Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Rahul]

which is really meaningless anyway, because again this is not an evolutionary discussion, but how the Whole of evolution now fits with in the confines of creation.

The creation story in the bible is very brief and very vague. You can invent whatever apologetics you would like to try and shove a square peg into a round hole but it's not going to look very pretty after you're done.

Humans and chimps share more DNA with each other than any other creatures on the planet, even though all life is related. We share around 30 percent of our DNA with plants like the carrot.

Theists say, "Well, why couldn't god use the same DNA for various creations?"

Well, he could. Especially if he was too dimwitted to come up with an alternative way to code for it.

Human remains a little over 100,000 years ago can not be found anywhere else on the planet other than certains parts of Africa. Oddly enough the same part of the planet where Chimps exist.

Humans show the most genetic diversity also in this same location. The only genetic variability among humans more diverse between groups rather than within groups relates to skin pigmentation. This is an example of environmentally selection based evolution.

All of these various facts, found in wide ranging scientific fields from Evolution, Geography, Morphology, Archaeology, etc., support that we share a common ancestor with Chimps and that this common ancestor was from somewhere in Africa.

Everything humanity has learned, including new fields of study that didn't even exist more than a few decades ago, supports a scientific theory first proposed over 150 years ago.

That biological evolution is a fact, that humans are just another animal on earth, and that we are descended from a common ancestor with our fellow great apes.

Now either god A) is retarded or B) he intentionally meant to deceive us by his creation or C) religion is a bunch of BS. Or can you come up with a fourth suggestion? If not a fourth, I would like to hear your explanation for why a supposedly "all loving" god would intentionally deceive us humans in order to trick us into ignoring his salvation and spending an eternity in his little punishment dimension of never ending anguish and torment.

[Tonus]

Theists say, "Well, why couldn't god use the same DNA for various creations?"

This is kind of defensible, IMO. In that the theist puts forth a god that has an intellectual capacity that we cannot match and possibly not even comprehend. "That is how god designed it" is lazy, but it works for their purposes. To me, the more relevant point is this:

Everything humanity has learned, including new fields of study that didn't even exist more than a few decades ago, supports a scientific theory first proposed over 150 years ago.

The anecdote where a scientist points out that "fossil rabbits in the Cambrian" would disprove evolution strikes me as a very compelling argument. A world full of diverse lifeforms can be attributed to a creator under pretty much any circumstances, since we can take the "he's god, he can do that" shortcut. But not so if you are attributing it to natural processes working in ways we can study and comprehend. In that case there should be very many ways in which we can disprove natural processes and must presume god.

Yet after centuries of searching and discovering, everything we learn fits into that natural framework. There are no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian. A person can stare at the night sky and be inspired to imagine a god, but what mankind has learned about the stars continues to fit neatly into a universe without one. That's a striking coincidence, to me.

[Zazzy]

Zazzy the science teacher who taught at a university who originally represented him/herself as an evolutionary biologist.

I represented myself as I am. Accusing me of lying is just weird, and it doesn't make me angry- it just makes me go looking for more reasonable conversationalists.

I see from reading through your other threads that this is your MO- evade, attack, accuse, sneer, deny, and insult. You present as someone who feels constantly mistreated, while you mistreat those around you.

If you ever learn how to have a civil conversation, let me know. And good luck with this idea of yours.

[Lemonvariable72]

Um, actually...

So, for starters, even if we don't have biblical timelines for events, we do know for a fact that planets and stars do not form in a day, which puts a crimp in your "seven literal days," theory right from the start.

Again The creation account was given from a centeralized Garden perspective. If God sat you down in the middled of what would be the Garden of eden at the end of day 6 this is what you would have saw in the order you saw it. Does it mean that other things did not happen before or since? no. It means if you saw if you were in the Garden this is what you would have seen.

But that's got nothing to do with evolution, though. That's cosmology. In terms of evolution, your biblical account simply does not match with the fossil record no matter how far back we go. To begin with, we see evidence of human cultures well before your claim that the fall of man happened 6,000 years ago.All over the earth, there are cultures older than that, and we can demonstrate that they were there with ease.

Again evolved man (man NOT made in the image of God/Man without a soul) lived and worked outside the garden. Man without a soul is still physically 100% Homo sapeian. The soul is a the Spiritual element of our existance. Souls are not needed to physically exist. Man out side the Garden existed and did what men do 10's of thousands of years before the fall. Only Adam was recorded as being given a soul, which he passed down to his children.

Secondly, our evolutionary lineage from ape ancestors to man is very well plotted, as shown in this list of human transitional fossils. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that man was created whole in the garden; we simply demonstrably were not.

Again, Adam was the only one created by God, Eve was produced from Adam in the Garden. Evolved man/Man without a soul developed from the slim or monkies or fish, or birds or dinsaurs or anything else you like. outside the garden for bazillions of years till at the end of your established lineage you come up with Homosapeian. Which is how/why God created Adam as He did. He knew the evolutionary progress of man, would coinside with time of the Fall of Adam from grace. That way when they were expelled from the garden they could adapt to life outside the garden and pass of the the gift/soul to their offspring.

So, evolution and a literal reading of genesis are at odds. That's just the way it is.

Appearently you did not read my thread very well, or you are so hung up on what you think christianity says your not willing to open your mind to any other possiable christian theories.

If you were open minded you would have exposed yourself to some biology textbooks, and never would have resorted to that idiotic "evolved from slime" canard.

All evolved life on this planet started out as single celled organisms which had to be suspended in water. (Which makes slime) Maybe you should take your own advise, and stop assuming that I don't know what I am talking about just because I choose not to package information in the same what you were taught to expect to see it. True knoweledge and wisdom comes from knowing a subject well enough to not confine yourself to the traditional understandings of it.

Okay then, where is your proof that we have a soul?

[Esquilax]

More than that, what was the point of having Adam and Eve in the garden, created from nothing, if evolution was already spitting out people on the other side of the fence?

Oh right, apologetics only have to make sense regarding one problem at a time...

[Brian37]

More than that, what was the point of having Adam and Eve in the garden, created from nothing, if evolution was already spitting out people on the other side of the fence?

Oh right, apologetics only have to make sense regarding one problem at a time...

Like I might have already said, Apologetics are nothing more than making excuses to believe patiently absurd bullshit.

[Zazzy]

Okay then, where is your proof that we have a soul?

I was just through this with him, and he doesn't understand what constitutes evidence, and he seems unable to understand. Perhaps you can explain it to him better.

Are people like Drich REALLY that uneducated, or are they just messing with our minds? I'm never sure.

[Jackalope]

Okay then, where is your proof that we have a soul?

I was just through this with him, and he doesn't understand what constitutes evidence, and he seems unable to understand. Perhaps you can explain it to him better.

Are people like Drich REALLY that uneducated, or are they just messing with our minds? I'm never sure.

He apparently doesn't *want* to understand. Many of us have gone around and around on the very same issue. It's been explained to him.

When I asked him for evidence, it went a bit like this.

"Evidence?"

"What kind of evidence would you like to see?"

"The kind that you possess that supports your claim."

*crickets*

[Zazzy]

He apparently doesn't *want* to understand. Many of us have gone around and around on the very same issue. It's been explained to him.

When I asked him for evidence, it went a bit like this.

"Evidence?"

"What kind of evidence would you like to see?"

"The kind the you possess that supports your claim."

*crickets*

There seem to be 3 options for how to read this behavior:
1.) Laziness. He wants you to tell him what the evidence is so he doesn't have to go looking for it.
2.) Conscious denial of the fact that he knows very well what evidence is and what it would look like, but he knows it isn't out there and he doesn't want to admit it.
3.) He's just messing with you.

I wonder which is correct?

[Captain Colostomy]

---

He apparently doesn't *want* to understand. Many of us have gone around and around on the very same issue. It's been explained to him.

When I asked him for evidence, it went a bit like this.

"Evidence?"

"What kind of evidence would you like to see?"

"The kind the you possess that supports your claim."

*crickets*

There seem to be 3 options for how to read this behavior:
1.) Laziness. He wants you to tell him what the evidence is so he doesn't have to go looking for it.
2.) Conscious denial of the fact that he knows very well what evidence is and what it would look like, but he knows it isn't out there and he doesn't want to admit it.
3.) He's just messing with you.

I wonder which is correct?

---

Whichever one allows for the effects of wishful thinking and/or brainwashing.