You’re right, some people are beyond discussing things with.
I’m kind of disappointed that this thread doesn’t seem to be panning out very well. I thought we had a nibble with Skammer, but it turns out he is a pretty reasonable person who had some questions and accepted the answers. (which speaks volumes for his character) Sadly he was not the Biblical literalist we were looking for. Where is His4ever?
Walking into a lions den this is!
What facts or biblical excerpts are you people looking for?
People who have faith, in the religious sense, don`t need facts or empirical evidence to support thier beliefs.
The posters here are presenting evidence (from other peoples observations) that evolution is the only view that makes sense.
I agree with most of the well supported views of the evolutionist.
I can see that 2+2=4. Whoopdee doo.
Gathering evidence and making conclusions, what a revolutionary idea!
The BIG picture
Us people of faith “see” things a little differently.
What reward is there in believing only in evolution?
What reward is there in believing only in creation?
Both by themselves get you knowwhere. But to believe in God, to believe that Christ died for our sins, to believe that you are saved - coupled with the belief that God`s word is the truth, will get rewarded in the afterlife.
This is where it gets tricky, I understand. More bable witnessing crap you are thinking!
To make an analogy - Im standing in front of, say, a gray elephant. I here Gods voice tell me that what I really see is a pink mouse. Who do I believe, my senses ( which I wil get to later) or MY CREATOR? Keeping in mind that He is saving a place for me in Heaven, I will believe what He says. Even though My eyes tell me I see a gray elephant, I will from that day forward belileve that it is a pm. You may come up to me and say that you also see a gray elephant, and I can`t disagree with you. But because I have faith in my creator, I know the truth.
Does this make sense to anyone?
Maybe only those with a truely open mind can grasp what I am saying.
I dont dispute the evidence as we see it (evolution), but I also choose to believe what God tells me is the truth. I choose not to take selections out of the Bible that suit my needs, its an all or nothing with God`s word. Keeping in mind that my faith will bring me to that final reward.
Saying that, I am prepared to discuss some of the holes I see in the evolution or the selective natural process, because I am willing to admit, to an unbeliever there are holes in My thinking or faith.
I have a problem with the senses.
How did sight, hearig, smell, taste, touch come into existence?
How the hell did an early organism even know there were things to see without eyes to begin with, or smell for that matter. Without a nose you dont know you cant smell. You dont miss what you dont have. Even as an early organism, the selective process may have choosen sight over hearing and hearing over smelling. How did most animals on this planet end up with all five senses, pretty finely tuned, I might add. Somewhere along the line an organism had to start with all five in order for them to have developed into the senses they are today. How can promordial organisms have been this complicated to
“know” they could even use a sense once it was fully developed.
It would have taken millions of years for a sense to evolve into a usefull tool. Did nature just allow enough of these trial and error cycles to take place until they finally panned out. I doubt it.
When was the Earth stable enough that long ago, for for a long enough time, for these delicate organisms to evolve.
Inform me
From 1984 by George Orwell:
whuck - I always wonder a bit when folks are so eager to make analogies. Now we are arguing about elephants and mice, instead of creation and evolution.
I believe that most scientists operate from the presumption that we can trust our perception/observations. That things are as they appear to be.
Sure, we might all be figments of some superior being’s imagination. But I’m not sure how much of value can be done when presuming all of our senses, perceptions, measurements, etc. are potentially unreliable.
Finally, your questioning of how senses could have developed and the “desire” of organisms to evolve belies a rather impressive lack of knowledge of even the most basic elements of evolutionary theory and biology. You clearly have not made much of an attempt to learn explanations for these and related questions. It frustrates this natural humanist to try to have conversations with believers, when those people have put far less effort into understanding my position, than I have of theirs.
‘know’ is a deliberately misleading word; when some of the ‘things to be seen’ are interested in eating you, it becomes something of an advantage to be able to sense their approach.
**When you miss out on food, it’s generally bad.
Some false assumptions there. I think; some senses have arisen more than once; sight, for example - I think I’m right in saying that there is not believed to be any evolutionary link between the eyes of insects, vertebrates and molluscs, there’s no evolutionary link between the ‘ears’ of arachnids and vertebrates. and so on; nature has done it more than once, some organisms don’t have all five; maybe their descendants in the far future will have, if they happen to adapt and it becomes necessary.
When and how was “desire” built into early DNA.
I explained my position.
My questions were not rethorical.
Answer them if you know.
Also, unless Ive make it my life endeavour, I have not the time nor the patience to weed through the countless theories and assumptions related to evolution. And if I did how would I be sure Ive come to the right conclusions?
Are you sure you have the right conclusions?
Or are you just going to regurgitate what others before you have
concluded. If you have any info that I might find interesting pertaining to my questions I would love to learn. Like I said, I see the gray elephant just like you do. (but I know the Truth)
That is why I engaged in this topic, to see what I may learn from others. Not to preach.
I needed to tell you where I was coming from, as a religious person of faith.
Like I also said, I can agree with conclusions made by evolutionist, so give me some conclusions.
Give me the facts… if you can.
Thankyou Mangetout, You have unknowingly reinforced the message of my post. Faith is NOT something you can analyze or measure. Science certainly is. What does my soul benefit more from,- faith.
Inform me
Ok that`s a start.
Mangetout. How would a predator have eaten a lessor creature without the ability to “sense” it was there to begin with?
In addition how would they have known what was food and what wasn`t without “senses”?
The lessor creatures could not have survived during this slaughter long enough to devlope.
The massive, gaping hole in Whuck’s argument is that there is no “voice-of-God” disputing evolution. We have a 3000 year old creation myth in Genesis, and literally hundreds of other creation myths from other religions. All of them were written by people, and none of them have the slightest shred of evidence to suggest “divine” authorship. Genesis isn’t even original to the Bible, it’s Sumerian. Let me ask you Whuck, do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth? Do you believe the earth is flat? Do you believe the sky is solid? The Bible says all of these things are true.
If you’re going to argue that the Bible is the word of God, then you’re going to have to prove it. If you’re going to argue from authority (i.e. “God told me…”) then you’re going to have an uphill battle. Those kinds of assertions are purely tautalogical and have no value in a debate.
If you think there are “countless theories and assumptions related to evolution” that need to be “weeded through” before gaining some understanding of basic principles, you are mistaken. A little reading can provide tremendous information on various subjects, without making them your life endeavour.
Let us know if you want a basic reading list, or links to the numerous threads that have addressed the questions you raised. Funny how I’ve managed to read multiple books on biology and religion in recent months, without making either subject my life’s work.
Sure, one goal of these boards is to dispel ignorance. But what chance is there, if the ignorant refuses to exert the most minimal effort themself.
Your request that we “inform you” strikes me as disingenuous, or at best, lazy.
**Blind chance; if the predator was as insensate as the prey, it would have to just lumber around until it bumped into the prey by accident, if the prey had a means of making this less likely, that would convey a positive advantage.
If you don’t have senses to determine food from mud, you have to eat everything and let your digestive system sort out the differences, if you have a means of discerning the difference and eatiing a greater ratio of food vs mud, this would convey a positive advantage.
[/QUOTE]
This line of argument is about irreducible complexity and is nothing new.
Besides the obvious point that living today are creatures that don’t have any senses to speak of.
A very short list of animals that have no central nervous system and no senses to speak of.
- Jellyfish
- Sponges
- Sea Cucumber and relatives
- Corals
Somehow, these creatures still survive.
Then there is the list of creatures that have limited senses and the list that have senses besides the five that are familiar to people.
For some reason, scotth, your list of organisms reminded me of a line I read just the other day. Mayr considered expressed his opinion that it is ridiculous to raise the issue of “life” in the abortion debate, since as a biologist, he knows both sperm and ova have life.
From which it is a short hop and a jump to Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred.”
Who says learning can’t be fun!
Touche, I have been beaten down.
Faith hath no place in this debate.
Did any of us see God not create the earth? - No
(flawed I admit)
Who is to say for certain that there is no Creator?
I at least admit that evidence leads to conclusions that evolution is apparent.
Yes, I would like to read literature relating to the devolpment of early complex organisms. If you can supply me with good reading.
Question?- In a forum such as this, where the scientific method seems to weigh so heavily, do you even encourage the input of opposing biblical references. Y`all seem to have been practicing this for quite some time.
Are you so overwhelmingly confident that yours are the only and correct views. If so, I think you may be burdened with your decision when your Organic life ends.
Yes, here’s one - John 10:35: whuckfistle makes Baby Jesus cry.
**What is this - Pascal’s Wager combined with that “If you’re living like there’s no God, you’d better be right” bumpersticker?
Because we all know that “believeing in” evolution means you can’t believe in God, right?
Very funny!!
How `bout some reading fellas.
Question?- In a forum such as this, where the scientific method seems to weigh so heavily, do you even encourage the input of opposing biblical references.
Should read - Why in a forum such as this,…
I think you need to go back and read the OP, Whuck. This wasn’t really intended to be an evolution vs creationism debate. As you can see, biblical literalism and the standard anti-evolution canards (2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.) tend to get rather quickly destroyed in such debates. It’s almost not even fun anymore. The OP was asking if creationists have any fear that they will eventually be seen as patently ridiculous, in the same way that opponents of Galileo are seen today.
Are you worried that future generations will look back at the foes of evolution in the same way they look at flat-earthers, doctors with leeches, witch burners, and alchemists?
You could do worse than starting with any of S.J. Gould’s anthologies. The Diet of Worms, The Panda’s Thumb, The Flamingo’s Smile, The Bishop’s Bum, etc. He does a good job of discussing the historical development of scientific thought. And each article is a entertaining short read. He addresses many issues other than natural selection, tho.
I’ve recently been enjoying a couple of books by Ernst Mayr and intend to read more by him. And I went thru a period a while back where I read and enjoyed several titles by E.O. Wilson. But I don’ t think I would recommend these as quite as “accessible” as Gould.
You could probably turn up quite a bit by conducting a search of “photosensitivity” or some such on this forum. I think the subject may have come up before.
Several books and periodicals have addressed the extent to which faith and science can be reconciled. There was quite a flurry recently following the pope’s encyclical on the matter. It’s pretty easy to find should you care to look.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by whuckfistle *
…Im standing in front of, say, a gray elephant. I here Gods voice tell me that what I really see is a pink mouse. Who do I believe, my senses ( which I wil get to later) or MY CREATOR? Keeping in mind that He is saving a place for me in Heaven, I will believe what He says. Even though My eyes tell me I see a gray elephant, I will from that day forward belileve that it is a pm. You may come up to me and say that you also see a gray elephant, and I can`t disagree with you. But because I have faith in my creator, I know the truth.
The problem I have with that analogy is that it suggests that the only reason you believe god is out of fear. If you choose to believe your senses you lose your place in heaven. It sounds like a god who plays games, with his worshippers as pawns.
I dont dispute the evidence as we see it (evolution), but I also choose to believe what God tells me is the truth. I choose not to take selections out of the Bible that suit my needs, its an all or nothing with God`s word. Keeping in mind that my faith will bring me to that final reward.
This statement sounds like you are saying that the evidence for evolution is convincing, but again, because god “tells” you something in the bible, you believe it, simply because if you don’t you’re screwed eternally speaking. Again, it’s a case of believe due to fear, not evidence. God is coercing you.
(That’s how it sounds to me.)
**I have a problem with the senses.
How did sight, hearig, smell, taste, touch come into existence?
How the hell did an early organism even know there were things to see without eyes to begin with, or smell for that matter. Without a nose you dont know you cant smell. You dont miss what you dont have. Even as an early organism, the selective process may have choosen sight over hearing and hearing over smelling. How did most animals on this planet end up with all five senses, pretty finely tuned, I might add. Somewhere along the line an organism had to start with all five in order for them to have developed into the senses they are today. How can promordial organisms have been this complicated to
“know” they could even use a sense once it was fully developed.
It would have taken millions of years for a sense to evolve into a usefull tool. Did nature just allow enough of these trial and error cycles to take place until they finally panned out. I doubt it.
When was the Earth stable enough that long ago, for for a long enough time, for these delicate organisms to evolve. **
Consider that the senses are simply the result of certain parts of bodies being paticularly sensitive to certain inputs, whether pressure (touch), light (sight), air waves (sound/hearing), chemical reactions (smell, taste). It’s not too hard to conceive of a time when organisms had varying degrees of sensitivity of each type in varying degrees, and those that had the most effective sensitivity were able to protect themselves and find food more efficiently than other organisms with less effective sensitivities. In other words, an organism might have an area on it’s surface that was more reactive to light than many similar creatures, and as a result, might absorb more sunlight or might flee faster when the light was interrupted, saving it from a predator. Then, that trait would be passed along to it’s offspring, and over time would be strengthened and focussed, becoming a predecessor to an eye.
I’m not saying this is exactly how it happened, but I think it’s a fairly reasonable way of looking at evolution of the senses.
You should remember that, as others have said, not all animals have equal senses, and some have senses that others either lack or haven’t developed well, such as magnetic sensitivity in insects, or the sense of smell in dogs and cats.