And then God created... - Page 2

**South** · 08-31-2006, 12:53 PM

Too much to quote. Ponder this.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

Louis · 08-31-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapper

Here is my eight year old daughter's take on the situation trying to convince her little sister and friend. She makes more sense than you guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epps9UU97mw

Kev! Tell Maria that she rocks!

Trapper · 08-31-2006, 03:08 PM

Will do. Although I think she already knows.

<---Proud Papa.

Brian · 08-31-2006, 07:33 PM

for goodness sakes people....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Zap · 08-31-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian

for goodness sakes people....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

I think I may have just found the perfect religion for me.

Atom · 08-31-2006, 09:01 PM

littleFella · 09-01-2006, 06:10 PM

spotted this funny sing today:

**John Scott** · 09-01-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littleFella

spotted this funny sing today:

I may be dense, but I don't get the humour of it.

**G10** · 09-02-2006, 12:07 AM

If I remember correctly, that fish symbol is the symbol of life and creationism via god and it says "Darwinism" inside making it the two a complete contradiction

- Something along those lines.

Plus, it's obviously sprouted legs and evolved on.

Atom · 09-02-2006, 12:12 AM

I believe the fish is an early Christian symbol symbolizing Christianity. It may even be the first .. can't quite recall.

**John Scott** · 09-02-2006, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G10

If I remember correctly, that fish symbol is the symbol of life and creationism via god and it says "Darwinism" inside making it the two a complete contradiction

- Something along those lines.

Plus, it's obviously sprouted legs and evolved on.

Yes, I'm aware of the implications and symbolism, I just don't see how that is amusing.

**G10** · 09-02-2006, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Yes, I'm aware of the implications and symbolism, I just don't see how that is amusing.

Oops, sorry, I misunderstood

I believe in God and creation but it did tickle me though. I think it's just someone attempt to wind Christians up

**John Scott** · 09-02-2006, 12:23 AM

As a symbol of Darwinism, it kind of backfires if that's the purpose. The creature portrayed, of course, is a fairy tale. I kind of thought it meant to portray Darwinism in a similar light - as a fairy tale.

Atom · 09-02-2006, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

As a symbol of Darwinism, it kind of backfires if that's the purpose. The creature portrayed, of course, is a fairy tale. I kind of thought it meant to portray Darwinism in a similar light - as a fairy tale.

The creature is simply a stylized fish. I think it's a direct contradiction, as G10 indicated, which would be amusing to some. The two stroke symbol was actually used by early Christians to identify each other, as I recall.

▲

littleFella · 09-02-2006, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Yes, I'm aware of the implications and symbolism, I just don't see how that is amusing.

For you to find it amusing you would have to imagine for a moment it wasn't me who posted the picture. Then you might want to read the title of the thread and the content of the first post. These seem to be reflected in that sign. Which I btw. I believe to be true.

littleFella · 09-02-2006, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by South

Too much to quote. Ponder this.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

I read the article and pondered it. Other than some discrepancies between the sate ranges proposed therein and by scientists the article doesn;t appear to defeat evolution per se. As a matter of fact it appears to admit that it is occuring, but not in humnas. That is reminiscnet of the special position Catholic church assigned to humans and to the 3rd planet itself.

Also, the general tone of the article in various paragraphs indicates that the theory of evolution is a case closed and that all minute details are worked out. They are not. This is science and this particular branch of science is still work in progress, but with enough material to draw some general conclusions. Details may change, just like the position of the Earth within our planetary system "changed".

I'll try to address briefly the individual chapters and to indicate why I see some statements as flawed:

The beginning of trouble - lack of genetic diversity among modern humans
This chapter proposes that the fst value (genetic diversity) in humans is too low. Some problems with this argument:
- what would the correct fst be and why? If there is a correct fst value then it would indicate that evolution is at least a possibility, which in turn would allow for creationsim (in its classical sense) to be defeated
- if evolution is indeed a fact, then it would be natural that variations within various species are different. Why would fst value have to be identical throughout the species.

Still more trouble - Discontinuous morphological changes in the hominid lineage

Discontinuity is not there necessarilly because there wasn't any continuity. We do not have sufficient data. If we take a starting point (A) and the ending (present) point Z, and if we see that there have been changes, then we may lack details of C,F,G or Q, but what we have is sufficient to prove the change indeed occured.

Imagine a system of cameras in London, UK. You can track people's movemet's from one place within the city to another. The system is pretty good but doesn't cover every square inch of the city. You can track a person's path, and even with some of the points outisde the scope of the sruveillance cameras, you know where they came from and how they got to their destination. The fact that you may have lost their sight for a few moments at a time does not mean they did not start started out where they did, or that they never reached the destination.

Again, work in progress, but with enough material to suggest the evolution indeed occured.

Another problem - too many deleterious mutations

I have to admit I'm lost here. The first argument says there is not enough genetic diversity, and now it says the rate of mutations is so great that the diversification was so fast that would have finished off the species long time ago. I may need some help understanding this.

Recent origin of modern humans confirmed through molecular biology

Nothing there that would defeat the theory of evolution in general.

The nail in the coffin

I'm not sure what nail they are talking about. The parapgraph again doesn't defeat the theory of evlution in general. It only shows how some of its findings are constantly being corrected based on newer technologies and information. At least we can see the process, and we can see that science is not a dogma, but search for truth.

The Bottom Line

... can be best expressed by this quote;

Modern molecular biology tells us that modern humans arose less than 100,000 years ago (confirmed by three independent techniques), and most likely, less than 50,000 years ago. This data ties in quite well with the fossil record. Sophisticated works of art first appear in the fossil record about 40,000-50,000 years ago and evidence of religious expression appears only 25,000-50,000 years ago.

Far cry from 6K years as suggested by the Bible, huh? Can we really take the Bible literaly? Should we perhaps treat it as a spiritual guide rather than a scientific treatise?

The article fails to defeat the theory of evolution as such. It concentrates solely on some aspects of the evolution of homo spaiens. It treats the species as an isolated one, but the way the article is written it's hard to say which conclusions were actually expressed by te scientists and which are a religious fundamentalists' spin.

The last paragraph points us to Genesis, but fails to provide the proof that the words contained within it are a fact, not just an ancient fiction.

**South** · 09-02-2006, 06:48 AM

Yeah, in hind site I wished I hadn't even posted the link. Science can no more conclusively prove or disprove creation than it can evolution.

When dealing with such a matter, you have to use the evidence provided and draw your own conclusion. As a Christian, I KNOW that the Word of God is factual. I have personal experience that provides evidence of many parts of it that lead me to know that other parts must be true as well. I have watched things happen in my own life and my own body that science can't understand, which lets me know that God, not science, is the final word.

A non-beleiver still needs answers and so will find them where he can get them. I still hold that, Christian or not, evolution is a far reaching grasp for an explanation, but since those who hold science as their religeon (basis of truth) the supernatural, or that which is beyond the understanding of science, won't do. That is why evolution is now and will likely be for some time to come the explanation of choice.

**South** · 09-02-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littleFella

Far cry from 6K years as suggested by the Bible, huh? Can we really take the Bible literaly? Should we perhaps treat it as a spiritual guide rather than a scientific treatise?

The bible can be taken quite literally aside from the parts which are made clear to be rhetorical examples. Remember though that it's a translated document, and it takes careful study and cross reference to understand the literals of it sometimes. The source language is often more specific than english can translate well.