Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>You should read National Geographic sometime. There's plenty of evidence of ongoing evolution.<< <Except when National Geographic is accused of doing faulty work. The evidence should be read and reviewed with a critical eye.> Sure, but can you give a specific example of them doing faulty work on this subject? If not, you shouldn't insinuate. >>gurgitoy2 handled part of that. I'll add that humans aren't the only ones with a single species.<< <He didn't add much. That article has one major flaw. How is being short a new human species?> That wasn't his only example. Nor did you respond to mine about the non-human species. >>I found that unconvincing. Again, the geneology from Abraham to Adam, in particular, is impossible to prove or disprove in the literal sense.<< <I would at least hope you might be open minded to the literal interpretation of the Bible, which could, at least, make your faith more fulfilling. As a Christian, that would be a good thing.> My faith is VERY fulfilling, and I don't have to close my eyes to scientific facts (i.e. fossil records) to have it be fulfilling. If you do, I think that's sad. >>Maybe. I'm the first to say there's plenty we don't know yet.<< <So why are you so quick to dismiss the genealogy line from Adam? Your belief in the Bible should be the default position as a Christian. If you have doubt, doubt Evolution or at least be more critical. Afterall, evolution should be tested by its own scientific rules.> I know our knowledge of evolution is incomplete. That doesn't mean that many aspects of it haven't been shown to be true, because they have. The only proof of Biblical geneology, on the other hand, is the Bible itself, just as the only proof of Norse geneology are the Norse texts themselves. If a literal reading of the Bible compels belief in something that can be shown not to be true - like an earth that is only 6,000 years old - that says to me that a non-literal reading of the Bible may be exactly what is needed. Do you really believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, woody? >>The correct word is "denomination." And you also overlook the fact that Catholics, for instance, are all over the map in what they believe about creation vs. evolution, as are people in most denominations.<< <I would not call Protestants a denomination of Catholics.> I didn't. You said did say "other such sects" to cover you - I said a better word would be "denomination," since that's what I belong to. <Sect would be a better use of the word to describe the difference between the Catholic Church and the Protestant sect. I would call Evangelicals and Southern Baptists a denomination of Protestants, which has no central leadership.> If you look up "sect" in the dictionary, the first thing is says is "denomination," so we're really getting bogged down in unnecessary semantics here. <The Catholic Church has a common leadership hierarchy. They've made their position on Evolution known.> And their position on birth control. Does that mean that most Catholics agree and/or practice that teaching? Not most American Catholics for sure. So it's simply true to say that Catholics are all over the map when it comes to what they believe about evolution, despite what the Vatican might say. <I am aware that individual Catholics or regional denominations have different positions; however, they differ from the Catholic Church official position.> Correct. ------------- <<a href="http://www.cuttingedge.org/n10" target="_blank">http://www.cuttingedge.org/n10</a> 34.html "In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith."> You do realize that's closer to my position than yours, right?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith."> You do realize that's closer to my position than yours, right?<< As a Catholic, I agree with what His Holiness, John Paul the Great said on the matter.
Originally Posted By woody >>Sure, but can you give a specific example of them doing faulty work on this subject? If not, you shouldn't insinuate.<< Wow. I don't need to insinuate because you already are unconvinced... "I found that unconvincing." I gave you a link to another study on genealogy and you rejected it as unconvincing. ... "I found that unconvincing." I am sure you will still remain unconvinced if I have you examples of faulty work. In fact, the link at www.apologeticspress.org have plenty of studies on National Geographics' faulty work. >>That wasn't his only example. Nor did you respond to mine about the non-human species.<< Not much there, but my question about humans wasn't answered by you. The Bible did say all kinds of animals were created, unless there weren't created in all kinds. The orangutan example is a minor footnote. The Bible said man was created and didn't say anything about kinds of man. >>You said did say "other such sects" to cover you - I said a better word would be "denomination," since that's what I belong to.<< So you're part of a Catholic denomination, but you didn't refer to yourself as a Catholic? Maybe you should be more clear. >>If you look up "sect" in the dictionary, the first thing is says is "denomination," so we're really getting bogged down in unnecessary semantics here.<< Sematics are important here. That's why I wrote what I did. If you're not a Catholic, but part of a Catholic denomination, then maybe semantics doesn't apply to you. >>If a literal reading of the Bible compels belief in something that can be shown not to be true - like an earth that is only 6,000 years old - that says to me that a non-literal reading of the Bible may be exactly what is needed.<< I don't believe the Bible is asking us to suspend critical thought just to believe it. The Bible has asked us to test it. Non-literal belief is tricky, because it asks us to discard certain things we might not like or find convenient. Afterall, it isn't central to prove the origins of the earth and man, but it is important to live according to God's intention. What will prevent you from following certain moral lessons you might not agree with? The issue isn't always about compliance but intention. >>Do you really believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, woody?<< Good question. I believe man is in the 6,000 to 7,000 year range. The earth may be older, but we cannot be certain because time is marked on the fourth day. However, I'm skeptical the earth is millions and billions of years old.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Non-literal belief is tricky, because it asks us to discard certain things we might not like or find convenient. Afterall, it isn't central to prove the origins of the earth and man, but it is important to live according to God's intention." This is also true of a literal interpretation. There are certain things in the Bible, that if taken literally, would be either against the law or just downtright strange. These things have been discarded by literalists, so it's no different. I grew up with a literal interpretation, so I know that people tended to pick and choose there too.
Originally Posted By woody >>This is also true of a literal interpretation. There are certain things in the Bible, that if taken literally, would be either against the law or just downtright strange. These things have been discarded by literalists, so it's no different<< Since Christians believe in Christ's teachings, the new covenant replaces the old customs (not discarded). Replacing is not the same as discarded especially since Christ said "follow my commandments" which has no metaphorical interpretation. Christ did have an "out" for non-believers. Follow your own commandments and you'll be judged by that standard. This requires a literal interpretation on your own religion, or belief system. So what do you gain from not following the literal interpretation as a Christian? I suppose this can only be answered by your own conscience. >>I grew up with a literal interpretation, so I know that people tended to pick and choose there too.<< We all have to make judgements about right and wrong, but I think those who hold the literal interpretation are not easily dismissing the ramifications of their decisions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Sure, but can you give a specific example of them doing faulty work on this subject? If not, you shouldn't insinuate.<< <Wow. I don't need to insinuate because you already are unconvinced... "I found that unconvincing." I gave you a link to another study on genealogy and you rejected it as unconvincing. ... "I found that unconvincing."> Because it was. <I am sure you will still remain unconvinced if I have you examples of faulty work. In fact, the link at www.apologeticspress.org have plenty of studies on National Geographics' faulty work.> I'm perfectly willing to read other viewpoints (I read your link, for instance), but I read them with an open mind but a critical eye also. Just because I find one of your links unconvincing doesn't mean I would find another unconvincing. >>That wasn't his only example. Nor did you respond to mine about the non-human species.<< <Not much there, but my question about humans wasn't answered by you.> What question was that? <The Bible did say all kinds of animals were created, unless there weren't created in all kinds. The orangutan example is a minor footnote. The Bible said man was created and didn't say anything about kinds of man.> And yet we know there was more than one type of man. This is documented. The orangutan I brought up because you seemed to think that humans were unique in there being only one (currently existing) species. But this is not so. >>You said did say "other such sects" to cover you - I said a better word would be "denomination," since that's what I belong to.<< <So you're part of a Catholic denomination, but you didn't refer to yourself as a Catholic? Maybe you should be more clear.> Maybe you should read more closely. I said flat out that I wasn't Catholic. I belong to one of the Protestant denominations. You used the word "sect," and I pointed out that one does not normally use that word when referring to Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc. The usual word is "denomination." That's all. >>If you look up "sect" in the dictionary, the first thing is says is "denomination," so we're really getting bogged down in unnecessary semantics here.<< <Sematics are important here. That's why I wrote what I did. If you're not a Catholic, but part of a Catholic denomination, then maybe semantics doesn't apply to you.> Now I wish I was Jewish. Oy! >>If a literal reading of the Bible compels belief in something that can be shown not to be true - like an earth that is only 6,000 years old - that says to me that a non-literal reading of the Bible may be exactly what is needed.<< <I don't believe the Bible is asking us to suspend critical thought just to believe it. The Bible has asked us to test it.> And some passages, if read literally, do not stand up to scientific tests. Which doesn't mean they can't be read as metaphor. <Non-literal belief is tricky, because it asks us to discard certain things we might not like or find convenient. Afterall, it isn't central to prove the origins of the earth and man, but it is important to live according to God's intention. What will prevent you from following certain moral lessons you might not agree with?> Gurgitoy handled this well. And you had a point too, which is that Christians are bound to follow Christ's teachings. But Christ never addressed whether Genesis should be taken literally. >>Do you really believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, woody?<< <Good question. I believe man is in the 6,000 to 7,000 year range. The earth may be older, but we cannot be certain because time is marked on the fourth day. However, I'm skeptical the earth is millions and billions of years old.> Okay. You do know that we have fossils of humans that go back much farther than 7,000 years, right?
Originally Posted By woody >>And yet we know there was more than one type of man. This is documented.<< I don't agree. I think its all speculation cloaked in scientific jargon. The science is weaker than I thought when I read the reviews from the disputing scientists. The fossil records are in dispute. I can only sit and watch the scientists fight it out. The other parts of the evolution theory are clearly contrary to the rules of biology. There is no reconciliation. >>And some passages, if read literally, do not stand up to scientific tests. Which doesn't mean they can't be read as metaphor.<< Other than the origin of the universe and man that can never be proven scientifically (with certainty), what else is there? Many parts of the Bible don't require scientific inquiry because they dealt with supernatural events. They can't be explained by science, yet I don't think religion is incompatible with science. Back to the origins of man and the universe, certainly science tries to fill in the gaps with whatever it finds. There are compelling evidence; however, I think they are not sufficiently peer reviewed. >>But Christ never addressed whether Genesis should be taken literally.<< Christ constantly referred back to the Old Testement laws. He didn't dispute it. He always found a way to answer an apparent contradiction. Is Christ the Word? Certainly, literal means something or it doesn't. >>You do know that we have fossils of humans that go back much farther than 7,000 years, right?<< More fossils. You should know that fossil records going back beyond a few thousand years cannot be predicted with accuracy. BTW: Sorry if I misunderstood your Protestant denomination.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>And yet we know there was more than one type of man. This is documented.<< <I don't agree. I think its all speculation cloaked in scientific jargon.> I don't think so. The DNA studies have shown that neanderthals were not modern day homo sapiens. Here's a website (interestingly, headlined "Bringing the Bible and Science Together without Conflict."). I've never seen it before; it's interesting because it presents various creationist/quasi-creationist views and how they deal with the question of neanderthal not being related. But there's no scientific question there - the only question is how do you relate it to your belief. <a href="http://www.answersincreation.org/neanderthal.htm" target="_blank">http://www.answersincreation.o rg/neanderthal.htm</a> "For many years young earth creation science ministries have claimed that Neanderthals were modern humans. However, new evidence from anatomical studies and DNA shows that they were in fact a separate species, which died out, and did not contribute to the gene pool of present-day humanity. In a story reported in late January 2004, scientists did a detailed computer analysis of human and Neanderthal skulls, comparing the variations with the variations of sub-species of apes.1 The computer analysis showed that the differences measured between modern humans and Neanderthals were significantly greater than those found between subspecies of living monkeys and apes. According to the scientists, this makes the case that Neanderthals should be considered as a separate species." <The science is weaker than I thought when I read the reviews from the disputing scientists.> I'd like to read a review from a reputable scientist who disputes the DNA studies on neanderthals. <The fossil records are in dispute. I can only sit and watch the scientists fight it out. The other parts of the evolution theory are clearly contrary to the rules of biology. There is no reconciliation.> That's a sweeping statement. What "rules of biology" does evolution violate? I'm sure you must know that most scientists disagree with that statement. Because our knowledge is still incomplete does not mean there is an inherent "violation." >>And some passages, if read literally, do not stand up to scientific tests. Which doesn't mean they can't be read as metaphor.<< <Other than the origin of the universe and man that can never be proven scientifically (with certainty), what else is there?> The idea that Noah lived to be 900 years old. The idea that one can ward off leprosy by taking two birds, killing one, dipping the live bird's head in the dead one's blood and sprinkling it on someone's head. Neither one (and there are other examples) are compatible with science. <Many parts of the Bible don't require scientific inquiry because they dealt with supernatural events. They can't be explained by science, yet I don't think religion is incompatible with science.> I don't either, which has actually been MY argument. But certain passages simply are. Leviticus doesn't claim that its leprosy cure is something God has to do, or that it's a miracle. It's presented as something humans can do to ward off leprosy. Would it have ever done so? Of course not. But there it is in Leviticus. <Back to the origins of man and the universe, certainly science tries to fill in the gaps with whatever it finds. There are compelling evidence; however, I think they are not sufficiently peer reviewed.> Evolution is certainly more peer reviewed than "creation science." >>But Christ never addressed whether Genesis should be taken literally.<< <Christ constantly referred back to the Old Testement laws. He didn't dispute it. He always found a way to answer an apparent contradiction.> He didn't address everything in the O.T. Far from it. One thing he didn't address was the creation. <Is Christ the Word? Certainly, literal means something or it doesn't.> Again, Christ didn't address everything. >>You do know that we have fossils of humans that go back much farther than 7,000 years, right?<< <More fossils. You should know that fossil records going back beyond a few thousand years cannot be predicted with accuracy.> So say creation scientists, but they are a minority. Most scientists disagree with that. <BTW: Sorry if I misunderstood your Protestant denomination.> No problem.
Originally Posted By woody >>The DNA studies have shown that neanderthals were not modern day homo sapiens.<< What have we learned about in that link of yours? In that link, it didn't rule out a common ancestor along the line of Adam/Eve. What about the DNA results? It is definitely a lottery win to find the DNA; however, it isn't exactly conclusive. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/220" target="_blank">http://www.apologeticspress.or g/articles/220</a> >>What "rules of biology" does evolution violate?<< The rules of biology means living cells will NOT come from nothing. It means the creation of species will NOT come from cell mutation. >>Evolution is certainly more peer reviewed than "creation science."<< Not quite. In this article, it suggests that evolution is already considered a "fact" before all the results were in. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1985" target="_blank">http://www.apologeticspress.or g/articles/1985</a> "Is Evolution a “Fact†of Science?" by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. "It generally is alleged by the more spirited evolutionists that evolution has been proven, and therefore must be spoken of not as theory, but fact. As far back as 1944, evolutionist W.W. Howells wrote in Mankind So Far that “there is also the mystery of how and why evolution takes place at all.... Evolution is a fact, like digestion...†(p. 5). On May 2, 1966, Nobel laureate Hermann J. Muller circulated a manifesto that affirmed:" "In this day and age, most evolutionists no longer speak of the “theory†of evolution, but refer instead to the “fact†of evolution. The widely accepted Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, financed by the National Science Foundation, organized the entire treatment of biological science around the “fact†of the evolutionary framework of life history. Almost all books on biology published by secular publishers for at least the past two generations have been written as though evolutionary presuppositions were fact instead of theory." "The codiscoverer of the DNA molecule, James Watson, is on record as stating: “Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minorityâ€" So the scientists are not trying to prove a theory, but backfilling an agreed upon FACT as far back as 1944.
Originally Posted By woody Here more evolution theory as "fact." So I wonder... why bother? <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2" target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/article.c fm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2</a> 1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>The DNA studies have shown that neanderthals were not modern day homo sapiens.<< <What have we learned about in that link of yours? In that link, it didn't rule out a common ancestor along the line of Adam/Eve.> I linked to that specifically because it presented a variety of responses to the revelation that neanderthals and modern humans are different species. I also linked because it accepts the idea (as does just about everyone in science now) that they ARE two different species. <What about the DNA results? It is definitely a lottery win to find the DNA; however, it isn't exactly conclusive. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.or" target="_blank">http://www.apologeticspress.or</a> g/articles/220> Please note that your link is from 1997; my link referred to a more conclusive study conducted in 2004. >>What "rules of biology" does evolution violate?<< <The rules of biology means living cells will NOT come from nothing. It means the creation of species will NOT come from cell mutation.> Those two sentences do not necessarily go together. >>Evolution is certainly more peer reviewed than "creation science."<< <Not quite. In this article, it suggests that evolution is already considered a "fact" before all the results were in. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.or" target="_blank">http://www.apologeticspress.or</a> g/articles/1985> More apologetics? Okay. Considering that certain aspects of evolutionary theory had been proven true by then, what you posted is not surprising. <Here more evolution theory as "fact." So I wonder... why bother?> All that piece did is say that most scientists believe that evolution (or at least those aspects of it that have indeed been shown) is fact, and "theory" is a word that is commonly used even after something has pretty much been settled on. (Gravity is officially still a theory). Evolution is a complex theory and most scientists are the first to tell you that much within it remains to be proven definitively. There are some things we DO know, and other things we don't. Some creationists try to exploit that and say therefore we don't know anything, or that nothing within evolutionary theory has been proven, but that's not so. <So I wonder... why bother?> I think I'm going to hang this one up, woody, for just that reason. Just as I would not try to talk a Catholic out of being a Catholic, or talk a Muslim out of being a Muslim, if you believe the earth is only 6,000 or 7,000 years old as an article of faith, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.
Originally Posted By woody >>More apologetics? Okay.<< What's wrong with using this source? You said one article was unconvincing, but that did not rule out other articles. So why are you taking your statement back? >>Considering that certain aspects of evolutionary theory had been proven true by then, what you posted is not surprising.<< They said a very broad statement that Evolution is Fact back in 1944. This continues with a present day statement that Evolution is Fact. Both can't be true, or maybe they have never considered the truth of their statement. >>Evolution is a complex theory and most scientists are the first to tell you that much within it remains to be proven definitively.<< This is the problem. I don't really think they trying to prove it. They are convinced of it and backfilling what they already consider as fact. >>I think I'm going to hang this one up, woody, for just that reason. Just as I would not try to talk a Catholic out of being a Catholic, or talk a Muslim out of being a Muslim, if you believe the earth is only 6,000 or 7,000 years old as an article of faith, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.<< I don't think you really read what I wrote. I said I believe in science; however, there is too much dogma in the study of evolution in which evolution is an article of faith where it was deemed a fact back in 1944. Also, I didn't say the earth was 6,000 to 7,000 years. I said perhaps man is perhaps that old, but the earth is undetermined in age. Dabob2: Sorry that you don't want to discuss it any further. I wasn't trying to argue Evolution on faith. I was trying to argue about what it is and the limitations of the theory.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>>More apologetics? Okay.<< <What's wrong with using this source? You said one article was unconvincing, but that did not rule out other articles. So why are you taking your statement back?> Partly because it would be nice to have more than one source. But mostly because the more I read them, the more it seems they are convinced of what they are convinced of and backfilling what they already consider as fact, to cop a phrase. >>Considering that certain aspects of evolutionary theory had been proven true by then, what you posted is not surprising.<< <They said a very broad statement that Evolution is Fact back in 1944. This continues with a present day statement that Evolution is Fact. Both can't be true, or maybe they have never considered the truth of their statement.> I can see where they could consider both to be true. In other words, in 1944 they had seen enough evidence to say that evolution, at least in its broad outlines, was true. Perhaps they should have specified which aspects of it had been proven, and they didn't. Today, there's further proof for more aspects, leading them to say - again, perhaps too broadly - that they consider evolution a fact. >>Evolution is a complex theory and most scientists are the first to tell you that much within it remains to be proven definitively.<< <This is the problem. I don't really think they trying to prove it. They are convinced of it and backfilling what they already consider as fact.> That's exactly what I see apologetics as doing. But I do think the evolutionists have more science on their side. >>I think I'm going to hang this one up, woody, for just that reason. Just as I would not try to talk a Catholic out of being a Catholic, or talk a Muslim out of being a Muslim, if you believe the earth is only 6,000 or 7,000 years old as an article of faith, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.<< <I don't think you really read what I wrote. I said I believe in science; however, there is too much dogma in the study of evolution in which evolution is an article of faith where it was deemed a fact back in 1944.> There absolutely can be dogma in science. However, certain aspects of evolution absolutely pass the tests of the Scientific Method, and are not a matter of faith, but of observation. <Also, I didn't say the earth was 6,000 to 7,000 years. I said perhaps man is perhaps that old, but the earth is undetermined in age.> My bad; indeed you did say that. That's not backed up by science either, of course, but I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. <Dabob2: Sorry that you don't want to discuss it any further. I wasn't trying to argue Evolution on faith. I was trying to argue about what it is and the limitations of the theory.> There are limitations to every theory until proven. And I've said several times that some aspects of evolutionary theory remain unproven (though some have been proven). I don't think we're all that far apart here. Well, maybe on the age of humans, but again, I'm not going to try to talk you out of that.
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: Thanks for the conversation. I think the debate will go on for those who are skeptical on the "Theory" of Evolution. I think the science is very compelling. I'll leave it at that.
