[Dayseed]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Oh, ok I'll tell you what I believe. In Creation, as well as evolution, animals came before man. Since God created the world in 6 steps, man being the last step, anything that happened before mankind appeared was Creation still taking place. As for the discovery of new species of plant and animal life, I'd hardly call that proof of evolution.

The discovery of new plants and animals aren't proof of evolution. Who is saying that it is?

$1:

Your glib comment about a giant hand reaching down from the sky to place new species isn't a whole lot different than the belief that nature just suddenly decided that (place epoch here) is the perfect time to spontaneously evolve brand spanking new life forms. Natural selection don't work that way.

You're personifying evolution. The small incremental mutations occur all along a genome's history. However, sometimes, the phenotypic result of those mutations is a hell of a boon to the species and punctuated equilibrium is believed to occur. Natural selection then goes to work on the new equilibrium. I'm not sure I understand how you're defining natural selection.

$1:

What's even funnier though is, people that "pooh-pooh" the Creation story in the Bible because it's: A)a religious document and they don't believe in it, or B) it's too old and too convoluted through translations to be accurate. But is it really when it comes to the story of Creation? The 6 steps that are laid out in the Book of Genesis have been pretty much confirmed by science. Once the original formation of the firmament took place, each following step in the Creation of Earth could NOT have taken place without the preceding step happening. I'd say that's pretty fucking accurate for a religious, ancient and oft poorly translated book.

I take great exception with your comment that the 6 steps laid out in the Book of Genesis have been confirmed by science. They simply haven't. Let's examine this using the King James version of the Bible.

$1:

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Right off the bat, two mistakes have been made. Firstly, the "light" is created and God called it "day". Simply put, that's the Sun. So, day 1, the sun. That will come back to shit all over the Genesis account. Secondly, where the hell did the water come from? If we're comparing the astrophysical genesis, the universe exploded from singularity and rushed outwards. Water ain't nowhere to be found, this is the age of rapidly disappearing quarks and other possibly more fundamental sub-particles as energy gives way to matter.

$1:

6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Okay, I'll bite. Heaven is encapsulated in a pool of water? Which astrophysical phenomenon is directly comparable to this? Aristotle's crystalline spheres in the ether?

$1:

9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Okay, now the sub-Heavenly waters are gathered into one place and the dry land appears. Water preceded land. Yup, according to the Bible, water preceded land. Now, modern astrophysics believed that ice was carried onto the Earth when it formed from the planetismals, but liquid water wouldn't have appeared on Earth until approximately 500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 after its initial formation. Remember, the Earth preceded water. After the planet cooled enough, water coalesced and began to pool.

Also, Genesis declares that flowers and plants preceded ocean-dwelling life when evolutionary biology tells us that earliest life formed in the water. That's not confirmed...that's directly at odds.

Let's not mention what the hell the point of a fruit-bearing tree is with nothing to eat the fruit and toss aside the seed to spread it around?

$1:

14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Oh sweet merciful Richard Dawkins what the hell is going on here now? The plants, grass and trees are all hanging around in the dark? It's on the fourth day that the bloody SUN gets made! What the hell was that on day 1 then? The stars (also known as other suns although my nomenclature is backwards for the point of this) are also created! Imagine that! The sun and the stars are all created AFTER the oceans! The light coming from those stars (which is how we know they exist) is millions, possibly even billions of years old by the time it reaches us due to the horrendous distance it has to travel. Now, did God decide to not only create the stars but also to create photons in motion as though they were dispersed from all these stars? He'd have to!

Now, if you can find me an astrophysics paper that postulates, tests and confirms that there are no stars older than the Pacific Ocean, I'll spot you a point for the Bible. Remember, in order to "confirm" the Bible, there can't be any stars in existence before the Oceans because that's the order God made them. I think you'll find that once again, astrophysics does not "confirm" Genesis so much as it "demolishes" it.

$1:

20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And whammo, the oceans are now filled with life. Trees first, algae second. Yup, tons and tons of science backing that claim! Wait, did I say science? I meant "nothing".

$1:

24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

And then animals and then man. Sure, evolutionary biology will agree that the advent of man was about 200,000 years ago making us a relatively new species on the Earth. The MOST recent? Nope.

So, let's cut the nonsense that "science has confirmed the 6 days of Genesis". It clearly hasn't and often diametrically opposes it.

[BartSimpson]

poquas poquas:

I don't know that. You'd have to retract the "historical" statement for me to think otherwise.

You're welcome

Why are you so DENSE???

There's plenty of history in the Bible and plenty of it is corroborated by other sources and that makes it an historical document in addition to being a religious document. Why is it so f***ing hard for you to wrap your tiny little brain around that idea?

[andyt]

Dayseed Dayseed:

The discovery of new plants and animals aren't proof of evolution. Who is saying that it is?

I believe that was me. I wasn't talking about an existing species that just was rare and recently discovered, but the fact that all the species extant now have not been around all at the same time. Otherwise Adam would really have had to have been running around with the dinosaurs. What I'm asking is what is the mechanism by which newer species come about, if not evolution? If you don't believe in evolution, either you have to believe the Earth supported humans from the get go, ie was hospitable to oxygen breathing life, and so deny all of geology, geophysics etc, or you have to believe that God periodically comes and seeds the planet with new species - that's where my image of the big hand coming down comes in.

Bart, and I think maybe Public too, want to keep a foot in both camps - there's some evolution, but God also intervenes somehow. That really doesn't work, it invalidates Science, so you might as well just go with the miraculous. As I said, maybe it's like Star Trek, where new species just materialize one day. "Beam em down, Gabriel."

[poquas]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

poquas poquas:

I don't know that. You'd have to retract the "historical" statement for me to think otherwise.

You're welcome

Why are you so DENSE???

There's plenty of history in the Bible and plenty of it is corroborated by other sources and that makes it an historical document in addition to being a religious document. Why is it so f***ing hard for you to wrap your tiny little brain around that idea?

That’s exactly the reaction I’d expect from a fundamentalist who is feeling threatened.

The bible is a piece of fiction. It was created by incorporating the myths and beliefs of various previous cultures in an effort to control a group of people. It’s been modified and manipulated through the ages by various people to maintain that control. It’s the basis of a crutch for those who are incapable of accepting reality. If you were born a thousand years from now you’d probably be worshiping Captain Marvel, and you call me dense?

[Zipperfish]

Science and spirituality are not necessarily mutually exclusive belief systems. Science concerns itself exclusively--exclusively--with the natural universe. Anything supernatural is outside the purview of science. If a given god is a supernatural being then it is not within the realm of investigation of science.

Another big difference between science and most religions is that religions tend to be based on revealed, eternal truths, whereas in science, truth is provisional and transient.

Also, religions tend to be normative--they speak of what should be. Science--when practiced correctly, which seems rare these days--speaks of what is.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Science and spirituality are not necessarily mutually exclusive belief systems. Science concerns itself exclusively--exclusively--with the natural universe. Anything supernatural is outside the purview of science. If a given god is a supernatural being then it is not within the realm of investigation of science.

Another big difference between science and most religions is that religions tend to be based on revealed, eternal truths, whereas in science, truth is provisional and transient.

Also, religions tend to be normative--they speak of what should be. Science--when practiced correctly, which seems rare these days--speaks of what is.

Well, Science speaks of what is thought to be. Saying Science speaks of what is, leads to the type of hubris of Scientism - ie that Science knows the truth. Since as you say, truth is transient.

The thing is that in this discussion, Public and maybe Bart are trying to marry Science and religion, specifically what's in the bible. That's just miscegenation.

Science is silent about the very beginning of the universe, and doesn't have much to say about the very beginning of life. Maybe some day it will. So, people can use religious explanations here without contradicting the science. But, since those religious explanations have no objective evidence, (they can't, since religion isn't about objectivity) they really don't contribute to a scientific understanding of these questions.

The place where science and religion may meet is in quantum physics and the role of consciousness in creating the material universe. Most scientists don't want to go there, (prefer to keep searching for the ultimate particle, that little, indivisible bit of matter, but no luck) so the void is filled by the new-agers misusing the ideas.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I..don't really have my foot in both camps. I said I believed in micro-evolution, ie; adaptation. That's a far cry from believing that a life form can mutate into a completely different life form. Not buyin' it. I'm also not trying to marry science and religion, but the two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive from each other.

As for Lenski's experiments, I gotta say, some pretty cool shit he's doing now, and he may be on to something. However, after 30,000 generations (approx 600,000 yrs in human generational terms) they are STILL E.Coli. Now, if those E.Coli manage to mutate into something bicellular, well then, I'd have to take those results a lot more seriously. But I ain't holding my breath.
Of course I'm sure Dayseed will use the cop-out that it takes millions of years to see those kinds of changes.

[Dayseed]

poquas poquas:

That’s exactly the reaction I’d expect from a fundamentalist who is feeling threatened.

The bible is a piece of fiction. It was created by incorporating the myths and beliefs of various previous cultures in an effort to control a group of people. It’s been modified and manipulated through the ages by various people to maintain that control. It’s the basis of a crutch for those who are incapable of accepting reality. If you were born a thousand years from now you’d probably be worshiping Captain Marvel, and you call me dense?

I suspect that what Bart is getting at when he refers to it as a "historical record" is that it functions more like a historical "register". That is, true things have been roped into it.

Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code contains references to Paris and the Louvre among other landmarks. 6,000 years from now, the whole Priory of Scion thing being fictional shouldn't distract from Paris and the Louvre being real places in the early 21st Century. Speaking on his behalf, I think he's getting that if you were to doubt Paris and the Louvre simply because they appeared in the Da Vinci Code, a work of fiction, you'd be penalizing yourself.

[BartSimpson]

poquas poquas:

That’s exactly the reaction I’d expect from a fundamentalist who is feeling threatened.

You know the expression, consider it said.

poquas poquas:

The bible is a piece of fiction.

*All* of it?

[Dayseed]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I..don't really have my foot in both camps. I said I believed in micro-evolution, ie; adaptation. That's a far cry from believing that a life form can mutate into a completely different life form. Not buyin' it. I'm also not trying to marry science and religion, but the two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive from each other.

Then you clearly don't understand evolution. All macro-evolution (or speciation as some call it) is is aggregrate micro-evolution. If you believe in one, then the other follows quite naturally. As tiny evolutions add up over hundreds of millions of years, it's astounding what becomes of it.

$1:

As for Lenski's experiments, I gotta say, some pretty cool shit he's doing now, and he may be on to something. However, after 30,000 generations (approx 600,000 yrs in human generational terms) they are STILL E.Coli. Now, if those E.Coli manage to mutate into something bicellular, well then, I'd have to take those results a lot more seriously. But I ain't holding my breath.
Of course I'm sure Dayseed will use the cop-out that it takes millions of years to see those kinds of changes.

I don't use any sort of cop-out because E. Coli becoming bicellular isn't a foregone conclusion. And there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't happen on the very next generation of bacteria either. There is no grand design to evolution. All that happens is natural selection favours or disfavours mutations in terms of survival.

Your argument that E. Coli is still E. Coli is a moot point. At some point, compared along the generational line preserved in Lenski's frige, the current filium will be so different from the original that you'll just name it something else. As I said earlier, we already have to call that one strain the Citrate strain to show that it is markedly different from its brethren in the other strains.

Gradual. Keep that in mind. It's all gradual and transitional.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Public and maybe Bart are trying to marry Science and religion

No, I am not.

You and poquito-brain need to take off your *I hate religion* blinders for a moment and understand that just because I say some things in the Bible are true and that they are corroborated by other sources as true does not mean I'm some moron with my head up my ass who thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and unicorns used to play with people.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I..don't really have my foot in both camps. I said I believed in micro-evolution, ie; adaptation. That's a far cry from believing that a life form can mutate into a completely different life form. Not buyin' it. I'm also not trying to marry science and religion, but the two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive from each other.

See, this is the part I asked you explain what you believe, not your entire religious outlook. If present species can't have come from previous ones, how did they get here? What is the mechanism? Do you accept that Humans are about 200,000 years old? If so, and they didn't evolved from another species, how did they get here? And this question can be asked about all the other new species - we're not the most recent ones. How did they all get here? That's what I meant about the big hand coming from the sky.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

Public and maybe Bart are trying to marry Science and religion

No, I am not.

You and poquito-brain need to take off your *I hate religion* blinders for a moment and understand that just because I say some things in the Bible are true and that they are corroborated by other sources as true does not mean I'm some moron with my head up my ass who thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and unicorns used to play with people.

You're putting me in the wrong camp. I'm sure the bible contains some historically accurate information. More of it, I would guess, is based on some event, but has been so altered in the telling you can't really connect it to that event. And a lot of it is just made up for various reasons - political, inspirational, drug use, etc.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

You're putting me in the wrong camp.

Fair enough.

andyt andyt:

I'm sure the bible contains some historically accurate information.

But you're not certain because you haven't bothered to research any of the accounts in the Bible that have been verified by secular historians and secular archaeologists as historically accurate. Again, fair enough.

andyt andyt:

More of it, I would guess, is based on some event, but has been so altered in the telling you can't really connect it to that event. And a lot of it is just made up for various reasons - political, inspirational, drug use, etc.

Feel free to cite one of the historic events in the Bible that was "made up".

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You and poquito-brain need to take off your *I hate religion* blinders for a moment and understand that just because I say some things in the Bible are true and that they are corroborated by other sources as true does not mean I'm some moron with my head up my ass who thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and unicorns used to play with people.

While I'm loathe to debate religion, any more than I'll debate bed-time with my 4 year-old, let me say this: To non-believers, belief in ANYTHING in the bible is JUST as ridiculous and fallacious as belief in a "6,000 year-old Earth". I have more respect for the devout fundamentalists than the "take some, leave some" Christians. At least that lot, deluded though they are, exhibit the blind faith their religion is supposed to demand. The whole thing (religion, dogma, bible) is a crock of shit. Belief in any one piece is as foolish as belief in any other.