Did Evolution Really Happen?

[Red Sky at Morning]

I don't think the Bible has a counter to Geology. Every time the waves crash against rocks, every time it rains, and snows. Erosion is taking place. And these are things that can be measured, and it takes a lot of time. Maybe it's like 1 centimeter of coastline gets worn down every year.

If the Bible were exactly true. Mountains would melt away every rainstorm. The coastline would crumble after every wave. Because according to the Bible the Earth can change forms within years, instead of millions of years.

Ok - try this on and see where the rabbit hole takes you Aero...

http://creation.mobi/can-flood-geology-explain-thick-chalk-beds

 

[Aero]

Ok - try this on and see where the rabbit hole takes you Aero...

http://creation.mobi/can-flood-geology-explain-thick-chalk-beds

It was interesting to read, but I don't see how it gets us much further in this discussion. I mean the study of chalk as it relates to the great flood isn't really going to settle this. Plus that essay doesn't take from Bible scriptures. And while that may be asking too much of the bible, I am being propositioned to take it literally.

They don't use erosion to really gauge the age of the Earth, at least not like the example I gave. They use "RADIOMETRIC DATING." Heavy elements decay and lose atoms over time. The half life of lead is like a billion years.

"1. The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia."

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

It was interesting to read, but I don't see how it gets us much further in this discussion. I mean the study of chalk as it relates to the great flood isn't really going to settle this. Plus that essay doesn't take from Bible scriptures. And while that may be asking too much of the bible, I am being propositioned to take it literally.

They don't use erosion to really gauge the age of the Earth, at least not like the example I gave. They use "RADIOMETRIC DATING." Heavy elements decay and lose atoms over time. The half life of lead is like a billion years.

"1. The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia."

That's fine Aero - I was just trying to whet your appetite!!! As I say, there are so many questions, and good ones at that... I have just bought a book called "The New Creationism" that seems pretty good as a general overview but why not look at how the speed of light affects radiometric decay... Pm me if you want any info as I have stayed interested in this whole debate for 30 years (now I feel old!!!)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

It was interesting to read, but I don't see how it gets us much further in this discussion. I mean the study of chalk as it relates to the great flood isn't really going to settle this. Plus that essay doesn't take from Bible scriptures. And while that may be asking too much of the bible, I am being propositioned to take it literally.

They don't use erosion to really gauge the age of the Earth, at least not like the example I gave. They use "RADIOMETRIC DATING." Heavy elements decay and lose atoms over time. The half life of lead is like a billion years.

"1. The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia."

Ok - this isn't the only resource or necessarily the best one, but it's the best I can find for you whilst mowing the back lawn and using my mobile ;-)

http://creation.mobi/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

 

[Aero]

Ok - this isn't the only resource or necessarily the best one, but it's the best I can find for you whilst mowing the back lawn and using my mobile ;-)

http://creation.mobi/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

It's fascinating to me how science doesn't get countered with religion in this type of debate. But it gets countered with more science. When they start using science to try to prove the bible, things get weird. Not because I don't think it's possible, but because it flies directly in the face of the bible. I mean Moses supposedly had divine experiences, so why couldn't he explain radioactive decay? Why is there no concept of Gravity, or Plasma and electrons. Because we know these things exist, at least as ideas. And nobody claims Einstein enjoyed divine intervention, but maybe he did.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

It's fascinating to me how science doesn't get countered with religion in this type of debate. But it gets countered with more science. When they start using science to try to prove the bible, things get weird. Not because I don't think it's possible, but because it flies directly in the face of the bible. I mean Moses supposedly had divine experiences, so why couldn't he explain radioactive decay? Why is there no concept of Gravity, or Plasma and electrons. Because we know these things exist, at least as ideas. And nobody claims Einstein enjoyed divine intervention, but maybe he did.

Interesting points... Stepping back to the big picture, I don't things that are true will be in contradiction to one another. The same God who could create the universe is also capable on specific 'miracles' that negate the standard processes.

I don't believe argument and reason alone can reach or 'prove' God but I do think we can find evidence that makes his existence the more plausible explanation...

 

[Aero]

Interesting points... Stepping back to the big picture, I don't things that are true will be in contradiction to one another. The same God who could create the universe is also capable on specific 'miracles' that negate the standard processes.

I don't believe argument and reason alone can reach or 'prove' God but I do think we can find evidence that makes his existence the more plausible explanation...

I agree but at some point reason takes over for me. The Bible is simply too vague, too general. I feel like it forces me to imagine an awful lot for a book with a lot of text. I mean you can't just debate the Bible, you are debating someones interpretation of the bible. And there's hundreds if not thousands of different ways to interpret it.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I agree but at some point reason takes over for me. The Bible is simply too vague, too general. I feel like it forces me to imagine an awful lot for a book with a lot of text. I mean you can't just debate the Bible, you are debating someones interpretation of the bible. And there's hundreds if not thousands of different ways to interpret it.

I can agree with you on people's interpretation of the Bible... In the end, I found the best way to interpret it was to read it (actually for me, listen to it - I got it as an app from http://www.thewordofpromise.com

Just 'cause I'm a bit lazy and need reading glasses now!!!!

 

[Paranoia Daily]

I studied Biology and Biochemistry to degree level and specialised in Evolution - one of the many intellectually dishonest parts of the way the theory is presented is to present micro evolution as de-facto evidence for macro evolution.

This is like proving you can jump a stream, so therefore, you can jump the Grand Canyon. Certainly some jumps are possible, but in my studies, not one professor was able to provide anything like a scientific answer to the question of 'irreducable complexity', i.e. a system that required a complete and finished state to work, towards which intermediates were of no use. There are a lot of 'grand canyons' in nature. This took a Magnum and blew the brains out if the theory for me.

I got a double first at the module and having satisfied myself I had understood their arguments as well as I could, I told course leader that I rejected the theory and was a biblical Creationist (and still am 20 years later).

The Bible creation story has so many holes it will not hold water....The myth was likely taken from the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish...But then again you have to consider the source of the book of Genesis that by the way holds two different creation stories. Moses supposedly wrote the first 5 books of the Bible or so it is claimed anyway.... And your dealing with a culture that thought at the time that the earth was the center of the universe instead of the other way around. And if you really examine the first Creation in Genesis One you will find the holes.

As far as Evolution goes, we all started some where and we all may very well have a common ancestor or ancestors but I don't believe we are descendants of Adam and Eve in the Bible.

 

[Paranoia Daily]

I agree but at some point reason takes over for me. The Bible is simply too vague, too general. I feel like it forces me to imagine an awful lot for a book with a lot of text. I mean you can't just debate the Bible, you are debating someones interpretation of the bible. And there's hundreds if not thousands of different ways to interpret it.

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason- Ben Franklin

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

The Bible creation story has so many holes it will not hold water....The myth was likely taken from the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish...But then again you have to consider the source of the book of Genesis that by the way holds two different creation stories. Moses supposedly wrote the first 5 books of the Bible or so it is claimed anyway.... And your dealing with a culture that thought at the time that the earth was the center of the universe instead of the other way around. And if you really examine the first Creation in Genesis One you will find the holes.

As far as Evolution goes, we all started some where and we all may very well have a common ancestor or ancestors but I don't believe we are descendants of Adam and Eve in the Bible.

You are welcome to your view... Just note that similar myths are nothing to the purpose as a proof or a means of discrediting a view. One could be legend or deception, the other the real source... One may have been penned earlier, one may have a longer oral history etc etc...

Ref geocentricity as opposed to the Copernican Principle, I recommend you check out a rather interesting movie called 'The Principle"...

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com

Of course, unbelief may be the more attractive philosophy to you, I which case investigation of alternative perspectives may not appeal to you.

"To acquire truth unsullied by desire is a fallacy" ***

***Source lost to me under 20 years of other reading !!!!

 

[Paranoia Daily]

Had I been trying to discredit anything I would have shredded the bible creation myth in my last post because thats all it is a myth.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Had I been trying to discredit anything I would have shredded the bible creation myth in my last post because thats all it is a myth.

Or as Simon and Garfunkel put it...

"All lies and jest till a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest"...

 

[Paranoia Daily]

Or as Simon and Garfunkel put it...

"All lies and jest till a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest"...

You can dispense with the Jedi mind tricks. Everyone does not buy into hokey religions and some folks cannot accept that but thats not my problem is it.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

You can dispense with the Jedi mind tricks. Everyone does not buy into hokey religions and some folks cannot accept that but thats not my problem is it.

The force is strong in this one!!!

Seriously, you are welcome to look into the scientific evidence either way on origins and take your own view (or just dismiss the possibility of alternate theistic explanations if you prefer)...

For me I have grave intellectual doubts over the evolutionary process that only got worse when I studied it in depth.

 

[Paranoia Daily]

I am sure everyone has some grave intellectual doubts about how we got here because the jury is still out on it.....For me evolution is the more common sense approach to the idea. Is it the right one? Hell, who knows!

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I am sure everyone has some grave intellectual doubts about how we got here because the jury is still out on it.....For me evolution is the more common sense approach to the idea. Is it the right one? Hell, who knows!

Well, how about being an 'origins agnostic' for a bit and exploring both sets of arguments. You won't be worse off for knowing what the 'other side' say...

I loved a quote from Pilgrims Regress on the value of doubt on a question...

"...‘There are two things to be said about that,’ [referring to John's search for 'the Island' symbolic of his hearts desire] replied the lady, ‘and the first is this. Who told you that the Island was an imagination of yours?’

‘Well, you would not assure me that it was anything real.’

‘Nor that it was not.’

‘But I must think it is one or the other.’

‘By my father’s soul, you must not—until you have some evidence. Can you not remain in doubt?’

‘I don’t know that I have ever tried.’

‘You must learn to, if you are to come far with me. It is not hard to do it. In Eschropolis, indeed, it is impossible, for the people who live there have to give an opinion once a week or once a day, or else Mr. Mammon would soon cut off their food. But out here in the country you can walk all day and all the next day with an unanswered question in your head: you need never speak until you have made up your mind.’

‘But if a man wanted to know so badly that he would die unless the question was decided—and no more evidence turned up.’

‘Then he would die, that would be all.’

 

[Mr.Grieves]

How does evolutionary theory explain the presence of an algorithm that determines different boundaries for a snowflake than for an individual water molecule? Where did math come from?

Math came from us; it's the 'language' we use to accurately interpret the nature of our reality, from 2+2 = 4 to δqrev/T = ΔS, and well beyond. Because we understand and interpret our reality through these 'languages' of course our reality can have the surface appearance of being 'written', but that doesn't make it so.

What you're really asking, and correct me if I'm wrong, is where does the nature of our reality come from; how did the parameters themselves come into being, or more fundamentally, how did 'something' come from 'nothing'. The incredulity surrounding the 'big bang' centers around this premise; how could it possibly be- outside of Scripture of course- that all the universe and the forces that rule it just spring into being out of nothing?

The thing is, and this is a weird concept to wrap one's head around perhaps, 'nothing' is just an abstraction, and there's no evidence that it exists in nature. Open an empty box, and you can fairly say 'there's nothing in this box.' And that's the abstraction at work. In reality, of course there's lots in that box. There's a space, there's a volume of air within that space, there are particles within that air, tons of stuff. Leave the atmosphere, launch yourself up into space, and open the box there, you can still fairly say 'there's nothing in this box.', but again, that's just the abstraction of the word, for there's space in that box still, and space in which that box can exist, and space itself IS something. It's theorized with some mathematical accuracy that beyond all space in the 'quantum void' of the universe, there would still be quantum particles blinking in and out of existence constantly, even in the absence of space, even in the absence of time. That's another concept which boggles the mind; that things can exist or 'occur' independent even of time, but time is just another malleable force of nature, inexorably tied to and influenced by space and forces like gravity, and even in the absence of all these things, it's not 'nothing' that remains.

I think there needs to be a distinction made between things that have the appearance of design, but are actually a property of natural laws already set in motion (e.g. your snowflake) and things that represent something more equating to computer coding (though Dawkins would dispute this violently).

Does that make sense?

https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/133691221/ this is a cool little 3D program that randomly generates a snow-flake. The mathematical principles that generate the snowflake in the program are generally the same as those that produce the snowflake in nature. So ask yourself: is the snowflake that forms in real life produced by the 'computer program' of reality?

DNA does indeed carry the biological information which distinguishes one organism from another, and we map and model that information as a language, a 'code', much as we do with all things in nature we endeavor to understand scientifically. DNA thus begins to seem very much much like a 'computer program', and thus can easily be presumed to have been 'written' into existence. That's projecting our method of interpreting and understanding DNA onto its nature though, and is no different than claiming any other complex natural process which requires a language to interpret/represent must be 'written' into the world. DNA is 'like a computer program' in the same way that a brain of any creature is 'like a computer', but these are just analogies, and clearly no brain is built or designed.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Math came from us; it's the 'language' we use to accurately interpret the nature of our reality, from 2+2 = 4 to δqrev/T = ΔS, and well beyond. Because we understand and interpret our reality through these 'languages' of course our reality can have the surface appearance of being 'written', but that doesn't make it so.

What you're really asking, and correct me if I'm wrong, is where does the nature of our reality come from; how did the parameters themselves come into being, or more fundamentally, how did 'something' come from 'nothing'. The incredulity surrounding the 'big bang' centers around this premise; how could it possibly be- outside of Scripture of course- that all the universe and the forces that rule it just spring into being out of nothing?

The thing is, and this is a weird concept to wrap one's head around perhaps, 'nothing' is just an abstraction, and there's no evidence that it exists in nature. Open an empty box, and you can fairly say 'there's nothing in this box.' And that's the abstraction at work. In reality, of course there's lots in that box. There's a space, there's a volume of air within that space, there are particles within that air, tons of stuff. Leave the atmosphere, launch yourself up into space, and open the box there, you can still fairly say 'there's nothing in this box.', but again, that's just the abstraction of the word, for there's space in that box still, and space in which that box can exist, and space itself IS something. It's theorized with some mathematical accuracy that beyond all space in the 'quantum void' of the universe, there would still be quantum particles blinking in and out of existence constantly, even in the absence of space, even in the absence of time. That's another concept which boggles the mind; that things can exist or 'occur' independent even of time, but time is just another malleable force of nature, inexorably tied to and influenced by space and forces like gravity, and even in the absence of all these things, it's not 'nothing' that remains.


https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/133691221/ this is a cool little 3D program that randomly generates a snow-flake. The mathematical principles that generate the snowflake in the program are generally the same as those that produce the snowflake in nature. So ask yourself: is the snowflake that forms in real life produced by the 'computer program' of reality?

DNA does indeed carry the biological information which distinguishes one organism from another, and we map and model that information as a language, a 'code', much as we do with all things in nature we endeavor to understand scientifically. DNA thus begins to seem very much much like a 'computer program', and thus can easily be presumed to have been 'written' into existence. That's projecting our method of interpreting and understanding DNA onto its nature though, and is no different than claiming any other complex natural process which requires a language to interpret/represent must be 'written' into the world. DNA is 'like a computer program' in the same way that a brain of any creature is 'like a computer', but these are just analogies, and clearly no brain is built or designed.

Interesting response! One thing I was fascinated by when I studied it was how DNA is read and interpreted into proteins which in turn have intention (or appearance therof) behind them... It is one huge faith commitment to place the complexity of nature and the sophistication of systems under the direction of a blindfolded, mapless driver, but we each take such examples under advisement ;-)

 

[grateful servant]

I guess now is as good a time as any to introduce Dr Maurice Bucaille into the thread. For people who love science, truth and above all God.
The Bible, the Qur'an and Science