Evolutionism vs creationism

[JellySlayer]

It hurts, because I want to help them understand what's right in this world (in my belief), but I can not do that. Simple as that. Also: understanding - yes. tolerance - no. Tolerance is medical therm, meaning incapability of body to stand up against poison/disease. And when it comes to theological disputes, tolerance is accepting the others' wrong view of the problem. And if you know (OK, OK, believe), that their point of view WILL make them suffer later, you cannot just stand still without trying to convince them. And if you can't it hurts. Just because you can't help people.

I do not believe it is possible to convert anyone to Christianity (or any other religion) via debate. Most Christians that I have encountered (myself included, although, as I mentioned, I no longer consider myself Christian) either became Christians through a personal experience of some significance of what they believe was a manifestation of God, or because they were essentially raised as Christian and adopted the belief system of their parents. It is this subjective experience that generally motivates faith. Developing the evidence to support that faith, either from the Bible, or from supporting evidence, generally follows afterward, if at all.

On topic (forgot about the topic )

If you read the last hundred or so posts, you'll see that the thread has strayed pretty far from on topic

Genesis 1:11-12
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Just to add context. Genesis 13 then says And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day. This will be important.

Genesis 14 reads as follows (this is NASB, by the way):

14And the Lord said: "Let there be lights in the expanse of heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for the seasons for days and years;
15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Skipping ahead a bit...

19There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

God clearly made the plants on day 3. He made the Sun on day 4 (and the Earth on day 1). Now, how do you suppose those poor plants survived the time between day 3 and day 4? Without the Sun, the temperature on the Earth will sit at a comfortable -270C (-454 for you Americans), give or take a few degrees. The plants wouldn't be able to photosynthesize either, but that's a much smaller issue unless we're talking some sort of metaphorical "day" much longer than a 24 hour period. Then there's the problem of the Sun suddenly appearing to existence in proximity to the Earth. The instantaneous change in acceleration of the Earth due to the Sun's gravity required to put the Earth into orbit would be nothing short of cataclysmic.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure that our current evolutionary understanding would suggest that fruit-bearing plants would not have evolved before animals. The essential purpose of fruit is to be eaten, which allows the seeds within the fruit to be carried elsewhere by the animal. Without animals, making fruit would be a huge waste of energy for a plant, and a big evolutionary disadvantage.

Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Well, let's see. Whales are mammals, and did not evolve in tandem with most other sea life--they would be millions of years later in fact, long after the extinction of the dinosaurs and the subsequent emergence of mammals. Birds have similar problems, almost certainly evolving from land creatures rather than water creatures, placing them more accurately in biblical day 6 rather than 5.

I can't see how does that contradict with abiogenesis and evolutionary theories.

The similarities between a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and modern scientific understanding of the origins of life, the diversity of life, and the origins of the universe are superficial at best, and, in many places outright wrong.

And more imortant: I can't see how's can that be really important to anybody except strict biology specialists.

Well, that depends on what your belief system is. There are many people who believe that the Bible is the inspired, errant, literal Word of God, and that therefore the Genesis account must reflect a completely accurate recounting of the creation of the universe. The fact that modern science disputes these claims then, is a problem because it undermines the legitimacy of the Bible, specifically the part about it being perfectly correct in every possible way. There are other problems, ranging from how particular parts of the Bible, like Adam and Eve or Noah's flood, could possibly be compatable with the scientific model.

On the other hand, if you're a Christian who doesn't believe that the Bible must be interpreted exactly literally, and/or one who believes that the Bible is inspired by God but nonetheless written by humans, reflecting the understandings, prejudices, and biases of the time, then there is no real conflict in this area to speak of. The Catholic Church, of all places, officially recognizes and accepts evolution as valid and the age of the Earth to be what we've measured it to be, for example.

[Dorten]

God clearly made the plants on day 3. He made the Sun on day 4 (and the Earth on day 1). Now, how do you suppose those poor plants survived the time between day 3 and day 4? Without the Sun, the temperature on the Earth will sit at a comfortable -270C (-454 for you Americans), give or take a few degrees. The plants wouldn't be able to photosynthesize either, but that's a much smaller issue unless we're talking some sort of metaphorical "day" much longer than a 24 hour period. Then there's the problem of the Sun suddenly appearing to existence in proximity to the Earth. The instantaneous change in acceleration of the Earth due to the Sun's gravity required to put the Earth into orbit would be nothing short of cataclysmic.

Wut?
There was already light. There's no reason to think, that Earth without Sun wold be cold. It's all pretty much speculating, anyway.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure that our current evolutionary understanding would suggest that fruit-bearing plants would not have evolved before animals. The essential purpose of fruit is to be eaten, which allows the seeds within the fruit to be carried elsewhere by the animal. Without animals, making fruit would be a huge waste of energy for a plant, and a big evolutionary disadvantage.

The plants are before animals. But who says, that fruit bearing plants are before animals?

Well, let's see. Whales are mammals, and did not evolve in tandem with most other sea life--they would be millions of years later in fact, long after the extinction of the dinosaurs and the subsequent emergence of mammals. Birds have similar problems, almost certainly evolving from land creatures rather than water creatures, placing them more accurately in biblical day 6 rather than 5.

Here you got me . I'm no biologist, just some puny programmer

if you're a Christian who doesn't believe that the Bible must be interpreted exactly literally, and/or one who believes that the Bible is inspired by God but nonetheless written by humans, reflecting the understandings, prejudices, and biases of the time

That's the official point of view of Orthodoxal Church, AFAIK

[gut]

> It hurts, because I want to help them understand

Closest emotion I get to hurt is hunger.
Personally, I dislike the 'spreading the word' aspect of all religions.
I prefer an approach like 'if they ask, then share'. At least it would
keep people from knocking on my door, waking me up.

> I do not believe it is possible to convert anyone to Christianity (or any other religion) via debate.

would not have spread to all continents if that were true.

> essentially raised as Christian and adopted the belief system of their parents.

that is true for all religions, athiesm included

> Without animals, making fruit would be a huge waste of energy for a plant, and a big evolutionary disadvantage

so you are now attributing telepathic abilities to trees. they sense animals, so make fruit.
would have to be trial and error if you discount guiding intelligence. Like this:
1. plant makes fruit
2. no animals
3. plant dies from evolutionary disadvantage
4. repeat steps 1 - 3 until animals happen.

[Dorten]

> essentially raised as Christian and adopted the belief system of their parents.

that is true for all religions, athiesm included

Atheism is not a religion. Any religion has aspect of "I will do that because I want to be religious". Atheism produces no such deeds.

> Without animals, making fruit would be a huge waste of energy for a plant, and a big evolutionary disadvantage

so you are now attributing telepathic abilities to trees. they sense animals, so make fruit.
would have to be trial and error if you discount guiding intelligence. Like this:
1. plant makes fruit
2. no animals
3. plant dies from evolutionary disadvantage
4. repeat steps 1 - 3 until animals happen.

Isn't evolunion a big trial and error process on the large scale?

[JellySlayer]

Wut?
There was already light. There's no reason to think, that Earth without Sun wold be cold. It's all pretty much speculating, anyway.

Where did the light come from if not from stars?

And yes, without the Sun the Earth would be cold. There are eight planets in the solar system. The hottest one is closest to the Sun. The coldest one is furthest from the Sun. The reason for this is that the hottest one gets a higher intensity of solar radiation than the furthest one. [edit]And, for that matter, the temperature distribution on the Earth at this very moment is very much tied to solar intensity. Why is Antartica cold and the equator hot? Because one area gets more direct sunlight than the other.

The plants are before animals. But who says, that fruit bearing plants are before animals?

The text says that trees that bear fruit come before animals. This doesn't make sense because, as far as I know, the only purpose for fruit is to be eaten by animals in order to spread the seeds of the plant.

> I do not believe it is possible to convert anyone to Christianity (or any other religion) via debate.

would not have spread to all continents if that were true.

Christianity doesn't spread through debate. It spreads through other means which are, I would say, much more effective at spreading the meme than debate. Threats of violence, for example, is a great way of bringing people to your point of view.

> essentially raised as Christian and adopted the belief system of their parents.

that is true for all religions, athiesm included

Atheism is not a religion. It is an answer to one, very specific question. If you ask, "Do you believe in gods (or God)?" and the answer is yes, you're a theist. If the answer is no, you're an atheist. That's all there is to it. The children of atheists are often atheists, yes, because their parents won't teach them about something they don't believe in, although, it would probably be more accurate to say that atheism is the default position of all people unless and until they are converted to theism.

so you are now attributing telepathic abilities to trees. they sense animals, so make fruit.
would have to be trial and error if you discount guiding intelligence. Like this:
1. plant makes fruit
2. no animals
3. plant dies from evolutionary disadvantage
4. repeat steps 1 - 3 until animals happen.

What, exactly, is wrong with this series of events?

[gut]

> Atheism is not a religion.

then why do they preach it so vehemently?

> Christianity doesn't spread through debate.
...
> Threats of violence, for example,

The lowly peasants so effectively threated Ceasar? You go, peasants!

> Atheism is not a religion.

They must 'believe' in the big bang (first there was nothing, then it exploded),
as the alternative is unthinkable.

>> 1. plant makes fruit
>>2. no animals

> What, exactly, is wrong with this series of events?

I am going to quote you, back at you

> The text says that trees that bear fruit come before animals. This doesn't make sense because

[Dorten]

Where did the light come from if not from stars?

Now, don't play dumb here, I know that you are not. I may as well say: how did the world appeared if not by the Word of God?

And yes, without the Sun the Earth would be cold. There are eight planets in the solar system. The hottest one is closest to the Sun. The coldest one is furthest from the Sun. The reason for this is that the hottest one gets a higher intensity of solar radiation than the furthest one. [edit]And, for that matter, the temperature distribution on the Earth at this very moment is very much tied to solar intensity. Why is Antartica cold and the equator hot? Because one area gets more direct sunlight than the other.

You know the religious answer to that: Earth was created warm. And omnipresent light was enough tio keep it that way.

> Atheism is not a religion.

then why do they preach it so vehemently?

Do they? There are SOME fanatics of course, but in global scope atheists do not preach their belief. They more of... ignore the question of God's exsistance. Do not see it relevant to their lives.

The lowly peasants so effectively threated Ceasar? You go, peasants!

They didn't debate with him either
But religions DO spread by debate, of course, it's just not the MAIN factor.

> Atheism is not a religion.

They must 'believe' in the big bang (first there was nothing, then it exploded),
as the alternative is unthinkable.

Not any belief is a religion, you know. I 'believe' that I will be eating sausages today. Does it make me an adept of sausage cult?

[gut]

>>> Atheism is not a religion.

>>then why do they preach it so vehemently?

>Do they?


Well, for now they aren't waking me, so at least there is that.
But yes, they do preach it. So much it makes my ears/eyes hurt.

> They didn't debate with him either

Nobody forced ceasar to be a christian. iirc, logic was the reason.

>>> Atheism is not a religion.

>> They must 'believe' in the big bang

> Not any belief is a religion, you know

OK, I'll take this opportunity to introduce a fun game I learned.
It is a bit questionable, but will give you laughs all the same.
The basis is this: 'google is us'.



by all means, follow that link. If anyone wonders why there is a
picture of a turkey on a search engine, I join you. I KNOW it's
thanksgiving, but still, turkey+searchengine=stupid

[Dorten]

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_religion.htm

First thing, that google gives me.

Secon and third are almost the same.

[Dudley]

Wow. So, according to the definition of religion, my agnoscism is a religion. Double yay!