Adam and Eve or Evolution? (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

not abit == ) very sexist.. god created adam.. becuase he was bored (my opinion) god created even from ADAMS rib (look in our history.. and look at where the bible spread then look at how roles of women and men are..) eve was made to serve adam.. and babies from eve.. just a heiarchy system made by a society where men dominated.. b asically to keep women below men..

andrew.[/QUOTES]



its disgusting, the treatment of women. i cannot believe how women accept the bible. i'll say it once and i'll be glad to say it again, it is full of SHIT

su ur suggesting that god should be women? wat difference does it make? i think ur being sexist?

look women, are better at some things and its common sense that u do what ur better at it. (yes some women are gud at other things, still its common sense to do wat ur gud whatever it is). the same goes for men.

so women tend to be better at being more creative, more organised (generally) etc. men tend to be better at everything (generally) and lazy. so wat?

 

[toadstooltown]

When it comes to such matters, it's usually reccomended that one considers the principle of "Occam's razor" which states that with any hypothesis we should make a few assumptions as possible.
For me, the quantity of evidence pointing to an evolution of man (or something very simmilar) requires us to make very few assumptions as we do have evidence suggesting that. For religion, while many people do claim to inherantly *feel* god within them, many of us do not so many assumptions must be made; that there is a god, that he creater the universe, that he created the garden of eden etc etc up to he created adam and eve. Hence, I always prefer science because it's just plain more likely; fewers assumptions therefore less of a chance to be wrong.

Also, the creation story involving Adam and Eve is only one of the two creation stories in the bible (go and check) which clearly points that they're both myths accounting for the creation of the world, not literally believed. It's very simmiliar to the way many Aboriginal Dreaming stories are explainations for the traits of animals and people, usually influenced by some deity.

 

[BronwynKate]

I guess the most intellectually honest answer for me would be to say "I don't know" whether it's creationism or evolution or both!

I lean towards evolution because the earth is very old and there is fossil evidence and archaeology.

Plus species are diverse and they grow and change.

I think you could find evidence for both. I have a scientific view of God. I think it is the balance of chaos and order in the universe.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Erm...... whatever, rhetoric.

 

[BronwynKate]

Now that I think about it:

It doesn't matter so much how the world came to be, as how we live in it now and whether it's going to end soon.

Look at all the religious people and their predictions about when the world would have ended.

If we didn't have science many of us would have been dead many years ago!

 

[ur_inner_child]

BrowynKate, i dont know if its an intellectual answer, considering you havent particularly justified your case enough - as in - your scientific view of God, and evidence for "both".

I feel you just don't know about either one or both cases to make a judgement, or have actually thought this through.

It's not whether you believe in that God created the world or not, which I feel you might be mistaking it for. It's adam and even or evolution. It's not religion vs science either.

A lot of Christians support evolution...

 

[Analyst]

All religions can support evolution as a thought and as a phenomenon. Christians.can support evolution, but are not allowed to deny adam and eve. If u do, ur not christian...

 

[The Brucemaster]

Don't take this as a criticism but im curious to know how Christians can accept Evolution when the Bible so clearly contradicts it:
Genesis 1:27 - So God created human beings, making them to be like himself...

Again, no criticism im just seeking some clarification.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

From Wikipedia;

Though the details of macroevolution are debated within the scientific community, it is widely accepted. Macroevolution is largely disputed by many creationism and intelligent design advocates. Generally speaking, these groups differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting that the former is an undeniably observable phenomenon, but that the latter is not. They have proposed a number of limits beyond which they assert evolution cannot occur. Proponents of Intelligent design argue that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of giving rise to instances of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Proponents of creation biology assert that life was originally created in a finite number of discrete created kinds beyond which and between which no evolution can occur. The argument being that the dominant source of biological change is population isolation, genetic drift and mutation which causes the loss of the diversity of the original kinds and genetic information, rather than an increase of genetic diversity through mutation or other evolutionary mechanisms.

 

[HotShot]

Don't take this as a criticism but im curious to know how Christians can accept Evolution when the Bible so clearly contradicts it:
Genesis 1:27 - So God created human beings, making them to be like himself...

Again, no criticism im just seeking some clarification.

evolution can still exist if god created human beings u realise that dont you?

 

[Aznpsycho]

Oh god, how do people still fall for the 'Just a Theory' argument?

STOP DOING THIS

the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, th�r)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The first definition is the one which is used scientifically. The sixth definition is the one used colloquially by most people. For example, there is a large difference between the Theory of Gravitation and Conspiracy Theories About Aliens, largely in the evidence and ability to explain phenomena.

One one of the arguments by Creationists is the blurring of the distinction between these two definitions of the word 'Theory'. This is WRONG, because this is an argument of semantics, and is deliberately misleading. See my example of Gravitation and Conspiracy.

Michael Behe, in the recent ID court case, had something to say about this:

Q Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.

A Yes.

Q But when you call it a scientific theory, you're not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does.

A Yes, that's correct.

Q You don't always see eye to eye with the National Academy?

A Sometimes not.

Q And the definition by the National Academy, as I think you testified is, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses, correct?

A Yes.

Q Using that definition, you agree intelligent design is not a scientific theory, correct?

A Well, as I think I made clear in my deposition, I'm a little bit of two minds of that. I, in fact, do think that intelligent design is well substantiated for some of the reasons that I made clear during my testimony. But again, when you say well substantiated, sometimes a person would think that there must be a large number of people then who would agree with that. And so, frankly, I, like I said, I am of two minds of that.

Q And actually you said at your deposition, I don't think intelligent design falls under this definition. Correct?

A Yeah, and that's after I said -- if I may see where in my deposition that is? I'm sorry.

Q It's on pages 134 and 135.

A And where are you -- where are you reading from?

Q I'll be happy to read the question and answer to you. I asked you whether intelligent design -- I asked actually on the top of 133, I asked you whether intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory using the National Academy of Sciences definition.

A What line is that, I'm sorry?

Q That's 133, line 18.

A Is that going -- question beginning, "Going back to the National Academy of Science?"

Q Yes. And you first said, "I m going to say that I would argue that in fact it is." And that's 134, line ten.

A Yes.

Q Okay. And I said, "Intelligent design does meet that?" And you said, "It's well substantiated, yes." And I said, "Let's be clear here, I'm asking -- looking at the definition of a scientific theory in its entirety, is it your position that intelligent design is a scientific theory?" And you said, going down to line 23, "I think one can argue these a variety of ways. For purposes of an answer to the -- relatively brief answer to the question, I will say that I don't think it falls under this." And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can't satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."

A Yes.

Q So for those reasons you said it's not -- doesn't meet the National Academy of Sciences definition.

A I think this text makes clear what I just said a minute or two ago, that I'm of several minds on this question. I started off saying one thing and changing my mind and then I explicitly said, "I think one can argue these things a variety of ways. For purposes of a relatively brief answer to the question, I'll say this." But I think if I were going to give a more complete answer, I would go into a lot more issues about this.

So I disagree that that's what I said -- or that's what I intended to say.

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A I'm sorry?

Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A It seems like that.

Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

A Yes.

Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Q Page 132, line 23.

A Yes.

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Linked from:
Talk Origins
ACLU

If you ask me, the deciding factor in favour of Evolution is the age of the Earth. 'Microevolution' has been proved, there is OVERWHELMING proof in favour of this. This has been demonstrated experimentally, and the exploitation of this phenomena is critical for the agricultural and medical industries. There is no fundemental difference between Micro- and Macro- evolution. After all, when fossil evidence is considered, every species existant is a transistional species with other species. Macroevolution is essentially the mechanism for speciation, that is, different species arising, or branching off, from existing ones.

Hence, the age of the Earth. It is 4.5 billions years old, give or take. There is such an absurd amount of evidence in favour of this, that anyone who argues otherwise is delusional.

 

[davin]

very awesome exchange there, especially how that connected astrology into it

 

[HotShot]

so have humans evolved in the past 100 or 200 or even the past 500 years?

 

[davin]

in the past 500, i'd say yes, slightly. realise though that its based off of generations. which is why bacteria and viruses have been observed to have evolved, because they have generations that are very short....whereas a human generation needs somewhere between 15 and 25 years, so for the past 100 to 200 years, we're talking about only a handful of generations.

 

[ur_inner_child]

lol aznpyscho. I totally feel you.

Anyway, apparently we are still evolving:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4222460.stm

'Proof' our brains are evolving

University scientists say they have found strong proof that the human brain is still evolving.

By comparing modern man with our ancestors of 37,000 years ago, the Chicago team discovered big changes in two genes linked to brain size.

One of the new variants emerged only 5,800 years ago yet is present in 30% of today's humans, they believe.

This is very short in evolutionary terms, suggesting intense selection pressures, they told Science.

Survival benefit

Each gene variant emerged around the same time as the advent of so called "cultural" behaviours.

The microcephalin variant appeared along with the emergence of traits such as art and music, religious practices and sophisticated tool-making techniques, which date back to about 50,000 years ago.

It is now present in about 70% of humans alive today.

The other, called the ASPM variant, originated at a time that coincides with the spread of agriculture, settled cities and the first record of written language.

Researcher Dr Bruce Lahn said the big question was whether the genetic evolution seen had actually caused the cultural evolution of humans or was merely chance.

Their hunch is that it might have something to do with the important role that these genes play in brain size, but stressed that did not necessarily mean better intelligence.

"Just because these genes are still evolving doesn't necessarily mean they make you any smarter," said Dr Lahn.

Ongoing changes

But he added: "Our studies indicate that the trend that is the defining characteristic of human evolution - the growth of brain size and complexity - is likely still ongoing.

"If our species survives for another million years or so, I would imagine that the brain by then would show significant structural differences from the human brain of today."

The researchers said the next step was to examine whether biological differences imparted by the genetic differences caused natural selection to favour that variation over others.

They must have conferred some evolutionary advantage, such as a desired change in cognition, personality, motor control or resilience to neurological or psychiatric diseases, they said.

Dr Geraint Rees, a cognitive neurologist at University College London and Wellcome Trust senior research fellow, said: "It's very interesting.

"I do find it surprising that they can pinpoint these changes to a point relatively recently in evolutionary history.

"It gives us a clue to perhaps follow up on and try and understand why they emerged at that time and what the consequences were."

He said it would be too big a leap now to conclude that the genetic changes were responsible for some of the cultural changes we have seen, such as the emergence of agriculture. "But that's a tantalising prospect," he said.

 

[Vahl]

We may have been created, but not by some deadbeat Christian God. I like the idea that we are the spawn of some kick-arse awesome Space Faring Civilisation that desingned us to be some sort of weapon in their galactic war. Or something....

*Its more exciting*

 

[Vahl]

Hey: Ur inner child, will you date me ?

 

[Aznpsycho]

Quiet, you! That attention belongs to ME, now!

 

[Gangels]

I believe that the world was created out of the left nostril of a snake.

 

[Gangels]

Could have been. It's no less likely than any other creation myth.

Theres a few who beleive it was. I read about them in science. They believe it was the left nostril of a snake the world came out of then the snake exploded into the sun. I think it was a big snake.............