1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Evidence For And Against Evolution

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Skwim, Sep 16, 2019.

  1. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,739
    Ratings:
    +10,824
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    .

    Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.


    EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST EVOLUTION.png

    Thoughts?

    .
     
    • Winner Winner x 11
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Altfish

    Altfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,704
    Ratings:
    +6,671
    Religion:
    Humanist
    My only comment would be to say that The Bible isn't the only holy book used to support Creationism.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    2,658
    Ratings:
    +350
    Religion:
    None
    What is "creationism" ?
    The bible says that life came out of the sea.
     
  4. Altfish

    Altfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,704
    Ratings:
    +6,671
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Is that a serious question?
    Creationism - Wikipedia

    The Bible can be interpreted many ways, I've not heard your interpretation before but who am I...
     
  5. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    2,658
    Ratings:
    +350
    Religion:
    None
    Genesis 1
    God created the heavens
    and the earth
    and the earth was dark and oceanic (cloud planet like Venus, all oceans)
    and the skies cleared
    and the continents rose (granite)
    and life came from the land (likely fresh water, or clay)
    and life emerged from the sea
    and finally man.
     
  6. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,668
    Ratings:
    +3,454
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    The sequence of events in the allegorical myth of Genesis is consistent with that idea. But since many other elements of the story make no literal sense, for example night and day existing before the sun was created (!?!) , it is unwise to attach much significance to the order of events it describes.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Altfish

    Altfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,704
    Ratings:
    +6,671
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Like I said, many interpretations and versions, if you refer to the Bible section on this website it says different...
    Religious Forums
     
  8. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,162
    Ratings:
    +4,782
    I've posted this in response to a similar post of yours in another thread, but I feel it needs repeating here, as I feel this over-simplifies the Biblical account to make certain parts of it fit more with modern science, when the facts are that there are many more specific claims of the Genesis account that are contradicted by science:

    Pre-creation:
    1 - creates the heaven and earth
    2 - the earth is "without form" and was dark

    Day one:
    3 - light is created
    4 - light is divided from darkness, creating day and night

    Day two:
    5 - God creates the firmament
    6 - separates the waters above and below and named the firmament heaven

    Day three:
    7 - gathered the waters below the firmament to create land
    8 - called the land earth and the waters the sea
    9 - created grass, herb-yielding seeds and fruit-bearing trees on the earth

    Day four:
    10 - creates seasons and the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, including stars

    Day five:
    11 - created great sea monsters, creatures that creep on land and every winged fowl

    Day six:
    12 - created living creatures on the land such as cattle, "creeping things" and beasts
    13 - creates man and woman

    Day seven:
    14 - rests
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    2,658
    Ratings:
    +350
    Religion:
    None
    Certainly there ARE issues with science, ie the seven days.
    I hold that these are likely to be theological language and symbolism.

    "without form and void" for instance is pretty hard to understand. This
    account has been passed down orally for a long time, and then put into
    various written forms with lots of redaction (ie life is on land first, but
    then the writer gives list of land animals - as if it was all at the same
    time.)
    But the earth, if you could have floated upon it, WAS without form and
    void, meaning it was featureless, there being no landform.
     
  10. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,162
    Ratings:
    +4,782
    The "seven days" part can be assumed symbolic by context. The contradiction lies more in the implied sequence of events.

    This is a fairly stretched definition of "formless" and "featureless". When I conjure up an image of something formless and featureless (if it's even truly possible to do so), I don't imagine the early earth - with it's vast, molten rock surface. I imagine a literal void.

    In any case, the issue is more with the sequence. Even if we take the seven days as symbolic, the Genesis account unambiguously states that the earth was formed before light or stars or the sun, that the earliest form of life is vegetation that pre-dates life in the sea, and that birds pre-lade land animals.
     
  11. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    2,658
    Ratings:
    +350
    Religion:
    None
    Saturn's moon Titan is considered an "earth analogue" by NASA,
    that is, it resembles the early earth but with different chemistry.
    Titan is cold, dark and wet. It has seas, but for a while it was
    suspected of being a complete ocean. Like Venus and the early
    earth, Titan is a cloud planet.
    And that is what earth was like if you could have paddled upon
    its sterile, dark waters.
     
  12. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    2,658
    Ratings:
    +350
    Religion:
    None
    There is nothing "unambiguous" about anything in Genesis 1.
    It's all open to interpretation. I merely seek to show that
    1 - the information CAN fit into modern ideas of the early earth
    2 - the stages actually did exist, ie there WAS a time when the earth
    was dark, oceanic and sterile.
    Yes, there were times when it was molten, or just rubble, or a frozen
    ball of ice. But Genesis DOES give some stages that actually were
    what you would have seen had you gone back then.

    As for predating vegetation. You can make the argument that Genesis
    states life arose on land first (as appears to be the case as of 2018)
    but that it then states what eventually lived on land. It's not necessary
    to state land animals, in all their complexity, lived on land while the
    ocean was sterile.

    ie God commanded the earth to bring forth life (note, "commanded")
    and on the earth were dinosaurs, mammals, trees and reptiles.
    And God commanded the seas to bring forth life - and there were
    ammonites, fish, ichthyosaurs, whales and seals.

    Is Genesis saying mammals came before ammonites? Not
    necessarily - it could be a list of land animals.
     
  13. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,162
    Ratings:
    +4,782
    The sequence of days is fairly unambiguous. It denotes a very specific order that these things were created in. Even if we grant the the length of time referred to by "days" is ambiguous, I think it's fairly unambiguous to say that if something happened on "the first day" and another thing happened on "the second day", it implies a very clear sequence of events that the first thing occurred before the second thing.

    But if it's all "open to interpretation" and "ambiguous" then this assertion is meaningless, because you can make it fit almost anything. To state that something ambiguous and open to interpretation can fit the facts isn't really stating anything much at all, especially if you wish to assert (or simply believe) that said thing comes from an infinite repository of all knowledge.

    But it also denotes that it was "without form". Which is it? Was it oceanic and dark, or was it "without form"?

    Only if, as you rightly observe, you interpret the ambiguity of it that way.

    This is where Genesis actually does get specific, though. It states clearly that "grass, herb-yielding seeds and fruit-bearing trees" were created on day three. It makes no mention of other forms of life on land until day six, where it specifically states 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.'

    It quite clearly states that the first forms of life on land were vegetation and plants. It does not group this in with all other forms of land life, which came later in the sequence.

    This is stretching things quite a lot. The Bible clearly states that land animals came about on the sixth day, and the oceans on the fifth, with plants on the third.

    But it doesn't list them. It simply groups them all into broad groups, which it asserts arrived in this sequence:

    Day three:
    All plants and herbs.

    Day five:
    All sea life and fowl.

    Day six:
    All creatures of the land.
     
  14. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,668
    Ratings:
    +3,454
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Fine, but there would have been no night and day. What could "day" mean if there were no sun? Furthermore the scientific model is that the planets, earth included, coalesced from the same cloud of dust and gas that formed the sun, with the sun forming first: Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia

    As for water, that would have condensed only much later, after the initially very hot planet (hot from gravitational collapse) cooled enough by radiation into space.

    So the sequence would have been:
    i) sun
    ii) earth
    iii) water.

    No, there is no way to take Genesis literally and only a fool would try. The thinkers in the early church were well aware of this, even if the average peasant may not have been. It is only at the end of the c.19th and 20th that people silly enough to think it have come to prominence. One of the downsides of the democratisation of information, along with fake news.:rolleyes:
     
    #14 exchemist, Sep 16, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  15. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,292
    Ratings:
    +257
    Religion:
    Protestant
    There is a lot going on in that poster you attached.
    For one I see they have Haeckle's fraud on embrios also included.
    How fudged embryo illustrations led to drawn-out lies
    Do you think it is a responsible thing to do?
    I mean producing a fraud as an alternative to the Bible?
     
  16. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,292
    Ratings:
    +257
    Religion:
    Protestant
    horse-evolution.gif
    Why does that poster of yours have the false evidence of the Horse evolution in it?
    1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from fossils scattered across the world, not from the same location.
    2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than “ancient horses”.
    3. The “ancient horse” (hyracotherium) is not a horse but is just like the hyrax still alive in Turkey and East Africa today!
    4. Ribs, toes and teeth are different.
    5. South American fossils go from 1 toed to 3 toed (reverse order)
    6. Never found in the order presented.
    7. 3 toed and 1 toed horses grazed side by side.

    Again.
    Why use total lies as evidence that Evolution is true, and then weigh it up against the Bible?
    I think you totally lost this claim.
     
  17. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,292
    Ratings:
    +257
    Religion:
    Protestant
    I see you also have the vestigial eyes of fish that lives in dark caves, and lost their eye sight.
    caveastyanax.jpg

    This is not evidence for evolution at all.
    Why did the fish lose its eyes, and are only left with some residue?
    When did this happen, was it in the first generation, second, or thousandth?
    The fish that had eyesight and fell in the cave obviously did not have other sensory organs the blind counterpart has, so how did it survive?
    Why did this fish not rather grow its own lantern such as the deep sea ones living today?
    No, to use this as evidence as evolution is one huge error.
    Show me where do we find a cat changing into a dog., a flea into a lice, or how did the dead leave butterfly get its colors?
    All that will happen is one explanation to the next, connecting so called, but non existing "Dots", to prove the theory of evolution.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Strange Loop

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,863
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Religion:
    none
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,358
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    Evolution is simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.

    As I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38) and Eve whom the Bible claims as the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20)

    However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

    There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.
    Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

    Of course, the Bible is wrong; in fact, there were people prior to the 76th generation before Christ that allegedly was spawned by Adam and Eve.

    Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ whom the Bible claims was spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological.

    The fossil record isn't the only evidence in support of evolution. There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species.

    Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry:

    Chromosome 2 in humans

    Main article: Chromosome 2 (human)

    Further information: Chimpanzee Genome Project § Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

    Figure 1:

    [​IMG]

    Figure 1: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

    Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

    The evidence for this includes:
    The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
    The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
    The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

    Chromosome 2 thus presents strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

    The first individual of the genus Homo-species could have naturally formed from a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, each of whom had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes.

    This first generation of Homo habilis then incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo habilis.

    References:
    1. J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
    2. W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
    3. Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.

    Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry. Cats (Felidae) present a notable instance of virogene sequences demonstrating common descent. The standard phylogenetic tree for Felidae have smaller cats (Felis chaus, Felis silvestris, Felis nigripes, and Felis catus) diverging from larger cats such as the subfamily Pantherinae and other carnivores. The fact that small cats have an ERV where the larger cats do not suggests that the gene was inserted into the ancestor of the small cats after the larger cats had diverged. Another example of this is with humans and chimps. Humans contain numerous ERVs that comprise a considerable percentage of the genome. Sources vary, but 1% to 8% has been proposed. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, while all primates share similar retroviruses congruent with phylogeny.

    Figure 2:

    [​IMG]



    There's plenty of evidence humans share common ancestry with other great apes.

    Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

    ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

    Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595

     
    #19 Salvador, Sep 16, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2019
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,630
    Ratings:
    +16,787
    Religion:
    Atheist
    :facepalm: Seriously? Haeckel's drawings were hardly 'fraud' they were exaggerated at best. Your own article even says that. And to make your error even larger Haeckel was never a big part of evolution. It was a small part of its history. Haeckel did have a correct point or two, but his "ontology recapitulates phlyogeny" claim was refuted by scientists a long time ago. The theory of evolution does not rely on Haeckel at all. You might as well try to refute Christianity with an early refuted version of Christianity. You are not arguing rationally. By your own standards Christianity is refuted. You should think about how you argue against an idea.
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...