Adrian,
I only meant that I am not really interested in a long drawn out argument on Evolution; I presented my limited understanding for consideration and would be interested in hearing any responses.
There are two subjects which I refuse to participate in at length, out of experience, Namely; Evolution and the Trinity. The dogmatic and emotional attachment these subjects inspire make it impossible to discuss rationally and I just don't think that either one is relevant enough to spend a fraction of time they tend to demand.
Before I get started let me say you did a good job. This is a good post. Some people here who I have had communications with have admited a lack of knowledge in the Bible and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. My own knowledge in science is simarlly lacking along with an interest. If God brought me to the heavens and told me he wanted to show me the void of space and the marvels of the universe and how he created all of it I would politely decline out of a lack of interest. I would much rather walk through the forest and marvel at its beauty.
The point here, is that science and the Bible don't disagree. Religion misrepresented the Bible and persecuted science and knowledge ages ago which resulted in a lack of knowledge of the Bible and a wall between science and the Bible.
This would only be a problem from a Biblical perspective if the animal became something else. Which it doesn't.
But both variations existed and were noted before the industrial pollution changed color of the bark on the trees they clung to. It wasn't a case of mutationat all.
I don't see any of what you present as Evolution as a conflict with the Bible.
First of all, the Bible doesn't say that God knows everything. The omniscient philosophy isn't scripturally supported. God didn't know what Adam and Eve, or Cain had done and so he asked them. God didn't know if the complaint of the Sodomites was a valid one so he sent his angels (messengers) to see.
The evolutionary belief that reptilian fins and scales developed into feathered wings is baseless. The fossils of Archaeopteryx (ancient wing) and Archaeornis (ancient bird) showed teeth, a long vertebrated tail fully developed wings and they were completely feathered with feet equipped for perching. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory.
I only meant that I am not really interested in a long drawn out argument on Evolution; I presented my limited understanding for consideration and would be interested in hearing any responses.
There are two subjects which I refuse to participate in at length, out of experience, Namely; Evolution and the Trinity. The dogmatic and emotional attachment these subjects inspire make it impossible to discuss rationally and I just don't think that either one is relevant enough to spend a fraction of time they tend to demand.
Before I get started let me say you did a good job. This is a good post. Some people here who I have had communications with have admited a lack of knowledge in the Bible and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. My own knowledge in science is simarlly lacking along with an interest. If God brought me to the heavens and told me he wanted to show me the void of space and the marvels of the universe and how he created all of it I would politely decline out of a lack of interest. I would much rather walk through the forest and marvel at its beauty.
The point here, is that science and the Bible don't disagree. Religion misrepresented the Bible and persecuted science and knowledge ages ago which resulted in a lack of knowledge of the Bible and a wall between science and the Bible.
(November 2, 2008 at 7:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote: For example, in a cold place, a mutation in a mammal that causes longer hair will be beneficial. Animals without the mutation will die earlier, and thereby allowing the mutated animal to pass on the genetic information. The offspring all have the information, and they are in turn more likely to survive. Mutations however, are only beneficial in the short term. If the animal migrated to a warmer climate, then the mutation would cease to be useful. Likewise, sometimes bad mutations get passed down, and whilst they might not be useful to the animal at the time, they could become useful at a later date.
This would only be a problem from a Biblical perspective if the animal became something else. Which it doesn't.
(November 2, 2008 at 7:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote: As for saying the Peppered moth is not evidence for Evolution, you have redefine the word "Evolution". Evolution is simple a change in DNA. Yes, the Peppered moth is an example of Evolution, because the DNA change that caused the new colour occurred through a mutation. Nobody is claiming this is an example of a new species. However, to say that new species haven't been formed is simple untrue ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ).
But both variations existed and were noted before the industrial pollution changed color of the bark on the trees they clung to. It wasn't a case of mutationat all.
I don't see any of what you present as Evolution as a conflict with the Bible.
Quote:3.) To what degree would you, with what I assume with little knowledge of your personal devotion to Biblical studies is substantial, would you have found a disagreement with the Bible and the theory of evolution? In other words, put simply, do you see a disagreement between the two and if so what is it. If not would you admit there is some disagreement which is unsubstantiated?
- I see a disagreement in that if the Bible is the word of God, and this God knows everything, then why is the Bible wrong about how life arose? We see evolution, we know creatures change. We have the fossil record which dates animals back to very different periods of time. Birds did not come about before land animals like the Bible says. The Bible is not the word on anyone other than confused people who were making guesses.
First of all, the Bible doesn't say that God knows everything. The omniscient philosophy isn't scripturally supported. God didn't know what Adam and Eve, or Cain had done and so he asked them. God didn't know if the complaint of the Sodomites was a valid one so he sent his angels (messengers) to see.
The evolutionary belief that reptilian fins and scales developed into feathered wings is baseless. The fossils of Archaeopteryx (ancient wing) and Archaeornis (ancient bird) showed teeth, a long vertebrated tail fully developed wings and they were completely feathered with feet equipped for perching. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory.
