[_ Old Earth _] Article of Whale and Dolphin Evolution

[Brokendoll]

How does one reconcile something(evolution) which points away from design? When the bible, the Lords wrtitten and inspired word says that creation points toward him.

You follow the evidence, that's how. There is not lack of Christians who have no problem whatsoever with the Theory of Evolution and do not see it to be in conflict with their faith at all. Now, I think it is abundantly clear that I am not a Christian, so if you have any questions regarding the specifics of how they consider this subject, you would have to ask them.

But for me personally, there is no question that if the scientific evidence contradicts a litterary interpretation of scripture, then all the worse for the scripture. Then either the interpretation of the scripture will need to be more metaphorical, or it will have to go altogether. But that's me. You must chose your own path obviously. ;)

 

[jasoncran]

uh, that is what i wasn't asking, if we followed that line of thinking to its logical conclusion all the time then the cross is but myth in the fact that there was no resurection. Science can't prove that christ rose from the dead and was born from a virgin, that takes faith. It will deny as it's impossible for a mortal man to be born of a virgin and die and be resurected.

it was a theological question in which requires to linup and inconstinency that i see in reconcilation evolution with the bible says, in regards to creation pointing towards God.
liberal theology has no place with the true saint.not very pc but it is what many believe.

 

[Brokendoll]

uh, that is what i wasn't asking, if we followed that line of thinking to its logical conclusion all the time then the cross is but myth in the fact that there was no resurection. Science can't prove that christ rose from the dead and was born from a virgin, that takes faith. It will deny as it's impossible for a mortal man to be born of a virgin and die and be resurected.

Oh, parthenogenesis is a proven fact, just not among mammals. It has happened in water fleas, some types of scorpion, some reptiles and fish, on very rare occations in certain birds and sharks. But it has happened.

As for the resurrection, well, that is a bit tougher, that is unless one is willing to consider that the medical proficiency at the time wasn't really all that, and a man who is near death might have been mistaken for being dead.

But yeah, there is a reason why items of faith is generally ignored by science. Mixing the two is rarely a good idea, as seen in another tread on this forum. ;)

it was a theological question in which requires to linup and inconstinency that i see in reconcilation evolution with the bible says, in regards to creation pointing towards God.
liberal theology has no place with the true saint.not very pc but it is what many believe.

Well, as I said, many Christians reconcile that easily by just not taking everything in the bible litterarily. But it's up to you to decide how you wish to interpret the scipture. Certainly several points in the bible directly contradicts scientific evidence (Noah's Ark springs to mind) so unless you choose to consider those stories to be allegorical I don't see how one could have any faith in science at all.

This of course gets a little ironic when the people who deny science it's due still feels comfortable harvesting the goods that science has brought about, such as computers, cellphones, cars, airplanes, the internet, modern medicine, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the house you live in and so on and so forth...

 

[jasoncran]

there you go again insulting us again, please stop. i will report you agian as i did earlier. I put the lord first and not men , and i do respect science. The lord will judge me. we wont tolerate christian bashing thread is done.

 

[Rick W]

This of course gets a little ironic when the people who deny science ...

I don't see anyone denying science here. What I see is opposition to the conclusions made by people, humans. "Science" is not an entity of it's own. Science makes no conclusions. How can it? It exists only in the minds of men. Science is the tool used to gather data. That's all.
The theory of evolution is simply an exercise in the science of forensics. No more, no less. One begins with an assumption, uses science to seek and gather the data to support that assumption. Men make the conclusions based on the data they find to support their case.

 

[Brokendoll]

Thanks for re-opening the tread Rick.

This of course gets a little ironic when the people who deny science ...

I don't see anyone denying science here. What I see is opposition to the conclusions made by people, humans.

My reasoning on this one is fairly simple.
1. Some people have a litteral, perhaps YEC interpretation of the scripture.
2. The scientific evidence and conclusions does not in any way support this notion, but rather, on several vital points, flies in the face of it.
3. In order to maintain the litteral view one must then logically deny science.

Note here that science does not in any way maintain or claim that there is no god. It merely does not concern itself with the subject because the existence of a god is not a falsifiable hypothesis, something which is required in science.

"Science" is not an entity of it's own. Science makes no conclusions. How can it? It exists only in the minds of men. Science is the tool used to gather data. That's all.

Science is a method of inquiry, and as such it is, on many levels, a way of looking at the world. It has, as I've stated, shown its effectiveness and power of achievement many a time, and modern society as it is today would have been impossible without it.

The way I see it is; you either trust the method or you don't. You don't get to cherry-pick those results that you like and disregard those that you do not. If you do, then you are no longer thinking scientifically.

And if someone do not trust the method, then why are they so eager to parttake in the goods and convenient advantages brought about by science? It is my firm position that YECs should not take airplanes, drive cars, use cellphones and computers and so on. At least if they consider themselves consistent in their convictions.

The theory of evolution is simply an exercise in the science of forensics. No more, no less. One begins with an assumption, uses science to seek and gather the data to support that assumption. Men make the conclusions based on the data they find to support their case.

If this is true about the Theory of Evolution, then it is also true about most of the science we do. Sub-atomic particles cannot be directly observed, and for many years, neither could bacteria and viruses. Equal examples could be found in any branch of science.

But then again, I do not see Evolution as an exercise in forensics. Many of its effects can and has been directly observed, including speciation, as I've explained in a different tread.

 

[Barbarian]

As John Paul II remarked, truth cannot contradict truth. We can be wrong about the nature of creation, just as we can be wrong about things in science. A little humility and a reluctance to make up our own doctrines would go a long way to resolving the problem.

There is nothing in evolution that challenges Christian belief.

 

[Rick W]

As for the resurrection, well, that is a bit tougher, that is unless one is willing to consider that the medical proficiency at the time wasn't really all that, and a man who is near death might have been mistaken for being dead.

If Christ didn't die then His sacrifice is null and void for then Christ would not be the Lamb of God.
But because man's science cannot support such an event there is a definite conflict between the Resurrection and man's science. Therefore there can be no faith in Christ and the work He did on the cross when faith is held solely to a scientific view.
Lazarus was dead long enough that his body began to decompose. He stank. Yet Christ was able to bring him back to life. Since man cannot do that or even understand it through his science then there must be some other explanation and scripture is wrong.

 

[Brokendoll]

If Christ didn't die then His sacrifice is null and void for then Christ would not be the Lamb of God.
But because man's science cannot support such an event there is a definite conflict between the Resurrection and man's science. Therefore there can be no faith in Christ and the work He did on the cross when faith is held solely to a scientific view.
Lazarus was dead long enough that his body began to decompose. He stank. Yet Christ was able to bring him back to life. Since man cannot do that or even understand it through his science then there must be some other explanation and scripture is wrong.

I think you meant to say"...OR scripture is wrong." but I get your meaning.
And yes, I agree with your assessment, which as far as I can see supports my conclusion that a litteral interpretation of the bible automatically makes a person deny science.

And if one denies science, then how does one reconcile that with making use of all the perks that science has brought us without becoming a hypocrite?
This is one of the reasons why I hold the Amish in a certain respect. Whether one agrees with their philosophy or not, at least they are consistent and accepts the repercussions of their choice.

 

[Rick W]

Again, nobody's denying science. If the Resurrection didn't occur literally then Christ is not the Lamb of God. If there's any denying going on it's science denying the gospel that Christ died, was buried and rose again because science cannot understand the mechanics necessary to bring a dead body back to life. Just because man doesn't understand it doesn't mean it never happened. The Resurrection doesn't deny science but rather science denying the Resurrection.

 

[Brokendoll]

Again, nobody's denying science. If the Resurrection didn't occur literally then Christ is not the Lamb of God. If there's any denying going on it's science denying the gospel that Christ died, was buried and rose again because science cannot understand the mechanics necessary to bring a dead body back to life. Just because man doesn't understand it doesn't mean it never happened. The Resurrection doesn't deny science but rather science denying the Resurrection.

The ressurrection of Jesus is not the only thing in the bible that is unsupported/is in direct conflict with science. I've mentioned Noah's Ark earlier, and there are any number of miracles described that one finds no basis for in science.

But saying that science denies the ressurrection is, in my opinion, somewhat misplaced. It's just that science does not accept the biblical explanation for the events that are described, and as mentioned earlier we have numerous examples of people appearing to be dead for hours, even days, before waking up. This is less of a problem these days with the advancement of medicinal science, but this hasn't always been so.

It would perhaps be more correct to state that science ignores the biblical explanation since it is unsupported by evidence, direct or otherwise. In a scientific context the bible does not count as evidence, and some of the descriptions could at best be considered eye-witness accounts. Personal anecdotes do not count as evidence even if they take place now, and to accept them as scientific evidence when the time scale is thousands of years ago will not do.

This is all, of course, seen in a purely scientific context, and as I've stated before, everyone must obviously make up their own mind.

 

[Rick W]

Praise Jesus our salvation doesn't rely on the science of man. :yes

 

[Brokendoll]

Praise Jesus our salvation doesn't rely on the science of man. :yes

I don't know about salvation, but our survival as a species sure does...

 

[jasoncran]

amen to that. rick.
i will get to see my grandpas who died of alzheimers.

 

[Brokendoll]

amen to that. rick.
i will get to see my grandpas who died of alzheimers.

Stemcell research might just see to it that we find a cure for Alzheimers.
*crosses fingers for stem cell research*

 

[jasoncran]

amen to that. rick.
i will get to see my grandpas who died of alzheimers.

Stemcell research might just see to it that we find a cure for Alzheimers.
*crosses fingers for stem cell research*

i hope so, i have read some articles on this, but the reactions to infant stemcells are to high for this type of expermentation, they are going to look at adult stem cell. They have been gone (harry 10 ten yrs, John 19 yrs)

 

[Barbarian]

If there's any denying going on it's science denying the gospel that Christ died, was buried and rose again because science cannot understand the mechanics necessary to bring a dead body back to life.

As scientists have repeatedly reminded people, science can't deny the Gospel, because it is about things that science has no way of approaching.

Just because man doesn't understand it doesn't mean it never happened. The Resurrection doesn't deny science but rather science denying the Resurrection.

Nope. Can't do it. Never could. And until someone figures out how to apply science to the supernatural, it never will.

 

[Crying Rock]

"Lord":

Are you quite incapable of explaining why the evidence I have presented fails to persuade you of either the likelihood of evolution or the probability that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals?

Because the fossil gaps are too large. The genetic evidence is unavailable. Your argument is quite unconvincing. If you don't understand my objections then I'm sorry. You are passionate but not
persuasive.

 

[Barbarian]

Because the fossil gaps are too large. The genetic evidence is unavailable. Your argument is quite unconvincing. If you don't understand my objections then I'm sorry. You are passionate but not
persuasive.

Sounds like a testable assertion. What stage in the evolution of modern whales do you think is missing from the fossil record?

BTW, genetic analysis shows whales are related to ungulates, just as the fossil evidence shows. Would you like to learn about it?

 

[Crying Rock]

Because the fossil gaps are too large. The genetic evidence is unavailable. Your argument is quite unconvincing. If you don't understand my objections then I'm sorry. You are passionate but not
persuasive.

Sounds like a testable assertion. What stage in the evolution of modern whales do you think is missing from the fossil record?

BTW, genetic analysis shows whales are related to ungulates, just as the fossil evidence shows. Would you like to learn about it?

"...Sounds like a testable assertion. What stage in the evolution of modern whales do you think is missing from the fossil record?.."

You're begging the question. You're assuming from the beginning that macroevolution has anything to do with modern whales. Layout, in detail, you're hypothesis that whales evolved from land dwelling mammals.

"...BTW, genetic analysis shows whales are related to ungulates..."

Sure, they're all mammals. What's your point?

"...just as the fossil evidence shows..."

Again, begging the question.