Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Creation vs. Evolution
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11278		 Page 17 of 29
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tommygun141 wrote:
In the bible it says that Jesus was around when Lucifer was banished from heaven. Therefore, Jesus could NOT have decended from Adam. Maybe he meant humans in general or something.


I'm puzzled by this. Can you give me chapter and verse?

Although, if you are indeed correct, this would only show that a literalist interpretation of the Bible must be inconsistent -- Jesus descended from Adam, and he did not descend from Adam, a contradiction. Either way, it cannot all be literally true, and that brings into question what to believe and what not to believe. Still, I think it likely perhaps you're misunderstanding something... what did the Bible actually say?

Quote:
Where DID these single cell organisms come from?


Science does not yet know, so giving an answer here is inherently unscientific. It should be noted, though, that the question is not directly relevant to the theory of evolution. (I think this point might have been debated earlier in the thread, but in any case, how life sprang from non-life is not a question that needs answering in order to justify the evidence, and the interpretation of that evidence, that evolution happened.)

In any case it seems very likely a series of wildly improbable events occurred that just happened to work out. For example, the right chemicals were put into the right place and things just started happening. Some kind of RNA was formed, and the reactions just so happened that it would reproduce itself, being something like primitive free-floating viruses with no "shell". Then, evolution started happening. It started copying itself imperfectly, and many of these imperfect copies just couldn't reproduce again and so they "died" out, but look, this copy over here survives better than the others, and so elements in this reaction ever so slowly start taking on characteristics of life. Of course, if it were true, that description would be a gross oversimplification, but the idea is a possibility.

You can read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

- Kef
Author:  coach dang z [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
in john 1:1 it says the word (meaning jesus) was with god and it was god so yes jesus has always been. and Jesus was born into the line of david. meaning mary was a desendant of david. and david and everyone is a desendant of adam
Author:  Capt. Ido Nos [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
It may sound condtradictory, but it is within the realm of reason for Jesus to have existed before Adam and yet have descended from him.
The way is this: Jesus existed as God in the Trinity for always until the world was created. When He formed the world and subsequently mankind. After the fall of man he promised that God (the Father) would send his son (Jesus) to die for the sins of the world and provide the solution for sin (Genesis 3:15). So, until then, Jesus was still there with God, right up until his birth by Mary. At this point he was still God, but also now fully a human being. Always there, and yet just arrived.
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, I thought it was something like that. This still doesn't resolve the problem that
1. Either Genesis must be taken completely literally, rejecting science, or
2. Not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but it is impossible to judge what is and isn't meant to be.

The only "solution" I can see to this dilemma would be to accept the Bible as literally true, and of course many people have done exactly that. Still, I think that's pretty much equivalent to going "LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" whenever somebody starts talking about science.

- Kef
Author:  lahimatoa [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
So you figure that if the Bible's true, that's all God gave us to work with here on earth?

Kind of a pathetic plan.
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't understand what you mean.
Author:  topofsm [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:47 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Yeah, I thought it was something like that. This still doesn't resolve the problem that
1. Either Genesis must be taken completely literally, rejecting science, or
2. Not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but it is impossible to judge what is and isn't meant to be.



I don't think that makes sense. You are dealing in too many absolutes.

Anyway, where is the point that the bible is to be taken literally. Is Noah's ark real? I find it completely beleivable, but it could also be completely untrue. Also, if you look at creation stories in other cultures, you will find that many were started by a flood? Maybe that part of Genesis is complete story, and the real start is with some sort of flood. Is there any record of an ancient flood for any person who might know. I think that Noah's Ark may be a key to the puzzle.
Author:  furrykef [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:02 am ]
Post subject: 
topofsm wrote:
furrykef wrote:
Yeah, I thought it was something like that. This still doesn't resolve the problem that
1. Either Genesis must be taken completely literally, rejecting science, or
2. Not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but it is impossible to judge what is and isn't meant to be.



I don't think that makes sense. You are dealing in too many absolutes.


Well, if there is an error in my argument, it needs to be pointed out. I don't see how it can be broken down other than how I did it. If Jesus descended directly from Adam, there must have been an Adam; if there was an Adam, then Genesis must have happened; if Genesis happened, evolution did not. Where am I committing an error?

- Kef
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:28 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
topofsm wrote:
furrykef wrote:
Yeah, I thought it was something like that. This still doesn't resolve the problem that
1. Either Genesis must be taken completely literally, rejecting science, or
2. Not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but it is impossible to judge what is and isn't meant to be.



I don't think that makes sense. You are dealing in too many absolutes.


Well, if there is an error in my argument, it needs to be pointed out. I don't see how it can be broken down other than how I did it. If Jesus descended directly from Adam, there must have been an Adam; if there was an Adam, then Genesis must have happened; if Genesis happened, evolution did not. Where am I committing an error?

- Kef

Nothing about that is at odds with evolution... Perhaps, as was said earlier, 7 days was not 7 earth days. Jesus could have still decended from Adam.

The two sides "evolution" and "creation" are only at odds because they choose to be. The core concepts of either theory have nothing to do with each other.

I don't believe the two are at odds with each other. I believe that the universe was created, and evolutions occured to bring everything to where it is today. Said evolutions are still occuring.

Why didn't God create things the way they're going to evolve towards to start with? Your guess is as good as mine.
Author:  Trev-MUN [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Why didn't God create things the way they're going to evolve towards to start with? Your guess is as good as mine.


Well, for the religious among computer scientists and programmers--or, at least one of them--they see it as the most ideal way to program something for one who has the power and time at their hands. Dunno if you saw that quote I pasted a while back, Strong Rad, but here:

Quote:
Yup. Exactly. Speaking as a computer scientist, I consider the apparent natural development of the universe to be evidence that there's someone behind the scenes pulling the strings. Because really, if I had unlimited power and infinite time, that's how I'd like to build software. The whole thing's far too bloody elegant and comprehensible.


Now one thing I'd like to point out, especially in light of what you said concerning Genesis, is that I strongly think that God exists outside of the universe, or possibly even the multiverses if they exist; He existed first, after all. So to Him, our concept of time is irrelevant. And obviously, if He made the universe, than for our context he would be omnipotent.

Much like how you, the player of a game such as Sim Earth, Sim City, or other sim games exist wholly outside the game--or even the computer. You are (especially not in Sim Earth) not observable to the Sims or life forms or what have you that you watch over, but you have the power to act upon them or their world as you wish, including subtle guidance. For example, you can control the forces of evolution and subtly guide the development of the planet in Sim Earth.

I mean really, even when playing a sim game at its slowest speed, it still treats seconds like SimDays and Months or even millions of years (SimEarth again!). I think the quote I reposted plus this analogy easily underscore why existence of God is hardly irrational, and why both creationism and evolution can go hand in hand.
Author:  furrykef [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've been saying all along that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but if you're going to fit Genesis into an evolution model, you're going to have to distort it somehow. The literal interpretation, if we are to believe science, must be rejected, because evolution could not have happened to a significant degree over 6000 years. Suggesting "Six days isn't really six days" is fudging it; it's a non-literal interpretation. And, as I've been saying, if you can't interpret Genesis literally, what can you interpret literally? How do you know what's literal and what isn't?

Anyway, I was just asked why the account of Jesus' lineage would make me question my belief, and I'm pretty sure I've explained that thoroughly by now. Don't characterize my whole argument about creationism by this little side-argument. :)

- Kef
Author:  Trev-MUN [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
In my last post, I was mainly talking to StrongRad there, furrykef. Giving him a possible explanation for why God would not simply snap His fingers and instantly shape the world to His whim. I know that even though you're atheist you don't think creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive, so no problems there.

I mean, I DID quote StrongRad in my postage stamps.

I'll have to post in detail my interpretations of Genesis later after looking into it some more. I'd like to hear more from Didymus about it, though--I never thought that the initial "seven days creation and expulsion from paradise" might have been merely a song until he brought it up.

Anyway.

*punts the smiley to Saskatchewan* RETUURRRRN TO SEEENDEEERRRRRRRRR!!!
Author:  furrykef [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I know, but this discussion was how we ended up here in the first place, isn't it? ;)

Though I probably did read into it too much as a response to me as well. I'm kinda tired and my brain's not really working.

- Kef
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:21 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
I've been saying all along that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but if you're going to fit Genesis into an evolution model, you're going to have to distort it somehow. The literal interpretation, if we are to believe science, must be rejected, because evolution could not have happened to a significant degree over 6000 years. Suggesting "Six days isn't really six days" is fudging it; it's a non-literal interpretation. And, as I've been saying, if you can't interpret Genesis literally, what can you interpret literally? How do you know what's literal and what isn't?

Anyway, I was just asked why the account of Jesus' lineage would make me question my belief, and I'm pretty sure I've explained that thoroughly by now. Don't characterize my whole argument about creationism by this little side-argument. :)

- Kef


I think creationism runs in direct opposition to evolution, because God made man in His image, and God is the same eternally. Therefore, man doesn't change. Every discussion like this reminds me of an old friend of my mom's by the name of Lynn McCallister, possibly the most brilliant person I've ever met. She's done all kinds of talks and seminars about creation and evolution. I wish she would write a book or something...
Author:  topofsm [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:10 am ]
Post subject: 
God created man in his image... Through evolution! Man hasn't changed. Much at all.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:17 am ]
Post subject: 
sb_enail.com wrote:
I think creationism runs in direct opposition to evolution, because God made man in His image, and God is the same eternally.


OK, but why believe this? What places the Bible at a higher priority than science, when science has almost never been proven wrong? (Sure, scientists are wrong sometimes... but you know who sets them straight? Other scientists!)

- Kef
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:59 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
OK, but why believe this? What places the Bible at a higher priority than science, when science has almost never been proven wrong? (Sure, scientists are wrong sometimes... but you know who sets them straight? Other scientists!)

- Kef


1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow.
-Agent Kay, Men In Black.

Not the best source for wisdom, but I think it says a lot. Who in the scientific community is challenging evolution? Nobody, for all we know. Those who do are pretty much blacklisted in the scientific community for what other scientists percieve as heresy. I don't believe the Bible runs in opposition to science, but in opposition to evolution, which is just one theory. It has yet to be proven, much like earlier beliefs of the earth's place in the universe or the way the solar system works, but those were considered concrete facts, and those who spoke against the status quo were hushed up, often violently. Scientists are clinging to evolution in a similar manner.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:30 am ]
Post subject: 
But it was the scientists who discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe, that it was round, and that it orbited the sun. It was the religious dogmatists that said otherwise, not the scientists. Sure, a lot of scientists may have believed these things, not knowing any better, but those beliefs themselves weren't based on science; science never said any of those things. Your argument is actually supporting my side, because evolution is following exactly the same model: the religious guys are saying one thing, we're saying another, and I expect eventually the religious viewpoint will be regarded the way we regard flat-earth thinking today.

Also, the theory of evolution is not "just a theory". This is a serious abuse of the word theory. A scientific theory is about the closest thing to fact in science that you can get. So saying "it has yet to be proven" is silly, because you don't prove a scientific theory. Science is not about proof; proving things is left to logicians and mathematicians. It can be possible to disprove a theory (and for a theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable, which means it must be possible to disprove it in the face of contrary evidence), but never to "prove" it. Instead, you take evidence and you build a model, and that model is called a theory. Evolution has a lot of evidence going for it, so it is a pretty solid model. You can't even begin to dismiss evolution on the grounds that "it isn't proven" because this isn't how science actually works.

You speak of scientists surpressing scientific study of creationism. I'll be the first to admit that somebody should not be blacklisted just for wanting to study such-and-such, and unfortunately, such things do happen in academia. Nevertheless, I don't think there is any great scientific conspiracy against creationism. Specificially, I don't think there is any way you can study creationism in a scientific way. There is so-called "creation science", which is not science. Something does not become scientific just by using big words to describe it.

First off, it's easy to commit a scientific blunder by trying to justify creationism in scientific terms by reasoning backwards from conclusion to hypothesis. In other words, saying to oneself, "I believe God created the heavens and the earth, and on the sixth day blah blah blah. What evidence can I find to support this?" That's not a very scientific approach, because you'll be trying to fit evidence into that framework, rather than letting evidence speak for itself, as it did for Darwin. Most creationist arguments are not scientific simply because of this error. Now, committing this error alone doesn't invalidate somebody's opinion. It just means that they're much more likely to arrive at the conclusion they're looking for by selectively choosing and ignoring evidence as it fits into the picture. But if you want to do science, it must be science.

If you can point me to a scientific way to handle creationism, perhaps then we can talk about whether or not other scientists are really surpressing scientific research into the matter. :)

- Kef
Author:  Exhibit A [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:34 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
sb_enail.com wrote:
I think creationism runs in direct opposition to evolution, because God made man in His image, and God is the same eternally.


OK, but why believe this? What places the Bible at a higher priority than science, when science has almost never been proven wrong? (Sure, scientists are wrong sometimes... but you know who sets them straight? Other scientists!)

- Kef

The Bible has never once been proven wrong. It works the same way, people's interpretations of the Bible have been wrong, but the Bible itself has never been proven wrong.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:37 am ]
Post subject: 
The Qur'an has never been proven wrong, why not believe that instead? Just because it hasn't been proven wrong doesn't mean it should be believed.

On the other hand, science has "proven" a lot of things right (using "proven" in a loose sense here, since as I stated before, science doesn't really prove or disprove things -- but we can take it for granted that it's "proven" that the Earth is round for example).

- Kef
Author:  Exhibit A [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:44 am ]
Post subject: 
I really hate it when people act like religion and science are mutually exclusive. Like, you say science has proven all these things, therefore it is right and the Bible is wrong. Nothing that science has proven goes against anything the Bible says, so why should I stop believing in it?

Edit: You say science has never been proven wrong. Well of course not. Science is (the way you are using it, anyway), the way the world works. So if you say that scientist's conclusions can be wrong without science being wrong, than there's no possible way science could ever be wrong.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Exhibit A wrote:
I really hate it when people act like religion and science are mutually exclusive.


I've been arguing throughout the entire thread that they're not mutually exclusive. I do think a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot fit into a scientific framework, however, and a literal interpretation is usually what is meant by creationism. Some people advance the notion that God created the universe and then life evolved on our humble little planet; I have no quibble with that. Who am I to say who created the universe? But the idea that this planet was created in six days just contradicts loads of scientific evidence, and that's what I'm arguing against.

Exhibit A wrote:
Edit: You say science has never been proven wrong. Well of course not. Science is (the way you are using it, anyway), the way the world works. So if you say that scientist's conclusions can be wrong without science being wrong, than there's no possible way science could ever be wrong.


This is not what I mean. First, I wouldn't quite go so far as to say "never". Scientific theories can and have been disproven, which is the point of having falsifiable theories. But when we get a solid theory with a lot of evidence, it usually isn't wrong, and when it's wrong, it's almost certainly not totally, completely wrong. Take Newtonian physics, for example. Einstein and others have shown that a Newtonian view of the world is incomplete, so in a sense, Newton was "wrong". However, the new discoveries don't completely invalidate what we learned from Newton. Indeed, we use Newtonian physics as much as ever. We just understand that there is more going on than what was initially thought. I don't think you'll find a serious large-scale failure in science, as there would be if evolution were completely falsified.

Now to clarify what I actually mean. Let me quote this bit again:

Quote:
So if you say that scientist's conclusions can be wrong without science being wrong, than there's no possible way science could ever be wrong.


I think this is a misreading of what I said. I argued that scientists may have believed that the earth is flat, or that the sun orbited the earth, but that was their own, personal belief, not a scientific belief. Just because a scientist believes something doesn't make it science. If that belief has a solid foundation in the scientific method, then it is scientific. It is possible to believe something through the scientific method and still be wrong, in which case, if this belief passes into scientific consensus, then science is wrong. (Or, more accurately, that consensus is wrong, since science in and of itself can't really be right or wrong.)

- Kef
Author:  strongfan [ Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
obviously evolution (did I spell that right?)
Author:  Jello B. [ Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
strongfan wrote:
obviously evolution (did I spell that right?)


If you looked a few inches upwards you would know that you did.
Author:  DukeNuke [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm for evolution all the way. With all the paradoxes, mistranslations, lack of proof, creation doesn't make any sense to me.

There's proof for evolution, on the other hand. We KNOW there's DNA, we KNOW there's mutations, we KNOW that the survival of the fittest stuff is true (look at germs, for example), it explains why there are so many kinds of animals.

Does the bible say anything about the dinosaurs? Nope.
Does it say anything about the earth being round? Nope, in fact, you'd be in trouble if you said it was.
Does it say anything about the laws of physics? Chemestry? How biology works and the fact that tere are germs and such that you can't see with the eye? No, no, no.

In my opinion, all religion has done is held back science and caused wars.
Author:  Cobalt [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
DukeNuke wrote:
Does the bible say anything about the dinosaurs? Nope.


actually it does, if you correctly translate Genesis 1:21.

Quote:
Does it say anything about the earth being round? Nope, in fact, you'd be in trouble if you said it was.


again, not true. Isaiah 40:22 quite clearly states that the Earth is a sphere.

Quote:
Does it say anything about the laws of physics? Chemestry? How biology works and the fact that tere are germs and such that you can't see with the eye? No, no, no.


the Bible isn't a high school science text book, why would you expect it to be?

Quote:
In my opinion, all religion has done is held back science and caused wars.


don't confuse "religion" with "Christianity." they're not the same thing.
Author:  furrykef [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
How do we know that Genesis 1:21 is referring to dinosaurs? "Great sea creatures" doesn't exactly suggest "dinosaur" to me, and the KJV actually says they're whales. I looked in several translations and found nothing that suggests dinosaurs in particular. Maybe these are all mistranslations, but what would you consider a correct translation? Please be more specific.

Isaiah 40:22 apparently refers to a "circle" and not a sphere. This could be a significant difference, since a circle in the common sense of the word is a flat disc. On the other hand, it's possible that the original language did not distinguish the two words. But no matter how you slice it, it's ambiguous, unless all those translations are wrong and the original text did say "sphere'". (Some ancient civilizations, such as the ancient Greeks, did know that the world is spherical, though. I don't see how this point is all that important.)

Cobalt's right that the Bible doesn't have to say anything about physics, chemistry, or biology. That wasn't its job.

- Kef
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
There are also references in the book of Job to a creature called the behemoth. Though some have dismissed it as an elephant or similar creature, I believe the verses speak for themselves

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Now, I don't know much about botany or biology, but I do know that an elephant has a tail nothing like a cedar. Maybe a sapling, but that isn't explicitly stated, and if the original untranslated version said it was a sapling, it wouldn't make sense, as every other aspect of the behemoth being stated is somehow magnificent or massive.

EDIT: I recently stumbled upon an excellent resource for Creation-based science, called Answers in Genesis. It has some excellent and well-document articles. It's definitely worth a look, whatever your beliefs may be.
Author:  furrykef [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
That still doesn't suggest a dinosaur specifically to me. It could be a mythological creature. For example, a dragon is decidedly dinosaur-like, and it seems improbable the dragon was based on dinosaur fossils (although that's not impossible).

- Kef
Author:  Cobalt [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
How do we know that Genesis 1:21 is referring to dinosaurs? "Great sea creatures" doesn't exactly suggest "dinosaur" to me, and the KJV actually says they're whales. I looked in several translations and found nothing that suggests dinosaurs in particular. Maybe these are all mistranslations, but what would you consider a correct translation? Please be more specific.


the actual words in the original Hebrew are "taninim gedolim." it's often translated as "sea creatures" or "whales" but those aren't really accurate. "gedolim" is the plural for "large" or "great." "taninim" is a strange, rare word, but it occurs again in the scene where Moses turns his staff into a snake. the snake is referred to as a "nahash" at one point, generally translated as "serpent," and then it's also referred to as a "tanin," the singular of "taninim." so a serpent is also a tanin. since in Genesis all the things that are created are classes rather than individual animals, it stands to reason that a "tanin" is the class into which "serpent" falls, ie, reptiles. so "tanin" means a reptile, and "taninim gedolim" means "great reptiles." sounds like dinosaurs to me.

Quote:
Isaiah 40:22 apparently refers to a "circle" and not a sphere. This could be a significant difference, since a circle in the common sense of the word is a flat disc. On the other hand, it's possible that the original
language did not distinguish the two words.


yup, that's it exactly. in modern Hebrew, the word used here, "choog," means circle, and there's another word that means sphere. in Ancient Hebrew, however, "choog" was used to denote either a circle or a sphere. it's a bit ambiguous, but it's certainly at least as reasonable to assume from context that the intended meaning was "sphere" as "circle," since they lacked a word to distinguish between the two.
Page 17 of 29 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/