Human evolution

[Sayonara]

Anyyyyyyway, this is (a) completely off-topic, and (b) it's been done before, over and over and oh my god my eyes over in the religion forum.

[Ophiolite]

Hi Ophiolite:

 

Why can't you neo-Darwinists just admit the obvious: That the God of Genesis is not the Creator ?

You took time to make a lengthy response. Thank you. Sayonara has addressed several of the points you made' date=' more or less as I would have, so I shall restrict myself to a handful of related issues from your opening paragraphs.

Like Sayonara I am very confused by the statement quoted above. (Let me say evolutionist rather than neo-Darwinist, since it rolls of the tongue more readily and is somewhat more catholic in scope.)

Many, if not most, evolutionists are atheist, or agnostic, or non-Christian. To them it is obvious that the God of Genesis is not the creator, so I am at a loss to understand what you are saying here.

[Also, you appear to have mistaken me for a neo-Darwinist. Probably accurate on even numbered weekdays, but the rest of the time I have a strong leaning to some of the more bizarre views of Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, which would pretty much make me [i']persona non grata [/i]with any respectable neo-Darwinist.]

How god-damn silly to type an argument that insults everyones intelligence by claiming Darwinism and Genesis do not contradict.

How true. Assinine Ophiolite they call me. However' date=' I have read, and re-read my post (I thought it read rather well, but perhaps I'm biased). I don't mention genesis. I don't think I even mention the bible in this context. What I do say is that I see no incompatibility between a belief in God and a belief in evolution. Indeed, I can entertain an argument that says evolution is [i']evidence [/i]for the existence of a God.

Please Willowtree, if you are going to accuse me of being god-damn silly base it on something I have done.

Now that you have established that there are no disagreements between Darwinism and the God of the Bible we can all log off and look for something else to do.

And' date=' just to further clarify, I do not see a necessary contradiction between the God of the Bible and evolution, unless we wish to take the Old Testament literally. Then there is a clear conflict. I don't take the Old Testament literally and so I see no contradiction.

Darwinism assigns evolutionary processess and their accidental and random mutations to be the creative generator.

Two points:

1. recent work, for example relating to protein folding, suggest that the origin and evolution of life may not be so random.
   
2. The accidents and the mutations are occuring within a framework tightly confined by the 'Laws of Nature'. That is the important part of creation - setting the ground rules.
   

Genesis says God creates under the appearance of chance and accident.

Now you have lost me again. I have read and re-read the first two chapters of Genesis' date=' which appear to be the relevant ones, and I cannot find anything that matches, even with the broadest interpretation, what you have written here. Please explain.

My beef is with Darwinists who say evolution disproves Genesis.

 

My beef is with anyone who says God is not the Creator

So your beef isn't with me then. I am not a Darwinist, I am only occasionally a neo-Darwinist, and I certainly don't think eolution disproves Genesis unless you want to take Genesis literally.

I don't say God is not the creator. I am agnostic. If there is a God then his primary characteristic is that he is the Creator. He then created us by setting up a Universe with a set of laws and constants that led to us. That's a far more marvellous, miraculous process than snapping your fingers and saying 'Let there be light'.

[Aardvark]

He then created us by setting up a Universe with a set of laws and constants that led to us.

 

It's nice to know that the whole point of the universe, the billions of years of evolution, countless galaxies and stars, us. Egomania is fun

[Spaceman]

Yeah ive been laughing for ten minutes before i posted,then i thought 'oh dear' if we are actually the only planet out of the whole thing that has life on it....his right!!!which wiped the smile off my face

[Mokele]

If there are any evolutionists who are claiming that evolution as a process disproves Genesis, I'd be as interested in seeing them demonstrate that as you are.

 

I vaguely recall hearing that had been done, at least in the case of Adam and Eve and Noah's menagerie, based on some calculations that you cannot form a population based solely on 2 individuals, because of inbreeding effects being so severe at that extreme. I'm not really sure if that counts as evolution disproving it though. I mean, inbreeding does violate Hardy-Weinberg, and cause gene-frequency alterations, so maybe, in a way...

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

I vaguely recall hearing that had been done, at least in the case of Adam and Eve and Noah's menagerie, based on some calculations that you cannot form a population based solely on 2 individuals, because of inbreeding effects being so severe at that extreme. I'm not really sure if that counts as evolution disproving it though. I mean, inbreeding does violate Hardy-Weinberg, and cause gene-frequency alterations, so maybe, in a way...

If I were going to try, pop. dynamics would be the way I did it.

 

But as I already said, all you have to do to break such a proof is change your interpretation of genesis.

[Mokele]

But as I already said, all you have to do to break such a proof is change your interpretation of genesis.

 

Yep, the good ole shifting goalposts. That's why I tend to not bother with such debates.

[Ophiolite]

It's nice to know that the whole point of the universe, the billions of years of evolution, countless galaxies and stars, us. Egomania is fun

Jesus, Aardvark. Get a ****ing grip. I'm trying to argue within the mindset and paradigms of Willowtree. We could have a great time poking fun at single sentences taken out of context from each other's posts. That, however would be counter productive and definitely off-topic. OK!

 

Edit: Aardvark, I'm either pissed off with you for being so obtuse in deliberately mis-readinng the intent of my post, or with myself for failing to express myself clearly. Let me know which one it is.

[Aardvark]

Jesus' date=' Aardvark. Get a ****ing grip. I'm trying to argue within the mindset and paradigms of Willowtree. We could have a great time poking fun at single sentences taken out of context from each other's posts. That, however would be counter productive and definitely off-topic. OK!

 

Edit: Aardvark, I'm either pissed off with you for being so obtuse in deliberately mis-readinng the intent of my post, or with myself for failing to express myself clearly. Let me know which one it is.[img']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif[/img]

 

Calm down Ophiolite, I didn't misread your post, just noticed the natural slip of assuming that our species is the pinnacle of creation. A common fault of both the religious and the scientifically minded alike. That's the type of mindset that placed the Earth at the centre of the Solar system, then the sun at the centre of the universe.

 

That sort of outlook can easily slip into a teological mindset which should be resisted, esp in debate with someone of Willowtrees opinions.

 

I tried to bring that actually quite serious point to your attention in a good humoured way, didn't mean to piss you off. Anyway i think you've whipped Willowtrees opinions, he seems to have retired from the discussion.

[Ophiolite]

Calm again, thanks Aardvark. My primary computer is now up again, with working keyboard and all files recovered, so I am now less likely to lash out in an unrestrained fashion.Placing humanity at the top of any particular pyramid is not something I would typically do, though I reserve the possibility that we may actually be the only intelligent life in an otherwise barren universe. There just ain't enough data yet, to decide either way.

[jaime]

Technology is moving faster than any possible natural selection/evolution process could affect our evolution. I think from here on, only involution could happen, at least physically speaking. Our brains can develop more due to challenges, but at the same time we will be delegating many thinking tasks to computers, so we are going to fall victims of our technology, but, again, our technology can allow us to start manipulating our genes and change "by design", so to speak, so, we can start selecting our most desired traits, eliminating others, so we will "evolutionize" ourselves by design, but it will not be real evolution by natural selection nor natural developments, and there is the risk, we might put ourselves in a corner. Natural evolution? NO, designed evolution/changes? YES, will it work in the long run? let's wait and see.

Jaime

[Sayonara]

It's not that simple.