Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 15 misconceptions about Evolution
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality vs Skepticism
SunDogDayze
Awesome list of 15 misconceptions about evolution:



QUOTE
Biological evolution is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life. While evolution is very widely accepted, many people hold to misconceptions about it. This list should help to dispel some of those myths.

Evolution

15. Evolution is a theory about the origin of life

The theory of evolution primarily deals with the manner in which life has changed after its origin. While science is interested in the origins of life (for example the composition of the primeval sludge from which life might have come) but these are not issues covered in the area of evolution. What is known is that regardless of the start, at some point life began to branch off. Evolution is, therefore, dedicated to the study of those processes.

14. Organisms are always getting better

071210 Evolution Hmed2P.Hmedium

While it is a fact that natural selection weeds out unhealthy genes from the gene pool, there are many cases where an imperfect organism has survived. Some examples of this are fungi, sharks, crayfish, and mosses - these have all remained essentially the same over a great period of time. These organisms are all sufficiently adapted to their environment to survive without improvement.

Other taxa have changed a lot, but not necessarily for the better. Some creatures have had their environments changed and their adaptations may not be as well suited to their new situation. Fitness is linked to their environment, not to progress.

13. Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance’

In fact, natural selection is not random. Many aquatic animals need speed to survive and reproduce - the creatures with that ability are more suited to their environment and are more likely to survive natural selection. In turn, they will produce more offspring with the same traits and the cycle continues. The idea that evolution occurs by chance does not take the entire picture in to account.

12. Natural selection involves organisms ‘trying’ to adapt

A103 Human Evolution Poster

Organisms do not “try” to adapt - it is natural selection that enables various members of a group to survive and reproduce. Genetic adaptation is entirely outside of the power of the developing organism.

11. Natural selection gives organisms what they ‘need.’

Natural selection has no “intelligence” - it can not tell what a species needs. If a population has genetic variants that are more suited to their environment, they will reproduce more in the next generation and the population will evolve. If a genetic variant is not present, the population will most likely do - or it will survive with little evolutionary change.

10. Evolution is ‘just’ a theory

Dinosaur Evolution Poster

Scientifically speaking, a theory is a well substantiated idea that explains aspects of the natural world. Unfortunately other definitions of theory (such as a “guess” or a “hunch”) cause a great deal of confusion in the non-scientific world when dealing with the sciences. They are, in fact, two very different concepts.

9. Evolution is a Theory in Crisis

There is no debate in science as to whether or not evolution occurred - there is, however, debate over how it happened. The minutiae of the process is vigorously debated which can cause anti-evolutionists to believe that the theory is in crisis. Evolution is sound science and is treated as such by scientists worldwide.

Just paying the bills...



8. Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution

Evolution Of Whales

Actually, many transitional fossils do exist - for example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their dinosaur ancestors, as well as whales and their land mammal ancestors. There are many transitional forms that have not been preserved, but that is simply because some organisms do not fossilize well or exist in conditions that do not allow for the process of fossilization. Science predicts that there will be gaps in the record for many evolutionary changes. This does not disprove the theory.

7. Evolutionary Theory is Incomplete

Evolutionary science is a work in progress. Science is constantly making new discoveries with regard to it and explanations are always adjusted if necessary. Evolutionary theory is like all of the other sciences in this respect. Science is always trying to improve our knowledge. At present, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for all of life’s diversity.

6. The Theory is Flawed

Evolution-Diagram Op 800X467

Science is an extremely competitive field - if any flaws were discovered in evolutionary theory they would be quickly corrected. All of the alleged flaws that creationists put forth have been investigated careful by scientists and they simply do not hold water. They are usually based on misunderstandings of the theory or misrepresentation of the evidence.

5. Evolution is not science because it is not observable

Evolution is observable and testable. The confusion here is that people think science is limited to experiments in laboratories by white-coated technicians. In fact, a large amount of scientific information is gathered from the real world. Astronomers can obviously not physically touch the objects they study (for example stars and galaxies), yet a great deal of knowledge can be gained through multiple lines of study. This is true also of evolution. It is also true that there are many mechanisms of evolution that can be, and are studied through direct experimentation as with other sciences.

4. Most Biologists have rejected Darwinism

Evolution-Poster

Scientists do not reject Darwin’s theories, they have modified it over time as more knowledge has been discovered. Darwin considered that evolution proceeds at a deliberate, slow pace - but in fact it has now been discovered that it can proceed at a rapid pace under some circumstances. There has not been, so far, a credible challenge to the basic principles of Darwin’s theory. Scientists have improved and expanded on Darwin’s original theory of natural selection - it has not been rejected, it has been added to.

3. Evolution Leads to Immoral Behavior

All animal species have a set of behaviors that they share with other members of their species. Slugs act like slugs, dogs act like dogs, and humans act like humans. It is preposterous to presume that a child will begin to behave like another creature when they discover that they are related to them. It is nonsensical to link evolution to immoral or inappropriate behavior.

2. Evolution Supports “Might Makes Right”

Elephantevolution

In the 19th and early 20th century, a philosophy called “Social Darwinism” sprung up from misguided attempts to apply biological evolution to society. This philosophy said that society should allow the weak to fail and die, and that not only is this an ideal situation, but a morally right one. This enabled prejudices to be rationalized and ideas such as the poor deserved their situation due to being less fit were very popular. This was a misappropriation of science. Social Darwinism has, thankfully, been repudiated. Biological evolution has not.

1. Teachers Should Teach Both Sides

There are tens of thousands of different religious views concerning creation. It is simply impossible for all of these views to be presented. Furthermore, none of the theories are based in science and therefore have no place in a science classroom. In a science class, students can debate where a creature branched off in the tree of life, but it is not right to argue a religious belief in a science class. The “fairness” argument is often used by groups attempting to inject their religious dogmas in to the scientific curricula.


Linky
churchanddestroy
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 20 2008, 09:21 AM) *
Awesome list of 15 misconceptions about evolution:





Linky

Good post original.gif
Two thumbs up thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif
Closed
Evolution is more of a religion than anything. Anytime you find forums about religion on the Internet, you'll find threads about evolution.

Note: Another thread about evolution being posted in the "Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs" forum.
Cimber
I like how these threads are being moved to the science forums where they benefit no one, while their being moved away from forums where people can actually benefit from such information.

This is common knowledge to those who frequent the science threads.
SunDogDayze
QUOTE (Cimber @ Feb 20 2008, 12:02 PM) *
I like how these threads are being moved to the science forums where they benefit no one, while their being moved away from forums where people can actually benefit from such information.

This is common knowledge to those who frequent the science threads.


I don't understand why it was even moved here in the first place??

This isn't an article meant for science. It was meant to dispel thoughts fed by evangelistic, fundamentalist religious leaders (or at least website authors) and bring an end to some of the crap that is being fed to people, total lies and twisting of the facts, so that they can see the truth about evolution.

Please move it back to the original topic, or even in the SvS topic, as it fits perfectly with one of the most common subjects found in those topics.

P.S. Cimber-is that Dave Grohl in your avatar? If it is, I think I may love you! wub.gif
Cimber
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 20 2008, 12:36 PM) *
I don't understand why it was even moved here in the first place??

This isn't an article meant for science. It was meant to dispel thoughts fed by evangelistic, fundamentalist religious leaders (or at least website authors) and bring an end to some of the crap that is being fed to people, total lies and twisting of the facts, so that they can see the truth about evolution.

Please move it back to the original topic, or even in the SvS topic, as it fits perfectly with one of the most common subjects found in those topics.


Its a common occurrence that happens when threads like these pop up. It happened before to good, informative topics meant for the laypeople in regards to evolution.

Theres no reason for this to be moved here.
Cimber
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 20 2008, 12:50 PM) *
I like how it doesn't say who moved it either. I bet I can guess...


I would lobby to the mods to get it moved back perhaps? At least to the SvS forum.
squacked off
Science is a series of corrected mistakes.( excuse my lack of finesse with the bb codes(sigh)Did i do something wrong ? Am A newbie sorry!!!!
SunDogDayze
QUOTE (Cimber @ Feb 20 2008, 12:56 PM) *
I would lobby to the mods to get it moved back perhaps? At least to the SvS forum.


I asked them to on the post a few back, but I don't really know who to go to. I don't want the particular mod who moved it in the first place to think I am retaliating...

PS did you see the message about your avatar? Scroll up a little, it was an edit. original.gif
IamsSon
QUOTE (Cimber @ Feb 20 2008, 11:02 AM) *
I like how these threads are being moved to the science forums where they benefit no one, while their being moved away from forums where people can actually benefit from such information.

This is common knowledge to those who frequent the science threads.

Funny how you assume that people in the spiritual forums don't know this information. It's the preconception that anyone who has questions about the validity of some claims which are purportedly supported by science must be at best ignorant of science or at worst science bashers which is the biggest problem.
Saru
QUOTE
This isn't an article meant for science. It was meant to dispel thoughts fed by evangelistic, fundamentalist religious leaders (or at least website authors) and bring an end to some of the crap that is being fed to people, total lies and twisting of the facts, so that they can see the truth about evolution.

I've moved this thread back however in future please include a few words of your own to remove any ambiguity over why you were posting it, as it is the opening post contains only quoted material from another site and there's no indication that it has any special significance in the spirituality boards.

Evolution is inherently a science topic not a religious topic, unless specified otherwise topics that appear to be be purely discussing evolution will be moved to that section. It's usually only when the topic is taken in the context of the origins debate that it becomes a discussion for the spirituality boards.

If you disagree with the moving of a thread you are very welcome to hit "report" and appeal the decision, your post naming specific moderators as the culprits however has been removed; villianising whoever moved it isn't going to help your case to have it moved back.
Cimber
QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 20 2008, 03:53 PM) *
Funny how you assume that people in the spiritual forums don't know this information. It's the preconception that anyone who has questions about the validity of some claims which are purportedly supported by science must be at best ignorant of science or at worst science bashers which is the biggest problem.


I'm glad you find it funny, because what I said is true. Lets see how many quotes I can find regarding evolution in this forum which are false statements.

QUOTE
Wow, this is sad...people can believe we evolved from monkeys but no one except we are of our own kind, how sad.


QUOTE
Humans were allways human.
monkeys were allways monkeys.


QUOTE
no , i dont beleave humans roots meet with monkeys.


QUOTE
darwin claims that black people are closest to monkeys thus making them the dumbest of all humanity. now thats just sick.


QUOTE
People have tried to tell me that humans are related to giraffes, monkeys, chimpanzees, and coffee stains. Yep, you heard it right...coffee stains. However...once again, no evidence.

QUOTE
EXplain that, in the same way any where in the fossil records there are no transitional forms, evolutionist have been caught faking stuff.


QUOTE
Show me a transitional form from the cambrian explosion and i will show hundered of fossils, still the same today as they were back then and they will show they emerged not as transitional forms but full y formed


QUOTE
i knpw there are, and among all those odds, we got an earth perfectly balance, by chance.


I got these quotes from people after literally spending 4 minutes in the SvS forum. No ones merely questioning the validity of scientific claims, they are downright ignoring science and spreading information known to be false.
Genocyde
QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 20 2008, 03:53 PM) *
Funny how you assume that people in the spiritual forums don't know this information. It's the preconception that anyone who has questions about the validity of some claims which are purportedly supported by science must be at best ignorant of science or at worst science bashers which is the biggest problem.

I also agree that it is horrible that if someone is religious they are assumed to not know anything about science, and if someone is a scientist they are assumed atheist, even though the vast majority of scientists are atheist. Anyway, lets try to lighten up the mood grin2.gif

I found this on some website lol



linked-image
Cimber
QUOTE
I also agree that it is horrible that if someone is religious they are assumed to not know anything about science


No ones making such a claim here. You can tell someone knows nothing about a given topic by what they type. IE see the quotes I posted above.

Theres a high number of people who post blatantly false information on the Spirituality and SvS forum compared to the regular science forums.
Belle.
Great find Sundog!!!

Lots of people aren't totally o'fey with evolution - I always like little refreshers. I have also noticed that people who purport to believe that evolution occurs are often as off-track on its actual implications as those who don't. (not on here of course he he!)

Some forms of Social Darwinism seem to creep into people's posts now and then.
Undeadskeptic
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 21 2008, 04:21 AM) *
Awesome list of 15 misconceptions about evolution.


Good job! I try to avoid fights with creationists, they're like fights with DC about dragons, but somehow a thousand times worse.
hairston630
If Christians want to learn about evolution, I would recommend books, interviews, and articles written by Francis Collins or Kenneth Miller. Francis Collins "The language of God" seems to be a pretty good book from what ive read.

Hairston
Papaver
QUOTE (WalkingWithFire @ Feb 20 2008, 04:41 PM) *
Evolution is more of a religion than anything. Anytime you find forums about religion on the Internet, you'll find threads about evolution.



A very good display of poor logic. That's nothing new round here though...
Closed
QUOTE (Papaver @ Feb 20 2008, 04:54 PM) *
A very good display of poor logic. That's nothing new round here though...


Actually what I said is true. Can you show me a religious forum that does not have topics about evolution? If not please retract your statement. THanks. original.gif
evancj
QUOTE (WalkingWithFire @ Feb 20 2008, 02:57 PM) *
Actually what I said is true. Can you show me a religious forum that does not have topics about evolution? If not please retract your statement. THanks. original.gif


So are you saying because evolution is dissused on religious forums that makes it a religion? How so?
BlindMessiah
QUOTE (evancj @ Feb 20 2008, 10:02 PM) *
So are you saying because evolution is dissused on religious forums that makes it a religion? How so? If not, please retract your statement. Thanks. original.gif
evancj
thanks for the assist BlindMessiah
Repoman
QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 20 2008, 03:53 PM) *
Funny how you assume that people in the spiritual forums don't know this information. It's the preconception that anyone who has questions about the validity of some claims which are purportedly supported by science must be at best ignorant of science or at worst science bashers which is the biggest problem.
Well, I only assume all that about Christians. Because if they follow that religion then they would need to truly believe in that religion's bible - otherwise they have already proven themselves to be hypocrites (which is another word for liar) and why would anyone care about what a hypocrite had to say in the first place?

So I think it is much more polite to assume that Christians are simply unaware of the imense, huge, overwhelming body of scientific evidence and simple observable examples of evolution than to assume that they are aware of the facts about evolution but choose to still call themselves Christian.

I mean, if you believe every organism on the planet lived inside some big boat a few thousand years ago then there is no way you could possibly believe in evolution without being a hypocrite.

Isn't this obvious to everyone?

churchanddestroy
QUOTE (WalkingWithFire @ Feb 20 2008, 03:57 PM) *
Actually what I said is true. Can you show me a religious forum that does not have topics about evolution? If not please retract your statement. THanks. original.gif

Not necessarily. This might be news to you but evolution is not a religion, walkingwithfire. Furthermore, its not an attack on religion, unless you make it. Whats so wrong about theistic evolution? You've never explained that, so far as I know, and furthermore, there is a 36-37 some odd page thread where people with your stance, i.e. creationism, were warmly welcomed to posit scientific information supporting creationism. Oh, yes, thats right, nobody brought any proof to the table. Kinda funny, hmm? Creationists always seem see something 'invalid' about evolution, which turns out to be a bunch of sensationalist pseudo-science rot, and then they have nothing to bring to the table to validate creationism.
BlindMessiah
QUOTE (Repoman @ Feb 20 2008, 10:07 PM) *
Well, I only assume all that about Christians. Because if they follow that religion then they would need to truly believe in that religion's bible - otherwise they have already proven themselves to be hypocrites (which is another word for liar) and why would anyone care about what a hypocrite had to say in the first place?

So I think it is much more polite to assume that Christians are simply unaware of the imense, huge, overwhelming body of scientific evidence and simple observable examples of evolution than to assume that they are aware of the facts about evolution but choose to still call themselves Christian.

I mean, if you believe every organism on the planet lived inside some big boat a few thousand years ago then there is no way you could possibly believe in evolution without being a hypocrite.

Isn't this obvious to everyone?


Most Christians that believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, are scientifically ungrounded. Most are mislead and brainwashed by Christian leaders. For example, I was talking with a Christian yesterday about evolution, and he couldn't understand how I believed it. This is what he believed evolution states. There was a pile of sludge, and a lightning bolt hit it. There was a few cells. They had kids and fish were born. The fish had offspring and we got reptiles. Then birds. Then monkeys. Then humans. He then asked where the other creatures came from and why don't offspring turn into new species today. I tried to explain that evolution was nothing like that but he'd have none of that. He gave me a book of his, From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo, written by Harold Hill. The book was immensely amusing and filled with outright, seemingly intentional lies. The point is, most who don't believe in evolution are misled, not all however.
Genocyde
QUOTE (Cimber @ Feb 20 2008, 05:30 PM) *
No ones making such a claim here. You can tell someone knows nothing about a given topic by what they type. IE see the quotes I posted above.

Theres a high number of people who post blatantly false information on the Spirituality and SvS forum compared to the regular science forums.

I didn't say it happened on this website, I meant in general in the world.
IamsSon
QUOTE (Repoman @ Feb 20 2008, 04:07 PM) *
Well, I only assume all that about Christians. Because if they follow that religion then they would need to truly believe in that religion's bible - otherwise they have already proven themselves to be hypocrites (which is another word for liar) and why would anyone care about what a hypocrite had to say in the first place?

So I think it is much more polite to assume that Christians are simply unaware of the imense, huge, overwhelming body of scientific evidence and simple observable examples of evolution than to assume that they are aware of the facts about evolution but choose to still call themselves Christian.

I mean, if you believe every organism on the planet lived inside some big boat a few thousand years ago then there is no way you could possibly believe in evolution without being a hypocrite.

Isn't this obvious to everyone?

Who believes that?
Cimber
QUOTE (Genocyde @ Feb 20 2008, 05:23 PM) *
I didn't say it happened on this website, I meant in general in the world.


ok
BlindMessiah
QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 20 2008, 10:27 PM) *
Who believes that?


There are plenty of people who believe in Noah's Ark my friend.
Papaver
QUOTE (WalkingWithFire @ Feb 20 2008, 09:57 PM) *
Actually what I said is true. Can you show me a religious forum that does not have topics about evolution? If not please retract your statement. THanks. original.gif


I've seen homosexuality discussed on pretty much every religious forum too. By your logic that makes homosexuality a religion. I suppose abortion is a religion too then?

So if a subject comes up regularly on a religious forum that makes said subject a religion. I'm afraid that makes no sense at all but having read much of you "work" I think that you are either lacking even a basic grip on the tenets of logic or are trolling with such obviously flawed statements.
danielost
QUOTE (Repoman @ Feb 20 2008, 04:07 PM)
Well, I only assume all that about Christians. Because if they follow that religion then they would need to truly believe in that religion's bible - otherwise they have already proven themselves to be hypocrites (which is another word for liar) and why would anyone care about what a hypocrite had to say in the first place?

So I think it is much more polite to assume that Christians are simply unaware of the imense, huge, overwhelming body of scientific evidence and simple observable examples of evolution than to assume that they are aware of the facts about evolution but choose to still call themselves Christian.

I mean, if you believe every organism on the planet lived inside some big boat a few thousand years ago then there is no way you could possibly believe in evolution without being a hypocrite.

Isn't this obvious to everyone?

Who believes that?


--------------------



I believe in Noah's ark and I believe in evolution. That in no way makes me a hypocrite.
SunDogDayze
QUOTE (SaRuMaN @ Feb 20 2008, 04:22 PM) *
I've moved this thread back however in future please include a few words of your own to remove any ambiguity over why you were posting it, as it is the opening post contains only quoted material from another site and there's no indication that it has any special significance in the spirituality boards.

Evolution is inherently a science topic not a religious topic, unless specified otherwise topics that appear to be be purely discussing evolution will be moved to that section. It's usually only when the topic is taken in the context of the origins debate that it becomes a discussion for the spirituality boards.

If you disagree with the moving of a thread you are very welcome to hit "report" and appeal the decision, your post naming specific moderators as the culprits however has been removed; villianising whoever moved it isn't going to help your case to have it moved back.



Sorry, Saruman. I will make sure to add something to posts from now on so that it is clear to everyone why I posted it. (This is not sarcasm.)

You are right about how it is usually only in the context of origin that it becomes a religious topic, but the article mentioned that. I also apologize that I seemingly villainized anyone, I just have already had an issue with a particular mod, and it seemed ironic to me.

I hardly ever have any problems on these forums, and I don't want to begin now.

Thanks for moving it back.
Repoman
QUOTE (danielost @ Feb 21 2008, 05:35 AM) *
I believe in Noah's ark and I believe in evolution. That in no way makes me a hypocrite.
How in the world can you believe both? If two of every animal that walked the planet earth was stuck inside a boat that landed in Turkey a few thousand years ago, how did 3-toed sloths make it to central America? There were only TWO of them! How did an animal that moves so slowly travel 5 thousand miles in a single lifetime? If either of them drowned while swimming across the entire Atlantic Ocean then we'd have no sloths. Oh wait - is that your proof - that sloths must be able to swim across oceans because there are sloths in the western hemisphere? Also, how could a single pair of sloths a few thousand years ago populate the entire rain forest? And what about people? How did 6 billion people come about if there were only a few people alive on the ark?
IamsSon
QUOTE (BlindMessiah @ Feb 20 2008, 04:28 PM) *
There are plenty of people who believe in Noah's Ark my friend.

Yes, BM, but, those who believe the account of Noah's Ark and know the account as it is written in the Bible also know it was NOT every single organism on the planet, it was a pair of most animals and seven of a few.
Repoman
QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 23 2008, 01:01 PM) *
Yes, BM, but, those who believe the account of Noah's Ark and know the account as it is written in the Bible also know it was NOT every single organism on the planet, it was a pair of most animals and seven of a few.
Just the land organisms then. OK, that changes things. MUCH more believable... NOT!

What about the pair of Three-toed sloths? Or where there 7 three-toed sloths on the ark? And how did they walk from Mt. Ararat all the way to the ocean and then swim all the way across the ocean? Any why aren't there three-toed sloth bones in the middle east?

Why do the existing three-toed sloths not show mitochondrial DNA lines that would suggest they all came from a single ancestor a few thousand years ago?

How did blond-haired, blue-eyed white people become blond-haired, blue-eyed white people if they were descended from Noah or his annoying sons?
How did 4' tall, dark-skinned, afro-wearing pygmy bushmen become 4' tall, dark-skinned, afro-wearing pygmy bushmen if they were descended from Noah or his annoying sons?

How can anyone believe in evolution and the noah's ark story?

IamsSon
QUOTE (Repoman @ Feb 23 2008, 12:13 PM) *
Just the land organisms then. OK, that changes things. MUCH more believable... NOT!
Hey, I was just pointing out that it was NOT every single living organism. Whether you choose to believe that an all-knowing being created life and has interacted with His creation throughout time, or you enough faith to believe that an event whose odds not even the most degenerate gambler would not take on actually happened, more power to you! thumbsup.gif

QUOTE
What about the pair of Three-toed sloths? Or where there 7 three-toed sloths on the ark? And how did they walk from Mt. Ararat all the way to the ocean and then swim all the way across the ocean? Any why aren't there three-toed sloth bones in the middle east?
Amazing what an all-powerful being can do, isn't it?

QUOTE
Why do the existing three-toed sloths not show mitochondrial DNA lines that would suggest they all came from a single ancestor a few thousand years ago?
who said that the account of Noah's Ark has to have occurred a few thousand years ago? AND who's to say that a hundred or even 20 years from now, some scientist, using some newer, more powerful tools will not uncover that we have been misunderstanding the information in mitochondrial DNA and that what we thought was indication of millions of years of activity is not actually closer to thousands?

QUOTE
How did blond-haired, blue-eyed white people become blond-haired, blue-eyed white people if they were descended from Noah or his annoying sons?
How did 4' tall, dark-skinned, afro-wearing pygmy bushmen become 4' tall, dark-skinned, afro-wearing pygmy bushmen if they were descended from Noah or his annoying sons?
I wonder if the various "races" of man are not simply indication of in-breeding.

QUOTE
How can anyone believe in evolution and the noah's ark story?
I can believe change happens within populations while not accepting the time line, and/or understanding that man's understanding of evolution is flawed.
Repoman
QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 23 2008, 01:50 PM) *
who said that the account of Noah's Ark has to have occurred a few thousand years ago?
From http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm
QUOTE
The ark was completed. (Circa. 2348 B.C.) Gen. 7
The 120 years of warning came to an end. Gen. 7
The flood deluged the earth. (2348 B.C.) Gen. 7 (Noah and his family were in the ark one year and ten days. They entered in 2348 B.C. and exited in 2347 B.C.) The Deluge: Different Dates Assigned: Usher and English Bible, 2348 B.C.; Hebrew Bible, 2288 B.C.; Playfair Bible, 2352 B.C.; Clinton Bible, 2482 B.C.; Samaritan Pent, 2998 B.C.; Josephus, 3146 B.C.; Dr. Hales, 3155 B.C.; Septuagint, 3246 B.C.



QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 23 2008, 01:50 PM) *
AND who's to say that a hundred or even 20 years from now, some scientist, using some newer, more powerful tools will not uncover that we have been misunderstanding the information in mitochondrial DNA and that what we thought was indication of millions of years of activity is not actually closer to thousands?
So when the science matches religion, you begin to believe the science?


But you are certainly correct that everytime science shows how impossible it would be for some of these biblical stories to be true, a believer can simply say that god has super-magical powers and thus negate the entire scientific argument. grin2.gif As the Church Lady would say, "How convenient" grin2.gif
Akadra
Creationism also couldn't be observed and wasn't proved by anything, grow up.
Doug1o29
QUOTE (squacked off @ Feb 20 2008, 12:50 PM) *
Science is a series of corrected mistakes.

That's a succinct way to put it. Don't worry - you'll do well here. Doug
Wombat
QUOTE (Akadra @ Feb 28 2008, 01:39 AM) *
Creationism also couldn't be observed and wasn't proved by anything, grow up.

Remove "also".
SunDogDayze
QUOTE (Wombat @ Feb 28 2008, 04:51 PM) *
Remove "also".


Evolution is observed and has been proven numerous times.

It is not even comparable to Creationism. Which shouldn't be mistaken for a scientific theory.
Wombat
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 29 2008, 01:32 PM) *
Evolution is observed and has been proven numerous times.

It is not even comparable to Creationism. Which shouldn't be mistaken for a scientific theory.

Yeah, that's what I am saying.
SunDogDayze
QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 20 2008, 05:27 PM) *
Who believes that?


These guys do.
Doug1o29
QUOTE (BlindMessiah @ Feb 20 2008, 04:22 PM) *
Most Christians that believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, are scientifically ungrounded. Most are mislead and brainwashed by Christian leaders. For example, I was talking with a Christian yesterday about evolution, and he couldn't understand how I believed it. This is what he believed evolution states. There was a pile of sludge, and a lightning bolt hit it. There was a few cells. They had kids and fish were born. The fish had offspring and we got reptiles. Then birds. Then monkeys. Then humans. He then asked where the other creatures came from and why don't offspring turn into new species today. I tried to explain that evolution was nothing like that but he'd have none of that. He gave me a book of his, From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo, written by Harold Hill. The book was immensely amusing and filled with outright, seemingly intentional lies. The point is, most who don't believe in evolution are misled, not all however.

My guess is that MOST Christans do not share the views of the more-vocal fundamentalists. Most of my department consists of scientists who are also Christians, except for one Muslim who would make a better Christian than some "Christians" I know. One even runs a Christmas tree business as a sideline and he is a STAUNCH evolutionist.

There is a whole continuum of Christians from the Bible-thumping Fundamentalist (We have one in the department, but he doesn't do much thumping around the office.) to the Christian Atheist who does not believe in God, but thinks people should emulate Jesus in their daily lives. In all, that's about 15 scientists who are also Christians, one Muslim and an eccentric agnostic Quaker, all of whom come down on the pro-evolution side of the coin.

This has also been my experience in the general community. Most Christians out there are not as scientifically illiterate as you seem to believe. And most of them also accept evolution, or some variant, even if they don't really understand it. So, I think you are wrong to categorize most Christians as "brain-washed". The majority are pretty good at spotting the charlatans.
Doug
Doug1o29
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 29 2008, 08:24 AM) *

I notice one thing right off the bat: "These guys" claim that "A growing number of scientists believe that geological evidence indicates our world has undergone a catastrophic flood," then fail to name any of that "growing number." The "growing number" is seven, up from two about six months ago.

The two were geologists named Ryan and Pitman who in 1996 found evidence of a sudden rise in the level of the Black Sea during the 8200 PB Cold Period, caused by a collapse of the last remaining pro-glacial ice dam. They speculate (without any supporting evidence) that this MAY HAVE given rise to the "myth" of Noah's Flood. Note that a Christian website by G. R. Morton (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm) doesn't think that this was Noah's Flood, either.

About six months ago, a group of geologists led by Dallas Abbott announced a theory that a giant asteroid had struck the earth, creating the Burckel Crater on the floor of the Indian Ocean. This event would have produced tsunamis at least 600 feet high, based on debris piles observed on Madagascar, and torrential rains rivalling the worst of hurricanes, possibly reaching Mesopotamia and the Red Sea. An anthropologist named Bruce Masse supported this idea with a study of Flood legends that referenced eclipses and other celestial events, allowing an estimate of the date to be made: "on or about May 10, 2807 BC." This date coincides very nicely with Mesopotamian legends that list "kings before the flood" and "kings after the flood." Comparison with other cities allows a date to be set at "about 2800 BC" for the Mesopotamian flood.

A study not yet published will confirm that there was a major climatic disturbance in the years 2806 BC to 2801 BC. This study will not try to link the climate disturbance to Noah's Flood.

So there might now be eight scientists who think that Noah's Flood could have been one of these events. The christiananswers website is misleading, if not actually untruthful in its presentation.

The christiananwers website also states: "Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed." This last week, the History Channel ran a program on one of two giant Chinese exploratory fleets, one of which may have made it to North America in 1421. The flagships of both fleets were considerably larger than the figures christiananswers uses for Noah's Ark. There was also a gigantic ship built on the orders of the Emperor Nero which may have been larger.

The following paragraph is from christiananwers: "Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)"

In order for Woodmorappe's 2000 animals to produce the millions of animal species now in existence, he would have no choice but to invoke evolution. There you have it: Christiananswers is supporting the Theory of Evolution.

I submit that christiananswers should be renamed christianwronganswers.
Doug
Agent. Mulder
QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 23 2008, 07:50 PM) *
Amazing what an all-powerful being can do, isn't it?


good lord, that was just sad. and id like to know, if noah but Two of every animal on the ark, how come we have different breeds of dogs or cats out there? when only two were brought on? it doesnt make sense. and how did he get all the animals on there anyways? and how come they never decided to kill each other?

QUOTE (IamsSon @ Feb 23 2008, 07:50 PM) *
i wonder if the various "races" of man are not simply indication of in-breeding.


and so the story of noah means his sons kids had to have sex with each other, and then they made Their kids have sex with each other which is just friggin nasty if you ask me. feel sorry for the kids, and noah and his family shoulda been put in jail.
finally, were dinos around then? according to the bible anyways. and if so, how come they werent brought on the ark?
Doug1o29
QUOTE (Agent. Mulder @ Mar 7 2008, 02:57 PM) *
and so the story of noah means his sons kids had to have sex with each other, and then they made Their kids have sex with each other which is just friggin nasty if you ask me. feel sorry for the kids, and noah and his family shoulda been put in jail.
finally, were dinos around then? according to the bible anyways. and if so, how come they werent brought on the ark?

The Pharaohs married their sisters (usually half-sisters) and daughters. Apparently, the women were quite willing as it gave them a chance at the throne.

At least one of the 3+ historical Moses prototypes was probably married to his half-sister and Lot's daughters (Genesis) are said to have had relations with their father, from which sprang one of the OT tribes.

The first century BC Irish kings also participated in the practice: Luigaidh nDerg was the product of a four-way affair between Derbriu and her three brothers; the stories say he had two red stripes on his body and that each part resembled a particular brother. Derbriu is remembered as Derbriu the Pig; one of her sisters was Medb of Rath Cruaghan (Roscommon), remembered as the fairy Queen Mave of the Arthur legends; another sister, Ethne, remembered as The Lady of the Lake, was married to King Connor Mor (who had several different sisters as wives), who is remembered for sending an army against Julius Caesar in the Gallic Wars. There was also another king at about the same time who was the product of a mother-son affair and one who was the product of a brother-sister affair.

I know personally a couple kids from different families who were planning to get married. The man's father and the girls' mother took them aside and advised them not to do it because the girl was the guy's half-sister. At least, they were stopped before they reached the marrying stage; I don't know what preceded it. Up to that point, the parents had been able to keep the secret. So it almost became a 20th-century practice.
Doug
Agent. Mulder
^
yeah...thats still pretty gross though
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.