Can You Believe Both the Bible and Evolution?
-
A little but I read a lot.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Not bad, kaister, you got a bio background?
-
You're right, my bad.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Para one: Your example of bats is a bad one, because the fossil record does not show that they evolved from four limbed tree climbing anscestors.
Bad example. Should have given something with more of its phylogeny known. -
Sigh... you're said it yourself. That whales were at one point land-bound mammals. However, I don't agree that there's no evidence.Originally posted by breytonhartge:An irreducible complexity does not mean that every organism would have just the right number of structures enough for their survival. But it does mean that the mechanisms for an organisms survival would have to be there already and that it could not have evolved in the piece meal manner that evolution prescribes.
Actually I was never comparing an inanimate object to a living being. This was given as an example of what is an irreducible complexity.
This talk about rudimentary hind lims in whales as vistigial structures does not anyway negate irreducible complexities, it simply suggests that whales at sometime or another were land bound mammals. But like I pointed out before, the fossil record does not show this.
On the contrary, there's plenty of evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Go take a look and change your view -
If this goes on, you'll just keep insisting that everythig I bring up is an irreductible complexity. Even molecules, atoms, sub-atomical structures... There's no endOriginally posted by breytonhartge:A single strand RNA virus is still an irriducible complexity. Just what is the structure of RNA, since you say I obviously did not study biology?
When I started out, all I needed was to point out that some of your articles lack credibility. They quote organisms that are seemingly simple to common folk but they are not. So far, I think I've successfully accomplished that.
On another point, why didn't you then talk about prions? They're not even living things technically and yet they are capable of replication? They are even simplier, made up of only amino acids.
There's a reason to why I brought up RNA. Cos' many people misbelieve that DNA is the origin of life. Now with RNA and prions, there're even more possibilities to how life could have started.
Even if irreductiable complexity applies, it can only apply at a sub-cellular level. It does not help prove that humans did not come from monkey-like primates, nor does it prove that whales did not come from mammals. However, inability to disprove all the above means that we did not just start out as Adam and Eve and there's serious misrepresentation in the bible. -
Sigh... you quote the same example again and again to argue against how I refuted against the eye?Originally posted by breytonhartge:MIchael Behe presents several examples of irreducibly complex systems to prove his point, here is another one: the cilium. Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of "bridges"-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges.
Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the "motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We can't evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost.
This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality.
Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes." This same argument can be applied to the supposed evolution of the eye.
All Michael Behe pointed out was the cilia is a complex structure and any failure of any bit would render it useless. Any one with a textbook on cilia can do that. I suggest you read more on other theories other than your own before you arrive at your conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
Here's another article on Michael Behe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Note that Michael Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is rejected due to the fact that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
Also, another statement made by the court case that I think you should read:
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” … Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich." -
I was talking about the creation bit of Genesis. No archaeological evidence? That's what I thought.Originally posted by breytonhartge:The most documented Biblical event is the world-wide flood described in Genesis 6-9. A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same flood.
Ancient tablet listing the Sumerian kings
[More information]
The Sumerian King List (pictured here), for example, lists kings who reigned for long periods of time. Then a great flood came. Following the flood, Sumerian kings ruled for much shorter periods of time. This is the same pattern found in the Bible. Men had long life spans before the flood and shorter life spans after the flood. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of an ark, animals taken on the ark, birds sent out during the course of the flood, the ark landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice offered after the ark landed.
The Story of Adapa tells of a test for immortality involving food, similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Sumerian tablets record the confusion of language as we have in the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). There was a golden age when all mankind spoke the same language. Speech was then confused by the god Enki, lord of wisdom. The Babylonians had a similar account in which the gods destroyed a temple tower and "scattered them abroad and made strange their speech."
Other examples of extra-Biblical confirmation of Biblical events:
....
Even if there is a flood, there was no evidence of the flood covering the whole world. Even if there is an ark, you would be a fool to believe 30 cubics of length (137m in modern calculation) is able to contain all the animals in the world + 49 days of food to feed them.
Qin Shi Huang (first emperor of China) also tried looking for pills for immortality but that doesn't prove if Taoist gods exist.
Maybe there's a Babylonian tower so great that it reached the sky. Think about it, how far can they build? Even if they excel all the skyscrappers of modern age, they are still far from reaching the outer atmosphere of Earth. We've been to the moon and far beyond the solar systems. How come we don't get stopped by God? Why was God so threatened by their building of a miserable towel?
All your evidence on the Babylonian tower/gods only further prove that the bible from derived from mythical stories from the pagans. As did other aspects of christianity, which I don't wish to go into right now. -
I tend to disagree that you refuted my points (well, maybe the horrific bats example...blame my late nites), but I've refuted most of your points with evidence and sound logic.Originally posted by breytonhartge:kaister, I don't think I want to waste anymore time debating this issue, as can be seen from our exchanges, I can refute things you post and you can find things to refute things that I post.
Ultimately it boils down to the individual, what you want to choose to believe. I just present one side of the coin for consideration, the side that I believe to be true. No matter how much evidence you provide me about evolution, I will always find evidence to refute it.
I believe in creationism. I believe in intelligent design. As do many believers.
Thank you for providing interesting insights. Shalom!
However, I must thank you for your time in answering some of my queries. All I ask of people is to open their eyes and think for themselves. After the critical thinking, you can believe whatever you want. -
You know what? You're right about the many variables. If time is to go back and we go thru the whole sequence of evolution again, we will find ourselves surrounded by a whole different assortment of animals.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Kaister, have been thinking about what was posted by you on both the woodpecker and the eye... one thing still does not make sense to me is that there are still too many variables that have to just right so that these structures could have evolved as they did and when you talk about gene selection etc... mutations could have conferred an advantageous gene, but then what would happen if at the same time another mutation deleted a gene which was also necessary in the simultaneous evolution of the structure which you claim is possible? how then? too many ifs and buts.
It is complex to you now because you don't see the big picture. Every advantage that enables more reproduction would be carried on forward to the descendants. You tend to look at the mutations at an individual level. At the population level, you can find that overall good mutations will be carried on, and with each generation, increase in proportions.
They don't have to be there at the right time, because they can be inside you, like when you might have immunity to SARS but you won't know until the virus hits you. A defect might be advantageous in different settings. Example, people with heterogeneous sickle cell anaemia will be protected against malaria. That's why you see a greater proportion of people carrying the sickle cell gene mutation in areas with malaria as compared to the Western countries.
Evolution may not be perfect, but it should beats attributing everything to one God that we couldn't prove. It's like believing that presents on Christmas day came from Santa Claus. If you choose to believe in that, then good for you to be living in a blissful world. If you don't, you will then step out of your room and find out for yourself what actually happened on the Christmas Eve. -
Again quoting myself on a post on 21 Oct 2006, 5.14pm.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
I started out not to debate on evolution. All I wanted to say was the articles were not credible, attempting to sandwich misleading points in between references that contributed nothing to the author's viewpoints.
All I ask for is for you to address this issue I've even given a specific example above for you to refer to. -
you are talking to the wrong person unfortunately... I did not write the article, the point here is differing viewpoints...Originally posted by kaister:Again quoting myself on a post on 21 Oct 2006, 5.14pm.
I started out not to debate on evolution. All I wanted to say was the articles were not credible, attempting to sandwich misleading points in between references that contributed nothing to the author's viewpoints.
All I ask for is for you to address this issue I've even given a specific example above for you to refer to.
-
Before you start concluding that I'm trying to find trouble here, I don't. Just trying to set things straight.Originally posted by breytonhartge:you are talking to the wrong person unfortunately... I did not write the article, the point here is differing viewpoints...
It would be not very responsible to say that you've got nothing to do with the articles when you've posted several of them on your forum. The fact is that although you did not write the articles but by posting them on the forums shows a sign of endorsement. What I've did was just post an example of how one of your articles are misleading, and not just that one. There're more on this thread, which I don't have the time to keep pinpointing them out.
I believe that the point is not about differing viewpoints but misleading the general public who can be easily swayed by misinformation.
Also, you've avoided the question on the objectivity of the articles and blamed it on differing viewpoints. Please kindly answer me dear sir, do you yourself think that these articles are credible and should be trusted? And when you do answer my question, please have a feel on your conscience and belief before you reply.
Thank you for your time. -
kaister,Originally posted by kaister:Before you start concluding that I'm trying to find trouble here, I don't. Just trying to set things straight.
It would be not very responsible to say that you've got nothing to do with the articles when you've posted several of them on your forum. The fact is that although you did not write the articles but by posting them on the forums shows a sign of endorsement. What I've did was just post an example of how one of your articles are misleading, and not just that one. There're more on this thread, which I don't have the time to keep pinpointing them out.
I believe that the point is not about differing viewpoints but misleading the general public who can be easily swayed by misinformation.
Also, you've avoided the question on the objectivity of the articles and blamed it on differing viewpoints. Please kindly answer me dear sir, do you yourself think that these articles are credible and should be trusted? And when you do answer my question, please have a feel on your conscience and belief before you reply.
Thank you for your time.
Like I have said before, whether one finds these articles credible or not is dependent on the viewpoint you take. I think the argument can swing both ways depending on the inclination of the individual. But i tend to find them believeable otherwise I would no thave posted them. As to whether any of the articules you have posted are objective or not, is also debatable.
My conscience is clear. I do not believe in evolution hence would tend to believe the articles to be accurate and true.
Shalom! -
breytonhartge,Originally posted by breytonhartge:kaister,
Like I have said before, whether one finds these articles credible or not is dependent on the viewpoint you take. I think the argument can swing both ways depending on the inclination of the individual. But i tend to find them believeable otherwise I would no thave posted them. As to whether any of the articules you have posted are objective or not, is also debatable.
My conscience is clear. I do not believe in evolution hence would tend to believe the articles to be accurate and true.
Shalom!
Credibility has nothing to do with the viewpoint. It has to do with correct referencing and stating the facts as the way they are. Misrepresenting information by not understand the mechanisms of evolution and yet attacking the theory with enthusiasm is not a scholar should do.
Least what these authors can do, is try to understand evolution more before criticising it.
Do take note that although some of articles I've posted are anti-creationist, they based their arguments on facts and not assumptions, much unlike creationist articles. They don't sandwich assumptions between useless references and mislead the public.
Moreover, most of the articles I've put up were written by reputable writers defending facts, not discredited authors like Michael Behe, whose sole purpose was to disprove evolution.
Since you've already indicated that you find these articles objective, I've no more to say. However, I can't help but indicate my disappointment in the lack of efforts on your part to at least do some quality control on the articles you've posted. Failure to separate good and sound articles can only undermine your overall credibility. Just a suggestion which I sincerely doubt you will accept.
Thank you for your time.