or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 8

post #141 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_olive View Post
Why do you ask? Do you find the idea that someone could call your belief illogical upsetting?
No, not at all. Us Catholics are used to being called crazy - hey, that's practically my middle name. I just wanted to be sure I understood if she had no belief in God at all, or what.
post #142 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_olive View Post
And once again, it's your OPINION -- not a FACT -- that evolution makes no sense.

Is that statement somehow threatening to you?

Are you trying to provoke me? I am sincerely not trying to provoke you.

You have to understand that to anyone who believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God Himself, that is a FACT. So, you may call it my opinion, but yes, I would always maintain Creation to be a fact.
post #143 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
For the most part, yes.
Ok, yeah, that would make sense I guess. When I was in college and was a bio major, I was agnostic.
post #144 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
So, you believe there is a God and He made some things, but He just stopped at the atoms, and the rest just sort of happened accidentally?
No. My personal belief is that He made the building blocks knowing exactly what would happen in the span of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
So, then the atoms organized themselves into planets and suns and water and clouds and rivers, and toads, and cows, and birds, and people?
Yup, just like He meant them to.

But that's as far as you'll get me to talk about my belief. That wasn't the reason I joined this thread.

I was simply pointing out the offense I took at the statement of your personal faith as fact, and your position that other views are ridiculous and illogical.

I'm angry and I don't like being angry. So I'm out.
post #145 of 294
I gotta go to bed too - but I'm not angry!

'Night, all.
post #146 of 294
I'm going to bed too, but I just wanna say really quick that i think such a belief is illogical. But I am sure there are people who acknowlege it is illogical and yet still believe. I never heard that logic was fundamental for faith in the supernatural. As some of my friends would say, "that's why it is faith".

Good night.

I'll be checking back in when I get to work in the am.
post #147 of 294
I just read through this entire thread, and Stacy I have to say that while you have showed stamina in single-handedly arguing your point, you haven't once addressed the answers that have been given to your questions. You ask again and again, show me one example of one species turning into another species. Orangebird (I think!) did exactly that way back in the thread, with pictures and all, and you have ignored it. Here's the link again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...ermediates_ex2
It shows - with pictures - how the jawbones of a reptile evolved into the earbones of a mammal. Those bones changed species and changed functions, and there is apparently a fossil record to prove it.

I'm really curious to know your response to that. After you have read the link, naturally. I know you said you studied evolution in college, but that may have been a while ago and there have been new discoveries in the meantime.
post #148 of 294
When my DH was studying physical anthropology in university some years ago, he noticed some logical flaws in what was being taught about evolutionary theory. He asked one of his professors about it, expecting to have it explained away. The professor agreed that evolutionary theory was full of not only gaps in information, but physical impossibilities. Many, if not most, scientists are aware of this, but assume that the question will be resolved once we have more information.

My point is that we don't have to turn to creationists to find difficulties in evolutionary theory; science itself is aware of the difficulties, however much the popular media present the theory as essentially proven. Because of the ongoing dispute between "evolutionists" and "creationists" science tends to gloss over any problems with the theory, rather than dealing with them in a logical and objective manner, which I find very unscientific.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
post #149 of 294
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
I believe you have the term 'evloution' confused with the ideas of adaptation and/or selective breeding.

Evolution means the ability of one animal to CHANGE into another, different animal.

In other words, those felines are just different KINDS of felines, but they are all still felines. The fact that they may or may not have sterile breeding capabilites across certain breeds of felines does not change the fact that they are still feline, and a feline will NEVER CHANGE into any other KIND of animal, such as a horse or a rooster.

Also, the notion of "adaptation" is simply that of a certain KIND of animal developing an adaptation that is beneficial to it's area, say a darker coat or larger size. Hence, the variety in breeds of birds, but they are all still BIRDS. You will never see a bird change into an alligator.

There has never been any evidence of any creature 'changing' into another creature in the fossil record.

There are good books on this topic.
Currently it is estimated that there are 14,600 "kinds" of mammals and birds. And by kinds let me be very clear what I mean. I mean seperate species of mammals and birds which cannot interbreed with each other. Since they cannot interbreed, they are are not breeds of the same species, but separate species alltogether. Obviously Noah only needed one pair of dogs, he did not need one pair of every breed of dogs because after the flood they would adapt and change. But not to the point of evolving into a different species, that would be contrary to what the bible says about everything staying within it's own kind. However, if after the flood dogs rapidly morphed into animals that could no longer breed with the original dog species, then I don't see how that is not following the theory of evolution which the fossil records support. Furthermore, there are 14,600 species of mammals and birds, and this isn't even couting all the insects, reptiles and freshwater fish that would further fill the ark beyond capacity. But with 14,600 species of birds and mammals, that is at least 29,200 animals that were aboard the ark. However, there were a great deal more than that because 7 of some animals were taken, and also there are the insects, reptiles and freshwater fish that were taken along. There were only 8 people on board to care for them all. How many animals are at a typical zoo, and how many employees and volunteers does a typical zoo have? Do you see where I'm going with this? It doesn't make sense. There were either less animals aboard the ark, which means the flood was either not global or the animals on the ark rapidly evolved into different kinds of animals which means you believe in evolution if you believe that the noachian flood was literal and global.
post #150 of 294
evolution can't be right because it can't be completely explained at this point in history? there are too many gaps and holes in the argument?



that's rich. last time i checked the bible is filled with gaps, holes and certainly many inconsistencies.



thank goodness for faith, right?

post #151 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidspiration View Post
evolution can't be right because it can't be completely explained at this point in history? there are too many gaps and holes in the argument?



that's rich. last time i checked the bible is filled with gaps, holes and certainly many inconsistencies.



thank goodness for faith, right?

Could you please tell me some of the gaps, holes, and many inconsistencies of which you refer?

This is a pretty ugly thread, I am not sure if I want to get back in on it. But here goes. I see bones that are classified human and those classified apes (monkeys, whatever) I don't see a classified bone that is human/ape. There are many, many articles on answersingenesis.org that may answer your questions if you are truely seeking.
post #152 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by steffanie3 View Post
Could you please tell me some of the gaps, holes, and many inconsistencies of which you refer?
Wow... you honestly see NO inconsistancies in the bible, at all? And you're a Christian? Even my hyperChristian fundamentalist evangelical FIL conceded that there were inconsistancies.

Quote:
I see bones that are classified human and those classified apes (monkeys, whatever) I don't see a classified bone that is human/ape. There are many, many articles on answersingenesis.org that may answer your questions if you are truely seeking.
Not one skeleton that has been labeled as "in between," is that it? But... earlier in the thread someone posted an example of just this process of change over time.
post #153 of 294
Consider the process of "changing" from one species to another, which must have happened countless times in order for evolution to occur. By definition, a species is different from another species (not just breed or variety) when they cannot mate and reproduce together because they are genetically incompatible.

Let's say Species A is believed to have gradually evolved into Species B. Today, A and B cannot interbreed at all, so they truly are separate species. How did the change take place?

Maybe Species A found certain characteristics better for survival (natural selection) and this caused the species to change in appearance, strength, etc. However, they are still the same species because they can still reproduce together. This happens to animals all the time. How do they make the leap into a species with completely different DNA, with which the original species cannot interbreed?

Mutation is one possibility. Of course, most random mutations are harmful or deadly to the animal affected, but in rare cases it could produce a beneficial change. Let's say that happened to an animal from Species A. Possibly, it could change the animal's genetic code so that it was no longer compatible with Species A, and could no longer mate with them successfully. Now we have an actual new species!

There is a problem, though. There is only one such animal, so there is no other animal with exactly the same "new" DNA for it to reproduce with. Could another animal from Species A undergo exactly the same genetic mutation, at about the same time, and within the same general area as our single genetically altered animal? The odds against it are almost incalculable. It could have an identical twin with the same mutation, but then they would be of the same sex. Still no offspring possible.

Whatever the odds are of this happening and somehow producing a new species, they have to be multiplied by the number of animal species that have developed on earth.

This is just one problem with evolutionary theory. Gradual change can (and does) produce all kinds of changes in animals. The change to a different species, however, cannot happen gradually. Either one animal can reproduce with another, or it can't. If they can, they are still the same species.
post #154 of 294
But mamabadger, that is so very simplistic. Speciation doesn't happen in a "leap" as you say (which of course would be absurd) but over a long period of time in small, incremental changes. And they don't have to have completely different DNA in order to not be able to breed with each other; small changes in morphology or behavior (preferences) are enough to make it so two populations do not breed. It has been observed in both plants and animals.

Ways it can happen:
hybridization
geographical isolation
temporal isolation (individuals develop preferences for mating at different times, so don't mate with each other)
assortative mating (individuals develop preferences for certain characteristics and so don't mate with individuals without those characteristics)

Here is an article with lots of examples of observed speciation. Will you read it?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
post #155 of 294
Bah, I never called anyone a bad Catholic. And to frame this as a Conservative Catholic vs Liberal Catholic argument is garbage. My mother is as conservative as can be and she agrees with evolutionary theory. Benedict is ultra-conservative and he sees no problem with it.

This isn't about birth control, you know

Arguing about evolution with people whose faith is predicated upon ID or Creationism is about as useful as as arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin
post #156 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post

My point is that we don't have to turn to creationists to find difficulties in evolutionary theory; science itself is aware of the difficulties, however much the popular media present the theory as essentially proven. Because of the ongoing dispute between "evolutionists" and "creationists" science tends to gloss over any problems with the theory, rather than dealing with them in a logical and objective manner, which I find very unscientific.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Yes, exactly. Scientific criticism is perfectly legit, IMO. It wouldn't be science without it (um, if there weren't any questioning of evolution allowed it would be a religion!) So I am totally with you on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steffanie3 View Post

I see bones that are classified human and those classified apes (monkeys, whatever) I don't see a classified bone that is human/ape.
Then you aren't looking. There are clearly such bones in the record. We don't call them human/ape, but they are there. Honestly. I believe I have even linked some. I'll link them again.
post #157 of 294
Mamabadger, that is why I linked to the ring species. They have mutated into different species, can't breed.
Quote:
Maybe Species A found certain characteristics better for survival (natural selection) and this caused the species to change in appearance, strength, etc. However, they are still the same species because they can still reproduce together. This happens to animals all the time. How do they make the leap into a species with completely different DNA, with which the original species cannot interbreed?

Mutation is one possibility. Of course, most random mutations are harmful or deadly to the animal affected, but in rare cases it could produce a beneficial change. Let's say that happened to an animal from Species A. Possibly, it could change the animal's genetic code so that it was no longer compatible with Species A, and could no longer mate with them successfully. Now we have an actual new species!
post #158 of 294
To creationists who want some "human/ape" specimens (I think Mamabadger was one asking?) Is this link OK?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

And if it isn't the kind of thing you are looking for, please tell me how it lacks and then that will help me understand what direction to go for the proof you are asking for. So far the requests have seemed vague. And no one has yet said yes/no to my other links so it's hard for me to guage what is being asked for.
post #159 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzywan View Post
Arguing about evolution with people whose faith is predicated upon ID or Creationism is about as useful as as arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin
Yeah, I learned that last night. And I live in Kansas -- you'd think I'd know better!
post #160 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
Wow... you honestly see NO inconsistancies in the bible, at all? And you're a Christian? Even my hyperChristian fundamentalist evangelical FIL conceded that there were inconsistancies.
Thanks for laughing, I was just looking for examples of which she posted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
To creationists who want some "human/ape" specimens (I think Mamabadger was one asking?) Is this link OK?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Toumai http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012toumai.asp

Lucy http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...ws5-5-2000.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v...an_fossils.asp
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?