Homework Help

Why do many people believe in evolution when Biblical Creation is a proven and...

user profile pic

childoflight | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted April 28, 2009 at 6:53 PM via web

dislike 4 like
Why do many people believe in evolution when Biblical Creation is a proven and supported fact?

If you have any evidence of evolution, or know where in the Bible there is a mistake, I'd like you all to show it to me

78 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

sagesource | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted April 29, 2009 at 9:04 AM (Answer #2)

dislike 1 like

I can't resist beginning by pointing out that your question contains not one but two basic logical errors. First, you've called Biblical Creation "a proven and supported fact" while offering no proof or support. That's petitio principii or "begging the question," in other words, assuming what you are trying to prove. Second, you've tried to prove an assertion by demanding that those who do not share your opinion disprove that assertion, an error called shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the argument from ignorance. As a person who is asserting that Biblical Creation is "a proven and supported fact," the burden of proof is on you to support this statement, not on others to disprove it.

As for errors and contradictions in the Bible, there are many extensive lists available. I would refer you to the one at www. infidels.com, linked below, for starters. It does not particularly surprise me that a book as old and varied as the Bible has inconsistencies, nor does it necessarily speak against the general truths expressed therein (though I am not a believer). You leave yourself unnecessarily vulnerable by insisting on defending the absolute consistency of the text.

I would also note that many Christian organizations, including the largest of them all, the Catholic Church, have no difficulty in reconciling evolution with an ultimate Divine origin for life. Of course, you could assert that Catholics are not Christians, but I would suggest that would be a very bold statement to make.

Finally, a thought. At the time Jesus was on earth, there were not one but two great empires. There was the Roman Empire, in which he and his disciples lived; and there was the Chinese Empire, the Han dynasty, which like the Romans ruled over fifty million people and an advanced civilization. If he came to set all men free, why did Jesus and his Father neglect China so grossly? It would be eight centuries at least before an obscure sect of Christians, the Nestorians, appeared in China. Does this myopia not speak to the origin of Christian belief among the lower and less educated classes of the Roman Empire, who did not even know that China existed?

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted April 29, 2009 at 9:04 AM (Answer #3)

dislike 1 like

Your question is obviously phrased to provoke a heated response. Presumably for your own private amusement. If you seriously want to discuss the scientific origins of life on Earth and how they relate to the claims in the bible, you will need to explain your position, rather than just shouting, "The bible's always right!"

But if you want an example of a simple scientific mistake in the bible; (Lev. 11:5-6) the bible plainly states that rabbits chew their cud. They don't. This is an undeniable biblical error.

Or, according to the bible, Pi is 3. In Kings 7:23 the measurements of a circular table are quoted. If the bible is only ever completely right, then from these measurements it is clear that Pi is 3. And, of course, Pi is not 3. Pi is 3.14... It's a basic little biblical maths error.

There are hundreds of things like this in the bible.

For an example of evidence of evolution, study the DNA and physiology of The Duck-Billed Platypus. A wonderful and charming example of a 'missing link'.

Did you know that the duck-billed platypus has evolved a lethal, poisonous sting? Not many people know that. Imagine you provoked it and it stung you. Would you spend your final hours on your knees, praying for God to cure you? Or would you dial 911 and race to hospital and ask science to cure you?

user profile pic

writergal06 | Teacher | (Level 2) Associate Educator

Posted April 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM (Answer #4)

dislike 1 like

Yes, obviously this has opened a heated debate. The fact of the matter is that both beliefs are theories, each with some form of evidence. It is just as much begging the question to say that the duckbill platypus evolved to have poisonous spurs on his feet as it is to say that God created him that way originally. Both are based on the assumption that a particular view is right. As for Leviticus saying that a rabbit chews its cud, the actual Hebrew word used in the original language doesn't translate rabbit. Scholar's believe it to be an extinct animal, perhaps similar to a rabbit.

For good arguments showing the validity of Creation, www.answersingenesis.org is a good place to start.

user profile pic

cburr | Middle School Teacher | (Level 2) Associate Educator

Posted April 29, 2009 at 4:23 PM (Answer #5)

dislike 1 like

To say that Biblical creation is a proven and supported fact is to say that it is scientifically proven.  However, almost all scientists would say that the weight of scientific evidence is strongly in favor of evolution.

It is quite another thing to say that science isn't the only important way to look at things.  Faith is a fundamentally different way of trying to answer the mysteries of life.  If you choose to believe in Biblical creation, great.  However, if you decide to play on the scientific playing field, be prepared to lose.

user profile pic

childoflight | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted April 30, 2009 at 12:20 AM (Answer #6)

dislike 1 like

I can't resist beginning by pointing out that your question contains not one but two basic logical errors. First, you've called Biblical Creation "a proven and supported fact" while offering no proof or support. That's petitio principii or "begging the question," in other words, assuming what you are trying to prove. Second, you've tried to prove an assertion by demanding that those who do not share your opinion disprove that assertion, an error called shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the argument from ignorance. As a person who is asserting that Biblical Creation is "a proven and supported fact," the burden of proof is on you to support this statement, not on others to disprove it.

As for errors and contradictions in the Bible, there are many extensive lists available. I would refer you to the one at www. infidels.com, linked below, for starters. It does not particularly surprise me that a book as old and varied as the Bible has inconsistencies, nor does it necessarily speak against the general truths expressed therein (though I am not a believer). You leave yourself unnecessarily vulnerable by insisting on defending the absolute consistency of the text.

I would also note that many Christian organizations, including the largest of them all, the Catholic Church, have no difficulty in reconciling evolution with an ultimate Divine origin for life. Of course, you could assert that Catholics are not Christians, but I would suggest that would be a very bold statement to make.

Finally, a thought. At the time Jesus was on earth, there were not one but two great empires. There was the Roman Empire, in which he and his disciples lived; and there was the Chinese Empire, the Han dynasty, which like the Romans ruled over fifty million people and an advanced civilization. If he came to set all men free, why did Jesus and his Father neglect China so grossly? It would be eight centuries at least before an obscure sect of Christians, the Nestorians, appeared in China. Does this myopia not speak to the origin of Christian belief among the lower and less educated classes of the Roman Empire, who did not even know that China existed?

The burden of proof may be on me, but I have never seen any solid scientific evidence for evolution. Only hoaxes that have been disproven.  There are no contradictions or errors in the Bible. Science has supported and discovered what the Bible has already said. For example, Science discovered that the stars in the sky are innumerable about a couple hundred years ago. BUT the Bible has said this over 2,500 years before it was actually discovered. As it is written in Jeremiah 33:22 "As the host (stars) of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea be measured"

The reason the Catholic Church accept evolution is because they don't know or understand scripture well enough to know that the Bible denies this.

The reason Jesus was born in or around the Roman empire is because Israel is there and Israel is His chosen people.

He came from set all free from sin not just from anything random. He died on the cross for the sins of the world as Scripture says "And the Son did not come into the world to condemn it, but that the world through Him might be saved" -John 3:17 and it also says "And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free" -John 8:32

Another reason Jesus lived in the roman empire is because he was supposed to die on a cross. Did the Chinese empire at that time offer that kind of death?

user profile pic

childoflight | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted April 30, 2009 at 12:30 AM (Answer #7)

dislike 1 like

Your question is obviously phrased to provoke a heated response. Presumably for your own private amusement. If you seriously want to discuss the scientific origins of life on Earth and how they relate to the claims in the bible, you will need to explain your position, rather than just shouting, "The bible's always right!"

But if you want an example of a simple scientific mistake in the bible; (Lev. 11:5-6) the bible plainly states that rabbits chew their cud. They don't. This is an undeniable biblical error.

Or, according to the bible, Pi is 3. In Kings 7:23 the measurements of a circular table are quoted. If the bible is only ever completely right, then from these measurements it is clear that Pi is 3. And, of course, Pi is not 3. Pi is 3.14... It's a basic little biblical maths error.

There are hundreds of things like this in the bible.

For an example of evidence of evolution, study the DNA and physiology of The Duck-Billed Platypus. A wonderful and charming example of a 'missing link'.

Did you know that the duck-billed platypus has evolved a lethal, poisonous sting? Not many people know that. Imagine you provoked it and it stung you. Would you spend your final hours on your knees, praying for God to cure you? Or would you dial 911 and race to hospital and ask science to cure you?

Yes, I did put this question to attract attention. I put this to challenge those who don't believe me and so I can give them reasons why the Bible is right and evolution is wrong.

About rabbits chewing on their cud, look up the word rabbit in the hebrew language because this passage was originally written in Hebrew

1 Kings 7:23 says "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about"

I don't see where it says that Pi is 3

If it stung me, I would be rushed to the hospital by my parents and I would be praying to God to take care of me while I'm still on this Earth

user profile pic

childoflight | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted April 30, 2009 at 12:35 AM (Answer #8)

dislike 1 like

To say that Biblical creation is a proven and supported fact is to say that it is scientifically proven.  However, almost all scientists would say that the weight of scientific evidence is strongly in favor of evolution.

It is quite another thing to say that science isn't the only important way to look at things.  Faith is a fundamentally different way of trying to answer the mysteries of life.  If you choose to believe in Biblical creation, great.  However, if you decide to play on the scientific playing field, be prepared to lose.

It is scientifically supported by everything that has been discovered. Fossils, bones, and all of that.  I don't want to know what scientists say. I want to know what the Creator of the universe says. These scientists are sinners that need to repent of their sins. They only believe evolution because they don't want God in their life, they want to life their life however they wish to. They just don't want Him. And if they don't want God in this life, He will grant their wish for the next life which lasts all eternity. For Scripture says "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and it also says "The fool hath said in his heart 'their is no God' "

If I choose to play in on the scientific field, with God's grace I will win and be victorious against all who challenge God's word

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted April 30, 2009 at 1:05 AM (Answer #9)

dislike 1 like

@Childoflight... have youheard of the 'invisible pink unicorn'? It's a philosophical joke argument to demonstrate that it's impossible to argue scientifically against religious beliefs.

If you look at the top of this thread you'll see you're in the 'Science Department' of Enotes. Your religious beliefs have no special status here. You seem to have strayed from your own backyard, rather like a kitten wandering into a kennel. We do science here... not miracles.

I don't know why but for the last 100 years American fundamentalists seem to have a strange conviction that their stone-age religious stories will be applicable to science. Thank you for your concern, but science is quite certain The Bible is not a science book. It's 2000+ years old and was written by hairy goat herds and uneducated fishermen. As a science book it lacks credibility. Go to any university in the world and look in the science labs, You'll find NOBODY uses the bible as a reference book.

If I walked into your church and started interupting (and interupting and interupting) loudly reading out the Vedas and the Upanishads from Hinduism, claiming you must stop  and listen, you would find it rude and distracting and deeply arrogant.

Your religious beliefs are not relevant here. Go down the corridor to 'Theology' where people are happy to talk about an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud deciding who's allowed into The Big Rock Candy Mountain when they die.

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted April 30, 2009 at 2:09 AM (Answer #10)

dislike 1 like

As for Leviticus saying that a rabbit chews its cud, the actual Hebrew word used in the original language doesn't translate rabbit. Scholar's believe it to be an extinct animal, perhaps similar to a rabbit. - Wintergal06

Are you saying there have been difficulties translating the bible?  :-0

Are you sureyou want to explain a small science error by claiming the hebrew word 'rock badger' has been mistranslated in the bible. That's like killing a fly by burning down your entire house.

If a simple, Hebrew noun has been translated wrongly, what other errors have crept into the more complex areas of grammar and syntax? The Bible must be full of translation errors. After all, it was a vocal tradition for 1000 years and then filtered through dozens of written versions? And your God didn't ensure accuracy? How interesting.

It is just as much begging the question to say that the duckbill platypus evolved as it is to say that God created him that way originally. Wintergal06.

No it isn't. There is conclusive scientific evidence the DBP evolved. It's in the fossil record and its DNA. And the theory of evolution predicts the DBP perfectly; it's an obscure, furry, egg-layer, the 'missing link' between mammals and their ancestors. But there is no scientific evidence of this 'god' you mention. If you wish to replace the proven scientific theory of Evolution, you will have to do much much better than, "because my God said it's not true."

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted April 30, 2009 at 2:48 AM (Answer #11)

dislike 1 like

1 Kings 7:23 says "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" I don't see where it says that Pi is 3

Hooray, Childoflight! A science subject. So the bible says that something perfectly round is 10 units across and 30 in circumference. So your biblical circle has...

Diameter = 10

Circumference = 30

Now, circles have fixed, predictable shapes and various equations can prove the measurements of a circle. The relationship between circle's measurement are 100% undeniable.

For example, The circumference of a every circle is equal to its diameter multiplied by the constant Pi

So C = Pi x D

if we use the numbers from the circle you quote from the bible we have...

30 = Pi x 10

so...

30/10 = Pi

So, from your data we get a value for Pi of 3

But Pi is NOT 3.

The constant Pi is 3.14159265358979323846...

The measurements quoted in the bible are impossible.

user profile pic

elfgirl | Student, Undergraduate | Salutatorian

Posted April 30, 2009 at 4:01 AM (Answer #12)

dislike 1 like

The burden of proof may be on me, but I have never seen any solid scientific evidence for evolution. Only hoaxes that have been disproven.Science has supported and discovered what the Bible has already said. Childoflight 

ok... prove it! That's what the burden of proof means! Science is bored to death with arguing this issue with non-scientific people who just stonewall, obfuscate and deny. You seem to be quite young and innocent, but you are making huge, unproven, ridiculous claims.

IF YOU WANT TO REPLACE THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION, YOU MUST CREATE A SUPERIOR SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND PRESENT YOUR THEORY TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND CONVINCE THEM OF YOUR THEORY'S VALUE.

Simply trying to discredit evolution is no longer enough. Science has accepted evolution as the truth. Your religious views are not relevant. You will have to PROVE an ALTERNATIVE THEORY that withstands the rigours of SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

CREATIONISM / GENESIS completely fails to meet the strict standards demanded by science to be considered a scientific theory. It is not science. There is no controversy. There is no doubt. The Bible is not science. Science is 100% not interested in Creationism and never will be.

The Supreme Court of The United States has ruled on this.

Please keep your religious views out of scientific matters. Respect our right to not want to hear them. Come back when you can lay out the clear scientific proof that the Earth is >10,000 years old... which is never.

user profile pic

Noelle Thompson | High School Teacher | eNotes Employee

Posted April 30, 2009 at 6:04 PM (Answer #13)

dislike 1 like

You know, after reading your very heated question, listening to all of the responses (including your own), praying about it, and asking the Holy Spirit to guide my words, what I have to say is this:  I guess the strong Christian in me just doesn’t feel like I have to know absolutely everything about life on this flawed earth, for this is not my eternal home. 

The answer to your question is about FAITH, not about fact. 

I have heard it all:  evidence for evolution and evidence against evolution.  I understand your call to enlighten others, but at the same time I find you judging those in my own religion (Roman Catholicism), and you know what our Bible, our inspired Word of God, says about judging (Luke 6:37 & Matthew 7:1).  I try very hard to ask myself what has now become a colloquialism:  What would Jesus do?  Then I try to act accordingly.  You are right about one thing, however, there is only one Truth.  For me, that Truth is found in the Bible, and here it is:   “Peter, you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).  This is why I am Roman Catholic and why I will continue to pray for you and for all responders.  Someday, those who are truly blessed will enter heaven and know all of these truths we worry so much about on this earth.

Somewhere up there, Jesus is smiling at our discourse about details. 

I simply believe that God  is so much bigger and greater and more awesome than all of our petty disputes down here, . . . and He is even bigger and greater and more awesome than our inspired Word of God that we CAN understand.  For the true God is bigger and greater and more awesome than ALL of our human understanding. 

For me, I would hope that I will be blessed someday to be allowed at Jesus feet, to look up in awe and simply listen to Him.  Not to say, “Thank you God for not letting me be like this tax collector” (Luke 18:11), but to be like the sinful tax collector himself, “standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'” (Luke 18:13).   I would hope to be much like Mary featured a bit earlier in the gospel of Luke:

Now as they were traveling along, He entered a village; and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home.  She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord's feet, listening to His word. But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, "Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me." But the Lord answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:38-42)

Yeah, I don’t know about you, but I want to be Mary.  ; )

Noelle Thompson

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 1, 2009 at 4:05 AM (Answer #14)

dislike 1 like

"Someday, those who are truly blessed will enter heaven and know all of these truths we worry so much about on this earth. Somewhere up there, Jesus is smiling at our discourse about details." by ms-charleston-yawp

Is he? Then would you please ask him to send those answers down to Earth immediately! Because millions of 'God's children' have been massacred over these 'details' you mention... millenia of brutal persecution and religious conflict, in his name

That murderous 'discourse about details' continues to this day with 9/11, Isreal/Palestine, the War in Afghanistan etc. So I don't know what he's smiling about. Unless he finds it amusing that we kill each other over him?

user profile pic

Noelle Thompson | High School Teacher | eNotes Employee

Posted May 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM (Answer #15)

dislike 1 like

In response to frizzyperm:

All true, . . . and more of the "whys" that I can't even pretend to understand.  It is the minutia (all non-murderous) that I was speaking of:  the debate between evolution vs. creationism.  I would hope that the events you mention, very brutal indeed, are not causing any happiness "up there." 

In short, you're right.  I should have said, "Somewhere up there, I suspect that Jesus is smiling at our discourse about details."  Because, heck yeah, I certainly can't presume to know what Jesus is thinking.  I can only insert my own opinion, . . . and value yours.

Noelle Thompson

user profile pic

hi1954 | Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 1, 2009 at 12:42 PM (Answer #16)

dislike 1 like

I agree this is the Science forum.  We don't really discuss religion per se here, but I see two flaws in this discussion.  One is the assumption that the Bible is absolutely infallible, and the other that it is scientifically completely fallable.  Neither is true.

The history recorded in the Bible can be proven back to the earliest cities, those founded by Nimrod.  From all archeaological evidence and all records discovered in these ancient cities we have proven the history recorded in the Bible is correct from the earliest cities through the entirety of the Old Testament.  This does not mean every tiny detail, nor does it necessarily follow that the philosophy and religion are "correct."

As for the duck-billed platypus being a "missing link", paleontology has found no missing links, neither has biology.  The duck-billed platypus is a mammal, although a very primitive one.  It may tell us about early mammals, but it is not some missing link between two species.  People still have this idea about archeaopterix also, that it is a missing link between dinosaurs and birds.  It may be that the smaller therapods (two-legged hunting dinosaurs) were ancestors of birds, but archeaopterix is a bird.  A rather primitive bird, but a bird with no characteristics of any other genus.

Most of these posts seem to be written somewhat angrily, and with a view to "proving" an I'm-right-you're-wrong sort of argument.  What's scientific about that?  But of course this post started that way.  I'm thinking this is a good topic to drop.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 3, 2009 at 3:14 AM (Answer #17)

dislike 1 like

paleontology has found no missing links, neither has biology. Hi1954

Sorry mate, you've been hoaxed, that is another Creationist Lie. This is from Wiki...

It is commonly claimed by critics of evolution that there are no transitional fossils [missing links]. Such claims may be based on misunderstanding or may be a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to discredit evolution. Prothero has called that claim the "favourite lie" of creationists and further said that it was "manifestly untrue".

A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. Vestigial organs are common in whales for example. Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display.

cont...

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 3, 2009 at 3:35 AM (Answer #18)

dislike 1 like

cont...

Although transitional fossils demonstrate the evolution from one species to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in fossils. Creationists have often claimed that this analysis of the fossil record is merely a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. Progress in research and new discoveries continue to fill in such gaps, however.

Every time science finds a fossil (call it species Y) which evolved chronologically and physiologically between species X and species Z. Creationism says, "It doesn't count, There are missing links between X and Y, and Y and Z" Then they simply lie and claim no-one ever found a missing link. Creationists are like a lot of Canutes standing on the beach claiming the tide's not coming in. Their claims look ever more ridiculous as they stand in the continually rising foam saying, "see? no tide here".

There are LOADS of missing links. God said, "thou shalt not bear false witness", The creationist movement deliberately and repeatedly ignores him. To paraphrase Hamlet,

"My Tables! Meet it is I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain;
At least, I am sure it may be so in Religious Fundamentalism."

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 3, 2009 at 3:40 AM (Answer #19)

dislike 1 like

sorry, I forgot to reference my sources (how unscientific!) The page which discusses the existence of Transitional Fossils (aka Missing Links) is here

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

user profile pic

estodd1809 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 4, 2009 at 8:24 AM (Answer #20)

dislike 1 like

"The Bible is always right!" Despite what you may think the bible has no flaws. You have distorted what the passage in Leviticus really means. SCIENTISTS, and HISTORIANS have investigated the Bible and found now flaws, no blemishes, or inconsistancies! God is the one who creates everything we know today, and he said "IT IS GOOD!" There is no such thing as evolution! One question for you...who gave scientists the knowledge to save you? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7 Hell is a real place my friend and the bible says the all who do not believe will be cast into the lake of fire!!!

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted May 4, 2009 at 8:57 AM (Answer #21)

dislike 1 like

"The Bible is always right!" Despite what you may think the bible has no flaws. You have distorted what the passage in Leviticus really means. SCIENTISTS, and HISTORIANS have investigated the Bible and found now flaws, no blemishes, or inconsistancies! God is the one who creates everything we know today, and he said "IT IS GOOD!" There is no such thing as evolution! One question for you...who gave scientists the knowledge to save you? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7 Hell is a real place my friend and the bible says the all who do not believe will be cast into the lake of fire!!!

You must not have heard of the minimalist movement in biblical archaeology. These scholars take the biblical stories as starting points for history but not as literal retellings of history. One of the most prominent minimalist scholars is Israel Finkelstein, who claims that the Bible was written centuries after the stories it retells and casts the historical events in the light of the later era. For instance, he believes that the Jerusalem of David and Solomon was not a great city but a mere village.

It is possible to have faith in God and Christ and still not take the stories in the Bible as 100% accurate. The Bible is a handbook for living the right life. The stories were passed from generation to generation by grandparents telling stories to their grandchildren. It is inevitable that some changes were made along the way, especially when the stories were finally written down.

user profile pic

estodd1809 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 4, 2009 at 11:36 AM (Answer #22)

dislike 1 like

Linda-Allen, i was accepting of your post until you discredited the bible. i will tell you this, there is a passage of scripture is Revelation 22:18-19 that says "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Translation: You will spend enternity in Hell if you add or take away from the bible. I don't know how your grandparents and parents told you the stories but mine actually had a bible open in front of them reading it, so, that tells me the story was not miscontrewn. You may say words get lost in translations, but you're wrong. The bible was originally written in Hebrew, if it still appeared that way nobody would be able to read or understand it. When different translations were made of course words are lost here and there, most languages, like Hebrew, do not have all the words we have, their vocabulary is not that big, so, you need to rethink that comment you made. The bible was ordained by GOD therefore it is 100% accurate and 100% holy!

user profile pic

hi1954 | Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM (Answer #23)

dislike 1 like

As far as the idea of pi being 3, that is exactly what pi was considered to be in ancient times.  The Babylonians considered the circumference of a circle to be three times the diameter, ie that pi equals 3.  So did the Roman Vitruvius, one of the founders of architecture as a science.  By 1800 BC the Egyptians had pi to 3.1604, but it was not until 1789 that pi was proven to be an irrational number, and 1882 that it was proven to be what is termed a transcendental number, by Lambert and Lindemann respectively.  It seems shortsighted of us today to make fun of people in the past for believing what everyone then believed, even their contemporary mathematicians.

The theory that the Bible was told and retold orally for centuries before it was written down, although widely believed, seems odd if you think about it.  Writing was quite common in the ancient world, widely used by the public at large and taught in school to children as a matter of course at least as far back as the third millenia BC.  The city of Akkad, scene of the first "empire" of history, was also known as Sippar, which means "scribe town."  Excavations, starting with the first in Sumeria by Rich, Botta, and Layard found tablets and inscriptions at every site.  This has continued to the present.

Moses was raised as a prince in the house of Pharoah, at a time when writing had been in use for thousands of years, and he was educated at the court.  He then lived in an area of southern Arabia where writing is known to have been common for centuries.  If he felt what he was doing was important, can we rationally believe he didn't have it all written down?

As for transitional forms in fossils, sorry frizzy, but nothing has been found to support the quotes you cite.  Wikipedia's not much of a source, except for pop culture.  Try some of these books:

Collin Patterson, the Listener (Patterson has retired as head paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History- his book is probably the one you should start with);

Salet, Hasard et al, Certitude: le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle;

B. Leith, the Descent of Darwin;

N. MacBeth, Darwin Retried;

Stephen Jay Gould, the Panda's Thumb;

H. Nielson, Synthetische Artbilding;

Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma;

well, I could list a couple dozen more just to start with, and a long selection of articles from mainstream and specialized scientific publications, many involving paleontology and archaeology, but that'll do to get you started.  You may not recognize the names some of these authors, but if you don't recognize Gould and Patterson you probably don't really know this field very well.  Oh, and check out the centennial edition of Origin of the Species, the one with the introduction by Thompson, or the 1971 edition with the introduction by L. H. Matthews.

This discussion seems to have degenerated into nothing but opinions, usually set forth with no regard to proof or courtesy, which seems useless in terms of learning anything.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 5, 2009 at 3:18 AM (Answer #24)

dislike 1 like

Hi1954! :-) You're right, we should be courteous, I get carrried away sometimes!

Yes, Wiki isn't perfect, but it's extremely useful as a link to primary sources. I'm a big wiki fan, it is evolving (ho ho) into a very powerful tool.

I find the Pi = 3 thing an interesting argument for Biblical accuracy. The scholar who measured that circular pot/jar showed great accuracy... for his/her era. I feel churlish and petty for sniping at their accurate work. But they weren't exactly right. And as we see from Estodd1809's post, some people will threaten you with lakes of fire if you suggest The Bible is wrong. Which means this quibbling error is important. It is perfectly clear those numbers are inaccurate, even if only slightly. It is an error in the bible.

...

Technically, all species are in transition, so a "transitional fossil" is a misconception for genuine scientists. But if we lay-scientists are refering to fossils which show clear stages of development between animal groups, then here's a list from, yes, Wikipedia. It shows several separate lines of fossils displaying evolutionary development. It includes the world famous Archaeopteryx, a lizard/bird creature - a very real, very beautiful 'missing link' fossil 'between' reptiles and birds. There are lots of undeniable, conclusive fossils which show important stages of evolutionary development. Why do think there aren't?

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

user profile pic

jillyfish | Student, Undergraduate | Valedictorian

Posted May 5, 2009 at 4:17 AM (Answer #25)

dislike 1 like
  1. SCIENTISTS, and HISTORIANS have investigated the Bible and found no flaws, no blemishes, or inconsistancies! (sic)
  2. Hell is a real place my friend and the bible says the all who do not believe will be cast into the lake of fire!!!
  3. You will spend eternity in Hell if you add or take away from the bible.  Estodd1809

No.1 is an outrageous, unsupportable claim. There are many scientists and historians who believe they have found factual errors in the bible and you know that as well as I do. Scince and History do not universally support the stories in the Bible. Far from it. God said Christians shouldn't lie. You appear to be guilty of bearing false witness and so, therefore, also hypocrisy.

 

Nos.2 and 3 Threatening people with extreme violence (even in the afterlife) does not convince me of Christianity's good qualities (and it certainly makes me wonder about yours). I do not like to be threatened by religious people. I am protected by the Constitution from your intolerance and you can't touch me or threaten me in any way. Your dire warnings of a terrible hell awaiting anyone who disagrees with your version of Christianity are frankly pathetic. I reject your threats utterly and feel sure that if their is a truly benign creator he would dislike the aggression you vent in his peaceful name. And if there is a heaven and a hell, I suggest you worry about your own final destination rather than damning others.

user profile pic

estodd1809 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 5, 2009 at 5:28 AM (Answer #26)

dislike 1 like

To your dismay, for your critique of my number 1, they have investigeted it and found nothing out of place. People that have found stuff that is out of place are basing that on opinion rather than fact. Plus i was not threatening people. Christianity has good qualities but the real truth is Hell is a literal place and it pains me to know that people who reject the free gift of salvation will suffet there. That is not a threat that is a promise. Only God, the almighty creator can protect you, your's and my Constitution is an instalment, an inatimant object you put your faith it. I am not a religious person. You need to look up Christianity, it's not a religion it is a head belief and faith. I'm not worried about my final destination, I know where I am going! I am commissioned to make disciples of all nations to make sure that I know where they are going. I present the gospel and let God do the convicting. Deuteronomy  30:19 says I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;. Choose life my friend do not visit the place God has made for those who don't!

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 5, 2009 at 6:27 AM (Answer #27)

dislike 1 like

You may not recognize the names some of these authors, but if you don't recognize Gould and Patterson you probably don't really know this field very well. Hi1954

In another post you repeat the importance of Gould and Patterson. Yes I know them. Gould is one of the modern fathers of evolution and his work is entirely in support of evolution and the common descent of modern complex life from common ancestry. He reshaped our understanding of evolutionary processes commonly called 'evolution by jerks'. 

Patterson is a minor but serious scientist, regularly abused, misquoted and taken out of context by creationists. He has spoken on record to say that his intentions have been distorted and he is repeatedly misquoted by creationists.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

HI1954, you said, "This discussion seems to have degenerated into nothing but opinions" and you implied my knowledge may be lacking from which I infer that you feel your knowledge is highly informed. Fine. 

Specifically, with factual explanation, why do Archaeopteryx and Lucy not convince you of evolution and why do you think they don't qualify as transitional fossils.

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted May 5, 2009 at 8:55 AM (Answer #28)

dislike 1 like

Linda-Allen, i was accepting of your post until you discredited the bible. i will tell you this, there is a passage of scripture is Revelation 22:18-19 that says "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Translation: You will spend enternity in Hell if you add or take away from the bible. I don't know how your grandparents and parents told you the stories but mine actually had a bible open in front of them reading it, so, that tells me the story was not miscontrewn. You may say words get lost in translations, but you're wrong. The bible was originally written in Hebrew, if it still appeared that way nobody would be able to read or understand it. When different translations were made of course words are lost here and there, most languages, like Hebrew, do not have all the words we have, their vocabulary is not that big, so, you need to rethink that comment you made. The bible was ordained by GOD therefore it is 100% accurate and 100% holy!

You are very mistaken in saying that I "discredited" the Bible. It is the Holy Book of Christianity, and it should be respected as such. To call the stories in the Bible "stories" is not to discredit their power. Jesus himself was a storyteller and used stories in his teaching. The parable of the prodigal son should not be taken literally. Jesus was not reporting on an incident that he witnessed. So also, Old Testament writers were not reporting events they had witnessed but were relating stories their elders had told them. As I said before, it is inevitable that some stories got changed or embellished.

user profile pic

estodd1809 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM (Answer #29)

dislike 1 like

In reply to #22: You are very mistaken in saying that I "discredited" the Bible. It is the Holy Book of Christianity, and it should be respected as such. To call the stories in the Bible "stories" is not to discredit their power. Jesus himself was a storyteller and used stories in his teaching. The parable of the prodigal son should not be taken literally. Jesus was not reporting on an incident that he witnessed. So also, Old Testament writers were not reporting events they had witnessed but were relating stories their elders had told them. As I said before, it is inevitable that some stories got changed or embellished.

How do you know that the stories and laws were changed or embellished? Were you there or are you just assuming?

user profile pic

hi1954 | Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 6, 2009 at 11:19 AM (Answer #30)

dislike 1 like

frizzyperm, I don't know what your level of expertise is. I probably could have phrased that better, though, and I did not mean it as any sort of insult. Gould is a believer in his Punctuated Equilibrium theory, not the "General Theory." I like his work because of his disdain for the 'just-so stories' type of evolution. "In honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic design than a saga of accumulating excellence,"  from his article in Natural History, February 1984, sums it up. It was Patterson's book which first caused me to question the theory, although I'm not sure being the head paleontologist of the world's foremost natural history museum makes him a "minor scientist."

There are eight examples of Archaeopteryx, some so well preserved the details of the feathers are visible, and soft tissue. Among the soft tissue are the lungs. Avian lungs do not have a bidirectional air flow, like mammals or reptiles, which breath in and out through the same bronchial tubes. Birds have lungs which are small and rigid, with a flow-through arrangement of nine interconnecting flexible air sacs between the muscles under the skin.These aren't involved in oxygen exchange, but act like a bellows pumping air unidirectionally through the lungs. This puts more oxygen content into the bloodstream and keeps the volume of the lungs relatively constant, which helps birds stay level in flight. Archaeopteryx has these lungs. What soft tissue evidence found in therapods had convinced many paleontologists and evolutionary biologists by the late 1970s that they had bidirectional lungs. The remains of a Sinosauopteryx, a supposed ancestor, was found in the 1990s with the visceral cavity in excellent preservation, and has a diaphragm-like muscle seperating the lungs and liver, like an alligator. This is the best preserved of these examples, but it confirms what many others indicated long ago, that the lungs of therapods were like reptiles, not those of birds (J.A. Ruben, T.D. Jones, N.R. Geist, and W.J. Hillenius, Lung structure and ventilation in theropod dinosaurs and early birds, Science 278:1267–1270, 1997).

One of the most striking features of Archaeopteryx is the three long fingers in the wings. Most terrestrial vertebrates have this five-fingered hand in embryo, and in both therapods and birds two are greatly reduced or lost in embryonic development. Therapods retained fingers 1, 2 and 3 (counting the thumb as 1), but birds retain 2, 3 and 4.  Archaeopteryx has the bird structure (A. Feduccia, T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchliffe, Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence, Journal of Morphology 266:125–166, 2005).

Then there are feathers. Dinosaurs being essentially reptiles, we have known since fairly early fossil examples of skin that they had scales. Compsognathus is a dinosaur supposed to be an ancestor of birds, and an excellently preserved example found post-2000 has scales, but no feathers (U.B. Gohlich and L.M. Chiappe, A new carnivorous dinosaur from the late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago, Nature 440:329–332, 2006). The so-called "feathered dinosaurs" were found largely in Liaoning Province of China, and both Sinosauropteryx and Sinithosaurus have what are called "proto-feathers," interlaced structures with no real resemblance to feathers. These turn out to be collagen, connecting tissue in the deep dermal layer of skin. As it was put in one article, “The major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information.”(Feduccia, T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchliffe, Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence, Journal of Morphology 266:125–166, 2005).The Archaeoraptor of National Geographic's November 1999 issue was a fraud. Making all this more complicated is the fact that true birds were found in the same rock strata in China as their supposed ancestors, and that two taxa (Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx) orignally thought to be dinosaurs are now considered large flightless birds (op cit). That the supposed ancestors are 20 million years more recent than Archaeopteryx is certainly an issue.

 

user profile pic

hi1954 | Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 6, 2009 at 12:34 PM (Answer #31)

dislike 1 like

On to Lucy. There were a large number of fossils found, Lucy (AL 288-1) being the alleged first female ancestor of modern humans.  Almost all the scientists involved in the reconstruction and direct study of these remains consider that "Lucy" was male and that all the Australopithicus aferensis were of pongid (ape) structure, with the fingers, wrists, rib cage, hips and pelvis, legs and feet all oriented toward knuckle-walking and arboreal activities, not bipedal locomotion.  Donald Johanson (the discoverer) himself stated in the March, 1996 National Geographic that, "Lucy has recently been dethroned."  As early as his 1981 book Johanson stated, "You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain."

“If AL 288-1 was female, then one can exclude this species from the ancestors of Homo because its pelvis is certainly less primitive than the pelvis of Sts 14 [the designation for a specific A. africanus fossil]" (Hausler and Schmid, “Comparison of the Pelvis of Sts 14 and AL 288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines,” Journal of Human Evolution, 29:363-383.1995, p. 378). Their reconstruction of the pelvis indicated "Lucy" was male, of the Pongidae family, and simply too small to be a viable hominid.

 

Stern and Susman (1983), in “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis,” Journal of Physical Anthropology, 60:279-317, stated, “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees." They went on to comment: “The AL 333-91 [a specific A. afarensis fossil] pisiform [hand bone] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys. " These structures were considered one standard unit of deviation from the gorilla and orangutan. "We discovered a substantial body of evidence indicating that arboreal activities were so important to A. afarensis that morphologic adaptations permitting adept movement in the trees were maintained."

Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, studied Lucy extensively;
"When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised...the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes (as quoted in "Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human," Leakey and Lewin, 1992, pp. 193-194)."  Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins claimed that tooth wear indicated a diet gained by tree foraging, not ground foraging, according to Johanson.

I could quote dozens more.  So every physical characteristic says "ape", not proto-human.  Not suprising in the light of anatomist Lord Zuckerman's researches (and John Oxnard of U. of Chicago's computer analysis in 1975 of numerous Australopithicus forms, concluding all were knuckle-walking apes). Zuckerman's work predates the discovery of Lucy, but was performed on much more recent fossils.

This very week, in Tel Aviv, Prof. Rak and others at the anatomy and anthorpology school of the Sackler School of Medicine announced findings based on Lucy's mandibular ramus being the same as a gorilla's. "The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor."  Jerusalem Post, May 6, 2009.

I have no personal grudge against evolution, and I'm open about it.  If someone produces what I could honestly view as scientific proof I'll climb back on that wagon. I climbed off because science convinced me otherwise.  I'm not saying it's evil, I'm just saying it's not proven as fact.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 7, 2009 at 1:49 AM (Answer #32)

dislike 1 like

And presumably you know a 'crucial' flaw in all the other transitional fossils as well, and the dating process beyond 6500 years etc. Gleaning titbits from science, ignoring 99.99% of the data, repeatedly high-lighting 00.01%, ignoring retractions, quoting out of context, making a hodge-podge of doubt-casting objections with no central argument. i.e. Creationism's favourite game... data mining. It is interesting, every viewpoint you have is to support Creationism, but you claim to be a mild, independent observer. I find that most odd. You are support Creationist tactics, but, it seems, you are not a creationist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

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

Eg. Gould (a major pro-evolutionary scientist) , who you repeatedly try to present as a skeptic, said,

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists, whether through design or stupidity, I do not know, as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups." Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, Stephen Jay Gould, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984)

Gould says TFs are 'rife'. Yet you implied he was a skeptic of TFs and quoted him to reject TFs. Why?

ditto for Patterson.

cont...

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 7, 2009 at 2:50 AM (Answer #33)

dislike 1 like

You clearly posess much more knowledge than I do on this subject, but your I find your assertions easy to refute. That's odd. It's as though you have chosen to ignore the mountains (ho ho) of evidence that you must be aware of and only highlight certain areas. Eg;

One of the most striking features of Archaeopteryx is the three long fingers in the wings... Therapods retained fingers 1, 2 and 3 (counting the thumb as 1), but birds retain 2, 3 and 4.  Hi1954

Yep. This area is not fully understood. But plenty of archaologists believe your finger numbering is flawed. You presented this to cast doubt on Archaeopteryx as a TF bird/dinosaur.

But... you didn't cover

  1. the saurischian hips,
  2. bony tail,
  3. beakless skull,
  4. dromaeosaur type feet that can’t perch
  5. dew claw (or hallux)

Why didn't you mention these undisputed features?

Then you twice cited Feduccia to rubbish Archaeopteryx... but... hang on, Feduccia said...

"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments we come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Alan Feduccia"

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue

...go figure.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 7, 2009 at 3:51 AM (Answer #34)

dislike 1 like

I believe your entire presentation has been an intentional smokescreen. You are clearly a highly intelligent man, yet your selective claims are things that a less intelligent person like myself has no trouble unpicking. I am forced to conclude your misdirections are deliberate. You are too well informed to have presented a purelycreationist argument by accident, but you have not declared yourself as such. This appears to be dishonest. Why didn't you acknowledge your theories are exclusively creationist? Are you ashamed of their origins?

In a previous post, you gave a pretty little speech about integrity and politeness,

This discussion seems to have degenerated into nothing but opinions, usually set forth with no regard to proof or courtesy, which seems useless in terms of learning anything. Hi1954

I find your sentiments a little hard to swallow when you repeatedly, deliberately misquoted eminent scientists in order to distort their work in favour of your (presumed) religious pseudo-science. (see above)

I will let anyone who has followed this thread up to this point draw their own conclusions. (although I suspect it is only you and I who have bothered to get this far)

user profile pic

hi1954 | Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 8, 2009 at 12:09 AM (Answer #35)

dislike 1 like

How can I cover everything, there's only 4500 characters per post. I just hit the obvious high points. I could address the others, but it would obviously be useless.

I have made no "Creationist" arguments at all.  I said up front Gould was an evolutionary scientist. I just said he didn't believe the General Theory, and he doesn't or why would he have come up with his own? He himself wrote that he could disprove any theory of evolution he could think of. Didn't actually read his book, did you? Today we have multiple versions of the theory, and that's good, that's the refining of the theory I was talking about in the first place. I like his work because of his honesty and clarity, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.

Did you read any of the articles? No, because had you done so you would know I did not misquote, misrepresent, take out of context, or commit any other kind of intellectual chicanery. I simply disagree with you, and hold that I have valid scientific reasons for doing so. Why do you feel threatened by that? You're so angry you can hardly make decent sentences. Do you make wild accusations about everyone who disagrees with you about anything?

I have given actual information from direct research of source documents. Your posts speak of invisible pink elephants and Occam's Razor, you describe a TV show and you do a good bit of bullying, but you have posted no actual piece of information, much less valid documentation. You express viewpoints, but offer no real support for them.

Have you ever actually read anything serious about this, like the Origin of the Species or any other major work? Or have you just read about them? And did you throw away whatever you were reading if it didn't tickle your fancy? Do you always attack people who talk about things you don't really understand? Yes, I appear to know a great deal more than you, but no, you have not refuted anything, you have simply reiterated your opinion with no actual information given to back it up.  And in the end, when I answer your question about my point of view, the only thing you have to fall back on is an almost incoherant aggression. Is that your view of science? In the late 1970s, as a newspaper reporter, I spent a year investigating the Ku Klux Klan. They use the same tactics, they exhibit the same behavior and mental traits. Sorry, but it's true.

You seem to have a serious personal bias about anyone you even suspect of having any sort of religious ideas at all. I have said nothing about religion except that I feel it is irrelevant to the issue. I certainly haven't said or implied anything about whether I believe anything or not, nor have I in any way argued from any religious viewpoint. Why would I misrepresent things and lie? To bring you to Jesus? How would that work? If you feel you need to go to Jesus, that's your problem. Not my business. And I refuse to acceed to your efforts to make it my business through innuendo and unfounded accusations.

There are indications that some current version of the theory or perhaps something which will grow out of a current version may be the answer, may provide proof.  I don't care what theory turns out to be true, but I'm not convinced as of right now. How could I make this clearer? Well, for example, I'm not sure you are an intellectual fraud; there are indications but I'm not totally convinced.  I'm not sure you're a bigot about religions of all sorts, but there are strong indications. I'm positive you're a bully, and that you have an anger management problem, you've convinced me of that at least.

I took part in a discussion here. You seem to think you're in some kind of a fight. If so, you're fighting yourself, Bubba, not me. Enjoy your Pyrhhic victory over yourself.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 8, 2009 at 1:42 AM (Answer #36)

dislike 1 like

I did not misquote, misrepresent, take out of context, or commit any other kind of intellectual chicanery. Hi1954

Well... apart from abusing and misquoting 3 famously abused and misquoted scientists and twisting their standpoints by 180 degrees to imply they didn't fully support TFs.

the only thing you have to fall back on is an almost incoherant aggression.Hi1954

My reply was perfectly coherent. And you dodged every point of it. I'll repeat the main thrust of it for you...

You misrepresented Gould, Patterson and Fedducia's work and implied their viewpoints support your denial of TFs.

And... these three scientists, among others, have (had) repeatedly complained that their pro-evolutionary work has been hijacked by devious creationists and that they are continually misrepresented by unscrupulous people.

user profile pic

hi1954 | Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted May 8, 2009 at 4:12 AM (Answer #37)

dislike 1 like

1978-79, Cullman, Alabama, trial on a change of venue from Decatur, Curtis Lee Hines, poor retarded young black man sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit. Sad story, not something I'd make fun of. It was a big deal at the time, lots of national media, the major TV networks, an observer from the Justice Dept. Got me a free lance job with Pacific News Service. You could probably find out a lot about it were you to do some research.

I did not say Gould or Fedducia did not believe in TFs, I quoted Gould as pointing out problems with some views of evolution, it's an accurate quote. I quoted Fedducia et al only in relation to their article, which was about the differences between Archaeopteryx and therapods, quite accurately which you would know had you read the article. Your posts have a couple of disjointed sentences, or haven't you read them either? "Your I find your assertions..." You made no points in your posts, you simply repeated your opinion. You still have given no information nor documentation to support anything you've said. What kind of science is that?

I have not misrepresented anything, but you have twisted things I wrote to try to say I have stated things I did not say. Either you did not read my answers to your question closely or you are purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote. That's still not science. You actually haven't done any serious reading in this area at all, have you? You're simply trying to bully me into shutting up. That's not science, either.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 8, 2009 at 5:27 AM (Answer #38)

dislike 1 like

You're simply trying to bully me into shutting up. Hi1954

I'm trying to get you to stand by the earlier claims you made. Unfortunately, you do not obey the standard rules of debate. The main reason you don't obey the rules is that you can't touch evolution in a clean debate.

Because The Scientific 'Theory' of Evolution is as provable as gravity.

I do not give a tinker's cuss what you now claim, I have followed you closely through this debate and you tried the sad old creationist routine of

a) pretending to be a well informed, mild mannered,  independent observer

b) repeatedly misquoting respected scientists and pretending they doubt evolution.

c) making unsupportable claims then denying that those claims were made when you discover they are challenged effectively.

In short, you know full well you haven't a hope of denting evolution in a clean debate, so you hope to sow false doubts instead. Your only hope is the political activity of deliberately misleading non-scientific people into believing there are serious doubts regarding evolution.

As I said before, probably we are the last two left in this thread, all others have fled.

user profile pic

estodd1809 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 8, 2009 at 8:57 AM (Answer #39)

dislike 1 like

You're simply trying to bully me into shutting up. Hi1954

I'm trying to get you to stand by the earlier claims you made. Unfortunately, you do not obey the standard rules of debate. The main reason you don't obey the rules is that you can't touch evolution in a clean debate.

Because The Scientific 'Theory' of Evolution is as provable as gravity.

I do not give a tinker's cuss what you now claim, I have followed you closely through this debate and you tried the sad old creationist routine of

a) pretending to be a well informed, mild mannered,  independent observer

b) repeatedly misquoting respected scientists and pretending they doubt evolution.

c) making unsupportable claims then denying that those claims were made when you discover they are challenged effectively.

In short, you know full well you haven't a hope of denting evolution in a clean debate, so you hope to sow false doubts instead. Your only hope is the political activity of deliberately misleading non-scientific people into believing there are serious doubts regarding evolution.

As I said before, probably we are the last two left in this thread, all others have fled.

God created us intelligently to serve his purpose here on the earth.  Hebrews 3:4 says "For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God." Wow I think that is more than enough proof but if not let me explain something to you. First off evolutionists must have a viable mechanism for chemical evolution if they expect their theories on biological evolution to be accepted. They don't. Second, do you understand the complexity of life? There is no such thing as a simple cell for chemical evolution to work toward. There is much needed "hardware" necessary for life. Third chemical evoulution experiments are not accurate representations of reality, and their are numerous insurmountable obstacles in the path of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. All this infofmation is found in the book By Design by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.

user profile pic

estodd1809 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 8, 2009 at 9:01 AM (Answer #40)

dislike 1 like

You're simply trying to bully me into shutting up. Hi1954

I'm trying to get you to stand by the earlier claims you made. Unfortunately, you do not obey the standard rules of debate. The main reason you don't obey the rules is that you can't touch evolution in a clean debate.

Because The Scientific 'Theory' of Evolution is as provable as gravity.

I do not give a tinker's cuss what you now claim, I have followed you closely through this debate and you tried the sad old creationist routine of

a) pretending to be a well informed, mild mannered,  independent observer

b) repeatedly misquoting respected scientists and pretending they doubt evolution.

c) making unsupportable claims then denying that those claims were made when you discover they are challenged effectively.

In short, you know full well you haven't a hope of denting evolution in a clean debate, so you hope to sow false doubts instead. Your only hope is the political activity of deliberately misleading non-scientific people into believing there are serious doubts regarding evolution.

As I said before, probably we are the last two left in this thread, all others have fled.

Please also visit  http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm. This explains the the RNA world and how proteins are required for DNA synthesis and DNA is required for protein synthesis. So how can the first living cells with DNA-base molecular biology have originated by spontaneous chemical processes on the prebiotic Earth? I find my sources sufficient.

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted May 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM (Answer #41)

dislike 1 like

Let me pose another question: What is it within us that makes us argue over a topic that no one can ever prove or disprove? Those of us who believe that God created everything that is will forever shake our heads and pray for the poor misguided souls who don't believe. Those who believe in the theory of evolution will forever shake their heads and snicker at the poor misguided fools who believe in superstition and myth.

Neither side will ever budge. So why waste our energy arguing?

user profile pic

dbello | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator

Posted May 8, 2009 at 10:29 PM (Answer #42)

dislike 1 like

I must admit that my curiousity on how a topic with 41 responses only acquired 2 stars??? I think the answer to that question can be found somewhere between the subject matter and the uncompromising passion the responders experience. Could it be that the subject matter strikes so deep, rating the question simply holds no significance??? (just some food for thought)

Scientific theory and discovery have challenged Christian beliefs for many years. The arguments of both sides have played out upon the judicial stage for years, wins and losses accumulated on both sides.

Religion holds only one requirement....faith. On the other hand, science and its theories are rooted in experimentation and in some cases proven fact. Due to this, there are those that will never be able to reconcile their religion with scientific discovery and those who will never reconcile their religion and scientific theory and discovery.

So for what its worth... The deal is people living in a society which guarantees 'freedom of religion, speech, and due process' will argue this topic. If and when this topic needs to be addressed Constitutionally, it will have its day in court. Until then those of us who live in a society that protects 'freedom of religion or the freedom of no religion' should remember this.... whether it is your faith or your science, or your reconcilation between faith and science, never forget how lucky we are to encompass all those perspectives.

user profile pic

elfgirl | Student, Undergraduate | Salutatorian

Posted May 11, 2009 at 12:49 AM (Answer #43)

dislike 1 like

What is it within us that makes us argue over a topic that no one can ever prove or disprove? ... Neither side will ever budge. So why waste our energy arguing? Linda Allen

Should we 'waste our energy' when one side uses lawyer's tricks to try to block The Truth? If one side deliberately miseducates children, should we waste our energy then? 

Because that is what we are arguing about... The Truth. Evolution has been scientifically proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

You evolved from ape-like animals. Your ancestors were animals. You are an animal. Your children are animals. The Universe is ancient and almost infinite and we are a ridiculously insignificant, random part of it.

And that's the truth.

But bible-bashing Evangelists and fundamentalists don't want to risk their full churches (or should that be full collection plates?) by altering their indefensible stories about Arks and Adam and Eve. So they resort to very unChristian activities.

in a nutshell... They lie.

1) The scientists provide more and more conclusive proof of evolution, but the public don't read their findings.

2) Then the creationists tell the public lies to mislead them. There is no other word for it. They are concious lies.

Here a list of just some of them put forward by creation pseudo-scientists...

http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

They are lying to you and your children. You deserve The Truth, even if The Truth is hard to accept.

user profile pic

elfgirl | Student, Undergraduate | Salutatorian

Posted May 11, 2009 at 1:38 AM (Answer #44)

dislike 1 like

Non-scientists are easily mislead by creationist lies. Here (post40), Estodd 'torpedoes' evolution;

Proteins are required for DNA synthesis and DNA is required for protein synthesis. How can the first living cells with DNA-base molecular biology have originated by spontaneous chemical processes on the prebiotic Earth? estodd1809

Estodd1809 is repeating a fancy re-invention of the creationist lie 'Eyes can't have evolved because they are complex'. I guess Estodd lifted his theory from the web. So I will lift my answer;

DNA evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

Satisfied? No, I didn't think so. 

Basically, you claimed that interdepedant complexity disproves evolution. To quote Pauli (a proper scientist) he once said of an awful student's work: Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

"Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong."

Your pseudo-bio-chemical argument 'disproving' evolution is not even wrong. To explain why, you'd need to study at least a little bio-chemistry and evolution first. You've been hoaxed by charlatans.

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted May 11, 2009 at 6:25 AM (Answer #45)

dislike 1 like

@Estodd1809, You wrote, 

Proteins are required for DNA synthesis and DNA is required for protein synthesis. So how can the first living cells with DNA-base molecular biology have originated by spontaneous chemical processes on the prebiotic Earth? I find my sources sufficient.

Your claim is flawed. Cellular life did not *pop* into existence from nowhere. There were hundreds of millions of years of evolution before single-celled organisms arrived, or DNA. But you implied evolution started with single-celled life 'originating by spontaneouslychemical processes on prebiotic Earth'.

I am forced to agree with Elfgirl; you don't appear to know anything about this subject. You are presumably cutting-and-pasting the claims of others. You referenced The Access Research Network as your source;

Be careful who you trust; the blandly named Access Research Network is a front for The Discovery Institute. The DI are probably the most infamous Creationist spin-doctors in existence. They have been repeatedly shown to be intellectually dishonest. They are not a science organisation.

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

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

Estodd1809? You have been the victim of deliberate religio-political misdirection. There is absolutely no scientific validity in your 'DNA Synthesis' objection. It is a trap for the scientifically illiterate. And you were caught by it.

user profile pic

branbran | Student, College Freshman | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM (Answer #46)

dislike 1 like

How can people say the Bible is not true. anyone who has ever taken the time to read th Bible or went to church or sat in Bible class would know that what the Bible says is the real thing. Everything that the Bible said would happen in the future has come true.If you dont believe me then you can right me back and i'll tell you everything that the Bible said would happen, has happened. I feel really sorry for the non-believers because they will be spending eternity in such a horrible place that not even the devil or his demons want to be in. theyre even dreading the day when they are no longer able to prey on the people of this earth and are forced to be cast into the lake of fire. Non-believer should at least give christianity a chance because i promise you, you wont regret it.The Lord has done so many wonderful things in my life and the people around me. Like i cant even began to explain Gods love for me and His Children. Its just so amazing.

user profile pic

Michelle Ossa | College Teacher | (Level 3) Educator Emeritus

Posted May 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM (Answer #47)

dislike 1 like

It shouldn't be a matter of "feeling sorry" for those of us who do not use the Bible as our religious canon. Simply rejoice that such book and your spiritual direction work for you, and rejoice in that others (who are also God's Children, according to your own argument) also have a way to find their inner peace and their place in this Universe.

Feeling sorry for others not believing the same as one does defeats every goal of living in a free country where differences are precisely what have brought us to be the unique group of people that we are.

user profile pic

branbran | Student, College Freshman | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 18, 2009 at 12:50 PM (Answer #48)

dislike 1 like

It shouldn't be a matter of "feeling sorry" for those of us who do not use the Bible as our religious canon. Simply rejoice that such book and your spiritual direction work for you, and rejoice in that others (who are also God's Children, according to your own argument) also have a way to find their inner peace and their place in this Universe.

Feeling sorry for others not believing the same as one does defeats every goal of living in a free country where differences are precisely what have brought us to be the unique group of people that we are.

Yeah but that inner peace is not going to get them anywhere in life, i mean it may work for a while but in reality you need the Bible to survive in the world we live in today. Without receiving the Lord as your personal Savior then theres really no hope for the un-believer. There are only two places you will end up in end: Heaven or Hell. And the only way to make it to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. As stated in the Bible: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me," (John 14:6).

user profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted June 18, 2009 at 7:53 PM (Answer #49)

dislike 1 like

Post #46 statement "How can people say the Bible is not true." in nothing short of emotional blackmail. It is just like trying to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity by saying "How can people say that scientific principles of Newton are not true".

Bible is full of very valuable truths. That does not mean that everything stated in Bible is True. The creators of Bible were perhaps the most intelligent people of their time, and described the truth as best as they could with the limited scientific knowledge of their time. I believe if the creators of Bible had the benefit of modern scientific knowledge, they would have definitely accepted the Theory of Evolution.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted July 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM (Answer #50)

dislike 1 like

...in reality you need the Bible to survive in the world we live in today. Without receiving the Lord as your personal Savior then theres really no hope for the un-believer.  There are only two places you will end up in end: Heaven or Hell. Bran Bran

Please, STOP telling non-believers they are going to hell. You can believe what you want to believe, but you have no right to take it upon yourself to judge other people. 'Receive the lord' all you like. But if others don't wish to, then keep your sanctimonious 'concern' solely for your fellow church-goers, becuase a high percentage of American church-goers do not seem to be on the way to heaven to me. Leave us atheists alone.

If you personally want to believe that there is an eternal place (and just for a minute try to grasp the concept of eternity) where 'bad' people are punished forever with fire and torture and rape because they didn't follow your particular religion, that is your right. If you really think there is eternal damnation, then, well, fine, but stop pushing such a medeival scare story onto other people, especially the young.

Did Bhudda go to hell? Did Ghandi? Did Mohammed? Most people aren't Christian, you know. Do they all go to hell? Does that even seem remotely fair to you? Imagine a good, dedicated, true-believing, God fearing Hindu who was beautifully pious in word and deed, will he be sent striaght down to Christian Hell?

Maybe you will be sent to Hindu hell instead? How 'bout that?

user profile pic

Susan Hurn | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted July 21, 2009 at 10:48 PM (Answer #51)

dislike 1 like

There is a fundamental difference between "truth" and "fact." A short story, for instance, because it is a fiction form is not factual. However, many short stories contain a great deal of truth about life or the human condition. Truth does not necessarily require a set of supporting facts. My personal belief is that the Book of Genesis is not factual, but that the story of creation in Genesis does convey an underlying truth: a divine power created the universe. It seems to me that the more scientific research reveals to us about the biological nature of life and the nature of the universe itself, the harder it becomes to deny that the intricacy of creation is the result of some random occurrence or series of random occurrences. Call it divine power, intelligent design, or whatever--the brilliant perfection of all we have unlocked so far in nature suggests more than happenstance.

That said, those who accept the Book of Genesis literally will always reject science in terms of explaining the creation of mankind and the universe. Genesis, however, when interpreted figuratively in conveying the truth of creation, does not rule out science. Many who accept evolution view it simply as being the means through which God created mankind.

user profile pic

dtv | Student | eNoter

Posted August 5, 2009 at 4:29 PM (Answer #52)

dislike 1 like

Is there any concrete proof that can be offered that the Bible has the same scientific credibility as a scientific journal?

 

I do not argue with the fact that the Bible has many important lessons, but is there any evidence of the validity of Creation?

user profile pic

runk | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 12, 2009 at 3:29 PM (Answer #53)

dislike 1 like

I'd like to start by apologizing for my distinct lack of information on this topic. I have by no means researched my opinions, but I do have a few questions for either side of this debate. I ask them in earnest sincerity:

1) To the creationists: they say god is all forgiving...but hell for sinners is eternal (ie. no chance for forgiveness), how are these two things reconciled? Having only one chance at making the right choice with very little evidence to base a potentially important (allegedly the most important) decision on seems hardly a fair deal. And what of those who lived before the common era, before the bible, they would have been given no chance at 'redemption' having not heard the 'good news'. Now THAT seems unforgiving.

2) Also to the creationists, and this one really bothers me: why would a benevolent god (and I already know 'mysterious ways', but hear me out and seriously consider this), create a world where the modus operandi is one where an individual must kill to survive (carnivours for example). To compound the issue, that same god then turns around and instructs: 'thou shall not kill'  Now I realize most people take this to mean homicide, that is, killing humans. But killing is killing in my opinion.

continued...

user profile pic

runk | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 12, 2009 at 3:30 PM (Answer #54)

dislike 1 like

 

...continued

3) At evolutionists: A comedian once said, "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys??!" Which is an ineffective question at best, but it does give rise to a point...If natural selection is touted as being a system centred on survival of the fittest, then why do the transitional species not survive?

As a stupified example lets say humans evolved from monkeys. If a monkey undergoes some slight mutation to lets call it humonkey (see what I did there?), evolution says humonkey will thrive if he's better suited to survival in its environment. Lets say humonkey evolves directly into man (I did say stupified example, no?). In the end, as seen in our world we are left with monkeys and humans, but the transitional creature (in this case humonkey) no longer exists. But why if the humonkey is better suited to survival (than monkey at least) does it not survive? The only explination in my head is that the entire humonkey species evolved into human, leaving none behind, but then why are there still monkeys?!?

user profile pic

runk | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM (Answer #56)

dislike 1 like

@50 LOL People who threaten others with hell would not go to Hindu hell...such people would be reincarnated as a ram or a dung beetle, you know, pushy creatures. ;-) J/k, but in all honesty, one's choice to believe in god should not come out of fear of not doing it, but love for doing it.

The problem with scientific debates involving the christian god arise from the abiguity of its definition. Saying that He is 'all powerful' and capable of whatever His divine will "desires", neccessarily removes itself from any potential debate, but does not infer any proof to its own claim. An equivalently ambiguous scientific argument would be something along the lines of the infinite probability drive, where, nothing is impossible, just very very improbable, thus with infinite probability anything can occur. In such a case you could never disprove its existence, despite both intuition and common sense suggesting it is unlikely to exist.

The *THEORY* of evolution is just as likely to be flawed as the *THEORY* of creation. The difference is, the supporters of evolution (at least the truest ones) are continually trying to disprove evolution, because that's how science works. The foundation of knowledge is doubt. And this whole debate (at large that is, not just this room), can be boiled down to a debate of doubt vs. faith.

user profile pic

runk | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM (Answer #55)

dislike 1 like

@50 LOL People who threaten others with hell would not go to Hindu hell...such people would be reincarnated as a ram or a dung beetle, you know, pushy creatures. ;-) J/k, but in all honesty, one's choice to believe in god should not come out of fear of not doing it, but love for doing it.

The problem with scientific debates involving the christian god arise from the abiguity of its definition. Saying that He is 'all powerful' and capable of whatever His divine will "desires", neccessarily removes itself from any potential debate, but does not infer any proof to its own claim. An equivalently ambiguous scientific argument would be something along the lines of the infinite probability drive, where, nothing is impossible, just very very improbable, thus with infinite probability anything can occur. In such a case you could never disprove its existence, despite both intuition and common sense suggesting it is unlikely to exist.

The *THEORY* of evolution is just as likely to be flawed as the *THEORY* of creation. The difference is, the supporters of evolution (at least the truest ones) are continually trying to disprove evolution, because that's how science works. The foundation of knowledge is doubt. And this whole debate (at large that is, not just this room), can be boiled down to a debate of doubt vs. faith. 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted August 18, 2009 at 3:58 AM (Answer #57)

dislike 1 like
If natural selection is touted as being a system centred on survival of the fittest, then why do the transitional species not survive? - Runk Parallel Example : The Model T Ford was one of the most succesful cars in automotive manufacturing history. It was a revolutioary car that changed the automobile industry forever. Let's say the Model T 'evolved' from earlier more crude car designs. It had many great new advantages that allowed it to beat all the rival cars available and totally dominate the car world. So, ask yourself, why don't they still make it? *pause for thought* The answer to my example about cars is pretty much the same answer to your question about transitional species. The reason that transitional species are generally extinct is that although they discovered some fabulous advantage, this fabulous advantage was taken and improved even futher by subsequent species. Their advantages were taken to the next level by further evolutionary development. The Model T was eventually surpassed by an even better car that improved on its original improvements. Does that make sense?
user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted August 18, 2009 at 4:06 AM (Answer #58)

dislike 1 like

The *THEORY* of evolution is just as likely to be flawed as the *THEORY* of creation. - Runk

Sorry to lift your quote a little out of context, but I'd like to point out that 'theory' does not mean what you think it does. Nobody says, "Oh gravity! tchah, it's just a theory, man". A scientific theory does NOT mean it isn't completely provable.

Evolutionary process is completely and utterly provable. It is a fact as well as a theory. We may not have every species' line completely mapped out, but we can 100% clearly show that evolution took place and takes place.

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

This link shows a modern species that has been observed to evolve to keep up with its environment. Undisputable evidence. Evolution is a fact, whether it conflicts with religious belief or not is irrelevant.

 

user profile pic

dalehusband | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 21, 2009 at 10:03 AM (Answer #59)

dislike 1 like

People who want to deny evolution will engage in all sorts of rhetorical tricks to undermine public confidence in it without actually disproving it scientifically. For example, it is well known that the human appendix is a vestigial organ, but some creationists note that it does contain some lymphatic tissue and thus conclude that it has an immune function. But ALL abdominal organs have lymphatic tissue, plus the appendix of most herbivorous mammals has a clear digestive function while that of humans does not. And even if the human appendix had the same digestive function as those of many other mammals, it would not disprove evolution at all.

user profile pic

londieba | Elementary School Teacher | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 25, 2009 at 4:05 PM (Answer #60)

dislike 1 like

To say that Biblical creation is a proven and supported fact is to say that it is scientifically proven.  However, almost all scientists would say that the weight of scientific evidence is strongly in favor of evolution.

It is quite another thing to say that science isn't the only important way to look at things.  Faith is a fundamentally different way of trying to answer the mysteries of life.  If you choose to believe in Biblical creation, great.  However, if you decide to play on the scientific playing field, be prepared to lose.

It is scientifically supported by everything that has been discovered. Fossils, bones, and all of that.  I don't want to know what scientists say. I want to know what the Creator of the universe says. These scientists are sinners that need to repent of their sins. They only believe evolution because they don't want God in their life, they want to life their life however they wish to. They just don't want Him. And if they don't want God in this life, He will grant their wish for the next life which lasts all eternity. For Scripture says "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and it also says "The fool hath said in his heart 'their is no God' "

If I choose to play in on the scientific field, with God's grace I will win and be victorious against all who challenge God's word

First, if you do not want to know what what scientist say, do ask them questions.

Second, didn't your Creator create these "sinners".  Is it possible that He wanted these things to be discovered?

user profile pic

runk | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 25, 2009 at 10:53 PM (Answer #61)

dislike 1 like

@frizzyperm (57): Your anecdote illustrates why the transitional species aren't around, but it still leaves the question: "why are there still monkies" unanswered. To use the same example, sure the model T's all evolved into Taurus 2010's, but you don't see alot of horse and buggies around either. Your answer seems to be of the sort that when evolution took place all of the evolved sort of snowball into a more adapted form leaving none behind (if i'm following you correctly). Perhaps if i rephrase my question:

Why do all the transitional speicies evolve or die, while the initial species seems to remain stable?

user profile pic

runk | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 25, 2009 at 11:00 PM (Answer #62)

dislike 1 like

@frizzyperm (58): interesting link, I had never heard of that before. However, doesn't the process of a theory becoming fact require the ability to reproduce the effect in a controlled environment?

user profile pic

lainie2007 | College Teacher | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM (Answer #63)

dislike 1 like

This is the most ridiculous discussion I have seen yet. No one is going to convince a "true believer" of anything, and the "true believers" aren't going to convince atheists or scientists that this Holy Bible a 3rd and even 4th hand account of creation stories originating in Sumer is absolute truth.

Paul speaks for God because Paul says he does.

Mohammed speaks for God because Mohammed says he does.

The pope speaks for God because he says he does and all his followers agree with him.

Christianity along with Islam has a basic tenet of convert or be killed even though the Christian pronouncements of this are now pretty much quieted, but the basic fundamentalist extremeists of any religion except maybe buddhism preach the same thing.

Without religion there would have been a more peaceful world is my own (stupid?) considered opinion now.

user profile pic

jillyfish | Student, Undergraduate | Valedictorian

Posted August 26, 2009 at 2:11 PM (Answer #64)

dislike 1 like

This is the most ridiculous discussion I have seen yet. No one is going to convince a "true believer" of anything, and the "true believers" aren't going to convince atheists or scientists that this Holy Bible a 3rd and even 4th hand account of creation stories originating in Sumer is absolute truth. - Laine.

You are right. But there is one group that can be convinced of almost anything - children. Which is why the argument is important. The truth of science cannot be destroyed, but it can be drowned out. There are people telling lies about science to children to make them believe in Christianity.

user profile pic

kbrady4030 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Adjunct Educator

Posted August 29, 2009 at 6:44 AM (Answer #65)

dislike 1 like

It is my belief that God and science are compliments to one another.  One is not explained without the other.  The statement that there is "no scientific evidence of this god you mention" is as ludicrous as the statement that the Bible, translated thousands of times, has no mistakes.

The God of the Universe, the great designer of billions of systems which rely upon billions of things to occur precisely at the right times, in the right amounts, and to the right degree, is as capable of creating the process of Evolution as He is capable of creating the universe from a huge BANG or from nothing at all and beginnng in a garden.

user profile pic

mbeimer | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Adjunct Educator

Posted August 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM (Answer #66)

dislike 1 like

To #54 and #61:  The humonkey is neither human nor monkey.  The humonkey may have lived in one particular niche.  The human and the monkey may have their origens in the humonkey, but they each evolved along a diverging path each filling a distinctly different niche in which their individual adaptations were well suited.

Referring to the Model T example:  yes, the model T may have started it all.  And now we have a Taurus.  However, we also have an Aston Martin and a Chevy Silverado.  Both of these originated with the Model T but are distinctly different from their origin.

user profile pic

mbeimer | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Adjunct Educator

Posted August 29, 2009 at 10:56 PM (Answer #67)

dislike 1 like

I have to agree with #65.  Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.  I do not believe it has to be science OR faith.

The order in which evolutionists claim life evolved is the same as the order of the Bible.  Both believe that the Earth's atmosphere underwent major changes in which liquid water collected on the earth.  Then plants emerged followed by more complex lifeforms.  Both agree that compared to the rest of creation, man is a newcomer.

The Bible says that it was on day four that God created the sun, moon, and stars "to mark seasons and days and years".  Essentially this would be the creation of time.  If that is true, then we can understand the "day" referred to in Genesis as an epoch of time rather than a 24 hour day since there had already been 3 "days" before time was counted.

Perhaps science is actually one method by which we can strive to understand the mind of God?

user profile pic

Susan Hurn | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted August 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM (Answer #68)

dislike 1 like

If you consider this whole discussion in terms of human beings and all their many different cultures over time, one common thread emerges. Humans throughout their history have always been driven to understand the wonder of creation and to know its source. This is simply programmed into us, regardless of time or circumstance. Atheists, no doubt, would explain this as some kind of biological quirk imprinted in our DNA. I believe it is far more profound and shows that we are spiritual beings whose creation wasn't random and who try to find their way back to its divine source. The creation "myths" of every human culture demonstrate the same need. Accepting the Book of Genesis as the ultimate truth of creation or accepting scientific theory as the means to understand creation also demonstrate this search for spiritual understanding. Science does not negate faith. For many, it is an expression of it.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted August 31, 2009 at 6:35 AM (Answer #69)

dislike 1 like

"The order in which evolutionists claim life evolved is the same as the order of the Bible... The Bible says that it was on day four that God created the sun, moon, and stars "to mark seasons and days and years". mbeimer

But, before God created the stars, it says he did this...

"Gen3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

So days and nights and light on Earth began before the sun had been created??? That's scientifically impossible. Two lines later it describes how God created two 'lights', the sun and the moon. But of course the moon is not a light source, so that's a major error concerning the nature of the moon. Etc Etc...

So as early as sentence three of The Bible, we are forced to admit that the Bible does NOT conform to science's version of events and that it has no value to science. Genesis is the creation myth of desert tribesmen who lived the stone age. The chances that it has anything to offer modern science are practically zero.

user profile pic

monsterhappy | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 31, 2009 at 1:26 PM (Answer #70)

dislike 1 like

"The Bible is always right!" Despite what you may think the bible has no flaws. You have distorted what the passage in Leviticus really means. SCIENTISTS, and HISTORIANS have investigated the Bible and found now flaws, no blemishes, or inconsistancies! God is the one who creates everything we know today, and he said "IT IS GOOD!" There is no such thing as evolution! One question for you...who gave scientists the knowledge to save you? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7 Hell is a real place my friend and the bible says the all who do not believe will be cast into the lake of fire!!!

It's interesting to observe here how a lack of scientific support for an argument leads to threats and emotional outbursts.

That's healthy for society right? Go GOD!

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted August 31, 2009 at 2:14 PM (Answer #71)

dislike 1 like

This is the most ridiculous discussion I have seen yet. No one is going to convince a "true believer" of anything, and the "true believers" aren't going to convince atheists or scientists that this Holy Bible a 3rd and even 4th hand account of creation stories originating in Sumer is absolute truth.

Paul speaks for God because Paul says he does.

Mohammed speaks for God because Mohammed says he does.

The pope speaks for God because he says he does and all his followers agree with him.

Christianity along with Islam has a basic tenet of convert or be killed even though the Christian pronouncements of this are now pretty much quieted, but the basic fundamentalist extremeists of any religion except maybe buddhism preach the same thing.

Without religion there would have been a more peaceful world is my own (stupid?) considered opinion now.

I'm with you, sister. I wish enotes would not allow this type of discussion. It inevitably devolves from an intelligent conversation into an argument over whose system of beliefs is correct. The issue will never be solved!

user profile pic

monsterhappy | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 31, 2009 at 2:14 PM (Answer #72)

dislike 1 like

OK,

Who's to say that God did not come about into being through a scientific process?

And if God can be with everyone at once and hear all prayers, who's to say that God is not just the collective whole of humanity?

And here’s a crazy one: If we are the children of God, and if we are playing around with science and are beginning to create new life, who's to say that we're not just growing up and becoming more like our Father... more like God?

Maybe we are God. Maybe we’re not. Maybe it doesn’t matter. I sustain to be humbly open to whatever is the TRUTH. Maybe the truth is different for everyone. Science considers all angles.

I am not going to blindly believe any one thing. Not my own ideas and especially not yours. I do however appreciate and understand the logical alignments of truth that science can provide. Science is a very powerful TOOL for finding and explaining TRUTH. It is not the antichrist.

cont.

user profile pic

monsterhappy | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 31, 2009 at 2:15 PM (Answer #73)

dislike 1 like

cont.

Just some food for thought because I read between the lines in life rather than rigorously bend to them as some do with the “good book”.

Also, if you're picking up on my distaste for the IGNORANCE, here is a virtual high five to you. * If you are feeling angered by my opinion on this subject, I propose to you that you talk to a therapist (another benefit brought to you by the evils of science). If you think that I am completely out of my mind, I suggest you that you should suggest to me that I talk to a therapist because they are specially trained to understand diverse streams of thought and are much less likely to STONE ME TO DEATH or BURN ME AT THE STEAK.

One last thing- Society is better thanks to science. Less fighting, more understanding. And the best part about it is that science will not feed you a single book as a means to control you- science is simply a healthy, logical approach to life.

user profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted August 31, 2009 at 10:17 PM (Answer #74)

dislike 1 like

Seventy-three posts and still going strong. A very lively discussion. I had resisted the temptation to chip in the discussion because, I am not that well acquainted with contents of the Bible. But I see that the scope of discussion has now expanded in to science versus religion.

A careful examination of history of science will clarify that the science it self has originated out of the thoughts and the methods originally developed by what we call now religion. Let us take the example of the ancient Hindu view that every things in this Universe consists of five basic elements earth, water, air, fire, and space. As per the state of science at that time this was the best explanation. But a few centuries ago, with availability of greater insights, scientists started to think of more basic common constituent of everything in the world and came to the conclusion that this whole universe consists of just about 100 or so elements. Then the understanding increased further and these elements were reduced to three common components - electrons, positrons and neutrons. But the advance of science did not stop here - now we believe these components themselves to be split many times over in ever smaller components.

We can think of ancient religion as embryo into which the present science has grown. It is definitely mistake to not to recognize that the embryo and the baby are same. But a much greater mistake some vehement supporters of science make is to consider science today as a fully grown self sufficient adult. It is quite possible that the science today is just a new born baby which still needs to be nurtured and helped to become an adult.

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted September 1, 2009 at 5:39 AM (Answer #75)

dislike 1 like

The issue will never be solved! - Linda Allen

The issue is already solved! Evolution is perfectly provable and creationism is easily disproved. The argument starts when fundamentalist Christians behave in a very un-Christian way in order to confuse, mislead and mis-educate to protect their religion against the truth. It is a hot topic, but one worth fighting for. The truth is important. And the provable truth is evolutionary theory.

You evolved from earlier forms of primate and you are an animal; an ordinary member of the animal kingdom. That's a fact. If The Bible says otherwise, it is the Bible's problem. It is not science's fault that the Bible is wrong and attacking science is simply going to make Christians look uneducated and medieval.

user profile pic

ask996 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Senior Educator

Posted September 5, 2009 at 10:31 AM (Answer #76)

dislike 1 like

The belief in the biblical story of creation does not negate evolution. Science has proven time and time again that species develop and evolve. Take for example a moth that lives in a region where there is a large amount of polution. This pure white moth will not be able to survive and hide against polluted surroundings, so it evol ves into a dirty gray color in order to blend in. Anthropologists have documented that man has evolved into a species with less hair and one who walks more upright. My understanding of Christian beliefs does not indicate that Christianity negates evolution.

user profile pic

ranchhand | eNotes Newbie

Posted September 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM (Answer #77)

dislike 1 like
Why do many people believe in evolution when Biblical Creation is a proven and supported fact?

If you have any evidence of evolution, or know where in the Bible there is a mistake, I'd like you all to show it to me

I would suggest that before anyone gets into a heated debate about the proposition that "Biblical Creation is a proven fact"t seems to me that there should be some agreement on what the words "proven" and "fact" are to mean during the argument. Without defining those two terms the argument for or against this proposition will have no meaning.  A bit like tilting at windmills in the night. The word "proven", is defined in my basic Webster's Dictionary as "tested by experiment" or, "to be found by experience and trial". The word "fact" is defined as,"a thing that has actually happened and can be proven by experiment". If those two definitions are agreeable then the debate can proceed.  If my definitions of these two basic words are not agreeable, then may I suggest that this is the place where this argument should start.

user profile pic

eduardathome | eNotes Newbie

Posted September 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM (Answer #78)

dislike 1 like
Why do many people believe in evolution when Biblical Creation is a proven and supported fact?

If you have any evidence of evolution, or know where in the Bible there is a mistake, I'd like you all to show it to me

You have to be kidding.  The Bible is full of errors.  For example, the emphasis is on a flat earth ... as believed in those days.  When the devil meets up with Jesus, he takes Jesus up on a high mountain from where one can supposedly see "all the kingdoms of the world".  Which of course is an impossibility.  Big error.

Genesis itself is full of error.  It is a description of a world as thought a few thousand years ago.  In order to make it right, Genesis has to be interpreted completely away from what was intended by the original writers.  Genesis describes a world which is in essence an upside down bowl at the bottom of some deep ocean.  It is as accurate/true as any of other genesis myths in tens of thousands of other religions.

The Bible is just one of the many written religious texts, none of which are reflective of reality. 

eduard at home

user profile pic

eloiknight | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted December 21, 2009 at 9:26 PM (Answer #79)

dislike 1 like

Let me pose another question: What is it within us that makes us argue over a topic that no one can ever prove or disprove?

Because somebody might be convinced by evidence.  I was.  I was a fanatical Creationist Fundamentalist of a stripe that would embarass Kent Hovind.  Then a science teacher pointed out that if I knew adaptation occured, I admitted evolution.  I stopped being afraid of going to Hell if I studied evolution, and started trying to look at the evidence.  It convinced me.  It will convince others.  Stop being afraid.  Darwin set us free from the supernatural bogeyman.  And it was the realization that creationists had lied to me that helped (with many other things in their horror show they call a Bible) turn me away from Christianity altogether. 

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes