Christianity and science

[Bowap]

I see that this whole debate is not really going anywhere, for some people a literal reading of Genesis is the way it happened, and nothing will ever change their minds. It's my opinion that God gave me a brain and intellect and didn't intend for me to forego their use. Biblical literalists insist that anyone who doesn't agree with their theology is not a Christian, and so there is not even the potential for any meaningful dialogue.

Oh, and you don't think we have looked at what 'creation scientists' have to say? I have looked very hard, believe me. There are no coherent responses to nested hierarchies, undeniable temporal stratification in the fossil record, human chromosome 2, ERVs/LINES/SINES/pseudogenes (all of which converge upon the same phylogenetic tree), embryonic development, the fundamental unity of living organisms, the various other methods which provide convergent independent phylogenies, thousands of transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, observed speciation (macroevolution) events, convergent radiometric dating techniques and other methods which undeniably indicate an ancient earth/universe, observed cosmological events from billions of light years away that can also only mean that the universe is ancient, cosmic microwave background radiation, and everything else modern science tells us but which creationists (especially those who believe in a young earth) feel they have to deny.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Bowap

[MorningGlory]

I see that this whole debate is not really going anywhere, for some people a literal reading of Genesis is the way it happened, and nothing will ever change their minds. It's my opinion that God gave me a brain and intellect and didn't intend for me to forego their use. Biblical literalists insist that anyone who doesn't agree with their theology is not a Christian, and so there is not even the potential for any meaningful dialogue.

Oh, and you don't think we have looked at what 'creation scientists' have to say? I have looked very hard, believe me. There are no coherent responses to nested hierarchies, undeniable temporal stratification in the fossil record, human chromosome 2, ERVs/LINES/SINES/pseudogenes (all of which converge upon the same phylogenetic tree), embryonic development, the fundamental unity of living organisms, the various other methods which provide convergent independent phylogenies, thousands of transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, observed speciation (macroevolution) events, convergent radiometric dating techniques and other methods which undeniably indicate an ancient earth/universe, observed cosmological events from billions of light years away that can also only mean that the universe is ancient, cosmic microwave background radiation, and everything else modern science tells us but which creationists (especially those who believe in a young earth) feel they have to deny.

Who said the universe isn't ancient? Who denied anything except that man is a descendent of apes? A belief that's in direct opposition to Scripture, btw. Do you somehow believe you're the only intelligent person on the planet? I can copy and paste from Science Weekly too. Can I then call myself a scientist? Sounds like your getting a little hot under the collar because your multitheories aren't being accepted at face value.

[Bowap]

Who said the universe isn't ancient?

The majority of creationists believe in a young earth/cosmos, i.e. no more than 10,000 years old.

Who denied anything except the fact that man is a descendent of apes?

Every single human being who has ever lived is a descendent of apes, because all humans are apes, more specifically 'great apes'/Hominidae, along with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans*. This is an undeniable fact of taxonomy, and it is true absolutely irrespective of whether the theory of evolution is true.

Probably the best evidence for our common ancestry with the other extant apes comes from human chromosome 2, shared pseudogenes/SINES/LINES/ERVs in exactly the same places in our DNA, all converging upon the same phylogenetic tree. The distribution of inherited genetic markers is the principle by which paternity testing works and greater in-depth analysis provided by comparative genomics allows scientists to establish the common ancestry of different species beyond any doubt - http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4825/sinesxl7.jpg . Moreover, no denier of evolution has ever provided a better explanation for the nested hierarchy of living organisms than universal common descent.

*Notice that DNA analysis shows that we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas and we are more closely related to gorillas than they are to orangutans. "To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat."

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

Edited May 25, 2009 by Bowap

[Botz]

I see that this whole debate is not really going anywhere, for some people a literal reading of Genesis is the way it happened, and nothing will ever change their minds. It's my opinion that God gave me a brain and intellect and didn't intend for me to forego their use. Biblical literalists insist that anyone who doesn't agree with their theology is not a Christian, and so there is not even the potential for any meaningful dialogue.

Oh, and you don't think we have looked at what 'creation scientists' have to say? I have looked very hard, believe me. There are no coherent responses to nested hierarchies, undeniable temporal stratification in the fossil record, human chromosome 2, ERVs/LINES/SINES/pseudogenes (all of which converge upon the same phylogenetic tree), embryonic development, the fundamental unity of living organisms, the various other methods which provide convergent independent phylogenies, thousands of transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, observed speciation (macroevolution) events, convergent radiometric dating techniques and other methods which undeniably indicate an ancient earth/universe, observed cosmological events from billions of light years away that can also only mean that the universe is ancient, cosmic microwave background radiation, and everything else modern science tells us but which creationists (especially those who believe in a young earth) feel they have to deny.

I'm sure the L-rd did indeed give you a brain and an intellect, He also placed His Spirit in you and caused you to learn to walk by faith, if indeed you have trusted Him for your salvation. I have never once suggested that another Christian who accepts the account of evolution and believes we are descended from apes is not a fellow Believer...I understand perfectly well why he might hold this position, but I believe it is a position of inconsistancy, that gives more credence to scientific reality than biblical reality, and in a sense they are serving two masters.

Many Christians just do not have the time, need or motivation to look at all the information thrown up by evolutionist theory, and would be poorly equipped to argue or debate a theory that at the outset attempts to break down their trust in G-d and pass judgment and doubt on the Scriptures...all in the guise of 'reasonableness, observable truth and reality'.

The fact of the matter is that unless you work in a specific field of science and specialise in that field, most of what is said to you will have to be taken on trust...even one scientist working in say Cosmology, will not necessarily be able to fully understand or argue with somebody who works in molecular biology....so how the man in the street is meant to grasp the full import of the minutiae in the lastest science article baffles me.

But Believers who reads their bible, are far less likely to succumb to the relentless pressure that todays scientific community place on mankind to accept, swallow and digest the erroneous notion that we descended from ape-like creatures and were not uniquely created by G-d....and this does not mean they commit intellectual suicide by closing their eyes to all scientific knowledge and repeating the mantra...'I must believe...I must believe', but it means they will not be swayed this way and that by those that the rest of mankind places on a pedestal....it is almost as if the world has come full circle after several thousand years, and once again, just like in ancient Greece, we have arrived at another 'Age of Reason'.

[Guest shiloh357]

I see that this whole debate is not really going anywhere, for some people a literal reading of Genesis is the way it happened, and nothing will ever change their minds.

So you don't think the Bible is accurate in its portrayal of God creating the world? You expect to be recognized as a Christian while you reject inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

It's my opinion that God gave me a brain and intellect and didn't intend for me to forego their use.

So anyone who doesn't accept your opinion and believe things exactly the way YOU do is not using their brain. You are just arrogant and have a big mouth, but you really have no substance in your respones.

Biblical literalists insist that anyone who doesn't agree with their theology is not a Christian,

No, that is not what I or anyone else here has said. The problem is that you have failed to taken into account the fact that various themes running concurrently throughout the Bible are interlocking and interrelated. You cannot discard one without doing damage to the other. You also failed to recognize that the Bible is a progessive system that builds on itself meaning that everything in Genesis serves as a foundation for the rest of the Bible which follows. You cannot discard the foundation without doing violence to what was built upon it. Alas, you have no substantive, meaningful intelligent response to that information. Instead your response is to cast disparaging remarks on others' intellectual prowess to deflect attention away from your obvious shallow understanding the Bible and your overall biblical illiteracy.

and so there is not even the potential for any meaningful dialogue.

What you mean is that we are not as easily intimidated with your cut and paste "science" and we actually are able to mount theological responses you are obviously unpreprared for, judging from your lack of meaningful responses to those theological issues. You are not able control the conversation and leave us beholden to your knowledge, so suddenly dialogue with us becomes a bit overrated doesn't it?

Frankly, you don't know enough about the Bible or Christianity to critcize "biblical literalists." You are nothing more than a parrot.

Oh, and you don't think we have looked at what 'creation scientists' have to say? I have looked very hard, believe me. There are no coherent responses to nested hierarchies, undeniable temporal stratification in the fossil record, human chromosome 2, ERVs/LINES/SINES/pseudogenes (all of which converge upon the same phylogenetic tree), embryonic development, the fundamental unity of living organisms, the various other methods which provide convergent independent phylogenies, thousands of transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, observed speciation (macroevolution) events, convergent radiometric dating techniques and other methods which undeniably indicate an ancient earth/universe, observed cosmological events from billions of light years away that can also only mean that the universe is ancient, cosmic microwave background radiation, and everything else modern science tells us but which creationists (especially those who believe in a young earth) feel they have to deny.

Then why do you waste your time with us? Why don't you go and debate creation scientists and take them to task for their faulty science since you think you are competent to refute them? We are not Creation scientists and your time would be better spent correcting these errant scientists rather than shredding them over here.

[MorningGlory]

Who said the universe isn't ancient?

The majority of creationists believe in a young earth/cosmos, i.e. no more than 10,000 years old.

Who denied anything except the fact that man is a descendent of apes?

Every single human being who has ever lived is a descendent of apes, because all humans are apes, more specifically 'great apes'/Hominidae, along with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans*. This is an undeniable fact of taxonomy, and it is true absolutely irrespective of whether the theory of evolution is true.

Probably the best evidence for our common ancestry with the other extant apes comes from human chromosome 2, shared pseudogenes/SINES/LINES/ERVs in exactly the same places in our DNA, all converging upon the same phylogenetic tree. The distribution of inherited genetic markers is the principle by which paternity testing works and greater in-depth analysis provided by comparative genomics allows scientists to establish the common ancestry of different species beyond any doubt - http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4825/sinesxl7.jpg . Moreover, no denier of evolution has ever provided a better explanation for the nested hierarchy of living organisms than universal common descent.

*Notice that DNA analysis shows that we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas and we are more closely related to gorillas than they are to orangutans. "To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat."

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

All that scientific data aside, man cannot be descended from apes. Genesis details man's creation; unless you're prepared to argue with God, it's irrefutable. (Btw, I don't recommend that arguing with God thing!) Evolution obviously occurs, within species, but there is NO evidence that macroevolution has ever occurred. I just watched "The Link", on the History Channel and it was a fascinating look into the painstaking scientific process involved in studying and classifying fossils. The "Ida" fossil is remarkable and I was impressed with the work that went into the show and with the scientists themselves. However, the lack of a 'grooming claw' and a 'tooth comb' (neither of which the little fossil possesses) or the presence of a tarsal bone in her foot (that is very similar to ours) does not make her our ancestor! Basically, what WAS a lemur 47,000,000 years ago is still a lemur today. I'm not a scientist but I have no problem understanding information as it's presented. I see no proof of macroevolution in ANY species. Man today (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is pretty much the same being as the very first of our kind who only appears in the fossil record a few thousand years ago. Science has tried to prove we descended from several of the hominids and has failed to do so. Even Neanderthal man, who coexisted with our ancestors, has been proven to not share our DNA. Interesting stuff.

[Bowap]

I'm not arguing with God, I'm arguing with people who try to interpret the Bible as an introductory textbook in biology and physics.

The scientific definition of 'macroevolution' is (as I have already stated) evolutionary change at or above the species level. This is something that we have documented dozens and dozens of times in the wild and in the laboratory. So yes, there is undeniable evidence that macroevolution has occurred as we have actually directly observed it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Homo sapiens, in essentially our modern form, appear in the fossil record around 200,00 years ago. Moreover we have a whole series of hominid fossils dating from around 4-5 million years ago, showing undeniable progression towards more human-like characteristics, flatter face, upright stance, increase in cranial capacity etc, through time. What is an objective observer supposed to make of this? Was God practising? Or was descent with modification (evolution) occurring?

I don't even know how you can say that Neanderthals have "been proven to not share our DNA." What does that even mean? Young-earth creationists insist that Neanderthals were fully modern humans, just in an antedeluvian world (however, they clearly weren't members of our species). We share around 99.5% of our DNA with Neanderthals, and that's because we shared a very recent common ancestor with them, probably around 400,000-750,000 years ago.

I provided you with evidence for our common ancestry with the other apes, and it was just ignored. The main example I used the was SINEs (short interspersed elements), these are chunks of DNA that are inserted near genes. The insertion of these elements marks a gene in a species, and it is then inherited by all species descended from it. These events are quite rare and there is no active mechanism for removing them. As a result, their presence in the same place in the DNA of separate species can only be explained by those species sharing a common ancestor. These are the same principles by which paternity testing works.

I also mentioned nested hierarchies, these provide undeniable evidence for macroevolution, and no evolution denier has ever been able to mount a response to this.

The reason this stuff is not spoken about by 'creation scientists' is because they have no response to it.

If you want to read an article by a 'creation scientist' on the human and chimp genomes read this;

http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents...lyArVOo%2FgM%3D

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:9mXBhf...=clnk&gl=uk

The author spends most of the article saying that everything we observe is exactly what we would expect if common descent we true, but that he can't accept that due to his theological beliefs. Whatever he is doing it isn't science, in science you have to be prepared to go wherever the evidence leads you, regardless of what you want to be true.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Bowap

[MorningGlory]

I'm not arguing with God, I'm arguing with people who try to interpret the Bible as an introductory textbook in biology and physics.

Of course the Bible is not a biology or physics textbook nor was it written as such. However, any science that exists, any knowledge that exists ,comes from God. He wrote the physical laws after all.

The scientific definition of 'macroevolution' is (as I have already stated) evolutionary change at or above the species level.

I KNOW what macroevolution means, thank you.

This is something that we have documented dozens and dozens of times in the wild and in the laboratory. So yes, there is undeniable evidence that macroevolution has occurred as we have actually directly observed it.

Nope.

Moreover we have a whole series of hominid fossils dating from around 4-5 million years ago, showing undeniable progression towards more human-like characteristics, flatter face, upright stance, increase in cranial capacity etc, through time. What is an objective observer supposed to make of this? Was God practising? Or was descent with modification (evolution) occurring?

God always gets it right the first time. No one is denying the presence of homanids way back there. They were not of our species.

I don't even know how you can say that Neanderthals have "been proven to not share our DNA." What does that even mean?

I should have said we don't share a gene pool with them. I'm aware that humans and many other animals have DNA in common.

Young-earth creationists insist that Neanderthals were fully modern humans, just in an antedeluvian world (however, they clearly weren't members of our species). We share around 99.5% of our DNA with Neanderthals, and that's because we shared a very recent common ancestor with them, probably around 400,000-750,000 years ago.

I have never heard a Creationist say that Neanderthals were fully modern humans but, if that's the case, I don't understand that one. They were a separate species from us.

I provided you with evidence for our common ancestry with the other apes, and it was just ignored.

The main example I used the was SINEs (short interspersed elements), these are chunks of DNA that are inserted near genes. The insertion of these elements marks a gene in a species, and it is then inherited by all species descended from it. These events are quite rare and there is no active mechanism for removing them. As a result, their presence in the same place in the DNA of separate species can only be explained by those species sharing a common ancestor.

Or by the fact that the language of DNA was written by an intelligence we can't even begin to fathom. I read everything you wrote and I'm sure others did as well. I simply don't accept the TOE as true; at least not regarding humans.

I also mentioned nested hierarchies, these provide undeniable evidence for macroevolution, and no evolution denier has ever been able to mount a response to this.

Sure they have; they've denied that it's true.

[Bowap]

How can you say you know what macroevolution is and then when I provided observed instances of it you simply say, "Nope?" I'm afraid that closing your eyes and refusing to accept facts does not make those facts disappear. You agreed that macroevolution is evolutionary change at or above the species level, so species is the taxonomic level representing the dividing point between micro and macroevolution, and thus speciation constitutes observed evidence of macroevolution. If you do not accept this then you will need to provide a better explanation than simply saying "Nope."

As for Neanderthal;

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v.../neandertal.asp

"Biblical creationists believe Neandertal Man was just a unique variant of modern man who lived in Europe and adjacent Asia and North Africa after the Babel dispersion in the Ice Age (the aftermath of the Flood—ref. 24)."

http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/

"Conclusion

Neanderthals were human."

You continue to reject evidence for common descent without presenting any reason for your rejection. If you accept paternity testing as accurate then you must also accept the same methods which allow scientists to establish the common ancestry of various species, including us.

Evolution demands that nested hierarchies exist, it is a prediction of the theory. There is absolutely no reason for them to exist if creationism were true, in fact they are precisely what we would not expect if the similarities between organisms were a result of common 'design' rather than common descent. Yet whichever way we attempt to compare different forms of life, we discover that the nested hierarchy is the outcome of the process. Creationists can refuse to accept this but that is not a response, anyone can refuse to accept anything they want; I can refuse to accept that today is Tuesday, that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that the sky is blue, but my denying these realities does not change reality itself. In their literature creationists have no response to nested hierarchies, the best they can apparently do is to try to compare living organisms to manufactured objects such as vehicles or machines, but anyone who understands the concept realises how fundamentally flawed this is. Machines and vehicles do not possess unique character combinations, they do not reproduce to pass on inherited characteristics, and any 'enforced' hierarchy is easily shown to have loops and violations in it, the death knell for a nested hierarchy.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Bowap

[Smalcald]

Hi Bowap

I realize I am jumping in very late on this discussion.

What do you mean when you say a "creationist" or "creationism"?