Science And The Bible - Introduction

[lukec]

Yes, Daystar, evolution is a fact, the fact that we can observe organisms adapting to better cope with their environment (with successive generations). This is shown throughout the fossil record. It is not a "possibility" we know that evolution has happened simply from the fact that there are different organisms in the fossil record.

[Daystar]

Forget about evolution for a second.
The genesis account isn't a possibility simply due to research in areas such as astronomy and geology. The age of the Earth is greater than 6-8 thousands years. If you aren'y denying this, then I'll carry on.

The Bible doesn't state the age of the Earth. There is no Biblical reason to dispute 4.5 million years.

Evolution is a simple fact. Variation occurs within a species. If an organism has the genes for a trait which increase its likelihood of reproducing, its genes are more likely to be reproduced (because of the advantageous nature of the gene, the organism can survive long enough to reproduce). The offspring which inherit this gene inherit the advantages (thicker fur, longer neck?) and these advantages help them survive long enough to reproduce, and the genes are successfully passed on again. Some of the offspring might not inherit these genes, and are in a disadvantageous position in comparison, and are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce. If they fail to reproduce, their genes cannot be passed on. The advantageous trait therefore is reproduced more often and will eventually make up a great proportion of the population.

Which doesn't disagree with the Bible. No problem.

But it doesn't stop there. If a mutation occurs which exaggerates this trait further (even thicker fur, even longer neck?) it will again be favoured. Imagine I was talking about a small mammal. A certain proportion of these mammals will have inherited the genes for longer necks, and these genes would be exagerrated and the necks grow longer and longer. Another proportion of the mammals may be benefitting from the thicker fur, and this trait will likely be exagerrated. Now from having a small mammal with a short neck and thinner fur, we have a proportion of furry mammals and a proportion of long-neck mammals. As they continue to diverge in traits (long necked mammal starts to grow longer legs, elongated mouth, taller ears, etc) their genes become different in so many different areas that their offspring (when breeding long necks and thick furs) is no longer fertile. When they can no longer interbreed because of the amount of variation, they are classed as seperate species. So from one species of small mammals, there have evolved a species of long necked, tall eared, elongated mouthed mammals, and a species of short and stubby, thick furred, streamlined, long tailed mammals (as an example).

In other words you have no evidence for this happening. You can point to an animal and say this animal is a product of that but you can't produce any evidence.

This is not up for debate.

Of course it isn't. That would be blasphemous.

Now, you could debate how long this has been going on for, and whether or not it originated from nonliving matter, but there is a consesus on that too. Fossils have been dated right back to the dinosaurs and beyond (throwing the 8k years hypothesis out of the window), and this fits perfectly with what geologists have found (an old earth) and what astronomers have found (an old universe). If fossils went back (for example) 60 million years, but we predicted the age of the universe to be 400,000 years old, then we'd have a problem. But this isn't what we see. We see an old universe, an old earth, and fossils which are very old, but not preceeding the predicted age of the earth.

What more do you want, Daystar?

I want to see some evidence. Something other than you telling me what you think might have happened.

EDIT: and as for abiogeneis (I forgot to outline that in my last paragraph), you may debate that as much as you like, there is no consensus as to how it happened, only that it probably did]
[/quote]

[Ace Otana]

4.5 million years.

(Cough) 4.5 BILLION.

[LukeMC]

In other words you have no evidence for this happening. You can point to an animal and say this animal is a product of that but you can't produce any evidence.

I want to see some evidence. Something other than you telling me what you think might have happened.

Am I allowed to link you to evidence, copy and paste evidence, or write out a sufficient amount myself? And in doing this, will I be wasting my time on somebody who is going to reject the evidence anyway?

[Daystar]

Yes, Daystar, evolution is a fact, the fact that we can observe organisms adapting to better cope with their environment (with successive generations). This is shown throughout the fossil record. It is not a "possibility" we know that evolution has happened simply from the fact that there are different organisms in the fossil record.

The Genesis account uses the word kind, variations within a kind doesn't conflict with the Bible.

Can you show me the evidence you yourself have seen demonstrating this having happened in one instance?

---

4.5 million years.

(Cough) 4.5 BILLION.

Yes, my mistake. Typo.

---

Am I allowed to link you to evidence, copy and paste evidence, or write out a sufficient amount myself? And in doing this, will I be wasting my time on somebody who is going to reject the evidence anyway?

I rarely check links out. I don't have time to check all the links given me. I don't want to read someone else's argument or thinking that you might agree with but are too lazy to put into your own words. I don't mind links being given as reference or to images.

If you want to give me an evolutionary lobotomy it isn't going to happen. Don't try to convert me just present the evidence and information as concise as possible.

If anyone here showed half the initiative to open their mind to what I believe as I have theirs I would fall over backwards so don't give me no shit because I got one foot out the door and I don't give a fuck what you think any more than you do me.

I will question evidence that makes no sense to me. If you show me a picture of a jawbone and some teeth and expect me to take seriously an artist's rendition of Ramapithecus as real important and fact, that is too much to ask.

[Edwardo Piet]

Which doesn't disagree with the Bible. No problem.

It seems to me its like If you get evidence that contradicts the bible you throw out the evidence instead of the bible:p

[Ace Otana]

Which doesn't disagree with the Bible. No problem.

It seems to me its like If you get evidence that contradicts the bible you throw out the evidence instead of the bible:p

It's called denial

[lukec]

Can you show me the evidence you yourself have seen demonstrating this having happened in one instance?

---

If anyone here showed half the initiative to open their mind to what I believe as I have theirs I would fall over backwards so don't give me no shit because I got one foot out the door and I don't give a fuck what you think any more than you do me.

No, I can't. You just said you won't check out (most) links, and I assume that when you ask for links only with pictures or as references, you mean you don't want to do any reading. You're disappointing, Daystar, because you say you want to learn but have no initiative to actually do so. I've recommended a book to you already which is chock full of examples that you are demanding, but I don't believe you'll ever look at it. Nonetheless, I'll try again- here is a list of many transitional fossils in the vertebrate group. Sorry, no pictures though. Here.

[leo-rcc]

Science is all about the discovery and the gathering of fact before they are facts. Science is not about "These are the facts so there" but "We don't know all the facts, lets find out".

Then the question is: Is evolution a fact that you have found out or is it a possibility, and the same question could be asked about the Genesis account.

Evolution is a fact.

There is no evidence I know of in any realm of science that supports the Genesis account.

[LukeMC]

Science is all about the discovery and the gathering of fact before they are facts. Science is not about "These are the facts so there" but "We don't know all the facts, lets find out".

Then the question is: Is evolution a fact that you have found out or is it a possibility, and the same question could be asked about the Genesis account.

Evolution is a fact.

There is no evidence I know of in any realm of science that supports the Genesis account.

I second that.