Evolution v Creationism

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah it was coming eventually.

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys ).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, the fossils are really old and such, so we don't know everything. They have traced it back fairly well though, I believe this is one of the common ancestors for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakalipithecus

[Ice]

Yeah it was coming eventually.

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I but my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys ).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

A biology class would be very helpful in your comparison of evolution and creationism.

[JAG]

Rhyfelwyr View Post, where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.

(I believe you are from the UK)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thanks for those links folks, I'll give them a good read tomorrow.

Rhyfelwyr View Post, where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.

(I believe you are from the UK)

I watched one of the episodes, but a lot of it was about how Darwin thought his children acted like monkeys, which just shows similarities not necessarily a direct connection. And then they started playing the flute to a worm which was just weird...

[JAG]

Watch the one with Attenborough, brilliant. Literally one of the best informative programmes I have ever seen.

[Don Corleone]

While I absoutely and ardently hold to evolution (one does not 'believe' the leading theory of the day, one 'believes' religious dogma, one holds to a theory), it is depressing to me the number of people who claim it as fact without 1) understanding that it is an untestable theory can never be accepted as fact (indicating a woeful ignorance of science) and for the record, to the tests we can currently construct, gravity and electromagnetism (where I make my living) are still theories as well and 2) understanding the mechanism of natural selection (indicating a woeful misunderstanding of the theory put forth by Charles Darwin, and the 'evolution' it has enjoyed over the past 1.5 centuries).

If I hear one more person talking about frogs & ducks growing webbed feet to swim, or humans growing a thumb, as proof of evolution, I'm going to scream.

We ALL need to learn how much we have to learn in this field.

For example, it would probably surprise most people to learn that fossil evidence strongly indicates evolution follows a quantum/logarithmic, not a linear time scale, as most theories would have predicted.

For me, that 'spark' that generates the sudden burst of RNA energy, that is the fine hand of the creator at work. (Before you all mistake my last statement, I understand solar flares and the affect of algae blooms absorbing free radicals better than most of you, my point is, why does it all happen exactly when it does... I do not believe in 'luck', just randomness or determinism.).

I suppose that makes me a creationist, and in this forum at least, an idiot.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Tbh, I think in order to criticize anything you need to know about it. I also suggest taking a Bio class before taking on the subject of evolution.

EDIT: Does anyone want me to post the conversation from the EB Tavern between Rhy and The Celtic Viking about this subject? There are no swears or anything.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Rhyfelwyr View Post,

I have trouble spelling his name too

where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.

(I believe you are from the UK)

Tbh, I think in order to criticize anything you need to know about it. I also suggest taking a Bio class before taking on the subject of evolution.

I don't think ya'll read his post carefully. He's asking about anthropology not biology.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think ya'll read his post carefully. He's asking about anthropology not biology.

Well it spilled somewhat into a mixture of both in the EB Tavern social group. Him and TCV went into arguing about the significance of humans sharing 98% of their DNA with apes etc...

EDIT: Again, should I post the conversation from the EB Tavern, it could clear some things up about the origin of this thread.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I believe in God, and believe the almighty could have created the whole shebang, whole-cloth, in 6 calendar days had God chosen to do so.

I do not believe that is the means God chose. "Let there be light," began the show and evolution has rolled onwards from there. Mysterious ways and all that.

[woad&fangs]

If I remember correctly, one of the main evidences for ape -> human evolution is the similarity in our chromosome number and structure.

here is a quick link explaining the similarities

An example of this in the animal kingdom is the relationship between the wild Mongolian horse and modern domestic horse. Mongolian wild horses have 66 chromosomes and modern horses have only 64 chromosomes. Despite this, they are able to reproduce with each other due to their high degree of genetic similarity. http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/h...lski/index.htm

[Andres]

In all honesty, I don't really care if my ancestors were created by some supernatural creature or if I descend from monkeys.

I am here and now

[Rhyfelwyr]

Some of the stuff I've been shown doesn't really prove anything, animals acting like carnal humans doesn't prove anything.

The stuff on the skeletons of the common ancestors is much more useful, I will look into that in more detail..

[Che Roriniho]

Man, do people still argue against science? What idiots, frankly.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh, it's only been 150 years since Darwin... We know the church needs more time than that to adapt ...

Look at Galileo who got excommunicated... They "undid" his excommunication some hundred years later, when it was found ridiculous to still try and prove him wrong.

I wonder how that worked in effect, he popped up from hell and got into heaven, hm?

[Rhyfelwyr]

@LG: I'm not suggesting that I'm just saying it's not very nice when people who don't know anything about a subject call other people stupid, because the majority of people agree with them, or an opinion is widely accepted. That's like some ignorant religious guy in the 16th Century calling someone stupid for being an atheist, even if they never thought about the possibility of God not existing themselves. In your example about Spain, the igorant person accepts that the majority are right but that he just doesn't know the answer.

Look at Galileo who got excommunicated... They "undid" his excommunication some hundred years later, when it was found ridiculous to still try and prove him wrong.

I wonder how that worked in effect, he popped up from hell and got into heaven, hm?

FAIL.

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

[Kadagar_AV]

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

One was a result of the other, no?

[Rhyfelwyr]

One was a result of the other, no?

He didn't have to start attacking the Pope. Want to make a scientific discovery, fine. Want to be a Catholic and disrepect the Pope... obviously you can't stay in such a church. So now atheists like to use their misunderstanding of this to spread stuff about religioun causing backwardness or whatever.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

One was a result of the other, no?

Actually chaps, Galileo was not excommunicated at all. He was denounced for heresy and recanted, whereupon he was imprisoned under house arrest.

Interestingly (since it got brought up) the Papacy was using the same Biblical authority to which creationists appeal in order to shut Galileo up. In spite of observational evidence, scripture (astonishingly, depending on translation) states that the earth does not move.

Why then does heliocentrism get a free pass where evolution does not?

EDIT: Adrian gets there first again!

[Adrian II]

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

What nonsense is that? Jezus, can't I turn my back on an evolution thread for a couple hours without somebody starting to talk out of his lower dorsal aperture?

"I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, being brought personally to judgment, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords, Cardinals, General Inquisitors of the Universal Christian Republic against heretical depravity having before my eyes the Holy Gospels which I touch with my own hands, swear, that I have always believed, and, with the help of God, will in future believe, every article which the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome holds, teaches, and preaches.....Because it has been signified to me that the said doctrine that I held is repugnant to the Holy Scriptures.

Namely that, I held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and is movable. I am willing to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of every Catholic Christian, this vehement suspicion rightly entertained towards me, therefore, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the said Holy Catholic Church;...."

[LittleGrizzly]

That's fine, but until people start doing it themselves and not just believing what they are told they should not be calling everyone else stupid.

On those grounds you will have to stop using the word stupid... holocaust deniers can no longer be called stupid, except by those who saw it themselves because as far as the rest of the world knows... the holocaust deniers are right...

Edit: obviously the holocaust deniers are both stupid and wrong...

Or perhaps for a less contraversial one how about calling people stupid for thier lack of geographical knowledge... I can tell you Spain is below france (or perhaps i should say south of france) and any european adult who didn't know this would probably be thought of as stupid... but how many people have walked south through france to make sure... i certainly haven't...

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah it was coming eventually.

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys ).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah it was coming eventually.

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys ).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?





PS: Second time I post this. I am still intrigued by what part of evolution still remains unclear

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?





PS: Second time I post this. I am still intrigued by what part of evolution still remains unclear

Stop trolling.

[Kadagar_AV]

Stop trolling.

Huh?

You opened up the thread asking about evolution, saying you were ready to change your mind if enough spoke in favour of evolution vs creationism.

Now some hundreds of posts later you've been hit with a ton of facts trying to explain.

So question remains, what part is it that still is unclear?

Or if nothing is unclear, what makes you still believe in creationism? What make it more believable?

It is contraproductive to call those question "trolling", as they relate to the very reason of your therad start. If you want us to help you understand evolution, you must of course point to the areas yet unclear to you.

warm regards :)

[Incongruous]

I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.

Not what I did, I just replied to a post of yours which I found astounding, that is all, so keep the "omg Catholic heretic hunter" in the bin.

I was interested is all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You don't interpret though, you just absorb. I've said this to you before, if you aren't willing to make your own judgements just don't ever touch theology, don't read the Bible, don't ever think about it. As to reading Theology, JW SDA are not reputable. Read Augustine, Boethius, Aquinus, Wesley, Hooker, Crammer, Wyclif, Luthor, and for some modern flavour try the last and current Popes, Rowan Willians and Alistair McGrath for starters.

What makes you say that I don't interpret any theology? Generally speaking I agree with certain strands of Christian belief, because that is what I have felt compelled to believe in.

It's your tone, not your content.

On reflection that's maybe fair enough, although its also maybe something to do with constantly coming under siege.

You look like a Puritan, not a puritan (what ywould hthat be anyway). As to the link with Calvinism, that is what the rest of Christianity finds disturbing, not your mode of worship.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that a "Puritan" referred specifically to dissenters within the Church of England following the Reformation. I remember reading something about the Pilgrims, and how that because of this they were not actually "Puritans", just a "puritanical" sect, since they never attended the Anglican services and had their own seperate church polity.

Not what I did, I just replied to a post of yours which I found astounding, that is all, so keep the "omg Catholic heretic hunter" in the bin.

I was interested is all.

OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!