Evolution Question

12,405 Views | 175 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by DirtDiver
ABattJudd
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:49a, 10/11/24
AG
Full disclosure: I am a Bible-believing Christian, and I ask the question below not to start debate or anything. I genuinely want to understand the scientific thinking in this area. I was a political science major who pulled Cs in 100-level biology and zoology.

Here's something I've wondered about evolutionary biology: how does evolution explain the development of sexual reproduction? If evolution is the result of natural selection and random mutations, how did species evolve in such a way as to require two versions of the same species with extremely complex systems that facilitate reproduction? I would think these systems could not have developed slowly and bit-by-bit.

I appreciate any information you guys have on this.
"Well, if you can’t have a great season, at least ruin somebody else’s." - Olin Buchanan
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:20a, 10/11/24
AG
It's believed that sexual reproduction first appeared somewhere around 2 billion years ago and so finding a definite answer on this is probably not going to be possible. At best, we could prove out one or several different ways it could have happened and perhaps show which one might have been most likely.

The Wiki might be a good place to start.
Reply Quote
1
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABattJudd • 9:40a, 10/11/24
AG
Edit for my disclaimer that didn't copy over: I haven't studied evolutionary biology in a long time, so please excuse any outdated information. But this is a general broad strokes of how it could develop using evolutionary processes

Start with the idea that the only thing that matters in evolutionary terms is DNA. Everything else is secondary, like the man controlling a giant robot. Only the man inside really matters. So the idea is to make your specific DNA spread as far and as wide as possible. Certainly one way to do that is just to create a lot of DNA and spill it all into the environment as a naked molecule. DNA is very stable naturally, so there were probably some organisms that did this in the past. You can imagine that some of this DNA was "eaten" by single celled organisms and then hijacked their cells. So you can imagine that a lot of these single cells started producing DNAse (enzymes that destroy DNA) as a defense mechanism, and they eventually started pumping that into the environment as well. Now just randomly dumping DNA into the world is a losing strategy, and those organisms die off or reduce greatly in number.

So you have to get a little trickier. Let's say that one of these former DNA dumpers starts packaging their DNA to prevent it from being easily broken down. This DNA now can survive an environment full of DNAse, but it gets harder for any other organism to pick it up. So maybe it starts getting aggressive and invasive, and you get something like the earliest viruses. Mobile DNA capsules that can invade other organisms and take over their machinery to make more viruses. So even in the realm of single celled organisms we have a packaged DNA delivery system.

Moving on to intentional reproduction, most single celled organisms create a copy of all their internal parts, including DNA, and then they divide in half. That works well for a bacteria, but as you can imagine it's not the best solution for something like an elephant. Multicellular organisms have a lot of mass and specialized parts, and cloning yourself inside your own body is not a practical solution. You instead you form a structure that has all the genetic instructions and the minimum amount of material needed to to build a new organism from the ground up. And here we have eggs. At this point, eggs can only make clones of the original organism not counting environmental damage to DNA from things like chemicals or radiation. But we still see that even today, and it is called parthenogenesis. Many fish, reptiles, insects, and plants can reproduce this way when their eggs are not fertilized.

Now lets think of the earliest forms of this. You have an egg clone (or a million), and you just dump it off in the environment and move on. Imagine you are a similar organism, and you don't want to go through all the effort of creating all those eggs. It can be very energy intensive. So instead you create your own "virus", an invasive package of genetic material that can invade those eggs and turn them into clones of you instead. That's a lot more energy efficient than making a whole bunch of eggs yourself. Now you have sperm which invades eggs and alters their genetic material. At this point, you probably have most of these organisms producing both eggs and sperm.

Now imagine a billion year battle between sperm and eggs. The eggs get more defenses and the sperm gets more aggressive. Egg laying and sperm producing get streamlined so most individuals only do one or the other. The egg layers get more protective, even bringing the eggs inside their bodies. So the sperm producers develop anatomy that can still get to the eggs anyway. Eventually you reach a sort of stalemate, where you end up with some number of egg producers and some number of sperm producers in any population every generation. At this point their DNA back and forth has so intermingled their genetic material so much that they are basically just two versions of the same organism. At that point you can find eggs that need sperm to fertlize them before they can grow into a new organism, and you get all sorts of genetic diversity from the combination. Long term, that diversity is a winning strategy in a dynamic, hostile environment.

I'm sure someone else with more recent knowledge can clean this up a bit, but I think that gets the gist
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
heteroscedasticity
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:20p, 10/20/24
In short, sex is evolutionarily favored because it allows genetic recombination every generation, making organisms much more adaptable to environmental variability. A fun fact about the evolution of the sexes is that the female came first. The male sex was evolutionarily derived from the female. Poetically speaking, Adam came from Eve's rib
Reply Quote
7
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to heteroscedasticity • 11:38p, 10/20/24
AG
heteroscedasticity said:
In short, sex is evolutionarily favored because it allows genetic recombination every generation, making organisms much more adaptable to environmental variability.

This is a good argument for the evolutionary advantage of sexuality.

Quote:
A fun fact about the evolution of the sexes is that the female came first. The male sex was evolutionarily derived from the female. Poetically speaking, Adam came from Eve's rib
This makes little sense.

If an organism can reproduce on it's own, it is not female.

If an organism has all of the sex parts to reproduce, both male and female, its not a female. In the spirit of the birds and the bees, think flowers as a non-perfect parallel. Not female.

A thing is a female is an organism that can conceive, but not without the help of an external DNA donor.

Now, maybe there was a flower once upon a time that had both male and female parts. Then, one day, there was a mutation, and the flower needed pollen from another flower, but couldn't create pollen. One could argue that "female" came first here. Then, think of another flower where there was a mutation, and the flower could produce pollen, but not be pollenated. But, it made way, way more pollen than the pre-mutation flowers, so the mutation spread quickly before there was another mutation where there were flowers that were created that could only accept pollen, the male came first.

I think that your idea that it is fact that the female came first is a feel-good fairy tale.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
ABattJudd
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:44a, 10/21/24
AG
Thank you Ramblin. That was a very detailed answer.

I understand the evolutionary benefit of sexual reproduction. My curiosity is really about how those systems developed. Sexual systems are so complex (genetalia, gonads, ovaries, the uterus, the birthing process and all the different things involved there) that they could not have evolved spontaneously complete, but how would each of these individual components have come into existence over time and been tied into each other?
"Well, if you can’t have a great season, at least ruin somebody else’s." - Olin Buchanan
Reply Quote
3
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABattJudd • 1:25p, 10/21/24
AG
ABattJudd said:
Thank you Ramblin. That was a very detailed answer.

I understand the evolutionary benefit of sexual reproduction. My curiosity is really about how those systems developed. Sexual systems are so complex (genetalia, gonads, ovaries, the uterus, the birthing process and all the different things involved there) that they could not have evolved spontaneously complete, but how would each of these individual components have come into existence over time and been tied into each other?
You're welcome to whatever sparks my few brain cells can form when banging together.

I think the big problem you have is that you are starting at the end of the story. You're wondering where fuel injectors came from without knowing where engines came from. The key development for all the things you mentioned is the egg. And the egg is just a cloning shortcut. Gonads produce eggs. Uteri are internal egg protectors. Live births are just internally hatched eggs. You don't even need sexual reproduction for any of these things to work. Sharks can give live birth without ever having a male involved, and they have all those parts with the same functions.

The other problem is trying to assign purpose to evolution. Yes, sexual reproduction decreased diversity and can help a species survive in an unstable environment. However, it is a detriment to a successful species in stable environment. Why change things up if everything is already working great? So benefits in evolutionary terms are situation specific.

It's also better to look at evolution most often as a cutthroat competition, and let the cooperative parts be the exception. So there is no reason to think that the formation of the first sperm was a mutually beneficial process. Seems much more likely that it was a "good for me and bad for you" situation. It makes perfect evolutionary sense for males to start off as reproductive parasites that use female eggs to make more males, and that only further down the line did this become more or less mutual.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:51p, 10/21/24
AG
In the discussion of evolution, you need to start with this:



4 electrons, 4 protons, and 4 neutrons would need to join together to form a single Carbon molecule. You can work backwards and ask how each of those 12 elements of a carbon atom would form individually and then join up. Or just have enough "faith" to accept the all that happened enough times and that then those atoms arranged into the multiple nucleotide bases, of which a 2 would be needed for a single base pair of DNA, and of which multiple base pairs would be required for a single gene, and the gene structure would have to replicate itself before it decayed... at some point, you have to declare it illogical to conclude it could happen without a Creator.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ramblin_ag02 • 8:46a, 10/22/24
Just an observation: You used the word "imagine" 5 times.

It's been my experience that this is how the theory (belief) of evolution is sold. One has to imagine what's possible given long periods of time to comprehend something we cannot experiment with.
Reply Quote
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 9:13a, 10/22/24
AG
DirtDiver said:
Just an observation: You used the word "imagine" 5 times.

It's been my experience that this is how the theory (belief) of evolution is sold. One has to imagine what's possible given long periods of time to comprehend something we cannot experiment with.
I don't know what my unedited writing style has to say about the validity of evolution, but "to each their own" I guess.

When viewed through the lens of evolutionary theory, biology makes a lot more sense. That makes it easier to make predictions, easier to design experiments, and easier to understand what is happening. I don't know if evolution is "true" any more than I know that gravity is "true". Truth is a religious/philosophical value. Evolutionary theory is useful, and it allows us a better and more accurate understanding of our world.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:36a, 10/22/24

Quote:
I don't know what my unedited writing style has to say about the validity of evolution, but "to each their own" I guess.

When viewed through the lens of evolutionary theory, biology makes a lot more sense. That makes it easier to make predictions, easier to design experiments, and easier to understand what is happening. I don't know if evolution is "true" any more than I know that gravity is "true". Truth is a religious/philosophical value. Evolutionary theory is useful, and it allows us a better and more accurate understanding of our world.

All good my friend. Your writing style has nothing to do with the validity of the claims of evolution. The word, "imagine" is a key word in the marketing of the theory. "Imagine" what could happen with millions or billions of years of change.

We can test and do experiments with change within a species ie cattle breeding and were sold that as evidence of monkeys to man evolution if we use our imagination.

Evolutionary theory in a micro sense with cattle breeding is very useful. The molecule to monkey to man theory of evolution is a fun thought exercise and it's greatest use has been to devalue human life.

Every theory is possible, not every theory if reasonable. You have a great many reasons to believe that gravity is true over the molecules to man evolution theory.


Reply Quote
2
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 10:29a, 10/22/24
AG
I still don't get what "imagine" has to do with anything, or why you think that's a valid point. We have to imagine thermodynamics, theology, organic chemistry, and history. None of those are things we can see and watch. Abstraction is fundamental to every aspect of human mental effort. So saying that you need imagination to understand evolutionary theory is like saying that you need to use your brain to understand evolutionary theory. It's true, but it's not exactly a "gotcha"
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
7
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:54p, 10/22/24

Quote:
I still don't get what "imagine" has to do with anything, or why you think that's a valid point. We have to imagine thermodynamics, theology, organic chemistry, and history. None of those are things we can see and watch. Abstraction is fundamental to every aspect of human mental effort. So saying that you need imagination to understand evolutionary theory is like saying that you need to use your brain to understand evolutionary theory. It's true, but it's not exactly a "gotcha"

Do we use our imagination when thinking about other topics? Absolutely. Is it fun? Yes. Take History for example: Imagine what the battle of the Alamo is like or imagine what it would have been like to live during the Gladiator days. The question is: Does our imagination tell us the truth about historical reality?

Bait and switch: Students are presented with details about natural selection and then being taught an atheistic "imagined" history of the universe that is unchallenged and unobserved.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:18p, 10/22/24
AG
It seems like you're making a big deal about how we teach evolution and treating that as a direct criticism on the science backing up our understanding of evolution, but the two aren't the same. Evolution is a big and sometimes confusing subject, so yeah a lot of times when teaching it to people who might not have an extensive science background we simplify or use metaphors to get a point across. We might even use language like "imagine the effects this principle could have over long time periods".

If you're expecting teachers to hand out academic papers to 8th graders in order to explain their subjects you pretty clearly misunderstand how our education system works. And yes, there are countless scientific articles out there concerning evolution that demonstrate why it is the best model we have to understand the variety and complexity of life.
Reply Quote
5
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 8:48a, 10/23/24
AG
DirtDiver said:

Quote:
I still don't get what "imagine" has to do with anything, or why you think that's a valid point. We have to imagine thermodynamics, theology, organic chemistry, and history. None of those are things we can see and watch. Abstraction is fundamental to every aspect of human mental effort. So saying that you need imagination to understand evolutionary theory is like saying that you need to use your brain to understand evolutionary theory. It's true, but it's not exactly a "gotcha"

Do we use our imagination when thinking about other topics? Absolutely. Is it fun? Yes. Take History for example: Imagine what the battle of the Alamo is like or imagine what it would have been like to live during the Gladiator days. The question is: Does our imagination tell us the truth about historical reality?

Bait and switch: Students are presented with details about natural selection and then being taught an atheistic "imagined" history of the universe that is unchallenged and unobserved.

This is a lot longer than I meant it to be. . . sorry.

I worry that you are reading 'fantasy' in place of 'imagination'. Imagination is not some nefarious tool used in problem solving, it is an indispensable requirement for the type of logical problem solving we are talking about.

Any time you see something broken and then think through how to fix the item, you are using your imagination to understand how the items is broken, the steps needed to fix the item, the methods used to carry out those steps, the techniques you'll use to to employee those methods, and you are imagining what the 'fixed' end product will look and be like.

A detective solving a murder gathers data and then uses imagination to determine possible scenarios that fit the data. These possible scenarios may not be 'reality', but they give the detective avenues for further exploration. And as further exploration proves specific scenarios incorrect, those scenarios are either modified or dropped.

It has always been a strategy of science to imagine a solution to a problem and then to test that solution and to explore whether or not it fits what can be tested and observed. If observation and new data and facts can be shown to contradict an imagined solution, the imagined solution is modified or it is discarded. Science helps us build models to describe reality. And those models are meant to evolve as we learn more about reality.

Take the formation of a mountain. We cannot witness the formation of a mountain nor can we recreate it in the lab. Our earliest imaginations described them as the work of gods. Early scientific theories imagined them as sedimentary deposits from large primordial oceans or as the result of volcanic activity. Later theories included descriptions of mountains as the result of imagined catastrophic events like huge earthquakes. It wasn't until recently that plate tectonics made an appearance which introduced theories that suggested mountain ranges could be built off of moving and colliding plates. Measurements of the growth of those mountains or the overall movement of plates added to the imagined solution to the problem of how mountains are formed. A proper geologist, I'm sure, could explain the mountain (pun intended) of data which reinforces our current understanding of how mountains are formed. But, until time travel is invented, its still an imagined solution . . . an imperfect model which I'm sure has gaps.

What is interesting to me is that very few religious persons will object to the claim that our best scientific understanding of mountains is that they are generally formed through tectonic forces at plate boundaries where Earth's crust is compressed or through volcanic activity. And yet, this claim requires our imagination. It requires us to see what exists now, measure slow change, and imagine what slow change can do over longer periods of time. And then, the same scientific methods applied to evolution is objectionable because it employs the same tactics that we found agreeable just a moment ago when dealing with mountain formation (which has far less theological implications)??

I think that perhaps ALL scientific progress and understanding requires imagination.


Quote:
The question is: Does our imagination tell us the truth about historical reality?

I would say that imagination does not alone direct our understanding of historical reality, but it plays a role in interpreting and understanding it. ANY attempt to reconstruct or understand our past, regardless of how much historical evidence we have, will show gaps in information and evidence that we must fill with imagination to create the most plausible narrative about what might have happened.

An archeologist digging in ancient ruins finds a small ceramic bowl. The archeologist does not witness the ancient civilization making or using the bowl. But, the archeologists imagines how they may have made it and they imagine what the bowl may have been used for. Is the archeologist playing fantasy? Or is the archeologist using their imagination to create a narrative that they feel reflects a good understanding of that historical reality? Is a history book that states that 'Our best understanding of [insert ancient civilization] made ceramic bowls to be used for storage vessels or for eating from' being irresponsible on account of the use of an imagined possible historical reality? It is possible that tomorrow the archeologist will find a painting at the site showing people using bowls as hats. If that happens, the text books may be updated. But until that happens, I do not see an issue with an informed imagined solution to the mystery of the bowls that conforms to all of our best understandings - permitted that it is described as such.

Without imagination, an archeologist would look at the bowl and only conclude that a ceramic object exists. Absolutely no further deductions would be permissible.

All that said, I agree that we should be careful how we teach science. The idea that sexual reproduction arose through evolution and natural process is not a fact in the sense that we can witness it or that we can recreate it in a lab and prove how sexual reproduction arose in our far distant ancestors. But, that doesn't make it fantasy. Kids should be taught how and why scientific theories are developed and understand their basis rather than be indoctrinated into accepting things as fact without understanding.

The problem with the Christian claim that "God created sexual reproduction" is that it is even more of an imagined solution. Not only is God creating sexual reproduction not observed or testable, it is, by how it is defined, implicitly impossible to observe or test.

Often when religious persons discredit science, it is done with the false believe that doing so proves their supernatural theories as more correct. In other words, if answers to a question include "Answer A", "Answer B", and "Answer Other", then showing flaws in "Answer A" does not make "Answer B" more correct. So, if our current understanding of the evolution of sexual reproduction is not correct, that still doesn't mean that God did it. It simply means we still don't know.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:59a, 10/23/24
AG
Great post, Kurt! When we agree you always make the point better than I do.

I would also like to add that I'm a religious person, so it's not like religious people can't follow the logic of evolution and make use of it. I avoid the word "believe", as that's not how science works. No one should "believe" science, but some models of the world clearly work well. Evolution is one of these. Also, I fervently believe that God created sexual reproduction, because I fervently believe that God created everything until mankind came around. Evolution is merely the most useful current explanation
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 2:00p, 10/23/24
Quote:
An archeologist digging in ancient ruins finds a small ceramic bowl. The archeologist does not witness the ancient civilization making or using the bowl. But, the archeologists imagines how they may have made it and they imagine what the bowl may have been used for. Is the archeologist playing fantasy? Or is the archeologist using their imagination to create a narrative that they feel reflects a good understanding of that historical reality? Is a history book that states that 'Our best understanding of [insert ancient civilization] made ceramic bowls to be used for storage vessels or for eating from' being irresponsible on account of the use of an imagined possible historical reality? It is possible that tomorrow the archeologist will find a painting at the site showing people using bowls as hats. If that happens, the text books may be updated. But until that happens, I do not see an issue with an informed imagined solution to the mystery of the bowls that conforms to all of our best understandings - permitted that it is described as such.
Very poor analogy. Archaeologists very frequently go off on wild flights of fancy after finding a single bowl. They conjure entire civilizations and timelines off of solitary objects.

Unless there is some other information, the only conclusion that the archaeologist can reach simply by finding a single bowl is the bowl itself, its characteristics, and its location. With enough data like that, some archaeologist may be able to interpolate or extrapolate from the dataset of single bowls (or other objects) into some larger hypothesis.

Much of archaeology, including dating, is based almost exclusively on pottery. Almost all of that pottery-based work relies on heroic assumptions for which there is no supporting data, but frequently what little data exists conflicts with the pottery-based work. For example, in the Near East, pottery dating remains the primary dating source. Yet almost every other data point conflicts with pottery dating. Yet archaeologists proceed with their pottery dating unperturbed.

I encourage everyone to roll up their sleeves sometime and take a deep dive into archaeology. I've found that there's little scientific about it, but lots and lots of storytelling.
Reply Quote
2
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:10p, 10/23/24
On another point, I am open to evolution at some level. But unguided evolution makes no sense to me for multiple reasons.

One of those reasons is that intermediate forms of adaptations seem not only not to provide a survival or reproduction advantage, but also seem deleterious to the organism.

Sex is one example. What were the intermediate forms of sexual reproduction? What was the first stage? How did it come to be and how to it provide any advantage?

The evolution of the multichambered heart is another example. How did organisms evolve from 2 to 3 to 4 chambers, with all of the attendant changes in plumbing, in intermediate steps? How did those intermediate steps not kill the critter? How does 2.06 chambers provide an advantage over 2.0?

Folks like to say that's a bad example, which it may be, but I've never heard a satisfactory explanation.

Kurt and Ramblin argue that this is not evidence of a creator or guided evolution (I think). But if it disproves unguided evolution, what other alternatives exist? And I think it does - if we observe a process that appears guided rather than random, then is not that some evidence of a guide?

I suspect that religion has tainted the entire scientific approach to evolution. Because rejecting evolution seems to be an acceptance of a God and thus (horrors) Christianity, that possibility cannot even be considered.

Finally, Ramblin, you say that evolution provides useful scientific tools with practical applications. Out of genuine curiosity, can you name some? One reason I ask because I've seen quotes from famous scientists and doctors that assert the contrary, i.e., that evolution has not produced anything of practical value in their disciplines.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 6:49a, 10/24/24
AG
Jabin said:
Quote:
An archeologist digging in ancient ruins finds a small ceramic bowl. The archeologist does not witness the ancient civilization making or using the bowl. But, the archeologists imagines how they may have made it and they imagine what the bowl may have been used for. Is the archeologist playing fantasy? Or is the archeologist using their imagination to create a narrative that they feel reflects a good understanding of that historical reality? Is a history book that states that 'Our best understanding of [insert ancient civilization] made ceramic bowls to be used for storage vessels or for eating from' being irresponsible on account of the use of an imagined possible historical reality? It is possible that tomorrow the archeologist will find a painting at the site showing people using bowls as hats. If that happens, the text books may be updated. But until that happens, I do not see an issue with an informed imagined solution to the mystery of the bowls that conforms to all of our best understandings - permitted that it is described as such.
Very poor analogy. Archaeologists very frequently go off on wild flights of fancy after finding a single bowl. They conjure entire civilizations and timelines off of solitary objects.

Unless there is some other information, the only conclusion that the archaeologist can reach simply by finding a single bowl is the bowl itself, its characteristics, and its location. With enough data like that, some archaeologist may be able to interpolate or extrapolate from the dataset of single bowls (or other objects) into some larger hypothesis.

Much of archaeology, including dating, is based almost exclusively on pottery. Almost all of that pottery-based work relies on heroic assumptions for which there is no supporting data, but frequently what little data exists conflicts with the pottery-based work. For example, in the Near East, pottery dating remains the primary dating source. Yet almost every other data point conflicts with pottery dating. Yet archaeologists proceed with their pottery dating unperturbed.

I encourage everyone to roll up their sleeves sometime and take a deep dive into archaeology. I've found that there's little scientific about it, but lots and lots of storytelling.
Oh. . . I don't think its that poor of an analogy. I've only really approved of an archeologist digging in ancient ruins and finding a bowl to conclude that people probably once lived in the ancient ruins and that they probably had bowls. Nothing more. That some archeologists imagine 'wild' scenarios and then believe them without finding supporting facts feels like a criticism of some archeologists and not of archeology as it could / should be practiced.

That said, I must say that I am tickled by the enthusiasm of your skepticism. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but its seems to me that you are suggesting that we ought to conclude more 'I don't knows' when faced with questions for which hard evidence does not exist. Perhaps, doubly so on questions of historical narrative.
Reply Quote
3
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 7:51a, 10/24/24
AG
Jabin said:
. . . what other alternatives exist?

How many people in the history of mankind have asked this same question and been wrong?




Reply Quote
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:58a, 10/24/24

Quote:
All that said, I agree that we should be careful how we teach science. The idea that sexual reproduction arose through evolution and natural process is not a fact in the sense that we can witness it or that we can recreate it in a lab and prove how sexual reproduction arose in our far distant ancestors. But, that doesn't make it fantasy.


It also doesn't make it a reality. This is how the theory is taught. Unchallenged with no alternative options.


Quote:
Kids should be taught how and why scientific theories are developed and understand their basis rather than be indoctrinated into accepting things as fact without understanding.

My point exactly!


Quote:
The problem with the Christian claim that "God created sexual reproduction" is that it is even more of an imagined solution. Not only is God creating sexual reproduction not observed or testable, it is, by how it is defined, implicitly impossible to observe or test.

Such is the nature of History. This includes the historical claims of molecules to man evolution. Never observed, implicitly impossible to observe or test. When it comes to claims of history the question is, does the evidence point to one option over the other?

When a historical document claims that God created animals to reproduce after their kind, that the sun and moon will be used for tracking seasons and days and years, and this is scientifically observed by everyone even without access to the ancient document...

and a modern day scientist makes claims about history that are not observed by anyone. Does the evidence point to life being an cosmic accident? Is it reasonable that life comes from non-life, intelligent creatures are a product of chance?

Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 9:32a, 10/24/24
AG

Quote:
It also doesn't make it a reality. This is how the theory is taught. Unchallenged with no alternative options.


In the context of a science classroom, what other alternative options should be taught? If there are good alternative scientific options, we should discuss those. But, can we acknowledge the obvious issue with teaching non-naturalistic options within a class dedicated to studying naturalism?

Now, I would be a strong proponent to having social study curriculum, since it touches on culture and religion anyway, be expanded to teach children the basics of each major religion - including their descriptions on the origins of the universe, life, humans, consciousness, etc.

I am very much in favor of 'teaching the controversy'. . . . as long as we aren't saying 'God did it' is a scientific explanation.


Quote:
Such is the nature of History. This includes the historical claims of molecules to man evolution. Never observed, implicitly impossible to observe or test. When it comes to claims of history the question is, does the evidence point to one option over the other?

When a historical document claims that God created animals to reproduce after their kind, that the sun and moon will be used for tracking seasons and days and years, and this is scientifically observed by everyone even without access to the ancient document...

and a modern day scientist makes claims about history that are not observed by anyone. Does the evidence point to life being an cosmic accident? Is it reasonable that life comes from non-life, intelligent creatures are a product of chance?

No, we can never observe molecules to man. And I don't know what is reasonable to conclude. Our options, as far as I can tell, are that all of this is the result of either cosmic chance, magic, or I don't know. I don't find any of those choices to be satisfying and I don't trust anyone who says they KNOW which one is correct. And while I may lean toward cosmic chance over magic, I find I don't know to be the most honest answer, for me.

Insomuch as evolution is useful in understanding how viruses and pathogens change, or insects develop tolerances for pesticides, or why caner treatments respond differently in different people, or how genetic predispositions work, or anything else, I think we absolutely should study and give credit to the theory of evolution. The origin of evolution as being either a natural or supernatural almost doesn't matter. Whether sexual reproduction was something God did or the indiscriminate aimless laws of nature did, does not change the fact that we should be studying how our knowledge of evolution can affect our health and well being.

For that reason, I can sorta view these 'origin' questions as more philosophy than science. And in the science classroom, we should teach the science behind things like evolution. And in the philosophy classroom, we should teach the philosophy behind things like existence and creation and God. Permitting 'God did it' into the science classroom would be to encourage the next generation of scientists to approach scientific questions with preference and bias instead of fact. There is already too much bias in science as it is.

The allowance of 'my unprovable and unfalsifiable supernatural claims' as valid scientific theory is not something I accept. Valid philosophical theory? Sure.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 12:57p, 10/24/24
AG
Quote:
Finally, Ramblin, you say that evolution provides useful scientific tools with practical applications. Out of genuine curiosity, can you name some? One reason I ask because I've seen quotes from famous scientists and doctors that assert the contrary, i.e., that evolution has not produced anything of practical value in their disciplines.


A quick, off the cuff answer is antibiotic resistance, and I deal with it every day
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 3:41p, 10/24/24

Quote:
In the context of a science classroom, what other alternative options should be taught? If there are good alternative scientific options, we should discuss those. But, can we acknowledge the obvious issue with teaching non-naturalistic options within a class dedicated to studying naturalism?

Now, I would be a strong proponent to having social study curriculum, since it touches on culture and religion anyway, be expanded to teach children the basics of each major religion - including their descriptions on the origins of the universe, life, humans, consciousness, etc.

I am very much in favor of 'teaching the controversy'. . . . as long as we aren't saying 'God did it' is a scientific explanation.



Quote:
No, we can never observe molecules to man. And I don't know what is reasonable to conclude. Our options, as far as I can tell, are that all of this is the result of either cosmic chance, magic, or I don't know.

Given that we can never observe molecules to man we can conclude that chance or magic is an alternative as long as we conclude it's not God. In other words, it's okay to believe in magic as an option as long as we do not believe or teach a magician is behind it?

It's okay to teach and have students believe the philosophies of undesigned origins, cosmic chance, common ancestry and all of the miracles and imagined events that must happen for life to be derived from non-life that we have never observed as long as we do not teach or provide the scientific evidence and reasoning behind intelligent design or use science to debunk the molecules to man evolutionary theory?

The Darwinists' claim that Intelligent Design is not science cannot be determined from science itself. Science requires philosophical assumptions, and Darwinists philosophically rule out intelligent causes before they look at the evidence. As we have seen, science is a search for causes, and there are only two types of causes: intelligent and nonintelligent (natural). But, of course, if your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, then you'll never consider Intelligent Design science.


The irony for the Darwinists is this: if Intelligent Design is not science, then neither is Darwinism. Why? Because both Darwinists and Intelligent Design scientists are trying to discover what happened in the past. Origin questions are forensic questions, and thus require the use of the forensic science principles
Chapter 6 - I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.


Quote:
Insomuch as evolution is useful in understanding how viruses and pathogens change, or insects develop tolerances for pesticides, or why caner treatments respond differently in different people, or how genetic predispositions work, or anything else, I think we absolutely should study and give credit to the theory of evolution.


Creationists have no issue with natural selection and the science behind change and biological tolerances. It's the philosophies of origins that accompany this teaching that we would claim us unfruitful and has not provided a single benefit.


Quote:
The allowance of 'my unprovable and unfalsifiable supernatural claims' as valid scientific theory is not something I accept. Valid philosophical theory? Sure.
Unobservable 'miraculous' claims are being taught as valid scientific claims now. The miracles are taught without the miracle worker.

Biblical claims:
1. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter.) Matter cannot exist without space. There would be no where to put it. Matter exists at a point in time.
2. Do plants bring forth after their kind?
"Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind
3. Are these lights used by for signs and seasons days and years by people who have never heard read this book?
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
4. Do animals bring forth after their kinds? (scientifically observable today and contradicts molecules to man evolution -common ancestry)
"Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind

Reply Quote
2
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 8:59a, 10/25/24
AG

Quote:
Given that we can never observe molecules to man we can conclude that chance or magic is an alternative as long as we conclude it's not God. In other words, it's okay to believe in magic as an option as long as we do not believe or teach a magician is behind it?

It's okay to teach and have students believe the philosophies of undesigned origins, cosmic chance, common ancestry and all of the miracles and imagined events that must happen for life to be derived from non-life that we have never observed as long as we do not teach or provide the scientific evidence and reasoning behind intelligent design or use science to debunk the molecules to man evolutionary theory?

God and magic are interchangeable here. Its the supernatural. Its what cannot be accessed through the study of naturalism. A defining characteristic of miracles and acts of God is that they are violations of the observed natural laws. So, why do they belong in a classroom dedicated to studying how those natural laws work? Science is not the study of how natural laws are violated, right? Neither God nor magic belong in science. The very definition of science excludes God (as Christians define it).

Your second paragraph is pure strawman. I think I went out of my way to point out that science, when taught properly, should not be done for the purpose of encouraging belief that certain theories are true. Evolution should be taught in a manner in which people are informed of what is known and observable and where theories about long term unguided evolution come from. And they should be taught all of the gaps and problems and unknowns that are associated with theories.


Quote:
The Darwinists' claim that Intelligent Design is not science cannot be determined from science itself. Science requires philosophical assumptions, and Darwinists philosophically rule out intelligent causes before they look at the evidence. As we have seen, science is a search for causes, and there are only two types of causes: intelligent and nonintelligent (natural). But, of course, if your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, then you'll never consider Intelligent Design science.


The irony for the Darwinists is this: if Intelligent Design is not science, then neither is Darwinism. Why? Because both Darwinists and Intelligent Design scientists are trying to discover what happened in the past. Origin questions are forensic questions, and thus require the use of the forensic science principles
Chapter 6 - I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

And what are those philosophical assumptions that science requires. Please list them.

Science is NOT a search for causes. It is very specifically limited to the study of natural causes only. If there are affects of supernatural intervention on the physical world that science can measure, then science can measure those affects. But, if those causes are supernatural, then science has no tool to poke and prod into those supernatural mechanisms.

Your definitions of science and God have the affect of reducing your God to some physical thing that we can put in a test tube and measure rather than a being beyond the limitations of the physical. And if thats your God, then fine.

The difference between intelligent design and macro-evolution is that macro-evolution proposes natural causes which may be studied, observed (at least in theory), understood, and predicted. The religious person that proposes intelligent design offers no tool for studying, observing, understanding, or predicting their theory. It must simply be believed.

If intelligent design is science, it must be possible, in scientific / natural law terms, to describe the methods and processes by which God manipulated matter and DNA to guide evolution or to create evolved forms. The process by which God creates miracles must be fully comprehensible and explainable through naturalism only. If there is any part of intelligent design which relies on God bending, manipulating, changing, or violating the same physical laws that are accessible to us, then you have described something outside of science.

Intelligent design may be 100% correct. And it still wouldn't be science.


Quote:
Creationists have no issue with natural selection and the science behind change and biological tolerances. It's the philosophies of origins that accompany this teaching that we would claim us unfruitful and has not provided a single benefit.

The Creationist objection to evolutionary origin theories has zero to do with the benefits or lack thereof of studying macro-evolution. The Creationist objects to it because it threatens their beliefs.


Quote:
Biblical claims: . . . .

Demonstrate for me the natural law mechanisms for how God created the universe, and stars, and life, and trees, and dirt, and light. Give me the mathematical formulas. Give me the logical algorithms that can be input into computer models to show how God did what Genesis says He did.

Here's the thing -
I don't think my naturalistic explanation for life is superior to yours. I think its more likely, but I'm wholly incapable of proving it or explaining it. I'm not promoting it as fact or as something that is not. And I am open to the possibility that it is wrong. Creationists are clearly threatened by the fact that we live in a world dominated by the progress of a study (science) that cannot prove you right and so you feel the need to shoehorn your beliefs into something so you don't feel left out.

Creationism is magic. Its not science. Just own it. In its own way, I think its beautiful. You believe in something that transcends science - why are you so desperate to fit God into the science box, rather than the other way around? Your God should explain science, science should not explain your God.

My two cents anyway. . . .
Reply Quote
8
4 edits
BluHorseShu
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 3:58p, 10/28/24
AG
DirtDiver said:

Quote:
I still don't get what "imagine" has to do with anything, or why you think that's a valid point. We have to imagine thermodynamics, theology, organic chemistry, and history. None of those are things we can see and watch. Abstraction is fundamental to every aspect of human mental effort. So saying that you need imagination to understand evolutionary theory is like saying that you need to use your brain to understand evolutionary theory. It's true, but it's not exactly a "gotcha"

Do we use our imagination when thinking about other topics? Absolutely. Is it fun? Yes. Take History for example: Imagine what the battle of the Alamo is like or imagine what it would have been like to live during the Gladiator days. The question is: Does our imagination tell us the truth about historical reality?

Bait and switch: Students are presented with details about natural selection and then being taught an atheistic "imagined" history of the universe that is unchallenged and unobserved.
I think you misunderstand the how the term 'imagination' is being used. Just like explaining mechanics, you could start with 'Imagine you have a wheel with teeth....'. Evolution is a theory but there is also a lot of evidence we use from the theory to move scientific advances forward which seem to continue to provide validity to the theory. Also, believing in evolution does not negate believing that it was a divine tool God used to create the world/man. God could have easily created instantaneously things to have the characteristics of evolution. Where we might perceive a timeframe for it to happen could be different than the 7 days God used.

I find it interesting that some people tend to downplay the idea of evolution because it somehow calls their faith into question if they do. We can prove the speed of light and we know the light we receive from distance stars, based on our understanding of physics, took billions of years to arrive from it origin. But we are viewing it from our perception of time.

In the end, theistic evolution does not contradict scripture.
Reply Quote
1
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BluHorseShu • 8:59a, 10/30/24

Quote:
Evolution is a theory but there is also a lot of evidence we use from the theory to move scientific advances forward which seem to continue to provide validity to the theory.
One claim of creationists is that the term "Evolution" is used too broadly. We clearly see the scientific advances in natural selection. The experimentation we can do with genetics with crops, cows, diseases can be repeated. This is using existing information and an intelligent mind to make changes to genetic information that is available. (low in the theory category)

Evolutions claim natural selection is evidence for molecules to monkey to man in order to explain our origins. Creationist see the scientific holes in this theory and beg the question: What is one benefit teaching this origin theory has produced?


Quote:
Also, believing in evolution does not negate believing that it was a divine tool God used to create the world/man. God could have easily created instantaneously things to have the characteristics of evolution. Where we might perceive a timeframe for it to happen could be different than the 7 days God used.

You are 100 percent correct with this statement. There are many Christians that hold to this view. My issues with this view are as follows.

1. For us who haven't seen God or miracles, the historical biblical accounts give an explanation for human origins.
2. It makes the a few scientific claims in the first 3 chapters of Genesis that speak to what we see today. (animals reproducing after their kind, using the moon, sun, for seasons days and years, pain in childbirth, thorns and thistles, broken relationships, a cursed creation).
3. The bible more ancient manuscripts than any ancient work in history in spades, it's historical corroborated with other events, it's archaeological reliable (you can see the burned bones in sodom and dig the sulfur balls out of the ground today and light them on fire, and see how the city of Jericho overlaps with the biblical record.)
4. The biblical text gives us tangible evidence of the supernatural. We can see description after description of events that are predicted and occur. The occurrences are documented inside and outside of biblical text records in history.
5. The molecules to man theory has too many holes. The biblical claims of animals reproducing after their kind is what we observe.

To me, saying God created humanity through the process of evolution is like a Christian claiming that God put fossils in the ground to test our faith and that dinosaurs really didn't exist and die. To me this is unreasonable. To me it's reasonable that God created humanity distinct from animals and molecules and that humans reproduce humans.


Quote:
I find it interesting that some people tend to downplay the idea of evolution because it somehow calls their faith into question if they do. We can prove the speed of light and we know the light we receive from distance stars, based on our understanding of physics, took billions of years to arrive from it origin. But we are viewing it from our perception of time.

In the end, theistic evolution does not contradict scripture.

Billions of years for light to arrive.

Consider this. When an creator (artist or engineer) makes something sometimes they make things for function, sometimes they make things for beauty without function and sometimes they make things for a purpose.

Genesis 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

Notice the purpose statements from the Creator of the universe, especially that last statement, to give light on the earth.

People who look at light travel naturally and try to reconcile billions of years with a 6 day creation I think make this mistake. Everything in Genesis 1 is a supernatural event. God is creating matter, time, and space from nothing. He's also creating with purpose and intent. It would be strange to conclude that God is saying he's creating stars to produce light on the earth humans that will be created a few days later wont be able to see them for billions of years. The attempt to merge the 2 events is trying to explain a supernatural origin with only using naturalistic processes and thinking. In other words, if God can make a star from nothing, He can make it's light shine on earth in an instant.

I see many holes in comparing the claims of theistic evolution with the text of scripture and do not see a reason to reject the biblical claims because of the molecules to man theory.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 4:31p, 10/30/24
AG
For consistency, if these gaps in scientific knowledge or gaps in the theory offer justification for skepticism, then would it not be fair to justify skepticism about religious claims on account of similar gaps in knowledge?

How many times have we heard 'I don't know' with regard to specific questions about God? How did God create the universe? I don't know. How did God create life? I don't know. What does it mean to be all powerful? I don't know. What does it mean to exist outside of time? I don't know. Or space? I don't know. What is the process by which God manipulates and interacts with the physical? I don't know. What is God's purpose? How can God be uncaused? I don't know. What is Heaven like? I don't know. What is Hell like? I don't know. Who does God save? I don't know.

Christianity proposes a God that is beyond our wildest imagination and whose actions are beyond our understanding with purposes that exceed our abilities to comprehend. We describe God in terms like all-powerful, infinite, timeless, and spaceless which cannot be logically defined or understood. The very idea that the little feeble minded less-than-insects that we are compared to God could logically make conclusions and deductions about the nature and intentions of a being so radically out of our league feels like its own fallacy.

It feels to me like either God is so far beyond our understanding that we lack any possibility of logical acknowledgement of His actions . . . . or we can make logical conclusions about the nature and purpose of God, thus excluding Him from being defined by any of these 'infinite', 'timeless', 'uncaused' bull**** terms.

I think this is the ultimate attempt in 'having your cake and eating it too'. It sure seems to me that if God is as powerful and infinite as you say He is, we ought to have a corresponding level of infinite skepticism of our ability to make logical conclusions about what God, or God's creation MUST be.
Reply Quote
3
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 8:56a, 10/31/24
kurt vonnegut said:
For consistency, if these gaps in scientific knowledge or gaps in the theory offer justification for skepticism, then would it not be fair to justify skepticism about religious claims on account of similar gaps in knowledge?

How many times have we heard 'I don't know' with regard to specific questions about God? How did God create the universe? I don't know. How did God create life? I don't know. What does it mean to be all powerful? I don't know. What does it mean to exist outside of time? I don't know. Or space? I don't know. What is the process by which God manipulates and interacts with the physical? I don't know. What is God's purpose? How can God be uncaused? I don't know. What is Heaven like? I don't know. What is Hell like? I don't know. Who does God save? I don't know.

Christianity proposes a God that is beyond our wildest imagination and whose actions are beyond our understanding with purposes that exceed our abilities to comprehend. We describe God in terms like all-powerful, infinite, timeless, and spaceless which cannot be logically defined or understood. The very idea that the little feeble minded less-than-insects that we are compared to God could logically make conclusions and deductions about the nature and intentions of a being so radically out of our league feels like its own fallacy.

It feels to me like either God is so far beyond our understanding that we lack any possibility of logical acknowledgement of His actions . . . . or we can make logical conclusions about the nature and purpose of God, thus excluding Him from being defined by any of these 'infinite', 'timeless', 'uncaused' bull**** terms.

I think this is the ultimate attempt in 'having your cake and eating it too'. It sure seems to me that if God is as powerful and infinite as you say He is, we ought to have a corresponding level of infinite skepticism of our ability to make logical conclusions about what God, or God's creation MUST be.

To answer the first question. We should absolutely be skeptical about religious claims, especially if we value truth. It's disrespectful and unreasonable to conclude that religious claims are saying the same thing and equally truthful when they contradict each other. A healthy amount of skepticism is foundational to ask good questions and eliminate falsehoods.

To the questions that we cannot answer about God. My first thought is, if I could fully comprehend an eternal, timeless, all powerful God with my finite 3lb brain: this God is most likely not the God of the universe and product of human imagination.

My second thought is this. Is it reasonable to expect to know someone or something without the information being revealed? We live with this level of mystery in our relationships and trying to figure our ancient architecture. We know things, but we do not always know the how.

With the unknowns...is there enough information that can be verified and that aligns with reality for us to conclude the claims are reasonable enough to make a decision? We ask jury's to do this all of the time with circumstantial evidence and this is what we must do with historical and religions claims.

While God is far beyond our understanding He has not been silent. We have a collection of information that spans over 2,500 years of Him interacting with humanity that claims to be a revelation of who He is, what He's done, and what He's like. In addition, He became human and walked in our shoes so that we can know what He's like.


Quote:
We describe God in terms like all-powerful, infinite, timeless, and spaceless which cannot be logically defined or understood.

We have he evidence of a timeless God when many events are described in detail hundreds of years prior to them happening. While we cannot comprehend Gods nature in fullness (would it be reasonable to have this expectation?), there's enough evidence to support the claims.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 11:09a, 10/31/24
AG

Quote:
To the questions that we cannot answer about God. My first thought is, if I could fully comprehend an eternal, timeless, all powerful God with my finite 3lb brain: this God is most likely not the God of the universe and product of human imagination.

Right. And given the incomprehensibility of these terms, why do we feel confident in applying them? I feel like you are saying "I don't even know what eternity, timelessness, and all powerful mean. . . . but they obviously apply to God". Why assign terms to God that you we can't comprehend? I don't see that it provides any value.
Reply Quote
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BluHorseShu • 11:26a, 10/31/24
AG
BluHorseShu said:

I think you misunderstand the how the term 'imagination' is being used. Just like explaining mechanics, you could start with 'Imagine you have a wheel with teeth....'. Evolution is a theory but there is also a lot of evidence we use from the theory to move scientific advances forward which seem to continue to provide validity to the theory. Also, believing in evolution does not negate believing that it was a divine tool God used to create the world/man. God could have easily created instantaneously things to have the characteristics of evolution. Where we might perceive a timeframe for it to happen could be different than the 7 days God used.

I find it interesting that some people tend to downplay the idea of evolution because it somehow calls their faith into question if they do. We can prove the speed of light and we know the light we receive from distance stars, based on our understanding of physics, took billions of years to arrive from it origin. But we are viewing it from our perception of time.

In the end, theistic evolution does not contradict scripture.
The best justification for this (which may or may not be mental gymnastics) is that a verse in Genesis says "let the earth bring forth life" or something to that effect, which seems to leave room for evolution. Of course, the strict literal interpretation of the creation story is incompatible with a scientific understanding of the world. As kurt said, creationists just need to own that and stop trying to shoehorn that into science.

I personally think evolution and this view of the world present some problems with Christianity as a whole, but overall it's still compatible with a belief in God.
Reply Quote
newbie11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:19p, 10/31/24
Evolution looks great on a macro level….we look like monkeys therefore we evolved from monkeys.

It's when you start to think about things on microcellular/chemical level that things go to hell.

ie. how do you suddenly take away 2 chromosomes from a monkey and produce not only a functioning, fertile organism but one superior to the original? And manage to produce a male and female within close proximity at the proper reproductive age to reproduce successfully. Name a single genetic deletion or addition in humans that leads to a fertile normal intellect person? And that's not even two whole chromosomes at one time.

Don't even bother to think about how the incredibly complex clotting cascade works where each factor is worthless without all the others. Makes zero sense it would develop evolutionarily.
Reply Quote
1
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to newbie11 • 4:04p, 10/31/24
AG
It's fine to be skeptical of a scientific theory. It's actually great, but you have to propose something that explains the facts better and is more useful over all. The theory of evolution is useful to explain all kinds of things in the fossil record and following DNA changes over time. We can witness genetic selection under pressure in real time, and we've even witnessed speciation in simple organisms. No one here is giving a working alternative to evolutionary theory. Everyone is just sorting of saying, "I don't like it and it doesn't explain everything," and then *crickets*. There is nothing magical about leading theories. Newton was right about physics until he wasn't. But it didn't happen because people didn't like Newton's theories. It happened because we found something better. So if you want to toss out the theory of evolution, then just find something better. Until then, it's the most useful biological theory we have.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
4
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 7:34a, 11/1/24
kurt vonnegut said:

Quote:
To the questions that we cannot answer about God. My first thought is, if I could fully comprehend an eternal, timeless, all powerful God with my finite 3lb brain: this God is most likely not the God of the universe and product of human imagination.

Right. And given the incomprehensibility of these terms, why do we feel confident in applying them? I feel like you are saying "I don't even know what eternity, timelessness, and all powerful mean. . . . but they obviously apply to God". Why assign terms to God that you we can't comprehend? I don't see that it provides any value.

I think there's a difference between total comprehension and partial comprehension. Think of all of the things in life that exist and function without total comprehension by all.

When it comes to comprehending God, we can use a bit of deductive reasoning but that will only take us so far. Thankfully God has not been silent and we have over 31,000 sentences of direct revelation that tell us who God is, what He's done, and what He's like that span over 2,000 years of history. It is the skill of reading comprehension.

We understand all powerful in reading the creation account, God's power over nature, and over life, over diseases, and at a molecular level when Jesus restores lame body parts.

We can comprehend that God is outside of time when we read events described in detail before they happen.

When it comes to trying to fathom eternity, for me, it's based upon the reliability of Jesus. Did he promise eternal life? Is he trustworthy?

John 17:5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
John 8:57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.


Reply Quote
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 7:54a, 11/1/24
barbacoa taco said:
BluHorseShu said:

I think you misunderstand the how the term 'imagination' is being used. Just like explaining mechanics, you could start with 'Imagine you have a wheel with teeth....'. Evolution is a theory but there is also a lot of evidence we use from the theory to move scientific advances forward which seem to continue to provide validity to the theory. Also, believing in evolution does not negate believing that it was a divine tool God used to create the world/man. God could have easily created instantaneously things to have the characteristics of evolution. Where we might perceive a timeframe for it to happen could be different than the 7 days God used.

I find it interesting that some people tend to downplay the idea of evolution because it somehow calls their faith into question if they do. We can prove the speed of light and we know the light we receive from distance stars, based on our understanding of physics, took billions of years to arrive from it origin. But we are viewing it from our perception of time.

In the end, theistic evolution does not contradict scripture.
The best justification for this (which may or may not be mental gymnastics) is that a verse in Genesis says "let the earth bring forth life" or something to that effect, which seems to leave room for evolution. Of course, the strict literal interpretation of the creation story is incompatible with a scientific understanding of the world. As kurt said, creationists just need to own that and stop trying to shoehorn that into science.

I personally think evolution and this view of the world present some problems with Christianity as a whole, but overall it's still compatible with a belief in God.

I almost agree with a point you are making but I would argue that, a strict literal interpretation of the creation story is incompatible with philosophies of origins taught in science classes and does not contradict science at all.

I would also argue that the molecules to man theory is not very good scientific theory and that many scientists have done work to show the holes in this philosophy.

Creationists are not trying to shoehorn this theory into "science". Many creationists are scientists and because of that have evaluated the claims of molecules to man evolution and the creation account as see the creation account as more 'scientific"

Example:
Evolution:
Monkey to man evolution - never observed.

Creation:
animals bring forth 'after their kind" - cats don't reproduce and make dogs. monkey's don't reproduce and make humans. - observed in nature

Which option belief better corresponds with reality and his more "scientific"?

While the theory of evolution disagrees with the Genesis account, it does not present problems with a person's ability to understand who Jesus is and look at the evidence of His life and work. There are many believers in Jesus who hold to the theory of evolution or see it as God created humanity this way. I think it's because the philosophy of monkey's to man has not been challenged long enough, there are very few teachers, it's not often covered in churches, and it's not government funded and challenged in the classroom.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.