1 edit
As the request of a friend of mine I am reading a book entiltle 'and God said...' by Dr Farid Abou-Rahme, which claims that if you look properly science supports creationism & disproves evolution. I'm trying to read with an open mind, but so far I am unimpressed. The book does show the flaws in some scientific theories, but in my view is misleading. For example it states the probablitiy (calculated by evolutionists) for a horse evolving, but then quotes the probability for a horse to evolve in one go. The problem is that they didn't mention the basis for this new figure, & unless I was scientifically minded I wouldn't have noticed this switch.
The book also takes the view that if evolution is wrong or flawed then that must mean that creationism is correct. It doesn't concider that there could be any other alternative.
Anyway, although I am sure that this is a touchy & emotive subject for some I am interested in hearing views people have, in particular pro creationism.
Thanks for any interest
Jon
Originally posted by belgianfreakI am a Christian and believe in the story of creation, but i personaly believt that in this the seven days were infact seven periods of thme and that evolution happened in these seven stages which i nthe bible are days.
As the request of a friend of mine I am reading a book entiltle 'and God said...' by Dr Farid Abou-Rahme, which claims that if you look properly science supports creationism & disproves evolution. I'm trying to read with an open mind, but so far I am unimpressed. The book does show the flaws in some scientific theories, but in my view is misleading. ...[text shortened]... d in hearing views people have, in particular pro creationism.
Thanks for any interest
Jon
So i would say i believe in evolution.
David
I am a Christian as well - but considering the seven days it was just a metapher ... When this parts of the bible were written people tried to explain why they exist and they used the 7 days for it (and put a day to relax into it as well). I believe in evolution and think God was the force that started everything and then it developed after his plan - for me this is even more impressive.
the thoughs of both my friend who wanted me to read the book & the book itself is that the Bible must be taken literally - that unless you accept the Bible as the perfect word of God then you're left with nothing but conjecture.
The author says that the Christian community paniced and only then started saying that Genesis was metaphorical, not literal, because they thought that evolution had proved them wrong. The whole point of the book is to show that evolution is flawed and that creationism is in fact supported by science.
Originally posted by belgianfreakEvolution is not perfect - it's still a scientific theory in progress, and is being continually refined. But it's just that - a theory - that has mountains of evidence to support it. There is no evidence at all to support creationism, and it doesn't even qualify as a theory, it offers no testable hypotheses, makes no verifiable predictions, and follows no logical order. To say that creationism and evolution are competing theories is like saying that a spherical earth and a flat earth are competing theories - one has huge amounts of evidence to support it, the other is a claim made by a minority of individuals ignorant of the facts supported only by idle speculation.
the thoughs of both my friend who wanted me to read the book & the book itself is that the Bible must be taken literally - that unless you accept the Bible as the perfect word of God then you're left with nothing but conjecture.
The author says that the Christian community paniced and only then started saying that Genesis was metaphorical, not lite ...[text shortened]... e book is to show that evolution is flawed and that creationism is in fact supported by science.
In addition, even if you believe in christianity, it would still be very difficult to accept every word of the bible as directly true. The versions of the bible that exist today have been translated (by people, who make mistakes) multiple times before they've ended up in the form that's in your nightstand drawer at the Motel 6. Each version is different, so which is the correct one?
If you want a competing book in support of evolution, try reading "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimmer. It's a well balanced look at the history of evolutionary theory, along with much of the evidence that has been amassed over the years to support it.
-mike
Originally posted by legionnaireI was hoping to avoid taking this side of the debate, because I am not very knowledgable about it (I've been a scientist for 15 years & been studying Christrianity for 3 weeks). The shallow answers I can give you, shallow because they are answers I have been given and not my own, so I can't back them up very well:
Evolution is not perfect - it's still a scientific theory in progress, and is being continually refined. But it's just that - a theory - that has mountains of evidence to support it. There is no evidence at all to support creationism, and it doesn't even qualify as a theory, it offers no testable hypotheses, makes no verifiable predictions, and foll ...[text shortened]... ry, along with much of the evidence that has been amassed over the years to support it.
-mike
Evolution doesn't have proof - that's the whole point of the book. Fossil records don't support it (no transitional forms, polystrate fossils etc) which indicate life being created all destroyed (flood) at the same time instead of evolving slowly.
The Bible was written by men and translated by men, but they were doing so under the guidance of God. Aparantly it makes no difference which version you read, they have the same message.
Remember before you hammer me that these aren't my arguments - I have agreed that before I reject an idea that I will study it openmindedly first, which is what I am trying to do. That said, I will try to get a copy of "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimmer, as it will maybe counter some of the claims that I am reading that my own knowledge is to limited to rebuke.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI understand that these are not your own arguments, being a scientist also I find myself in a position defending evolutionary theory all too often, but I commend your willingness to look at the other perspective.
I was hoping to avoid taking this side of the debate, because I am not very knowledgable about it (I've been a scientist for 15 years & been studying Christrianity for 3 weeks). The shallow answers I can give you, shallow because they are answers I have been given and not my own, so I can't back them up very well:
Evolution doesn't have proof - th ...[text shortened]... ybe counter some of the claims that I am reading that my own knowledge is to limited to rebuke.
The book that I mentioned specifically refers to the points brought up by creationists that evolution has no proof. The claim that the fossil record does not support transitional life forms is apparently not true. From dinosaurs with feathers to whales with feet to ever decreasing sizes of horse, the fossil record is literally overflowing with transitional life forms. At a microbiological level basic principles of evolution can be proven simply within a few hours - take a plate growing with bacteria and treat it with an antibiotic - only those rare bacteria with mutations that make them resistant to the antibiotic will survive, but eventually they will be all that's left and then take over the dish. At a molecular level, directed evolution in vitro has demonstrated how a simple RNA molecule can be mutated to efficiently perform hundreds of different enzymatic functions, as a model for the early molecular evolution of life, thought to be primarily composed of RNA.
Even larger life forms have been demonstrated to show evolution in surprisingly short periods of time - lake Victoria has over 500 species of cichlid fish, all of which are separate from one another - however, sedimentary evidence from core samples demonstrates how the lake was dry only some 15000 years ago and that all cichlids come from a single progenitor - a nice example of quick adaptive radiation to fill newly available ecological niches. Even Darwin's finchs in the Galapagos islands have been shown to have signficant shifts in population size towards larger or smaller beak sizes following periods of drought or increased predation - evolution as work, as those unable to crack seeds with smaller beaks die off quickly while those that are able to flourish.
Just a few examples, as I'm sure you're already aware of, that evolutionary theory is here to stay.
-mike
At a microbiological level basic principles of evolution can be proven simply within a few hours - take a plate growing with bacteria and treat it with an antibiotic - only those rare bacteria with mutations that make them resistant to the antibiotic will survive, but eventually they will be all that's left and then take over the dish.although I agree with much of what you say I must point out one common error. You have used the word evolution in your bacteria example, when what's in fact happening is natural selection. No one rejects natural selection, where the organism which is fittest for that enviroment survives and propogates best. Natural selection is a vital part of the evolution theory, in that good mutations are encoraged and harmful ones die off, but natural selection alone does nothing to prove evolution.You used the word "mutation" to say why the bacteria survived, but whether it is different through mutation or not is speculation. I think.
Originally posted by adayatthezoosort of and not really. Vestigial (sp?) organs such as the apendix have been stated as proof that we have evolved from something else because there is no need for them the way we live today, but there would/could have been at an earlier stage of evolution. I hadn't heard that some people were born without them, but that probably doesn't constitute evolution proof because we don't know if there has always been some people born with and some people born without an appendex. Same for wisdom teeth - I though it was accepted that some people got none, some 1-4 or more.
is the fact that many children are now born without an appendix and/or wisdom teeth not an proof of ongoing human evolution?