Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[childeroland]

@KalMart. Nope, it certainly does not.
@Shemtov. Again (I think again) we don't know what the book Josiah came up was -- probably an early version of the Deutoronomic History -- so we can't know if it claimed to be written in 1200 BCE or what precisely was in it that Josiah would have had to explain -- including any version of the Exodus story, for example. In any event, the Torah as we know it today was likely composed centuries later.

The editing of Ezra, and perhaps Nehemiah -- they were originally one book, you probably know -- went on well past 326 BC, may have originated about 458 BC, and has such a complex history of editing using more than one single theology that I would hesitate to point at the absence of something in the text(s) as anything like proof. For all we know, the composer(s) of the book originally had no notion of Josiah discovering the "lost" Torah intact in the temple and thus had no need to explain its being lost and discovered.

 

[VictorCreed]

......The Jewish bible was canonized around 500 BCE. Nobody believes that the Jewish Bible and the Gospels were written at the same time.
Is that what you're suggesting?

Not at all. It just seems odd to me that some believe both New Testament and Old Testament to be completely true and accurate, while others only believe the OT.

If the New Testament was so flawed and wrong, what makes the Old Testament so legitimate? Other than just being older? There are far older religions and mythologies.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Religion doesn't work that way.

 

[Shemtov]

Not at all. It just seems odd to me that some believe both New Testament and Old Testament to be completely true and accurate, while others only believe the OT.

If the New Testament was so flawed and wrong, what makes the Old Testament so legitimate? Other than just being older? There are far older religions and mythologies.

That's what we were talking about......
And i said I was done with that convo. I just stuck around to see what YOU were talking about because I was confused by it.

 

[KalMart]

Again Shem, if you're saying that you've had your say and you're leaving, then please stick to it. Actual theological discussions between testaments and such certainly are off topic. Thank you and goodnight.

 

[VictorCreed]

Well, the Jesus parts were added much later by different people.

That would be like a Mormon asking you (I assume you're Christian or of Christian background, forgive me if I'm being presumptive), why you believe in Jesus, but don't believe in what Joseph Smith wrote.

The Jews had their bible for a long time before the New Testament was written.

Oh I know(I addressed this in another post(and I'm not really any denomination)).

But what's keeping even older mythologies and religions from being legit if you just have to be older to be more accepted as factual?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Oh I know(I addressed this in another post(and I'm not really any denomination)).

But what's keeping even older mythologies and religions from being legit if you just have to be older to be more accepted as factual?

Indoctrination. Very few fundamentalists chose their religion.

It's what they were born into. And usually, all they know.

 

[Shemtov]

One thing before I go:

But what's keeping even older mythologies and religions from being legit if you just have to be older to be more accepted as factual?

I never said I believe in it because it's the oldest....Please read my posts.

 

[Marvolo]

Oh I know(I addressed this in another post(and I'm not really any denomination)).

But what's keeping even older mythologies and religions from being legit if you just have to be older to be more accepted as factual?

Jewish belief in the OT and not the NT isnt necessarily because of the OT being older. Jesus doesnt fullfill the requirements set out in the OT to be the messiah therefore anything he says or his disciples say about god and his claims to be the messiah are false. Ive delved into Judaism and I have to agree with it in that there are some problems with Jesus. If i was religious and following the bible id have to agree woth Judaism on the matter. Despite what christianity says jesus doesnt match up to the messiah prophesized about in the OT. Shemtov can explain this better and it doesnt belong in this thread.

 

[KalMart]

One thing before I go:

I never said I believe in it because it's the oldest....Please read my posts.

To be fair, I do think there are some interesting points to be made theologically, comparing scriptures in various faiths and the like, in what you're proposing. But it's a different conversation than what's being discussed here and is probably better suited to make its point in other topics.

 

[Shemtov]

VictorCreed, if your really curious about why Jews don't accept Jesus, Look here:
http://forums.superherohype.com/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=161
If your still curious, PM me.

 

[VictorCreed]

Jewish belief in the OT and not the NT isnt necessarily because of the OT being older. Jesus doesnt fullfill the requirements set out in the OT to be the messiah therefore anything he says or his disciples say about god and his claims to be the messiah are false. Ive delved into Judaism and I have to agree with it in that there are some problems with Jesus. If i was religious and following the bible id have to agree woth Judaism on the matter. Despite what christianity says jesus doesnt match up to the messiah prophesized about in the OT. Shemtov can explain this better and it doesnt belong in this thread.

I guess my point is, why is that one the true religion? Christians just KNOW that their beliefs are the correct ones, Jewish people just KNOW that their beliefs are the correct ones...and on and on using every religion there is.

And then there's evolution which actually presents evidence as opposed to just blind faith, and somehow THAT'S the crazy belief...even though its not just a belief.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Stop talking sense, man.

 

[Marvolo]

Anyone know of any good forums with scientific discussions specifically regarding anthropology and evolution?

 

[jmc]

Jewish, Christian, Islam, whoever, whatever ancient text people use in their teaching all have one thing in common - they were written by mere mortals, no more divine than anyone of us typing on these boards. The truth is we are not born believing any particular deity, we're taught it, it's driven into our young absorbent brains. I was taught it, but luckily for me it was never driven into me, which ultimately lead me to start thinking about things logically, eventually leading to a complete dismissal of the concept of religion and a higher power by about age 11. Logic and reason is what we as a species should be aiming for. We are so smart and yet we let a bunch of fantasy books dictate so much, it seems funny to me children are told to stop playing with imaginary friends yet most of the people on the planet seem to have one of their own.

 

[Dr.]

From the previous thread…

No one has ever seen evolution of species taking place, and no one can create a situation in which it can take place.

Species are generally defined as organisms that can’t interbreed with other organisms. (In very closely related species, like lions and tigers, infertile/non-viable offspring can occur. Dogs and wolves, on the other hand, can produce fertile pups - and dogs, therefore, are usually defined as a subspecies of wolves. Dogs (canis) and cats (felis) obviously can’t interbreed at all; they are, definitively, different species.) Ergo, speciation is the (very slow) process whereby one species splits into two (or more) non-interbreeding groups via genetic change/drift. (The offshoot groups continue to interbreed internally; but the separate groups can’t interbreed with each other.)

There’s a plethora of evidence that speciation has occurred millions of times in the past (count how many species that have ever lived). But your question is about whether this process has occurred recently (observed and recorded by modern biologists). The answer is yes.

Talkorigins.org provides a partial listing of Observed Instances of Speciation. And from another source, here is a brief account:

[FONT=&quot]

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers – the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) – were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species.

[/FONT]
On a somewhat related point… It’s my understanding that creationists deal with the limited “space issue” on the Ark by appealing to “kinds” of animals. That is, Noah didn’t have to herd every single species of felis (lions, tigers, cougars, cheetas, ocelots, margays, domestic cats, etc.) onto the Ark. One breeding pair/“kind” was sufficient to restock the world with the entire (prior) felis population. But if speciation is verboten, how do you account for the wide variation (current and extinct) in the cat genus (what biologists would classify as separate, non-interbreeding - or, at best, sterile hybrid producing - species)? Don’t creationists actually need speciation in order to make sense of the genetic variation and distribution that followed the Noahic “flood event”?

 

[Alpha Born]

I'm not even gonna responed to the comments in the last forum. I'm just gonna start here since that forum is closed.

 

[KalMart]

But the same points still stand, in that nothing in scripture serves as a substantiated argument against evolution...only a (thin) symbolic contradiction since the scriptures were conceived before any modern sciences were even available or developed.

 

[Alpha Born]

From the previous thread…



Species are generally defined as organisms that can’t interbreed with other organisms. (In very closely related species, like lions and tigers, infertile/non-viable offspring can occur. Dogs and wolves, on the other hand, can produce fertile pups - and dogs, therefore, are usually defined as a subspecies of wolves. Dogs (canis) and cats (felis) obviously can’t interbreed at all; they are, definitively, different species.) Ergo, speciation is the (very slow) process whereby one species splits into two (or more) non-interbreeding groups via genetic change/drift. (The offshoot groups continue to interbreed internally; but the separate groups can’t interbreed with each other.)

There’s a plethora of evidence that speciation has occurred millions of times in the past (count how many species that have ever lived). But your question is about whether this process has occurred recently (observed and recorded by modern biologists). The answer is yes.

Talkorigins.org provides a partial listing of Observed Instances of Speciation. And from another source, here is a brief account:


On a somewhat related point… It’s my understanding that creationists deal with the limited “space issue” on the Ark by appealing to “kinds” of animals. That is, Noah didn’t have to herd every single species of felis (lions, tigers, cougars, cheetas, ocelots, margays, domestic cats, etc.) onto the Ark. One breeding pair/“kind” was sufficient to restock the world with the entire (prior) felis population. But if speciation is verboten, how do you account for the wide variation (current and extinct) in the cat genus (what biologists would classify as separate, non-interbreeding - or, at best, sterile hybrid producing - species)? Don’t creationists actually need speciation in order to make sense of the genetic variation and distribution that followed the Noahic “flood event”?

Nice try but that goatsbeard example is not an example of a species evolving into a completely different species being observed.

This is a rebuttal to that goatsbeard argument.

The following example of speciation appears on the Talk Origins website:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."1
​

From the description, one would think that this was a very convincing example of macroevolution in action. Obviously, there must have been quite a number of massive Permanent structural alterations in DNA, consisting of either substitutions, insertions or deletions of nucleotide bases.mutations to produce an entirely new species that could not interbreed with the original. Right? Actually, every statement above is absolutely true. However, some of the important details have been intentionally left out, in order to make this example sound much better than it really is. Here is what actually happened.

The example above is not macroevolution, but is simply due to a single genetic event known as polyploidy. The original goatsbeards from Europe were standard The number of chromosomes in most cells except the gametes (sex cells). In humans, the diploid number is 46.diploid (two copies of each One of the threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosome) plants. However, plants often do not undergo complete monoploidy during meiosis (during the formation of the sex cells, or gametes). This means that the gametes may remain The number of chromosomes in most cells except the gametes (sex cells). In humans, the diploid number is 46.diploid. When The number of chromosomes in most cells except the gametes (sex cells). In humans, the diploid number is 46.diploid gametes fuse, a new polyploid "species" is formed. No new information is created (Do you have twice as much information if you copy one book to produce an identical copy? No!), but the Threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomes are duplicated. The new "species" cannot produce viable offspring with the original species simply because of the difference in number of Threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomes. With goatsbeards, the process has happened more than once. Of course, the two "new" species have the same number of Threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomes and can produce viable offspring, since they are virtually identical.

If you look at the speciation events that are listed as evidence of evolution, most of them will fall into the polyploidy plant category. Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species? None!!! Were you deceived into thinking that the example given above was a dramatic example of evolution in action? Be wary of evolutionists bearing examples of "speciation."

Source - http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html

 

[Lighthouse]

I....can't even do this anymore. I just have to accept that some people don't even have the basic concept of how science works. Farewell friends.

 

[KalMart]

Again, what scientific explanation is proposed as a better description than evolution?

 

[Alpha Born]

I said I wasn't gonna do this but f**k it.

He's obviously a troll. Don't waste your energy.

Don't worry, it obviously doesn't need much.

I....can't even do this anymore. I just have to accept that some people don't even have the basic concept of how science works. Farewell friends.

You people can't refute my evidence against evolution so you resort to throwing insults. I knew you atheist were gonna start doing that. That's what evolutionists/atheist do when they're losing a debate between Creation & evolution.

 

[VictorCreed]

I said I wasn't gonna do this but f**k it.







You people can't refute my evidence against evolution so you resort to throwing insults. I knew you atheist were gonna start doing that. That's what evolutionists/atheist do when they're losing a debate between Creation & evolution.

What "evidence?"

And this

I'm not even gonna responed to the comments in the last forum. I'm just gonna start here since that forum is closed.

Sounds WAY more like a person running away from a losing debate.

"I'm just going to ignore all of the valid points from the other thread and just hope they don't come up again," is what your statement sounds like.

 

[Alpha Born]

I....can't even do this anymore. I just have to accept that some people don't even have the basic concept of how science works. Farewell friends.

You're running away from this debate because you know you can't win it.

 

[Alpha Born]

What "evidence?"

Go back and read my other post.

And this
Sounds WAY more like a person running away from a losing debate..

No, don't try to flip it back on me. I said I wasn't gonna responed to the comments in the last forum but then I said "f**k it" and did it anyway.

"I'm just going to ignore all of the valid points from the other thread and just hope they don't come up again," is what your statement sounds like.

Nobody even gave a rebuttal to all of the points I made. Instead they just started throwing insults at me. Go back and read the last 3 pages in the last forum. I didn't even want to waste my time responding to them.