Creationism vs. Evolution

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The only difference is that the Bible does not have in it anywhere a disclaimer stating, the people, events, and places depicted in this work are fictional. The Bible presents itself as a nonfiction work.quote>

It is true that the Bible has no disclaimer in it, but neither does Star Trek. The only difference is that, in their respective eras, the Bible was viewed as nonfiction, and Star Trek was viewed as fiction.

I was merely using Star Trek as an example to support my point, as well as an example of a well-developed continuity.

Yesterday is the past. Creationists have 6000-10000 years beyond that. Any evolutionary changes in that time are also in the past. You stated in such a way that would require the creation to be in the present.quote>

I do concede that the post can be interpreted that way, but when I said "past", I did not mean the past like yesterday, but more like the geological past (>10000 years ago). 

However, the Book of Genesis says the present global ecosystem arose through supernatural creation, and stayed that way.

Let me put it this way. Science is constantly growing and changing so that no one will ever understand all of it their lifetime. I wanted the interpretation to be that we cannot confine God or science to only what we understand about them.quote>

On that clarification, I agree with the general point. We certainly do not know all there is to know about the Universe, and probably will not for at least millenia in the future.

That slipped my mind when I posted that. I am withdrawing the question.quote>

Good. Then that point is closed.

I believe that there is an equal responsibility on both sides to prove their points with the understanding that the debate cannot by changed by moving the subject matter.quote>

I think that it is the burden of proponents of Evolution to validate the theory, which has in my judgement been done. Creationists have an additional burden -- to assemble the concept into a scientific theory that can be validated.

If a theory cannot be tested by scientific methods, then it is irrelevant to science. I agree that with two competing theories (Creation has not become one to date), it is the burden of both to validate themselves.

In the current context (a theory vs. a concept), I think it is the burden of all the proponents to validate their beliefs, if they wish one of them to be proven by science. If they do not, then it is not a scientific theory.

I would like to see the top scientists of each side debate the ideas of creation and evolution in a style similar to a trial. That would at least lead to education about both sides.quote>

If anything, that would be interesting to watch. Although you would find evolutionary scientists in abundance, and only a few scientists who believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design.

[fukuda 351]

3) I was asking about the seeming trend of going from a disordered state (unicelluar) to an ordered state (multicellular). I'm going to stop pursuing that point, though.quote>

That's because multicellular organisms work better in getting more energy and wasting less of it

[Blazerhawk 162]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

It is true that the Bible has no disclaimer in it, but neither does Star Trek. The only difference is that, in their respective eras, the Bible was viewed as nonfiction, and Star Trek was viewed as fiction.

I was merely using Star Trek as an example to support my point, as well as an example of a well-developed continuity.quote>

I believe that little disclaimer is in the end credits. It may be a little more recent than the early Star Trek episodes.  Another difference is that Star Treks continuity stretches over 40 something years, but the Bible's is over 1600+ years.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I do concede that the post can be interpreted that way, but when I said "past", I did not mean the past like yesterday, but more like the geological past (>10000 years ago). 

However, the Book of Genesis says the present global ecosystem arose through supernatural creation, and stayed that way.quote>

Actually, it nowhere states that it stayed that way.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I think that it is the burden of proponents of Evolution to validate the theory, which has in my judgement been done. Creationists have an additional burden -- to assemble the concept into a scientific theory that can be validated.

If a theory cannot be tested by scientific methods, then it is irrelevant to science. I agree that with two competing theories (Creation has not become one to date), it is the burden of both to validate themselves.

In the current context (a theory vs. a concept), I think it is the burden of all the proponents to validate their beliefs, if they wish one of them to be proven by science. If they do not, then it is not a scientific theory.quote>

The problem for us is that Creation would not be repeatable. However, that being said I'd say if Noah's Ark were found (interesting story there) or signs of pre-Deluvian civilization it would help a whole lot. The Flood of Noah would be good to support creationist beliefs because it would be archeological proof of the story. There are a great many theories in creation circles as to the flood's effect on Earth.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

If anything, that would be interesting to watch. Although you would find evolutionary scientists in abundance, and only a few scientists who believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design.quote>

 

True, that's why you get each sides best at explaining their points in words the genreal public could understand. (If that is possible )

Originally posted by: fukuda

That's because multicellular organisms work better in getting more energy and wasting less of it ç quote>

Usually, though one has to question that when it comes to humans. *thinks of guy sleeping with remote in hand, on a couch, in messy room* j/k

Originally posted by: fuduka

Btw, my surname is fukuda, not fuduka quote>

 Doh! Sorry about that.

[fukuda 351]

Actually, it nowhere states that it stayed that way.quote>

Well, it has little chances of changing in only 6000 years after all

The problem for us is that Creation would not be repeatable. However, that being said I'd say if Noah's Ark were found (interesting story there) or signs of pre-Deluvian civilization it would help a whole lot. The Flood of Noah would be good to support creationist beliefs because it would be archeological proof of the story. There are a great many theories in creation circles as to the flood's effect on Earth.quote>

Noah's schedule:

1) Start to design the Nimitz class-sized ark to carry all the animals

2) Build a huge shipyard

3) Destroy all the forests in Lebanon to get enough wood

4) Build the ship

5) Sail all over the world for 300 years to collect animals (wait, 300 years? was Noah like Matusalem?)

I don't need to say that no one had the technology to build such a ship (which is impossible to build with wood anyway, you would need 1800s industrial technology), along with all the other obvious impossibilities.

To begin talking about pre or post deluvian civilization you would need to prove that such a deluge existed. Suddenly, the sea rose so high that there would be like 2 times more water than the actual quantity (spontaneous dis/appearance of water?). There is obviously no evidence at all of such a large flood in the geologic register, nor animals show any kind of genetic bottleneck that could show a serious flood-like disaster.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Also, that first comment was slightly offensive. quote>

I apologise for any offence caused.

[Blazerhawk 162]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Actually, it nowhere states that it stayed that way.quote>

Well, it has little chances of changing in only 6000 years after all quote>

Not much, but some.

Originally posted by: fukuda

The problem for us is that Creation would not be repeatable. However, that being said I'd say if Noah's Ark were found (interesting story there) or signs of pre-Deluvian civilization it would help a whole lot. The Flood of Noah would be good to support creationist beliefs because it would be archeological proof of the story. There are a great many theories in creation circles as to the flood's effect on Earth.quote>

Noah's schedule:

1) Start to design the Nimitz class-sized ark to carry all the animals

2) Build a huge shipyard

3) Destroy all the forests in Lebanon to get enough wood

4) Build the ship

5) Sail all over the world for 300 years to collect animals (wait, 300 years? was Noah like Matusalem?)

I don't need to say that no one had the technology to build such a ship (which is impossible to build with wood anyway, you would need 1800s industrial technology), along with all the other obvious impossibilities.

To begin talking about pre or post deluvian civilization you would need to prove that such a deluge existed. Suddenly, the sea rose so high that there would be like 2 times more water than the actual quantity (spontaneous dis/appearance of water?). There is obviously no evidence at all of such a large flood in the geologic register, nor animals show any kind of genetic bottleneck that could show a serious flood-like disaster.quote>

Actually the Bible story in Genesis Chapters 6 and 7 God gave Noah the designs. Also, the ark took 120 years to build. The story also says that God brought the animals to Noah. As to technology, there is an interesting idea that I have heard. It states that man before the flood was actually quite advanced technologically. The reasoning is that you would have had humans more intelligent than Einstein living around 800-900 years. Of course, all evidence would simply have been crushed under the tremendous pressure of the water.

You bring up a good point about the water. Again according to the Biblical account, it had never rained before the flood. Large quantities of water would have evaporated during the days following the Flood. Additionally, some water would have retreated to aquifers and the ice caps. Finallly, we do not actually know what such a flood would have done to the landscape of earth, nor do we know what sea level at that time would have been.

I have other points I would like to make but I'm a little short on time right now.

Originally posted by: sam

I apologise for any offence caused. quote>

Thanks. I understand you didn't mean any.

[Jillybean86 38]

Isn't it also possible that the flood didn't cover the entire Earth? I know it says so in the bible, but technically they didn't know the world existed beyond their little area in the Middle East, so if that area flooded it would be the "entire world".

It's kind of like when someone says they're starving when they're actually just hungry. Not everything in the bible should be taken literally...it is the 'word of god' but it's been translated dozens of times and was written by humans to begin with, so who knows what is metaphor and what is literal.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

However, that being said I'd say if Noah's Ark were found (interesting story there) or signs of pre-Deluvian civilization it would help a whole lot. The Flood of Noah would be good to support creationist beliefs because it would be archeological proof of the story.quote>

Even if Noah's Ark was found, it would not prove that a flood ravaged the entire world. Noah would have lived in the Middle East. However, the existence of such an ark along with geological signs in the Middle East would point to a flood... in the Middle East.

There is no geological signs of a Noah-type deluge about 3000 years ago anywhere in the world. Also, the flood as described in Genesis is physically impossible, since it would take more water than there is on the entire Earth to create that type of flood.

Thirdly, even if there was divine intervention (i.e. spontaneous creation of water), then there would be signs in the rock strata, as well as fossils and evidence of a genetic bottleneck.

Fourthly, Noah could not have saved every animal on Earth, as this would be beyond his technology. Therefore, he could only save the animals in the region at best, and there would be evidence of a mass extinction of animals.

Fifthly, there would be evidence of a mass extinction of humans, as well as a genetic bottleneck. There is none.

With these points, and predicted consequences of the event, I am convinced that there was no flood as described in Genesis.

If the proof of Creation rests on this, then it has a weak case.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[fukuda 351]

You bring up a good point about the water. Again according to the Biblical account, it had never rained before the flood. Large quantities of water would have evaporated during the days following the Flood. Additionally, some water would have retreated to aquifers and the ice caps. Finallly, we do not actually know what such a flood would have done to the landscape of earth, nor do we know what sea level at that time would have been.quote>

The atmosphere has a limit of absorption, so does the soil. I'm quite serious about the water, water runs in a closed cycle on earth, there's a limited amount of water on earth. And yes, we do know the effects of large precipitation, they are accelerated erosion and huge sediment layers, along with the change of river flows.

Both sediments and glaciers allow us to study the past precipitation, sea levels and temperature, there is no disruption in the recent 6000 years. And none of them show anything like a universal deluge in any moment of the latest millions of years...

Isn't it also possible that the flood didn't cover the entire Earth? I know it says so in the bible, but technically they didn't know the world existed beyond their little area in the Middle East, so if that area flooded it would be the "entire world". quote>

No, it's not possible; water is a fluid and flows horizontally. If the flood was so huge that the local mountains were topped it means that a huge (at least 100 meters tall) layer of water was over the ground.

The flood could have happened if the dead sea depresion (under sea level) was invaded by the mediterranean sea, but no rain would then be involved and the seawater just magically disappeared without leaving any trace...

Not everything in the bible should be taken literally...it is the 'word of god' but it's been translated dozens of times and was written by humans to begin with, so who knows what is metaphor and what is literal.quote>

Indeed

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: fukuda

...

To begin talking about pre or post deluvian civilization you would need to prove that such a deluge existed.

...quote>

I agree. Such a flood would not disappear without leaving any trace of physical evidence. 

Originally posted by: crushedcar

As to technology, there is an interesting idea that I have heard. It states that man before the flood was actually quite advanced technologically. The reasoning is that you would have had humans more intelligent than Einstein living around 800-900 years.

quote>

 And what evidence can you present in support of this idea? Again I don't think this is something that would have left no evidence behind, especially since we have archaeological evidence of agriculture going back 10 000 years and archaeological evidence of pre-agricultural society going back much further than that.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The reasoning is that you would have had humans more intelligent than Einstein living around 800-900 years. quote>

And how do you explain this "de-evolution"? And I mean without invoking a supernatural decline of the Earth or anything of that nature. There is no evidence in the record of skeletons or the environment to suggest that humans lived any longer than they do now. If anything, we're improving ourselves. One estimate from a team led by John Hawks has stated that positive natural selection has occured at 100 times the normal rate in the past 5000 years, due to the large population of humans.

There is no evidence of large-scale devolution in humans.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus And how do you explain this "de-evolution"? And I mean without invoking a supernatural decline of the Earth or anything of that nature. There is no evidence in the record of skeletons or the environment to suggest that humans lived any longer than they do now. If anything, we're improving ourselves. One estimate from a team led by John Hawks has stated that positive natural selection has occured at 100 times the normal rate in the past 5000 years, due to the large population of humans.

There is no evidence of large-scale devolution in humans.quote>

The theology behind things here is that originally, within the Garden of Eden, humans were immortal and lived forever, never growing old. The introduction of sin then poisoned this and slowly each progressive generation had a shorter and shorter typical lifespan until it settled out to what it is now... such that characters from Genesis such as Abraham and Noah lived several hundred years.

This is the first I've heard of such early people being highly technologically advanced, however. There's nothing in the Bible to back that claim up, really.

No, what we're seeing here is merely an example that seemed perfectly plausible at the time it was written but knowledge obtained since that time has poked huge holes in it. The ancients knew nothing of a water cycle, or conservation of mass. For all they knew, water just magically fell out of the sky whenever god decided to make it do so and magically vanished gradually when exposed to the sun or heat. Working under that theory, the idea that god could make it rain so much that the entire world flooded and then have the sun shine constantly to dry it back up would be completely possible.

Obviously, we know know a lot more about the true nature of such things and that story simply doesn't fit into our knowledge anymore.

As another interesting bit...

In order to have covered the entire world, sea level would have to be risen about 30,000 feet (to cover Mount Everest). That's 360000 inches. If it rained for 40 days (960 hours), that would give us worldwide rainfall at a rate of 375 inches per hour. To put that in perspective, even 2 or 3 inches an hour is a pretty nasty storm and an unusual occurrence. And the longer the timespan, the less the sustained intensity can be.

A typical 100-year design storm (that is, a storm of intensity that you'd expect to see once every 100 years) might sustain 11 or 12 in/hr for 5 minutes, but over a 24 hour period the sustained rate is about a third of an inch per hour.

375 inches per hour sustained for 40 days is about the statistical equivalent of a 10²⁰⁴⁴⁴⁰ year storm.

Yeah....

[fukuda 351]

10^204440quote>

Mathematical overkill, lol

[hym 358]

In order to have covered the entire world, sea level would have to be risen about 30,000 feet (to cover Mount Everest). That's 360000 inches. If it rained for 40 days (960 hours), that would give us worldwide rainfall at a rate of 375 inches per hour. To put that in perspective, even 2 or 3 inches an hour is a pretty nasty storm and an unusual occurrence. And the longer the timespan, the less the sustained intensity can be.

A typical 100-year design storm (that is, a storm of intensity that you'd expect to see once every 100 years) might sustain 11 or 12 in/hr for 5 minutes, but over a 24 hour period the sustained rate is about a third of an inch per hour.

375 inches per hour sustained for 40 days is about the statistical equivalent of a 10204440 year storm. quote>

Just so you know, there is a theory floating around out there that the earth at one time had a double atmosphere, and that the majority of the water in the Flood came from that atmosphere completely raining itself out. Also, it says that water came up from the deep, presumably the earth itself.

By no means proof that the Flood happened, but they are potential variables that you haven't taken into account.

[Sam 163]

Darwin Day is tomorrow 12th February 2009. Its 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin, and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species.

Originally posted by: hym

In order to have covered the entire world, sea level would have to be risen about 30,000 feet (to cover Mount Everest). That's 360000 inches. If it rained for 40 days (960 hours), that would give us worldwide rainfall at a rate of 375 inches per hour. To put that in perspective, even 2 or 3 inches an hour is a pretty nasty storm and an unusual occurrence. And the longer the timespan, the less the sustained intensity can be.

A typical 100-year design storm (that is, a storm of intensity that you'd expect to see once every 100 years) might sustain 11 or 12 in/hr for 5 minutes, but over a 24 hour period the sustained rate is about a third of an inch per hour.

375 inches per hour sustained for 40 days is about the statistical equivalent of a 10204440 year storm. quote>

Just so you know, there is a theory floating around out there that the earth at one time had a double atmosphere, and that the majority of the water in the Flood came from that atmosphere completely raining itself out. Also, it says that water came up from the deep, presumably the earth itself.

By no means proof that the Flood happened, but they are potential variables that you haven't taken into account.quote>

I have heard of both but I think neither of them takes into account the consequences of those phenomena. Everything has an effect on everything else around it. Either of those theories, if true would imply significant (and testable) impacts on the planet which would leave their mark. I suspect the proponents of those theories may not have taken such significant impacts into consideration.

Now I don't know if Duke's figures are right since I'm unfamiliar with working in inches mainly, but the basis sounded like the right idea. Think about the amount of water that would be required to fill the volume up to the top of Mt Everest which is 8 840 metres high (actually 20 ft or 6m above according to the Bible), including the volume that is already in the oceans (you can't use that to fill the space above the oceans). Compare that amount to the amount of water currently on Earth (in the atmosphere, oceans, ice caps, lakes and rivers, geosphere and biosphere).

Leaving aside for now the problem of where the water came from, where did it go to? Where is it now? It didn't just disappear off into space. All water that was present on the Earth now was here at the beginning (or almost) and has always been here. All water that was present at the beginning is here now. So where are the floodwaters now?

Some relevant stats:

surface area of Earth: 510 072 000 km²

height of Everest: 8.84 km

Volume of Earth above sea level to height of Everest: 4 509 036 480 km³

(We need to take a bit off the above to account for the actual land volume above sea level)

Average height of land above sea level: 0.84 km

Area of land on earth: 148 940 000 km²

Volume of land above sea level: 125 109 600 km³

Subtract volume of land above sea level from Volume of Earth above sea level to get total volume of water to reach the top of Everest:

Volume of water needed: 4 383 926 880 km³

Its an ugly number so just to make it easier to handle lets round it to: 4 400 000 000 km³ (within 1%)

Some more numbers relating to amount of water currently on Earth:

Total amount: 1 386 000 000 km³

In Oceans: 1 338 000 000 km³ (96.5 %)

In ice-caps and glaciers: 24 064 000 (1.74%)

In atmosphere: 12 900 km³(0.001%)

So we can see that the total volume of water needed to cover Everest is 3.17 times what is currently on Earth (don't forget what is currently in the oceans needs to be added to this).

It is also 341085 times that which is currently held in the atmosphere.

Leaving aside for now how you would get the atmosphere to hold that much water (as Fukuda said there is a saturation point after which moisture precipitates as rain), what would happen if that much water was held in the atmosphere?

Under the vapour canopy model pre flood Earth would have had an atmospheric pressure 840 to 900 times what it is now. (By comparison when scuba diving each 10m depth increases the pressure on the diver by 1 atmosphere)

The air would have held enough water vapour that it would be unbreathable.

Also what other conditions would have affected living things on earth under this amount of vapour?

Temperature of the earth due to the greenhouse effect

Cloud layer prevents sunlight getting to earth for photosynthesis

Energy released as the water vapour precipitates causing heating of the earth.

The ice caps would lift of their beds and break up if this much water covered the Earth. We would be unlikely to have ice-cores stretching back tens of thousands of years with not so much as a sludge mark if this were the case.

What would happen if you put that much water under ground?

You'd need a space 8.6 km deep under the whole surface area of the Earth to hold that much water assuming it was filled with nothing but water (and not taking into account compression). Where would you put it? What would the Earth's surface be resting on? How hot would that water be? How could that much water get out from under the Earth and into the atmosphere without leaving any mark or erosion at the fracture point? Then it came back out of the atmosphere in 40 days?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I don't see what that big wooden ship on Mt Ararat (which has been thoroughly examined and explored, and whose existence is well-proven) has to do with the foolish proposition of atheistic evolution.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

I don't see what that big wooden ship on Mt Ararat (which has been thoroughly examined and explored, and whose existence is well-proven) has to do with the foolish proposition of atheistic evolution.quote>

 

Who says that evolution is, by definition, atheistic?   It is quite possible to believe in God and believe in evolution since they are not mutually exclusive.

 

To me, it would be contradictatory to believe in creationism and to believe in a kind and loving God.  If menopause is something that was "intelligently designed", then God has an extremely sick sense of humor.

 

By definition, God can not be pathologically warped.   Therefore God did not create the human body as it is today. 

 

 

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: manticorefan

I don't see what that big wooden ship on Mt Ararat (which has been thoroughly examined and explored, and whose existence is well-proven) has to do with the foolish proposition of atheistic evolution.quote>

 

Who says that evolution is, by definition, atheistic?   It is quite possible to believe in God and believe in evolution since they are not mutually exclusive.

 

To me, it would be contradictory to believe in creationism and to believe in a kind and loving God.  If menopause is something that was "intelligently designed", then God has an extremely sick sense of humor.

 

By definition, God can not be pathologically warped.   Therefore God did not create the human body as it is today. 

 

 quote>

 

Ski geeks avatar proves there is a god.

That toaster looks positively psychedelic.

[fukuda 351]

I don't see what that big wooden ship on Mt Ararat (which has been thoroughly examined and explored, and whose existence is well-proven)quote>

citation needed

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan I don't see what that big wooden ship on Mt Ararat (which has been thoroughly examined and explored, and whose existence is well-proven) has to do with the foolish proposition of atheistic evolution.quote>

I've heard about this before, sure, but what I haven't seen is any reports on the matter from a credible objective source (that is, a source that doesn't have an obvious religious agenda...).

Were pieces of wood found on top of Mount Ararat? I'm not even quite 100% sure of that but let's say they were. Okay, now, who says they came from Noah's Ark (or any boat, for that matter)? Are there not other ways they could have gotten up there? Might there not have been from some attempt at constructing a shrine up there or something, which, due to the religious connections, was to be boat shaped? Isn't it entirely possible that some prankster or someone with an agenda intentionally went and planted them there?

It's merely circumstantial evidence. And given that there's no other "evidence" of some huge global flood out there, and indeed the idea is easily demonstrated to be essentially physically impossible... I'd be far more inclined to think that there's a more rational, down to earth explanation for it, rather than that "it's Noah's Ark".

[Easy Bakes 253]

I remeber this 

http://noahsarksearch.com/index.htm

not sure who is doing research or who paying for it, but i seem to remeber this was one some nature program.

mabey National Geographic will look.

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

By definition, God can not be pathologically warped.   Therefore God did not create the human body as it is today.  quote>

Depends on which God you speak of.  The one discussed in the bible teaches that sin is what corrupted the world, and everything in it, including menopause, cancer, etc.  All that stuff.

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

Personally, I think that people are limiting themselves when they base their religious belief solely on evolution. There's a lot more unanswered questions out there besides the origins of life on Earth. The universe is the most random thing ever. Why gravity? Why the speed of light? Why neutrinos, etc. What about the 'laws' of the universe, what about atomic particles? Why does light feed life? And I mean, not just asking these questions in a scientific manner, as if to explain how they work, but to explain why does the universe work THIS way? It's totally random.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

By definition, God can not be pathologically warped.   Therefore God did not create the human body as it is today.  quote>

Depends on which God you speak of.  quote>

I speak of the God who . . . . no, that's not right.   My understanding of God precludes the concept that God could be pathologically warped.   Any ---insert noun here--- who is pathologically warped can not be God.

I realize that the definition of "God" can be elusive and that people don't always agree on it.  I refuse to believe that God is sadistic.

The one discussed in the bible teaches that sin is what corrupted the world, and everything in it, including menopause, cancer, etc.  All that stuff.quote>

 

That doesn't really answer anything.   That's basically saying that my mom now has cancer for the sixth time because, according to some political committee in 325, life was once perfect and then humans decided to sin.    That makes no sense.

and people wonder why I started reading about religion in the Eastern hemisphere.  Which, I believe, gets back to your point:  I do see God from an Eastern perspective, not a Western one. 

 

 

 

 

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

That doesn't really answer anything.   That's basically saying that my mom now has cancer for the sixth time because, according to some political committee in 325, life was once perfect and then humans decided to sin.    That makes no sense.quote>

Why doesn't it make sense?  It doesn't have to be based on a committee.  It doesn't have to be based on anything that anyone here is comfortable with.  Obviously, it's not.  People go thorough things they don't choose.  My aunt just got cancer for the 3rd time as well.  And it's not saying that a committee decided it was that way.   Apparently God did.  And that doesn't make 'him' sadistic just because the possibility of it being that way was created.  That possibility was the result of the exercising of free will.  Again, in biblical terms.

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

Let me iterate that a little better. I'm just saying that the way things are have nothing to do with our level of comfort. That's the real truth. Part of what makes life hard is that often the truth really has no concern for your feelings. If a meteor is going to smash the Earth, well, it's not going to check and see if you're okay with that. I think the same thing applies to whatever is exactly true about people, why we're here, and what is or is not morally acceptable. I honestly don't think we have the capacity to make judgments upon those subjects anyway.

[choco1 4]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek I speak of the God who . . . . no, that's not right.   My understanding of God precludes the concept that God could be pathologically warped.   Any ---insert noun here--- who is pathologically warped can not be God.

I realize that the definition of "God" can be elusive and that people don't always agree on it. I refuse to believe that God is sadistic. quote>

Ah, interesting.

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god? Epicurus. 33 A.D.

That's the quote I keep coming back to when I think about god.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan I don't see what that big wooden ship on Mt Ararat (which has been thoroughly examined and explored, and whose existence is well-proven) has to do with the foolish proposition of atheistic evolution.quote>

One word: Consequences. Everything has consequences, in this case genetic bottleneck in all species within the last 10 000 years (as Patricius Maximus said) the effects of which would be clearly visible and profoundly impact on sciences such as conservation biology. However there is no such impact. If there were then a lot of sciences, including medicine, would have taken profoundly different turns. This would not be a trivial matter.

Genetic bottlenecks occur when a population's size is decreased to such low levels that genetic variation is critically reduced. When this happens not only does a population lose much of its ability to adapt (thereby putting its survival at risk), but it also becomes much more affected by genetic drift. Even if the size of the population recovers, the genetic diversity remains limited.  While viable population sizes vary depending on the characteristics of the population, most would be in trouble if they fell to numbers well above what Noah reportedly took onto the Ark. Seven pairs (or 3 pair plus one or two of a kind) wouldn't have cut it from the point of view of survival for most species. Conservation biologists tend to be concerned when populations fall to a few dozen breeding pairs, a few thousand, or even populations of tens of thousands can be in trouble.

An example of the effects of genetic bottleneck are evident in Cheetahs which experienced a genetic bottleneck approximately 10 000 years ago. The effects of this include reduced sperm viability, low fecundity, high mortality and low disease resistance. One of the more remarkable effects is that skin can be grafted from any cheetah to any other, without risk of rejection. (Menotti-Raymond, M and O'Brien, SJ (1993),Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah, PNAS April 15, 90 ( pp 3172-3176, http://www.pnas.org/content/90/8/3172.abstract )

More information on the Relevance of evolution: conservation

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic Personally, I think that people are limiting themselves when they base their religious belief solely on evolution. quote>

Whoever said anyone does? Like I said previously, its a scientific theory, its not supposed to be a religion. If you take it as such you are putting it to uses it was never intended and you will most likely get strange results. Some religious people like to get leverage by making it out as a religion when its not but like Ski Geek said, its not actually a problem for many religions or religious people.

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

Why gravity? Why the speed of light? Why neutrinos, etc.

...why does the universe work THIS way? quote>

Why not?

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

The one discussed in the bible teaches that sin is what corrupted the world, and everything in it, including menopause, cancer, etc.  All that stuff.quote>

 

That doesn't really answer anything.  

 

 quote>

Agreed.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

The one discussed in the bible teaches that sin is what corrupted the world, and everything in it, including menopause, cancer, etc.  All that stuff.quote>

 

That doesn't really answer anything.   That's basically saying that my mom now has cancer for the sixth time because, according to some political committee in 325, life was once perfect and then humans decided to sin.    That makes no sense.

 

 quote>

What I also don't get particularly from the point of view of the above is that this is supposed to be a religion that gives hope, yet some creationists claim that evolution denies hope. Saying that you are bad and you deserve to suffer and thats that, is not a message of hope.

I don't mean to sound proseletysing (sp?) but to me evolution itself is a source of hope. It says we don't have to sit back and take the rubbish life (or our ancestry) gives to us. We have the power to change it. It tells us we can save lives, cure diseases, prevent suffering, feed the hungry, save species from extinction, and watch new species emerge. Contrast that to a god who would throw us all into hell forever and ever to suffer for all eternity for our arbitrary "sins".

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic  I think the same thing applies to whatever is exactly true about people, why we're here, and what is or is not morally acceptable. I honestly don't think we have the capacity to make judgments upon those subjects anyway.quote>

I think we have not only the capacity but the responsibility.