Theory of Evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by bearer_of_truth, Sep 9, 2016.

  1. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    To be fair to the forum software, until last night this thread was misposted in the "Religion" sub forum.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    That might explain it. Thanks.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,208
    Ahem!

    I prefer the term "appendages". Or "feelers", depending on my mood.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    What is wrong with the statement : evolution was first posted in genesis ? Do you know any other book then Genesis #1 that prescribes you sequences of events ?
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,644
    Um, how about the fact that Genesis has nothing at all to do with evolution?

    That depends.
    If you mean the actual sequence of events (as opposed to a made up one) then I'd suggest you read some science books.
    (Bearing in mind that Genesis gives two different "sequences" should raise some alarm bells as to its validity ...)
     
  9. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    perhaps you have not read Genesis 1 If you look at first come the plant , then where created fish , the birds the mammals then man If you don't accept that , I don't know on how to clear better..
    Please explain: what you mean by (Bearing in mind that Genesis gives two different "sequences" should raise some alarm bells as to its validity ...)
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,249
    It is antithetical to the Bible's Genesis that one form of animal evolved from a simpler form.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,644
    Actually I've read the entire Bible. Several times.

    It does say that whales (which are mammals) came at the same time as fish.
    It also says that the Sun came after plants.
    I wonder how that worked.

    Er, perhaps because Gen 2 says that man came before (land) animals and birds. And after those women arrived.

    Two different stories...
     
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    • Please don't miseducate in the main science forums. Please don't insult other members. Please don't claim the Bible is truth and then try and restrict discussion of the Bible.
    Look we are talking on living organism evolution , don't bring other things , we can have other time for planets
    Beside I am speaking about Genesis # 1 don't bring other chapter into discussion .
    Based on your post @ 108 You really have not readed lately and if you have read it 50 years ago you just don't remember it and you are brainwashed with atheism .
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,644
    1) Evolution is NOT in the Bible. According to the Bible all of those things were created - e.g. mankind did not evolve from anything prior (in fact nothing - according to Genesis - evolved from anything prior).
    2) I didn't mention "other planets". Plants rely on the Sun - no Sun, no plants.

    Why shouldn't I? Wellwisher wrote "Genesis" not "Genesis 1" so what makes you think you can legitimately limit sources to just that chapter?
    Even IF Gen 1 got it right (which it didn't) Gen 2 says something different.
    So (since the Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of "god") how do you tell which is correct? And why?

    And now you're just being silly.
    Did I say anything in that post that is wrong?
    If so please point out my error.
    Or are you just trying to make excuses?
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2016
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,664
    Posted in Genesis?

    Genesis 1 doesn't mention natural selection at all (it's entirely interested in divine selection) and the order of appearance of things is distinctly peculiar to modern eyes. The first life (on the third day) was seed bearing land plants, not bacteria, archaea and the procaryotes in aqueous environments around thermal vents perhaps. Even more strangely, these first plants appeared before the Sun had been created on the fourth day. Sea life didn't appear until the fifth day.

    http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis1

    The ancient Greeks did a much better job in my opinion. The earliest Presocratics proposed evolutionary schemes. Xenophanes believed that the world had once been wetter than it is today and cited fossil seashells in the hills of Greece as evidence of this.

    Empedocles developed a rather fanciful theory of natural selection in which he imagined that anatomical organs originally came together in chance combinations and many monstrous forms of early life had disappeared (or largely disappeared, a few might remain in far distant lands) because it was difficult for them to survive compared to the more efficient forms.

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html

    This theory was picked up by the Epicureans and in the Roman period we see an ancient version of the 'survival of the fittest' idea being repeated by Lucretius in his On the Nature of Things. Book V:

    "And in the ages after monsters died,
    perforce there perished many a stock, unable
    by propagation to forge a progeny.
    For whatsoever creature thou beholdest
    breathing the breath of life, the same have been
    even from their earliest age preserved alive
    by cunning, or by valor, or at least
    by speed of foot or wing."

    The ancient Greeks and Romans believed that they had empirical evidence that monsters had once roamed the earth. That's because they periodically discovered huge bones in the Earth, that must have come from giants that lived long before their time, and other traces of strange life that we today would call 'fossils'. They collected them, displayed them in their museums and tried to explain them.

    Here's a book about ancient Greek and Roman paleontology:

    https://www.amazon.com/First-Fossil-Hunters-Paleontology-Times/dp/0691058636
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2016
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    You have presented no evidence that either the Bible, either partially or as a whole, is a reliable source of empirical fact, or that the chapter marks are meaningful, so both your insistence on the first Genesis story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) and denial of the second Genesis story (Genesis 2:4-2:25) have been presented without communicable, let alone rational, basis.

    Also see this written policy: http://sciforums.com/posts/3272569 You have been warned for behavior contrary to this policy on multiple occasions.
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,644
    And you quoted an entire post by someone else without responding to anything written therein because...?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    With all my respect to you, Because if your emotional excitement to discredit the information in the bible . You have ignored that the Jews were an organised state before the Greeks and the Romans and they were literate be before Greeks and Roman . So I would not be surprised if the two mentioned were not inspired by the Jewish literature . unless you have proof otherwise.

    RPENNR
    You are really funny " bible reliability " who are you to say , reliable or not , there are billions of human that believe in it and billions of people who have lived by it in the past , Present ethics and morality is based on the bible . You don't understand on what bases was the bible written. You come in the past with your wisdom . I mentioned long time before tid OP. Genesis # 1 and Genesis #2 in regard the fall of man due to its disobedience . What apparently you found something for your objective . So you irrationally base your argument
    And at the end because they give you a position at Siforum , you are starting to wave you saber with rules .
     
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Kind of like how Egyptian civilization predated all of those and how the cult of Osiris promised eternal life to even non-royal followers many centuries before the kingdom of Israel was formed. But that's off-topic for this forum and this thread. Please stop violating the rules.

    You might as well say the same about astrology or the writings of Confucius. This is the weaker form of argumentum ad populum, a fallacy even if you could demonstrate a majority. That people in the past believed in it seems utterly unreliable as people in the past believed in lots of silly things, like slavery, racism and the divine right of kings.

    The Genesis story of Noah and the New Testament Gospels are clear indications that there is no universal Biblical support for appeal to the masses. The masses, in fiction and fact, can be wrong.

    Whether or not something is believed by 1 or 20 billion, the relevant criterion for this thread is if they stated model makes predicting and understanding biological current and historical change of populations better. You have failed to meet this standard and apparently instead of acknowledging your failure to live up to our standards, you resort to deflection and logical fallacies.

    No, because present ethics and morality reject slavery, racism, genocide and the divine right of kings. But even if the Bible were the only valid source of ethics and morals, it would not diminish the successes of the theory of evolution to be a precise, communicable framework for predicting the patterns of how biological populations change over time and space.

    My understanding of Higher Criticism is not relevant to your demonstration of your admissible claims about the theory of evolution. Please stop violating the rules.

    Because I have a position at SciForums, action is preferred to inaction; following the rules is preferred to ignoring the rules and governance. But that is an inappropriate discussion to have on this forum. You are directed to discover in the rules the appropriate way to make a personal comment on my behavior as a moderator or possibly a general discussion of what the rules should be.
    c.f. 1 Peter 2:13-14, Hebrews 13:17
     
    exchemist likes this.
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,631
    Well said. And this whole issue - introduced by Timojin - of the bible's veracity or otherwise appears to be completely out of scope for a thread in Biology.
     
  21. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    [QUOTE="rpenner,

    Because I have a position at SciForums, action is preferred to inaction; following the rules is preferred to ignoring the rules and governance. But that is an inappropriate discussion to have on this forum. You are directed to discover in the rules the appropriate way to make a personal comment on my behavior as a moderator or possibly a general discussion of what the rules should be.
    c.f. 1 Peter 2:13-14, Hebrews 13:17[/QUOTE]

    You beat me down with my own stick. I have no other recourse than Apologise to YOUR PERSON !!
     
  22. Mysticlling Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    There is growing physics evidence of psychokinesis........... can give refs. (monks moving photons etc etc....

    • If consciousness is primary (as Max Plank & his mates thought plus all mystics...Henry Stapp) then causation is fundamentally top down therefore an intelligence acts from ‘above’. (ghost in the machine)

    • It follows that intelligence grows or evolves in an involution like manner i.e. the higher teaches or helps the lower to become more intelligent or more aware or more conscious which implies a never ending hierarchy of intelligence. (opposite of 2nd law)

    • How does this process work?

    • A greater intelligence ‘teaches’ the less intelligent in a ‘classroom’ with a ‘student score’ for feedback so this intelligence/s can determine which classroom is most appropriate.

    • The teaching process can be direct or indirect.

    • An indirect process would be where the ‘lower’ teaches themselves in a similar way that we learn by using a textbook or computer being analogous to an automatic or unconscious program (akashic records) previously written by the higher. This can been seen as a ‘ladder’.


    Perhaps the most basic building block in reality is: Student/Teacher/Classroom/Score. (it seems that all else is a subset of this most basic observation in nature....)

    Ultimately we have a virtual reality constructed by the professor or parent etc. to help the student or child etc. to evolve as efficiently as possible.......this results in reality being fundamentally unknowable ie how can you know what the teacher knows until you have been taught. this implies higher realities.... (see NDEs in Lancet journals....)
    The bottom line is we get smarter & move on (this is perhaps the nastiest classroom where when we graduate we become wise or nice enough to go to a classroom where everyone is finally beyond basic love/compassion etc.
    Just want to start a thought that I have much more to say.... AS ABOVE SO BELOW + all space is here + all time is now + all things are one. mind is non local...so many arrows point to this. I can go on & on....
     
  23. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,000
    Then give the references!
    What does any of that have to with psychokinesis?
    It is not necessary, just give those references you have.
     

Share This Page