??
(Reputed to have been muttered by Galileo after having been forced by the church to say that the Earth was stationary.
Damn… I knew that. I should have put that together. I thought it was in reference to a particular post in the thread as opposed to the theme of the thread.
“Nevertheless…the turtle moves.”
Which turtle?
The turtle that is carrying the elephant (that is carrying the earth).
photopat
Member
Registered: Nov 1999
Location: chicago illinois, usa
Posts: 666
Eerie.
Hehe should have made that post in the 'Does Satan exist thread 
Scotth ----- Aren`t there an infinite number of turtles?
Maybe you better get up to speed on your creation theories.(insert maniacal smile here).
It was a reference to “Small Gods” by Pratchett. He had a scene in it that was inspired by the Galileo incident.
Hey, his world turtle swims through space. Makes sense to me.
Zoologist Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist, said biology was “the study of complicated things that give the apperance of having been designed for a purpose.”
One cell, that can have 100,000 molecules and 10,000 interrelated chemical reactions arose by chance?
What about blood? Billions of animals would have bled to death before the clotting process was perfected. Clotting and other systems must be operational to be of value, not evolving in stages.
What about man’s moral conscience? And what of the human spirit, though not seen, is felt everyday?
There are many scientists who do not embrace evolution without every bringing God into the picture. Evolution certainly does not have all the answers.
Welcome to SDMB, Hebzabeb.
This OP for this thread was really addressed to Biblical literalists. I don’t think that anyone has tried to argue (correct me if I’m wrong) that accepting evolution is necessarily incompatible with a belief in God.
The pope, for one, believes in both.
For the record, animals existed long before blood. Many sea creatures (animals, not plants) do not have blood today.
Also, you are quite wrong about clotting must be operational to be of value… There are numerous examples in still living creatures of much less effective clotting mechanisms than ours. And, the mechanism for clotting (much like the modern eye) is considered some of the best evidence for evolution because of the forms of clotting still in use today make the pathway to modern clotting pretty easy to see. Essentially, this is just another irreducible complexity arguement, and it is (as usual) a much better case for evolution than against.
Moral conscience? Not part of what this thread is about at all… but, I can tell you that my conscience is much better developed than most church going folk. Better than a few Catholic priests for sure (Sorry, that was a cheap shot, but it does illustrate the valid point that belief in God does not necessarily aid in any way the development of a moral conscience).
Skipping to “evolution certainly does not have all the answers”. You appear to know little about how evolution actually works and the evidence for/against it. I would say that you are making a pretty bold statement with that, and probably don’t have a leg to stand on. You example one was certainly easy enough to shoot down.
Evolution takes millions of years to make minor changes in structures. Fossil evidence suggests humans evolved from Homo erectus, brain size 800cc. The human brain today is 1,500cc. In just 2 million years, evolution doubled the size of the brain, added 50 billion neurons, redesigned the skull to accommadate the added neurons and redesigned the female pelvis to let the head through? Why would evolution stop there? Why aren’t children born today with an extra 250,000 neurons?
Also, life must exist before it can start diversifying and the cell, even a primitive one, is amazingly complex.
Life can come from two sources. 1) spontaneous creation through random processes or 2) supernatural creation.
I wanted to make a couple of book suggestions to whuckfistle.
Darwin’s Black Box: The BioChemical Challenge to Evolution by M. Behe and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Philip Johnson.
Humans eventually had to find a balance between the size of the head and the size of the female pelvis. The female pelvis is already as large as it can be without inhibiting mobility. Because the pelvis cannot be enlarged any more, neither can the human head.
Behe’s theory of “irreducable complexity” has already been debunked in this thread, but here’s another link for you.
It’s certainly true that evolution does not have all the answers; here are some examples of questions where it is woefully lacking:
“Why do we park on the driveway and drive on the parkway?”
“Where can I get a beef, bean and cheese burrito?”
“Where do you want to go today?”
“Does my bum look big in this?”
Hebzabeb - you’d do well to pay a visit to http://www.talkorigins.com/faqs and particularly http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
[aside to Hebzabeb ]
Have you noticed like I have, that many ID proponents like to use this argument to bolster its credibility?
And yet the scientists who write books advocating ID always seem to be theists like Behe and Dembski. In fact, not just “theists” but specifically Christians. Where are all these atheistic evolution deniers?
[/aside]
That about nails it on the head Mars.
If you believe in evolution, that means the bible is wrong.
If the bible is wrong, what basis is there for a belief in God?
Although there are a lot of Christians that are unwilling to make that last conclusion it is exactly that what creationists seem to be afraid of.
Therefore, for the bible to remain in the right, evolution must be falsified, at all costs.
Atheists tend to accept the mountains of evidence for evolution.
It would only be ‘theists’ that would even want to sweep it all under the carpet.
Alas, the carpet is too small to cover the mountain.
Only if you insist that the Bible is a single document that stands or falls in its entirety.
**Personal experience.
Although I see what you are saying in the context of how literalists apply it - I’ve often heard creationsists (and literalists generally) say things like “If the Bible isn’t right about X, then how can you be sure it’s right about anything” - the answer [sub](or perhaps not the answer, but my answer, certainly)[/sub] is that, based solely on words on paper, you can’t be sure and God doesn’t want you to be sure(based only on printed words) - that amounts to worship of the Bible, that’s what the large squashy thing between our ears is for.
Ah yes, Mangetout - but using the large squashy thing takes effort, and may produce uncertainty, and in my experience, the one thing literalists\fundies\whatever fear most is “uncertainty” vis a vis religious questions.
And may I ask you a question that I’ve been wondering about for some time? Is your username “Man Get Out” or “Mange Tout” or something else entirely? I can’t seem to figure out what you mean by it.