ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 She actually made no scientific claims about evolution. She stated her feelings about evolution and how a belief in such could impact the world in a moral sense. Can one be wrong when stating their feelings rather than facts? Hmm... She made the statement "AND, inherent in the belief in evolution is the belief that one life is somehow more important than another" which is fundamentally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 :iagree:I live in a divided household. Dh would fall just right of center into YE and I fall just left into the crazy world Evolution with a purpose. I was discussing this very thing with him yesterday. "Scientific Theory" and "theory" are not interchangable. They are not equal. That is the most frustrating part of these conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I would never say you aren't a real Christian if you don't believe in a Young Earth/literal 6 day creation. Never. To do that would be to put myself on the same level as God. *shudder*. I hope I didn't give that impression in this thread? You do not. Those who are actually behind the Nye controversy (Ken Ham and his merry band of twits) do. And they do so quite proudly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiopianFood Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 This is one of those circular questions, like, "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" Any discussion about what God can and cannot do is sort of beside the point. The question is what did He actually do. And what He did, over and over, in the Bible, was to lay out His plan, set it in motion, and then wait until the fullness of time for it be accomplished. Nothing was born overnight, and events were prophesied many times many, many years before they came to fruition. Let me reiterate. Nothing BIG in the Bible ever happened quickly. Not the creation of the nation of Israel. Not the Law. Not the Prophets. Not Israel's maturation and the creation of the Temple. Not the birth of the Messiah, the birth of the Church, and the giving of the New Covenant. We are still waiting on the fulfillment of Christ's "soon" return some 2,000 years later. Do you get what I'm saying? Eve was told through the seed of woman, the Messiah would come. Did it happen overnight? Of course not! Many things had to happen, and many hard lessons learned. The birth, growth, decline, and the spiritual death of Israel, the physical nation, had to occur before Heavenly Jerusalem could be built. Right there, you have a form of evolution. You have the shadow, the type, and then you have the later fully accomplished reality, and they are entirely two different animals. This isn't my own lil' interpretation, BTW, it's what 90% of Christiandom has been taught and believed for most of its history. So, could God have created a fully matured and "old" Earth? I'm sure a God capable of setting up an entirely complex and diverse evolutionary cosmos would find such a simplified, straightforward act extremely easy to accomplish. And I think that's what draws most YEC to it; it's very simple and way less prone to all kinds of questioning about God's motives, or God's plan for humanity. Yes, as the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth, it's definitely possible for God to have created everything all ready-made, and pre-packaged, even with accessory dinosaur bones included, but such a view ignores the difference in reality between what is in the Mind of God, a multidimensional, omnipresent place, and what is currently our reality, dependent as we are in the entrails of time and entropy. I mean, just look at our own short lives! We aren't born fully-matured adults. We are born infants, and by the time we reach adulthood, just every single cell in our bodies has been replaced. Which means, we are literally a different person, a different animal than when we were infants, or children, or even as teenagers! I actually think it's rather presumptuous of mankind to believe its timescale to be on the same level of God when it comes to realization of all the events that He has willed into being. And because of that, I'm constrained to believe in evolution, because it follows the same logic of pattern of early beginning, development, and eventual culmination that is so clearly described throughout the Bible's pages. As St. Paul once said, does not nature itself teach us about spiritual rules? The natural world and the spiritual world are entwined in each of us. If it took some 4,000 years for the birth of a Savior proclaimed at the Fall of Mankind, I seriously doubt that the God of the Bible is the type to rush Creation from beginning to end, and do it all in a mere six 24-hour days. It just doesn't seem like Him. P.S. I probably have wasted a good 30 minutes typing the above, as I'm sure the thread will be deleted. So, I'll just have my fun now and say that "creation science" is the same kind of oxymoron that "Atheist Seminary" is. Science is the study of evidence gathered and observed through our 5 senses: empirical evidence. Creationism is predicated on a religious, faith-based approach that is antithetical to empirical evidence. By its very nature it spurns examination by mortal, limited intellect and senses. Therefore, requiring science teachers to devote equal time to "creationism" is like requiring a Sunday School teacher to devote equal time to atheism. Ok? Call it what it is, "creationism," "theistic subjectivism," whatever, but it's not science. :001_wub::001_wub::001_wub: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soror Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'm not even going to bother posting what I think of Bill Nye's comments, as they don't matter a bit to me -- nor do they matter to most people, I would assume. What I would like to say is that, while most of the comments here have been respectful, a few have been downright personally insulting, and I think it is sad that anyone feels the need to be intentionally mean and disparaging toward another member here, just because they disagree on a hot-button issue. I think it's fine to disagree and to debate, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who is hoping the rest of the thread can continue without personal insults. I was offended reading the insults, and they weren't even directed toward me. :iagree: :iagree::iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I had to go walk the dog (my cats are more tolerant of my time online, probably for the ready lap). :001_smile: Okay, so, evolution. Big Bang (all of a sudden we have something from nothing), now there are living cells which evolve into multi-celled organisms, into higher-level multi-celled organisms, into apes (yes leaving out lots of steps along the way), and eventually into humans as we know them today. Is this wrong? (serious question...I've already been called un-intellectual and worse here tonight so ignorant will not bother me in the least, lol). I love to learn...so yes point me in the direction of some brief texts to explain it. :D One way to visualize evolution is as a process of branching. Some branches die out, others thrive and get branches of their own. Evolution is easy to perceive as a linear progression if you trace backwards, and I think this makes it too easy to lose appreciation of just how much failure (as in failure to survive) happened to individuals and entire species... the "dead" branches and the mutations resulted, directly or indirectly, in death. So cats didn't turn into dogs, but they do have a common ancestor: All Carnivora are thought to have evolved from miacids. Likewise, modern humans share a common ancestor with modern apes, and we didn't evolve from modern apes. There are a number of good books for the lay reader on evolution. My favourite is Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. I'd recommend the first chapter of this book as a primer of what evolutionary theory is and isn't. Well, I recommend the entire book. :001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) Moreover it takes a leap of faith to believe in evolution and one does worship a being - the human being as the most important created thing in the universe. It only takes a leap of faith if a person does not understand the TOE in the first place. But if one does understand what the theory says and how it works, one would find it to be simple, elegant and even commonsensical. No faith required. BTW, evolution lacks enough truth that it has never made it past being a THEORY, which is why it ought to be taught in conjunction with all the other theories. This statement betrays your lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. A theory is not a starting point in the process of scientific inquiry - it is the end point. So one cannot "make past being" a theory. The fact that it is a one of the best supported theories in modern science makes evolution a statement of fact. Now I expect the religious zealouts (the evolutionists) to support it wholeheartedly as one would when their religion is attacked and deemed ridiculous and foolish. I am not sure whether your drawing parallels between the TOE and religion is meant as an insult to TOE? If so, then you seem to have a poor view of religion. One could even go so far as to say the zealots ought not be allowed to teach their children evolution as fact since it is, in actuality, just a theory. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact because the mechanisms for evolution - mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, isolation, speciation, etc. are happening right now, have been observed and documented. It is a theory because it explain a diverse range of observable phenomena & facts in the natural world with astonishing accuracy. I believe the most compelling evidence for creationism is that we are far too complex of beings to have evolved randomly. This seems to be a personal feeling or belief that you have. That does nothing to forward or dismiss the theory of evolution. For example colour is not an inherent property of the object. Solid matter is infact made mostly of empty space. All these scientific facts are counter intuitive and go against what we "feel" to be true. Over billions of years, not only did ONE human evolve but more than one in so that they could reproduce. This misunderstands the theory. Can one for example point to the first chihuahua which was born without a chihuahua mate? No? But can anyone deny that chihuahuas have undeniably descended from common middle sized dogs? To think that an individual suddenly gives birth to a different species which can no longer mate with its parent species is a false understanding of how evolution works. Miraculously, at the same time, their food source also evolved so that they could stay alive long enough to continue their evolution. Absolutely mind-boggling! Again a misunderstanding of the TOE. A key idea in the TOE that needs to be understood is that organisms did not develop features in response to outside events (such as food sources, climate change, etc.), but that variation had to already present in the population for natural selection to then work on selecting those features that would give the organism an advantage. If I remember correctly, bees are said to have evolved thousands of years before plants and their food sources and many other creatures as well. The earliest flowering plants have been dated to around 200-250 million years ago. . Scientists think bees evolved around 120 million years ago. The oldest known bee fossil has been dated to 100 million years ago. So your assertion that bees evolved before "plants" is incorrect. Let me just say that I believe it takes less a leap of faith to believe in my God and His creation in six days than it does to buy into evolution. No, it does not. Your dismissal of the TOE is not based on your knowledge of the TOE. On the contrary, your entire post has betrayed a basic lack of understanding of the TOE. Your assertion therefore that it takes a "leap of faith" to accept TOE has to be based not on sound knowledge but ironically on your faith itself. Edited August 31, 2012 by Free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Now, I will admit to also believing that since those days of creation living things have modified and adapted to changing conditions (or not adapted and died off as the case may be). You don't have to "believe" this. This is a fact. It is happening right now and scientists have observed this in lab and in the wild. But I have yet to see evidence of any living thing changing from one being to another (like a frog becoming a monkey or a cat becoming a dog) without man's interference. This is not evolution though. So even if you do totally believe in dogs turning into cats or something like that, such beliefs would have no relevance to any discussion on the TOE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Okay, so, evolution. Big Bang (all of a sudden we have something from nothing), now there are living cells which evolve into multi-celled organisms, into higher-level multi-celled organisms, into apes (yes leaving out lots of steps along the way), and eventually into humans as we know them today. Is this wrong? (serious question...I've already been called un-intellectual and worse here tonight so ignorant will not bother me in the least, lol). I love to learn...so yes point me in the direction of some brief texts to explain it. :D To understand the theory of evolution you need to understand the processes that drive evolution. The steps from single celled to plant or cow or bee or monkey are not as important as understanding how evolution works, what drives it, what processes it consists of, etc. It is a fascinating, fascinating study. It is one my favourite topics in all of science. I agree with Moira's recommendation of "Why Evolution is True", but another text that I truly enjoyed was "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Agreed. But you could still argue that a God capable of creating an already aged earth, could also create it full of anything He pleased - bones, algae, etc. I don't really know why He would, but I don't know much anyway :) You should check this out - Omphalos hypothesis and Last Thursdayism. If the universe was created intact to give an impression of age then how can one prove that it was young? Why even try? How do I know that I was not in fact created yesterday with all my memories already planted in me? If everything about me suggests that I have infact lived on this earth for 30 years then why would I even try to want to prove that I was only born yesterday? Kwim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 If all life just "happened" to come into existence by some big bang then we really don't have any purpose here. Life has no meaning. Life has no purpose. We are born. We die. Many of us find meaning and purpose in our lives from within. I do believe that we are born and we die and that is that. But that makes my limited time here more precious to me, not less. AND, inherent in the belief in evolution is the belief that one life is somehow more important than another. Infact natural selection can be a great equalizer. It can fell the mighty dinosaurs while the lowly cockroach goes almost unchallenged. So no, evolution does not posit the supremacy of any one life form over any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelwydd Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Many of us find meaning and purpose in our lives from within. I do believe that we are born and we die and that is that. But that makes my limited time here more precious to me, not less. I would also offer up my own experience as an ex-evangelical Christian. I will tell you that my years growing up in that particular sect exposed me to a callous world view, that is basically summed up thus: "This old world is going to hell, but I have a mansion in Heaven!" Much of evangelical Christianity seems to really only assign as much purpose to this life as what will gain them entrance to heaven. Do they much care if the planet gets destroyed in the meantime by religious wars, pollution, and wasteful management of resources? Not really, since they are going to get "raptured" away from the mess and get rewarded for their destructive habits by getting a brand new Earth. I would argue that belief in God does not therefore necessarily grant one a more meaningful existence, especially since so many seem to believe the world is their oyster, and they can do anything with it and God will just provide more. It doesn't exactly engender an appreciative or caring attitude towards the earth or humanity, especially since the majority of people are going to be doomed to Hell anyway. They are just here biding their time until their number gets called and they blow this popstand for something better and more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 For real?? I hear this back in Kansas in the 70s. (Where I also had a fabulous 7th grade science teacher who said, a few times a year when the moment was right, "but I can't teach you anything about evolution". She made sure we heard the word, so we could look it up if we liked. She also, in teaching reproduction, mentioned she couldn't teach us about "birth control" either. What teen doesn't like forbidden fruit?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I have a jewish friend who say's it is both. :lol: And I knew a completely sincere pre-med student who thought the Jews came from outer space (because his interpretation of the Bible.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I love to learn...so yes point me in the direction of some brief texts to explain it. :D David Attenborough did a nice, careful intro to the subject recently: Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life. My DVD has a second feature going over the struggles CD had publishing this, how he held off for years, how much he worried about hurting his wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama2Many4 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I believe that God created everything. In what way and time that was, is not for me to know yet. Could have been evolution. I can't rule that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts