the way any scientifically accepted age of the Earth is usually on the high side of the range that geophysics dictates). The reason evolution is such a popular theory is that in some instances it fits very well, because species can over time adapt. However, just because species adapt does not in anyway validate the idea that new structures can evolve, especially new structures which are advantageous for species survival. As pointed out earlier, evolution is a theory, not a law (gravity by the way is a law). From a very broad scale biological perspective it appears to make sense, clearly you see a propensity in nature to increasing complexity. However, if you really look at the logistics of the whole system, it is mind boggling. Just look at the renin/AgII system to use a medical example. Which part of that evolved 1st? The system is reliant on so many enzymes and receptors that only work in an integrated fashion, what evolutionary advantage does only part of the system give? How does having random amounts of ACE floating around without the rest of the system make a paticular organism (with an astoundingly bizarre and improbble mutation which somehow works its way into the gametes to pass this mutation onto its offspring which will also in a very bizarre fashion make this mutation more advantageous) more fit for reproduction? It truly boggles the mind. To me, it is much easier to look around the gross anatomy lab, the physiology book, the neuroscience book, or the universe (astrophysics major in former life) and see God then to see a world/universe which won the lottery 100 billion times in a row. Could a similar post be written about the liklihood that there is a benevolent God who will someday judge the world? Yes, of course, that is why they call it faith. However, I would point out that faith belongs in the realm of the metaphysical, not in the realm of science.

I agree with everything you said.

This should be the end of it.
 
About the Ads
Status
Not open for further replies.