Help Me Understand, part duex

[Godscreated]

[hide]

So, you believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys, 969 year-old men, a world-wide flood that covered the highest mountain, ghost, spirits, demons, angels, resurrections, eternal life in heaven and hell, a virgin birth, and a ton of other religious BS but you will absolutely draw the line at evolution!  Evolution is simply too unreasonable to even be considered as a possible scientific fact.  

OK.

 I accept that species adapt to their situations, I will never accept that one species will change into another, for a simple reason it's never been observed, nowhere.

GC

[Godscreated]

 I understand you want to call adaptable change within a species, evolution, it's only adaptation. You have and never will see one species change into another. Your right I'm not a scientist, why I surrounded myself with them to learn. I do read books in areas that interest me, I've enjoyed five Charles Dickens novels this year and probably will read another by the end of the year. Until you observe one species change to another you will have never seen evolution.

GC

That's how I know you don't understand what evolution is.

If I did see  one species change into another, it would defy everything we know about genetic inheritance.

You don't even know enough about it to ask the right questions, man!

(P.S. - Dickens is awesome.)

 Yes he is, I've enjoyed each book.

I understand that evolution (if it were true) is far more complicated than any simple explanation or question. As for asking the right questions, I already have the answers I need. The smallest of organisms haven't been observed changing and they probably would be the first to do so and if they did what would it be, could you tell me what species they would become. I do not think you would have any idea, so if it happened what would the new species be, a newly discovered species or an evolved one, how would you possibly know for certain unless you observed it through the whole of the process.

GC

[Dystopia]

Simon Moon, I will answer this as if I were a Christian (the denomination is not very important) and try to make the most compelling (least bad) case to counter your OP - I need to improve my debate skills as it will help me later in life so I'll use this as an opportunity - I state that I don't believe in any of what I'm about to say, I'm just going to reply as if I was the most rational Christian possible.

First, let's start with two basic premises that define my as a person:

1 - I am a supporter of science. Regardless of how Christian I am, let's imagine for a moment that I recognize the value of science and scientific research, the improvements it had on our lives, the wonders of technological and medical advancements, the comfort and pragmatism it brings to all of us and our daily lives. So that's it, I'm a science supporter, and I think with proper research science greatly benefits Mankind, regardless of what every individual scientist believes.

2 - I am a Christian. Since this is not a topic to debate whether or not Christianity is the one true religion, let's just say that I'm a Christian, averagely intelligent, middle class, with a normal job, family and kids, go to church every now and then and believe the core principles of the faith. So, let's take as premise number two that Christianity is true, for a brief moment of time.

Now let's look at the case - Science works trough evidence and some facts are easily verifiable by our senses and daily experiences, such as gravity or the fact that wearing less clothes makes us feel colder and less warm. Many of these facts are undeniable and not very likely to be false. If we simultaneously look at the bible, we'll see that it's a book, a piece of paper with words and nothing more - It can mean almost anything as god is allegedly all powerful and capable of doing anything he wants. Science can't be interpreted any other way, but Christianity can because there isn't a universal consensus and lots of denominations. It's impossible to know for certain which parts are meant to be taken literally or not, or even if the bible is the most important part of being a Christian, compared to things like being god and loving other people, helping the poor, etc.

Conclusion - I believe in Christianity and trust science, but since the like-hood of science being wrong is low (in this case scenario) then that means every interpretation of the bible that does not create compatibility with science is irrational and should be rejected altogether. Basically, I trust both science and Christianity, but it's more unreasonable to believe in Creationism than Evolution, and according to some Clerics it is perfectly acceptable to support evolution, so it makes sense to think the interpretation is metaphorical. Following this line of thought, all of the rest you mentioned would be metaphorical as well but with verifiable occurrences in the world - For example, the original sin would be our capacity to be evil, hurt each other, commit violence, etc.



Sidenote - As a professor of mine who is a graduate in religious studies (she also teaches legal philosophy) said, when someone says they are a Christian or something else sometimes it's just a part of someone's cultural identity that intersects with aspects like ethnicity, nationality, social class, etc - I understand that in America and some other countries being a Christian really means being a true Christian ™, but in Europe it just works as a cultural identity and it doesn't even mean you read the bible.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

That's how I know you don't understand what evolution is.

If I did see  one species change into another, it would defy everything we know about genetic inheritance.

You don't even know enough about it to ask the right questions, man!

(P.S. - Dickens is awesome.)

 Yes he is, I've enjoyed each book.

I understand that evolution (if it were true) is far more complicated than any simple explanation or question. As for asking the right questions, I already have the answers I need. The smallest of organisms haven't been observed changing and they probably would be the first to do so and if they did what would it be, could you tell me what species they would become. I do not think you would have any idea, so if it happened what would the new species be, a newly discovered species or an evolved one, how would you possibly know for certain unless you observed it through the whole of the process.

GC

We can observe changes from one frame to the next, even through a few dozen frames. Anything else would require more than a human lifetime or even our historical time, because that's how evolution works-- through thousands of generations.

Despite that, for very short-lifespan creatures (like fruitflies), we do have time to observe some of the major changes you mention.

For longer-lived species, basically the ones we'd care about as proofs/examples, like horses or humans, we must go to either genetic evidence (markers in our DNA, the same ones used in paternity court and on Maury Povich's show to prove "Who's the Father?", that show common kinship with species whose bones make them look like they might be our kin, to confirm or deny the possible kinship) and comparisons of fossil finds to build a picture of the "family tree" in the past.

When you demand that evolution "happen right before your eyes" in order to call it "observed", even while we tell you that's not how it works, it's just as asinine as the aggressive atheist who claims he proved God doesn't exist because he demands God strike him down with lightning and nothing happens. That's just not how it works, and he's an idiot for thinking so.

Seriously, I beg you, please don't close your eyes. Please learn what evolution actually is and what it actually says, not just the strawman version the Creationists teach you to look for.

[Faith No More]

My worldview has nothing to do with your inability to prove that a human being could not live over 900 years. Incredulity is not proof.

It's such a ridiculous notion that it doesn't even justify refuting.

[Faith No More]

Seriously, I beg you, please don't close your eyes. Please learn what evolution actually is and what it actually says, not just the strawman version the Creationists teach you to look for.

You're trying to squeeze water out of a rock there, Rocket.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

My worldview has nothing to do with your inability to prove that a human being could not live over 900 years. Incredulity is not proof.

It's such a ridiculous notion that it doesn't even justify refuting.

Sure it does. And it's simple. We have two competing ideas:

1) Everything we know about genetics is wrong, and humans once had incredibly long lifespans that worked in some way despite everything we know about cellular aging through copying errors during mitosis, or

2) The Patriarchs' 900+ year lifespans are taken from the Sumerian mythologies in the land of Ur, from whence the family of Abraham originated, and they changed the legends from Sumerian God-Kings who lived 900 years to Hebrew Patriarchs who lived 900 years.

Compare and contrast.

[Neo-Scholastic]

My worldview has nothing to do with your inability to prove that a human being could not live over 900 years. Incredulity is not proof.

It's such a ridiculous notion that it doesn't even justify refuting.

Hand-waving. You made an assertion and refuse to defend it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

1) Everything we know about genetics is wrong, and humans once had incredibly long lifespans that worked in some way despite everything we know about cellular aging through copying errors during mitosis, or

You assume that copying errors are inevitable. They are common now, but that does not mean they always were.

2) The Patriarchs' 900+ year lifespans are taken from the Sumerian mythologies in the land of Ur, from whence the family of Abraham originated, and they changed the legends from Sumerian God-Kings who lived 900 years to Hebrew Patriarchs who lived 900 years.

It could easily have worked the other way around. Sumerian mythology corrupted history.

[Godscreated]

It's such a ridiculous notion that it doesn't even justify refuting.

Sure it does. And it's simple. We have two competing ideas:

1) Everything we know about genetics is wrong, and humans once had incredibly long lifespans that worked in some way despite everything we know about cellular aging through copying errors during mitosis, or

2) The Patriarchs' 900+ year lifespans are taken from the Sumerian mythologies in the land of Ur, from whence the family of Abraham originated, and they changed the legends from Sumerian God-Kings who lived 900 years to Hebrew Patriarchs who lived 900 years.

Compare and contrast.

The long lived men were not Hebrews, that didn't come about until... well... I guess we could start at Abraham as a Hebrew though he wasn't actually. Issac would be my starting point.

GC