creationism and human races (adam and eve question)

Zombrex

Rockshamrover wrote: »

But how did the first 5 generations survive?

The thing to remember is that they may not.

A mutated strain of May fly survive better in sulphur and slowly replace the old strain of May fly allowing the new branch of species to live close to an active volcano. Then the volcano erupts and kills all of them.

Though luck nature says

Rockshamrover

Very good answer Sam, thanks.

So is their intelligence behind the mutations? In other words are the mutations a response to a given environment? Or do mutations just happen anyway and then these mutations by chance, may give a creature an advantage it didn't have before?

Thanks again.

Sam Vimes

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Very good answer Sam, thanks.

Thank you

Rockshamrover wrote: »

So is their intelligence behind the mutations? In other words are the mutations a response to a given environment? Or do mutations just happen anyway and then these mutations by chance, may give a creature an advantage it didn't have before?

Thanks again.

There is no intelligence and there is no intelligence required. Mutations happen during the formation of a zygote and they're completely random. Mostly it results in miscarriages or deformities. It works because millions upon millions of mutations happen in millions upon millions of zygotes and some of them turn out to be beneficial. Then when a beneficial mutation happens it gets "locked in" to the species by that animal surviving longer and having more sex. Then they hang on and wait until the next beneficial mutation. Fast forward a few billion years and you've got humans

In another few billion years who knows what we'll have

Rockshamrover

Wicknight wrote: »

The thing to remember is that they may not.

A mutated strain of May fly survive better in sulphur and slowly replace the old strain of May fly allowing the new branch of species to live close to an active volcano. Then the volcano erupts and kills all of them.

Though luck nature says

That's an interesting point.

There are some plants that depend on forest fires for their seeds to germinate. The seeds lay dormant on the ground and will only germinate if the outer shell is burned away.

How incredible is that?

Thanks

Rockshamrover

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Thank you


There is no intelligence and there is no intelligence required. Mutations happen during the formation of a zygote and they're completely random. Mostly it results in miscarriages or deformities. It works because millions upon millions of mutations happen in millions upon millions of zygotes and some of them turn out to be beneficial. Then when a beneficial mutation happens it gets "locked in" to the species by that animal surviving longer and having more sex. Then they hang on and wait until the next beneficial mutation. Fast forward a few billion years and you've got humans

In another few billion years who knows what we'll have

The randomness of it all is amazing but then again there are creatures that have pretty much not altered for millions of years and are still thriving. Woodlice for one. There are fossils of these that look exactly the same as the ones wandering around today.

Maybe there is a mechanism that stops the mutations once a creature has evolved to the point where it is completely suited to it's environment?

Yes it would be interesting to see how things will turn out in a few billion years. I wonder what number they will have got to on the "Lets count to a million" thread:D

Thanks

Sam Vimes

Rockshamrover wrote: »

The randomness of it all is amazing but then again there are creatures that have pretty much not altered for millions of years and are still thriving. Woodlice for one. There are fossils of these that look exactly the same as the ones wandering around today.

Maybe there is a mechanism that stops the mutations once a creature has evolved to the point where it is completely suited to it's environment?

Yes it would be interesting to see how things will turn out in a few billion years. I wonder what number they will have got to on the "Lets count to a million" thread:D

Thanks

Crocodiles haven't changed at all either. They're basically dinosaurs.

The mechanism that stops changes is the same one that causes it. Once an animal has reached the optimal suitability for its environment any deviations from that will be a drawback. So crocodiles have mutated but any of the mutated ones didn't survive as well as the normal ones and died out

Rockshamrover

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Crocodiles haven't changed at all either. They're basically dinosaurs.

The mechanism that stops changes is the same one that causes it. Once an animal has reached the optimal suitability for its environment any deviations from that will be a drawback. So crocodiles have mutated but any of the mutated ones didn't survive as well as the normal ones and died out

Interesting. I wonder how close us humans are to the mutation switch being turned off?

Sam Vimes

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Interesting. I wonder how close us humans are to the mutation switch being turned off?

Sorry I think you misunderstood me. The mutation switch never turns off, it's just that once you reach optimal suitability, any mutations are a drawback and so don't get to spread themselves across the population but they still happen. You can see it with people who have 6 fingers or webbed toes for example. If we happened to be water dwelling animals webbed toes would be a great mutation or if the 6th finger happened to work as an opposable thumb that the species previously didn't have we'd suddenly be able to pick things up but because we don't live near water and because we already have an opposable thumb they're not that beneficial and so don't spread

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

The Flat Earth Society example exposes the ridiculousness of rolling out a tiny handful of scientists as some how proof that there is a serious debate going on over the validity of Evolution.

I've asked this before but don't recall getting an answer: care to name the scientists who hold to a Flat Earth? I can name thousands who hold to Creationism.

There is as valid a scientific discussion going on over evolution as there is over the flatness of the Earth.

As I said, let's see your figures.

You will always find, some where in the world, people, even educated people, who believe for some reason or another, utter nonsense.

True. Abiogenesis, Evolution contra Entropy, ...

There are scientists who believe we never landed on the moon. There are scientists who believe the world if flat. There are scientists who believe The Lochness monster is real. There are scientists who believe the US government is run by aliens.

Names would be helpful, and their reasons for so believing.

The only scientists you have ever presented are ones who have abandoned scientific impartiality for their faith, because they believe they have to pick one and they pick their faith. They then stumble around in the dark trying to find some way to justify this with any sort of quakery.

They present scientific argument for their case, an alternative interpretation of the evidence.

Which is fair enough, they have enough right to do this as anyone. But the idea that they therefore represent a serious debate about the validity of evolution is ridiculous.

If you pick your religion over the science and then go back and try and shoe horn the science into fitting your religion, as DeWitt has clearly done, you are not representing science. You are representing religion, and very badly representing science. You have abandoned your scientific training and impartiality.

Only if one's religious insight is wrong. If it is right, one has short-circuited the trial and error approach to finding the truth about origins. They will then be able to continue their scientific studies with the advantage of having the first premises right.

You however make a virtue of maintaining ignorance of truth gained by any other method than scientific guesswork and its trials to see if each of the bits fit.

That is valid if one rules out the possibility of knowledge from outside man's reasoning. But that presupposes a lot.

Just because you have "Dr." in front of your name doesn't means you won't do this. Scientists are human and have all the same weaknesses as the rest of us. But when they stop holding themselves to scientific standards they can't be surprised when science rejects them.

Only if by scientific standards you mean the presupposition that reason is the only source of knowledge.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only if by scientific standards you mean the presupposition that reason is the only source of knowledge.

It is

wolfsbane wrote: »

They present scientific argument for their case, an alternative interpretation of the evidence.

the problem is that the evidence they present is along the lines of:

1. This evidence contradicts the bible
2. Therefore this evidence is being interpreted wrongly
3. I will find another interpretation that doesn't contradict the bible

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only if one's religious insight is wrong. If it is right, one has short-circuited the trial and error approach to finding the truth about origins. They will then be able to continue their scientific studies with the advantage of having the first premises right.

You however make a virtue of maintaining ignorance of truth gained by any other method than scientific guesswork and its trials to see if each of the bits fit.

Now this is crucially important Wolfsbane. The approach of the above scientists is perfectly valid only if one's religious insight is right. The existence of the christian God has not yet been proven so to begin with the assumption that the bible is correct is irrational. A true scientist does not take anything as objective truth, everything we know, no matter how dearly we hold it, will be dropped and must be dropped if the evidence says that it is wrong. It's how human knowledge advances.

I can completely understand how these people can come to such odd conclusions. They take the starting point as the bible and work around it, reinterpreting everything so that it matches it. That's fine if their assumption of biblical truth is correct. The problem is that they are taking a 2000 year old story, the least reliable form of evidence as fact and ignoring actual facts that have been verified time and time again. If they were true scientists they would first work on trying to prove that the bible is true instead of assuming that it is true and trying to make the results of their experiments fit that assumption.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, it was not the science that overthrew the interpretation on its own. But his belief in the Bible led him to look again at the evidence, and he was then able to see another interpretation was possible.
Er, no.

Clearly, the theory of molecules-to-man evolution is incompatible with the clear teaching of the Word of God. Therefore, theistic evolution (and its stable-mate, ‘progressive creation’) is incompatible with the Christian faith.

He posts a number of articles on this where all he mentions is that the theory of evolution is incompatible with Christian faith therefore it is wrong

He made up his mind based on his religious beliefs long before he looked at "other interpretations". Once he decided it had to be wrong he found others agreeing with him and was prepared to take on board any crazy idea that held to that confirmed his religious beliefs.

Yes, I said he first had his religious views. But that does not mean he can invent a scientific case to support them - that would be lying, something his religious beliefs condemn. And its not as if he was a scientific ignoramus like me - he has the ability to know what is basically scientifically valid and what is not.

The way you were presenting it made it look like you were putting him forward as a scientist who was convinced by the evidence of Creationism, where that isn't the case at all. He was a scientist who let his religious beliefs, and the need to hold on to them, bias his view of the science he had studied.

Please point to the post where I indicated that. In fact, I linked to his own words, which you use to show that his religious belief came first. In response to the claim that all creationist scientists started out that way, I said he formerly held to evolution but then became a creationist. I did not say they were atheists before they became creationists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Had he not found a scientific theory that supported his religion, he would have had to say so and wait for one to turn up.
It is pretty easy to support anything once you have made your mind up that it has to be true. A true scientist is prepared to abandon his own personal beliefs if they don't match up. He was not prepared to do that, instead of him being wrong about his faith he rationalised that everyone else is wrong about their science.

That means the true scientist, in your opinion, can never have a hold a personal belief contrary to the latest scientific 'truth'. But tomorrow, when that scientific truth is overturned, he has to replace his latest personal belief.

Maybe the true scientist should hold each scientific 'truth' provisionally, expecting it might need to be modified or abandoned, and continue to hold his personal belief, especially one that he has the inner assurance is from God, until it is beyond all doubt refuted.

Your true scientists seem such a flighty, gullible lot.

The obvious reason to do this is because he wanted the trappings of Christian faith, something science doesn't offer him. Science doesn't tell him he is loved by God, science doesn't tell him he is going to live for ever, science doesn't tell him what is right and wrong.

True. A Truth that reveals the meaning of life is much more significant than one which tells us how water freezes.

Some people simply can't handle that and retreat into the comfort zone of religious faith and compartmentalise any threats to this comfort. It is sort of sad in a way, he clearly had great scientific ability.

Some people can't handle the thought that there is an afterlife in which they must give account for all they have ever done or left undone. They retreat into the comfort zone of atheism/agnosticism and compartmentalise any threats to this comfort. It is sort of sad in a way, as many of them clearly have great scientific ability.

Unspeakably sadder is the fact they are damning their souls to eternal punishment, if they continue in their unbelief.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some people can't handle the thought that there is an afterlife in which they must give account for all they have ever done or left undone. They retreat into the comfort zone of atheism/agnosticism and compartmentalise any threats to this comfort. It is sort of sad in a way, as many of them clearly have great scientific ability.

LOL

The thought of rotting in the ground for eternity is more comforting than eternal paradise with all my loved ones. Hi-larious

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

That means the true scientist, in your opinion, can never have a hold a personal belief contrary to the latest scientific 'truth'. But tomorrow, when that scientific truth is overturned, he has to replace his latest personal belief.

Maybe the true scientist should hold each scientific 'truth' provisionally,

Yes that's exactly what scientists should do

wolfsbane wrote: »

expecting it might need to be modified or abandoned, and continue to hold his personal belief, especially one that he has the inner assurance is from God, until it is beyond all doubt refuted.

No that's not what scientists should do. "You can't disprove it" is not a reason to believe something because you can't disprove the tooth fairy

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your true scientists seem such a flighty, gullible lot.

Not believing something that cannot be shown to be true is....gullible

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Only if by scientific standards you mean the presupposition that reason is the only source of knowledge.
It is

Seems a mighty claim - how do you know God has not revealed truth to others, even if He did not do to yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They present scientific argument for their case, an alternative interpretation of the evidence.
the problem is that the evidence they present is along the lines of:
This evidence contradicts the bible
Therefore this evidence is being interpreted wrongly
I will find another interpretation that doesn't contradict the bible

Not so - as I've shown you, they examine the same evidence as everyone else, but present alternative explanations for it.

You want us to believe your interpretation is the evidence. It isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Only if one's religious insight is wrong. If it is right, one has short-circuited the trial and error approach to finding the truth about origins. They will then be able to continue their scientific studies with the advantage of having the first premises right.

You however make a virtue of maintaining ignorance of truth gained by any other method than scientific guesswork and its trials to see if each of the bits fit.
Now this is crucially important Wolfsbane. The approach of the above scientists is perfectly valid only if one's religious insight is right.

I'm delighted we agree on that. I suspect many evolutionists would deny even the theoretical possibility.

The existence of the christian God has not yet been proven so to begin with the assumption that the bible is correct is irrational.

It has to the Christian, so it is not irrational of him to hold to the Bible as correct.

A true scientist does not take anything as objective truth,

You presuppose the non-existence of spiritual revelation.

everything we know, no matter how dearly we hold it, will be dropped and must be dropped if the evidence says that it is wrong. It's how human knowledge advances.

It would be foolish to drop what one knows is absolutely true - truth from a spiritual Source - for the latest interpretation of evidence, an interpretation that may well be falsified tomorrow.

I can completely understand how these people can come to such odd conclusions. They take the starting point as the bible and work around it, reinterpreting everything so that it matches it. That's fine if their assumption of biblical truth is correct.

Excellent.

The problem is that they are taking a 2000 year old story, the least reliable form of evidence as fact

You misunderstand the nature of Christian belief. It is not merely the supposition that the Bible is true, on probabilities or whatever. It is based on God's revelation in their heart/mind that the Bible is His word and therefore completely true.

and ignoring actual facts that have been verified time and time again.

We say there are no such facts - only interpretations of facts. We offer alternative interpretations of the facts.

If they were true scientists they would first work on trying to prove that the bible is true instead of assuming that it is true and trying to make the results of their experiments fit that assumption.

As above, they already know it is true, so their time is better spent finding out how the evidence fits the facts of the Bible. Of course, if they don't see how something fits, they must say so, and not falsify a case. They then await further light, derived scientifically.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

LOL

The thought of rotting in the ground for eternity is more comforting than eternal paradise with all my loved ones. Hi-larious

No, its the thought of rotting in hell for all eternity, under conscious punishment, away from all you hold dear - that is what makes man console himself with the thought that death ends it all.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've asked this before but don't recall getting an answer: care to name the scientists who hold to a Flat Earth? I can name thousands who hold to Creationism.

Really? Please do.
By the way, I can name 1099 scientists who dont, although thats because they are all named Steve.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only if one's religious insight is wrong. If it is right, one has short-circuited the trial and error approach to finding the truth about origins. They will then be able to continue their scientific studies with the advantage of having the first premises right.

You however make a virtue of maintaining ignorance of truth gained by any other method than scientific guesswork and its trials to see if each of the bits fit.

How do you tell your religious insight is right without testing to see if it fits?

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is valid if one rules out the possibility of knowledge from outside man's reasoning. But that presupposes a lot.

If man cannot reason something, then how can he claim to understand it?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only if by scientific standards you mean the presupposition that reason is the only source of knowledge.

Reason is the only way to label something as actually being knowledge. Sure you can guess something, or make something up , and it happen to be true, but the only way you will know it is true, and (more importantly) the only way to understand why it is true is with reason.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

It has to the Christian, so it is not irrational of him to hold to the Bible as correct.

This is the only part of your response that interests me. Why?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, its the thought of rotting in hell for all eternity, under conscious punishment, away from all you hold dear - that is what makes man console himself with the thought that death ends it all.

Na I'm Jewish, we don't believe in hell.

I don't believe in hell mate, never did. The thought of having to spend eternity with the tyrant in the old testament would worry me if I thought in any way that he existed

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
expecting it might need to be modified or abandoned, and continue to hold his personal belief, especially one that he has the inner assurance is from God, until it is beyond all doubt refuted.
No that's not what scientists should do. "You can't disprove it" is not a reason to believe something because you can't disprove the tooth fairy

I didn't say, Can't disprove it. I said Christians already had it proved to them.

Other beliefs must be weighed by their holders as to the likelihood of being right. But chucking them out on the basis of the latest scientific 'truth' seems reckless to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Your true scientists seem such a flighty, gullible lot.
Not believing something that cannot be shown to be true is....gullible

Jumping from one 'truth' to the replacement 'truth' repeatedly is. And if you are wise enough to know that 'truth' is subject to change in science, then you should not be so dismissive of those who hold to a different 'truth'.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Other beliefs must be weighed by their holders as to the likelihood of being right. But chucking them out on the basis of the latest scientific 'truth' seems reckless to me.

Jumping from one 'truth' to the replacement 'truth' repeatedly is. And if you are wise enough to know that 'truth' is subject to change in science, then you should not be so dismissive of those who hold to a different 'truth'.

There is no such thing as scientific "truth". There is only the latest theory. Scientists don't "know" anything. They are not jumping from one truth to the other, they are updating theories with new information or dropping them if they turn out to be wrong

Scientists considered the possibility that the bible was completely accurate, investigated it, found out that it wasn't and provisionally dropped it, with the caveat that they could be wrong

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, its the thought of rotting in hell for all eternity, under conscious punishment, away from all you hold dear - that is what makes man console himself with the thought that death ends it all.
Na I'm Jewish,

Always good to meet an Israelite. We owe so much to the nation spiritually.

we don't believe in hell.

Sad to see you have rejected the testimony of your prophets:
Daniel 12: 1 “At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 Those who are wise shall shine
Like the brightness of the firmament,
And those who turn many to righteousness
Like the stars forever and ever.

I don't believe in hell mate, never did. The thought of having to spend eternity with the tyrant in the old testament would worry me if I thought in any way that he existed

You describe the God of Abraham as a tyrant. It was for such unbelief and disobedience your nation was cast out of the Land for 1900 years. Such sorrows have followed them - yet they survive as a nation. Does that not make you think there is more at work than man's folly? That God has preserved the nation, under judgement?

The New Testament gives insight into Israel's history and future:
Romans 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

Sam Vimes

That was a joke. I'm not actually Jewish

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But that does not mean he can invent a scientific case to support them - that would be lying, something his religious beliefs condemn.

Actually that is exactly what means.

Creationism is invented pseudo-science, an attempt to reconcile religious belief with what the evidence is showing.

Whether DeWitt knows he is inventing this or not is irrelevant. I can't speak to the motivations of all Creationists. Some I'm sure are lying. Others are simply compartmentalising, as humans are so good, because they cannot face reality.

None of them are doing science.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is no such thing as scientific "truth". There is only the latest theory. Scientists don't "know" anything. They are not jumping from one truth to the other, they are updating theories with new information or dropping them if they turn out to be wrong

Scientists considered the possibility that the bible was completely accurate, investigated it, found out that it wasn't and provisionally dropped it, with the caveat that they could be wrong

Well now, that is hopeful.

Their rejection of the Biblical account is only provisional, based on their understanding of the evidence to date. Tomorrow they may revise their interpretations when further evidence emerges or they go over their theories again and find them deficient. Creationists might be right after all.

It's a shame so many of these non-creationist scientists don't present themselves in so careful and considered terms in debating creationists.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well now, that is hopeful.

Their rejection of the Biblical account is only provisional, based on their understanding of the evidence to date. Tomorrow they may revise their interpretations when further evidence emerges or they go over their theories again and find them deficient. Creationists might be right after all.

It's a shame so many of these non-creationist scientists don't present themselves in so careful and considered terms in debating creationists.

I acknowledge that creationists might be right only to the extent that I acknowledge the flat earthers might be right, ie I am as sure as it is possible for a human being to be that they are wrong. But human beings are fallible and so to completely rule out the possibility that they are right would be irrational, just as it is irrational of creationists to rule out the possibility of the bible being wrong

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That was a joke. I'm not actually Jewish

Oy vey! You shmuck!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've asked this before but don't recall getting an answer: care to name the scientists who hold to a Flat Earth? I can name thousands who hold to Creationism.

Please list the thousands of biologists who hold to Intelligent Design and instant creation :rolleyes:

Would you like me to list the millions who hold to evolutionary theory ... do I win :P

You are really missing this point. How is your handful of Creationists any different to my handful of Flat Earthers http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7540427.stm

You say you have scientists but when you look at the tiny handful of scienitsts you have none of them are basing their beliefs on science, it is all on religion.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Oy vey! You shmuck!

Post reported :P

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is the only part of your response that interests me. Why?

Why what?

If you are asking why it is irrational for the Christian to think the Bible is incorrect, I thought my post made that clear - God has revealed its infallibility to us directly in our spirits.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why what?

If you are asking why it is irrational for the Christian to think the Bible is incorrect, I thought my post made that clear - God has revealed its infallibility to us directly in our spirits.

You said "It has to the Christian". Why does it have to be Christian? If I went to Saudi Arabia I'd find millions of people who would say "It has to the Muslim"


Am I to assume the answer is "God has revealed its infallibility to us directly in our spirits". He hasn't revealed it in my spirit or in the spirits of 66% of the world's population.

And if I was to tell you that I could completely explain using only naturalistic science why you could feel something so strongly despite it not being true would you believe me?