Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

It demonstrates that all creatures on the planet are related, to varying degrees - the more closely related they are, the more DNA they share in common. Just like you and your human family members. Which is exactly what we'd expect to see, if evolution were a fact of reality. it's not what I would expect to see if some God made every creature on Earth individually from scratch.
...

I don't necessarily think that God made every creature individually from scratch. Otherwise he would not have inaugurated the process of procreation, I.e., man and woman needed to procreate. Although He did make the first man and woman.

 

[YoursTrue]

It demonstrates that all creatures on the planet are related, to varying degrees - the more closely related they are, the more DNA they share in common. Just like you and your human family members. Which is exactly what we'd expect to see, if evolution were a fact of reality. it's not what I would expect to see if some God made every creature on Earth individually from scratch.

Of course, it is evident from looking at a gorilla and a human, that we are closely related. Just like how when you look at a finch and a crow, you can tell they're related, even though they're different species. The fact that they share large amounts of DNA is further evidence of that.



Sorry but I don't think your point that human beings are so special is relevant to the discussion. I bet dogs and cats think they're pretty special too. So what?
Besides, I was not speaking to that point to begin with.

Well, they're still thinking to get colonies on other planets. First though they (the scientists?) have to transport the goods to those planets, with lots of other things.

 

[YoursTrue]

A great many theologians, both in Christianity and Judaism, are more inclined to view these accounts as being allegorical, thus probably a refutation of the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian account that was polytheistic.

In anthropology, we call these "myths", which does not mean "false" but means stories meant to teach lessons. All cultures do this, btw.

But at least the "higher level" of animals do have a sense of right and wrong, largely genetically linked but not exclusive to that. We humans also have that inner propensity as well. Almost all social species need to have a "pecking order" in order for survival.

Ditto.

According to what I read in the scriptures, Adam was created first. Then Eve came from Adam's rib. Eve was supposed to be a "complement" to Adam. It was not until after the sin that Eve was punished. (Somewhat of a pecking order.)

 

[MonkeyFire]

Of course there is evolution in samsara, but if you come from Heaven you are only now starting to increase in years, after Adam descended into Jesus.

 

[metis]

Then Eve came from Adam's rib.

Which is why for a great many decades so many Christians believed that men had one less rib than women, verses taking it symbolically.

It was not until after the sin that Eve was punished. (Somewhat of a pecking order.)

Which has been used for well over a century to relegate women into an inferior status versus men.

BTW, the concept of "original sin" makes no sense if taken literally. If it did, then we would logically have to put babies into jail or prison because their parents and grandparents sinned. Again, there's a different way of interpreting this that makes much more sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I accept biology in that a muskrat is a muskrat and biologically so, meaning it is composed of sequence of genes that make it a muskrat and not a human. I don't demand evidence simply because any so-called evidence in many respects is that which not seen in the making. Meanwhile, I'll go back to the biological(?) evidence showing that while there is dna in chimpanzees very close to humans, it doesn't mean that whatever of the apes evolved and became humans. As I said, that's me.

It is not just genetic similarities that comprise the evidence of our relationship with the other great apes. Morphology, behavior, genetics, ERV's, physiology, the fossil record, etc., etc., etc. And your objection. A bias based on personal opinion and religious view with no evidence at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't necessarily think that God made every creature individually from scratch. Otherwise he would not have inaugurated the process of procreation, I.e., man and woman needed to procreate. Although He did make the first man and woman.

Who says? How did you determine that? I see a lot of claims but no demonstration of them.

Just more avoidance of my point.

So you agree that we can show degree of relatedness between human ancestors, but you don't agree that the exact same principle extends to all living creatures on earth, even though it's demonstrable in the same way.

I really don't know what to say at this point, except that you appear to be a person who doesn't care much for evidence or logical reasoning. You prefer to just go with whatever Iron Age thinkers wrote down in the Bible. Is that the case?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, they're still thinking to get colonies on other planets. First though they (the scientists?) have to transport the goods to those planets, with lots of other things.

Can you explain what on earth this has to do with my comment/point?

 

[YoursTrue]

Who says? How did you determine that? I see a lot of claims but no demonstration of them.

Just more avoidance of my point.

So you agree that we can show degree of relatedness between human ancestors, but you don't agree that the exact same principle extends to all living creatures on earth, even though it's demonstrable in the same way.

I really don't know what to say at this point, except that you appear to be a person who doesn't care much for evidence or logical reasoning. You prefer to just go with whatever Iron Age thinkers wrote down in the Bible. Is that the case?

Because I didn't speak to Moses, I can't exactly tell you how he found out about the things he wrote about but didn't see. On the other hand, I believe what he wrote. There are many reasons for that. Going back to secular history for a moment, in other words, that which is recorded outside the Bible, I hear that "Neanderthal" man was around maybe 40,000 years ago. And so...what does that prove?

 

[night912]

Because I didn't speak to Moses, I can't exactly tell you how he found out about the things he wrote about but didn't see. On the other hand, I believe what he wrote. There are many reasons for that. Going back to secular history for a moment, in other words, that which is recorded outside the Bible, I hear that "Neanderthal" man was around maybe 40,000 years ago. And so...what does that prove?

That 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals were around.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because I didn't speak to Moses, I can't exactly tell you how he found out about the things he wrote about but didn't see. On the other hand, I believe what he wrote. There are many reasons for that. Going back to secular history for a moment, in other words, that which is recorded outside the Bible, I hear that "Neanderthal" man was around maybe 40,000 years ago. And so...what does that prove?

There is no evidence that Moses even existed in the first place. That's another claim you're just accepting with no investigation. You just accept it as true. Because why? You want to?

I'm wondering why you accept all the claims of the Bible at face value, but reject demonstrable, verifiable scientific evidence that explain what's going on in the natural world around us. I mean, you are here denying the basic facts of biology. Plenty of religious people accept scientific theories like evolution because it is so well-evidenced, while having no problem still believing in god(s). I'm wondering why you feel you need to reject science in favour of the tales of Iron Age writers who didn't know anything close to what we now know about the world around us.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence that Moses even existed in the first place. That's another claim you're just accepting with no investigation. You just accept it as true. Because why? You want to?

I'm wondering why you accept all the claims of the Bible at face value, but reject demonstrable, verifiable scientific evidence that explain what's going on in the natural world around us. I mean, you are here denying the basic facts of biology. Plenty of religious people accept scientific theories like evolution because it is so well-evidenced, while having no problem still believing in god(s). I'm wondering why you feel you need to reject science in favour of the tales of Iron Age writers who didn't know anything close to what we now know about the world around us.

There is no evidence that life on earth just happened without divine intervention. Whoever you think it was, or wasn't, the book of Genesis says the earth kinda looked void, nothing more or less there, kind of like Mars and the moon. What scientists you think told the writer that? When I saw photographs of the moon, it looked kind of rocky, not enticing to life as we know it ...
Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (King James Version)
Now just in case you want to tell me it had a form, I'm telling you that was an expression. Like the moon has a form, Mars has a form, but they look a little bitty desolate, wouldn't you say? Void -- of -- the teeming life Moses saw around him. Just like Isaac Newton said he knew gravity because -- of happenstance. How did Moses way back then know that "life" came about in stages?
I don't deny basic facts of biology. The human body and other bodies are distinct and fabulous. Why would I deny the mechanics? (I do not deny the mechanics.) Bones are bones, science has figured a way to see about bone density. I don't deny that. I don't deny that vaccines can help stem the tide of serioius illnesses.
P.S. There are some things in the Bible that need, or require a deeper thoughtful explanation. NOT always, as you say, "face value." So to reiterate, I don't accept everything the Bible has to say on "face value."

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence that Moses even existed in the first place. That's another claim you're just accepting with no investigation. You just accept it as true. Because why? You want to?

I'm wondering why you accept all the claims of the Bible at face value, but reject demonstrable, verifiable scientific evidence that explain what's going on in the natural world around us. I mean, you are here denying the basic facts of biology. Plenty of religious people accept scientific theories like evolution because it is so well-evidenced, while having no problem still believing in god(s). I'm wondering why you feel you need to reject science in favour of the tales of Iron Age writers who didn't know anything close to what we now know about the world around us.

I know people that didn't legally adopt those they call their children. And they pass off these children as their own. If you were writing a biography and wanted to know the lineage of some person, you might get false information thinking it's true. And write it down. After all, we have some saying they are offspring (illegitimate) of some famous person, and it is denied sometimes.
So just because a historian says what is or isn't, it's kind of like the theory of evolution. When I use a theoretical scale, I see there is more evidence that the Bible is a factual book (depending on how you see facts...) than there is of much worldly history. Genealogy, for instance. It's an interesting subject, to say the least.
So now I will ask you a question. Because I looked up some information about Jewish genealogical records. And it is said by some that the Levitical records have been maintained and are existing until the present time, from, it is said, biblical times onward. I'm not saying I believe that. But what do you think?
Jewish Genealogy | Outreach Judaism

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no evidence that life on earth just happened without divine intervention. Whoever you think it was, or wasn't, the book of Genesis says the earth kinda looked void, nothing more or less there, kind of like Mars and the moon. What scientists you think told the writer that? When I saw photographs of the moon, it looked kind of rocky, not enticing to life as we know it ...

The person making the claim that the earth was created with divine intervention holds the burden of proof. What I'm asking you is, why do you believe what the Bible claims on this matter? Why don't you accept the Qu'ran, for instance? Or some other holy book? And why do you believe that a human being was there to witness this creation you think took place, when there is no evidence for that? And why do you think it takes some kind of divine knowledge to observe what the moon looks like?

Notice I haven't said that life "just happened?" Notice how where everything came from has nothing to do with evolution, which deals with what happens to live once it already exists?
This is just a deflection on your part, and a shirking of the burden of proof, as a way to avoid answering my questions about why you believe what you believe.

Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (King James Version)
Now just in case you want to tell me it had a form, I'm telling you that was an expression. Like the moon has a form, Mars has a form, but they look a little bitty desolate, wouldn't you say? Void -- of -- the teeming life Moses saw around him. Just like Isaac Newton said he knew gravity because -- of happenstance. How did Moses way back then know that "life" came about in stages?
I don't deny basic facts of biology. The human body and other bodies are distinct and fabulous. Why would I deny the mechanics? (I do not deny the mechanics.) Bones are bones, science has figured a way to see about bone density. I don't deny that. I don't deny that vaccines can help stem the tide of serioius illnesses.
P.S. There are some things in the Bible that need, or require a deeper thoughtful explanation. NOT always, as you say, "face value." So to reiterate, I don't accept everything the Bible has to say on "face value."

I'm wondering what this has to do with evolution or the discussion at hand.
I'm also still wondering why you think Moses existed.

You have repeatedly denied many facts of biology on this very thread. You definitely have denied the mechanics many times thus far.

You have just demonstrated that you accept everything the Bible says at face value. Saying otherwise doesn't cut it when you've just shown that you do. You haven't answered a single one of my questions pertaining to why you believe everything the Bible says, which you clearly do. Pointing out what the moon looks - a moon that anyone can look up in the sky and see for themselves - doesn't really cut it, imo. You'd need a lot better evidence to convince me. Something more along the lines of the types of robust evidence we have for scientific theories.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know people that didn't legally adopt those they call their children. And they pass off these children as their own. If you were writing a biography and wanted to know the lineage of some person, you might get false information thinking it's true. And write it down. After all, we have some saying they are offspring (illegitimate) of some famous person, and it is denied sometimes.

If you wanted to know the lineage of parents and their adopted child, and you tested their DNA, you'd find out pretty quickly that the child is adopted. Even if they tried to "pass off these children as their own." DNA testing would reveal that they are not related. That's the beauty of science.

So just because a historian says what is or isn't, it's kind of like the theory of evolution. When I use a theoretical scale, I see there is more evidence that the Bible is a factual book (depending on how you see facts...) than there is of much worldly history. Genealogy, for instance. It's an interesting subject, to say the least.

You say you see more evidence that the Bible is a factual book, and yet every time I ask you why you believe that, you just come up with another claim. You haven't even mentioned historians or what they think. You are simply asking as though everything contained in the Bible is factual information and I want to know why.
If scientists did that, we'd never know what was going on around us. Luckily, they actually test things and produce evidence to back up their claims, instead of just making empty assertions.

So you discount the work of biologists, and you discount the work of historians. All because you need to believe that everything the Bible says is factual.
I'm still wondering why.
This is coming from a person who wants to believe in true things, for good reasons, whatever they may be.

So now I will ask you a question. Because I looked up some information about Jewish genealogical records. And it is said by some that the Levitical records have been maintained and are existing until the present time, from, it is said, biblical times onward. I'm not saying I believe that. But what do you think?
Jewish Genealogy | Outreach Judaism

I'm wondering why we would blindly believe what the Bible says about it, without doing any other sort of investigation and study.

I mean, that's really my point: Why should we believe what the Bible says?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no evidence that life on earth just happened without divine intervention. Whoever you think it was, or wasn't, the book of Genesis says the earth kinda looked void, nothing more or less there, kind of like Mars and the moon. What scientists you think told the writer that? When I saw photographs of the moon, it looked kind of rocky, not enticing to life as we know it ...
Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (King James Version)
Now just in case you want to tell me it had a form, I'm telling you that was an expression. Like the moon has a form, Mars has a form, but they look a little bitty desolate, wouldn't you say? Void -- of -- the teeming life Moses saw around him. Just like Isaac Newton said he knew gravity because -- of happenstance. How did Moses way back then know that "life" came about in stages?
I don't deny basic facts of biology. The human body and other bodies are distinct and fabulous. Why would I deny the mechanics? (I do not deny the mechanics.) Bones are bones, science has figured a way to see about bone density. I don't deny that. I don't deny that vaccines can help stem the tide of serioius illnesses.
P.S. There are some things in the Bible that need, or require a deeper thoughtful explanation. NOT always, as you say, "face value." So to reiterate, I don't accept everything the Bible has to say on "face value."

There is no evidence it happened under divine intervention either. Vague descriptions that have been churned through time and multiple translations are subject to interpretation and the bias of those interpreting. You are contradicting a very popular interpretation by claiming that the Earth did have form.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know people that didn't legally adopt those they call their children. And they pass off these children as their own. If you were writing a biography and wanted to know the lineage of some person, you might get false information thinking it's true. And write it down. After all, we have some saying they are offspring (illegitimate) of some famous person, and it is denied sometimes.
So just because a historian says what is or isn't, it's kind of like the theory of evolution. When I use a theoretical scale, I see there is more evidence that the Bible is a factual book (depending on how you see facts...) than there is of much worldly history. Genealogy, for instance. It's an interesting subject, to say the least.
So now I will ask you a question. Because I looked up some information about Jewish genealogical records. And it is said by some that the Levitical records have been maintained and are existing until the present time, from, it is said, biblical times onward. I'm not saying I believe that. But what do you think?
Jewish Genealogy | Outreach Judaism

You know people that are holding children illegally under false pretenses? Surely not?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you wanted to know the lineage of parents and their adopted child, and you tested their DNA, you'd find out pretty quickly that the child is adopted. Even if they tried to "pass off these children as their own." DNA testing would reveal that they are not related. That's the beauty of science.



You say you see more evidence that the Bible is a factual book, and yet every time I ask you why you believe that, you just come up with another claim. You haven't even mentioned historians or what they think. You are simply asking as though everything contained in the Bible is factual information and I want to know why.
If scientists did that, we'd never know what was going on around us. Luckily, they actually test things and produce evidence to back up their claims, instead of just making empty assertions.

So you discount the work of biologists, and you discount the work of historians. All because you need to believe that everything the Bible says is factual.
I'm still wondering why.
This is coming from a person who wants to believe in true things, for good reasons, whatever they may be.




I'm wondering why we would blindly believe what the Bible says about it, without doing any other sort of investigation and study.

I mean, that's really my point: Why should we believe what the Bible says?

Ok I'll get started soon with why I believe the Bible. But before I do, I'd like to mention that I do not think that the first days of creation were 24 hours each. Some do, I don't. I'll get more into that point later, but it's integral to understanding why the Bible, although not a scientific book, is acceptable as an account of life. To me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no evidence that life on earth just happened without divine intervention.

And there's no evidence that gravity isn't regulated by undetectable graviton pixies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And there's no evidence that gravity isn't regulated by undetectable graviton pixies.

Is this true? I cannot believe it. But then again, it fits with my views on pixies and the stuff they are up to.