Creation vs. Evolution

Originally posted by twhitehead
As a matter of interest.

1. In what way do you want to bash them? Do you want to insult them, physically beat them up, make them look bad? Debate with them?

2. Why do you want to bash them? Do they offend you? Do their beliefs threaten you?

3. You obviously think they are wrong. Why do you think they are wrong? Do you think you are intelligent en ...[text shortened]... the Bible and if so which translation of the Bible and whose interpretation of that translation?

By the way Interesting question. PLUS who wants to be an ape ancestor.

Originally posted by Sargent Carpface
By the way Interesting question. PLUS who wants to be an ape ancestor.

Again, your enthusiam is admirable, but this is a debate you should really take a backseat on for about six years. At least wait until you've taken a proper biology class. All of your statements demonstrate that you are completely unfamiliar with the theory of evolution. So go, learn, and save the macho bravado for a time, if ever, when you're firing real bullets.

Originally posted by Sargent Carpface
Its a figure of speech. This was not a debate, I am saving the questions I am getting so I can Research MOST of them and then get down to the point and present them to... Others. Scientists. Etc.

Well if you are genuinely interested then don't base your research on debate forums but rather find some good scientific resources such as books, and reputable websites. Don't learn the science from creationist leaning websites as they deliberately misrepresent the science in question.
If you have questions during your research then you are welcome to ask here, but it helps if you do some research first because nobody really wants to rewrite a whole text book here.
You do not have to believe in evolution or accept it as fact in order to understand the concepts involved so don't write it off just because you don't believe it.

Many of the concepts are really indisputable as they are easily proven via mathematical proofs or computer simulation. Creationist often make the mistake of disputing the concepts and end up just looking stupid. For example the ever popular creationist claim that nothing can ever get more complex without an intelligent designer is so easy to disprove and so obviously wrong yet creationists still say it over and over.

Originally posted by Sargent Carpface
By the way Interesting question. PLUS who wants to be an ape ancestor.

Well I assume that most apes want to be ape ancestors. Don't you? (You are an ape by definition like it or not.)
I think what you mean to say is who wants to be descended from apes other than humans. Well I for one, don't mind at all. What you should ask now is do your desires create reality? If you want your great great grandfather to be the emperor of china, will that make it true? If you don't want your great great grandfather to be whoever your great grandfather told you he was then can not liking the idea change the facts?

Originally posted by telerion
Again, your enthusiam is admirable, but this is a debate you should really take a backseat on for about six years. At least wait until you've taken a proper biology class. All of your statements demonstrate that you are completely unfamiliar with the theory of evolution. So go, learn, and save the macho bravado for a time, if ever, when you're firing real bullets.

I was debating evolution with my friends at the age of 13 and although I did not have as much knowledge as I do now I did understand the basics fairly well and could stand my ground. Sadly the 13 year olds I was debating with couldn't seem to tell the difference between "the truth" and "what my pastor says". eg "My pastor says that noahs ark has been found therefore evolution is wrong!"

Originally posted by Retrovirus
T"USHBA means Torah She' Be'al'pe', or "Oral Torah", and is a catch all phrase for all the books and teachings that came after the Tanekh (although officially the term only describes the teaching till they decided to write it down at the 2nd century).

Ah! Thank you. I hadn't seen the acronym before.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was debating evolution with my friends at the age of 13 and although I did not have as much knowledge as I do now I did understand the basics fairly well and could stand my ground. Sadly the 13 year olds I was debating with couldn't seem to tell the difference between "the truth" and "what my pastor says". eg "My pastor says that noahs ark has been found therefore evolution is wrong!"

Thanks for all the info and I will.

Originally posted by Sargent Carpface
By the way Interesting question. PLUS who wants to be an ape ancestor.

Amen, brother. Coming from dirt is MUCH cooler. In a way, we're all like the Sandman from Spiderman 3.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Amen, brother. Coming from dirt is MUCH cooler. In a way, we're all like the Sandman from Spiderman 3.

Lol I saw that. on the 3rd day too

Originally posted by whodey
Lets begin this way. What is heritical about evolution in terms of Genesis or any other part of the Bible? Anyone?

Well, if you take Genesis literally, of course evolution won't fit in. Naturally, you cannot take Genesis, especially not the early chapters, literally (that is, if you are a skeptic you can regard that as Jewish mythology and if your a believer you can call them allegory or what not).

With that in mind, it is indeed easy to reconcile faith and evolution ; Indeed, I know many religious* biologists, none of them claims that evolution is a fraud or anything - as a matter of fact, many of them are specialists of evolution studies and related subjects (and also stem cells researchers, but that's besides the point).

So, why the enmity?

I think that the major reason is that, while not heretic, blasphemous, or contradictory to religion, evolution is yet another field of science that takes "power" from the "god hypothesis" - that is, it makes god less necessary for our understanding of the universe:

If at first we needed the "creation myth" in order to explain the existence of animals, plants, ect. we can now "take god out of the equation" - you can still belive in god - but he is no longer necessary - and that particular facet of existence can no longer serve as a justification for the existence of god.

I belive that on some primal level ultra orthodox people are so strongly opposed to evolution (and not, say, the general theory of relativity) is because it help presents us with a working model of the world were god (while still being able to exist) is not an axiom.

So, in short, my answer is - they (the creationists) are simply afraid.



* Jewish orthodox. Your mileage might vary.

"Darwinian man, though well behaved, at best is but a monkey shaved."

Gilbert and Sullivan

Originally posted by Retrovirus
[b]Well, if you take Genesis literally, of course evolution won't fit in. Naturally, you cannot take Genesis, especially not the early chapters, literally (that is, if you are a skeptic you can regard that as Jewish mythology and if your a believer you can call them allegory or what not).

If Genesis is taken literally? How is Genesis 2:4 taken literally by saying that these are the GENERATIONS of creation? What are the generations if we are talking about six literal days? Why does God talk to the waters to bring forth life? Why does God talk to the earth to bring forth life? Why not just zap them into existence from nothing?

There have been many commentators on the book of Genesis from ancient times. Such men include Nahmanides (1194-1270) and Maimonides (1135-1204). These men were experts in regards to the Hebrew langauge as well as passed down information regarding the Torah. Amazingly, these men seemed to indicate that God took an evolutionary pattern during creation. For example, Maimonides in his writing "Guide for the Perplexed" said that during the time of Adam there coexisted animals that appeared to be humanlike. All they lacked in comparison to modern day man was the "image" of God which was attained once God breathed life into Adam and Eve. The term in Hebrew for breathed life is "neshamah" or "a soul of life" which we see in Genesis 2:7. Also, Nahmanides observes that man was created in stages and indicates that man sprang from the ocean and then from terrestrial life before God breathed the "neshamah" into Adam thus making him human. What is really startling is that these men were coming to such conclusions by simply studying the original Torah written in Hebrew and also doing so before the advent of modern day science.

Conversly, we have people today who are not acquanted with the original Hebrew translation of Genesis and who are also largely ignorant of past scholarly interpretation from prior experts who had a much differnet view of how God went about creation. Oddly enough, this interpretation is being done during the advent of modern day science. Thus, you would have thought that the ancients would have been the ones poo-pooing the notion of evolution and the notion of an ancient world and modern day believers embracing the views of modern day science. However, inexplicably the reverse has occured.

Originally posted by Retrovirus
With that in mind, it is indeed easy to reconcile faith and evolution ; Indeed, I know many religious* biologists, none of them claims that evolution is a fraud or anything - as a matter of fact, many of them are specialists of evolution studies and related subjects (and also stem cells researchers, but that's besides the point).

So, why the enmity?

Ignorance and/or pride.

Originally posted by Retrovirus
If at first we needed the "creation myth" in order to explain the existence of animals, plants, ect. we can now "take god out of the equation" - you can still belive in god - but he is no longer necessary - and that particular facet of existence can no longer serve as a justification for the existence of god.

The creation myth? Why not say the abiogenesis myth? You either view life as being created from a source of directed intellegence or without it. Either way you are talking about mysterious forces that we cannot fully comprehend. It simply makes us feel better about ourselves by leaving the "God" term out of the equation because it diludes us into thinking we have a better grasp of such mysterious occurences.

If science is to truly say that we fully understand the life process, ie the formation of a liviing cell, then they must observe it in some fashion or form evolving from nonliving matter, however, they can neither observe it nor duplicate it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, in short, my answer is - they (the creationists) are simply afraid.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you mean that you can present here right now a known scientific fact which proves the falsity of this statement? -

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What fact do you have of which I should be afraid that Genesis 1:1 is an untrue myth?