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 Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Hubert Farnsworth, May 29, 2018.

  1. Thermos aquaticus

    Thermos aquaticus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,336
    Ratings:
    +1,327
    Chimp DNA has >95% identity with human DNA.
     
  2. Thermos aquaticus

    Thermos aquaticus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,336
    Ratings:
    +1,327
    Apologetics Press is not a scientific source.

    What you need to deal with are the facts, such as the similarities between the pelvises shown in one of my previous posts. A. afarensis was definitely not a chimp. A. afarensis has a mixture of human-like features not found in any living ape and ape-like features not found in any living human. If that isn't transitional, then you need to explain what would be.

    "For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
     
  3. Thermos aquaticus

    Thermos aquaticus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,336
    Ratings:
    +1,327
    That statement is proven false when one looks at the pelvic girdle.
     
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,063
    Ratings:
    +14,393
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I did a Google image search and bookmarked the source. Something I should have done a while ago. Thanks again.
     
  5. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    There was little conflict between Darwinism and scientific understanding- as it stood in the 19th C when Darwin presented it, it was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics- a handful of simple rules + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in- would be bound to produce jolly interesting results eventually! With subatomic physics, quantum mechanics, we know better now.
     
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,837
    Ratings:
    +6,166
    Religion:
    None
    So, "we" know better than to think the ToE is accurate.
    Droll.
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,063
    Ratings:
    +14,393
    Religion:
    Atheist
    How so? It is far more possible now than then. You have been shooting yourself in the foot again today Guy.
     
  8. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,690
    Ratings:
    +3,723
    Religion:
    atheist
    What? Care to elaborate?
     
  9. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    Darwinian evolution arose out of a classical understanding of reality, Darwin reasonably expected that life might have developed by the same general classical mechanisms as physics- which in his day meant a few simple laws over lots of time= lots of sophisticated emergent properties spontaneously arising

    So I agree with the premise, but today it means by a vast array of specified information, predetermining exactly how, when, where things develop
     
  10. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    6,317
    Ratings:
    +2,358
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That would make sense to someone looking in from the outside. But remember that the stories in the Bible can be cherry picked and twisted, tortured and reinterpreted countless ways to mean what one wants them to mean.
     
  11. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,743
    Ratings:
    +12,091
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    That depends on what's being considered as many such items are hypotheses, not axioms or theorems. For example, the concept of all life forms coming from a single source is a hypothesis. There are some indications that this hypothetically could be the case but it falls well short of going any further than that.
     
  12. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,837
    Ratings:
    +6,166
    Religion:
    None
    Kinda like how the talk of "specified information"
    just kills ToE, to the satisfaction of creationists at least.

    It seems to me, though, that if ToE were actually wrong,
    then, what?

    There really was a 6 day poof?

    Things change but god has to tweak every last
    detail?

    What?
     
  13. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,690
    Ratings:
    +3,723
    Religion:
    atheist
    What vast array of specified information predetermines anything?
     
  14. Thermos aquaticus

    Thermos aquaticus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,336
    Ratings:
    +1,327
    Modern physics has only further explained the cause of random genetic changes, and it fits in just fine with Darwin's original conception of variation.

    "Specified information" is a meaningless term in genetics. What units is it measured in? How do you measure it? If I were to give you a DNA sequence, would you be able to measure the specified information in that sequence?
     
  15. magid

    magid Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    149
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Islam
    If you don't mind please explain in more details with reference for Judaism scriptures.
     
  16. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,743
    Ratings:
    +12,091
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    I'm obviously not JS, but let me just say that it largely depends on how one views the creation accounts: actual history or allegorical. Jews are all over the place on this as there's no "official" interpretation, and I know the same is true within Islam as well on this.
     
  17. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,766
    Ratings:
    +10,103
    Religion:
    Judaism
    No thanks ...
     
  18. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,796
    Ratings:
    +3,847
    Religion:
    Pi π
    There are certainly no evidences of bottleneck in 4000 BCE, or 6000 years ago. And certainly no bottleneck occurring 13,000 or 12,000 years ago.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10,067
    Ratings:
    +3,085
    Religion:
    Christian
    Jews and Muslims don't believe in original sin and Christians didn't either until about 300 AD.

    search
    Not to be confused with Eternal sin.
    For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).
    [​IMG]
    Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens.

    Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is a Christian belief in the state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

    The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also shaped and developed the doctrine.

    Original sin - Wikipedia
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. MonkeyFire

    MonkeyFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,158
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Faithful Jesus believer
    Maybe some people are monkeys and others are angel's. Or what about the possibility that mankind evolves wings to defend itself against evil dragons, as the humans become angels.
     
Loading...