Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Park/78...l/eohippus.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

[littlechild]

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Park/78...l/eohippus.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Hello, the content of those links come "pre-refuted". If you had read my post you would see why we the belief that Eohippus was the first horse are problematic to say the least. The Eohippus could just as easily be categorized as the first tapir, or the first rhinoceros, or even, a hyrax.

[littlechild]

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

I am still trying to reconcile neo-Darwinism with reality. I am with the microbiologists who ask, "What can evolution do?" and finding the answer, "Not much."

[Bee Eff]

James Shapiroâ??s long study of bacteria has culminated in a concise statement of the new theory of life and of evolution. His basic principles are these:

* All genome functions are interactive: the genome is always in communication with rest of the cell

* Every genome component operates as part of a complex information-processing system (no â??one gene-one traitâ??correlation)

* Genome systems are organized and integrated into cell networks by repetitive DNA (there is no â??junkâ?? DNA)

* Genome change is a regulated biological function

* Natural genetic engineering processes are subject to biological feedback at multiple levels

* Sensing, computation and decision-making are central features of cellular functions

* The cell is an active agent utilizing information stored in genome

* Information flow is multidirectional and all genomic functions are interactive.

* Genome change as a biochemical process subject to regulation

* Cell function is controlled by informatic rather than mechanical processes

* Signals play the critical role in the revamp of cell and organismal phenotypes

Shapiro argues that current knowledge of cellular activity contradicts the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, which assumes that the genome is constant, subject only to random, localized changes at a constant mutation rate. But it is now known that the genome is subject to episodic, massive, and non-random reorganization that may produce new functions.

Shapiro has set forth his position in his essays: A 21st Century View of Evolution, Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century, Why Repetitive DNA is Essential Genome Function, and, Natural GeneticEngineering and Adaptative Mutation, all available online here.

Shapiro supports evolution. Evolution doesn't state random or not. In fact other scientific laws most frequently negate the concept of "random", there is underlying order in all that exists for law governs all of existence.

Shapiro is merely aiding in the evolution of the theory of evolution. Shapiro is a die hard evolutionist.

[Bee Eff]

Gentle reader, have you read what I have posted? Do you dispute anything specific about it? If so, let me know in detail what you dispute, and why. Perhaps we can reason it out together. Your appeal to the authoritarianism of credentialed Darwinists is touching, but misguided. You can't ask a propaganda expert to be objective. There were around 500 scientific papers on the Piltdown Man prior to the revelation that it was all a fraud. Do you now propose that scientists are bias free and that this sort of thing is not possible to happen again? If so, then perhaps you can explain why Eohippus is considered the earliest version of horse?

# Simpson, after stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium ("Eohippus"), which evolutionists assume was the first horse, and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, goes on to say "This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammalsâ?¦The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed." (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, G. G. Simpson,1944, p 105)

# "The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [it has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."â??H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

# "The difference between Eohippus and the modern horse is relatively trivial, yet the two forms are separated by 60 million years and at least ten genera and a great number of species.. . . If the horse series is anything to go by their numbers must have been the 'infinitude' that Darwin imagined. If ten genera separate Eohippus from the modern horse then think of the uncountable myriads there must have been linking such diverse forms as land mammals and whales or mollusks and arthropods. Yet all these myriads of life forms have vanished mysteriously, without leaving so much as a trace of their existence in the fossil record" (M. Denton, p. 186).

I accept biology, but I do not accept neo-Darwinism. Biology was a science long before neo-Darwinism arrived on the scene, and it will continue to be a science even though Darwinism will die out in the next 20-30 years due to lack of credibility.

There are not, as you claim, 'minor gaps' in the evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever. There are only hunches, intuitions, speculations, hypotheses, and contradictions. Every time a fact arises that contradicts the theory, evolutionists decry the facts rather than the theory.

If you will simply open your eyes to objective reality, a paradigm shift will occur. If you don't - it will happen anyway. There is no reason in the fossil record, or anywhere else, to force us to adopt an evolutionary explanation for the existence or continuance of life, or for biology to be understood. Darwinism is nothing more than a false explanation, a materialistic interpretation, and a contradiction of microbiological evidence. The more you look at it, the more it falls apart - the more you realize it is a tautology. One must assume evolution before one accepts the explanations of evolution - there is no single fact of evolutionary biology that would necessitate that we believe the theory as a whole to be true. But again, there are many reasons to reject it, read my former posts please, I have given you the broad outline sufficient for you to understand my position.

Your position focuses on minor mistakes that have been dealt with in science.

Mistakes occur. We understand this. However, there is insufficient rationale for denying evolution. The papers on the Piltdown man were assessment made based on the data provided. For your assumption of this somehow threatening the theory of evolution to be true, you would need to believe that scientists in general are dishonest. Assume that people follow your moral line, and then tell me that the evolutionary scientists are simply lying. The pattern of human behavior doesn't exist that leads to such widespread dishonesty on the scale you need to believe to support your claims.

The piltdown man was shown to be a hoax by evolutionary biologists and archaeologists. It shows that science will work hard to explain the anomalous and the unexplained. The piltdown man supports evolution in that it shows the lengths that scientists will go to verify the claims they make. These errors show that science will not blatantly accept things, that research continues even in the face of possible fact.

I have not read through all of your posts, but I suppose you also attack evolution based on Haeckelâ??s embryo drawings. Another concept that has been discussed and and dealt with in evolutionary biology.

[littlechild]

Your position focuses on minor mistakes that have been dealt with in science.

Mistakes occur. We understand this. However, there is insufficient rationale for denying evolution. The papers on the Piltdown man were assessment made based on the data provided. For your assumption of this somehow threatening the theory of evolution to be true, you would need to believe that scientists in general are dishonest. Assume that people follow your moral line, and then tell me that the evolutionary scientists are simply lying. The pattern of human behavior doesn't exist that leads to such widespread dishonesty on the scale you need to believe to support your claims.

The piltdown man was shown to be a hoax by evolutionary biologists and archaeologists. It shows that science will work hard to explain the anomalous and the unexplained. The piltdown man supports evolution in that it shows the lengths that scientists will go to verify the claims they make. These errors show that science will not blatantly accept things, that research continues even in the face of possible fact.

I have not read through all of your posts, but I suppose you also attack evolution based on Haeckelâ??s embryo drawings. Another concept that has been discussed and and dealt with in evolutionary biology.

Simply asserting that they are minor, does not make them so. Saying they have been "dealt with" is less than an adequate response. There is no substance behind this blatant mediocre attempt to take the upper hand when you have nothing to back it up with. You haven't read my posts, you don't understand them, you have nothing to refute them with, and until you understand the subject sufficiently to arrive at your own conclusions, rather than those you have been spoon fed from those in authority, you lack any credibility whatever to speak to this subject.

The Piltdown man fooled all the biologists and archaeologists for 40 years. Approximately 500 of them wrote doctoral dissertations on the subject. Obviously there is something more going on than the objective pursuit of science. There are other evidences that similar things are going on, not merely with Haeckel's embryo's but with the fact that there is no single phylogenetic tree that can be trusted to accurately reflect Darwin's (imaginary) Tree of Life.

Now you say that it was science that proved Piltdown a hoax. Fair enough, IF you allow for the possibility that scientists are today proving evolution a hoax, as many of them are, if you will simply learn enough about the subject to understand why that is the case.

There are many evidences today that microbiology refutes Darwinian assumptions. There are problems with radiometric dating and its accuracy. There are the problems I have quoted with regard to the origins of every species and its place on the phylogenetic trees we have heretofore discussed.

You can't simply say, these have all been "dealt with". Evolution is not 'settled science'. Real science is overturning it as we speak, despite the unwillingness of evolutionists like Dawkins and Myers to admit they have believed an inaccurate and inadequate field of knowledge. It takes a big person to admit they have been wrong, don't expect Dawkins and Myers to do it. But do expect the facts to come to light eventually when enough critical mass is reached that the questions will have to be answered definitively .

[e=mc2]

littlechildFor any given evolutionary forms, just ask for the precursors, and you get either stony silence or a hundred conflicting ideas and conjectures, or you get an apathetic instructor saying, "Dawkins says it so , so its so. " Right.

I haven't seen Eugenie Scott say this. I haven't seen Stephen Jay Gould in over 15,000 words *ever* say this. I haven't seen Isaac Asimov say this in the over 300,000 ever say this. I haven't seen Ken Miller, Karl Giberson, Douglas Futuyma say this. Robert T. Pennock never said this, anymore than Michael Shermer has. Ernst Myer never said this. Niles Eldridge nor Daniel Dennet nor Richard Dawkins ever said this. And most interestingly, I never have been able to find where Charles Darwin himself ever said this! You must be reading idiots and dolts who don't know what they are talkiing about.

littlechild:Simply asserting that they are minor, does not make them so.

Simply saying evolution doesn't work, and that no one finds transitional fossils doesn't make it so. Gee, I could play this worthless game with you til we both are old and gray.....Wheeeeee!

littlechildYou can't simply say, these have all been "dealt with".

Why not? You do about everything we show and say about evolution. We're simply following your own logic.

littlechildIt takes a big person to admit they have been wrong,

Is that why you aren't going to ever be very big?

littlechild:I am still trying to reconcile neo-Darwinism with reality.

You wouldn't know reality if it came up and slapped you oon your face...

[e=mc2]

littlechild:I accept biology, but I do not accept neo-Darwinism. Biology was a science long before neo-Darwinism arrived on the scene, and it will continue to be a science even though Darwinism will die out in the next 20-30 years due to lack of credibility.

You obviously read and accept too much creationist literature. They have said this ever since Darwin and have been refuted each and every single day, as you are being.....littlechild:

Gentle reader, have you read what I have posted? Do you dispute anything specific about it? If so, let me know in detail what you dispute, and why.

Yep. Do I dispute it? Yep, all of it. In detail what I dispute? ALL of it.

[e=mc2]

littlechild:

In fact, evolution contradicts itself, by stating that evolution takes millions and billions of years, but then it all happened during the Cambrian period.

Typical uninformed drivvel....... I gotta admit though, you are entertaining in your silliness.

[semlogo]

So nothing about natural history requires evolutionary theory as an explanation. The theory was dreamed up by humans in much the same way as the Greek gods were - they saw an event and determined to explain it in a way that to them was plausible.

There is nothing about Archaeopteryx that requires that we believe it to be a link between older and newer generations. The same applies to all the other supposed "missing links" which are not links. In fact, evolution contradicts itself, by stating that evolution takes millions and billions of years, but then it all happened during the Cambrian period.

If speciation and natural selection were true, as the neo-Darwinists claim, we should be witnessing significant numbers of transitional life forms evolving - not just in some distant past - they should be snowballing all around us. Evolution is not happening today, never happened, and never will. Strange how you can't predict the emergence of new life forms with it, though supposedly that's how millions of life forms came to be.

Evolution is DEAD apparently.

You read far too much junk science.

[semlogo]

I don't believe in vestigial organs anymore either. Not since the last 100 or so have been found to serve a useful purpose in the human body.

In order to believe in vestigial organs, you have to assume evolution. It's a tautology - evolutionists assume evolution and then use their assumption to 'prove' evolution. As I stated before and I'll state again - similarity does not prove evolution, it only proves similarity. Circular thinking gets us nowhere.

You might as well say you don't believe in the existence of parakeets. There are none so blind as will not see.

[mfbukowski]

No, we don't know that at all. In fact, it's impossible to ever know that something is not true.

I don't want to derail the thread, but included in this is the proposition "God does not exist". It takes faith to be an atheist.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 04:00 PM

I don't want to derail the thread, but included in this is the proposition "God does not exist". It takes faith to be an atheist.

No more than LDS an other Christians faith that the Greeks Gods don't exist. How about the faith that the boogie man under your bed doesn't exist. That's a lot of faith in an infinite number of things we don't believe in.

[katherine the great]

Threads like this make me REALLY miss the Dude. (sigh...)

[e=mc2]

Threads like this make me REALLY miss the Dude. (sigh...)

The Dude?! What's he got that I don't? Well, I mean other than say pazzaz, clout, cleverness, adroit reasoning skills, powerful analytical conceptualization, and inherent meaningful discussions. Other than that, .....

[mfbukowski]

No more than LDS an other Christians faith that the Greeks Gods don't exist. How about the faith that the boogie man under your bed doesn't exist. That's a lot of faith in an infinite number of things we don't believe in.

No, faith applies to what we DO believe in, since it's a principle of action. It's hard to take action on what we don't believe in. That's very different than having faith in a negative propsition. I think Zeus and Apollo were Eloheim and Jehovah, But back to evolution....

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 12:51 AM

No, faith applies to what we DO believe in, since it's a principle of action. It's hard to take action on what we don't believe in. That's very different than having faith in a negative propsition. I think Zeus and Apollo were Eloheim and Jehovah, But back to evolution....

Yes Faith applies to what we believe in. I was just showing the obvious logical fallacy of your post on atheist faith. It's always funny to watch people try to describe Atheism as a religion. BTW you will find if you ask around that many atheists don't conclude absolute certainty that God or the supernatural doesn't exist, only that lack of evidence is good reason for lack of belief. Now back to evolution

[thesometimesaint]

Bender:

* American Atheists * American Humanist Association, according to its website, is the "first and largest organization promoting Humanism in the US."[13] * American Secular Union * The Atheist Agenda * Atheist Community of Austin * Camp Quest, "The Secular Summer Camp," is the first residential summer camp in the United States for the children of those who hold a naturalistic world view.[14] * Church of Reality * Council for Secular Humanism is a non-profit educational association and, according to its website, "North America's leading organization for non-religious people." The Council aims to "meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god." CSH publishes Free Inquiry.[15] * Fellowship of Humanity * First Humanist Society of New York * Freedom From Religion Foundation, according to its website, is the "largest group of atheists and agnostics in North America." The Foundation represents the interests of freethinkers, with an emphasis on gender equality and reproductive rights, and the separation of church and state. It publishes Freethought Today, "the only freethought newspaper in North America."[16] * The Humanist Institute * Institute for Humanist Studies * Internet Infidels is a "a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet."[17] * Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers * North Texas Church of Freethought * Rational Response Squad * Secular Coalition for America * Secular Student AllianceBender: * American Atheists * American Humanist Association, according to its website, is the "first and largest organization promoting Humanism in the US."[13] * American Secular Union * The Atheist Agenda * Atheist Community of Austin * Camp Quest, "The Secular Summer Camp," is the first residential summer camp in the United States for the children of those who hold a naturalistic world view.[14] * Church of Reality * Council for Secular Humanism is a non-profit educational association and, according to its website, "North America's leading organization for non-religious people." The Council aims to "meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god." CSH publishes Free Inquiry.[15] * Fellowship of Humanity * First Humanist Society of New York * Freedom From Religion Foundation, according to its website, is the "largest group of atheists and agnostics in North America." The Foundation represents the interests of freethinkers, with an emphasis on gender equality and reproductive rights, and the separation of church and state. It publishes Freethought Today, "the only freethought newspaper in North America."[16] * The Humanist Institute * Institute for Humanist Studies * Internet Infidels is a "a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet."[17] * Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers * North Texas Church of Freethought * Rational Response Squad * Secular Coalition for America * Secular Student AllianceSound like a religion to me.

[semlogo]

Bender:

* American Atheists * American Humanist Association, according to its website, is the "first and largest organization promoting Humanism in the US."[13] * American Secular Union * The Atheist Agenda * Atheist Community of Austin * Camp Quest, "The Secular Summer Camp," is the first residential summer camp in the United States for the children of those who hold a naturalistic world view.[14] * Church of Reality * Council for Secular Humanism is a non-profit educational association and, according to its website, "North America's leading organization for non-religious people." The Council aims to "meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god." CSH publishes Free Inquiry.[15] * Fellowship of Humanity * First Humanist Society of New York * Freedom From Religion Foundation, according to its website, is the "largest group of atheists and agnostics in North America." The Foundation represents the interests of freethinkers, with an emphasis on gender equality and reproductive rights, and the separation of church and state. It publishes Freethought Today, "the only freethought newspaper in North America."[16] * The Humanist Institute * Institute for Humanist Studies * Internet Infidels is a "a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet."[17] * Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers * North Texas Church of Freethought * Rational Response Squad * Secular Coalition for America * Secular Student AllianceBender: * American Atheists * American Humanist Association, according to its website, is the "first and largest organization promoting Humanism in the US."[13] * American Secular Union * The Atheist Agenda * Atheist Community of Austin * Camp Quest, "The Secular Summer Camp," is the first residential summer camp in the United States for the children of those who hold a naturalistic world view.[14] * Church of Reality * Council for Secular Humanism is a non-profit educational association and, according to its website, "North America's leading organization for non-religious people." The Council aims to "meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god." CSH publishes Free Inquiry.[15] * Fellowship of Humanity * First Humanist Society of New York * Freedom From Religion Foundation, according to its website, is the "largest group of atheists and agnostics in North America." The Foundation represents the interests of freethinkers, with an emphasis on gender equality and reproductive rights, and the separation of church and state. It publishes Freethought Today, "the only freethought newspaper in North America."[16] * The Humanist Institute * Institute for Humanist Studies * Internet Infidels is a "a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet."[17] * Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers * North Texas Church of Freethought * Rational Response Squad * Secular Coalition for America * Secular Student AllianceSound like a religion to me.

Some atheists "evangelize," it's true. But they're more like grass roots political groups than a religion.

[Bender]

thesometimesaint,

Like I said, it's funny to watch. Can you show what all atheists have in common other than a lack of belief or faith in God or the Supernatural?

[Bee Eff]

You can't simply say, these have all been "dealt with". Evolution is not 'settled science'. Real science is overturning it as we speak, despite the unwillingness of evolutionists like Dawkins and Myers to admit they have believed an inaccurate and inadequate field of knowledge. It takes a big person to admit they have been wrong, don't expect Dawkins and Myers to do it. But do expect the facts to come to light eventually when enough critical mass is reached that the questions will have to be answered definitively .

"You can't simply say, these have all been "dealt with". [enter any scientific field] is not 'settled science'. Real science is overturning it as we speak, despite the unwillingness of [enter any supporter of any scientific field] to admit they have believed an inaccurate and inadequate field of knowledge."

Science is an evolutionary concept. Nothing in science is "settled science." This does not invalidate science it just states that science doesn't claim perfection, only the most logical conclusion at any given time.

What occurs with your attitude towards evolution is a simple denial with minimal support. Such is fine, pursue your objection, but your objection does not warrant an intelligent person's denial of evolution You can doubt it, you can work to prove evolution false, but you cannot claim that science supports your position at the present time.

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

Some are some aren't of a political nature. Though they certainly can entertain political ideas. Belief in a specific deity is not necessary component to be a religion. Buddhists have no specific deity, but they are very much a major religion.

[semlogo]

semlogo:

Some are some aren't of a political nature. Though they certainly can entertain political ideas. Belief in a specific deity is not necessary component to be a religion. Buddhists have no specific deity, but they are very much a major religion.

At the very least belief in some kind of higher power or force should be required, then, surely.

I think evangelizing atheists are obnoxious, but I don't think they qualify as a religion.

[Bender]

thesometimesaint Posted Today, 11:26 AM

Some are some aren't of a political nature. Though they certainly can entertain political ideas. Belief in a specific deity is not necessary component to be a religion. Buddhists have no specific deity, but they are very much a major religion.

Some atheists are Buddhists. You will find some atheists are members of other religions as well. However, atheism itself is not a religion or religious movement.

[mfbukowski]

Science is an evolutionary concept. Nothing in science is "settled science." This does not invalidate science it just states that science doesn't claim perfection, only the most logical conclusion at any given time.

I am wondering about this notion of Popper that "natural selection" is a tautology. I suspect I agree but would like some input. It almost seems that science by its very nature begs the question of evolution. Thories which work are "selected" and theories which don't "die".

So natural selection itself mirrors the history of science, and is built in as a paradigm of scientific method.

As I see it, and I think this is Popper's position too, though I am not sure since I am a duffer in this area, the two propositions which consititute evolutionary theory are natural selection, and the idea that there is variation in animals.

So what is needed is a "driver" for variation. Not all possible "drivers" can be explained naturally. (is this so?) Or at least one could always postulate an "unknown driver" for variation which leaves open the idea of God as the "prime mover" for mutations He intended to have happen.

So God causes the "right" mutations when He wants to, and natural selection naturally selects. Natural selection really just says "what survives, survives" and on this view is a tautology.

Whadya think?