Can You Believe Both the Bible and Evolution?
-
Creation and Evolution: The Biblical Explanation part2
How earth became waste and empty
In Genesis we do not see details of the awe-inspiring initial creation, the creation long before Adam and Eve about which angels sang for joy. We do not read how that creation came to be in chaos-"without form and void."
The text, though, does offer clues. Notice that the New International Version has a marginal notation regarding the translation of Genesis 1:2: "Now the earth was [or possibly became] formless and empty . . ."
Does God reveal elsewhere in his Word how the earth came to be in this disorderly state, "formless and empty"? He gives us some telling hints in the book of Isaiah. "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited" (Isaiah 45:18 ).
The term in vain here is the same word translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2. Yet here Isaiah records God as saying He did not originally create the earth in this condition. Other scriptures, such as Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23, describe similar devastation on the earth using the same words translated "without form, and void" in Genesis 1:2. There is no doubt that these words describe the earth as being empty, void, a wasteland.
The Genesis account simply does not provide all the details. But the Bible as a whole fills in other parts of the story. The missing pieces are given in other scriptures, which tell us of Satan's rebellion against God. They describe his attempt to overthrow God, and, as a result of a great supernatural battle, that he was cast down again.
We see what appears to be a parallel situation in Revelation 12:7-9, which apparently describes an attempt by Satan to overthrow God shortly before Christ's return. "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Yet God has allowed Satan to retain authority over this present world. Satan even offered Christ the opportunity to share rulership over the earth under him.
You can see that, when we examine all the Scriptures, we find a great deal more information that illuminates and explains the Genesis account.
Earth renewed and restored
Consider another section of Scripture in which God inspired David to understand more about His Creation. "O LORD, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions . . . You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the earth" (Psalm 104:24, 30).
The surface of the earth needed a renewal when God created the present life forms we see around us. So what does the fossil record depict? It shows a series of fossilized life forms in layered deposits scattered in the earth's crust. Man as we know him, made in God's image with enormous creative and spiritual abilities, has left written records that take us back a little more than 5,000 years.
This is a tiny span compared with what most scientists consider the age of the earth and stars to be based on their research. Man, in an incredibly short time, built the pyramids-which to this day defy imitation. Man has traveled to the moon and sent spacecraft to explore our solar system and beyond. Such achievements show the enormous difference in the earth before and after Adam.
How long did the angels exist before man was created? The Bible doesn't reveal the answer. How long did it take Lucifer to persuade as many as a third of the angels to rebel with him? (Revelation 12:4). Remember, angels are spirit beings for whom aging is of no consequence (Luke 20:36). Whatever length of time this might be, perhaps millions or billions of years, the angels were created and lived before the creation of Adam and Eve and the days of the renewal of the earth described in Genesis.
Why did God create angels? "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:14). God "has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to the angels" (Hebrews 2:5). God created angels to serve mankind. God is working out His plan of salvation on earth. The creation waits for the glorious moment when man inherits what God the Father planned from the start.
"For I consider," writes Paul, "that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility [waste], not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God" (Romans 8:18-21). (For more details, be sure to request your free booklets What Is Your Destiny? and The Gospel of the Kingdom)
The Bible explanation
Can the Bible explain the fossil record, evidence pointing to an ancient earth and divine creation at the same time? Yes, it can. We don't know the details of what happened before man's time. But Christ has assured us that when He returns "there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light" (Mark 4:22).
Instead of wandering through the confused, chaotic maze of the theory of evolution like so many, we should look to God's Word for assurance. It is there-directly from our Creator-that we find the truth of man's origin.
Perhaps the following quote from George Sim Johnston best sums up that truth: "The book of Genesis has held up well under the scrutiny of modern geology and archaeology. Twentieth-century physics, moreover, describes the beginning of the universe in virtually the same cosmological terms as Genesis. Space, time and matter came out of nothing in a single burst of light entirely hospitable to carbon-based life. A growing number of chemists and biologists agree that life had its origin from clay templates (see Genesis 2:7) . . . I would say all this is a curious development for Darwinists" (Reader's Digest, May 1991, p. 31).
But these things aren't a "curious development" to those who faithfully believe, as Christ did, in "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). They know that such truths have been recorded for mankind in the Bible for thousands of years.
It is to the Bible that we should turn for our moral standards, to discover our one true source of salvation and, perhaps most of all, for our belief in the invisible Creator God. Then we should not doubt the real origin of the species mentioned in the creation epic, that rock-solid book of beginnings, Genesis. -
Earth's Age: Does Genesis 1 Indicate a Time Interval?
We are introduced to the account of the creation of the earth in Genesis 1:1-2: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep."
The original Hebrew wording, compared with other passages of Scripture, has led some to conclude that a considerable time interval is indicated between these two verses. If such an interval is indeed intended, there is no discrepancy between the Bible record and scientific discoveries that indicate that the earth could be much older than a few thousand years. If, on the other hand, there is no such gap, then the earth itself must be only around 6,000 years old-which most scientists consider an impossibility.
Do other passages, as well as history, shed any light on this question?
Some scholars propose that Genesis 1:2 can or should be translated "Now the earth became without form, and void . . ." as opposed to the common rendering "The earth was without form, and void . . ." Others dismiss this idea entirely. They assume the original Hebrew word hayah must be translated "was" and then assume the earth was originally created in this disorderly way.
However, as can be seen from many Bible helps, both translations of the term are possible. Only the context of the chapter and book can determine which one is correct. Gleason Archer, professor of biblical languages, comments: "It should be noted in this connection that the verb was in Genesis 1:2 may quite possibly be rendered 'became' and be construed to mean: 'And the earth became formless and void.' Only a cosmic catastrophe could account for the introduction of chaotic confusion into the original perfection of God's creation. This interpretation certainly seems to be exegetically tenable . . ." (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody Press, Chicago, 1974, p. 184).
In a footnote Archer adds: "Properly speaking, this verb hayah never has the meaning of static being like the copular verb 'to be.' Its basic notion is that of becoming or emerging as such and such, or of coming into being . . . Sometimes a distinction is attempted along the following lines: hayah means 'become' only when it is followed by the preposition le; otherwise there is no explicit idea of becoming. But this distinction will not stand up under analysis. In Gen[esis] 3:20 the proper rendering is: 'And Adam called the name of his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all living.' No le follows the verb in this case. So also in Gen[esis] 4:20: 'Jabal became the father of tent dwellers.' Therefore there can be no grammatical objection raised to translating Gen[esis] 1:2: 'And the earth became a wasteness and desolation.'"
Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because they assume this interpretation came about only recently, after geology revealed the strata of the earth to be very old. Thus they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.
Yet the interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years. The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste." The original language led them to understand that something had occurred that had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.
The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).
In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2: "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?'" (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, Part I, Chapter VI). Other medieval scholars,such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon EpÃscopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology discovered evidence for the ancient origin of earth.
These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin-that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology-is groundless.
Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2. Dr. Custance states, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (1970, p. 7). -
Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
In this publication we've revealed much of the untold story of evolution: how the facts about the pillars used to support evolution-the fossil record, natural selection and random mutation-in reality fail to support the theory at all. We've seen that evolution cannot explain many of the facts we see in the world around us. We've seen that the book of Genesis doesn't conflict with science, but, when we consider all the evidence, it actually offers a better, sounder explanation.
Where do you go from here? The choice is yours as to how you view the evidence. (We have only scratched the surface; many of the sources cited in this publication can help you learn more.)
You can choose to accept or retain the Darwinist view, that there is no Creator and we are simply the result of blind, random chance, a series of lucky accidents. You can decide for yourself how you will choose to live and what values and principles will determine how you treat others. You can believe that man created God rather than the other way around. As Paul pointed out almost 2,000 years ago, many people are quite content to find ways to reason around the concept of a Creator (Romans 1:20-32).
On the other hand, you can accept the evidence that there is a Creator who cares about you in ways you can't imagine.
Some 3,000 years ago King David recorded his thoughts upon gazing at the magnificent night sky: "When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?" (Psalm 8:3-4, NRSV).
He understood that a Being capable of creating such perfection and splendor must have a great plan and a purpose for us. And indeed He does. God wants to reveal that purpose to you, to show you the way out of the pain and sorrow we have brought on ourselves from rejecting His ways. He offers this incredible invitation: "Call to Me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you do not know" (Jeremiah 33:3).
". . . I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses," He tells us. "Choose life so that you and your descendants may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19, NRSV). The choice is yours. -
and what do you have to give proof that the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor?Originally posted by shade343:Humans were both created and evolved. God Created the first humans ,which is not Adam and Eve, and we evolved from there onwards.
And the stroy of Adam and Eve is a metaphor. Im not sure why some people love to take things at face value.
-
went for dinner, and this .... too much to read ... will have to wait until have time then revisit these again...
-
it was the whole booklet... very interesting read...Originally posted by vince69:went for dinner, and this .... too much to read ... will have to wait until have time then revisit these again... 
-
The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
This unusual fish uses a specialized system to blast insects out of the air. How could this evolve slowly over time when there is no survival advantage without the whole system working perfectly?
by Mario Seiglie
In Asia, Africa and Australia lives a remarkable creature, the archerfish, that shoots down its prey from the air above it with a burst of water. It uses its tongue and the top of its mouth to form a groove similar to a gun barrel. Then, by compressing its gills, it squirts water up to six feet with deadly accuracy—in spite of the distortion caused by seeing the target from below the surface of water.
What's so amazing about the archerfish's ability to shoot straight? When light passes between air and water, it is refracted, which causes a distortion. If an archerfish simply aimed at the object where it appeared to be from below the water, it could never hit its target! Yet scientists have found that archerfish are able to strike their target when sighting upwards at angles of 40 degrees!
More amazingly, marine researchers have discovered that these fish can hit their prey whether the amount of refraction is large or small. They have also found that the fishes' binocular vision allows them to see clearly at considerable distances above them, an ability other fish do not have.
An experiment
Here is an experiment. In a clear glass of water, hold a pencil at an angle halfway under the water and look at it from different positions. Notice how the pencil appears different below and above the water. That is the refraction of the light changing from the water to the air.
So how can the archerfish compensate for this distortion and know how to shoot at the right place?
Evolutionists don't know
Evolutionists still don't know how the archerfish got its amazing abilities. They can only wonder! Viewed through the distortion of evolution, they cannot explain how the archerfish gradually learned to not aim where its eyes see but to aim instead at a different spot where the target actually is.
Without its binocular vision, it could not see the object with such precision, and without the special shape of the upper mouth and a specialized tongue, it could not make the groove it needs to shoot the concentrated jet of water. Many factors have to appear together—and be perfectly formed—for this shooting mechanism to work. This, of course, goes totally against Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory, which is based on a gradual, step-by-step process.
Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (1859, p. 171).
The archerfish offers precisely such an example, since several complex systems must all appear at the same time, perfectly and not gradually formed—binocular vision, a specialized mouth and tongue, specialized gills to compress and expel water and an aiming system based in the brain and not in the eyes. If any of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not hit the target and no survival advantage is created.
Shooting down Darwin's theory
When you get down to the facts, the archerfish with one squirt of its gills shoots down Charles Darwin's entire theory of evolution—and that by Darwin's own admission!
So evolution doesn't have the answer to this mystery. But the Bible does. Genesis 1:20-21 says that God created all the creatures that live in the water. He created a great variety of perfectly formed fish, including the archerfish with all its special features, such as binocular vision, other specialized organs and a built-in ability to compensate for the distortion of the water. VT -
Pecking Holes in Evolution
Evolutionists have a hard time explaining how the woodpecker's magnificent features all evolved at just the right time so the bird could survive.
by Mario Seiglie
Have you ever walked through the woods and suddenly come across a woodpecker busy at work? Its machine-gun pecks can be heard hundreds of yards away.
The pecking might seem quite useless, but through it the woodpecker obtains food, builds nests, rids trees of insects, pounds out territorial markings and gives warnings to other males as well as mating calls to females. Truly it is one of the marvels of nature. But it is also a real headache for evolutionists!
Even Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, marveled at the incredible features of this bird. He asked in his book The Origin of Species, "Can a more striking instance of adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?" (p. 166).
At least four uniquely developed features make the common woodpecker so unusual.
The first is its amazing tongue. It can be three times as long as its beak! Normally, a bird's tongue is about the length of its bill, but a woodpecker needs this extra long tongue to reach the grubs inside the trunk of a tree.
Where does it have the room to store such a long tongue? In some woodpeckers the tongue structure actually forks in the throat, goes below the base of the jaw, wraps behind and over the top of the skull and inserts into the bird's right nostril or around the eye socket. How did it manage to go almost 360 degrees around its skull and still manage to work?
Evolutionists have a hard time explaining this wondrous "adaptation." They claim the woodpecker must have evolved from other birds with normal tongues that go straight out of the beak. Yet the idea that this all happened through small, gradual steps stretches the imagination.
Not only is the length of the tongue a marvel, but also its texture. In young woodpeckers, the tongue is smooth, and it does not grow barbs that can catch larva until adulthood. So how do young woodpeckers catch their meals? They secrete a special saliva that acts like glue until they can eventually develop the barbs to hook the insects! So the woodpecker's tongue can create glue and later become a barb factory—all arriving at the right time so the bird can survive. Can evolution explain all of these characteristics?
A second amazing feature of woodpeckers is their beak. Imagine trying to drill into a hardy tree trunk. First you have to bore a hole through the tough bark and then into the hard wood. Yet the woodpecker can make it look easy because of its specialized bill.
The woodpecker's beak works like a chisel, capable of boring right into a tree. As it pecks, it finds the grubs inside the trunk through vibrations and the grub's noise. Then it makes just the right hole with the proper angle to reach the insect galleries with its long tongue. In this way, it does its job in nature—protecting trees from insect infestation.
With modern technology, we can use steel chisels to cut into trees like a woodpecker, but eventually the chisels lose their sharpness. Yet scientists have found that a woodpecker's bill stays sharp, no matter how many holes it drills into trees! So man's technology can't duplicate with the same effectiveness what the humble woodpecker can do.
A third feature is the woodpecker's special shock-absorbing head. If an ordinary bird tried to bore a hole in a tree trunk, the impact would soon kill it. It is like taking the full impact of a hammer hitting a chisel on the end of your nose thousands of times. The woodpecker, however, comes equipped with a shock-absorbing system that protects its head from damage. It is composed of a spongy tissue between the beak and the skull, thus absorbing the violent shock waves without affecting the bird's brain.
Finally, the woodpecker does not have ordinary tail feathers but specially designed ones to anchor it while going about its business. These stiff, spine-tipped pointed tail feathers are used as a brace while climbing a tree or feeding. They allow woodpeckers to lean back in order to literally throw their body into their work.
All four of these amazing features (and many others) would have to evolve at the same time to give survival benefits to a "proto-woodpecker." How could evolution and natural processes explain that?
Actually these are just a few of the marvelous features of the woodpecker that give strong evidence of its being the product of intelligent design rather than of evolution. As Psalm 14:1 says, "Only a fool would say, 'There is no God!'" -
Hi breytonhartge,Originally posted by breytonhartge:Evolution: Fact or Fiction?
...
"Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side. Meanwhile the doctrine of Divine creation, assumed by most scientists to have been relegated long ago to the pulpits of obscure fundamentalist sects, swept back into the classrooms of American schools. Darwinism is under assault on many fronts" (The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 7).
Why the confusion and contention? Simply put, as we saw with the fossil record, the increasing scientific evidence doesn't fit the Darwinist model-and evolutionists increasingly are finding themselves on the defensive.
How has this come about? It has happened mainly because the primary supposed proofs of the theory have not held up to further discovery and scrutiny.
What about natural selection?
After the fossil record, the second supposed proof of evolution offered by Darwinists is natural selection, which they hoped biologists would confirm. "Just as the breeders selected those individuals best suited to the breeder's needs to be the parents of the next generation," explained British philosopher Tom Bethell, "so, Darwin argued, nature selected those organisms that were best fitted to survive the struggle for existence. In that way evolution would inevitably occur. And so there it was: a sort of improving machine inevitably at work in nature, 'daily and hourly scrutinizing,' Darwin wrote, 'silently and insensibly working . . . at the improvement of each organic being.'
"In this way, Darwin thought, one type of organism could be transformed into another -for instance, he suggested, bears into whales. So that was how we came to have horses and tigers and things-by natural selection" (Tom Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake," The Craft of Prose, Robert Woodward and Wendell Smith, editors, 1977, p. 309).
Darwin saw natural selection as the major factor driving evolutionary change. But how has this second pillar of evolutionary theory fared since Darwin's day? In truth, it has been quietly discarded by an increasing number of theorists among the scientific community.
Darwin's idea that the survival of the fittest would explain how species evolved has been relegated to a redundant, self-evident statement.
Geneticist Conrad Waddington of Edinburgh University defines the fundamental problem of advocating natural selection as a proof of Darwinism: "Natural selection, . . . turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population ... will leave most offspring" (Bethell, p. 310).
In other words, what are the fittest? Why, those that survive, of course. And what survives? Why, naturally, the fittest. The problem is that circular reasoning doesn't point to any independent criteria that can evaluate whether the theory is true.
....
It's nice of you to post so many counter-evolution articles that really opened my mind. However, due to limited time I was only able to cover a few of these articles.
To be frank, a lot of these articles tend to be confusing and misleading. They quote passages from influential or prominent people and then insert their own, non-substantiated arguments inbetween. All these were done in hope of mixing the truths with non-truths, which I felt was not the right thing to do.
"In other words, what are the fittest? Why, those that survive, of course. And what survives? Why, naturally, the fittest. The problem is that circular reasoning doesn't point to any independent criteria that can evaluate whether the theory is true."
Take the above passage for example. It was based solely on the author's point of view, not supported and has shown lacking in understanding of evolution. Fittest is defined by the environment. Eg, a giraffe can survive well in the grass plains given its long neck and legs, allowing it to take full advantage of the environment it lives in. It had common ancestors as deers and cattles. Over time, prehistoric deers or cattles with longer necks are able to feed more on higher tree branches, giving them an reproductive advantage over the same species. This soon emerge as a new species, different from the original. Place the giraffe in a tropical forest and you'll find the opposite happening. The same phenomenon has been observed in Finches on the Galapagos, perfectly testable and repeatable.
As you can see, evolution does not uses circular arguments. If you want a good example of a circular argument, here's one - Creationism. When asked about who created all life, God will be given as an answer. And how do we know God exist? Cos' the bible said so. How do we know that the bible is true? Cos' the bible is a collection of God's words spoken through a chosen few. How can we test such a theory? We can't. How can we repeat creationism using scientific methods (repeating an experiment producing the same results is gold-standard for proving a theory)
Can you see that at least one can disprove evolution but you can't disprove creationism cos' of its circular argument?
Also, for the record, Darwinism did not gain popularity when it first came out. It lacked the mechanism by which evolution came about. However, with the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, that gap has been filled.
The rise of Darwinism was not because creationism was banned from schools. It was because of gradual acceptance of a theory by the public and scientific community that led to the discard of an older and out-dated theory.
I hope to hear your comments on this -
+1 and still waiting for input
-
akan datang...Originally posted by kaister:+1 and still waiting for input -
Now machiam got logic failure...
-
The most part of this post is a complete article which must be read as a whole. Their quotes from prominent people are only used to substantiate their arguments.Originally posted by kaister:To be frank, a lot of these articles tend to be confusing and misleading. They quote passages from influential or prominent people and then insert their own, non-substantiated arguments inbetween. All these were done in hope of mixing the truths with non-truths, which I felt was not the right thing to do.
I do not feel that there is a mixing of truth with non-truth. But would you care to explain this point futher so that I can understand where you are coming form? Thank you. -
in what way is there logic failure??Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Now machiam got logic failure... 
-
ini failure of logic:Originally posted by breytonhartge:in what way is there logic failure??
"As you can see, evolution does not uses circular arguments. If you want a good example of a circular argument, here's one - Creationism. When asked about who created all life, God will be given as an answer. And how do we know God exist? Cos' the bible said so. How do we know that the bible is true? Cos' the bible is a collection of God's words spoken through a chosen few. How can we test such a theory? We can't. How can we repeat creationism using scientific methods (repeating an experiment producing the same results is gold-standard for proving a theory)"
Since God is always taken as a Singularity. How do you reproduce a Singularity, you can't... -
In regards to your circular argument on creationism, I do not think that it is a circular argument at all. Creationists agree on the one fact, we have a designer. So therefore if we do have a designer, ie Yahweh, our God, then if flows on that one would accept the truth of the bible. I think that there has been much in genesis that has been proven by archeological digs and finds... and yet more will be revealed.Originally posted by kaister:"In other words, what are the fittest? Why, those that survive, of course. And what survives? Why, naturally, the fittest. The problem is that circular reasoning doesn't point to any independent criteria that can evaluate whether the theory is true."
Take the above passage for example. It was based solely on the author's point of view, not supported and has shown lacking in understanding of evolution. Fittest is defined by the environment. Eg, a giraffe can survive well in the grass plains given its long neck and legs, allowing it to take full advantage of the environment it lives in. It had common ancestors as deers and cattles. Over time, prehistoric deers or cattles with longer necks are able to feed more on higher tree branches, giving them an reproductive advantage over the same species. This soon emerge as a new species, different from the original. Place the giraffe in a tropical forest and you'll find the opposite happening. The same phenomenon has been observed in Finches on the Galapagos, perfectly testable and repeatable.
As you can see, evolution does not uses circular arguments. If you want a good example of a circular argument, here's one - Creationism. When asked about who created all life, God will be given as an answer. And how do we know God exist? Cos' the bible said so. How do we know that the bible is true? Cos' the bible is a collection of God's words spoken through a chosen few. How can we test such a theory? We can't. How can we repeat creationism using scientific methods (repeating an experiment producing the same results is gold-standard for proving a theory)
Can you see that at least one can disprove evolution but you can't disprove creationism cos' of its circular argument?
Also, for the record, Darwinism did not gain popularity when it first came out. It lacked the mechanism by which evolution came about. However, with the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, that gap has been filled.
The rise of Darwinism was not because creationism was banned from schools. It was because of gradual acceptance of a theory by the public and scientific community that led to the discard of an older and out-dated theory.
I hope to hear your comments on this
Yet even in science when they have tried to repeat the darwinian theory, have they succeeded in creating life? no. So what does that say about evolution? Based on natural selection, the human species should have evolved into something more akin to asexuality... we do not need another half to survive. Yet we do. So how strong can that be? Unless there was a designer who knew beforehand the way of people and designed male and female for a reason.
DNA in and of itself does not even support evolution, sure it is that which contains the material necessary to encode "life" yet even mixing all the DNA in protein soup will not create a human being. Nor life for that matter. On the converse, we all know how complex the DNA strand and model postulated by Watson and Crick can be and the most certainly does not point to a random chance mutation to get the whole structure correct, it is a mathematical impossibility. -
interesting point...Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:ini failure of logic:
"As you can see, evolution does not uses circular arguments. If you want a good example of a circular argument, here's one - Creationism. When asked about who created all life, God will be given as an answer. And how do we know God exist? Cos' the bible said so. How do we know that the bible is true? Cos' the bible is a collection of God's words spoken through a chosen few. How can we test such a theory? We can't. How can we repeat creationism using scientific methods (repeating an experiment producing the same results is gold-standard for proving a theory)"
Since God is always taken as a Singularity. How do you reproduce a Singularity, you can't... -
Here's an example with reference to the paragraphs above.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Geneticist Conrad Waddington of Edinburgh University defines the fundamental problem of advocating natural selection as a proof of Darwinism: "Natural selection, . . . turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population ... will leave most offspring" (Bethell, p. 310).
In other words, what are the fittest? Why, those that survive, of course. And what survives? Why, naturally, the fittest. The problem is that circular reasoning doesn't point to any independent criteria that can evaluate whether the theory is true.
Selection doesn't change species
Darwin cited an example of the way natural selection was supposed to work: A wolf that had inherited the ability to run especially fast was better equipped to survive. His advantage in outrunning others in the pack when food was scarce meant he could eat better and thus survive longer. Yet the very changes that enabled the wolf to run faster could easily become a hindrance if other modifications of the body did not accompany the increased speed. For example, the additional exertion required to run faster would naturally place an added strain on the animal's heart, and eventually it could drop from a heart attack. The survival of the fittest would require that any biological or anatomical alterations would have to be in harmony and synchronized with other bodily modifications, or the changes would be of no benefit.
Natural selection, scientists have found, in reality deals only with the number of species, not the change of the species. It has to do with the survival and not the arrival of the species. Natural selection only preserves existing genetic information (DNA); it doesn't create genetic material that would allow an animal to sprout a new organ, limb or some other anatomical feature.
"Natural selection," said professor Waddington, "is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others? And it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole guts of evolution-which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers and things-is outside the mathematical theory [of neo-Darwinism]" (Wistar Symposium, Moorehead and Kaplan, 1967, p. 14).
Paragraph 1: stating the foundations of evolution by using reference to add to the validity of the article. Not much to discuss.
Paragraph 2: I've already raised the issue of how fittest is defined, not as how the author preferred. Note also lack of reference when writing that paragraph about circular argument on evolution/fittest, as evident from the author's lacking on evolutionary knowledge.
Paragraph 3: Selection does not change species? See below.
Paragraph 4: Trying to give an example to prove a point. Ok.
Paragraph 5: Again, no reference/support and it's an untruth. The Author got this from somewhere in his head and conveniently left out any support. Mutation is the source of new genetic material but selection is the process where 1 species can spilt into 2. See the finches for example. One species with same beak length can become 2 sub-species when placed on different islands with different food sources. With time, they will become 2 distinct species.
Evolution is based on adaptation. Apparantly the author lacked that knowledge and claimed that evolution created nothing out of something. Look at whales. They have rudimentary hind-limbs which they do not use at all. It is a sign of adaptation and strong evidence of how whales descended from mammals.
Paragraph 6: Again, a good reference that only states how evolution works by having an organism leaving more off-springs. It does not support any of the views stated above.
Given the limitations of time, I can only give you this vivid example. There're plenty of such untruths sandwiched in between references that does not aid in the author's arguments throughout the articles I've read so far.
Just trying to set things straight -
If time is unlimited, the discussion would be more interesting..Originally posted by kaister:Here's an example with reference to the paragraphs above.
Paragraph 1: stating the foundations of evolution by using reference to add to the validity of the article. Not much to discuss.
Paragraph 2: I've already raised the issue of how fittest is defined, not as how the author preferred. Note also lack of reference when writing that paragraph about circular argument on evolution/fittest, as evident from the author's lacking on evolutionary knowledge.
Paragraph 3: Selection does not change species? See below.
Paragraph 4: Trying to give an example to prove a point. Ok.
Paragraph 5: Again, no reference/support and it's an untruth. The Author got this from somewhere in his head and conveniently left out any support. Mutation is the source of new genetic material but selection is the process where 1 species can spilt into 2. See the finches for example. One species with same beak length can become 2 sub-species when placed on different islands with different food sources. With time, they will become 2 distinct species.
Evolution is based on adaptation. Apparantly the author lacked that knowledge and claimed that evolution created nothing out of something. Look at whales. They have rudimentary hind-limbs which they do not use at all. It is a sign of adaptation and strong evidence of how whales descended from mammals.
Paragraph 6: Again, a good reference that only states how evolution works by having an organism leaving more off-springs. It does not support any of the views stated above.
Given the limitations of time, I can only give you this vivid example. There're plenty of such untruths sandwiched in between references that does not aid in the author's arguments throughout the articles I've read so far.
Just trying to set things straight -
Kaister, will get back to you later, have to go for dinner at a friends place. Ciao for now...
-
If the creator can be proven with evidence other than a book, it would stand against criticisms. However, it has yet to do so.Originally posted by breytonhartge:In regards to your circular argument on creationism, I do not think that it is a circular argument at all. Creationists agree on the one fact, we have a designer. So therefore if we do have a designer, ie Yahweh, our God, then if flows on that one would accept the truth of the bible. I think that there has been much in genesis that has been proven by archeological digs and finds... and yet more will be revealed.
Can you share some of these archeological findings? I'm interested.
You see that's the common misunderstanding for evolution. Darwin wrote "Origins of species", not origins of life. Evolution attempts to explain how different species might came from a common ancestor through selection and mutation.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Yet even in science when they have tried to repeat the darwinian theory, have they succeeded in creating life? no. So what does that say about evolution? Based on natural selection, the human species should have evolved into something more akin to asexuality... we do not need another half to survive. Yet we do. So how strong can that be? Unless there was a designer who knew beforehand the way of people and designed male and female for a reason.
The reason why creationists are so upset with evolution is not because it proves how life started. It's because evolution proved how life did not start.
All organisms begun from asexual reproduction. Ever wondered why bacteria don't have gender but they exchange genetic material when they replicate? Some even replicates asexually . Sexual reproduction is a product of evolution. Assortment of genetic material allows diversity that enhances survival in events of catastrophic change. That's the evolution explanation.
Therefore sexual reproduction does not support creationism solely.
Heard of single stranded RNA viruses (SARS)? Heard of prions that comprises of only proteins but capable of replication (Mad-Cow's disease)? These are but a few examples that fills the gap you've stated. Simple organism that could have been how the primitive lifeforms started. Take a look at Miller's famous experiment:Originally posted by breytonhartge:DNA in and of itself does not even support evolution, sure it is that which contains the material necessary to encode "life" yet even mixing all the DNA in protein soup will not create a human being. Nor life for that matter. On the converse, we all know how complex the DNA strand and model postulated by Watson and Crick can be and the most certainly does not point to a random chance mutation to get the whole structure correct, it is a mathematical impossibility.
In the early 1950s Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago, did the first experiment designed to clarify the chemical reactions that occurred on the primitive earth. In the flask at the bottom, he created an "ocean" of water, which he heated, forcing water vapor to circulate through the apparatus. The flask at the top contained an "atmosphere" consisting of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2) and the circulating water vapor.
Next he exposed the gases to a continuous electrical discharge (lightning), causing the gases to interact. Water-soluble products of those reactions then passed through a condenser and dissolved in the mock ocean. The experiment yielded many amino acids and enabled Miller to explain how they had formed.
Btw, mathematical impossibility it might be but note that evolution is not by chance as you propose. It is due to shaping by the existing environment and evolution merely selects the right combination of DNA. Poles apart from chance. -
Hence can be considered a singularity event?Originally posted by kaister:Heard of single stranded RNA viruses (SARS)? Heard of prions that comprises of only proteins but capable of replication (Mad-Cow's disease)? These are but a few examples that fills the gap you've stated. Simple organism that could have been how the primitive lifeforms started. Take a look at Miller's famous experiment:
In the early 1950s Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago, did the first experiment designed to clarify the chemical reactions that occurred on the primitive earth. In the flask at the bottom, he created an "ocean" of water, which he heated, forcing water vapor to circulate through the apparatus. The flask at the top contained an "atmosphere" consisting of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2) and the circulating water vapor.
Next he exposed the gases to a continuous electrical discharge (lightning), causing the gases to interact. Water-soluble products of those reactions then passed through a condenser and dissolved in the mock ocean. The experiment yielded many amino acids and enabled Miller to explain how they had formed.
Btw, mathematical impossibility it might be but note that evolution is not by chance as you propose. It is due to shaping by the existing environment and evolution merely selects the right combination of DNA. Poles apart from chance. -
If by singularity, you mean that it happens by chance and is a one-off event then no. The experiment is repeatable, thus not a singularity.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Hence can be considered a singularity event? -
Actually this statement is not true, darwin did postulate about life, and this has been taught in all the schools at all levels.Originally posted by kaister:You see that's the common misunderstanding for evolution. Darwin wrote "Origins of species", not origins of life. Evolution attempts to explain how different species might came from a common ancestor through selection and mutation.
Darwins origins of species... as you have described above is only but one of his assumptions.
Darwinian evolution is named for the theory of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Darwin was not the first person to propose the theory of evolution; many ancient Greek philosophers suggested the idea of life developing out of non-life. But Darwin brought evolution to the forefront of the modern scientific community. From his observations, Darwin assumed that all life -- man, monkey, fish, dinosaurs, birds, flowers, trees, et al. -- descended from a common ancestor.
Darwin theorized that at one time no life on this planet existed. Out of this non-life came about all life. Once life started, it evolved through naturalistic stages from the earliest single celled organisms through modification or mutation. Darwin rejected the idea of a Creator of life; he believed only in a series of fortunate adaptations prescribed by nature and need for survival.
Darwinian evolution is built around some major assumptions:
Darwin assumed that life is in a constant state of flux, ever changing, ever evolving. According to Darwinian evolution, genectic mutations are necessary for survival of any life form. One organism will change over time and become a different species. While most scientists agree that life does adapt to fit different climates and terrain, the hypothesis of one genus evolving into another has not been proven. Another assumption of Darwinian evolution is the idea of animals and plants reproducing geometrically. This theory means that a pair of animals will have far more offspring than is necessary to replace themselves. A fish or turtle, for example, may lay millions of eggs in their lifetimes. If each laid egg produced a full-grown adult, the population of that species would increase exponentially and overpopulate the land. In order to keep the number of a species under control a checks and balance system must be in place. This premise of checks and balances led to Darwin's next assumption. The number of individuals in a species remain relatively constant. Darwin observed that, generally, a species did not dramatically multiply or die out. Since large numbers of a speciesÂ’ offspring failed to reach maturity, the cause must be a competition for food and reproduction. This theory is called survival of the fittest or natural selection. However, as Darwin noted, the environment changes continuously so the definition of what is "fittest" changes with time. Finally, Darwin hypothesized that change progresses gradually. Darwin himself stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Darwinian evolution is built around these assumptions. Although some scientists argue that DarwinÂ’s observations do not result in a solid theory, Darwinian evolution is still promoted as a viable alternative to Creation. But certain aspects of DarwinÂ’s theory actually points to, not away from a Creator. -
Actually evolution is still unproven as a theory. Hence some of my articles. Ie about the woodpecker and about the fish... they have what we call irreducible complexities...Originally posted by kaister:The reason why creationists are so upset with evolution is not because it proves how life started. It's because evolution proved how life did not start.