Would proving evolution to be fact, really affect believers of Christianity? [Kill Em With Kindness]

ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Would proving evolution to be fact, really affect believers of Christianity? [Kill Em With Kindness]

I ask this question, after having read numerous debates from both sides of the camp.  Evolutionists bring up the evidence that supports the theory, and Christians typically point out the "lack" of the "missing links" (i.e., why there isn't a croc-o-duck), or other things that they don't quite understand about the theory, since it doesn't fit into the preconceived belief that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to prove evolution to be a real process, I started wondering, "Would proving evolution to be fact, actually have any affect at all on Christians?" (and especially, young-earth Christians).

If it would have no effect - what is the point of debating whether or not evolution is "true" to these folks?  Are their other arguments that could be more effective at reasoning about the existence of god?

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"Would proving

Quote:
"Would proving evolution to be fact, actually have any affect at all on Christians?"

Nah.

Quote:
(and especially, young-earth Christians).

Case in point.  Contrary to popular propaganda, evolution is as proven as a scientific theory can be.  We know it exists about as certainly as we know that gravity exists.  YECs are still all over the place.  Therefore, proving evolution does not affect Christians.

Quote:
If it would have no effect - what is the point of debating whether or not evolution is "true" to these folks?  Are their other arguments that could be more effective at reasoning about the existence of god?

There is generally no effect on an individual Christian from arguing evolution.  However, the widespread dissemination of the facts of evolution has a profound effect on people whose minds are not made up yet.  The other reason for getting jiggy with all the evolution stuff is that it really is the science of what it means to be human.  Religion promises to tell us what we really are and can't deliver.  Evolution, on the other hand, comes through.  Morality, sexuality, culture -- all of these have evolutionary origins, and the more we learn about them, the more we learn about ourselves.  Knowledge is power.

So, we do the evolution thing for two reasons.  1) It's science, and it needs to be promoted for no other reason than that.  2) If lots more people knew about it, there would eventually be less stupid fundamentalists.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:The other

Hambydammit wrote:

The other reason for getting jiggy with all the evolution stuff is that it really is the science of what it means to be human.  Religion promises to tell us what we really are and can't deliver.  Evolution, on the other hand, comes through.  Morality, sexuality, culture -- all of these have evolutionary origins, and the more we learn about them, the more we learn about ourselves.  Knowledge is power.

 

 

I think this is the real crux of the argument here, and what is really important to understand (as much as we currently are capable of).

Like you said, the distinction between a religion and science, is that religion rarely, if ever, changes it's teachings or "rules" (the Catholic church has had to make SOME changes in the light of new scientific discoveries that it just couldn't ignore).  Generation to generation, they teache the same old, outdated dogma that colorizes the viewpoints of those people.  The real danger here, is that people are fundamentally intolerant of others (whether they say so or not), simply because of the nature of what it is they believe.  It's not like religions differ in their opinions of how to make the best lasagna - We're talking about a life-structure, and path to an "eternal life".  Obviously, if people believe that type of stuff is at stake, there will be some very heated debates and disagreements over it (i.e., wars, genocide, etc).

Science, on the other hand, is constantly self-evaluating the data that we are able to uncover - and sometimes shows that theories or ideas must be re-written or changed.  Science isn't ashamed to admit that it was in error - because more often than not, new discoveries lead the way to many exciting, new possibilities that were either unknown, or once thought to be improbable.  Science admits that we don't have all the answers, and that we should be diligent to learn as much as we can, through objective measures.  What we don't know, we just don't know.  Science won't create an answer due to lack of evidence; it will however, in some cases, postulate theories or ideas that will be put to the test.

I think that if we are to begin to answer the big questions, we have to put aside the idea of a god, in order to investigate all the possibilities.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:Regardless

ryandinan wrote:

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to prove evolution to be a real process, I started wondering, "Would proving evolution to be fact, actually have any affect at all on Christians?" (and especially, young-earth Christians). 

It should.  In the case of YECs, it should serve to demonstrate they are 100% wrong.  In the case of those who think they can have some evolution with their jesus:  Where exactly on the evolutionary timeline did sin and the need for salvation arise?  With Homo sapiensHomo erectus?  The Australopithecines?  The tree shrews?  

Are Neanderthals saved by jesus?  What if we evolve into a new species? 

In the end, the only way to keep faith-based beliefs alongside scientific theory is to ignore their incompatibility.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Where exactly on the

Quote:
Where exactly on the evolutionary timeline did sin and the need for salvation arise?  With Homo sapiensHomo erectus?  The Australopithecines?  The tree shrews?

shhhhh!  You're going to destroy the moderates' fragile little brains.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:In the

zarathustra wrote:

In the case of those who think they can have some evolution with their jesus:  Where exactly on the evolutionary timeline did sin and the need for salvation arise?  With Homo sapiensHomo erectus?  The Australopithecines?  The tree shrews?  

Are Neanderthals saved by jesus?  What if we evolve into a new species? 

 

This is a good point, and I think what really made me start questioning Christianity and religion to begin with.

I asked questions such as, "Since the Bible is the only way of knowing about this Jesus, and you can't go to heaven if you don't accept him as your savior, what happens to people that have never heard of him?  People such as those who live in distant 3rd world countries... the Abariginies in the outback, small tribes in Africa?  And what about infants that die suddenly?  Children that never got a "chance" to go to church?  There are bound to be many that have never heard about him, due to one situation or another.  So, what, they get shortchanged because they didn't have the opportunity to read or learn of the Bible... this book, written by man?

The answer I always received to this question from the "believers" was that they were "exempt" from this little rule of accepting Jesus; as complete ignorance to Jesus, made it OK, and they would be pardoned and let into heaven, regardless of the "sins" they may have committed.  Those believers (who believe that homo sapiens and Neanderthals were around) say the same thing applied to them.

Well.  By that logic, couldn't you just guarantee everyone's entrance into heaven, if you just stopped spreading the word of Jesus?  If everyone became ignorant to Christianity, then everyone would be pardoned, right and saved, right?

It's a very good point to bring up, but I'm sure the diehard YEC's have some sort of sidestepping answer for it... of course, by using the Bible as their reference.

 


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:Well.  By

ryandinan wrote:

Well.  By that logic, couldn't you just guarantee everyone's entrance into heaven, if you just stopped spreading the word of Jesus?  If everyone became ignorant to Christianity, then everyone would be pardoned, right and saved, right?

 

 

Christians are fond of the age of accountability. If children die before they reach this age, they get a free pass to heaven. Convienetly, the age differs for each individual.

You're above idea is brilliant! I can't believe I've never heard it before. When I was a kid, we would often ask about people in the Amazon etc, and get told 'god will judge them accordingly.' You're idea would solve everything. Atheists are happy since no one follows christianity, and we still get heaven! Not that I really want to go there..but it's still pretty win-win.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:ryandinan

Loc wrote:

ryandinan wrote:

Well.  By that logic, couldn't you just guarantee everyone's entrance into heaven, if you just stopped spreading the word of Jesus?  If everyone became ignorant to Christianity, then everyone would be pardoned, right and saved, right?

Christians are fond of the age of accountability. If children die before they reach this age, they get a free pass to heaven. Convienetly, the age differs for each individual.

You're above idea is brilliant! I can't believe I've never heard it before. When I was a kid, we would often ask about people in the Amazon etc, and get told 'god will judge them accordingly.' You're idea would solve everything. Atheists are happy since no one follows christianity, and we still get heaven! Not that I really want to go there..but it's still pretty win-win.

 

I've heard this idea before, but it was in the form of a story. I can't remember it exactly, but IIRC it goes that when missionaries first took Christianity far north to the Inuits, a missionary was trying to explain the benefits that come with being a saved Christian. He explained that those that accept Jesus as their lord and savior get rewarded in heaven, but those that reject him burn in hell. Curious, the Inuit asks what happens to all the people that have never heard of this deal and so can't make a decision on the matter. The missionary explains that they can't be held accountable, and so they obviously get to heaven. The Inuit replies, "Then why did you tell me?"

I wish I could remember it exactly as I heard it, but it was something I heard way back in grade school, and it was one of the things that first got me thinking about Christianity objectively.

 

It would be interesting if I could feign sincere ignorance about Christianity in an attempt to pull that one off.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
evolution vs. origin of life

I'm not exactly sure I understand the point of this thread.  "Prove evolution?"  Evolution in a simple expression could be how to describe how things adapt during the course of time.  People have evolved during history in gaining brain functions (learning how to use fire, the wheel, etc).  That could be called "evolution" in a sense I think...the adaptation and inheriting traits over generations.  At least, I guess in the sense of biology I suppose it would be.

Where atheists and theists do not agree has nothing to do with evolution but rather the origins of life.  I think it best to be specific when talking about were the disagreements exist.

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:Where

razorphreak wrote:

Where atheists and theists do not agree has nothing to do with evolution but rather the origins of life.

 

 

I don't think that's a very accurate statement in the least...

For theists to accept evolution, they would have to change their beliefs on where life came from, and how it got to be what it is today.  In a sense, evolution is science's version"creationism".

So, to say that evolution has nothing to do with the disagreements between atheists and theists, is ignoring the biggest disagreement of them all.

 


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:The

Archeopteryx wrote:

The missionary explains that they can't be held accountable, and so they obviously get to heaven. The Inuit replies, "Then why did you tell me?"

Well, I think the most obvious answer (and not one easily digestible by theists), is that religion is a business.  Missionaries are door to door salesman.  Once they've sold the client the drug, they're addicted.  Then they can be controlled, manipulated...  They give their money away.

Granted, some churches do try to do good with the money they raise.  But, the point is, you don't need a church to do good things.  The church has to do good things to look respectable, while keeping a tidy amount for itself.  Not only that, but churches wield an amazing amount of political power, regardless if church and state are supposed to be separate.  You get the politicians addicted, and then they act on behalf of the church's ideals and beliefs automatically.  History has shown this to be the case over, and over and over - often with dramatic and horrific outcomes...

I do wonder if religion will ever disappear from this planet...  Perhaps in the future, when we have many more answers than we do now?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:For theists

ryandinan wrote:
For theists to accept evolution, they would have to change their beliefs on where life came from, and how it got to be what it is today.  In a sense, evolution is science's version"creationism".

So, to say that evolution has nothing to do with the disagreements between atheists and theists, is ignoring the biggest disagreement of them all.

It's all about presentation.  Before I sat down and actually read a book (or two) about it, I thought "evolution" was only about the origins of life.  Didn't really think about how humans shed their body hair as the Earth warmed as a part of human evolution or how, thanks to better brain functions, how we evolved transportation from walking to horse to automobiles. 

Where life came from vs. what life is doing now that it's here are two totally different subjects.  I'm not exactly sure they should both be lumped into the same header of "evolution," although I can see why they would be.  I understand the principles behind evolution but I cannot say I agree with all of them.

I don't disagree that scorpions evolved from needing to be twice the size of a man and needing gills to what they are today.  Life does that.  Where I disagree is how the scorpion came to be, where it came from.  Now that, if I'm not mistaken, is where science becomes based more so on probabilities than fact. 

Evolution is not rejected by the bible or by having faith in God.  It just rejects one small subheader of it.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:I do wonder

ryandinan wrote:

I do wonder if religion will ever disappear from this planet...  Perhaps in the future, when we have many more answers than we do now?

As Hamby has shown, it isn't just a matter of having knowledge. Theists, like the Inner Party members in 1984, find it quite possible to hold two contradictory beliefs in their heads at once because it allows them to practice a doctrine that gives them power. Don't be fooled: belief pays off for believers in the most direct, material ways possible. Membership in a church can be a route to money, sex and social power: in short, everything that everyone wants. As long as this is true, there will always be people who are more concerned with getting ahead than getting to the truth.

There is also the meme theory that explains religion as a mental virus which propagates inside the thoughts of people who lack sufficient immunity (whatever that would consist of). This one is a little out there, but it does explain why religion can persist even in individuals and populations that it is killing.

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:I don't

razorphreak wrote:

I don't disagree that scorpions evolved from needing to be twice the size of a man and needing gills to what they are today.  Life does that.  Where I disagree is how the scorpion came to be, where it came from.  Now that, if I'm not mistaken, is where science becomes based more so on probabilities than fact. 

Reflect, for a moment, on the fact that 200 years ago, the theory that explains the changes in scorpions would have been equally ill-supported as the various scientific theories about the origins of life are today. If you lived then, instead of now, you would point at the weakness of those theories and say they left room for belief in God's involvement. Today, with those theories as ironclad as they are now, you are forced to move the bar back a few billion years and claim that there's an opening for God there.

What we see in history are certain scientific theories succeeding and others failing. We have no way of knowing, today, which will succeed and fail in the long run. But what we do not see is the scientific process itself failing. The march of discovery goes on and every day we, as a species, know more and more about the universe. Based on everything we have seen to date, it seems very probable that scientists are somehow, someday, going to turn up compelling evidence about the origins of life.

Now contrast the history of religious theories about the universe. All we see there is steady erosion and revision of the same ancient fairy tales that have been told for thousands of years. No new information has been added, no learning or progress achieved at all. Every claim that was testable by science has been destroyed by it. There is simply no rational reason to believe that it is probable that the few claims that have not yet been tested will stand while the other, uniformly, have fallen. The gross inaccuracies of the various religious myths should lead us to believe that there was a serious systemic problem with the way they were created which, of course, there was, since they are works of imaginative fiction, not scientific research.

It is fine to want to be open minded and not come down on one side or another when it comes to the questions that can't be answered yet. But doing so also requires turning a blind eye to the very different track records of the two sources of knowledge. I think the only rational conclusion can be that scientists appear to be on the right track, while theists are simply retreating from error to error.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:Where life

razorphreak wrote:

Where life came from vs. what life is doing now that it's here are two totally different subjects.  I'm not exactly sure they should both be lumped into the same header of "evolution," although I can see why they would be.  I understand the principles behind evolution but I cannot say I agree with all of them.

But see, where life came from, and what life "is doing now", is all part of the same process.  We just happen to be a few billions years into that process now, vs at the beginning, where there wasn't as much variety.  The process of humans shedding their hair, was an evolutionary response to several environmental factors, that made hair not as necessary.

 

Quote:

I don't disagree that scorpions evolved from needing to be twice the size of a man and needing gills to what they are today.  Life does that.  Where I disagree is how the scorpion came to be, where it came from.  Now that, if I'm not mistaken, is where science becomes based more so on probabilities than fact. 

I have not done any research about scorpions, but I wouldn't find it surprising if science/evolution had a good explanation as to "where" the scorpion originated from - or more precisely, what primitive ancestor the scorpion evolved from.  If it's this fundamental process that you disagree with, then I suppose you have to offer an alternative theory as to what happened.  I do believe that in order for the scientific community to say, "The scorpions evolved from the aquatic eurypterids.", I would expect there to be some good data to back up that claim. 

Quote:

Evolution is not rejected by the bible or by having faith in God.  It just rejects one small subheader of it.

But, in order for evolution to work as we understand it, the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, and our very own Earth, need to be FAR older than what the Bible tells us, and how it says things came to be.  It's not just a small subheader of the Bible, it's a major principle it refers to as "Creation".  If evolution rejects the Bible's claim of Creation, then the Bible is fallacious - and if the Bible is supposed to be the word of God himself, then either the authors of the Bible misunderstood God, God is wrong, or God doesn't exist.  If the former, then one has to wonder what other major concepts were misunderstood in the Bible.  If God is wrong, then he's not all-powerful or omnipotent.  But I suppose you can blame that idea on the authors of the Bible as misunderstanding him as well...  So we're either left with a fallacious, imperfect god, or no god at all.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:But, in

ryandinan wrote:
But, in order for evolution to work as we understand it, the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, and our very own Earth, need to be FAR older than what the Bible tells us, and how it says things came to be.  It's not just a small subheader of the Bible, it's a major principle it refers to as "Creation".  If evolution rejects the Bible's claim of Creation, then the Bible is fallacious - and if the Bible is supposed to be the word of God himself, then either the authors of the Bible misunderstood God, God is wrong, or God doesn't exist.  If the former, then one has to wonder what other major concepts were misunderstood in the Bible.  If God is wrong, then he's not all-powerful or omnipotent.  But I suppose you can blame that idea on the authors of the Bible as misunderstanding him as well...  So we're either left with a fallacious, imperfect god, or no god at all.

I understand why you are still trying to lump the origins of life to evolution over the bible but I'm sorry they are not equal.  Now I'm sure you can probably recite to me evolution definitions, maybe even a ton of "facts" according to other non-Creationists and make up a wonderful presentation that would make the discovery channel proud.  And I guarantee you that not only would I find it interesting, I might actually learn more about the origins of life according to evolution.  But to say that evolution rejects what the bible speaks of by calling it fallacious is simply untrue.  I think you might have a few things misunderstood or misquoted to you...

a. the bible never actually says how old the Earth is.  I've heard the theories and they are generally spoken by people who might actually say they've figured out when the world will end too.  I'm not sure how that nullifies creation or how creation nullifies evolution with the exception of the origin.

b. wrong about what exactly?  The age of the Earth?  The original Hebrew of the word day, "yom", in context on how it was used in both Genesis and Exodus, both refer to a "day" as a period referred to as "there was evening and there was morning."  That means it was one 24 hour day as we know it.  There are tons of theories out there that say something about one day is equivalent to some period of time but that's all they are, theories.  Science as we know it shows that the period of evening to morning is a 24 hour day.  There is no mention of how many years ago, how many generations ago, nor how many "ages" ago this was.  The bible says absolutely nothing about how old the Earth is.  If there is any mistake here, it's about the failure to interpret by the original language.

As I said before, "evolution" and "creation" can and do co-exist.  The only thing that is different is how it all began.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:But to say

razorphreak wrote:

But to say that evolution rejects what the bible speaks of by calling it fallacious is simply untrue.  I think you might have a few things misunderstood or misquoted to you...

Just to be clear - do you take either the 1st or 2nd creation story a literal account of the origin of life?

razorphreak wrote:

As I said before, "evolution" and "creation" can and do co-exist.  The only thing that is different is how it all began.

I'd be curious to see your answers to the questions I asked above.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Razorphreak -I'll assume

Razorphreak -

I'll assume then, that you subscribe to the "Old Earth Creationist" idea?

Not being a Bible scholar myself, I was curious as to where Young Earth Creationists got the idea that the Earth was so young (6,000 to 10,000 years old).  They base this belief on  the logical implication that "Yom" referred to a 24 hour period - and if God created the earth in 6 days, the Earth must be young.

But I was not surprised to learn that there is arguable evidence to suggest that the usage of "Yom" by Moses, may have been intended to mean "ages" - or thousands of years - which could allow for a much older Earth... but probably still not as old as science has estimated it.

I realize that many theological scholars debate this very issue to no end, but I found the following article to be an interesting read about this matter:

www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/days.html

At any rate, I can see how, based on the Old Earth Creation idea, how one can manage to allow evolution and Christianity to co-exist -- to a degree.  The reason I say "to a degree", is because the age of the Earth is not the only matter of disagreement between the two teachings. 

Assuming for a moment that god exists, and he created everything, were Adam and Eve actually the first primitive forms of mankind, Australopithecus?  If not, is Australopithecus just some other "ape" that god created?  Were they Neanderthals?  The Bible makes no mention of these early forms of man, yet there can be little debate about our relation to them.

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Just to be

zarathustra wrote:
Just to be clear - do you take either the 1st or 2nd creation story a literal account of the origin of life?

There is no "2nd creation story."  And yes, I take the "1st" one literal.  If the bible says between a morning and an evening, then I take that to be one day.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ryandinan wrote:I'll assume

ryandinan wrote:
I'll assume then, that you subscribe to the "Old Earth Creationist" idea?

I'm not familiar with that term.  What is the "Old Earth Creationist idea?"

ryandinan wrote:
Not being a Bible scholar myself, I was curious as to where Young Earth Creationists got the idea that the Earth was so young (6,000 to 10,000 years old).  They base this belief on  the logical implication that "Yom" referred to a 24 hour period - and if God created the earth in 6 days, the Earth must be young.

The only impression I've got is somehow they've related to one day in Genesis to be one "age" of some sort.  Each age being a millenia or something like that.  And through some sort of funky calculation, whamo, you've got the age of the Earth.  I mean, even some believers will not accept that these things could have been done in one days time.

ryandinan wrote:
But I was not surprised to learn that there is arguable evidence to suggest that the usage of "Yom" by Moses, may have been intended to mean "ages" - or thousands of years - which could allow for a much older Earth... but probably still not as old as science has estimated it.

There are several meanings as to what the word "yom" means.  However, in context, as found in several other passages meaning one 24 hour day in Genesis and Exodus, "yom" is used exactly the same way it is in Genesis 1.  You cannot change the context to suit your (not meaning yours per say) theory.  The context is clear as to the meaning.

ryandinan wrote:
Assuming for a moment that god exists, and he created everything, were Adam and Eve actually the first primitive forms of mankind, Australopithecus?  If not, is Australopithecus just some other "ape" that god created?  Were they Neanderthals?  The Bible makes no mention of these early forms of man, yet there can be little debate about our relation to them.

I'm not too crazy about this question you are asking.  The reason I'm not is because we would not be debating the origins of man, we are opening a pandoras box as to what creation actually is.  All I can give you is an opinion as I am no expert as to what the origins of man are, I only can say some of the things I've read online. 

Anyway, were Adam and Eve possibly Australopithecus?  Maybe.  Or could they have been Homo habilis?  Maybe.  All I can say is in accordance with my faith and my faith follows the path of Genesis calling Adam and Eve the first people, the first humans.  The debate I think, if we were to follow "human evolution," would probably be about if Australopithecus was actually a human relative.  I personally have doubts considering the mistakes that science has shown before when it comes to extinct species (e.g. how T-Rex walked).

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:There is

razorphreak wrote:

There is no "2nd creation story." 

Don't want to scuttle this thread, so if you care to defend that laughable claim, please do so here.

And...I'd be curious to see your answers to the questions I asked above.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:ryandinan

razorphreak wrote:

ryandinan wrote:
Assuming for a moment that god exists, and he created everything, were Adam and Eve actually the first primitive forms of mankind, Australopithecus?  If not, is Australopithecus just some other "ape" that god created?  Were they Neanderthals?  The Bible makes no mention of these early forms of man, yet there can be little debate about our relation to them.

I'm not too crazy about this question you are asking. 

Of course.  It may lead you to realize how incompatible your creationist beliefs are with scientific theory

 

razorphreak wrote:
The reason I'm not is because we would not be debating the origins of man, we are opening a pandoras box as to what creation actually is. 

Australopithecines were our evolutionary forbears.  Genetic research has yielded evidence of possible mating between early humans and Neanderthals.  So yes, it is certainly about the origins of man. 

 

razorphreak wrote:
All I can give you is an opinion as I am no expert as to what the origins of man are, I only can say some of the things I've read online. 

Anyway, were Adam and Eve possibly Australopithecus?  Maybe.  Or could they have been Homo habilis?  Maybe.  All I can say is in accordance with my faith and my faith follows the path of Genesis calling Adam and Eve the first people, the first humans. 

Is your biblical acuity such that you can insightfully parse the meaning of "day" (yom) in genesis, but are simply stymied on the meaning of "man" in the same book?

razorphreak wrote:

The debate I think, if we were to follow "human evolution," would probably be about if Australopithecus was actually a human relative.  I personally have doubts considering the mistakes that science has shown before when it comes to extinct species (e.g. how T-Rex walked).

Well science admits of falsifiability, so current theory can certainly be revised by new evidence, or reappraisal of existing evidence.  Correct if me if I'm wrong, but you do not seem open to the genesis account being mistaken or falsifiable.

Above, you admonished "You cannot change the context to suit your (not meaning yours per say) theory."   Permit me to admonish:  You cannot change (or ignore) the scientific evidence to suit your creationist belief (meaning yours, per se).

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Don't want

zarathustra wrote:

Don't want to scuttle this thread, so if you care to defend that laughable claim...


What is actually more laughable is the fact that after over a year on as a registered member, you'd actually think I hadn't heard the mention of a "2nd creation story" and, more so, that you think I'd join a debate when it's been debated before. I'm sorry but I don't care to get into another circular debate that has no resolution...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Is your

zarathustra wrote:
Is your biblical acuity such that you can insightfully parse the meaning of "day" (yom) in genesis, but are simply stymied on the meaning of "man" in the same book?

Huh?  What does one have to do with the other?

zarathustra wrote:
Well science admits of falsifiability, so current theory can certainly be revised by new evidence, or reappraisal of existing evidence.  Correct if me if I'm wrong, but you do not seem open to the genesis account being mistaken or falsifiable.

"Only a Sith would deal in absolutes..."

The Genesis account being mistaken of false?  Hmmm.  Interesting question coming from someone who trusts the scientific side of it.  "Because it walks like a man and looks like a man, it must be an original man" kinda argument.

The Genesis account of how life began isn't about being proven true or not, it's about trusting that it is how God said it began (which I suppose is almost the same as having faith that it begin according to Darwin).

zarathustra wrote:
You cannot change (or ignore) the scientific evidence to suit your creationist belief (meaning yours, per se).

I'm not sure I follow.  Because the bible does not say that when God created man which genus he decided to create man under, one big misunderstanding is that God created man as we are today.  Man still had to evolve just as animals have evolved over time so where God started it up isn't trying to change scientific evidence.  There is no time line in the bible ya know.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:What is

razorphreak wrote:

What is actually more laughable is the fact that after over a year on as a registered member, you'd actually think I hadn't heard the mention of a "2nd creation story" and, more so, that you think I'd join a debate when it's been debated before. I'm sorry but I don't care to get into another circular debate that has no resolution...

Sorry to deflate your ego, but I don't take time out of my day to determine what you may or may not have heard.  At any rate, if you're going to make an assertion such as "there isn't a 2nd creation story", you should very well be willing to join a debate about it. 

For its pertinence to this discussion, let me ask you directly:  According to genesis, did god create 1 male and 1 female human through a spoken command following the creation of plants and animals, or did god create a human male, place him in an appropriate habitat, populate it with animals, then create a female human from the human male's rib?  And however you respond, do you find this compatible with the theory of evolution?

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Is your biblical acuity such that you can insightfully parse the meaning of "day" (yom) in genesis, but are simply stymied on the meaning of "man" in the same book?

Huh?  What does one have to do with the other?

Nothing, per "say".  However, in post #15, you postured as having some etymological knowledge of the Hebrew word "day", whereby you designated its specific meaning.  In post #19, when asked by ryandinan what species adam and eve belonged to (namely, does the word for "man" used in genesis indicate sapiens,habilis,australopithecus,vtc.), you admitted that you didn't know.  I simply found it a point of interest that you would confidently express knowledge about the meaning of one simple word from genesis, yet floundered when asked the precise meaning of another simple word ("man" ) in the same book.

razorphreak wrote:

The Genesis account being mistaken of false?  Hmmm.  Interesting question coming from someone who trusts the scientific side of it.  "Because it walks like a man and looks like a man, it must be an original man" kinda argument.

Glad you find the question interesting.  Would you care to answer it?

razorphreak wrote:

The Genesis account of how life began isn't about being proven true or not, it's about trusting that it is how God said it began (which I suppose is almost the same as having faith that it begin according to Darwin).

Actually, Darwin's theory of evolution is not about how life began.  After over a year on as a registered member, it is laughable that you don't know this.

razorphreak wrote:

I'm not sure I follow.  Because the bible does not say that when God created man which genus he decided to create man under, one big misunderstanding is that God created man as we are today.  Man still had to evolve just as animals have evolved over time so where God started it up isn't trying to change scientific evidence.  There is no time line in the bible ya know.

According to the scientific evidence, humans evolved from other animals -- which is to say that humans were not created...ya know.

Now that we at least have you on record saying "man had to evolve", I'd be curious to see your answers to the questions I asked above.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:According

zarathustra wrote:
According to genesis, did god create 1 male and 1 female human through a spoken command following the creation of plants and animals, or did god create a human male, place him in an appropriate habitat, populate it with animals, then create a female human from the human male's rib?  And however you respond, do you find this compatible with the theory of evolution?

Since that other thread didn't specify any bible verses, I'd like to be sure you are referring to Genesis 2:4-7 as the "2nd" story, correct?

zarathustra wrote:
Nothing, per "say".  However, in post #15, you postured as having some etymological knowledge of the Hebrew word "day", whereby you designated its specific meaning.  In post #19, when asked by ryandinan what species adam and eve belonged to (namely, does the word for "man" used in genesis indicate sapiens,habilis,australopithecus,vtc.), you admitted that you didn't know.  I simply found it a point of interest that you would confidently express knowledge about the meaning of one simple word from genesis, yet floundered when asked the precise meaning of another simple word ("man" ) in the same book.

Why are you comparing apples and oranges here?  I did say SPECIFICALLY that since "yom" is used elsewhere in the bible, its meaning was defined by the context of how it was used (since "yom" can have multiple meanings).  Now if you are not aware on how to use a word in context and derive its meaning from that context, we might have a problem with further discussion on the matter.

As to the second part, what "man" means, it was not the point of the of defining the word "man" (Hebrew word of "'adam" or otherwise) but rather trying to say at what level "man" would have come up on the evolutionary scale.

zarathustra wrote:
Actually, Darwin's theory of evolution is not about how life began.  After over a year on as a registered member, it is laughable that you don't know this.

Darwin did in fact produce a book called the "On the Origin of Species" did he not?

zarathustra wrote:
According to the scientific evidence...

Right there is where we will not agree.  The "scientific evidence" of which you speak are incomplete fossils that use a large amount of speculation and theory to describe the possible origins.  And because these fossils are of extinct creatures, there is no possible way to know if how science is describing them is actually accurate (hence my example on T-Rex - for years they were not accurate and they still may not be).  Actual evidence of anything defined before the homo genus is extremely questionable as being anything related to humans.  If you choose not to question it, that's up to you.  I do however.  After all, the very title of this thread asks if evolution were to be proven.  My argument on my posts is to show that evolution is indeed a valid form of science but I take exception to one sub point of evolution and that is the origins of humans.

zarathustra wrote:
Now that we at least have you on record saying "man had to evolve", I'd be curious to see your answers to the questions I asked above.

Evolution is more than a fish growing legs is it not?

As to your questions, were you actually serious when you asked those because they sure don't seem like anything I should have taken seriously.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:Since that

razorphreak wrote:

Since that other thread didn't specify any bible verses, I'd like to be sure you are referring to Genesis 2:4-7 as the "2nd" story, correct?

All the way to 2:22, with the rib action.

razorphreak wrote:

Why are you comparing apples and oranges here?  I did say SPECIFICALLY that since "yom" is used elsewhere in the bible, its meaning was defined by the context of how it was used (since "yom" can have multiple meanings).  Now if you are not aware on how to use a word in context and derive its meaning from that context, we might have a problem with further discussion on the matter.

As to the second part, what "man" means, it was not the point of the of defining the word "man" (Hebrew word of "'adam" or otherwise) but rather trying to say at what level "man" would have come up on the evolutionary scale.

So, from your reading of genesis, do you or don't you know SPECIFICALLY what level "man" came up on the evolutionary scale? 

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Actually, Darwin's theory of evolution is not about how life began.  After over a year on as a registered member, it is laughable that you don't know this.

Darwin did in fact produce a book called the "On the Origin of Species" did he not?

Why yes he did.  He however did not write a book called The Origin of Life.  If you're unclear on the difference, please ask for help.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
According to the scientific evidence...

Right there is where we will not agree.  The "scientific evidence" of which you speak are incomplete fossils that use a large amount of speculation and theory to describe the possible origins.  And because these fossils are of extinct creatures, there is no possible way to know if how science is describing them is actually accurate (hence my example on T-Rex - for years they were not accurate and they still may not be).  Actual evidence of anything defined before the homo genus is extremely questionable as being anything related to humans.  If you choose not to question it, that's up to you.  I do however. 

As I have already conceded, science admits of falsifiability, which means its conclusions should always be questioned.  Perhaps I misconstrue, but you apparently choose not to question the bible.  1 guess on which has held up better to questioning.

razorphreak wrote:
After all, the very title of this thread asks if evolution were to be proven.  My argument on my posts is to show that evolution is indeed a valid form of science but I take exception to one sub point of evolution and that is the origins of humans.

 

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Now that we at least have you on record saying "man had to evolve", I'd be curious to see your answers to the questions I asked above.

Evolution is more than a fish growing legs is it not?

I'm not clear what you implied by that.  Please explain.

razorphreak wrote:

As to your questions, were you actually serious when you asked those because they sure don't seem like anything I should have taken seriously.

I'd be curious to see your answers to the questions I asked above.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:All the

zarathustra wrote:
All the way to 2:22, with the rib action.

I'm assuming that the "2nd" story comes from the following verses:

Genesis 2:4-7 (NASB) This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I'm not sure where you see the conflict from what is described in Genesis 1.  Can you help me in understanding how you come to see it as a 2nd creation story?

zarathustra wrote:
So, from your reading of genesis, do you or don't you know SPECIFICALLY what level "man" came up on the evolutionary scale?

Specifically?  No.  But I can do an educated guess.

zarathustra wrote:
As I have already conceded, science admits of falsifiability, which means its conclusions should always be questioned.  Perhaps I misconstrue, but you apparently choose not to question the bible.  1 guess on which has held up better to questioning.

When read in context, the bible has held up far better.  What I've seen from those here seems to forget the first part, to read in context.

zarathustra wrote:
Where exactly on the evolutionary timeline did sin and the need for salvation arise?  With Homo sapiensHomo erectus?  The Australopithecines?  The tree shrews?  

Are Neanderthals saved by jesus?  What if we evolve into a new species?

OK since you were serious about those questions...

a. Not sure there is an answer for that.  You'd first have to accept that humans actually evolved from another animal which I do not nor does the bible.  To be honest, if you were to attempt to guess which genus the first humans belonged to from the bible, what difference would it make when sin arrived (i.e. when the fall occurred)?

b. The bible is very clear that man kind, his creation, are the ones who are offered salvation.  IF there were such a human known as a neanderthal, then the time line of their existence would have put them before Jesus was on Earth and hence under a different set of rules for entrance to heaven.

c. Current "rules" apply IF mankind actually would be called a new species through some kind of change.  Why did I see flashes of X-Men all of a sudden?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
All the way to 2:22, with the rib action.

I'm assuming that the "2nd" story comes from the following verses:

Genesis 2:4-7 (NASB) This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I'm not sure where you see the conflict from what is described in Genesis 1.  Can you help me in understanding how you come to see it as a 2nd creation story?

According to genesis, did god create 1 male and 1 female human through a spoken command following the creation of plants and animals, [1st] or did god create a human male, place him in an appropriate habitat, populate it with animals, then create a female human from the human male's rib[2nd]And however you respond, do you find this compatible with the theory of evolution?

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
So, from your reading of genesis, do you or don't you know SPECIFICALLY what level "man" came up on the evolutionary scale?

Specifically?  No.  But I can do an educated guess.

Excellent.  Any chance of you sharing your "educated guess" with the rest of us?

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
As I have already conceded, science admits of falsifiability, which means its conclusions should always be questioned.  Perhaps I misconstrue, but you apparently choose not to question the bible.  1 guess on which has held up better to questioning.

When read in context, the bible has held up far better.  What I've seen from those here seems to forget the first part, to read in context.

You repeatedly use "context" as your defense when dealing with biblical incongruities.  Given your miscomprehension -- that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life -- you don't demonstrate any particular accuracy at taking things "in context".

Now, can and should the bible be questioned, as evolutionary theory is?  Is the bible falsifiable, as evolutionary theory is?  This is a direct question, please answer directly.

razorphreak wrote:

  

a.

zarathustra wrote:
Where exactly on the evolutionary timeline did sin and the need for salvation arise?With Homo sapiensHomo erectus?  The Australopithecines?  The tree shrews?

Not sure there is an answer for that.  You'd first have to accept that humans actually evolved from another animal which I do not nor does the bible. 

Is that to say you believe humans evolved into something new (your words:  "man still had to evolve" ), yet did not themselves evolve from something else?  If so, please explain why you accept the first case, but not the second.

razorphreak wrote:
To be honest, if you were to attempt to guess which genus the first humans belonged to from the bible, what difference would it make when sin arrived (i.e. when the fall occurred)?

It makes a difference, because it raises a question of exactly how broadly sin and salvation extends.  If sinfulness and the need for salvation can go across several species (sapiens,erectus,habilis), or even genera (Homo, Australopithecus), what prevents us from extending it to other primates?  As Homo sapiens, we share nearly all of our DNA with chimpanzees (after over a year on as a registered member, I'm sure you knew that).  Being so similar to us, do they fall within the sin zone, just like our hominid ancestors?  By what criteria do you determine the taxonomical boundaries of salvation?

razorphreak wrote:

b.

zarathustra wrote:
Are Neanderthals saved by jesus?
The bible is very clear that man kind, his creation, are the ones who are offered salvation.  IF there were such a human known as a neanderthal, then the time line of their existence would have put them before Jesus was on Earth and hence under a different set of rules for entrance to heaven.

So you say that salvation is for "mankind".  Yet you just got done saying you're ok with "mankind" spreading across more than one species (you said "genus", but you meant "species" ).  True, neanderthals more than likely went extinct before the time of jesus' purported existence, but they lived alongside Homo sapiens before doing so -- which means they would have lived after the creation of adam and his presumed fall from grace.  Furthermore, due to interbreeding, there is evidence that we have inherited genes from neanderthals -- which would mean that if jesus existed, he would have had some neanderthal in him.  Is that enough to get them in the salvation club?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:According

zarathustra wrote:
According to genesis, did god create 1 male and 1 female human through a spoken command following the creation of plants and animals, [1st] or did god create a human male, place him in an appropriate habitat, populate it with animals, then create a female human from the human male's rib[2nd]And however you respond, do you find this compatible with the theory of evolution?

I don't understand how it is you see two stories.  I really don't.  The "first" was the specific details, the "second" was the summary.   How am I not seeing any order contraversey?

Verse 8 of chapter 2 states "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."  That sure sounds as if man was created AFTER the garden was planted. 

What am I missing?

zarathustra wrote:
Any chance of you sharing your "educated guess" with the rest of us?

Already did.

zarathustra wrote:
You repeatedly use "context" as your defense when dealing with biblical incongruities.  Given your miscomprehension -- that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life -- you don't demonstrate any particular accuracy at taking things "in context".

Now, can and should the bible be questioned, as evolutionary theory is?  Is the bible falsifiable, as evolutionary theory is?  This is a direct question, please answer directly.

This is why I hate forums.  Obviously I lack the ability to express myself via "written" word so my point is clear. 

I never EVER said that evolutionary theory is ONLY about the origin of life.  I said that the origin of life is a "subtitle" of evolution as evolution is far more than just the beginning.

As to if the bible should be questioned, I suppose it's a question first behind the reasons that you believe.  If you believe that you have a relationship with God, as I do, there is no reason to question because you understand the points being made.  You understand where it is not perfectly clear and where understanding is difficult.  Educated guesses and assumptions are made following context and questions get answered.  Do I question the bible?  No.  Do I question the meanings?  Yes.  Did it mean this or that?  Because of my faith, I do not see a reason for the true or false question since my faith from God has answered it for me. 

Now at the same time, I do understand since you don't share that same faith why you would raise the question of true or false. 

zarathustra wrote:
Is that to say you believe humans evolved into something new (your words:  "man still had to evolve" ), yet did not themselves evolve from something else?  If so, please explain why you accept the first case, but not the second.

Is evolution not about the advancement of a species?  Did we not go from beings that could not speak words to now using languages?  Did we not go from stone tools to monster sky cranes?  Did we not use mud for houses to what we have now?  Is that not part of human evolution?

zarathustra wrote:
it raises a question of exactly how broadly sin and salvation extends.  If sinfulness and the need for salvation can go across several species (sapiens,erectus,habilis), or even genera (Homo, Australopithecus), what prevents us from extending it to other primates?  As Homo sapiens, we share nearly all of our DNA with chimpanzees (after over a year on as a registered member, I'm sure you knew that).  Being so similar to us, do they fall within the sin zone, just like our hominid ancestors?  By what criteria do you determine the taxonomical boundaries of salvation?

Sharing DNA does not mean they are human.  As far as I can tell, only humans are, well, humans.  And since humans are the only ones with a "soul" (we are talking about biblical issue of sin and salvation so a soul must be in the discussion), only humans are needing salvation.

zarathustra wrote:
So you say that salvation is for "mankind".  Yet you just got done saying you're ok with "mankind" spreading across more than one species (you said "genus", but you meant "species" ).  True, neanderthals more than likely went extinct before the time of jesus' purported existence, but they lived alongside Homo sapiens before doing so -- which means they would have lived after the creation of adam and his presumed fall from grace.  Furthermore, due to interbreeding, there is evidence that we have inherited genes from neanderthals -- which would mean that if jesus existed, he would have had some neanderthal in him.  Is that enough to get them in the salvation club?

If every species within the homo genus was in fact "human" as we know "human" to be, well there you go.  That's if, of course, those "species" were in fact human.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


D20DM
D20DM's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-27
User is offlineOffline
Ummm, evolution is already a

Ummm, evolution is already a fact, so I'm going with "No."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
I have observed razorfreak's

I have observed razorphreak's "debating" style on other threads.  This person is unwilling to provide straight answers or to accept conventional word definitions.  For example, ask razorphreak what qualifies as a "miracle".

 razorphreak must have been on the same highschool debating team as Paisley.  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:I have

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I have observed

razorphreak

's

"debating"

style on other threads.  This person is unwilling to provide straight answers or to accept conventional word definitions.  For example, ask

razorphreak

what qualifies as a "miracle".

 razorphreak must have been on the same highschool debating team as Paisley.

Straight answers are rarely accepted from theists on this forum.  Frankly, each time I've actually been stupid enough to give one based on a biblical point of view it's usually met with the run of the mill fallacy responses. 

So how can I give a straight answer when I never get a straight response?  I have to break it down to figure out what exactly it is you are asking for and make sure I don't fall into some theist-bashing trap.

I've actually given straight answers on this thread.  It's not my fault they were not the answers you desired, if such a thing was actually possible.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I have observed

razorphreak

's

"debating"

style on other threads.  This person is unwilling to provide straight answers or to accept conventional word definitions.  For example, ask

razorphreak

what qualifies as a "miracle".

 razorphreak must have been on the same highschool debating team as Paisley.

Straight answers are rarely accepted from theists on this forum.  Frankly, each time I've actually been stupid enough to give one based on a biblical point of view it's usually met with the run of the mill fallacy responses. 

So how can I give a straight answer when I never get a straight response?  I have to break it down to figure out what exactly it is you are asking for and make sure I don't fall into some theist-bashing trap.

I've actually given straight answers on this thread.  It's not my fault they were not the answers you desired, if such a thing was actually possible.

 

I still didn't understand your answer, honestly. What kind of evidence would be required for you to believe that evolution did, indeed, happen and, in fact, is still happening?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
sandwiches wrote:I still

sandwiches wrote:
I still didn't understand your answer, honestly. What kind of evidence would be required for you to believe that evolution did, indeed, happen and, in fact, is still happening?
 

Probably because it's the question itself that is the problem.  I truly believe that ALL theists would agree that there is such a thing as evolution and it is very real with the exception of the explanation of how life began (and maybe when). 

I fully accept that evolution has, is, and continues to occur all around us.  But I do not accept that humans began as a different kind of animal, nor am I a fan of some explanations of what could be called cross breading and passed off as a new species.  That's part of the back and forth on this thread about when "humans" might have been called humans from the bible.

So your question is what is the problem here; I don't need evidence to accept evolution.  I already have.  What I reject is the origins of life theory offered up by evolution.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
 razorphreak wrote:I don't

 

razorphreak wrote:

I don't understand how it is you see two stories.  I really don't.  The "first" was the specific details, the "second" was the summary.   How am I not seeing any order contraversey?

Verse 8 of chapter 2 states "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."  That sure sounds as if man was created AFTER the garden was planted. 

What am I missing?

This is getting off topic.  When I get a chance I'll respond in the aforementioned thread.  If you're not up for debating this further, that's fine. 

razorphreak wrote:
I've actually given straight answers on this thread.  It's not my fault they were not the answers you desired, if such a thing was actually possible.

Straight answers? Let's see. 

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Any chance of you sharing your "educated guess" with the rest of us?

Already did.

I'm taking this for your "educated guess":

Quote:
Anyway, were Adam and Eve possibly Australopithecus?  Maybe.  Or could they have been Homo habilis?  Maybe.  All I can say is in accordance with my faith and my faith follows the path of Genesis calling Adam and Eve the first people, the first humans.  The debate I think, if we were to follow "human evolution," would probably be about if Australopithecus was actually a human relative.  I personally have doubts considering the mistakes that science has shown before when it comes to extinct species (e.g. how T-Rex walked).

 

You're saying "Maybe they were australopithecines.  Maybe they were habilis.  Whatever."  This is hardly a guess, much less an educated one, much less a straight answer. 

I've also asked you (more than once) if the bible is falsifiable.  Not just questionable, but falsifiable.  A straight answer would be an unequivocal "yes" or "no", such as you have not yet provided. 

razorphreak wrote:

I never EVER said that evolutionary theory is ONLY about the origin of life.  I said that the origin of life is a "subtitle" of evolution as evolution is far more than just the beginning.

I never (EVER) insinuated that you said it is only about the origin of life.  However, I have already pointed out to you that the theory of evolution isn't about the origin of life.  "Subtitle" or otherwise. 

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Is that to say you believe humans evolved into something new (your words:  "man still had to evolve" ), yet did not themselves evolve from something else?  If so, please explain why you accept the first case, but not the second.

Is evolution not about the advancement of a species? 

It's about the survival of a species.  There are instances where species evolve into less complex forms in order to survive.

razorphreak wrote:

Did we not go from beings that could not speak words to now using languages?

According to evolution, yes.   Are you now implying that adam & eve were "beings that could not speak words"?

razorphreak wrote:
Did we not go from stone tools to monster sky cranes?  Did we not use mud for houses to what we have now?  Is that not part of human evolution?

Yes, we went from stone tools to cranes.  Yes we went from mud houses to...what we have now.  No, that is not part of human evolution.  Those are technological advances, all of which were accomplished by Homo sapiens.  So no, that is not part of human evolution.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:sandwiches

razorphreak wrote:

sandwiches wrote:
I still didn't understand your answer, honestly. What kind of evidence would be required for you to believe that evolution did, indeed, happen and, in fact, is still happening?
 

Probably because it's the question itself that is the problem.  I truly believe that ALL theists would agree that there is such a thing as evolution and it is very real with the exception of the explanation of how life began (and maybe when). 

I fully accept that evolution has, is, and continues to occur all around us.  But I do not accept that humans began as a different kind of animal, nor am I a fan of some explanations of what could be called cross breading and passed off as a new species.  That's part of the back and forth on this thread about when "humans" might have been called humans from the bible.

So your question is what is the problem here; I don't need evidence to accept evolution.  I already have.  What I reject is the origins of life theory offered up by evolution.

I see. So, the problem with my question is that it's not explicit enough and the fact that you believe that evolution offers a theory for the origins of life. Well, let me dispel the latter assumption by letting you know that evolution does not make a statement on the origin of life, but only on the origin of species.

 

Now, onto my rephrased question:

What kind of evidence would be required for you to believe that humans evolved from other living beings such as ape-like beings, bacteria, etc?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:You're

zarathustra wrote:
You're saying "Maybe they were australopithecines.  Maybe they were habilis.  Whatever."  This is hardly a guess, much less an educated one, much less a straight answer.

As I said previously, it's not my fault if it's not the one you want or expect.  The bible is not exactly written as a modern science book with insight to species or genus.  I offered up a possibility but there are no for sure answers from a biblical perspective.

zarathustra wrote:
I've also asked you (more than once) if the bible is falsifiable.  Not just questionable, but falsifiable.  A straight answer would be an unequivocal "yes" or "no", such as you have not yet provided.

And you aren't asking the right question, as I thought I previously pointed out.

zarathustra wrote:
However, I have already pointed out to you that the theory of evolution isn't about the origin of life.  "Subtitle" or otherwise.

Part of it is...the part that is what we are discussing.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
sandwiches wrote:So, the

sandwiches wrote:
So, the problem with my question is that it's not explicit enough and the fact that you believe that evolution offers a theory for the origins of life. Well, let me dispel the latter assumption by letting you know that evolution does not make a statement on the origin of life, but only on the origin of species.

Does evolution not talk about how every other species comes to be?  Does it not offer up a theory as to how life began on Earth, not just with humans?

sandwiches wrote:
What kind of evidence would be required for you to believe that humans evolved from other living beings such as ape-like beings, bacteria, etc?

I'm not sure I follow.  Are you saying you want to present what has been explained as evidence to me for me to believe?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Does

razorphreak wrote:

 

Does evolution not talk about how every other species comes to be?  Does it not offer up a theory as to how life began on Earth, not just with humans?

 

It's called Darwin's Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:sandwiches

razorphreak wrote:

sandwiches wrote:
So, the problem with my question is that it's not explicit enough and the fact that you believe that evolution offers a theory for the origins of life. Well, let me dispel the latter assumption by letting you know that evolution does not make a statement on the origin of life, but only on the origin of species.

Does evolution not talk about how every other species comes to be?  Does it not offer up a theory as to how life began on Earth, not just with humans?

No. It offers no theories as to how life began, humans or otherwise.

razorphreak wrote:

sandwiches wrote:
What kind of evidence would be required for you to believe that humans evolved from other living beings such as ape-like beings, bacteria, etc?

I'm not sure I follow.  Are you saying you want to present what has been explained as evidence to me for me to believe?

I am asking what kind of evidence would you need to believe that we, as humans, evolved from other life forms?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Theory of Evolution is

The Theory of Evolution is about how various lineages of life-forms gradually change their characteristics and split into different lineages which we come to recognize as different 'species', NOT about how life itself originated. Its about what drives these changes, the Origin of all the variation, of the enormous range of species, of life-forms.

The strongest evidence for the relationships of life on earth today is today derived from genetic studies, which clearly show our inheritance from earlier non-human forms. with no evidence of major discontinuities.

On the OT, debate is unlikely to affect the truly committed, but the point is that, based on personal testimony of many ex-theists, even ex-fundies, it is not easy to know who is truly and irrevocably into the theist 'camp', so it is worth putting the arguments out there.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


RagenGaijin
RagenGaijin's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2008-01-05
User is offlineOffline
no

No because they would just say evolution was part of god's plan the whole time.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
sandwiches wrote:No. It

sandwiches wrote:
No. It offers no theories as to how life began, humans or otherwise.

...

I am asking what kind of evidence would you need to believe that we, as humans, evolved from other life forms?

OK OK evolution isn't about the start of life on Earth.  Whatever...arguing about details.

I honestly don't know what kind of evidence would need to exist for me to even consider it.  Nothing that is out there today tells me as much.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:


zarathustra wrote:
You're saying "Maybe they were australopithecines.  Maybe they were habilis.  Whatever."  This is hardly a guess, much less an educated one, much less a straight answer.


As I said previously, it's not my fault if it's not the one you want or expect.  The bible is not exactly written as a modern science book with insight to species or genus.

You don't say!

 

razorphreak wrote:

  I offered up a possibility but there are no for sure answers from a biblical perspective.

Here are some more questions for your "biblical perspective":

1. If you are content with the possibility that the first 2 humans were australopithecines, at what point in the bible had Australopithecus died out, and Homo sapiens emerged?  Was jesus a member of Homo sapiens, or of a transitional species?

2. Do you believe humans went from fruit gathering to the agriculture and the domestication of animals (cain & abel) in the course of 1 generation? 

 

razorphreak wrote:


zarathustra wrote:
I've also asked you (more than once) if the bible is falsifiable.  Not just questionable, but falsifiable.  A straight answer would be an unequivocal "yes" or "no", such as you have not yet provided.


And you aren't asking the right question, as I thought I previously pointed out.

razor, is the bible falsifiable or not?  A yes or no question.  Please answer "yes" or "no".

razorphreak wrote:



sandwiches wrote:
No. It offers no theories as to how life began, humans or otherwise.

OK OK evolution isn't about the start of life on Earth.  Whatever...arguing about details.

Yes; rather important details.  If you don't understand that evolution isn't about the origin of life, then you aren't fit to debate it.  It's only taken you a dozen posts (and a year and a half on these forums) to accept that.

razorphreak wrote:
sandwiches wrote:


I am asking what kind of evidence would you need to believe that we, as humans, evolved from other life forms?



I honestly don't know what kind of evidence would need to exist for me to even consider it.  Nothing that is out there today tells me as much.

Which suggests you aren't even open to the prospect of human evolution being true.  Which means it was worthless of you to engage this thread in the first place.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Here are

zarathustra wrote:
Here are some more questions for your "biblical perspective":

1. If you are content with the possibility that the first 2 humans were australopithecines, at what point in the bible had Australopithecus died out, and Homo sapiens emerged?  Was jesus a member of Homo sapiens, or of a transitional species?

2. Do you believe humans went from fruit gathering to the agriculture and the domestication of animals (cain & abel) in the course of 1 generation?

1. (a)You've stated you read the bible...what do you think? (b) since speech and use of tools was pretty much common place, although I'm sure you'll tell me that won't qualify homo sapien.  Either way this question really seems...well, just not serious in intent.

2. Since Adam was over 900 years old, I don't think that was what we would call 1 generation so...ummm...if it is one generation, then considering the number of years, the answer?  Yep.

zarathustra wrote:
razor, is the bible falsifiable or not?  A yes or no question.  Please answer "yes" or "no".

Even though I still do not agree with your question as it is not relevant, since all you want is an answer, then it is no.

zarathustra wrote:
If you don't understand that evolution isn't about the origin of life, then you aren't fit to debate it.  It's only taken you a dozen posts (and a year and a half on these forums) to accept that.

Well then you need to get out and stop the poor marketing since that's what you tend to hear, both lumped together.

zarathustra wrote:
Which suggests you aren't even open to the prospect of human evolution being true.  Which means it was worthless of you to engage this thread in the first place.

As I said before, I agree with parts...not the whole.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Here are some more questions for your "biblical perspective":

1. If you are content with the possibility that the first 2 humans were australopithecines, at what point in the bible had Australopithecus died out, and Homo sapiens emerged?  Was jesus a member of Homo sapiens, or of a transitional species?

1. (a)You've stated you read the bible...what do you think?

Never mind what I think, sonny.  You've postured time and again that you can read the bible "in its proper context", so instead of dodging incessantly, just whip out your damn bible, strap on your proper context,  and answer the friggin'  question. 

razorphreak wrote:

(b) since speech and use of tools was pretty much common place, although I'm sure you'll tell me that won't qualify homo sapien.

The previous fragment lacks a clear subject and predicate, so I'm not at all certain what you meant to say here.  Try again, perhaps?  Just to be clear, what I would like answered (and don't see answered) is:

Quote:
If you are content with the possibility that the first 2 humans were australopithecines, at what point in the bible had Australopithecus died out, and Homo sapiens emerged?  Was jesus a member of Homo sapiens, or of a transitional species?

razorphreak wrote:
Either way this question really seems...well, just not serious in intent.

Oh, I am being quite serious razorphreak, and I'm not sure why you would think I'm not being serious.  Henceforth in this thread, you can safely assume any questions I ask are serious, unless I explicitly indicate otherwise.  I will thank you effusively to cease with your dissembling and answer forthrightly now. 

razorphreak wrote:
zarathustra wrote:

2. Do you believe humans went from fruit gathering to the agriculture and the domestication of animals (cain & abel) in the course of 1 generation?

2. Since Adam was over 900 years old, I don't think that was what we would call 1 generation so...ummm...if it is one generation, then considering the number of years, the answer?  Yep.

Do you mean to say there was more than one generation between adam & eve and cain & abel? 

If you're clueless as to what I'm asking: 

According to your bible, "Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil", which indicates that by the 2nd generation, humans had achieved animal domestication and agriculture. 

Rather sad of you to try and red herring your way out of it with "900 years", since if you read your bible (have you? [Don't worry! Not a serious question!!!]),  you would know this occurred much earlier (max 130 years, since that was adam's age when he sired seth [so cain & abel had already done their thing]). 

So to tie it all together (warning:  serious question ahead!!!):  Are you comfortable saying that adam & eve were Australopithecines, and that animal domestication/agriculture developed 1 generation later (max 130 years)?  This might be an opportune time to point out that Australopithecus had roughly the same size brain as the modern chimpanzee.  This indicates that they were not capable of complex language, or simple tools, much less animal husbandry and agriculture.

If you reserved the right to backtrack, now might be a good time to exercise it.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:Probably

razorphreak wrote:

Probably because it's the question itself that is the problem.  I truly believe that ALL theists would agree that there is such a thing as evolution and it is very real with the exception of the explanation of how life began (and maybe when). 

You must know by now that the origin of life has exactly nothing to do with evolution.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:Since Adam

razorphreak wrote:

Since Adam was over 900 years old

Really? I'm not a biblical scholar, but ... really? And the likelyhood that a 900-year-old man existed at some point is ...

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

Since Adam was over 900 years old

Really? I'm not a biblical scholar, but ... really? And the likelyhood that a 900-year-old man existed at some point is ...

Gen5:5'and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.'

Straight from the not so good book

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:  I truly


razorphreak wrote:

  I truly believe that ALL theists would agree that there is such a thing as evolution and it is very real with the exception of the explanation of how life began (and maybe when). 

Seriously? Have you never heard of a YEC or every single theist I've ever known?If ALL theist's agreed there was such a thing as evolution, why would we even have arguments for it.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.